'There are those who make it happen, there are those who watch it happen and there are those who wonder what happened.'

Whether or not Frawley said those things in the above post doesn't phase me. (However it wouldn't surprise me if true).

The MFC have been and still are in a 'stage' of needing players who are self driven and want to make change at the club.

Frawley, for various reasons, is not and was not ever that player/personality. Which is why he needed to go. We've been able to land two highly talented midfielders who both possess more self-drive, motivation and work ethic than Frawley ever displayed.

Supporters are shortsighted when it comes to losing players they've formed emotional attachments to. But for the long term improvement and survival of the club, we needed this to happen and I'm so glad it eventuated.

Frawley is a follower. Not a leader.

The MFC has been an environment filled with followers for too long.

Irony overload....

Supporters are shortsighted when it comes to losing players they've formed emotional attachments to.

And then

We've been able to land two highly talented midfielders who both possess more self-drive, motivation and work ethic than Frawley ever displayed.

Good thing you haven't let emotion override reasoned thought.

Frawley is gone..well and good. We got a high draft pick for him great. Many of the criticisms of him are well founded....but the above ???? Please.....

I have to say I never thought Frawley would leave the club.

It's an indictment on the way this club was run for so long that he did.

It's also an indictment on him that he left when it's clear the club has finally got its act together.

I don't get this whole search for a premiership medallion for one's CV - surely it's the journey with a club and a group of mates that's more meaningful in the end.

That said, everyone's got different priorities and perspectives in life (I say that before rpfc or nutbean come back at me with the obligatory 'there's no loyalty, it's a business' post).

It's also an indictment on him that he left when it's clear the club has finally got its act together.

I hate to channel my inner Old Dee here but we haven't officially 'got our act together' until we actually start winning on a regular basis. I remember things being said to that effect just after Neeld was hired and the truth is that the club was probably one of the biggest circuses that the AFL has ever seen (and would become an ever bigger circus over the ensuing 12 months).

That being said, this time around we do have people in charge with some runs on the board (albeit at other clubs) which is slightly more reassuring.

As for Chip, I can see why he left. The club has yet to prove that it has cleaned up it's act entirely and he probably has 4 to 5 years left to achieve something meaningful from his career. Unlike someone else who we all know and loathe, he never came out and said that he wanted to remain a 'one club player' and didn't lie to an ailing club president about staying. Not that Chip could have done this but he wasn't also spotted out at Waverley prior to his signing all the while insisting that he was just 'checking the facilities out' like a certain someone else who was spotted at Tullamarine while preparing for a flight to Sydney.

If you want to blame anyone for Chip leaving, blame the spinmeisters, BS artists and the Hollywood Boulevard set who ran the club into the ground in the five years prior to Chip's departure.

Edited December 13, 201410 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

CFB: I'm not going to enter into the pro or anti Chip debate, but I don't think anyone in the anti camp has said he behaved as badly as $cully.

CFB: I'm not going to enter into the pro or anti Chip debate, but I don't think anyone in the anti camp has said he behaved as badly as $cully.

Perhaps not in so many words but it seems for some that context means nothing.

I don't really blame Scully for leaving. I just felt he was dishonorable in how he did leave. If people wish to blast him for what he did then I am fine with that.

I have heard people bemoan the fact that Chip 'strung us along' but I believe he was as honest as the system allowed him to be. While he didn't come out and say that he was leaving, as PJ said, "He's had an offer on the table for some time - quite a few weeks - so if that was acceptable to him I assume he would have accepted it by now. You could draw your own conclusions I guess." We all knew that he was gone (besides Saty) but it was just a matter of where he was going to.

Frawley is in a different category to Clark and Scully for me. His departure may well turn out to be another blessing, and though his handling of it was poor, I don't blame him for the decison he made.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I don't harbour any ill will towards him though, because the sadist in me would love to see him go empty handed at the Hawks, and on top of that have to witness us winning a flag during his playing career. That would be very sweet indeed.

I have to say I never thought Frawley would leave the club.

It's an indictment on the way this club was run for so long that he did.

It's also an indictment on him that he left when it's clear the club has finally got its act together.

I don't get this whole search for a premiership medallion for one's CV - surely it's the journey with a club and a group of mates that's more meaningful in the end.

That said, everyone's got different priorities and perspectives in life (I say that before rpfc or nutbean come back at me with the obligatory 'there's no loyalty, it's a business' post).

You know I can't let that go !

You seriously don't understand the whole wanting to play finals and a premiership ? I get that it would be the sweetest feeling reaching the ultimate with teammates you have struggled with for many years. But I would suggest that if you gave a player a clear choice of being a one club player with no premiership or moving clubs to play in with a team with a realistic chance of snaring the big one then it would be a no brainer.

Having said, I get rivers leaving. He had 3 seasons or so left staring at the possibility of never playing finals again let alone a premiership.

Frawley on the other hand is relatively young and whilst he has gone to a club with definite finals claims and rightful premiership favouritism, he also left at a time where he could see positive improvement at our club and has chosen instant gratification over the choice of working hard to be part of something special.

Edited December 13, 201410 yr by nutbean

There are many reasons that players switch clubs

It happens so often these days that it's not funny........With Chip, he goes and all of a sudden he is a "spud", has no loyalty and some are happy that he is gone because of the draft pick we received. I believe we will miss him

It just doesn't pay to have favourite players these days.......Unfortunately it is the way of the AFL world.

Perhaps Jones next year?????

I have to say I never thought Frawley would leave the club.

It's an indictment on the way this club was run for so long that he did.

No it's not. He went for a chance at a flag and more money.

He said before the season started that he wanted to see the direction, how we went, etc. We really didn't win enough. So he left.

He said before the season started that he wanted to see the direction, how we went, etc. We really didn't win enough. So he left.

And you believe that?

He said before the season started that he wanted to see the direction, how we went, etc. We really didn't win enough. So he left.

It's called superannuation

Good luck to him. It's a win for all parties. Melbourne is strong down back and adds someone who should have an excellent career for us, Hawthorn adds one of the better big backmen in the comp for nothing, and supporters of other clubs get to ignore this and instead can cry tears of candy that the club losing one of its best players gets compensated.

Perhaps not in so many words but it seems for some that context means nothing.

I don't really blame Scully for leaving. I just felt he was dishonorable in how he did leave. If people wish to blast him for what he did then I am fine with that.

I have heard people bemoan the fact that Chip 'strung us along' but I believe he was as honest as the system allowed him to be. While he didn't come out and say that he was leaving, as PJ said, "He's had an offer on the table for some time - quite a few weeks - so if that was acceptable to him I assume he would have accepted it by now. You could draw your own conclusions I guess." We all knew that he was gone (besides Saty) but it was just a matter of where he was going to.

PJ is a wise man and we are very fortunate to have him on board

Frawley is in a different category to Clark and Scully for me. His departure may well turn out to be another blessing, and though his handling of it was poor, I don't blame him for the decison he made.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I don't harbour any ill will towards him though, because the sadist in me would love to see him go empty handed at the Hawks, and on top of that have to witness us winning a flag during his playing career. That would be very sweet indeed.

Agree entirely that Chip probably handled it as best he was allowed, and PJ's quote above showed that the club knew what was really going on.

Clark on the other hand behaved in my opinion despicably - we supported him beyond the requirements in his recovery from both his physical injury and his mental problems, and he strung us along then told us to get stuffed.

I have to say I never thought Frawley would leave the club.

It's an indictment on the way this club was run for so long that he did.

It's also an indictment on him that he left when it's clear the club has finally got its act together.

I don't get this whole search for a premiership medallion for one's CV - surely it's the journey with a club and a group of mates that's more meaningful in the end.

That said, everyone's got different priorities and perspectives in life (I say that before rpfc or nutbean come back at me with the obligatory 'there's no loyalty, it's a business' post).

I don't blame Frawley. How many years do you have to be the totally overwhelmed key backman? Smashed week after week? Chip has endured 4 or 5 shocking seasons and 2 or 3 average ones. I played a lot of footy as a backman and had one or two seasons where you got smashed regularly and it was no fun. But then you would have an up year where th team was on top and winning, then back line play is fun. Too many years played down back under immense pressure can be debilitating, I am not surprised he took off to an easier gig.

Looks like they are pushing him to the max over at Box Hill...

I have forgotten who number 8 was

Whorethorn are putrid in all ways

They must be smashed up before i die or else i will be most surly in the afterlife.

A very big loss for the club but at least we got great compo.

I hate his effen guts.

Friday! Last day! Woo hoo!!

Edited December 16, 201410 yr by jumbo returns

Good luck to him. It's a win for all parties. Melbourne is strong down back and adds someone who should have an excellent career for us, Hawthorn adds one of the better big backmen in the comp for nothing, and supporters of other clubs get to ignore this and instead can cry tears of candy that the club losing one of its best players gets compensated.

I understand free agency and why it's there but from an administrative point of view, I think the highlighted comment is a significant problem. The receiving team, in this case Hawthorn, gives up nothing and the donating team gets a replacement draft pick but every other one of the remaining 16 teams is disadvantaged because (a) the donor gets an additional draft pick bumping everyone else down the order and (b) the receiver hasn't lost a draft pick in return.

Fix that problem and the scheme will be better for everyone. I don't have a magic solution but perhaps if the recipient team is higher on the ladder than the donor, the recipient should have to give up the the next two draft choices after the compensation pick awarded to the donor. Conversely, if the recipient is lower than the donor, perhaps they should have to give up one pick after the recipient's next pick.

if you give your all the club will embrace you like no other."

Like they did for Brad Sewell?

They must be smashed up before i die or else i will be most surly in the afterlife.

I like the timeframe you are putting on the smashing - and I like your commitment that you will even take your grumpiness into the afterlife !!!

I understand free agency and why it's there but from an administrative point of view, I think the highlighted comment is a significant problem. The receiving team, in this case Hawthorn, gives up nothing and the donating team gets a replacement draft pick but every other one of the remaining 16 teams is disadvantaged because (a) the donor gets an additional draft pick bumping everyone else down the order and (b) the receiver hasn't lost a draft pick in return.

Fix that problem and the scheme will be better for everyone. I don't have a magic solution but perhaps if the recipient team is higher on the ladder than the donor, the recipient should have to give up the the next two draft choices after the compensation pick awarded to the donor. Conversely, if the recipient is lower than the donor, perhaps they should have to give up one pick after the recipient's next pick.

+1

a major flaw which i don't recall anyone trying to justify

I understand free agency and why it's there but from an administrative point of view, I think the highlighted comment is a significant problem. The receiving team, in this case Hawthorn, gives up nothing and the donating team gets a replacement draft pick but every other one of the remaining 16 teams is disadvantaged because (a) the donor gets an additional draft pick bumping everyone else down the order and (b) the receiver hasn't lost a draft pick in return.

Fix that problem and the scheme will be better for everyone. I don't have a magic solution but perhaps if the recipient team is higher on the ladder than the donor, the recipient should have to give up the the next two draft choices after the compensation pick awarded to the donor. Conversely, if the recipient is lower than the donor, perhaps they should have to give up one pick after the recipient's next pick.

+1

a major flaw which i don't recall anyone trying to justify

I have argued in the past that this issue can't be rectified cleanly without hurting lower teams more than higher teams.

If we get Dangerfield and have to give up ND4 or ND23 and ND42 - that doesn't help us, and nor is it clean. In the MLB, there is a rule that FAs are graded and clubs who get FAs to their clubs lose picks, but top 10 picks are protected. However, in that sport, the draft is simply an entryway into the system, rookies barely play in their first 4 seasons as 'pros.'

The situation where a team loses ND11, but the next team doesn't lose ND10 is the kind of troublesome outcome where teams middling teams are hurt by these rules.

Hawthorn may not have lost anything - but they paid a lot of money for him...

Perhaps 'grading' players and only allowing top 4 teams to have 1 an off-season, or one every two off-seasons...

The NFL have a similar arrangement.