Cameron Bruce

[Big Kev 371]

When, and on what basis, did we re-sign Strauss till 2012? I don't wish to knock the kid, but, despite injury, he's shown next to nothing so far, and 2011 is his 3rd year at the club. TMac wasn't afforded a long contract, so I'm quite surprised Strauss has that security.

At the same time that Watts, Bail, Bate and Dunn signed theirs - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/jack-watts-signs-with-demons-for-three-years/story-e6frf9jf-1225922169970?from=public_rss

Edited November 7, 2010 by Big Kev

[Big Kev 371]

Hardly fills one with excitement though does it? We've got buckletloads of space on the rookie list to take a punt on a mature aged rookie anyway if there are any worth bothering with.

The only advantage that I can see here is that we can pick a mature age rookie and if good enough nominate him to be able to play without the need of a Long Term Injury, as Fremantle did last year with Barlow.

[Deeman 1,512]

No. The club has handled this badly in my opinion.

If the issues are club, and not money or length of contract related, then get it all out before trade period. It is never a good outcome to be left with nothing, and it is in the club's interest that it doesn't happen, but it did.

Also, and it has been said on here before, but the message we sent when we couldn't keep our final spot on the list for James McD was a terrible one. James McD was not after a "free ride". He, more than anyone, deserved to choose his time. This Bruce issue proves it, because now in hindsight, we would probably "keep" McDonald. You don't play chess with your captain.

And there are many people here who are painting this out like Bruce went in and said he wants his place in the 22 guaranteed. It's rubbish. He was definitely concerned that he might not maintain his spot in the 22, but that's very different to hoilding the club to ransom by somehow demanding that Bailey guarantee to pick him. No club would agree to guarantee to pick a player.

Could not disagree with you more. It's utter nonsense.

The football department and the football department alone should be the arbiter of who to retain and who to let go. Nothing is more so when the player involved is 34 years old and showing signs of slowing down. Junior's long spell out after incurring a hamstring injury was an indication of this. Over at Collingwood, they won a flag after dropping experienced players like Fraser, Lockyer, Medhurst and ultimately there was no sentiment left even for Neon Leon. Ask any Magpie fan and they'll tell you that those decisions made the difference between winning a flag and missing out yet another time.

We're entering a new era and you might not like it but there's no place for sentiment and if Cam Bruce was spooked by Junior being told to go at 34 or if he made some emotional decision to leave because he was unsure of his position at the club then IMO the decision to stand firm was not only totally vindicated but stands as proof that, for the first time in almost five decades, we as a club mean business.

[beelzebub 23,382]

Well put Deeman. So many seem to forget what all this is about. Its a football club not a social club for good ol' boys in red and blue. Do the business end first; kick back and enjoy the spoils after. But do the business properly and thoroughly.

Very much a new era for Melbourne. Sentiment is a wonderful notion but one you can afford only after youve won ( in this game)

[caco demon 29]

Adios trackie dacks

Ha Ha!

Man that made me laugh out loud... and on a Monday morning!

Well done. Champagne comedy.

[Choko 493]

Could not disagree with you more. It's utter nonsense.

The football department and the football department alone should be the arbiter of who to retain and who to let go. Nothing is more so when the player involved is 34 years old and showing signs of slowing down. Junior's long spell out after incurring a hamstring injury was an indication of this. Over at Collingwood, they won a flag after dropping experienced players like Fraser, Lockyer, Medhurst and ultimately there was no sentiment left even for Neon Leon. Ask any Magpie fan and they'll tell you that those decisions made the difference between winning a flag and missing out yet another time.

We're entering a new era and you might not like it but there's no place for sentiment and if Cam Bruce was spooked by Junior being told to go at 34 or if he made some emotional decision to leave because he was unsure of his position at the club then IMO the decision to stand firm was not only totally vindicated but stands as proof that, for the first time in almost five decades, we as a club mean business.

Your example actually proves my point. Here's why.

Collingwood dropped the guys it did. They did NOT delist them, they did NOT force them out. They simply did not guarantee them a game. Thye main ones I am talking about are O'Bree and Lockyer.

If McDonald wasn't good enough to earn a game, then he shouldn't be played. But there is a difference between delisting and dropping. And the other thing is, Lockyer, O'Bree, etc.. offered leadership. Further, if Collingwood could win a flag whilst "carrying" Lockyer, Medhurst, O'Bree, Fraser and Davis, then I think we could have retained our captain, who was more than earning his spot.

I note that Presti was out for a longer than expected time with his injury, and Collingwood have let him decide whether to play on.

So thanks for your example!

[Hannabal 4]

It's quite humourous reading the different emotions on this thread.

1) Was Bruce going to play in a Melbourne premiership team ? I very much doubt it.

2) Was Bruce going to be pivotal in helping us reach a Grand Final ? I very much doubt it.

3) Would Bruce even 'stand up' in the hurly burly of a Grand Final ? I very much doubt it.

Therefore, it's no biggy.

I doubt we would have received much compensation for him anyway. It frees up some cap space.

I'll be emotional about premiership players, but not the Cam Bruce's of this world.

[TonyMelb 7]

maybe the Bruce threads ought be merged ?? seem to be the same thing now

whether Cam would be in best 22 for next 2 years or be offered another year can be debated.

However is now decided.

The real issue for MFC going forward is a concern in regard to the list management. From what DB said in the media last week they expected Cam Bruce would turn up for training today. Clearly no deal was done so appears they have misread his position significantly.

Also brings into question the decision to push Junior out the door when they did not have Bruce looked in for 2011. If Cam's dissatisfaction was known the the FD back in August it is a bit puzzling to have engineered both of them and Brad Miller all out at once

[old55 23,687]

The real issue for MFC going forward is a concern in regard to the list management. From what DB said in the media last week they expected Cam Bruce would turn up for training today. Clearly no deal was done so appears they have misread his position significantly.

What's he going to say when we've been firm on a one year deal. "We've offered Cam 1 year but who knows whether that's good or not and what he'll do"

Also brings into question the decision to push Junior out the door when they did not have Bruce looked in for 2011. If Cam's dissatisfaction was known the the FD back in August it is a bit puzzling to have engineered both of them and Brad Miller all out at once

So what are you suggesting, that if Cam Bruce did sign on the 1 year deal we tell Junior this week that he's no longer required????

.

Edited November 8, 2010 by old55

[Choko 493]

whether Cam would be in best 22 for next 2 years or be offered another year can be debated.

However is now decided.

The real issue for MFC going forward is a concern in regard to the list management. From what DB said in the media last week they expected Cam Bruce would turn up for training today. Clearly no deal was done so appears they have misread his position significantly.

Also brings into question the decision to push Junior out the door when they did not have Bruce looked in for 2011. If Cam's dissatisfaction was known the the FD back in August it is a bit puzzling to have engineered both of them and Brad Miller all out at once

Exactly

[hoopla 418]

What I don't like is the fact that the club failed to maintain effective communication with one of its required players. The club fully expected him to re-commit - there was even a note on the website to this effect the very day he quit. The club was complacent.

We should understand all of our players well enough to know when they are so fundamentally disillusioned that they are prepared to walk out the door.Generally speaking well managed organisations don't get nasty surprises.

[furious d 472]

Your example actually proves my point. Here's why.

Collingwood dropped the guys it did. They did NOT delist them, they did NOT force them out. They simply did not guarantee them a game. Thye main ones I am talking about are O'Bree and Lockyer.

If McDonald wasn't good enough to earn a game, then he shouldn't be played. But there is a difference between delisting and dropping. And the other thing is, Lockyer, O'Bree, etc.. offered leadership. Further, if Collingwood could win a flag whilst "carrying" Lockyer, Medhurst, O'Bree, Fraser and Davis, then I think we could have retained our captain, who was more than earning his spot.

I note that Presti was out for a longer than expected time with his injury, and Collingwood have let him decide whether to play on.

So thanks for your example!

So if I understand you correctly the club has no right to delist long term players.

Are you ND?

[rpfc 28,734]

What I don't like is the fact that the club failed to maintain effective communication with one of its required players. The club fully expected him to re-commit - there was even a note on the website to this effect the very day he quit. The club was complacent.

We should understand all of our players well enough to know when they are so fundamentally disillusioned that they are prepared to walk out the door.Generally speaking well managed organisations don't get nasty surprises.

Suprised?!

Effing oath we were suprised.

We offered him his 12th year on less than market after paying him for most of the 11 before that above market.

We expected him to sign on and finish his career as a one club player.

Forgive us for not thinking that he would leave for an extra $20/40k after tax, and assurances of games and/or a year extension.

He wants a flag and fair enough.

But I think he will come to regret this decision.

[John Crow Batty 8,878]

What I don't like is the fact that the club failed to maintain effective communication with one of its required players. The club fully expected him to re-commit - there was even a note on the website to this effect the very day he quit. The club was complacent.

Efective communication? from my understanding "snake oil" was saying his client was "overseas" and that this was why he wasn't around the club. A tactic ala Luke Ball? The question is, who was trying to communicate with who?

Edited November 8, 2010 by america de cali

[beelzebub 23,382]

What I don't like is the fact that the club failed to maintain effective communication with one of its required players. The club fully expected him to re-commit - there was even a note on the website to this effect the very day he quit. The club was complacent.

We should understand all of our players well enough to know when they are so fundamentally disillusioned that they are prepared to walk out the door.Generally speaking well managed organisations don't get nasty surprises.

Why do you or anyone suppose the club is at fault in these negotiations ? Bruce was the one who went away to think one supposes . Melbourne had offer(s) on table . Just wasn't to Bruce/nixons liking. They docked around not the club . It wanted resolution , Bruce wanted to invoke what he thought to be leverage and he came unstuck and is now pointing the finger everywhere but at himself.

This simply about a difference between how Mfc and Bruce saw Cams value and participation going forward.

Players fit into clubs not other way round !! Cam bluffed and the Mfc called it.

I actually took Baileys rhetoric about Bruce being at training today as a thinly veiled barb suggesting 'you're either with us or against us' !! Either sign or..... ( censored for the precious ones ) Make no mistake Bailey won't suffer anyone yanking his or the clubs chain.

Well done MFC. Message sent to all and sundry.. We won't be messed with on or off the ground!! Good !!!

[biggestred 5,125]

meh. if he had any balls he would take 1 year and fight for his spot - to not only play in the team but to get another contract for 2012.

he always was a liability.

if he wants assurances he will play in the team, then he can [censored] off to a team that will blow smoke up his arse.

[H_T 3,049]

Suprised?!

Effing oath we were suprised.

We offered him his 12th year on less than market after paying him for most of the 11 before that above market.

We expected him to sign on and finish his career as a one club player.

Forgive us for not thinking that he would leave for an extra $20/40k after tax, and assurances of games and/or a year extension.

He wants a flag and fair enough.

But I think he will come to regret this decision.

Totally agree.

No great loss IMO. Sure, it might be perceived by some that he may leave a leadership void - but this will be quickly filled.

Perhaps he came to the realisation that he was being overtaken on the playing roster as well as not being guaranteed a game. If so, it indicates a failure of understanding on his part with regards to the nature of the list and underestimates the clubs resolve and intention of it's journey towards a flag. Brent Moloney once said "we're heading on a straight line, if you don't want to be a part of it, go play elsewhere" ...or words to that effect... . What's the ol' saying...all for one and one for all. Not Brucey. Would be ironic if he ended up at the Hawks singing one for all..having etched out a 200+ game career for Melbourne who gave him his dream shot.

Whilst players these days have the opportunity to look after themselves these days (look after No.1). He was given an opportunity to continue his career with the club who had been good to him. Very good to him. He knew the playing field (clubs policy) and he knew he could have had more contract(s) if he continued to play well. Some players consider it a great deal to be a one club player.

Not Brucey.

All the best.

[John Crow Batty 8,878]

Why do you or anyone suppose the club is at fault in these negotiations ? Bruce was the one who went away to think one supposes . Melbourne had offer(s) on table . Just wasn't to Bruce/nixons liking. They docked around not the club . It wanted resolution , Bruce wanted to invoke what he thought to be leverage and he came unstuck and is now pointing the finger everywhere but at himself.

This simply about a difference between how Mfc and Bruce saw Cams value and participation going forward.

Players fit into clubs not other way round !! Cam bluffed and the Mfc called it.

I actually took Baileys rhetoric about Bruce being at training today as a thinly veiled barb suggesting 'you're either with us or against us' !! Either sign or..... ( censored for the precious ones ) Make no mistake Bailey won't suffer anyone yanking his or the clubs chain.

Well done MFC. Message sent to all and sundry.. We won't be messed with on or off the ground!! Good !!!

Agree, it sounded like an ultimatum from Bailey. It was Cam who totally disappeared of the planet. The club was still communicating its point to the public.

[Pink Freud 370]

Your example actually proves my point. Here's why.

Collingwood dropped the guys it did. They did NOT delist them, they did NOT force them out. They simply did not guarantee them a game. Thye main ones I am talking about are O'Bree and Lockyer.

If McDonald wasn't good enough to earn a game, then he shouldn't be played. But there is a difference between delisting and dropping. And the other thing is, Lockyer, O'Bree, etc.. offered leadership. Further, if Collingwood could win a flag whilst "carrying" Lockyer, Medhurst, O'Bree, Fraser and Davis, then I think we could have retained our captain, who was more than earning his spot.

I note that Presti was out for a longer than expected time with his injury, and Collingwood have let him decide whether to play on.

So thanks for your example!

That seems to me to be one of the most disingenous posts I have ever read.

Where's Fraser now? Where's Lockyer? Where's O'Bree and where's Medhurst? If someone would have made an offer for Davis he would have been out as well.

You've actually proved Deeman's point twice over.

[AllenIsLord13 1]

Sorry to go against the grain here of "too bad, so sad, slaters Brucey", but what else would we expect from forum commentators!

I've joined today purely to comment on this debacle, and what a fine debacle it is/was!

How can we trust Old Bailey with the whole "yeah, he'll be coming back on the shizer deal we're offering him, no worries" - yeah, that worked out a treat!

Good on Brucey for sticking it to a club which has SCANT regard for any club loyalty, and a hard-on for a youth policy which apparently does not factor in qualities such as "talent, skill, is he in our top 6 B&F"!

This stems back to letting go of Jeff White (31yo) who was still a top 5 ruck at the time! But nah, we had to go with our awesome "youth" (this is after getting rid of Jolly, whatever happened to him?) and its taken us 10 years and blind luck to stumble across anyone better! Then Yze, admittedly at the end, but still valuable role player, when there was NO-ONE better at the time!

Old MacDonald - shunted out purely becoz "too old" - nothing to do with stats, leading club in hard ball gets, tackles..

And now, They Call Him Bruce - surely not asking for a max deal. Just asking for the club to show him the same loyalty he showed them when he stuck with them thru the rollercoaster and complete bottoming out - OUR LAST REMAINING LINK TO THE 2000 GF! But sure, why would we need 'finals experience' when we can just keep trotting out untested rookies and saying "they'll come good" when ~70% have never played a winning season!!! *cough Cale Morton cough*

This "policy" is a travesty. How do you let a guy walk who will now show you via Hawks that he DOES have 2 good years left in him, has always been a positive leader at the clubs back when you were struggling to string back to back wins, wins a B&F 2 YEARS AGO!

So now the Hawks will make the "massive blunder" by giving 2 years to an apparently crippled hindrance on a "team moving forward"... seem to recall they did something similar with another fella, Stuart Dew was his name, and what happened that year??

Although we are all pumped up about our youth, and they are the future - let's not forget where we exactly are right now! An outside chance to maybe finish 8th at best!! Like we couldn't use some veteran talent?

And if you really have so much blind faith in the recruiting/ R&D side of the club - two words for ya:

DAVID HALE!

WTF!

I'LL STILL CALL HIM BRUCE!!

[45HG 1,559]

Nothing like a combination of selective memory and re-writing history.

Welcome to the boards but I can't agree with much you've written.

[rpfc 28,734]

Sorry to go against the grain here of "too bad, so sad, slaters Brucey", but what else would we expect from forum commentators!

I've joined today purely to comment on this debacle, and what a fine debacle it is/was!

How can we trust Old Bailey with the whole "yeah, he'll be coming back on the shizer deal we're offering him, no worries" - yeah, that worked out a treat!

Good on Brucey for sticking it to a club which has SCANT regard for any club loyalty, and a hard-on for a youth policy which apparently does not factor in qualities such as "talent, skill, is he in our top 6 B&F"!

This stems back to letting go of Jeff White (31yo) who was still a top 5 ruck at the time! But nah, we had to go with our awesome "youth" (this is after getting rid of Jolly, whatever happened to him?) and its taken us 10 years and blind luck to stumble across anyone better! Then Yze, admittedly at the end, but still valuable role player, when there was NO-ONE better at the time!

Old MacDonald - shunted out purely becoz "too old" - nothing to do with stats, leading club in hard ball gets, tackles..

And now, They Call Him Bruce - surely not asking for a max deal. Just asking for the club to show him the same loyalty he showed them when he stuck with them thru the rollercoaster and complete bottoming out - OUR LAST REMAINING LINK TO THE 2000 GF! But sure, why would we need 'finals experience' when we can just keep trotting out untested rookies and saying "they'll come good" when ~70% have never played a winning season!!! *cough Cale Morton cough*

This "policy" is a travesty. How do you let a guy walk who will now show you via Hawks that he DOES have 2 good years left in him, has always been a positive leader at the clubs back when you were struggling to string back to back wins, wins a B&F 2 YEARS AGO!

So now the Hawks will make the "massive blunder" by giving 2 years to an apparently crippled hindrance on a "team moving forward"... seem to recall they did something similar with another fella, Stuart Dew was his name, and what happened that year??

Although we are all pumped up about our youth, and they are the future - let's not forget where we exactly are right now! An outside chance to maybe finish 8th at best!! Like we couldn't use some veteran talent?

And if you really have so much blind faith in the recruiting/ R&D side of the club - two words for ya:

DAVID HALE!

WTF!

I'LL STILL CALL HIM BRUCE!!

MFCSS

Oh, this is giving me the vapours!! How dare they look past the heroes of the 2000 GF...

You do realise that Cameron was injured for the Granny don't you?

We are trying to win a flag and you want to celebrate that by holding on too long to stalwarts of a failed past.

We wanted to keep him, but he left for the price of a Rav4 and assurances of his 13th year of AFL.

Excuse me, for thinking about the footy club...

And a fracking flag.

Edited November 8, 2010 by rpfc

[Roost It 1,434]

Sorry to go against the grain here of "too bad, so sad, slaters Brucey", but what else would we expect from forum commentators!

I've joined today purely to comment on this debacle, and what a fine debacle it is/was!

How can we trust Old Bailey with the whole "yeah, he'll be coming back on the shizer deal we're offering him, no worries" - yeah, that worked out a treat!

Good on Brucey for sticking it to a club which has SCANT regard for any club loyalty, and a hard-on for a youth policy which apparently does not factor in qualities such as "talent, skill, is he in our top 6 B&F"!

This stems back to letting go of Jeff White (31yo) who was still a top 5 ruck at the time! But nah, we had to go with our awesome "youth" (this is after getting rid of Jolly, whatever happened to him?) and its taken us 10 years and blind luck to stumble across anyone better! Then Yze, admittedly at the end, but still valuable role player, when there was NO-ONE better at the time!

Old MacDonald - shunted out purely becoz "too old" - nothing to do with stats, leading club in hard ball gets, tackles..

And now, They Call Him Bruce - surely not asking for a max deal. Just asking for the club to show him the same loyalty he showed them when he stuck with them thru the rollercoaster and complete bottoming out - OUR LAST REMAINING LINK TO THE 2000 GF! But sure, why would we need 'finals experience' when we can just keep trotting out untested rookies and saying "they'll come good" when ~70% have never played a winning season!!! *cough Cale Morton cough*

This "policy" is a travesty. How do you let a guy walk who will now show you via Hawks that he DOES have 2 good years left in him, has always been a positive leader at the clubs back when you were struggling to string back to back wins, wins a B&F 2 YEARS AGO!

So now the Hawks will make the "massive blunder" by giving 2 years to an apparently crippled hindrance on a "team moving forward"... seem to recall they did something similar with another fella, Stuart Dew was his name, and what happened that year??

Although we are all pumped up about our youth, and they are the future - let's not forget where we exactly are right now! An outside chance to maybe finish 8th at best!! Like we couldn't use some veteran talent?

And if you really have so much blind faith in the recruiting/ R&D side of the club - two words for ya:

DAVID HALE!

WTF!

I'LL STILL CALL HIM BRUCE!!

I was going to reply but I can tell that talking sense to you is going to be a waste of my time.

Just one thing though, On David Hale, we refused to pay over the odds for a 27 year old player of questionable talent and somehow that's a failure!

Edited November 8, 2010 by Roost It

[old55 23,687]

I'LL STILL CALL HIM BRUCE!!

And he'll still call you dad?

Edited November 8, 2010 by old55

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

Sorry to go against the grain here of "too bad, so sad, slaters Brucey", but what else would we expect from forum commentators!

I've joined today purely to comment on this debacle, and what a fine debacle it is/was!

I'LL STILL CALL HIM BRUCE!!

My God, what a load of tripe.

Skill, well Bruce has heaps, very skillful with helicopter kicks and hospital handpasses...

Jeff White, top 5 when he left. That's why other clubs came knocking for the ageing ruckman. He wanted to keep playing, but like Bailey 15 other AFL coaches could see that time had passed him by.

Then you use Jolly as an example to back up the youth policy being a travesty. Clutching at straws there Champ. Jolly left due to too much time being given to the older ruckman....

LOVE THE WAY YOU HAVE SHOUTED ABOUT OUR LAST REMAINING LINK TO THE 2000 GF. History lesson for you .... Bruce didn't play. Green did though.....

Oh but Bruce won a B&F when we were struggling. Good on him. He would never have won a B&F when we were doing well (especially post Guerra).

As for Hale, the FD rated him at a certain level and stood their ground. I don't have blind faith in them, but neither am I blind...