Mitch Clark

[Nasher 33,616]

god help some of you if in business plssing away money.

The notion of having to pay 'someone's is THE irrelevancy. Look at Clark in isolation . If he cant take the park youd be better off paying for someone who can.

I'm really not sure what your point is, unless you're suggesting that we should have forseen this.

[olisik 4,060]

I'm really not sure what your point is, unless you're suggesting that we should have forseen this.

Maybe Neeld rushing him back didnt help

[Forest Demon 4,681]

Mitch can have the whole salary cap to himself if he gets back playing like the start of last year. The rest can just fight over the money he leaves in the nooks of the couch when he sits down.

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

I believe it will be 50/50 whether he plays again. He needs time. Anyone thinking Fitzpatrick should be used as trade bait should think again.

[olisik 4,060]

Mitch can have the whole salary cap to himself if he gets back playing like the start of last year. The rest can just fight over the money he leaves in the nooks of the couch when he sits down.

Is that you Mr Harrington?

[mjt 640]

Mitch can have the whole salary cap to himself if he gets back playing like the start of last year. The rest can just fight over the money he leaves in the nooks of the couch when he sits down.

Frawley says hello.

[pitmaster 3,553]

This is truly bad news for him and the club but hardly surprising in the circumstances.

Part of his recovery has to be being taught landings by Howie.

I hope he comes back fully fit from what is clearly a freakish injury although I did see somewhere that Matty Richardson had a lisfranc too.

Anyone know any details about that?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,755]

This is truly bad news for him and the club but hardly surprising in the circumstances.

Part of his recovery has to be being taught landings by Howie.

I hope he comes back fully fit from what is clearly a freakish injury although I did see somewhere that Matty Richardson had a lisfranc too.

Anyone know any details about that?

Try here

[beelzebub 23,376]

I'm really not sure what your point is, unless you're suggesting that we should have forseen this.

Never took you for daft there Nasher...which bit are you incapable of digesting.. If you cant take the park, you ought not be on the list. Its pretty simple

[Demonsterative 3,020]

Work Cover would disagree with you BB. You sustain an injury at work, the work place pays your income. It's called the law!!

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

Surprise Surprise.

Clark sidelined for remainder of 2013

nnnaaarrrrrrr 4-6 weeks.

[chookrat 4,250]

Ffs.. Hes getting top whack and's hardly on the park . Wheres the friggin value in that.

Its just a black and white evaluation . Take all the hype and emotion away and we arent getting much in return. Thats the cold hard reality.

This is a very selfish way to look at the situation. He injured himself giving his all to lift the team and when fit has been a superstar. Injuries happen and I dont see anything he did wrong. If anything the club is liable for being crap and making him carry too much of the load of playing in a poor side.

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

Those suggesting we use Fitzy as trade bait this coming draft need to take note of this news.

[demonkeaney 61]

Do we look at Tom Boyd now?

[Nasher 33,616]

Never took you for daft there Nasher...which bit are you incapable of digesting.. If you cant take the park, you ought not be on the list. Its pretty simple

I'm not sure I'm the one being daft here. You're either trying to tell us that he should be delisted if he has a career injury, or we've got a player on our list who is paid a lot but hasn't played much. Thank goodness we've got you here to point that out, we might not have worked it out otherwise. This is such the bleeding obvious that I thought you must be trying to make some other subtle point that I was missing. Guess not.

Anyway, Clark is probably our best player and he'll be given every last opportunity to get up to scratch. If there is even the slightest chance of a return, the club will wait. And I'm absolutely fine with that, I too can wait.

[stuie 7,374]

Do we look at Tom Boyd now?

No. If Clark is gone we still have Dawes, Hogan, and Fitzy.

If Nate Jones go down we have no one.

Gotta get midfielders. Still.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,241]

Matthew Richardson recovered from a similar injury and went to both play a shiteload of games and kick a shiteload of goals.

[chookrat 4,250]

Does this put Clark on the LTI? Wonder who steps up from the rookie list?

Edited July 22, 2013 by chookrat

[beelzebub 23,376]

Thats rubbish, he hasn't been worth every cent, he's been sidelined for nearly 1.5 seasons, lets hope he recovers and plays well again though, best of luck to him.

I cant but agree. I think a lot of people take a different view to myself. Thats fine , as far as it goes but when considering such things as this there really is not a lot of ambiguity about it.

Firstly I dont see this club as any sort of Benevolent Society nor some Friary or retreat. Nor do I see it as an altruistic co-op or some suburban type family get together . It IS actually a business. The purpose is to engage competitively in the AFL striving for success. The business has at its disposal three legs of a stool. Theres Administration , The football Dept and the player list.

Despite some assertions we cant talk in terms of ROI this is exactly what this business IS about. its bang for buck and is so in EVERY dept as they all can be measured by KPI's . As far as Players go its what they do on the field that accounts for 90 % of any value.

To this end players are adjudged as to their value. This is reflected in length and value of contracts as well as particular resources that might be accorded them as different. Their value is arrived at as to what they can do. Simple as that really. .

So in terms of a business what they earn together with resources applied is to be considered as the Investment. What they do and add to the teams effort ON the field is the RETURN. So despite the stance of some this thing we call footy is in fact ALL ABOUT ROI's.

Im not for a moment suggesting we can foresee all injuries especially long term ones but some injuries come down to management. Hindsight suggest we didnt get it quite right with Mitch. That damages his capacity to play and dare I say it provide a return on the clubs investment.

IMHO if his injury is so serious that theres no real expectation that he can take to the field come game 1 season 2014 , which by association means experiencing a beneficial preseason then it really begs the question whether there is any REAL value going forward to having hi on our list. i.e That spot, that money can go to a bigger equation whereby better value might be had.

Some may not like any of this...good luck to you as you attempt to breathe, head in sand.

Some may think I have a beef with Mitch. Nothing of the sort. Ive thoroughly enjoyed his games to date though those this year werent that crash hot ( goes again to ROI )

A fit and effective Mitch Clark would be of enormous benefit to our 1st 22. . I fervently hope we have this. As would I have no dount would he himself.

Just before some of you fire back as I know you will, ask yourself this. Is it also fair on other players who are fit to play and take the field to earn their crust ?

There is a separate issue as to "work-injuries " etc. Separate compensations as well.

[jnrmac 20,065]

Sending a player off to get better

tanking....

[beelzebub 23,376]

This is a very selfish way to look at the situation. He injured himself giving his all to lift the team and when fit has been a superstar. Injuries happen and I dont see anything he did wrong. If anything the club is liable for being crap and making him carry too much of the load of playing in a poor side.

read my longer reply..

[jnrmac 20,065]

Maybe Neeld rushing him back didnt help

Him playing on in the game after initially injuring it wasn't good either.....

[Undeeterred 3,124]

BB - you never answered my question, even though I answered all of yours.

If you get rid of Mitch Clark, as you suggest, where does his $800k go?

I suppose we could give it to Sylvia, or pay Daisy Thomas $1.5 mil to come over, for example, but given we struggle to make the minimum TPP anyway, I'd probably just take the punt that Clark has a few years left in him, until proven otherwise.

Now, I am on record as saying I don't think he'll play again. But what list change can you suggest, which uses his salary and is realistic, that improves us?

Once you sack him, you can never get him back.

Plus, what message does that send others coming along - as soon as you get injured, we'll cut you loose.

[Demonsterative 3,020]

Mitch's value was negotiated before he came to the club. He was contracted on big money for 4 years. I would hope that the contract has an injury clause in it. However, A contract is binding so is the law.

On other issues related to Mitch. imagine how our already disenfranchised playing group would react if the club took a Neeld style hard line with Mitch on his injury issue.The player revolt will be seen with important players leaving the club.

There is no ambiguity here. The club negotiated a contract with Mitch. He got injured, and the club needs to pay him accordingly. Hopefully he will get on the park and show his value once again.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,177]

2 years at $800,000 and he has played 15 games.

Over $100,000 per game.

And in my mind has been worth every cent. I got more enjoyment watching him tear it up for 15 games than any MFC player in recent years bar maybe Jurrah. Getting him right for next year makes perfect sense. Hope all goes well.