Food for thought....

[hoopla 418]

The Communication Breakdown (always capitalise Led Zep) was hardly a breakdown - we wanted him, we offered a reasonable contract, we waited for him to come to his senses and end the game of chicken, he decided to show us he wasn't bluffing.

We move on.

Or at least some of us do.

At the end of the day - we didn't get anything for a player who will line up against us next year. On that basis I don't think our negotiation strategy yielded the best possible outcome.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

At the end of the day - we didn't get anything for a player who will line up against us next year. On that basis I don't think our negotiation strategy yielded the best possible outcome.

I have been involved in several negotiations where at the end of the day I simply refused to pay the asking price for the product on offer. When I make this decision I do so with the belief that that money would work better for me somewhere else.

[rpfc 28,383]

At the end of the day - we didn't get anything for a player who will line up against us next year. On that basis I don't think our negotiation strategy yielded the best possible outcome.

Once trade week is over, its a zero-sum game.

We had a contract, he probably decided after TW to leave.

How in the fand of luck are we supposed to yield anything?

Sh!t happens.

[rpfc 28,383]

I totally agree with this. Fact of the matter is that regardless of what transpired behind closed doors with these guys (which is all speculation), each of these champs were basically shoved out reluctantly and do feel disgruntled now, which is not a great way for their careers to end. Whilst Yze & White I can understand based on form, I thought Robbo & Jmac would certainly be in our top 10 for another year and Bruce for another 2 at least, not the paltry '1 more & then seeya' contract he was offered (thanks for the faith coach, he's not exactly injury prone).

Yeah sure you've got to turn the list over, keep it fresh etc - but these 3 guys were not exactly liabilities and after their service they deserved to share in a few more wins - and hopefully finals next year...and if we don't make that far then the jury's out on these decisions.

Seems most people on here aren't exactly sentimental - I wonder who will everyone bash now Bruce is gone? Step up to the plate Cale Morton you're in big trouble next year son.

So we keep them because they are the difference between 9th and 7th?

Or do we stand our ground and say we might want to put a kid in their place so that we finish 9th but that experience allows us to progress up the ladder in future years?

And '1 year and then see ya' contract, huh?

Is that what it was?

Because I saw it as a commitment of a third of a million dollars for a 31 year old who won't be in our flag tilt.

He was fortunate to get offered what he did.

He should have stayed and backed his ability to give more worth in 2012 than a rookie listed player, because that was what he was arguing so vehemently for; he would still be one of only 2 players eligible for the VL.

He must not have much faith in his ability anymore.

The famous Bruce arrogance is gone, perhaps?

[two sheds jackson 3]

The only issue i have with most The Unfortunates (mainly White, Robbo & Junior), is that the club could've definitely used a Ruck, Key Fwd, and Elite Tackling Midfielder in the years after their departure - ie massive upgrades over, say, PJ, Newton & Bennell - and given their desperation, likely would've played for dirt cheap performance-based contracts

The club is under no delusions re: its forward and ruck stocks. That is partly why we got rid of the above-mentioned players. We are looking for genuine, ten-year solutions to these problems.

If we'd hung onto Robbo and White, they might have helped "patch the hole" for a couple of years (I have my doubts about even this), but they also would have taken up spots on the list which could have been used to draft two new players, as well as inhibiting the development of younger players already on the list.

I'll also admit Robbo's presence would've hindered Jurrah's growth, but we still haven't settled on a full fwd line (David Hale?!?)

So your position is that if we'd kept Robbo, it would have hindered the long-term development of one of our most exciting and promising players, but that this would have been a small price to pay for the fact that in the short term, our forwardline would have looked a bit less crappy, but not much.

David Hale really doesn't enter into this discussion. We went after Hale because we need a big, strong, stay-at-home forward to provide a physical presense and compliment our array of talanted athletic talls. Robbo would not have been remotely suited to this role even in the prime of his career. Even if we'd kept Robbo, it would have had no bearing on our decision to go after Hale.

[Roost It 1,434]

Neita's 'retirement' is an interesting contrast against The Unfortunates...

Basically was the only one there allowed to exit on his own terms - granted he had more credentials being club captain and all, but maybe it was the lameduck manner in which he exited which prompted the "Whatever It Takes" Over 30 Policy!

The only issue i have with most The Unfortunates (mainly White, Robbo & Junior), is that the club could've definitely used a Ruck, Key Fwd, and Elite Tackling Midfielder in the years after their departure - ie massive upgrades over, say, PJ, Newton & Bennell - and given their desperation, likely would've played for dirt cheap performance-based contracts

(*I'll also admit Robbo's presence would've hindered Jurrah's growth, but we still haven't settled on a full fwd line (David Hale?!?) and also, when we have our regulation 14 season-ending injuries, always pays to have back-up!)

The Unfortunates! How were they unfortunate? Both White and Robbo were well past their best. In fact White's career was on a fast dounward slide once the centre circle was installed. Robbo was old, had no inclination for the second effort which really needed to be good considering how average his first efforts had become. Junior was 34 years old for Christ's sake, done and dusted. Nothing unfortunate in fact all were fortunate to have played for so long. The fact that White and Robbo put their hand up to play on and 15 coaches agreed with ours is surely enough proof in itself. A ruckmen, dude White was finished. A key forward, Robbo! surely you jest. Can you see the future? How do you know the club will need a tackling midfielder next year. Seen Jordie Mckenzie play, not to mention Sylvia, Scully and Trengove all of whom are handy on the tackle. As for Neitz, he played a season too long, proved by his inability to make it through.

What has prompted the Whatever it takes policy is we haven't won a freaking flag for nigh on 50 years. In that time we've settled for mediocrity and now, when finally the club is showing some steel, people bemoan how we treat our older players. If they can't see the sign then someone has to show them.

Remember there's only one reason to play AFL. I'll let you work it out.

Go Demons, Unleash Hell!

Edited November 10, 2010 by Roost It

[agent_orange 0]

Hard calls all round.

Agree we had to make them, and also believe that they should of handled the Jmac situation better. Bruce was a shame, but to have him on the list any more than 1 more year is list clogging.

Jmac was handled very poorly.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

The Unfortunates! How were they unfortunate? Both White and Robbo were well past their best. In fact White's career was on a fast dounward slide once the centre circle was installed. Robbo was old, had no inclination for the second effort which really needed to be good considering how average his first efforts had become. Junior was 34 years old for Christ's sake, done and dusted. Nothing unfortunate in fact all were fortunate to have played for so long. The fact that White and Robbo put their hand up to play on and 15 coaches agreed with ours is surely enough proof in itself. A ruckmen, dude White was finished. A key forward, Robbo! surely you jest. Can you see the future? How do you know the club will need a tackling midfielder next year. Seen Jordie Mckenzie play, not to mention Sylvia, Scully and Trengove all of whom are handy on the tackle. As for Neitz, he played a season too long, proved by his inability to make it through.

What has prompted the Whatever it takes policy is we haven't won a freaking flag for nigh on 50 years. In that time we've settled for mediocrity and now, when finally the club is showing some steel, people bemoan how we treat our older players. If they can't see the sign then someone has to show them.

Remember there's only one reason to play AFL. I'll let you work it out.

Go Demons, Unleash Hell!

Agree with all those words Roost. All of our delisted players were well looked after by this club. Each one should be financially secured-and i hope they are. But we all have a used by date.

I want to see Flags with Jimmy Stynes as President. Simple as that.

[ox_5 163]

Jmac was handled very poorly.

Can you add why so?

[praha 11,240]

The problem is Daniher created a specific culture, and I think Bails was always intent on completely draining the club of any drafted players under Daniher, which is fair enough. I think this is going to be a really good era under Bailey. I've only really seen maybe 2 eras (the Balme and Daniher ones) beforehand, and the end of the Northy one, but this one feels very different. I think that within the club the younger players are getting treated extremely well, maybe even better than some older players (the likes of Bruce, Jnr etc.). I'm not worried that this would cause discontent around the club among the players.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Jmac was handled very poorly.

What should the club have done in relation to making it easier for Junior? Given him a sea cruise maybe or a better heritage of Red Wine?

Ask yourself this...could you or Junior guarantee that his Hammies would survive the 2011 season, including September (hopefully) as he would be 35.

[Fork 'em 6,983]

Seems most people on here aren't exactly sentimental -

Mate ' we've been sentimetal since '64 .

Frankly , I've had it up to ear with sentiment .

I want the ultimate success and if the club have to be ruthless to get it , I'm right behind it .

[Hellaintabadplacetobe 4,294]

This year I saw the following recent ex players on different occasions at the footy.

Daniel Ward

Robbo,

Paul Wheatley

Jeff White

David Neitz

Adem Yze

No doubt there were others I didn`t see.

Most of those blokes were either delisted or told nicely to hang the boots up.If they were disgruntled, they got over it pretty quickly. I doubt they`d be rocking up to games if they had ill feelings towards the club.

[Little Goffy 14,521]

Sentimental for $300,000 a year?

The fact is the club need people to do a job if they are going to pay them six figure sums, and that job is now 'get us to a premiership'. They reckoned Bruce would be doing that job next year, but couldn't be sure of it after that.

There's no shame in him deciding that he wants a different job, and if the Hawks (for example) reckon he'll do for their needs next year and after, so be it. I don't think he should, or would, be particularly sooky about it. And neither should the club complain - all people have a right to refuse a contract if it doesn't suit them.

It would be nice, though, if the system had better provisions for managing older players. Some variation on the Veteran's List maybe, which at the moment is designed just to 'protect the asset' that is one or two marketing stars.

Cameron Bruce has at least $3m in his pocket for his first ten years work almost straight out of high school, doing a job that has opened endless doors and seen his primary activity being self-development. I seriously doubt that any reasonable person, Bruce included, would really get sooky about that, even if they are sad to see it end.

[dee-luded 2,959]

After the de-listing of two of our best players this year, I've been thinking about how some of our recent players must be feeling about the MFC. I remember when Jim Stynes became president and brought Schwab back to the club they spoke about how the club had lost touch with alot of its past players and there was not much sense of community at Melbourne. They made a real effort at bringing back past legends of the club (flower, barassi etc.) and trying to get them involved with the club.

Melbourne under Bailey has made some tough calls of late (I believe correct calls) in axing players that for the better part of the 00's have been our better players. The way White, Yze, Robbo and now Bruce and Junior have left has been less than desirable, although necessary, I'm concerned that a lot of these players must be quite disillusioned with the club and their place within it. Do you think that the FD could have managed these situations better? It seems that Bruce left because he sensed that he would be blindsided in a similar way that way Junior was. I would hate to think that some of our other players could walk out in years to come due to what has happened over the past couple of years.

I think only Jnr was mistreated. He could have been given 1 more @ a reduced rate. Great leader on & off field.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

I think only Jnr was mistreated. He could have been given 1 more @ a reduced rate. Great leader on & off field.

I am still hoping Junior can be DB's runner next year (or one of them) that way he can still be a great leader.

[hoopla 418]

I have been involved in several negotiations where at the end of the day I simply refused to pay the asking price for the product on offer. When I make this decision I do so with the belief that that money would work better for me somewhere else.

That's fine ..... but I'm sure you try to work so that you save your money and pick up a bonus on the side ( such as a draft pick)

[Mallee Bull 97]

How else could you have handled them, Bruce was aware of his contract for weeks.

When a players time is up it is up. There's no nice way to do it, but it needed to be done. I thought it was all done with dignity myself.

Do you think the club should have had Lindt chocolate as a farewell?

All the players Bailey had to get rid of will be welcomed back to the club at the next premiership.

Your taking the [censored] now.

No, lindt isn't required, neither is a kiss on the cheek or slap on the bum, just some better communication between the FD and their most senior players. It's pretty clear that if the club had handled Juniors forced retirement better (perhaps by indicating that his time was coming to an end earlier in the season, instead of doing it at round 21) then Bruce would have stayed on.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Your taking the [censored] now.

No, lindt isn't required, neither is a kiss on the cheek or slap on the bum, just some better communication between the FD and their most senior players. It's pretty clear that if the club had handled Juniors forced retirement better (perhaps by indicating that his time was coming to an end earlier in the season, instead of doing it at round 21) then Bruce would have stayed on.

I think J Mac's 5-6 week Hamstring lay off told everybody the story. I was suprised he played in 2010.

And i am glad he has finished so that he does not have to endure a Brad Johnson scenario. He is 35 next year, he had a nagnificent career. But it's over.

[Mallee Bull 97]

The real facts are much simpler. Bruce was OFFEREED a contract . He didn't take it up. Your suggested speculations are the facts and your 'facts' speculation.

You want to embrace refreshing lists but not if that means churning anyone ?

What we can deduce from the facts is that 1) Bruce wanted guarantees of some sort to be playing in 2012. 2) it was Bruces decision to leave as is his prerogative.

You suggest these players aren't liabilities but if a player is affecting progress then that's exactly what they are.

This is NOT social footy

Bruce was Vice Captain, he would have been mentoring a lot of the younger players and therefore assisting in their progress. He was still one of our best players, contributing to 21 of our 22 games this year. If being a good player but in the second half of your career means that you are affecting progress then by that logic we should de-list anyone over 25. Would you cut Boomer from north so you can get more games into the next draft pick? or keep boomer to win games and mentor these kids?

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Bruce was Vice Captain, he would have been mentoring a lot of the younger players and therefore assisting in their progress. He was still one of our best players, contributing to 21 of our 22 games this year. If being a good player but in the second half of your career means that you are affecting progress then by that logic we should de-list anyone over 25. Would you cut Boomer from north so you can get more games into the next draft pick? or keep boomer to win games and mentor these kids?

Boomer Harvey has been on 1 year contracts for a few years now, which is what Bruce was offered. Harvey Signed, Bruce Didn't. Is that the Clubs fault?

[Mallee Bull 97]

I think J Mac's 5-6 week Hamstring lay off told everybody the story. I was suprised he played in 2010.

And i am glad he has finished so that he does not have to endure a Brad Johnson scenario. He is 35 next year, he had a nagnificent career. But it's over.

5-6 weeks isn't unheard of. Grimes was gone for much longer than that. Plus, when Junior did return he was fine. He most likely re-injured himself trying to come back a week too early. If he had broken down again after returning ala buckley then I would agree with you.

[Mallee Bull 97]

Boomer Harvey has been on 1 year contracts for a few years now, which is what Bruce was offered. Harvey Signed, Bruce Didn't. Is that the Clubs fault?

From all of the media reports Bruce is most likely going to be on a single year contract with another club, along with a pay cut. This gets back to my original post. Boomer is happy to sign on, Bruce wasn't with us, but may with another club. Why? Is our FD not handling its dealings with our senior players as well as other clubs do theirs?

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

From all of the media reports Bruce is most likely going to be on a single year contract with another club, along with a pay cut. This gets back to my original post. Boomer is happy to sign on, Bruce wasn't with us, but may with another club. Why? Is our FD not handling its dealings with our senior players as well as other clubs do theirs?

Bruce has been given assurances of a second year. At Melbourne he wasn't. That's the difference.

[bing181 9,218]

From all of the media reports Bruce is most likely going to be on a single year contract with another club, along with a pay cut. This gets back to my original post. Boomer is happy to sign on, Bruce wasn't with us, but may with another club. Why? Is our FD not handling its dealings with our senior players as well as other clubs do theirs?

I'm sorry but posts like this are just starting to do my head in. Aaaaaaaggggggghhhhhhhhhh.

There, that feels a bit better.

Hawthorn are desperate for a(nother) flag while they still have the Buddies etc. Our flag is some years down the track. Different situations so ... different needs and, suprise suprise, different approaches to contracts and list management.

In other words, just because Cam can get a contract with a second year trigger at another club, it doesn't mean that we handled the negotiations badly.

Phew.