Talk about jumping to conclusions young Bobby !

I'm sure what hurt Cam the most was that we were NOT EVEN PREPARED to say, " If you play well next season, we MAY look at giving you another one year contract."( No PROMISE of a further one year contract) ). They did not even contemplate that did they? if that is not like saying "one more year and you are finished' I don't know what is. No,sadly you have been shafted Cam. No doubt about it.

Unless you were actually involved in the negotiations, you don't know what was said to Cam.

And even if we take some kind of "worse case scenario" here, what does it show? That the club told a 31 year old he had to earn his place?

The club have nothing to apologise for. Let's move on, this is getting a bit tired now. Revisit at the end of 2012?

Well i don't know what extra information you have that I don't. I wasn't in the meeting and couldn't possibly know that. Were you?

I would say there is a LOT of doubt about it.

I'm sure Bailey would have defended his treatment of Bruce by stating that Bruce's 2011 form would have had a bearing on his future at MFC. It simply was not mentioned. Don't put your head in the sand mate.

Talk about jumping to conclusions young Bobby !

Can't sleep High Tower? Worrying about our treatment of Brucey?

Sorry to disagree mate but even Blind Freddy could see through this smokescreen. We made NO ATTEMPT to negotiate with Bruce. It was "Take it or leave it Pal. Never mind about your 12 seasons of continuous effort for the club on and off the field."

When will supporters realise that a footy club owes its players absolutely nothing ? The quest to win a flag is paramount and every decision made by the club has to have this sole ambition as its driving force. And yes, that includes how decisions may impact the playing group as a whole. Mistakes may be made, but that's a by-product of a game where the stakes are huge.

Cameron Bruce forged a quality career at the MFC. He isn't a great of our club, but he had a better career than most. I've always thought him to be a tad soft and the decision he's made only reinforces my thinking. When it came to the crunch he took an option that probably shouldn't surprise many.

Lets face it, I had lost count of the number of times I heard on the tv whilst watching a melbourne game "bruce, turnover" over the last 5 years. The guy wont be missed.

I for one am very happy we got rid of him, no more hospital handpasses. I think Bruce over rates himself quite a bit.

I'm sure Bailey would have defended his treatment of Bruce by stating that Bruce's 2011 form would have had a bearing on his future at MFC. It simply was not mentioned. Don't put your head in the sand mate.

You should do the same.

We would have kept Bruce in 2012 in a heartbeat if he was fit and healthy. We had noone eligible for the VL until 2013.

We just didn't want to risk having $300k tied up in a 33 crock if the unthnkable happened.

He wants a flag, it's got little to do with the MFC and everything to do with Cameron the Bruce and his ego.

Well i don't know what extra information you have that I don't. I wasn't in the meeting and couldn't possibly know that. Were you?

I would say there is a LOT of doubt about it.

Agree Reims.

My mail from a trusted sources is that Bruce was advised by the FD that if his form and fitness was good enough the Club would enter negotiations for a further contract in 2012.

High Tower has nailed Bobby on this matter and its form for Bobby to do so.

You should do the same.

We would have kept Bruce in 2012 in a heartbeat if he was fit and healthy. We had noone eligible for the VL until 2013.

We just didn't want to risk having $300k tied up in a 33 crock if the unthnkable happened.

He wants a flag, it's got little to do with the MFC and everything to do with Cameron the Bruce and his ego.

Agreed and well said.

15 pages on one delisting.

I'm glad we didn't end up with something like ditching Medhurst, Fraser, Lockyer and Davis...

Actually... the experience of those four guys is pretty much exactly why Bruce has left. Next year maybe, and almost certainly the year after, he'd be in the same kind of situation.

Better Melbourne and Bruce part ways now, for both parties.

Still sad though.

15 pages on one delisting.

Not to mention another 5 pages in the Good Bruce Bad Bruce thread and several other mentions elsewhere.

I'm getting a bit sick of Bruce.

Can't we ban him for a while like we did when Shane Woewoding left the building?

Sorry to disagree mate but even Blind Freddy could see through this smokescreen. We made NO ATTEMPT to negotiate with Bruce. It was "Take it or leave it Pal. Never mind about your 12 seasons of continuous effort for the club on and off the field."

Cam made his own arrangements and if he really believd his worth to the club he would have accepted a 1 year deal and proved that worth

Good bye Cam and thanks for the memeories I reallly hope you do well at the Hawks but some how I doubt it

Now it is really time fellow posters to move on isnt it? He is gone !!!

Sorry to disagree mate but even Blind Freddy could see through this smokescreen. We made NO ATTEMPT to negotiate with Bruce. It was "Take it or leave it Pal. Never mind about your 12 seasons of continuous effort for the club on and off the field."

You, sir, have no idea. None at all.

15 pages on one delisting.

I'm glad we didn't end up with something like ditching Medhurst, Fraser, Lockyer and Davis...

Actually... the experience of those four guys is pretty much exactly why Bruce has left. Next year maybe, and almost certainly the year after, he'd be in the same kind of situation.

Better Melbourne and Bruce part ways now, for both parties.

Still sad though.

You got it Goffy! Your first line says it all!!!!!

There's a one year rule for players over 30 - there's 3 possible interpretations of what happened and you can take your pick:

1. We apply the rule rigidly without any consideration of what Bruce (or any other player) brings

2. We failed to realise the great contribution Bruce can still make over the coming 2 years warranted breaking the rule

3. With all the information available we didn't think the contribution that Bruce would make over the next 2 years warranted breaking the rule

There's a one year rule for players over 30 - there's 3 possible interpretations of what happened and you can take your pick:

1. We apply the rule rigidly without any consideration of what Bruce (or any other player) brings

2. We failed to realise the great contribution Bruce can still make over the coming 2 years warranted breaking the rule

3. With all the information available we didn't think the contribution that Bruce would make over the next 2 years warranted breaking the rule

I will take number 3.

Having said that Bruce was offered a solid one year contract, and i am sure could have played in 2012 on another 1 year deal.

But he chose to walk and go into the PSD. A decision he will regret. I do not think the club will regret its decision.

You, sir, have no idea. None at all.

Do you talk to yourself often?

Bobby I think that it gets down to list management

We know what Bruce brings. We have to provide opportunities

for other players as we need to know who to delist.

If you consider the compulsory picks in the 2011 draft

who is looking at being delisted? Recent selections were easy

Also we need salary cap space. Bruce could have stayed but he wanted security

we could nt guarantee that. Some very hard calls will have to be made in 2011

and 2012 given our young inexperienced list. Perhaps we could end up trading out some

of these players. It's a win/win for Bruce and Us.

I will take number 3.

Having said that Bruce was offered a solid one year contract, and i am sure could have played in 2012 on another 1 year deal.

But he chose to walk and go into the PSD. A decision he will regret. I do not think the club will regret its decision.

Cameron had the chance to be a one club player ... Now that is all over

At Hawthorn he will most likely be "just another player"

The contract that he was offered would have been on the table for months.

OK he didn't like it (fair enough)

The really disappointing part is that he didn't put up his hand and ask to be traded. (he made sure we got nothing for him)

After his brief stint at Hawthorn is over and in the cold hard light of day, I'll bet that he regrets this short term poor decision.

I just hope that we don't let him into the rooms on Grand Final Day in a few years time , after we achieve the ultimate success that has eluded us for so long

We offered an 11 year vet $300k to stay on the effing list!He wants to win a flag, fine.I just wish he would come out and say that.....

Now this is a good point

Nobody can bag a veteran for wanting to win a flag before he finishes .... and nobody can criticize a club with a youth policy for losing a veteran in these circumstances.End of discussion - move on.

If it is as simple as this - why hasn't he said it - and why hasn't the club said it? Given the vagaries of the draft, you would have thought that the easiest way for a player to get to the club of his choice would be via a trade.

Sorry to disagree mate but even Blind Freddy could see through this smokescreen. We made NO ATTEMPT to negotiate with Bruce. It was "Take it or leave it Pal. Never mind about your 12 seasons of continuous effort for the club on and off the field."

What else would you expect from a well run business trying to move on some soft wood.

What else would you expect from a well run business trying to move on some soft wood.

Sorry mate, comment does you no credit..

For one thing a well run business would tell an unwanted employee the truth ...... And for another - no-one who's played one game of AFL footy could ever be called soft- much less someone who's played 220!!

Actually, I think they looked at the calendar and said 'Sure, one year contract'.

Anyway, old news.

Well I think they looked at the calender and went "why are we looking at a calendar instead of writing up Bruce's one year contract"

Bobby, I know you've been a big supporter of Bruce, and so you must be upset by his departure, but just remember that Bruce is no better and no more entitled to a special deal than Neita or Junior were. Both took one year contracts and both were valued by the club.

Bruce thought he was worthy of more, and he wasn't. Good luck to him.

For one thing a well run business would tell an unwanted employee the truth ......

?? Surely that's what happened. Cam didn't like "the truth" (1 year and then prove yourself), and walked.

And once again, just because it's all a bit of a shock, doesn't mean that the process was badly handled.

Moving on people ...

I'm getting a bit sick of Bruce.

Can't we ban him for a while like we did when Shane Woewodin left the building?

If Cameron Bruce puts peroxide through his hair to the point where it's completely white/blond then we'll consider a ban.

In short Bruce and his manager Ricky Nixon thought the Dees would crumble on the 2 year deal. Used to be that we would have. That is of course why Bruce got the just finished contract that landed him in the Top 20 money earners in the AFL when he would have been unlikely to be in the league's Top 50 players. Times have changed. Travis Johnstone learnt that. Brock Maclean learnt that.

In short Schwab, Connolly, Harrington and Bailey have set about regularising our player payments. Elite players get an elite player's contract. Good players get a good players contract. Sensible TPP management. And of course players 30 and older get one year deals just like Crawford did at Hawthorn and Fletcher does at Essendon. Sensible risk management.

Simply Bruce and Nixon were slow on the uptake otherwise they would have requested a trade and the Dees would have facilitated the deal and Bruce would already have been at his preferred club.