Somebody made an excellent point a couple of pages back regarding the Club's recent handling of renewing contracts of key players with reference to how we handled negotiations with Aaron Davey.

One of the frantic doomsayers in this thread was trying to use the Bruce situation as a pointer to how the Club would mishandle future important negotiations with players like Grimes & Scully, incorrectly assuming that the Club was now taking some unreasonable hardline stance where it would make a single offer and not entertain any sort of compromise. Just a year ago we were faced with the horrifying possibility of losing Aaron Davey who wanted more years than we were willing to give him and the Club made an excellent judgement call in ceding to that player's wishes because he represented long-term value to the Club and it was a battle we were winning to lose in order to win. Clearly the idea of paying Bruce more money or giving him an extra year was judged the opposite to the Davey situation. This isn't mismanagment or carelessness, this is a clear illustration of where the Club is willing to compromise where necessary, but not just cave in whenever tested.

Excellent stuff.

Somebody made an excellent point a couple of pages back regarding the Club's recent handling of renewing contracts of key players with reference to how we handled negotiations with Aaron Davey.

One of the frantic doomsayers in this thread was trying to use the Bruce situation as a pointer to how the Club would mishandle future important negotiations with players like Grimes & Scully, incorrectly assuming that the Club was now taking some unreasonable hardline stance where it would make a single offer and not entertain any sort of compromise. Just a year ago we were faced with the horrifying possibility of losing Aaron Davey who wanted more years than we were willing to give him and the Club made an excellent judgement call in ceding to that player's wishes because he represented long-term value to the Club and it was a battle we were winning to lose in order to win. Clearly the idea of paying Bruce more money or giving him an extra year was judged the opposite to the Davey situation. This isn't mismanagment or carelessness, this is a clear illustration of where the Club is willing to compromise where necessary, but not just cave in whenever tested.

Excellent stuff.

Good points made there. But at the very least, I don't think there is much denying that a better outcome would have been trading Cameron rather than having him walk for nothing. So I think the club has to take some responsibility for, as Bailey said, being "totally shocked" that this has happened.

Good points made there. But at the very least, I don't think there is much denying that a better outcome would have been trading Cameron rather than having him walk for nothing. So I think the club has to take some responsibility for, as Bailey said, being "totally shocked" that this has happened.

I have already posted this but having a level of confidence that a 11 year veteran will accept a $300k deal is not a character flaw, or a sign of complacency.

I don't even think Cameron thought he was going pre or during trade week.

This argument is a non-starter with me. We didn't get anything for Bruce because that is the nuance of the system, a player can wait, a club is forced to wait. A game of chicken can lead to a club not being rewarded.

Boo-hoo.

He wouldn't have got us much anyway.

Good points made there. But at the very least, I don't think there is much denying that a better outcome would have been trading Cameron rather than having him walk for nothing. So I think the club has to take some responsibility for, as Bailey said, being "totally shocked" that this has happened.

It seems more likely to me that Cameron (and Nixon) thought that he would have the leverage he needed to force the club's hand into giving into his demands if it realised it would lose him for nothing.

I'm glad we didn't fall for it.

The club should have given Bruce a deadline on his decision. A trade would have been likely! But in saying that Bruce always had the option of the draft and could leave the club hanging out in return for nothing.

In the end. He left the club with nothing! Was his delayed decision deliberate?

The club should have given Bruce a deadline on his decision. A trade would have been likely! But in saying that Bruce always had the option of the draft and could leave the club hanging out in return for nothing.

In the end. He left the club with nothing! Was his delayed decision deliberate?

I doubt it, he was probably hanging out for an extension trigger.

We didn't give him one, someone else might.

Good luck to them.

I hope it all ends in tears.

In the end. He left the club with nothing! Was his delayed decision deliberate?

I'd like to think not, but we'll probably never know

There again his manager is Ricky Nixon!

Time we all moved on

Its not of any earth shattering impact

The future is onwards and upwards, lets get on with it and bury this useless discussion

It seems more likely to me that Cameron (and Nixon) thought that he would have the leverage he needed to force the club's hand into giving into his demands if it realised it would lose him for nothing.

I'm glad we didn't fall for it.

Yeh, it's possible. But an 11 year player at the club trying to hold the club to ransom is actually unlikely, and I suggest not in keeping with his personality (although I am sure he is a good self-advocate!). I actually think Cam left because he thought he would get a longer career elsewhere and he felt undervalued (rightly or wrongly). If, as media suggests, he ends up on a substantially similar contract to the one we offered (with less money is even being suggested), but with "triggers" for a second year, that to me seems much more sensible thing for us to have considered than losing him for nothing.

Also, to the extent that Cam had leverage, we had it before the draft. We could have put a time limit on his decision rather than just sitting on it, then sought to trade him if he didn't sign.

As if we would have got much in a trade for Bruce.

He is a 30+ flanker who isn't a massive priority for any other Club, after all.

Furthermore, Bruce is uncontracted, and as everyone on here would like Melbourne to do, the Club who was keen could always use the threat of PSD/ND.

Yeh, it's possible. But an 11 year player at the club trying to hold the club to ransom is actually unlikely, and I suggest not in keeping with his personality (although I am sure he is a good self-advocate!).

Unfortunately I think you may have erred in your judgement of Cameron's personality as unfortunately an 11-year player holding the club to ransom is precisely what we've just observed.

The reason there are tears being shed over it, is because Cam has overestimated his value to the club going forward.

Unfortunately I think you may have erred in your judgement of Cameron's personality as unfortunately an 11-year player holding the club to ransom is precisely what we've just observed.

The reason there are tears being shed over it, is because Cam has overestimated his value to the club going forward.

I agree... he rolled the dice..and ...well... lol

He has form holding this club to ransom and over inflating his worth. He got away with it the first time; how does it go .... Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me !! The club werent having any of it the second time !!

Now 14 left from when Daniher was in charge of the side

Also, to the extent that Cam had leverage, we had it before the draft. We could have put a time limit on his decision rather than just sitting on it, then sought to trade him if he didn't sign.

What would you have said then?

What would you have said then?

What a question!

Applying hindsight to a decision is not only pointless it is a contradiction of terms, a metaphysical impossibility.

And you're right old, if we had tried to trade him because we had an inkling he was leaving the how would the fans react then?

I really haven't seen one thing the club has got wrong in it's list management since 2007.

Yeh, it's possible. But an 11 year player at the club trying to hold the club to ransom is actually unlikely, and I suggest not in keeping with his personality (although I am sure he is a good self-advocate!). I actually think Cam left because he thought he would get a longer career elsewhere and he felt undervalued (rightly or wrongly). If, as media suggests, he ends up on a substantially similar contract to the one we offered (with less money is even being suggested), but with "triggers" for a second year, that to me seems much more sensible thing for us to have considered than losing him for nothing.

Also, to the extent that Cam had leverage, we had it before the draft. We could have put a time limit on his decision rather than just sitting on it, then sought to trade him if he didn't sign.

My take is that while Cam and DB (although in reality it's probably more to do with Chris Connolly) are the main protagonists, their agents are very savy and experienced negotiators in Tim Harrington and Ricky Nixon (albeit that Nixon appears to loves to see his name in the papers more than the average player agent). I don't know the specifics of how long the contract was on the table, but I doubt that either Cam or the Club were really surprised by the final result. The papers are mooting Hawthorn, but I see GC as a far more likely destination. Their last pick in the draft is 48 which is still before Hawthorn's third pick. They will have already stockpiled a plethora of young talent all from the same cohort, what they lack is experience. We may have been able to trade him for that pick, but that's on the supposition that before the end of the trade period that all of the MFC, Cam & GC (you can insert Hawthorn here if you wish) were in agreement that he'd be traded. I don't think either Cam or Nixon are the villains here, but I think it's a little fatuous to claim they thought the club would have a change of heart on the contract that'd been offered. Cam's got a business degree, I think he's done his sums and at the end of the day he'll be getting more money somewhere else, that's why he's left.

BTW I think this is where free agency will be heading, players who are best 22, but aren't top tier at a club who see greater opportunities (such as money) elsewhere.

Edited November 10, 201014 yr by grazman

A lot has been said about all this and I am no to going to discuss this malcontent anymore. But I would add; In all my years of following this club I have never heard or seen a more positive and clear indicator as from the current coach and administration in dealing with this situation that demonstrates the deepest heartfelt desire to achieve winning a premiership. The turning point has been reached.

In all my years of following this club I have never heard or seen a more positive and clear indicator as from the current coach and administration in dealing with this situation that demonstrates the deepest heartfelt desire to achieve winning a premiership. The turning point has been reached.

Well said

I was actually being sarcastic, but it was earlier this year, maybe even before the season started.

$25.00 before the season started....Oh dear that would be embarrassing wouldn't it!!!! B)

Yeah, one of the best things about this is that the club has been brutally open and honest about their intentions.

We've seen it many times before, but the Bomber Thompson saga is a perfect example of consumer backlash when the general public feels lied to.

People aren't that stupid and dealing with integrity gets the best results in the end.

BTW I think this is where free agency will be heading, players who are best 22, but aren't top tier at a club who see greater opportunities (such as money) elsewhere.

Indeed; this is exactly the situation that the free agency rules are trying to cater for. It would've been of significant benefit to both the club and player in this particular case.

The proposed rules are of no help to the 21 year old trying to get rich or the wealthy club trying to buy a premiership, that's why I'm in favour of them.

Well said

Couldn't help but note something slightly incongruous about supporting a statement that wants to leave the past behind - under an avatar (the emblem) that proclaims our heritage ?

Indeed; this is exactly the situation that the free agency rules are trying to cater for. It would've been of significant benefit to both the club and player in this particular case.

The proposed rules are of no help to the 21 year old trying to get rich or the wealthy club trying to buy a premiership, that's why I'm in favour of them.

In fact, under FA, Bruce leaving at this stage after trade week would have provided us a draft pick.

That is the system in baseball, I am sure about that. Not sure about others.

Im Just sad that He has left and the way he left.

I reckon 5-10 years he might look back and say, wish i had stuck around..

The FA rules - when are they to be introduced..?

The FA rules - when are they to be introduced..?

From the end of 2012 mate.

The new system will commence at the end of 2012 after the entry of Team GWS into the competition, and will remain in place until reviewed at the end of 2016.

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=89810