On Twitter: .@melbournefc deny Paul Roos has come to an agreement with Mark Jamar to trade the ruckman who has two years remaining on his contract

Note: That's not an official MFC tweet but from Peter Ryan who works with AFL media

I don't think anyone really cares now (they are too excited).

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-10-10/jamar-reports-wrong

I'm not a happy little vegemite anymore.

What about Jamar + Pick 2 for Jack Stevens and Pick 17

Thoughts???

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-10-10/jamar-reports-wrong

I'm not a happy little vegemite anymore.

wouldnt put the vegemite away just yet

If Jamars rumoured movement is true I expect the club to be silent until they had some possible suitors. With 2 years left on his contract it will be a huge embarrasment if they put him on the market with no likely takers.

Edited October 10, 201311 yr by america de cali

Dees have officially denied this: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-10-10/dees-deny-mutual-agreement-with-jamar

Mahoney hasn't categorically stated that Jamar is a required player going forward - to me that means he's on the move.

I'd be happy for the equivalent of a soccer style "free transfer" to any club just to get that ridiculous contract off the books. (Maybe we could package Pederson in to the deal. lol)

Another 10 yr player that OVERALL hasn't delivered

Had one great year.

I'm happy about this, more because it appears to have been handled well and amicable. It was a woeful decision to award him a 3 year contract at his age, but he has been a good servant of our club and I wish him all the best. I would certainly see Geelong as a potential fit, their rucks were terrible in the finals and although Jamar has been injury prone the last year I think he would make a good addition to their side.

In terms of what we can get for him, I'd hope for a late 2nd rounder. More than likely we'll probably get a 3rd rounder though.

Good luck Russian.

Edited October 10, 201311 yr by Pates

Dees have officially denied this: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-10-10/dees-deny-mutual-agreement-with-jamar

theres a lot of 'football speak " in there. You know, the kind that says " we're right behind ( insert player/coach/etc)"

i would have thought by now most would dismiss what's said and look to what happens. eh Paul

I suppose I should've gone through the entire post! Interesting that we've refuted the article, usually if there's truth to it they let it slide.

I still think it would be the best move for both parties, but whatever happens happens.

theres a lot of 'football speak " in there. You know, the kind that says " we're right behind ( insert player/coach/etc)"

i would have thought by now most would dismiss what's said and look to what happens. eh Paul

Well if they come out and say that they have agreed to part then that would probably lower his trade value.

Whereas if we come out and say we are willing to trade him but he is still wanted then we might be able to get a slightly better deal.

Well if they come out and say that they have agreed to part then that would probably lower his trade value.

Whereas if we come out and say we are willing to trade him but he is still wanted then we might be able to get a slightly better deal.

Do you really think that clubs are that silly.......All club think they know what they want and how much they are willing to give up.....Not having a go but clubs are smarter than that.....

I think if we are getting rid of Jamar we need to get a new ruck prospect.

Gawn - good but 2 knee recos

Fitzy - a 2nd ruckman

Spencer - VFL player

We cant put all our eggs in one basket.

Maybe Jamar to Freo for Jack Hannath?

Mitch Clark

This may have been the conversation that never happened between Roos and Jamar:

MJ" I hear you are speaking to Jolly"

PR"Yep"

MJ"Where do I fit in"

PR"Second Ruckman behind Jolly"

MJ"Thats Crap can you find me a trade"

PR"If that is what you want we will try"

The only thing worse than getting Jolly would be not trading Jamar if we got Jolly.

However, personally I think Jamar is a likable guy and decent trainer. I'd keep him around if no one wanted to give us anything for him and make him pressure Spencer and Gawn into some reasonable football. And if we want to keep guys like Sylvia in the future the best way to do that is to stop trading away anyone over 30 so it sends a message you can complete a career at Melbourne.

The only thing worse than getting Jolly would be not trading Jamar if we got Jolly.

However, personally I think Jamar is a likable guy and decent trainer. I'd keep him around if no one wanted to give us anything for him and make him pressure Spencer and Gawn into some reasonable football. And if we want to keep guys like Sylvia in the future the best way to do that is to stop trading away anyone over 30 so it sends a message you can complete a career at Melbourne.

I would prefer Jamar to Jolly tbh, there is a reason Collingwood got rid of him, he will struggle to play out the year, unless this is a nice backup/combo with Gawn taking a larger role?

The only thing worse than getting Jolly would be not trading Jamar if we got Jolly.

However, personally I think Jamar is a likable guy and decent trainer. I'd keep him around if no one wanted to give us anything for him and make him pressure Spencer and Gawn into some reasonable football. And if we want to keep guys like Sylvia in the future the best way to do that is to stop trading away anyone over 30 so it sends a message you can complete a career at Melbourne.

I've been impressed when I've heard Jamar interviewed - showed intelligence and leadership. On the other hand I have heard that "decent trainer" is not necessarily accurate.

We will get Jolly for a year Roos has offered him a spot. It is now up to him if he wants it.

I wonder what we can get for him...

Whether we can get a lot or little (more likely) for him, I can only presume his replacement with Jolly - a man begging for a position on another senior list will allow more playing room in the salary cap to poach other players (e.g. A quality midfielder).

Anything acquired in a trade will be a bonus.

Edited October 10, 201311 yr by ignition.

I would prefer Jamar to Jolly tbh, there is a reason Collingwood got rid of him, he will struggle to play out the year, unless this is a nice backup/combo with Gawn taking a larger role?

I sense Roos would prefer to have a bit of a clean out of the NQR's. In Jolly he has someone who can at least compete at the elite level. He can do that whilst either Spencil or the Gawnski comes on , all the whiles coaching them. Theres value in that...a continuity too. Roos likes continuity

Jamar not officially on the table until Jolly actually commits to playing on with us is my guess.

Jamar not officially on the table until Jolly actually commits to playing on with us is my guess.

I still wonder if we could float some sort of deal to the Aints for Ray. Unlikely I know but who would have suspected yesterday that Big Ben was on the move ?

funny game footy !!

Seems a tad pointless.

And you deny until they're gone.

Remember the second language of the AFL is lying!

Remember the second language of the AFL is lying!

thought it was the first !!

Just taking it one lie at a time ....

I'm happy about this, more because it appears to have been handled well and amicable. It was a woeful decision to award him a 3 year contract at his age, but he has been a good servant of our club and I wish him all the best. I would certainly see Geelong as a potential fit, their rucks were terrible in the finals and although Jamar has been injury prone the last year I think he would make a good addition to their side.

In terms of what we can get for him, I'd hope for a late 2nd rounder. More than likely we'll probably get a 3rd rounder though.

Good luck Russian.

I think at that time when Jamar signed that contract, that Gawn, Spencer, & Fitz were under-performing with Gawn injured.