All about Mitch Clark

[Pennant St Dee 12,658]

he already is on ice.

Wasn't that Ben Cousins

[Sir Why You Little 36,624]

Wasn't that Ben Cousins

was waiting for that comment!!

[General 35]

Not sure that is true.

Lets assume Clark has come to the conclusion my body and mind cannot do this anymore I want to stop.

Then his agent who will be wanting to achieve two things IMO

- Get the best financial deal he can for Clark

- ensure he maximizes his commission because there is probably no more from Clark.

So try a subtle paint of the MFC as " we want to discuss an exit structure for Mitch"

Puts the ball back in the MFC court to come up with an offer.

Surely he has entitlements according to the EBA and he won't get any more than that. Is there any room for negotiation. I wouldn't want MFC to hand out any more money.

[old dee 23,487]

Surely he has entitlements according to the EBA and he won't get any more than that. Is there any room for negotiation. I wouldn't want MFC to hand out any more money.

I don't disagree with you General but I have little idea of what the player agreement is in this area.

The MFC because of his mental problems may feel obliged to give a little more than that.

[nutbean 8,838]

I suspect the change is underway.

90% of kids in the draft are skinny.

Look at Daniher at Essendon. Look at Buckley at Carlton.

There are many good reasons why our draft picks have failed - being skinny isnt one of them.

[monoccular 17,315]

You mean a graduate who has a career in front of them rather than one that has just totally finished? Missed the point mate.

No, not at all - how many graduates stay in the same job for ever? Very few these days. Most make career changes several times....and most start in their mid 20s with little or nothing in hand financially, just a lot of debt. Footballers are very capable of developing a career after they finish playing: if they choose not to, it is up to them. They have had a far better start than most.

You say their careers have totally finished - do you really expect that they should be able to sit back on their asses for the rest of their days?? Come on.

Edited April 7, 2014 by monoccular

[McQueen 17,864]

So no outcome today?

[TGR 1,367]

When Clark quits, the club should make a special plea to the AFL for an extra 2 rookie spots right now. Surely there is a decent ruckman around the country not on an AFL list.

The AFL rejected the priority pick at the end of last year because they were worried about the deflating-Neeld-effect followed by the springboard-Roos-effect. If we get less than 4 wins this year, gee wiz, they should throw pick 1, 2, 20, 21 our way.

[old dee 23,487]

So no outcome today?

Nothing yet but who knows what time the meeting was.

It might not have happened yet.

[daisycutter 29,317]

When Clark quits, the club should make a special plea to the AFL for an extra 2 rookie spots right now. Surely there is a decent ruckman around the country not on an AFL list.

The AFL rejected the priority pick at the end of last year because they were worried about the deflating-Neeld-effect followed by the springboard-Roos-effect. If we get less than 4 wins this year, gee wiz, they should throw pick 1, 2, 20, 21 our way.

forget the weak reasons they gave, it was more about pressure from certain clubs of the dissatisfaction over the lack of (non)tanking draft penalties

[old dee 23,487]

When Clark quits, the club should make a special plea to the AFL for an extra 2 rookie spots right now. Surely there is a decent ruckman around the country not on an AFL list.

The AFL rejected the priority pick at the end of last year because they were worried about the deflating-Neeld-effect followed by the springboard-Roos-effect. If we get less than 4 wins this year, gee wiz, they should throw pick 1, 2, 20, 21 our way.

A bullet might show more mercy.

[Whispering_Jack 29,180]

forget the weak reasons they gave, it was more about pressure from certain clubs of the dissatisfaction over the lack of (non)tanking draft penalties

Under any honest system you don't get penalised for the same thing twice. Perhaps that's why the AFL made up the bull[censored] about us having the ability to bounce back properly. It was purely because of pressure from other clubs, most of them led by hypocrites who went on a junket with Vlad to work out ways of evening up the system. More bull [censored].

[old dee 23,487]

Under any honest system you don't get penalised for the same thing twice. Perhaps that's why the AFL made up the bull[censored] about us having the ability to bounce back properly. It was purely because of pressure from other clubs, most of them led by hypocrites who went on a junket with Vlad to work out ways of evening up the system. More bull [censored].

Fair bit of that bull [censored] floating around these days WJ

The up side is a fair bit of it has stopped on Demonland since reality set in over the last month

Edited April 7, 2014 by old dee

[Dr. Gonzo 23,701]

Under any honest system you don't get penalised for the same thing twice. Perhaps that's why the AFL made up the bull[censored] about us having the ability to bounce back properly. It was purely because of pressure from other clubs, most of them led by hypocrites who went on a junket with Vlad to work out ways of evening up the system. More bull [censored].

And who had also benefited from the PP's in the past and when it was calculated over one seasons performance.

[Pirlo 813]

So no outcome today?

Roosy said that he thinks there'll be a meeting later in the week.

One of the most clear pressers you'll ever see http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2014-04-07/roos-on-mitch-clark

Mitch is surely gone.

Edited April 7, 2014 by HFF

[McQueen 17,864]

Roosy said that he thinks there'll be a meeting later in the week.

One of the most clear pressers you'll ever see http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2014-04-07/roos-on-mitch-clark

Mitch is surely gone.

Indeed. Sorry Roosy but that was just a big plain fail in trying to make an inevitable situation sound otherwise.

[sue 9,005]

Roosy said that he thinks there'll be a meeting later in the week.

One of the most clear pressers you'll ever see http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2014-04-07/roos-on-mitch-clark

Mitch is surely gone.

It was clear - you could actually hear (sort of) the questions he was asked unlike the usual post-match media conferences.

[deeflog 679]

After watching that presser

GONE

[old dee 23,487]

It was clear - you could actually hear (sort of) the questions he was asked unlike the usual post-match media conferences.

What someone gave them a microphone.

Bloody marvellous modern communications

[olisik 4,060]

There goes the handout the AFL gave us.

All those sceptics about us paying overs for Mitch will be making it known.

[P-man 13,366]

After watching that presser

GONE

How you got that clearly from Roos' presser I'm not sure. He could not have been more vague. He simply doesn't know. We'll find out soon enough.

[beelzebub 23,198]

[hardtack 10,400]

Robbo on AFL360 just said that from what he knows today, Mitch is not walking away from footy, but also, he is not walking straight back into it.

[Gorgoroth 12,701]

Roos just said tomorrow or Wednesday,

Robbo said straight after his mail is Clark is not walking away from footy but not walking back to the club just yet.

[P-man 13,366]

Robbo is usually pretty reliable with this stuff. Might be hope for him yet by the sounds.