On 10/09/2014 at 00:19, Fat Tony said:

I think it is partly about money, because Clark's manager is telling him he thinks he can get a better offer.

I just question if any club will take a risk on a player with a bad history of injury and depression after they do their due diligence.

Maybe we don't want to take that risk.

  On 09/09/2014 at 14:04, Curry & Beer said:

.....

He's a shiny Lamborghini in our garage, with major doubts on the engine and other critical parts.

P76 ??

  On 10/09/2014 at 00:21, monoccular said:

P76 ??

Rambler matador

  On 10/09/2014 at 00:21, Redleg said:

Maybe we don't want to take that risk.

Particularly when we feel we can wriggle a priority pick as compensation...

  On 09/09/2014 at 23:39, Redleg said:

Those that think MC should play for us, no matter what we offer him, are living in dreamland.

I would be pretty certain that not one Demonland poster including myself, know exactly what the settlement was.

Given that scenario, how can you logically expect him to play for us at whatever we offer him.

Yes he does owe us for our help in his situation and if nothing else, he has said through his Manager that he would want to be sure we were compensated IF he left.

I am sure everyone would agree if our offer was $1000 for season 2015 he would have every right to refuse that and look elsewhere.

So then the question becomes how much is not enough? Since none of us know what he got in the settlement or what we offered for 2015 I think people should stop abusing MC and let the whole thing go to its conclusion.

Think of it as if he was your brother and not your big hope to save this club.

Can't argue with logic, good post.

I'm relatively new to forums, what does posting in italics suggest or convey?

  On 10/09/2014 at 00:08, Redleg said:

But he did. Roos said on 360 they met for coffee 3 weeks ago and discussed his future.

happy to be corrected but They only caught up last week. Seems it was after the Filth.

  On 10/09/2014 at 00:21, Redleg said:

Maybe we don't want to take that risk.

Maybe we don't. PR was doing his best pollie impression other night evading and ducking some questions about wanting Mitch to comeback...with the Dees

  On 10/09/2014 at 00:21, Redleg said:

Maybe we don't want to take that risk.

I reckon we don't Redleg. I'd be surprised if Paul Roos wasn't trying to avoid unpredictabilities and what ifs, for the sake of a robust, and reliable list with a consistency of output, as much as that can be attained. MC certainly isn't that, sadly for him and us. Or maybe it's just me....

  On 10/09/2014 at 00:26, Ethan Tremblay said:

Can't argue with logic, good post.

I'm relatively new to forums, what does posting in italics suggest or convey?

Nothing, my computer does what it wants and I am too ignorant and lazy to stop it.

Sometimes my print comes up in tiny letters.

  On 09/09/2014 at 06:15, DavidNeitz9 said:

I dont see how listing him as a rookie is even possible. If Clark was in the rookie draft i can''t see StKilda passing on him

Maybe we've all got this back-to-front:

Melbourne says to MC: "We'll put you on the rookie list"

MC's manager says to MC: "That means you would have to go into the rookie draft and you might end up at St Kilda"

MC says to manager: "Help! I really, really love the MFC. They've been good to me and I want to stay there. Please don't let me end up at St Kilda."

I also believe in the tooth fairy.

  On 10/09/2014 at 01:06, beelzebub said:

happy to be corrected but They only caught up last week. Seems it was after the Filth.

Incorrect, I heard Roos say he had spoken to MC a few weeks before this all blew up.

  On 10/09/2014 at 00:22, Fat Tony said:

Particularly when we feel we can wriggle a priority pick as compensation...

Maybe!

  On 10/09/2014 at 00:26, Ethan Tremblay said:

I'm relatively new to forums, what does posting in italics suggest or convey?

A kazakhstani accent.

That's what I hear anyway.

  On 10/09/2014 at 02:01, Redleg said:

Incorrect, I heard Roos say he had spoken to MC a few weeks before this all blew up.

stand corrected

  On 10/09/2014 at 00:26, Ethan Tremblay said:

Can't argue with logic, good post.

I'm relatively new to forums, what does posting in italics suggest or convey?

It's designed to stand out - I would criticise Redleg for trying to win attention to his posts, but, frankly, there should be attention to his posts - they are usually reasoned, well thought out, and rational.

Occasionally, that's in short supply...

Edit: Or sometimes the formatting gets screwed up...

I stand by the attention thing, some of deeluded's posts read like the inside of Maurice Sendak's mind...

  On 09/09/2014 at 23:52, Jaded said:

I don't disagree at all.

Of course MC should try to get a good deal for himself and his future, but do you really think given the space in our cap, that we would offer him a completely unreasonable amount of money? I doubt we would offer him $100k and another club would offer him $500k. If anything, it's more likely that we would only offer him a 1 year contract, where another club might give him 2 or 3 years.

The issue I have is that he went to talk to Collingwood before he talked to Paul Roos. He is still a listed Melbourne player, and he does owe us a level of loyalty, not just for the support we have given him, but for the simple fact that he is still contracted to us until October 31st.

Paul Roos is clearly not happy with the whole thing, and I don't blame him.

Yes, Roosy is clearly unhappy and clearly has MFC's best interests at heart. It's because of this, whatever the outcome, i'm going to be fine with it, due to Roosy and PJ running the show. We might be sh!t on the field, but our coach and CEO are about as competent as you can get.

I'm a bit unclear about this, as I suppose we all are.

In the first case, I'd hate to do anything that would cause complications for a person struggling to recover from a mental illness. I suppose that's the first priority.

But......I didn't like hearing John Ralph (I think) saying on KBs show this morning that Clark wants to go to a big, successful Melbourne club to help with his recovery. I'd like to go to a big successful melbourne club to help with my own recovery (from the pain inflicted by being a Demons supporter) but that's not likely to happen.

Ralphs interpretation of Clarks motives has a hint of selfishness about it - a selfishness which could well be a contributor to depression (just been looking at Anne Mannes new book on our society's growing narcissism - one thing about narcissists - they aren't very happy.

It would help if I knew how well he's been treated to date. The article in The Age this morning implied that he had been generous in letting us off a contract which could have netted him a massive amount for a fourth year. Does anybody know if this is the case? Did we do the right thing by Him? Would we have had to pay another $750000 or whatever? Would there have been a non-performance clause?

I must admit, my initial response was - jeez, this guy's already taken a fortune from a struggling club and given nothing in return. Now? Well, I just don't know, but I'd like to.

My real fear is that this business of everybody wanting to go to the big, successful clubs - even if it is to help with your "recovery" - is another nail in our coffin.

  On 09/09/2014 at 23:39, Redleg said:

Those that think MC should play for us, no matter what we offer him, are living in dreamland.

I would be pretty certain that not one Demonland poster including myself, know exactly what the settlement was.

Given that scenario, how can you logically expect him to play for us at whatever we offer him.

Yes he does owe us for our help in his situation and if nothing else, he has said through his Manager that he would want to be sure we were compensated IF he left.

I am sure everyone would agree if our offer was $1000 for season 2015 he would have every right to refuse that and look elsewhere.

So then the question becomes how much is not enough? Since none of us know what he got in the settlement or what we offered for 2015 I think people should stop abusing MC and let the whole thing go to its conclusion.

Think of it as if he was your brother and not your big hope to save this club.

Good points made - there's been too many abusive posts and hearsay about supposed financial arrangements and sums of money which I don't think many of us on Demonland (if any) have actually been privy to. Also, the notion that a certain amount of money disqualifies you from having depression is nonsense. The black dog takes many forms.

I think the issue that has me confused is the expectation - possibly by MC management - that a person can retire from a career for a period of time (for whatever reason) and then return on the same terms as before. To use an analogy - I work in the building trade - if I went off the tools and into a different career for 5 years and then decided to return as a sub-contractor, I could not expect to immediately command the same rates as before, until I had worked my way back into the groove, which would take some months. I realise that we're not talking 5 years here but, as we're constantly reminded by the AFLPA, football is a short, compressed career (which is apparently why the wages are so high) and a year completely out of the system would set a perfectly healthy player back a long way, let alone one with associated health problems.

One of the reasons mooted for Mitch's retirement, was the amount of pressure he felt being on a large contract and not being able to fulfil his part of the deal because of injury. Surely then, a good way to relieve any re-occurrence of that pressure, would be to begin things slowly on a small contract for a year or so, until he'd played his way back into the game. The financial expectations are low and to a certain extent performance level expectations are realistic, as he's on a path to recovery.

This situation needs to be looked at very much in the long-term, both in Mitch's recovery from physical and mental injury, and the long-term benefit to the club having Mitch back on board. It seems to me that Mitch's management, by shopping Mitch around on the open market is looking at things very much in the short-term.

I wonder if it's this that has reportedly angered Roos so much - that club has been looking at things very much from both sides and invested a patient, holistic, cautious approach with Mitch over the year. Now, in direct contrast, it seems that his management are only interested in how much money they can get. Very jarring for Roos, I'd imagine.

  On 09/09/2014 at 12:51, Curry & Beer said:

I don't see what is so depressing about it. Most here (not me) had the attitude of 'stop dreamin' Mitch will never play again' before this week. Well we haven't got him back, but we will get something, which is more than the nothing we had a week ago. Roos will take that something and turn into quality for the club, so I'm happy.

What's depressing and sad is just how quickly and aggressively everyone has turned on him. I for one will wait for Mitch Clark to officially announce that he will not be at the Dees before I comment on him

A different view. Imaginary, but possible/probable:

Mitch Clark was told several weeks ago that he would be welcomed back onto the main list if he met the criteria of passing the fitness test, a medical exam and a mental health check. Perhaps the rookie list was plan B if he partially met expectations, but looked possible in the near term. If he failed, then we simply couldn't put him on any list - in which case we could maximise our 'out' through a trade or priority pick.

He has been training hard, but realises that there is a long way to go to pass the criteria. Knows his best bet is to start looking elsewhere, and the draft is the better option for Mitch and the club. Therefore chat to the Pies.

This would imply that MFC has been controlling the process - on the quiet for most of the time- and setting the terms.

Club has been blindsided because expectation was for MC to go through the process before decisions were made, not to start trying to find a different exit strategy without the club.

Now there is a lot of backpeddalling - the club would need to tread carefully so as to not show its hand if it put MC up for trade (after failing the criteria for getting back in the list).

Just a thought....

He met with Collingwood before us, that justifies a bit of turning on him.

If Clark wants out, the best thing we can salvage from the wreck is:

Clark for Harry LaBamba straight trade.

The latter has a productive remainder of his career at Melbourne without costing us a draft pick.

The former struggles to play 5 games next year and subsequently retires for good in 12 months time as his body can't cope with the demands.

  On 10/09/2014 at 01:59, Redleg said:

Nothing, my computer does what it wants and I am too ignorant and lazy to stop it.

Sometimes my print comes up in tiny letters.

Sounds exactly like my wife with my credit card !

I agree with the swap mitch for harry, at least harry turns up and plays reasonably well most of the time, where as mitch has the potential to be anything, if he can get his body and mind fit. I think that if he does not do something to help fix up his now tattered image thanks to his manager then some of this will continue to haunt him for years to come.

Too damaged now.

Cya Mitch.

WELCOME TO THE MFC - HERITIER LUMUMBA.