When it comes to compensation - if you ignore all the periphery issues - Clark is a 27 year old ruckman/forward who has played 15 games in the last 3 seasons...

He is also unfit, has a history of mental illness that clubs - for good or bad - will have to take into account...

To Melbourne 'The Decline of Mitch Clark' story is worth quite a bit - he was a player who was easily our most talented and damaging player.

To other Clubs 'The Decline of Mitch Clark' story is irrelevant to how much they will fork over for him. There is so much 'IF' coming off his potential AFL career re-ignition that clubs would not offer anything more than a prospective pick.

If we are to get anything worthwhile - it is going to be through AFL House and not from Seaford, Lexus Centre, Waverley or Essendon Airport...

How do those who complain we go 'cap in hand' to the AFL too often feel about that?

Or are those people ok with getting Pick 45 for Clark from Collingwood or Hawthorn?

We get way overs for Frawley, because reality is, he's not worth a Pick 3 (Judd was traded to Carlton for Pick 3!).

Pick 3 PLUS Kennedy who was pick 4 the year before

The eagles did OK out of that

Can I clarify a few things....

When did MFC offer a contract to MC?

When did MFC offer a rookie spot?

Who has stated that the said contract is more or less than MC wanted?

All this crap started yesterday when Mitch's agent said he was interested in making a comeback

He has met with the coach ONCE for preliminary chat after training with MFC training staff

The media is in free fall over One statement by said agent that MC is/was keen to get back and now all of a sudden he is going to Hawks/StKilda/and everyone else

The club is not happy that all this has come out

Posters are calling MC everything under the sun

Have I got this right?????

The question is: What is Mitch Clark worth, as of now?

If another club wants to offer him a highish base salary and a spot on the main list, he'll have to take it.

Because we can't afford to offer him that, most of all from the point of view of list management.

Look at our rucks & KPs. Hogan's not yet back after a whole season. Frawley's probably gone. Jamar in the twilight of his career. Spencer injured most of the year. We simply can't afford to keep a main list position for someone from whom the odds are against taking the field in 2015.

It is not unreasonable for him to want the security of a highish base salary and a main list position.

We're simply in no position to offer him that.

On his good days Mitch is a match winner. How much would a club in their premiership window with a lack of tall forwards be willing to gamble on him? I'd say, if there was no safer bet available, a first rounder isn't out of the realms of possibility.

Given his history, it is a risk- but the potential upside could be too tempting to pass up on.

When it comes to compensation - if you ignore all the periphery issues - Clark is a 27 year old ruckman/forward who has played 15 games in the last 3 seasons...

He is also unfit, has a history of mental illness that clubs - for good or bad - will have to take into account...

To Melbourne 'The Decline of Mitch Clark' story is worth quite a bit - he was a player who was easily our most talented and damaging player.

To other Clubs 'The Decline of Mitch Clark' story is irrelevant to how much they will fork over for him. There is so much 'IF' coming off his potential AFL career re-ignition that clubs would not offer anything more than a prospective pick.

If we are to get anything worthwhile - it is going to be through AFL House and not from Seaford, Lexus Centre, Waverley or Essendon Airport...

How do those who complain we go 'cap in hand' to the AFL too often feel about that?

Or are those people ok with getting Pick 45 for Clark from Collingwood or Hawthorn?

Some previously injured ruckmen have changed clubs and done well. Paul Salmon for eg.

Day 2 and i am already sick of this.

To suggest a player needs a fresh start somewhere else as our club may cause a depression relapse is depressing in itself

Exactly, he's depressed?? What about the lifetime supporters of this rabble ?

This is going to be one hell of an end of season.

Those who reckon it more resembles paint drying better buckle yourself in. Strange times ahead.

Edited September 9, 201411 yr by beelzebub

C&B What's with the new Avatar?

If Melbourne isn't willing to take a risk on Clark, why would any other club?

We have salary cap space, and plenty of free spots on the list, and we desperatly need talented experienced players.

If MC and his management can get a lucrative deal for him from a club too blind to be worried by his baggage, good luck to them.

I would think the honourable thing to do would be for MC to take a one year deal or a rookie spot on a reduced salary, and take a slowly slowly approach with the support of the club that has done everything right by his so far.

To other Clubs 'The Decline of Mitch Clark' story is irrelevant to how much they will fork over for him. There is so much 'IF' coming off his potential AFL career re-ignition that clubs would not offer anything more than a prospective pick.

Completely disagree with this important point. It has been claimed that 6 clubs are interested in him - of course they are, if he is fit and healthy then he is going to be a massive get for somebody. If we trade with another club surely it will be for something n the 20s or better if a bidding war gets underway.

Can I clarify a few things....

When did MFC offer a contract to MC?

When did MFC offer a rookie spot?

Who has stated that the said contract is more or less than MC wanted?

All this crap started yesterday when Mitch's agent said he was interested in making a comeback

He has met with the coach ONCE for preliminary chat after training with MFC training staff

The media is in free fall over One statement by said agent that MC is/was keen to get back and now all of a sudden he is going to Hawks/StKilda/and everyone else

The club is not happy that all this has come out

Posters are calling MC everything under the sun

Have I got this right?????

Everything except the statement by Clark himself plus Roos, Mahoney and Jackson plus a score of media types which have all provided fodder for the discussion

Can I clarify a few things....

When did MFC offer a contract to MC?

When did MFC offer a rookie spot?

Who has stated that the said contract is more or less than MC wanted?

All this crap started yesterday when Mitch's agent said he was interested in making a comeback

He has met with the coach ONCE for preliminary chat after training with MFC training staff

The media is in free fall over One statement by said agent that MC is/was keen to get back and now all of a sudden he is going to Hawks/StKilda/and everyone else

The club is not happy that all this has come out

Posters are calling MC everything under the sun

Have I got this right?????

I understand your points.

It's not a matter of discussing contracts - FGS, there was coffee, so that can't happen! I'm sure Roos would have just sketched out the basic parameters of what coming back to MFC would involve, from MFC perspective.

And the problem is IMO that, even on this "basic parameters" level, what we want and what he wants are diametrically opposed.

We would have liked more time to get him used to the idea of a highly conditional arrangement, to be expanded later if things went well. In our current state, that's the best MFC can offer him.

He, quite reasonably, will want a secure arrangement - base salary, main list. What he earns from whatever remains of his footy career will have to last him.

What we want is a big risk for him. What he's likely to want is a big risk for us. The actual numbers are just details.

I take great interest in what GNF has to say. Is he/she FOS? Who knows, but there seems to be a lot of accuracy in what they post.

Further to that, I recall seeing GNF post about the MFC willing to play games (or similar) in a bid to keep a potential return from Clark "hidden" for as long as possible.

If the last 24 hours is anything to go by, this is one fcuked up game, but maybe it's just that, a game? Could OUR club be ahead of the comp, rather than being "blindsided" as reported?

When it comes to compensation - if you ignore all the periphery issues - Clark is a 27 year old ruckman/forward who has played 15 games in the last 3 seasons...

He is also unfit, has a history of mental illness that clubs - for good or bad - will have to take into account...

To Melbourne 'The Decline of Mitch Clark' story is worth quite a bit - he was a player who was easily our most talented and damaging player.

To other Clubs 'The Decline of Mitch Clark' story is irrelevant to how much they will fork over for him. There is so much 'IF' coming off his potential AFL career re-ignition that clubs would not offer anything more than a prospective pick.

If we are to get anything worthwhile - it is going to be through AFL House and not from Seaford, Lexus Centre, Waverley or Essendon Airport...

How do those who complain we go 'cap in hand' to the AFL too often feel about that?

Or are those people ok with getting Pick 45 for Clark from Collingwood or Hawthorn?

Isn't compensation determined by the value of the new contract not an arbitrary measure of player worth?

I understand those who feel MC wouldn't be worth a first or second rnd pick as a result of only playing 15 games in 3 seasons, but if another club deem him worth a $500k contract, than that's what he is worth. Because of this I think the best case scenario for all involved is a one year contract that allows him to test-the-market in 2016 if he so wishes > he'll get a contract that reflects his true value, and we'll get to keep him or get proper compensation.

I take great interest in what GNF has to say. Is he/she FOS? Who knows, but there seems to be a lot of accuracy in what they post.

Further to that, I recall seeing GNF post about the MFC willing to play games (or similar) in a bid to keep a potential return from Clark "hidden" for as long as possible.

If the last 24 hours is anything to go by, this is one fcuked up game, but maybe it's just that, a game? Could OUR club be ahead of the comp, rather than being "blindsided" as reported?

We've been behind the 8 ball far too many times for this to even be comprehended.

This is like watching people argue in another language

I take great interest in what GNF has to say. Is he/she FOS? Who knows, but there seems to be a lot of accuracy in what they post.

Further to that, I recall seeing GNF post about the MFC willing to play games (or similar) in a bid to keep a potential return from Clark "hidden" for as long as possible.

If the last 24 hours is anything to go by, this is one fcuked up game, but maybe it's just that, a game? Could OUR club be ahead of the comp, rather than being "blindsided" as reported?

GNF posted in this thread around 24 hours ago with a title of "MFC blindsided". I suggest you read it, as like you I rate his posts massively.

GNF posted in this thread around 24 hours ago with a title of "MFC blindsided". I suggest you read it, as like you I rate his posts massively.

I did read it SS.

Could that be part of "the game"?

Can someone please advise under what rules we would get compensation, mitch is not a free agent so does not go under the same remuneration as frawley i.e. length and value of contract. The only way I believe we can get compensated for Mitch leaving is by going to the AFL cap in hand and saying please sir we have been hit by exceptional circumstances, can we have another PP to compensate, which the AFL would then adjudicate. The other clubs would obviously protest because essentially Mitch is just walking away from Melbourne hence I cannot see them as being keen on giving us compensation.

If Melbourne isn't willing to take a risk on Clark, why would any other club?

We have salary cap space, and plenty of free spots on the list, and we desperatly need talented experienced players.

If MC and his management can get a lucrative deal for him from a club too blind to be worried by his baggage, good luck to them.

I would think the honourable thing to do would be for MC to take a one year deal or a rookie spot on a reduced salary, and take a slowly slowly approach with the support of the club that has done everything right by his so far.

not just the honourable thing jaded but probably the most sensible thing for someone suffering depression

i'm sure if was successful then mfc would take him off the rookie list and offer a good contract (or he could then test the waters elsewhere)

if he puts money before his health he is playing russian roulette

Apparently when asked about his sighting at westpac centre he said he was just going up for a look. His father has been hired as a recruiter...

Is his father that enormous slob I saw outside the Lexus / Westpac / Eddie centre.....????

Some previously injured ruckmen have changed clubs and done well. Paul Salmon for eg.

Shaun Rehn??

I understand your points.

It's not a matter of discussing contracts - FGS, there was coffee, so that can't happen! I'm sure Roos would have just sketched out the basic parameters of what coming back to MFC would involve, from MFC perspective.

And the problem is IMO that, even on this "basic parameters" level, what we want and what he wants are diametrically opposed.

We would have liked more time to get him used to the idea of a highly conditional arrangement, to be expanded later if things went well. In our current state, that's the best MFC can offer him.

He, quite reasonably, will want a secure arrangement - base salary, main list. What he earns from whatever remains of his footy career will have to last him.

What we want is a big risk for him. What he's likely to want is a big risk for us. The actual numbers are just details.

OMG I find that so so reflects the 'age of entitlement' so prevalent today.

He can actually get a very good job after footy, probably more so than many others. CLICK !!

I get so sick and tired of people saying that these poor precious pampered kids need to stash away 40 or 50 years of savings during their footy careers as if they should feel justified in never working again. Most normal untalented kids are only just establishing their careers in their mid to late 20s.

If MC and his management can get a lucrative deal for him from a club too blind to be worried by his baggage, good luck to them.

I would think the honourable thing to do would be for MC to take a one year deal or a rookie spot on a reduced salary, and take a slowly slowly approach with the support of the club that has done everything right by his so far.

This is it in a nutshell.

On the other hand, there are top-4-or-thereabouts clubs which are well-off for talls (so could spare a spot on their list for most of the season), with a view to MC, in the best circumstances, breaking into their team in late 2015 and being the big KPF that makes the difference between a GF and a finals also-ran. That's the temptation.

It's just that we simply can't offer him that. And he may well end up having to "take it or leave it" with MFC - not as the "honourable" thing, but as the "pragmatic" thing.

I did read it SS.

Could that be part of "the game"?

Paul Roos may be a God but I don't think he's a great actor. The emotions he was showing on TV looked pretty authentic.