If the Pies are the only club he wants to go to, then you can be pretty sure they have been into him for some time.

Their behaviour is reprehensible if that is the case.

No wonder Eddie is remaining totally silent on the issue.

Plenty to dislike about what has/is transpiring but this is a bit of "leap".

Having said that..GNF posted some time ago on this site regarding him training and what might transpire and if that information appeared on demonland it can't have been too much of a secret. I suspect once the "training" commenced the calls may have started to and from his manager from other clubs.

Geez I am good at arguing against myself.

Run DMC can p??? Off. We were going to get nothing out of him anyway. He is either poorly advised, an absolute jerk off or both. Reputations are made on the quality of the man. Regardless of the D, he is displaying signs which do not bode well for his future (run away, run away!) and he will end up with the reputation of a square of used toilet paper.

Ross Lyon was 5 years too early. We will all be saying 'Mitch who?' - oh yeah, that scumbag.

Time for the club to make a silk purse out of an absolute c&&t. Go for it boys, time for hard ball. If we don't get what we want, neither does Run DMC. (Or Eddie....)

ill be surprised if the big sook even gets on the field

Let's hope so.

Jimmy is still watching Mitch and you should hang your head in shame after all we have done for you. Just pathetic

I have no doubt that Clarks behaviour has been dishonourable and duplicitous and as such he would not be cooperating with us in any way.

However Jackson and Roos are master strategists and will see his defection as an opportunity. Reading between the lines I think they view Clark as too big a risk and as such were only willing to give him a very basic contract.

We will do well out of this situation but that doesn't stop me from having nothing but contempt for the way Clark as treated us.

Think I'll hold off on the outcome of it all to see if they are in this case. With Eddie and the scum involved we may get screwed.

What exactly is the risk with Clark that article refers to? If it's his feet/tissue injuries surely that can be looked at via a medical. If they're referring to his mental issues give me a break! It was never the case that he couldn't play because of depression, it was because his body kept breaking down.

That's just bull [censored] Dr Gonzo. Whilst not knowing the finer details of MCs mental health (like every other poster on here), it would be fair to say that some clubs do see his mental health as a factor in choosing whether or not to chase him. There has been much speculation surrounding the circumstances of Clark's 'retirement', but to say that he couldn't play only because his body physically kept breaking down and not because of his declining mental health is simplistic, to say the least. Depression was pretty high up on the reasons when he announced his retirement and it's more than likely linked to his inability to get on the park.

I don't want to be preachy and holier than thou ( because I have got a few skeletons in my closet) HOWEVER ( don't you just love a however)

Both Scully and Mitch were given numbers of significance. At the MFC if you get given number 10 or 12, or number 30 or 32 - they are just another number. But to be given 11 or 31 does mean something to the club, its history and its supporters. Both Scully and Mitch have shamed these numbers and the club that put faith in these players to do these numbers proud.

Jimmy is still watching Mitch and you should hang your head in shame after all we have done for you. Just pathetic

Sorry, as much as I loved Jimmy (like any Dees supporter), I am really getting tired of this line being trotted out. I'm sure MC did not ask for Jimmy's #11 and I'm sure he felt genuinely honoured to be given that number, but to say that somehow makes him beholden to Jimmy and that he is in some way or other besmirching Jimmy's memory is ridiculous. Sure have a go at him for being greedy, for being dishonest, for turning his back on his supporters and admirers... but to somehow tie this in with Jimmy?...

I don't want to be preachy and holier than thou ( because I have got a few skeletons in my closet) HOWEVER ( don't you just love a however)

Both Scully and Mitch were given numbers of significance. At the MFC if you get given number 10 or 12, or number 30 or 32 - they are just another number. But to be given 11 or 31 does mean something to the club, its history and its supporters. Both Scully and Mitch have shamed these numbers and the club that put faith in these players to do these numbers proud.

In MC's case, that is completely unfair (in my opinion). I doubt he requested that number 11 and how would it have looked if he had said no thanks? (you could make a case against Scully in that he lied to Jimmy's face, yes). In MC's situation with his mental illness, a case could be made to say that the burden of the #11 could even have exacerbated his problems.

Edited September 17, 201411 yr by hardtack

In MC's case, that is completely unfair (in my opinion). I doubt he requested that number 11 and how would it have looked if he had said no thanks?

The jumper was offered, Mitch met with Jim before he made a decision to accept it. He did accept it.

I agree that there are so many facets and layers to this story which most of us will never understand but It's an emotional and tribal game, that is what makes it great.

Edited September 17, 201411 yr by jabberwocky

That's just bull [censored] Dr Gonzo. Whilst not knowing the finer details of MCs mental health (like every other poster on here), it would be fair to say that some clubs do see his mental health as a factor in choosing whether or not to chase him. There has been much speculation surrounding the circumstances of Clark's 'retirement', but to say that he couldn't play only because his body physically kept breaking down and not because of his declining mental health is simplistic, to say the least. Depression was pretty high up on the reasons when he announced his retirement and it's more than likely linked to his inability to get on the park.

If his body didn't keep breaking down with repeated soft tissue injuries do you think he would've retired? When he retired the reasons cited were that due to the fact he was on such a large contract and was unable to get out and help the team when they were struggling on field he felt guilty/pressure and needed to step away to remove the pressure as it was negatively impacting his mental health. If he had no physical injuries there's no way he is prevented from playing due solely to his mental injuries. If his body is right physically there's no reason why he wouldn't be able to get out and play footy and the narrative is clearly being dictated to try and play this up to reduce his trade value.

In practical terms we should try and get as much as we can for Clark because ...

1) We possibly don't want him ourselves anyway

2) We need to bring as much talent into the club as possible

3) There's a chance we can get Lumumba in a straight swap

4) We're playing with house money anyway (a month ago most of us thought Clark was finished)

I can understand those that might want to let him take his chances in the PSD but how does that help us apart from standing on principle?

If things are viewed in a clinical way without any emotion, then we'd be crazy not to try and get something for him.

Besides all that, we've already had a win with the saved salary we would have had to have payed him this year & next year. Not paying him his full salary this year has almost certainly contributed to the club projecting a small profit this year. We're still in the black.

The freed up salary cap room for next year allows us to bring in an established good player in a trade (possibly apart from Lumumba - if we get him of course ... Clark was on reasonably big money)

In practical terms we should try and get as much as we can for Clark because ...

1) We possibly don't want him ourselves anyway

2) We need to bring as much talent into the club as possible

3) There's a chance we can get Lumumba in a straight swap

4) We're playing with house money anyway (a month ago most of us thought Clark was finished)

I can understand those that might want to let him take his chances in the PSD but how does that help us apart from standing on principle?

If things are viewed in a clinical way without any emotion, then we'd be crazy not to try and get something for him.

Besides all that, we've already had a win with the saved salary we would have had to have payed him this year & next year. Not paying him his full salary this year has almost certainly contributed to the club projecting a small profit this year. We're still in the black.

The freed up salary cap room for next year allows us to bring in an established good player in a trade (possibly apart from Lumumba - if we get him of course ... Clark was on reasonably big money)

Man after my own heart ( or more the point reason )

Clark is seeking to maximise his benefits and opportunities, so be it.

Other side of coin is so can we. Hope we do.

What a strange set of circumstances we now find ourselves in. Doubt anyone's crystal ball could have predicted this.

If his body didn't keep breaking down with repeated soft tissue injuries do you think he would've retired? When he retired the reasons cited were that due to the fact he was on such a large contract and was unable to get out and help the team when they were struggling on field he felt guilty/pressure and needed to step away to remove the pressure as it was negatively impacting his mental health. If he had no physical injuries there's no way he is prevented from playing due solely to his mental injuries. If his body is right physically there's no reason why he wouldn't be able to get out and play footy and the narrative is clearly being dictated to try and play this up to reduce his trade value.

If his body was right physically, there is every chance depression could stop him playing. He retired due to his depression and inability to get on the park. The two are linked, but to say that there is no reason he cannot play if he is not injured is incorrect.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-08/demon-clark-retires

"Clark told the club his battle with mental illness would not allow him to commit to a full-time career at the Demons."

But you are correct in that the narrative is now being manipulated by clubs and his manager.

Man after my own heart ( or more the point reason )

Clark is seeking to maximise his benefits and opportunities, so be it.

Other side of coin is so can we. Hope we do.

What a strange set of circumstances we now find ourselves in. Doubt anyone's crystal ball could have predicted this.

Yep, our first emotional attachment should always be to the club.

Those who are at the club right now are mere custodians and in many ways, they're passing through. That includes everyone - no one is not expendable unless they're a "great" or at least extremely valuable.

However, you don't want your good players leaving and a club should always try and keep their good players but ... if they're hell bent on going, you do the deal and you try and get the best deal.

A club always needs to have a plan post an exit of a "great." Clark isn't in that category.

The Hawks can win the flag this year without Franklin. At worst (in my opinion) they'll at least be playing in a GF and are well set up post Buddy.

Edited September 17, 201411 yr by Macca

If the Pies are the only club he wants to go to, then you can be pretty sure they have been into him for some time.

Their behaviour is reprehensible if that is the case.

No wonder Eddie is remaining totally silent on the issue.

thats the feeling I got as well. they're still dirty on themselves Re Dawsey & Qball Lynch not working out, E D let MnM walk, & took to Qball,,,,, fail

Edited September 17, 201411 yr by dee-luded

I couldn't understand the number thing that Schwab seemed to have.

The big fuss with Mitch and Jimmy, I mean he only met him for a minute and then bang goes the number and the backstory that went with it. All total spin.

Scully 31, then Grimes 31. I hope they retire 31 & 11 for a while then maybe sneak the numbers back in when no one is looking.

leaving aside his mental health, attitudinal and behavioural issues the guy has played no football for nearly 3 years. Big call to say he could resume where he left off.

I couldn't understand the number thing that Schwab seemed to have.

The big fuss with Mitch and Jimmy, I mean he only met him for a minute and then bang goes the number and the backstory that went with it. All total spin.

Scully 31, then Grimes 31. I hope they retire 31 & 11 for a while then maybe sneak the numbers back in when no one is looking.

It was all part of his club history fetish. Honouring past numbers, wearing the blazers, that damn bugeler. It all just came across as ridiculous. So glad that guy's out of the picture now.

Seedsman or Thomas would be a better swap than Lumumba.

Isn't the equation that we get Lumumba with some issues, they get Clark with some issues and therefore compensation be based on their comparative playing value. IMO we should get Lumumba+ on this basis.

Has Lumumba really got issues???

Or does he just have different beliefs to most other people?

Just a thought.....

Edited September 17, 201411 yr by Tyson_Viney_Toumpas

Either way he's not working harmoniously at Collingwood.

Either way he's not working harmoniously at Collingwood.

I don't think I could under FIGJAM either