How about you tightasses focus on his recovery and future value rather than the current ROI?

Seriously he is injured, these things happen, especially to us. He has been worth every cent. Who would you rather give the cash to? Sylvia? Jamar? Gillies?

WTF You say... he has been worth every cent ??? NOT yet he hasn't..unless I have missed something... Try N. Jones , Frawley Garland for starters. not the Sylvia, Jamar or Gillies as the names you so sarcastically wrote. I wish we had a lot more "tightASSES" (donkeys ??) as you put it , around when we hired some of the recent [censored] roaches we somehow managed to bring on board.. After wasting money the way we have we need to be tight ARSES !!

Thats YOUR opinion of AN outcome.

poor of you to suggest thats fact. .is that all you have. really

prove there would be a 800k hole..how ? For all I know you could possibly be right. it doesnt sound so. You offer it as fact..prove it.

The rest is rubbish supposition..

Does it come out of the salary cap if a player is paid out and NOT on the list ?

is it ...

can some one categorically show this ?

If ppl are offering this up pls provide the backing to the argument. Am happy if this is the case i.e Happy to be informed. if its just a 'mud' argument ...then well.

I dont think any boot is much chop in those circumstances

I don't have the latest CBA as they haven't released it publicly but the old CBA had a very narrow Termination intepretation with base contracts:

Schedule B, Section 12: Termination

12.1.b

In such case, the contract shall be at an end provided that the AFL Club shall pay the Player by way of compensation: where the Player’s contract had one or more further years to run, the base

payment for each year following the year in which the Player was delisted;

Added to this is the fact that the AFLPA fought for, and got, a 'Career Ending Injury Bonus' should injury lead to a player not being able to carry on. It is 50% (150% or 200% depending on Age of the player) of that players final year.

http://www.aflpa.com.au/our_services/player_relations_and_advocacy/collective_bargaining_agreement/

This would mean that with Clark on a 4 year $3.2m contract we would have a hole in 2014 of $800k and $1.2m in 2015 that might be $2m.

There is no mention in the exceptions to the Total Player Payments pertainig to terminated players or injury terminations:

11. 2 In calculation of the Total Player Payments for each AFL Club, the following

payments will not be taken into account:

(a) relocation expenses incurred by an AFL Club in respect of an AFL Player

pursuant to paragraph 8 of Schedule B;

(b) the cost of air fares and taxi fares paid in accordance with clause 9.1(a)(ii);

© bereavement assistance (paid to a Player or an Associate of a Player) up to a

limit of $2,000 in the event of a bereavement (or other genuine hardship)

affecting the Player;

(d) the percentage of Football Payments as determined in accordance with

clause 13.3 to Players nominated as veteran Players on the AFL Club’s

Primary List or included on the AFL Club’s Veterans List;

(e) the Football Payments made to a Rookie temporarily promoted to the

Primary List of an AFL Club to replace a Player transferred to the Long

Term Injury List;

(f) subject to clause 16, payments made to a Player pursuant to a bona fide

marketing contract made in accordance with the Guidelines for Additional

Services Agreements;

(g) testimonial payments made to an AFL Player in accordance with clause 15;

(h) Match payments (at the Player’s contract rate for Matches played in the AFL

Premiership Season) made to AFL Players participating in the AFL Finals

Series Matches or the finals allowance determined by AFL from year-toyear,

whichever is the greater;

(i) the cost of air fares and accommodation paid by an AFL Club under

clause 31;

(j) 50% of Football Payments to Rookie Players nominated under clause 14;

(k) living expenses paid under paragraph 8.3 of Schedule B;

(l) prize money paid to Players in accordance with paragraph 17 of Schedule B;

and

(m) top 5 draft pick recognition payments made to Players in accordance with

paragraph 2.7 of Schedule B.

There is very little scope for us to get anything out of moving Clark on. Unless he comes to us and says - I want to take photos of the city full time - we will honour our contracts and work our arses off to get him right.

Lets relax and see how he goes in preseason. A fit Clark and Dawes will be awesome. Fingers crossed

thanks for the effort RPFC

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.

Great... You would be calling us a one man side on that comment.. AND a man who cannot even get on the park.. Maybe I would have a lot more sympathy had he been a long term player having given great service to the club..We must get real and ask the following questions... How long is the injury expected to keep him out of the game ?? Can we get an accurate Medical assessment ?? Is he certain to be available for a full pre season ? If the answer to the latter question is yes, then .. Persevere.. IF no we cannot afford to continue with a contract which may have no real substance.. We must face the facts and not be paying out such big money in hope ... remuneration/contracts should be re negotiated in circumstances such as these.. The question would then follow (if he is out indefinitely) Are you prepared to sit down with the club and talk contract re- negotiation. ? If the answer is no.. then who then is being selfish... ? The Club or the player ??

Great... You would be calling us a one man side on that comment.. AND a man who cannot even get on the park.. Maybe I would have a lot more sympathy had he been a long term player having given great service to the club..We must get real and ask the following questions... How long is the injury expected to keep him out of the game ?? Can we get an accurate Medical assessment ?? Is he certain to be available for a full pre season ? If the answer to the latter question is yes, then .. Persevere.. IF no we cannot afford to continue with a contract which may have no real substance.. We must face the facts and not be paying out such big money in hope ... remuneration/contracts should be re negotiated in circumstances such as these.. The question would then follow (if he is out indefinitely) Are you prepared to sit down with the club and talk contract re- negotiation. ? If the answer is no.. then who then is being selfish... ? The Club or the player ??

mate.....the many simply dont want to listen to this.

Personally I think they are more than valid questions and outcomes. Apparently it goes against the fabric of supporter conscience to step back and attempt to separate realities from hope inspired illusion.

mate.....the many simply dont want to listen to this.

Personally I think they are more than valid questions and outcomes. Apparently it goes against the fabric of supporter conscience to step back and attempt to separate realities from hope inspired illusion.

With all due respect, BB.

We are not the naive ones here.

You are wondering about the pros and cons of delisting a player - most came to the immediate conclusion that it is a terrible idea by instinct.

That may be frustrating for you, but it doesn't mean it is anything other than a terrible idea.

With all due respect, BB.

We are not the naive ones here.

You are wondering about the pros and cons of delisting a player - most came to the immediate conclusion that it is a terrible idea by instinct.

That may be frustrating for you, but it doesn't mean it is anything other than a terrible idea.

The point was...as is always eluded. To be able to coherently look at the situation on its merits.

Most wont. . I have not lobbied for delisting per se only to suggest that might be a reasonable outcome given circumstances as they may evolve.

Btw YOU are the one introducing naive. Im simply suggesting blinkered.

In buisiness terms explain to me why it is such a brilliant outcome , based upon "instincts" NOT to write down a devalued asset when it might be the most astute thing to do.

Much will be dependent upon what state of fitness MC approaches this coming preseason. Im not advocating jumping the gun, all I AM talking of is reasoned discussion about what might be available choices should he not come up.

And by way, if same said player is not capable of earning his dollar why would you not investigate the legitimate exit paths ?

The point was...as is always eluded. To be able to coherently look at the situation on its merits.

Most wont. . I have not lobbied for delisting per se only to suggest that might be a reasonable outcome given circumstances as they may evolve.

Btw YOU are the one introducing naive. Im simply suggesting blinkered.

In buisiness terms explain to me why it is such a brilliant outcome , based upon "instincts" NOT to write down a devalued asset when it might be the most astute thing to do.

Much will be dependent upon what state of fitness MC approaches this coming preseason. Im not advocating jumping the gun, all I AM talking of is reasoned discussion about what might be available choices should he not come up.

And by way, if same said player is not capable of earning his dollar why would you not investigate the legitimate exit paths ?

My sentiments also.. I like Mitch Clark and sincerely hope he "comes up" .. He would be an asset to our club ....on the field...

mate.....the many simply dont want to listen to this.

Personally I think they are more than valid questions and outcomes. Apparently it goes against the fabric of supporter conscience to step back and attempt to separate realities from hope inspired illusion.

It's not that we step back and ask the question, it's because most of us can't be bothered sitting down and calculating 1 + 1 when we already know the answer is 2.

There is very little scope for us to get anything out of moving Clark on. Unless he comes to us and says - I want to take photos of the city full time - we will honour our contracts and work our arses off to get him right.

Did lol.

I thought the quacks got the last call

They will give an oponion if they are ready or not but if the player puts a strong case and say that he feels 110% right the medicos will go with the players call. Fact.

The point was...as is always eluded. To be able to coherently look at the situation on its merits.

Most wont. . I have not lobbied for delisting per se only to suggest that might be a reasonable outcome given circumstances as they may evolve.

Btw YOU are the one introducing naive. Im simply suggesting blinkered.

In buisiness terms explain to me why it is such a brilliant outcome , based upon "instincts" NOT to write down a devalued asset when it might be the most astute thing to do.

Much will be dependent upon what state of fitness MC approaches this coming preseason. Im not advocating jumping the gun, all I AM talking of is reasoned discussion about what might be available choices should he not come up.

And by way, if same said player is not capable of earning his dollar why would you not investigate the legitimate exit paths ?

Ok, then. We are blinkered.

Still right though.

And after I found out that 2015 may include a $2m payout to Clark for a career ending injury - there are $2m reasons to not give up on him and throw resources into his return.

The point was...as is always eluded. To be able to coherently look at the situation on its merits.

Most wont. . I have not lobbied for delisting per se only to suggest that might be a reasonable outcome given circumstances as they may evolve.

Btw YOU are the one introducing naive. Im simply suggesting blinkered.

In buisiness terms explain to me why it is such a brilliant outcome , based upon "instincts" NOT to write down a devalued asset when it might be the most astute thing to do.

Much will be dependent upon what state of fitness MC approaches this coming preseason. Im not advocating jumping the gun, all I AM talking of is reasoned discussion about what might be available choices should he not come up.

And by way, if same said player is not capable of earning his dollar why would you not investigate the legitimate exit paths ?

In 'business' terms, the 'regulator' forces MFC to spend a particular amount each year 'renting' its 'assets'. If MFC doesn't pay rent on one asset, it must spend on another.

If you can realistically show us how we could go to the 'market' and 'procure' an asset for the price for which we are renting Mitch Clark, let's have it.

Business enough for you?

Melbourne's very own Derrick Rose.

The point was...as is always eluded. To be able to coherently look at the situation on its merits.

Most wont. . I have not lobbied for delisting per se only to suggest that might be a reasonable outcome given circumstances as they may evolve.

Btw YOU are the one introducing naive. Im simply suggesting blinkered.

In buisiness terms explain to me why it is such a brilliant outcome , based upon "instincts" NOT to write down a devalued asset when it might be the most astute thing to do.

Much will be dependent upon what state of fitness MC approaches this coming preseason. Im not advocating jumping the gun, all I AM talking of is reasoned discussion about what might be available choices should he not come up.

And by way, if same said player is not capable of earning his dollar why would you not investigate the legitimate exit paths ?

Coherently looking at a situation involves starting with values and principles. Delisting Clark without providing every opportunity for him to recover feels wrong to many on DL because it undermines the culture we desperately need to build.

Salary cap room isnt our priority but building a culture and standing for something is.

It may be just you, chook! The foot is a brilliant combination of flexibility when required, and utter rigidity when being pushed off from. Bear in mind that in sprinting it takes 4 to 5 times the body weight in load at push off, and as such must be a completely rigid lever, then softens when not under load to allow conformation to uneven surfaces......bloody miraculous kit it is!

I'm well aware of how bloody amazing it is; it's just that it looks strange.

I'm well aware of how bloody amazing it is; it's just that it looks strange.

Eye of the beholder.......and all that. ;-)

In 'business' terms, the 'regulator' forces MFC to spend a particular amount each year 'renting' its 'assets'. If MFC doesn't pay rent on one asset, it must spend on another.

If you can realistically show us how we could go to the 'market' and 'procure' an asset for the price for which we are renting Mitch Clark, let's have it.

Business enough for you?

Please don't offer to run my business... Assets....... Renting.... WTF...Waffle waffle...

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.

thats footy, you could say the same about Gawn since we got him...

... with Clark its only the one injury, but its a serious One.

I said during the pre season, that I hoped they didn't rush him in, as this can very easily end his career...

I wonder if it set him back?

Coherently looking at a situation involves starting with values and principles. Delisting Clark without providing every opportunity for him to recover feels wrong to many on DL because it undermines the culture we desperately need to build.

Salary cap room isnt our priority but building a culture and standing for something is.

Chookrat et al

Im not for one moment suggesting all efforts and resources arent thrown at Mitch in the hope that he can do a Richo. Im not sure why anyone would assume so. My whole stance has /is, what happens if that doesnt occur.

im excited to watch him play in our red and blue. He brings something we lack in crate loads to our team.

My whole point , which many seem incapable of understanding , for it requires the separation of widget and results , is what happens if he doesnt. Nothing so far indicates that isnt without a distinct possibility.

Where have I ever suggested he not be afforded the chance to play ? ( not necessarily aimed at you btw ) or be aided to the max to recouperate.

Why on earth would i want him not to participate. Hes integral to our forward hopes.

I want him to play. Im simply playing devils advocate as to where we are, and how we deal with the notion he doesnt.

Chookrat et al

Im not for one moment suggesting all efforts and resources arent thrown at Mitch in the hope that he can do a Richo. Im not sure why anyone would assume so. My whole stance has /is, what happens if that doesnt occur.

im excited to watch him play in our red and blue. He brings something we lack in crate loads to our team.

My whole point , which many seem incapable of understanding , for it requires the separation of widget and results , is what happens if he doesnt. Nothing so far indicates that isnt without a distinct possibility.

Where have I ever suggested he not be afforded the chance to play ? ( not necessarily aimed at you btw ) or be aided to the max to recouperate.

Why on earth would i want him not to participate. Hes integral to our forward hopes.

I want him to play. Im simply playing devils advocate as to where we are, and how we deal with the notion he doesnt.

from all i have seen and heard the club is expecting clark to be fine, the original injury is no longer an issue and it's where the screw was creating almost a hot spot like response, working on the theory that he will be right to go at the start of pre season and they can ease him into things and should be 100% next year.

Chookrat et al

Im not for one moment suggesting all efforts and resources arent thrown at Mitch in the hope that he can do a Richo. Im not sure why anyone would assume so. My whole stance has /is, what happens if that doesnt occur.

im excited to watch him play in our red and blue. He brings something we lack in crate loads to our team.

My whole point , which many seem incapable of understanding , for it requires the separation of widget and results , is what happens if he doesnt. Nothing so far indicates that isnt without a distinct possibility.

Where have I ever suggested he not be afforded the chance to play ? ( not necessarily aimed at you btw ) or be aided to the max to recouperate.

Why on earth would i want him not to participate. Hes integral to our forward hopes.

I want him to play. Im simply playing devils advocate as to where we are, and how we deal with the notion he doesnt.

Fair call BB - with the money our club has wasted over the past 5 years it is hard to take this news, I think we all hope MC makes a full recovery.

My objection to some of the posts has been treating Mitch as a financial asset and not part of team where he contributes to the teams performance as a whole.

Most clubs have players out in any given season and its not something the players or football dept have too much control over. Ive never worked within an AFL club but would expect injuries to core players to be in their top 10 risks.

Lets relax and see how he goes in preseason. A fit Clark and Dawes and Hogan will be awesome. Fingers crossed

Fixed your post

Webber, from your experience is it possible it will never settle, or will rest and drugs etc always allow recovery?

In medical matters, nor indeed in any human endeavor, one should never say never, and never say always!!

I remembered hearing Richo talk about his injury which was aparently the same as MC. He spoke about how the doctors and he made a decision to take the screws out before proceeding with getting him to play again. Is this something that is common? From what it sounds like removing them was inevitability with Mitch, but I guess the doctors and physio's can only go on what Mitch is saying and how it looks.

No two injuries are "the same" eg Egan vs Clark's Lisfranc or Brown and Strauss' lower leg fractures. And no two orthopedic surgeons are the same.

Edited July 23, 201312 yr by monoccular