Mitch Clark

[Nasher 33,246]

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.

If you really want to run with the ROI notion, what you're proposing still doesn't make any sense. If we bought his stock at $20 a share, you're wanting to flog it off for 1c. It costs us nothing extra to keep him (contracted and would still come under the salary cap so it's all a sunk cost), and we know what he adds when fit, so we might as well wait until he either comes back or wait until the liquidators step in. It makes no sense to cut our losses now.

[beelzebub 22,703]

If you really want to run with the ROI notion, what you're proposing still doesn't make any sense. If we bought his stock at $20 a share, you're wanting to [censored] it off for 1c. It costs us nothing extra to keep him (contracted and would still come under the salary cap so it's all a sunk cost), and we know what he adds when fit, so we might as well wait until he either comes back or wait until the liquidators step in. It makes no sense to cut our losses now.

when ?

And I quite comfortably ask as I do not know. Is it still effectively a sunk cost should a contract be paid out and the player not on the list ?

There is NO value that can really be apportioned to a player than can not provide a return ( keeping in vogue )

Id be interested to know. ( doubt Im alone )

Edited July 22, 2013 by belzebub59

[John Crow Batty 8,352]

if he has suffered a career ending injury he deserves every penny he is contracted for. If he can't play he can still be a mentor or help in a coaching capacity. His strengh of character has been a bonus asset.

[Nasher 33,246]

when ?

When those who are qualified to say so declare it a bust, upon which the club and Clark will agree upon mutual retirement terms. I've got to say I'm staggered that anyone who saw him play doesn't want to give him every last opportunity to get fixed, especially when all the costs of retention are sunk.

[beelzebub 22,703]

if he has suffered a career ending injury he deserves every penny he is contracted for. If he can't play he can still be a mentor or help in a coaching capacity. His strengh of character has been a bonus asset.

I would agree. And as alluded to prior this come into the category of work injury compensation. This I see as separate to earning ones keep.

[beelzebub 22,703]

When those who are qualified to say so declare it a bust, upon which the club and Clark will agree upon mutual retirement terms. I've got to say I'm staggered that anyone who saw him play doesn't want to give him every last opportunity to get fixed, especially when all the costs of retention are sunk.

Did you see him this year.. wasnt the same as last, just saying...You may remain staggered by all means .

[Nasher 33,246]

when ?

And I quite comfortably ask as I do not know. Is it still effectively a sunk cost should a contract be paid out and the player not on the list ?

There is NO value that can really be apportioned to a player than can not provide a return ( keeping in vogue )

Id be interested to know. ( doubt Im alone )

You still have to pay him his fixed term contract and it's still counted in the cap, and besides we're still miles off reaching the cap anyway. So yes it's sunk. I only see downside to delisting him and no upside.

[Jhorse 36]

Whilst this is obviously hugely disappointing, I think this is a great opportunity for fitzy to try and cement his spot in the 22.

I think that if he proves simply too good to drop then we should consider playing Hogan at centre half back until Clark finishes up in a few years time.

I could see Hogan playing a similar role to Hurley at the dons, playing based where we need him most during the game and throughout the season.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,000]

he was rushed back for round 1 when he wasnt close o being ready and Mark Neeld and David Misson should be ashamed of themselves

I hope Clark sues them both

Way to rewrite history.

[beelzebub 22,703]

When those who are qualified to say so declare it a bust, upon which the club and Clark will agree upon mutual retirement terms. I've got to say I'm staggered that anyone who saw him play doesn't want to give him every last opportunity to get fixed, especially when all the costs of retention are sunk.

So you agree theres a tipping point. Its what its all about, like it or not..

(apol should have made it one post )

[Nasher 33,246]

Did you see him this year.. wasnt the same as last, just saying...You may remain staggered by all means .

I suspect he might have been playing injured. Just a hunch ;-)

[beelzebub 22,703]

You still have to pay him his fixed term contract and it's still counted in the cap, and besides we're still miles off reaching the cap anyway. So yes it's sunk. I only see downside to delisting him and no upside.

This is where we will differ then.If the player cant come to the filed and play ( i.e ) return to the value invested then there ought be a consideration to employing someone who can provide a better contribution on the field in that time frame. Thats business, thats what this game has become. Its not about the player, its about the team.

Go Dees

[Jaded No More 59,760]

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

So we just give up on a potential star because he's injured? Are you for real?

[beelzebub 22,703]

So we just give up on a potential star because he's injured? Are you for real?

Its not JUST an injury... Its not JUST giving up

At some point a call is required

Edited July 22, 2013 by belzebub59

[dazzledavey36 49,736]

he was rushed back for round 1 when he wasnt close o being ready and Mark Neeld and David Misson should be ashamed of themselves

I hope Clark sues them both

Did you ever think that maybe clark could have told them that he felt 100% right to go and his ankle was good as gold.

Takes two to tango HH

[beelzebub 22,703]

Did you ever think that maybe clark could have told them that he felt 100% right to go and his ankle was good as gold.

Takes two to tango HH

I thought the quacks got the last call

[Sir Why You Little 35,318]

How much does a modern footy boot give protection.

Can Mitch have a special boot made to enable him to play?

[BarnDee 287]

I said this a fair while back that Clarke and dawes will never play together , god sake I hope im wrong , he went in to have a screw removed for fark sake , did they chop off his foot to get it out , ? worried here ,

[Jaded No More 59,760]

Its not JUST an injury... Its not JUST giving up

At some point a call is required

That point is not now.

[beelzebub 22,703]

That point is not now.

you do realise I wrote...if not up for 2014 ?

There cant be too much ifs or butts here. Surely they will know within months whether he will rise for next year.

if its doubtful it has to raise questions. Its just being realistic

[Radar Detector 1,339]

how about we look beyond all the luvvy dovey and get players that can stay on the non-injured list ?

I couldn't care nor ever have for individuals or and attachment thereto come footy

I follow the team. Can we get a best 22 to play with some consistency and continuity ?

I wish Clark well as a bloke but hes not adding to the gameday and Thats when the real work is done...the stuff that counts.

If hes unable to play fit in 14 then quite simply he oughtnt be on the list.

Geez BB, you are the ultimate hindsight warrior. You speak as if picking players who will stay on the park is a simple exercise. The injury Clark sustained could not have been predicted as a result of any injury history so the point as to how much he is paid is an irrelevance.

Clark when fit is in the best 2 players in the side so surely you wish him well and hope he recovers.

The self-righteous impatience on this forum disgusts me at times.

[Deez 298]

My memory is foggy but Hird was out for a full year , Clarke is now been out way past that I think.

No doubt someone will tell me I am delusional.

I seriously doubt that will happen at the dees he will need to play for another 6 - 8 years.

I dont think Melb needs 6-8 years to win a flag, thats a long time.

3-6 years is more realistic.

If clark isnt ready to go by 2014 or during 2014 then there is something very wrong.

i hope for a speedy recovery, he did after all give this club and its supporters a lot of hope and while he played wasn't it fantastic?

[beelzebub 22,703]

Geez BB, you are the ultimate hindsight warrior. You speak as if picking players who will stay on the park is a simple exercise. The injury Clark sustained could not have been predicted as a result of any injury history so the point as to how much he is paid is an irrelevance.

Clark when fit is in the best 2 players in the side so surely you wish him well and hope he recovers.

The self-righteous impatience on this forum disgusts me at times.

and we still dont get the point.

I AM looking forward...thats the whole point...but to what ?

If we fail to appreciate the past we are doomed to repeat it as the future.

So many are seemingly happy to over look the reality that poor ol Mitch has fronted only 15 games for the red and blue

Some might need a quick history lesson that he has been injury plagues throughout his career effectively missing approx a 1/3 of his potential games before reaching us.

This doesnt bode well going forward. He Has only played ONE season uninterupted

This has nothing to do with DO with whether I want him to play ( of course I do ) its whether I seriously expect him to be able to

The track record suggests no. Scold me for seeing things plain.

[Demonsterative 2,338]

The point is ppl disagree with you.

[beelzebub 22,703]

The point is ppl disagree with you.

remind me...whens Mitch likely to play next ?