Looks like a trade for their second round pick is what we should push for if the players aren't willing to be shipped off to us. Hopefully that'll be enough to get Lumumba over the line.

[Edit] Hearing that people reckon he's worth Geelong's first round pick is good, makes me believe we can push for proper compensation.

Edited October 1, 201410 yr by Pates

I refuse to believe that Roos would except Taylor Hunt and Travis Varcoe for Clark trade. Two old has beens for our best player. I don't think so.

Hunt is 23, Varcoe 26

Well Geelong, much like the rest of this competition, can go and get f'ed

Sick of clubs thinking they can treat us like a dumping ground for their rubbish, while we give them potential KP superstars in return.

Play hardball or let Clark walk into the draft and end up at GWS.

Agree absolutely with the hardball approach.

I would line up the Pies as a backstop and tell them we will try and steer him to them if Cats won't do a proper deal.

Then because of Rivers, MC and probably Chip I would demand Cats first pick or tell them we have a deal ready to go with Pies.

We picked up Dawes for pick 20 in 2012. At the time Dawes had mental issues that had stopped him from being able to kick straight or mark yet pick 20 was considered fair. This being the case considering that Clark is our best and most highly paid player, taking into account the risk and upside associated with him but also considering that I am told Clark impressed in physical tests at Melbourne, Geelong and Collingwood and clearly also passed mental assessments at Collingwood and Geelong I think a pick of about 20 is fair.

If Dawes was worth pick 20, Clark is worth pick 20.

Edited October 1, 201410 yr by Grand New Flag

Hunt is 23, Varcoe 26

Varcoe is 27 next season and a shadow of the player he was in 2011. He has one or two ok seasons in him. Hunt is a tagger with poor skills. We already have plenty of "Hunts" on our list...... though to be fair I thought he was a couple of years older.

Varcoe is 27 next season and a shadow of the player he was in 2011. He has one or two ok seasons in him. Hunt is a tagger with poor skills. We already have plenty of "Hunts" on our list...... though to be fair I thought he was a couple of years older.

Fair points, was just clarifying their age. If you ask geelong supporters, they wouldnt even give up Varcoe alone for Clark.

Hopefully Balme and co are more reasonable

Varcoe is 27 next season and a shadow of the player he was in 2011. He has one or two ok seasons in him. Hunt is a tagger with poor skills. We already have plenty of "Hunts" on our list...... though to be fair I thought he was a couple of years older.

This is true, despite varcoe p[laying mod games in 2014, his stats other than disposal count were very average. His 2011 was great in comparison to 2014.

We picked up Dawes for pick 20 in 2012. At the time Dawes had mental issues that had stopped him from being able to kick straight or mark yet pick 20 was considered fair. This being the case considering that Clark is our best and most highly paid player, taking into account the risk and upside associated with him but also considering that I am told Clark impressed in physical tests at Melbourne, Geelong and Collingwood and clearly also passed mental assessments at Collingwood and Geelong I think a pick of about 20 is fair.

If Dawes was worth pick 20, Clark is worth pick 20.

i take pick 20 in a heart beat.

reasonable assessment considering clarks ability is far greater than that of dawes.

You get Geelong's second round pick which you on trade as part of the Frost or Merret deal

We picked up Dawes for pick 20 in 2012. At the time Dawes had mental issues that had stopped him from being able to kick straight or mark yet pick 20 was considered fair. This being the case considering that Clark is our best and most highly paid player, taking into account the risk and upside associated with him but also considering that I am told Clark impressed in physical tests at Melbourne, Geelong and Collingwood and clearly also passed mental assessments at Collingwood and Geelong I think a pick of about 20 is fair.

If Dawes was worth pick 20, Clark is worth pick 20.

pretty well on it there GNF. Seems right

Gee now we are attacking our own players for showing a bit of loyalty to a former team mate.

No wonder players don't want to come to us, we are on the bottom and our fans attack their own players.

Get over it. See the post after yours by DD 4385.

Great call Redleg. Good on Dunn for both sticking up for a mate but at the same time acknowledging he is disgruntled - which is in footy speak is actually quite a strong statement and at least gives us some insight into how the players might be feeling.

The narrative that Clark made up his depression is just plain offensive. Who knows perhaps there is some truth in rumors that he had other issues but it is ridiculous to suggest that depression was used as cover for them.

Many people experiencing mental health issues also experience other life issues (eg grief, trauma, financial problems, relationship breakdown, substance misuse, gambling etc etc) and it could well be that his health professionals have advised him a change of environment is the best thing to deal with the cluster of life issues he might be experiencing.

That said i still maintain MC has handled all of this really poorly and if his manager is partly to blame he should sack him. After all the only comment we have had from MC was from set up interview grab (which was 'promoted by his manager) on Channel 7 that he 'would love to come back to Melbourne'.

Since then nada and it has just became a given that he was going. There has been a suggestion (from his manager?) that he had been advised for health reasons to change environments but that he wanted to get the best deal for the club but nothing from Mitch. Surely at least an interview where Mitch himself makes those things clear would be the go. He doesn't owe us that but jeez i'd respect him for it and it might calm things down a bit. And as to suggestions that he might not be up for it, in so far as it might impact on his health i'd say that if he isn't up to a media interview he's not ready to resume playing AFL football.

To be clear, i'm gutted he won't be playing for us. I think back to a post from GNF a while back and i remember the hope that it engendered and the much quoted blindsided post and the anger i felt. But like Machsy i'm over it.

As for the trade I hope we play hard ball. Even it means we get nothing (now). I respect the club for how we've treated MC and also how they've handled things in the last couple of weeks. But we don't owe MC anything and if he has to go into the draft then so be it. I'm hoping we will be competing for ladder positions with the Cats in the next couple of years so even if we get nothing in the trade by forcing him into the draft at least Geelong won't have him to kick a bag against us. Seaford is by the sea. Go fishing there.

Yay, Colin Young (Mitch Clark's manager) will be talking with our favourite [censored] Barrett at 2.00pm live on trade radio. I have a bad feeling that my computer monitor wont see 2.01pm as it might find out the hard way that it cant fly.

Their first round pick or he can walk. Don't let us get [censored] over Roos. They've come out saying their medicos are confident he can get back to his career best form. Well, career best form is a first round pick.

Probably a stupid thing for Geelong's recruiters to say in the media, isn't it?

Their first round pick or he can walk. Don't let us get [censored] over Roos. They've come out saying their medicos are confident he can get back to his career best form. Well, career best form is a first round pick.

Probably a stupid thing for Geelong's recruiters to say in the media, isn't it?

I really struggle with the concept that letting him walk is better than *any* trade. It's the kind of logic 4 year old children use when they're not aware that chucking a tantrum gets them absolutely nothing when a bit of negotiation might get them something slightly less than what they wanted.

I hope the MFC have moved well past that logic, because we're NOT the ones holding the aces here. We all think Collingwood would be stupid to play "hardball" on Lumumba - well we're in exactly the same boat as they are with Clark.

I really struggle with the concept that letting him walk is better than *any* trade. It's the kind of logic 4 year old children use when they're not aware that chucking a tantrum gets them absolutely nothing when a bit of negotiation might get them something slightly less than what they wanted.I hope the MFC have moved well past that logic, because we're NOT the ones holding the aces here. We all think Collingwood would be stupid to play "hardball" on Lumumba - well we're in exactly the same boat as they are with Clark.

No it's not, strong clubs do it, and it sends a signal that we won't be screwed by stronger more successful clubs.

I would rather make a statement, stuff up a competitor from getting significantly stronger and watch Clark squirm in the draft, than end up with a poor pick or a list clogger.

Sometimes you have to make a strong statement that says enough is enough and we actually stand for something. We owe Clark nothing. He has done nothing to help us, and we should do the same. If we don't look after ourselves, nobody will. They'll [censored] on our graves and tell us it's raining.

Edited October 1, 201410 yr by Jaded

No it's not, strong clubs do it, and it sends a signal that we won't be screwed by stronger more successful clubs.

I would rather make a statement, stuff up a competitor from getting significantly stronger and watch Clark squirm in the draft, than end up with a poor pick or a list clogger.

Sometimes you have to make a strong statement that says enough is enough and we actually stand for something. We owe Clark nothing. He has done nothing to help us, and we should do the same. If we don't look after ourselves, nobody will. They'll [censored] on our graves and tell us it's raining.

You have my vote

Doesn't give you the right to know what's going on in people's private lives.

Does if it's happening at the club.

You have my vote

And mine. 186 is still in my mind and now there is Rivers, MC and possibly Chip. This club hurts us.

I really struggle with the concept that letting him walk is better than *any* trade. It's the kind of logic 4 year old children use when they're not aware that chucking a tantrum gets them absolutely nothing when a bit of negotiation might get them something slightly less than what they wanted.

I hope the MFC have moved well past that logic, because we're NOT the ones holding the aces here. We all think Collingwood would be stupid to play "hardball" on Lumumba - well we're in exactly the same boat as they are with Clark.

actually 4yo tantrums have a reasonable success rate. maybe why they repeat them so frequently. of course ymmv

No it's not, strong clubs do it, and it sends a signal that we won't be screwed by stronger more successful clubs.

I don't think it's how strong clubs do it. It's how clubs who don't want to be traded with do it.

I've posted it before that I knew a guy who spent time with a club and sat at their table during trade week. His story went that clubs like Roos's Swans would target the player they want, put their best offer on the table immediately, the trade would be done within the hour, and both clubs can move on with other things. Other clubs, like Essendon, would make completely unreasonable demands and waste everybody's time (which is not limitless).

We saw this ourselves with the Darren Jolly trade - fair price (late first rounder) offered straight away, deal is done, we move on. My mind also goes back to the Brock McLean deal - the trade was executed within the first couple of hours on the Monday of trade week and we were well compensated (that we blew the pick on Gysberts later is beside the point). On the extreme end of the scale, Essendon missed out on Josh Caddy altogether a couple of years ago because of their unreasonable trade demands.

I'm not suggesting we roll over and take any shafting Geelong will offer us. I just don't want to see a long, protracted negotiation that saps all our time away from getting the deals *we* want to get done. And I definitely don't want to see him walk - someone hasn't done their job if that happens.

You have my vote Nasher. Clever teams understand the moment and get on with it. Less clever teams play funny buggers and suff themselves and others.

I don't think it's how strong clubs do it. It's how clubs who don't want to be traded with do it.

I've posted it before that I knew a guy who spent time with a club and sat at their table during trade week. His story went that clubs like Roos's Swans would target the player they want, put their best offer on the table immediately, the trade would be done within the hour, and both clubs can move on with other things. Other clubs, like Essendon, would make completely unreasonable demands and waste everybody's time (which is not limitless).

We saw this ourselves with the Darren Jolly trade - fair price (late first rounder) offered straight away, deal is done, we move on. My mind also goes back to the Brock McLean deal - the trade was executed within the first couple of hours on the Monday of trade week and we were well compensated (that we blew the pick on Gysberts later is beside the point). On the extreme end of the scale, Essendon missed out on Josh Caddy altogether a couple of years ago because of their unreasonable trade demands.

I'm not suggesting we roll over and take any shafting Geelong will offer us. I just don't want to see a long, protracted negotiation that saps all our time away from getting the deals *we* want to get done. And I definitely don't want to see him walk - someone hasn't done their job if that happens.

I see your point.

Then let Geelong quickly hand over their first round pick for a player they think can be in their 22 and help win them another flag. Let them not waste our time.

They want him to help out Hawkins right? So that means he'll be in their best 22, then we want someone in their best 22, Stokes or Duncan.

I really struggle with the concept that letting him walk is better than *any* trade. It's the kind of logic 4 year old children use when they're not aware that chucking a tantrum gets them absolutely nothing when a bit of negotiation might get them something slightly less than what they wanted.

I hope the MFC have moved well past that logic, because we're NOT the ones holding the aces here. We all think Collingwood would be stupid to play "hardball" on Lumumba - well we're in exactly the same boat as they are with Clark.

The difference is Lamamba hasn't shafted Colonwood.

I am all for fair or nothing. You never know that nothing could end up helping us get the player we want.

Edit:- ie We do a deal that Stkilda don't pick a certain player that we pick, and we let Clark go to the draft and slip to them 2nd round.

Edited October 1, 201410 yr by ManDee

Yeah his manager [censored]. The only thing that will go in our favour is the fact that the rest of the football community can see that we are getting the pineapple on this. Hopefully this perceived public pressure will help get a better pick out of the cats, not a couple of NQR players that are "good enough". Because that is not good enough for me, the cats will get another monster forward to help them and we get another Mckenzie... Melbourne need to stand up and not take it in the @rse anymore. I would like a high pick from the cats because even Clark's manager stated that his best is ahead of him... we got 29 goals in half a year... what are the cats going to get.... He is worth what his is best and not his worst, thats what all players are signed for, and hopefully you get more of the good than the bad. In closing Barrett needs to contract ebola.

Edited October 1, 201410 yr by Strapping Young Lad