Fair call - shouldn't have posted it but its doing the rounds on social media. I never said it was fact or that it was my opinion. In fact i very much doubt its true or Mahoneys comments tonight woukdnt fit.

in australia there have been no successful libel cases based on comments on internet forums by anonymous user names despite there beings loads if material for one on any given political discussion forum.

I understand your position however and will apply better judgment.

If you are posting on here anything about Clark without knowing the definitive answer to that question yourself than FMD? I think I'll just leave it at that

It was a rhetroical question. We're all going off what has been said by Ralph and Barrett, but the deafening silence from Clark's camp, and the reaction from Mahoney, isn't filling me with confidence.

There was a meeting Friday morning about his future, was there not?

That's makes way too much sense!

How can we work ourselves into a frenzy acting like that?!

We could watch Damo's Breaking News Clips on the Sunday Footy Show over and over again. Just watching him makes me want to punch something.

As an alternative possibility - what if clark is doing this for the club? Maybe he knows he is shot but thinks he can summon up reasonable trade value for the dees?

Jon ralph was generally bang on the money about the dees in the neeld era.

It was a rhetroical question. We're all going off what has been said by Ralph and Barrett, but the deafening silence from Clark's camp, and the reaction from Mahoney, isn't filling me with confidence.

There was a meeting Friday morning about his future, was there not?

Mitch Clark owes you nothing and he has met with the club, those who need to know will be aware of what is happening. I'd advise on not going off on what Ralph and Barrett have said

As Mitch himself responded on the now infamous Instagram thread (to Leoncelli I am assuming), "I wasn't aware that I had made an anouncement. @****** don't comment on things you know nothing about". I think that was a very fair response and he would obviously NOT come out with some sort of a statement there to refute anything... I would hae thought that would be done on advice... despite what some mightsay Swan did.

I think clark has a point. How much do we know versus how much is speculation (all of it at this point)

As an alternative possibility - what if clark is doing this for the club? Maybe he knows he is shot but thinks he can summon up reasonable trade value for the dees?

No way. Depression is a serious illness. He wouldn't be screwing someone over and getting himself into a contract for Melbourne. Consider the fact that any club that picks him up will only do so after extensive dialogue and a medical - and you have your theory debunked.

The way I see it is this. A mate said to me it's all or nothing and I don't disagree. Either Mitch was being truthful all along and will now come back to the Dees, or he saw a way out, ft. payday, and decided he'd pursue his options when he retired.

I know I've posted a lot in this thread, but I don't mean to slander the guy yet. It's an emotional issue, from the perspective of a long suffering MFC fan and a sufferer of anxiety and depression independently. In real life, you can't take a severance package on account of depression and then hand pick your new career after breaking a contract in good faith. In real life, and that goes for most of us, you get up and go to work and try and get on with things as best as you can whilst sorting yourself out - often with expensive help.

In a footballing sense, Mitch Clark absolutely owes a debt of service to the club. If he was to, as we thought he planned, walk away from the game forever - we move on from what may have been. If this turns out to be a 9 month sabbatical and he goes anywhere else but Melbourne (or Freo, at a stretch) - and I hate to think about the idea of it - then we have been royally shafted.

I think Paul Roos and Peter Jackson are far shrewder operators than Schwab/Neeld/Clark/Young and more, so I don't see us being [censored] over, but Mitch is a chance of trying.

If what has been suggested - and we need to give MC the benefit of the doubt until we know more - is that he wants to go to a successful club because losing exacerbates the depression then I say get real. Life isn't one big orgy, and you were incredibly fortunate to be paid the amount that you were for doing nothing for over a year. He's simply not cut out for life if that's the case, because it's pure petulance.

I feel we will be hearing a lot about this over the next week. Clark has to show his hand soon if he wants to start negotiating a return, because any club who takes him back will be very wary of him. Melbourne also needs to resolve it soon, because the issue was dead until today and we can't afford the negative press. I feel we'll announce something before Roosy gets on 360 and he'll do his thing from there.

No way. Depression is a serious illness. He wouldn't be screwing someone over and getting himself into a contract for Melbourne. Consider the fact that any club that picks him up will only do so after extensive dialogue and a medical - and you have your theory debunked.

The way I see it is this. A mate said to me it's all or nothing and I don't disagree. Either Mitch was being truthful all along and will now come back to the Dees, or he saw a way out, ft. payday, and decided he'd pursue his options when he retired.

I know I've posted a lot in this thread, but I don't mean to slander the guy yet. It's an emotional issue, from the perspective of a long suffering MFC fan and a sufferer of anxiety and depression independently. In real life, you can't take a severance package on account of depression and then hand pick your new career after breaking a contract in good faith. In real life, and that goes for most of us, you get up and go to work and try and get on with things as best as you can whilst sorting yourself out - often with expensive help.

In a footballing sense, Mitch Clark absolutely owes a debt of service to the club. If he was to, as we thought he planned, walk away from the game forever - we move on from what may have been. If this turns out to be a 9 month sabbatical and he goes anywhere else but Melbourne (or Freo, at a stretch) - and I hate to think about the idea of it - then we have been royally shafted.

I think Paul Roos and Peter Jackson are far shrewder operators than Schwab/Neeld/Clark/Young and more, so I don't see us being [censored] over, but Mitch is a chance of trying.

If what has been suggested - and we need to give MC the benefit of the doubt until we know more - is that he wants to go to a successful club because losing exacerbates the depression then I say get real. Life isn't one big orgy, and you were incredibly fortunate to be paid the amount that you were for doing nothing for over a year. He's simply not cut out for life if that's the case, because it's pure petulance.

I feel we will be hearing a lot about this over the next week. Clark has to show his hand soon if he wants to start negotiating a return, because any club who takes him back will be very wary of him. Melbourne also needs to resolve it soon, because the issue was dead until today and we can't afford the negative press. I feel we'll announce something before Roosy gets on 360 and he'll do his thing from there.

Excellent post Pirlo.

No way. Depression is a serious illness. He wouldn't be screwing someone over and getting himself into a contract for Melbourne. Consider the fact that any club that picks him up will only do so after extensive dialogue and a medical - and you have your theory debunked.

The way I see it is this. A mate said to me it's all or nothing and I don't disagree. Either Mitch was being truthful all along and will now come back to the Dees, or he saw a way out, ft. payday, and decided he'd pursue his options when he retired.

I know I've posted a lot in this thread, but I don't mean to slander the guy yet. It's an emotional issue, from the perspective of a long suffering MFC fan and a sufferer of anxiety and depression independently. In real life, you can't take a severance package on account of depression and then hand pick your new career after breaking a contract in good faith. In real life, and that goes for most of us, you get up and go to work and try and get on with things as best as you can whilst sorting yourself out - often with expensive help.

In a footballing sense, Mitch Clark absolutely owes a debt of service to the club. If he was to, as we thought he planned, walk away from the game forever - we move on from what may have been. If this turns out to be a 9 month sabbatical and he goes anywhere else but Melbourne (or Freo, at a stretch) - and I hate to think about the idea of it - then we have been royally shafted.

I think Paul Roos and Peter Jackson are far shrewder operators than Schwab/Neeld/Clark/Young and more, so I don't see us being [censored] over, but Mitch is a chance of trying.

If what has been suggested - and we need to give MC the benefit of the doubt until we know more - is that he wants to go to a successful club because losing exacerbates the depression then I say get real. Life isn't one big orgy, and you were incredibly fortunate to be paid the amount that you were for doing nothing for over a year. He's simply not cut out for life if that's the case, because it's pure petulance.

I feel we will be hearing a lot about this over the next week. Clark has to show his hand soon if he wants to start negotiating a return, because any club who takes him back will be very wary of him. Melbourne also needs to resolve it soon, because the issue was dead until today and we can't afford the negative press. I feel we'll announce something before Roosy gets on 360 and he'll do his thing from there.

Situation summed up perfectly. Close thread!

Pwesonally i think its the engrained pessimism of demon supporters that have led many to quuckly presume the worst. Exactly what paul roos said at the b&f

I Think Mitch Clark has deceived the club. I don't think his depression was as bad as he made it out to be. In my opinion I think he wanted out of the club and this was the only way as he still had a contract with the club until 2015 and there would have been no way they would have let him go otherwise.

I'm in the "if this is all off the mark, why haven't Clark or his manager said anything to deny it" camp.

Even a "we're exploring options, no decisions have been taken, we'll sit down with Josh Mahoney next week" would be something.

Not sure where Mitch is at in all this, it's not making a lot of sense to be honest. We've all made the mistake of thinking that a new environment will be enough to cure our woes, but it's rarely the case.

He was the one thing that excited me about the neeld era.

I doubt this club can continue to take this sort of rubbish treatment... This is probably one of the most disrespectful acts, I've seen a player do to a club... This action confirms to me, that our club is almost finished... Looks like we will never be able to hold on to any talent that appears on our list again... We have become a talent holding station, for the stronger clubs to pick from at will... The AFL may as well sell our licence too Collingwood now and call us Collingwood 2... the worst part of all this is that any compensation pick or player we get from these reoccurring/yearly events, will most likely be poach in a few years time as well... jeez.. We are a mere shadow of the former club we once were and we are close to being finished, the Money has won... The AFL system is unfair and has failed us badly...

What's with all the pessimism?

We might trade out of the situation profitably with all parties satisfied

What's with all the pessimism?

We might trade out of the situation profitably with all parties satisfied

I want Mitch Clark to play for Melbourne, not a trade.

Mitch Clark is not allowed to play elsewhere at this stage.

What is the purpose of a contact otherwise?

His manager must be a dunce or a desperate because we will not let him go

till he is finished.

There is no comparable trade i can think of.

In the meantime i hope people keep away from his social media pages.

What I don't get is that all who are reporting this, Barrett, Ralph, King etc are sure Mitch's comeback will not be with Melbourne.

No where can I find an article that is a direct quote from Mitch or his manager that this is the case.

There are some pretty ugly comments written here.

Everyone needs to calm down. Nothing is official yet.

Agree.

If this rumour is headline grabbing, it's a bit of a dog's act to thrust someone who's emerging from a pretty dark place into the spotlight.

If this proves to be untrue I hope the epic tool gets his just deserts and winds up covering the recipe section in the Weekly Times.

I cannot believe I am reading this.

If there is any truth to this, this genuinely constitutes a dog act the likes of which is unparalleled in AFL in recent memory.

Would have thought by now there would have been some statement by the Clark camp if there was no truth to the rumours

We may not know for a while whether it is true if he will play again. But going on: Clark's management has been in dialogue with AFL officials about what would need to happen in the event of any comeback quote from the MFC website article, it seems very true that his management is investigating it.That his manager has had discussions with the AFL (and not HIS CURRENT football club) suggests it has gone beyond the rumour stage.

I hate to say it even if Mitch doesn't play anywhere again that he/his management have taken it this far is enough! I feel for his illness but he has lost me.

I don't quite get the situation at all.

The options are:

A. We trade him.
B. We re-sign him.
C. We delist him.

If we delist, his options depend on whether or not he was *officially* retired. If officially, he has to go through the draft. If he wasnt officially retired, he can sign with whoever.

Why would they delist him?

Seems likely he'll either remain on our list, or we'll trade him.