I love Jack, I'm backing him in!

There are at least 20 players I would delist before I contemplated moving Trengove on. And what will the replacement be - pick 243 in the draft? No thanks.

There are at least 20 players I would delist before I contemplated moving Trengove on. And what will the replacement be - pick 243 in the draft? No thanks.

name them....and why.... just curious

There are at least 20 players I would delist before I contemplated moving Trengove on. And what will the replacement be - pick 243 in the draft? No thanks.

So you are happy to stay cemented to the bottom 4 on the ladder are you?

So you are happy to stay cemented to the bottom 4 on the ladder are you?

I've seen you draw long bows before WYL, but this one takes the cake. Keeping him will cement us at the bottom. Letting him leave and picking up someone at pick 53 will move us up into the 8..

Absolute horseshit.

The good AFL clubs carry good football people because not only do they know that when they're back, they'll play good footy, but because they build the culture. The part of our club that's pathetic.

Menzel, Max Bailey & LRT are all examples of players in the last 3 years.. From teams in the top 4...

Insane.

I've seen you draw long bows before WYL, but this one takes the cake. Keeping him will cement us at the bottom. Letting him leave and picking up someone at pick 53 will move us up into the 8..

Absolute horseshit.

The good AFL clubs carry good football people because not only do they know that when they're back, they'll play good footy, but because they build the culture. The part of our club that's pathetic.

Menzel, Max Bailey & LRT are all examples of players in the last 3 years.. From teams in the top 4...

Insane.

And when did Trengove last play good assertive football for this club?

YOU have to take emotion out of the equation.

We have been a putrid bottom feeder club for 8 years and a club with no silverware in half a century. We cannot afford to carry any player for more than 1 season.

And when did Trengove last play good assertive football for this club?

YOU have to take emotion out of the equation.

We have been a putrid bottom feeder club for 8 years and a club with no silverware in half a century. We cannot afford to carry any player for more than 1 season.

We certainly have been putrid WYL. But isn't it largely emotion that keeps poor bas tards like you and me paying our memberships every year and going along to watch another flogging at Darklands?

Administrations and players are taking emotion out of the game but if we supporters dispose of it - what is left?

Administrations and players are taking emotion out of the game but if we supporters dispose of it - what is left?

just going to the footy to watch two good teams play (naturally not our mob) - we cease to exist.

We certainly have been putrid WYL. But isn't it largely emotion that keeps poor bas tards like you and me paying our memberships every year and going along to watch another flogging at Darklands?

Administrations and players are taking emotion out of the game but if we supporters dispose of it - what is left?

BBO if this club and playing list had achieved success i would agree with you.

But reality has shown us to be so far below AFL standard for almost a decade. My earlier comment was in relation to 20 players being delisted before Trengove. Considering Jack is out of action for a full second year and probably longer, that line of thinking is what i call insane

just going to the footy to watch two good teams play (naturally not our mob) - we cease to exist.

Used to do that if invited by mates but i cant even really be bothered now Nut...I just end up somewhat funereal as to when WE will be this/that good

For those saying he's finished, I spoke with a player last night and asked how devastated Jack was etc etc. He said he was most devastated that previous to reinjuring it, he ran his fastest 3k & repeat sprints since draft camp. He felt like he regained a lot of speed that he didn't have in the years gone by.

To me it suggested these foot problems were the reasoning behind his lack of speed, and hopefully when he's back in the red and blue he will show that on the field. He know he has the football ability, his first year proved that... He just need his body right.

Arrow, I liked your post because it was full of positivity and excellent news which indicated the issue of JT's drop in pace and overall performance was directly attributed to the navicular injury. However, it raises a couple of questions I'd like answered if possible. From news report;

It was only reported a fortnight ago after the failed trade to Richmond that Jack was only out running for about two weeks prior. "This is obviously devastating news for Jack and we will seek further advice from surgeons for a plan moving forward so he can return to playing football," Demons football manager Josh Mahoney told the club website.

"Jack had been progressing well ... and (eight weeks ago) was given the all-clear from the surgeon to progress to the next phase of his program.

I struggle to comprehend how after only two weeks off the de-load treadmill and running outside that Trengove is given license to run his backside off and pull PB 3km's and repeat sprints. I cannot see how any rehab program would allow that!

Also, if this was in fact the case, why would the MFC put him up for trade knowing that they've cured he foot issues of a very good player and former Captain that when up and about would add value to the team. The story of JT being the missing piece of an A grader puzzle is plausible but still purely based on rumour to the best of my knowledge.

Do I have the time line mixed up here? According to my calculations, Trengove was only fully off the de-load treadmill a fortnight before trade period.

Hope that made sense.

Cheers

Used to do that if invited by mates but i cant even really be bothered now Nut...I just end up somewhat funereal as to when WE will be this/that good

i sometimes go to non MFC games live and it is a shock to the system when you watch two really good teams go at it - actually more like depressing.

i sometimes go to non MFC games live and it is a shock to the system when you watch two really good teams go at it - actually more like depressing.

thats my point !!

Arrow, I liked your post because it was full of positivity and excellent news which indicated the issue of JT's drop in pace and overall performance was directly attributed to the navicular injury. However, it raises a couple of questions I'd like answered if possible. From news report;

It was only reported a fortnight ago after the failed trade to Richmond that Jack was only out running for about two weeks prior. "This is obviously devastating news for Jack and we will seek further advice from surgeons for a plan moving forward so he can return to playing football," Demons football manager Josh Mahoney told the club website.

"Jack had been progressing well ... and (eight weeks ago) was given the all-clear from the surgeon to progress to the next phase of his program.

I struggle to comprehend how after only two weeks off the de-load treadmill and running outside that Trengove is given license to run his backside off and pull PB 3km's and repeat sprints. I cannot see how any rehab program would allow that!

Also, if this was in fact the case, why would the MFC put him up for trade knowing that they've cured he foot issues of a very good player and former Captain that when up and about would add value to the team. The story of JT being the missing piece of an A grader puzzle is plausible but still purely based on rumour to the best of my knowledge.

Do I have the time line mixed up here? According to my calculations, Trengove was only fully off the de-load treadmill a fortnight before trade period.

Hope that made sense.

Cheers

Yes it is all a bit weird isn't it. Conflicting reports about a load bearing foot injury. ..

Don't hold your breath getting the truth out of this one

i sometimes go to non MFC games live and it is a shock to the system when you watch two really good teams go at it - actually more like depressing.

Watching our game against the Hawks this year I could not believe the gap in ability. They were missing a number of their stars but witches hats would have been more of a challenge than our players.

I think his done. Say he manages to get back, he ll almost be 25 by then and more then half his career over including the core development years. The chance of becoming a big game player is next to nothing, we ll be lucky if he ever plays well at Casey

Yes, correct ( aiui ) He can go as a DFA. But which ever club he goes to he must then go on their Primary list. True, not picks required but he still takes up a spot. He'd go , likely , straight on new teams LTI allowing a rookie elevation but its very convoluted, awkward and an expence for what ? There are better 'prospects' to gamble with i would have thought for most clubs.

Riley simply had a broken leg. its prognosis was understood . Risk minimal. Jack's foot ?????? whole different ball game I'm afraid. I genuinely feel sorry for Jack. He's done nothing wrong just copped a bloody crap injury. Shlt happens often to the wrong people.

not only that bub but he would put a price on his head of at least that offered by mfc, presumably his current contract value

Watching our game against the Hawks this year I could not believe the gap in ability. They were missing a number of their stars but witches hats would have been more of a challenge than our players.

Yep. That is how bad we have been for nearly a decade.

People do not like to hear it or confront it. I can understand that, but i want to see flags before i die and keeping "good blokes" on the list, which Jack certainly is, is at the same time not going to help us get off the bottom of the ladder unless he can play consistent Top Level footy again.

If we delist Jack, he would have every right to nominate as a Delisted FA and he could go to the club of his choice without going thru any draft.

Risky for a club to take him? Yes, but there would be takers as they only need a list spot for him and don't use any picks. We took Riley as a DFA while he had a broken leg...

Delisting Jack on a rookie promise doesn't seem very smart.

BTW the Newton situation was pre FA so not relevant anymore.

I believe that the idea of delisting him and then rookie listing him would have to be based on mutual agreement between Jack and the club whereby his existing contract would be honoured in full. This would actually rule out anybody taking him as a DFA unless he changed his mind and in those circumstances the new club would either have to take over our contract (and pay a year's wages) or give him a new contract. That's an unlikely risk for clubs to take.

The benefit would be that Jack remains at the club on the same wage. If he remained on the primary list he would be put on the long term injury list anyway so the only difference would be that it would allow the club to recruit an additional player to its primary list and give it 40 fit primary listed players to start the season with instead of 39. In other words, Jack would be doing the team thing while his injury heals.

I believe that the idea of delisting him and then rookie listing him would have to be based on mutual agreement between Jack and the club whereby his existing contract would be honoured in full.

Is this allowed? I thought if we delisted Jack (or any other contracted player eg Evans, McKenzie, Bail) we must payout their contract on delisting. At this point 'normal' AFL rules re DFA or draft nominations apply. Happy to be corrected.

What's the point of putting him on the rookie list compared to putting him on the long term injured list and promote another in his place?

Arrow, I liked your post because it was full of positivity and excellent news which indicated the issue of JT's drop in pace and overall performance was directly attributed to the navicular injury. However, it raises a couple of questions I'd like answered if possible. From news report;

It was only reported a fortnight ago after the failed trade to Richmond that Jack was only out running for about two weeks prior. "This is obviously devastating news for Jack and we will seek further advice from surgeons for a plan moving forward so he can return to playing football," Demons football manager Josh Mahoney told the club website.

"Jack had been progressing well ... and (eight weeks ago) was given the all-clear from the surgeon to progress to the next phase of his program.

I struggle to comprehend how after only two weeks off the de-load treadmill and running outside that Trengove is given license to run his backside off and pull PB 3km's and repeat sprints. I cannot see how any rehab program would allow that!

Also, if this was in fact the case, why would the MFC put him up for trade knowing that they've cured he foot issues of a very good player and former Captain that when up and about would add value to the team. The story of JT being the missing piece of an A grader puzzle is plausible but still purely based on rumour to the best of my knowledge.

Do I have the time line mixed up here? According to my calculations, Trengove was only fully off the de-load treadmill a fortnight before trade period.

Hope that made sense.

Cheers

All good points McQueen, as I said, the message was relayed to me from a player so I'm unfortunately stuck with only being able to pass on what I was told. I have no relationship to Jack, but it'd be interesting to put it to him if I get the chance.

In regards to the trade, if I understand the situation it wasn't so much that we actively looked to trade Jack, it's that Richmond came to us with an offer of pick 12 which we thought would net us a Danger, Kennedy-esque player. I like Jack and think he will be a good player but if he was the steak-knifes to get that sort of player to our club, I'm glad the club was willing to let him go for that 'superstar' footballer.

As WYL said below, regardless both parties will be protecting their own image so don't expect the truth to ever surface, but I hold large hope that by July next year he'll be training and in good shape to really impact our team in 2016.

Yep and yep again, for Christ sakes we were happy to trade him of!!!

You do gooders forget 50 years of bugger all and we want to play "all warm and friendlies"

Time to ask yourselves, what do we want this club to be??

Aren't you the same clown who thought Newton could play at AFL level?

We have a duty of care towards Jack. The club needs to honour the contract in full to give him the best opportunity to fully recover from the injuries he received at his workplace. As it would be for any of us in similar circumstances. I am sure that this time next year there will have been a full reassessment of the situation against his contract circumstances and a way forward will be agreed.

If his injury precludes his playing football again and he retires I believe that the club will still support him in any way it can with all medical requirements to allow him to lead a full and proper life after football. To do anything else would be wrong.

I watched Ox go through his three knee recos and at no time was there talk of cutting him loose. I know this is a very different injury, but I believe Jack has shown enough to be given every chance to get back.

If the injury is prolonged from here why can't we put him on the LT list and upgrade a rookie.

All this handwringing about delisting him is ridiculous particular given he has been so poorly treated and developed at this Club.

There is a basic level of player respect which I hope the Club honours even if some on this site find too challenging.