He is against it, but us going for Cloke has no bearing on addressing our midfield. He rightly points out that there are no gun mids on the horizon this year through FA, and we won't need to give up picks for Cloke - in the unlikely event he wants to come to Melbourne. In essence, we can address our midfield concerns with Viney, 3, 4, 13, etc. and still recruit Cloke.

The only premise to his argument is the financial cost and the burden his salary will have on future re-signings. And yes, that's a relevant point. But it's a relevant point for any club.

Jon Anderson in the HS thinks Cloke won't choose the Dees because we'll probably not play finals in the next 5 years and certainly won't win a flag. I think he's way off the mark with how quickly our list can improve if we get things right during this off-season.

I have No problem with Cloke coming to Melbourne, free of trading our picks out for him.

The only thing that concerns me is the burden of this salary over the years.

I don't want us to shoot ourselves in the foot salary cap wise.

As I don't understand our position with regards these things I feel concerned.

Yes i know exactly what sugar is to the MFC RR. Don't be so condescending.

And what does Gerard gain out of your scenario??

I don't know how well you get along with your siblings WYL, but I'd do almost anything for mine, especialy if I felt passionately about the same issue.

I don't know how well you get along with your siblings WYL, but I'd do almost anything for mine, especialy if I felt passionately about the same issue.

Ok so you think both are trying to destabalize the club. For what gains to Healy Inc?

You are making big statements here, not me.

I know sugar, and he is one very shrewd business man, not forgetting a past captain of our club.

He is against it, but us going for Cloke has no bearing on addressing our midfield. He rightly points out that there are no gun mids on the horizon this year through FA, and we won't need to give up picks for Cloke - in the unlikely event he wants to come to Melbourne. In essence, we can address our midfield concerns with Viney, 3, 4, 13, etc. and still recruit Cloke.

The only premise to his argument is the financial cost and the burden his salary will have on future re-signings. And yes, that's a relevant point. But it's a relevant point for any club.

Jon Anderson in the HS thinks Cloke won't choose the Dees because we'll probably not play finals in the next 5 years and certainly won't win a flag. I think he's way off the mark with how quickly our list can improve if we get things right during this off-season.

Re the bolded/underlined, you make a good point. One that I think a number of out-of-contract players (particularly veterans) would be more than a little concerned about. No? A Cloke signing would surely spell the immediate end for a number of them.

Btw I disagree with Jon Anderson and the naysayers as well. I think we can have our cake and eat it too.

Cut the deadwood + 4 mids in the draft + Cloke + natural progression in our talented players = a decent side IMO.

Ok so you think both are trying to destabalize the club. For what gains to Healy Inc?

You are making big statements here, not me.

I know sugar, and he is one very shrewd business man, not forgetting a past captain of our club.

I'm just postulating WYL. I don't personally know anything. Just joining the dots. As I did with the Scully thing.

I don't doubt Sugar is very shrewd. And I remember him as a pretty good player and passionate captain.

But fact is his brother has rocked our boat in recent days, putting key people in the club under the spotlight.

Now that's something. Or it's nothing. You be the judge.

I'm just postulating WYL. I don't personally know anything. Just joining the dots. As I did with the Scully thing.

I don't doubt Sugar is very shrewd. And I remember him as a pretty good player and passionate captain.

But fact is his brother has rocked our boat in recent days, putting key people in the club under the spotlight.

Now that's something. Or it's nothing. You be the judge.

My judgement is that Brotherly love has nothing to do with it.

Answers will be found elsewhere.

Edited August 4, 201212 yr by Range Rover

My judgement is that Brotherly love has nothing to do with it.

Answers will be found elsewhere.

Come up with a better reason then why tanking has suddenly, strangely blown up as an issue at this particularly senstive point in time, when the club is trying to lure a marquee player ... and when a particular senior club official's contract is soon to be up for renewal.

I'd like to hear your ideas.

Come up with a better reason then why tanking has suddenly, strangely blown up as an issue at this particularly senstive point in time, when the club is trying to lure a marquee player ... and when a particular senior club official's contract is soon to be up for renewal.

I'd like to hear your ideas.

I like your collage very much, but i don't think it is so cut and dried. Why? Because we are not the only culprit.

Tanking has long been a dark issue in the AFL's mind. It was fully dealt with last year because of Jimmy's grave illness. Nobody wanted to go hard on him, but it will be sorted now.

That said the Red & Blueprint would be a beautiful read.

I like your collage very much, but i don't think it is so cut and dried. Why? Because we are not the only culprit.

Tanking has long been a dark issue in the AFL's mind. It was fully dealt with last year because of Jimmy's grave illness. Nobody wanted to go hard on him, but it will be sorted now.

That said the Red & Blueprint would be a beautiful read.

I guess we shall see. Still some cards to be dropped on the table yet.

I guess we shall see. Still some cards to be dropped on the table yet.

I agree there.

Above it should read "it wasn't fully dealt with because of Jimmy's illness"

It's well known junior. Where have you been ?

Supporters that have little understanding of our history always amuse me. In this instance, you've gone out of your way to publicly give yourself an embarrassing uppercut. Who needs enemies when you've got yourself ?

For you though it's hardly surprising, or unusual.

Good on you. No facts even when questioned. Just sweeping statements. "oh everyone knows". I say again - what crap.

Hope you don't fall off your high horse buddy. Its quite a long way down by the looks of things.

Good on you. No facts even when questioned. Just sweeping statements. "oh everyone knows". I say again - what crap.

Hope you don't fall off your high horse buddy. Its quite a long way down by the looks of things.

We have been fractured since the merger and probably before that for the older posters but as I have a family member who still has to deal with crap from certain MFC supporters for a role played with Ian Ridley during the merger - I can tell you that we still have some major issues...

Good on you. No facts even when questioned. Just sweeping statements. "oh everyone knows". I say again - what crap.

Hope you don't fall off your high horse buddy. Its quite a long way down by the looks of things.

They're not the sort of things that are usually officially logged by the club they're about, but obviously much of it stems from the merger and those bitterly divided camps, but it goes back long before then. Haven't you read the Red Fox ? It has often been a politically divided club. The break away from the MCC in 1981 provides many other examples.

Even Caro in an article last year wrote in her first paragraph, "STRANGE scenarios are being played out at the Melbourne Football Club. Just when you thought it was safe to stop worrying about the Demons, just when the club never looked more united, small spotfires have sprung up around the MCG and AAMI Park threatening the stability of what had recently been one of the AFL's most factionalised basket cases." Factionalised basket cases, Junior.

But I've got better things to do than spend my time giving history lessons to a lightweight ingrate.

We have been fractured since the merger and probably before that for the older posters but as I have a family member who still has to deal with crap from certain MFC supporters for a role played with Ian Ridley during the merger - I can tell you that we still have some major issues...

Would you like me to have a guest who that was?

I'm just postulating WYL. I don't personally know anything. Just joining the dots. As I did with the Scully thing.

I don't doubt Sugar is very shrewd. And I remember him as a pretty good player and passionate captain.

But fact is his brother has rocked our boat in recent days, putting key people in the club under the spotlight.

Now that's something. Or it's nothing. You be the judge.

Add in the fact that Greg is flying well and truly under the radar of any media and supporter focus, plus the fact that his brother and his commentary cronies are purely focusing on Melbourne re the tanking debate when all other clubs are just as stained, it does point the finger at about the only one, maybe two persons that survived the restructure post 186.

Quite an elaborate scheme if ever there was one.

Would you like me to have a guest who that was?

No and no.

Lots of nonsense happened then - I am specifically talking about the continued nonsense from people who cannot forget, won't forgive, and it's just self-defeating.

I have No problem with Cloke coming to Melbourne, free of trading our picks out for him.

The only thing that concerns me is the burden of this salary over the years.

I don't want us to shoot ourselves in the foot salary cap wise.

As I don't understand our position with regards these things I feel concerned.

Me too.

My very poor source has stated Travis Cloke wants 12% of the salary cap. That leaves 88% to the other 43 players.

In Melbournes case we only pay 95% of that cap and therefore would leave 83% of that cap to go to 43 others. Given Clark takes up 8-10% I believe as much as Neeld wants him, he is resigned to the fact we can't afford him.

Us staying in the market publicly puts pressure on Carlton and Freo though which is a gooood thing.

My very poor source has stated Travis Cloke wants 12% of the salary cap. That leaves 88% to the other 43 players.

In Melbournes case we only pay 95% of that cap and therefore would leave 83% of that cap to go to 43 others. Given Clark takes up 8-10% I believe as much as Neeld wants him, he is resigned to the fact we can't afford him.

Us staying in the market publicly puts pressure on Carlton and Freo though which is a gooood thing.

Isn't this Heroes fundraising dinner all about raising money so we're in a better position to pay 100% of the cap ?

I thought we would be playing close to100% this year with front loading to free up $$s for next year

It's well known junior. Where have you been ?

Supporters that have little understanding of our history always amuse me. In this instance, you've gone out of your way to publicly give yourself an embarrassing uppercut. Who needs enemies when you've got yourself ?

For you though it's hardly surprising, or unusual.

hahahahaha , gold