On 10/04/2015 at 06:02, Leoncelli_36 said:

Funnily enough there are a lot of ex Melbourne people working at Hawthorn, reckon they knew what really went on? you bet ya...reckon the word went round the Hwwks, I reckon you are on to it

I reckon we'll see the Melbourne boys get right into him round 12, or maybe he'll sit out with injury.

Meanwhile, an afl tweet from Peter Ryan says Motlop was suspended for rd 2 after he was sledged by Hawk players during Sunday's game for getting on the turps in Colac on Good Friday.

Has he been checked for multiple personalities? Maybe he was sledging himself.

The demon was sitting on his left shoulder saying "you [censored] idiot, if you stayed with us you could've had a win in round 1, instead you're getting booed and Chip Frawley is running away from you at half pace."

  On 10/04/2015 at 05:54, daisycutter said:

you'll have to refresh my memory, chook

got a link of me sledging saty?

btw i don't consider posting on demonland as a sport, but your mileage may vary

You give me a decent sledge every now and get Daisy. They just got your target wrong.

Hate to disillusion all you Mitch Clark haters out there, but it is my understanding that we chose not to have Clark back as we perceived it to be too big a risk. We chose to trade him instead. Clark always protested when he was with us how much he loved the Dees and how immensely grateful he was to us for supporting him, and I think it is significant that he was seen at the "G" last Saturday at our game.

We can hardly now turn round and blame him because he pursued his career elsewhere.

  On 10/04/2015 at 06:53, Dees2014 said:

Hate to disillusion all you Mitch Clark haters out there, but it is my understanding that we chose not to have Clark back as we perceived it to be too big a risk. We chose to trade him instead. Clark always protested when he was with us how much he loved the Dees and how immensely grateful he was to us for supporting him, and I think it is significant that he was seen at the "G" last Saturday at our game.

We can hardly now turn round and blame him because he pursued his career elsewhere.

This, if true, would be more widely known throughout AFL circles. I would support this if it was accompanied by the offer of a Rookie spot on a rookie salary which Clark turned down. If he loved the club so dearly then he should've appreciated the stance and offer from the club for a single season and then get back on the primary list on a healthy contract.

It's an interesting one.

As a kid growing up, I didn't rate myself as a footballer, but I was excellent at talking rubbish and getting in opponent's heads. A lot of the time, you knew before the ball had even been bounced as soon as you said the first thing to them, you'd already won the mental battle and they were running around the ground thinking what a sh*thead I was, or how much they wanted to give me a cheapie as opposed to worrying about the game.

There is a genuine art to being good at it and I've heard an amazing story about how Travis Cloke spent a whole game chasing Jordie Gysberts around threatening death after Jordie told Cloke a story about his sister while he was taking a set shot.

On that, there is a line. With respect to Clark, there is an enormous difference between a sledge of 'no wonder you're depressed, you're s**t' for example and someone commenting saying 'when are you going to walk out on this club you traitor'.

I see absolutely zero wrong with the second one, and someone who is easily put off their game emotionally could take the 2nd example to heart and let it affect them. I think that's what has happened and Hawthorn have well and truly got in his head. To me, I see nothing wrong with that example and given we know Clark is quite an emotional guy, I think he's taken it the wrong way. The Hawks wanted a reaction, they wanted him off his game, and the fact Mitch pulled out Selwood after the game to discuss it with him means they did that.

Should he be sledged for his depression?- absolutely not.

Should he be treated with caution because of his depression?- Absolutely not. If he isn't fit to face the game and the challenges that come with it, he is entitled to put himself on the injury list, miss a week or numerous other things.

That said, I have no idea which of the two examples the Hawthorn players used, and can only hope it wasn't the first.

  On 10/04/2015 at 02:25, Elusive Tunbridge said:

The CCHR link is very dodgy material - akin to anti-vaccination stuff. Severe depression is a well acknowledged medical condition.

Depression may be a reason for taking poor decisions, but it's not an excuse. The black dog bites dogs, too. We boo the dog, not the bite.

Clearly many professionals within the industry disagree. Are you a professional within the industry ?

I have a sneaky feeling that those sprouting the "dodgy" material, as you put it, also agree with vaccination. Next thing you'll be calling them flat earthers.

There are enough professionals that don't see depression as a mental "illness" to make me query claims that it is. It's fair to say I have a dose of scepticism, notwithstanding Hemingway's erudite response.

We can't help the age we live in can we?

  On 10/04/2015 at 06:53, Dees2014 said:

Hate to disillusion all you Mitch Clark haters out there, but it is my understanding that we chose not to have Clark back as we perceived it to be too big a risk. We chose to trade him instead. Clark always protested when he was with us how much he loved the Dees and how immensely grateful he was to us for supporting him, and I think it is significant that he was seen at the "G" last Saturday at our game.

We can hardly now turn round and blame him because he pursued his career elsewhere.

where does this 'understanding' come from? If it's true it means that the front our club put up at the time was totally disingenuous, in fact, it means they downright lied when they issued a statement staying Clark had elected to leave. Why would they not make it clear that it was our decision to move him on, knowing that he would attract the massive negativity that he since has? They would be throwing him under the bus for no reason. It also doesn't make much sense in general, as surely we would be willing to take the risk on a genuine FF that we badly need

  On 10/04/2015 at 06:53, Dees2014 said:

Hate to disillusion all you Mitch Clark haters out there, but it is my understanding that we chose not to have Clark back as we perceived it to be too big a risk. We chose to trade him instead. Clark always protested when he was with us how much he loved the Dees and how immensely grateful he was to us for supporting him, and I think it is significant that he was seen at the "G" last Saturday at our game.

We can hardly now turn round and blame him because he pursued his career elsewhere.

Find this a load of ....

First Mitch felt terrible for taking so much money and not playing.

Next he is leaving as his doctors told him he needed a change of scenery.

Next it was how he wanted to stay but wasn't offered enough money.

Now, Melbourne didn't want him at all.

The last may be true, not because he is a risk but because he is nothing but a lowlife who can't be trusted

  On 10/04/2015 at 05:52, Lucifer said:

1. Not 2nd hand - described by his captain

2. I have

3. Hyperbole is always a good red-herring as is insulting other posters.

1. you are not the captain - so it is second hand

2. Then you must know it effects every person it touches differently, and they react differently

3. From what I can gather from the depth of feeling in some of the posts Mitch Clark

a, organised 9/11

b. raped members of posters families

c, voted for Clive Palmer in the last election etc etc

He left the club, we got a good deal in Lumumba from the trade, move on, I actually have more concern for the psyche of the populace in general if some of the posts in this topic are a representation

  On 10/04/2015 at 07:05, McQueen said:

This, if true, would be more widely known throughout AFL circles. I would support this if it was accompanied by the offer of a Rookie spot on a rookie salary which Clark turned down. If he loved the club so dearly then he should've appreciated the stance and offer from the club for a single season and then get back on the primary list on a healthy contract.

I follow Mitch on instagram. A weeks after he signed with the cats, a number of people were giving it to him about screwing us over.

Mitch, eventually getting fed up with copping it, said that the club didnt want him back. The next day this comment was deleted.

  On 10/04/2015 at 08:00, UTAH said:

I follow Mitch on instagram. A weeks after he signed with the cats, a number of people were giving it to him about screwing us over.

Mitch, eventually getting fed up with copping it, said that the club didnt want him back. The next day this comment was deleted.

The whole thing is dodgy...

  On 10/04/2015 at 07:28, ProDee said:

Clearly many professionals within the industry disagree. Are you a professional within the industry ?

I have a sneaky feeling that those sprouting the "dodgy" material, as you put it, also agree with vaccination. Next thing you'll be calling them flat earthers.

There are enough professionals that don't see depression as a mental "illness" to make me query claims that it is. It's fair to say I have a dose of scepticism, notwithstanding Hemingway's erudite response.

I guess you're keeping this going because you're embarrassed that no-one takes your source, a scientology front organisation, seriously. Calling your stance scepticism may give you a warm feeling, but it's not so impressive since the climate denialists hijacked the word.

Questioning my credentials is another weak smokescreen, like asking "How many games of AFL have you played?" But the short answer to your question is "Yes".

Scientology is far worse than depression!!

  On 10/04/2015 at 06:53, Dees2014 said:

Hate to disillusion all you Mitch Clark haters out there, but it is my understanding that we chose not to have Clark back as we perceived it to be too big a risk. We chose to trade him instead. Clark always protested when he was with us how much he loved the Dees and how immensely grateful he was to us for supporting him, and I think it is significant that he was seen at the "G" last Saturday at our game.

We can hardly now turn round and blame him because he pursued his career elsewhere.

Too big a risk? How was it a risk at all? He was already on the list. Why would we choose to trade someone Roos had previously described as 'the best player on the list'? Makes no sense.

  On 10/04/2015 at 07:23, Arrow said:

It's an interesting one.

As a kid growing up, I didn't rate myself as a footballer, but I was excellent at talking rubbish and getting in opponent's heads. A lot of the time, you knew before the ball had even been bounced as soon as you said the first thing to them, you'd already won the mental battle and they were running around the ground thinking what a sh*thead I was, or how much they wanted to give me a cheapie as opposed to worrying about the game.

There is a genuine art to being good at it and I've heard an amazing story about how Travis Cloke spent a whole game chasing Jordie Gysberts around threatening death after Jordie told Cloke a story about his sister while he was taking a set shot.

On that, there is a line. With respect to Clark, there is an enormous difference between a sledge of 'no wonder you're depressed, you're s**t' for example and someone commenting saying 'when are you going to walk out on this club you traitor'.

I see absolutely zero wrong with the second one, and someone who is easily put off their game emotionally could take the 2nd example to heart and let it affect them. I think that's what has happened and Hawthorn have well and truly got in his head. To me, I see nothing wrong with that example and given we know Clark is quite an emotional guy, I think he's taken it the wrong way. The Hawks wanted a reaction, they wanted him off his game, and the fact Mitch pulled out Selwood after the game to discuss it with him means they did that.

Should he be sledged for his depression?- absolutely not.

Should he be treated with caution because of his depression?- Absolutely not. If he isn't fit to face the game and the challenges that come with it, he is entitled to put himself on the injury list, miss a week or numerous other things.

That said, I have no idea which of the two examples the Hawthorn players used, and can only hope it wasn't the first.

Fantastic post arrow. The story about Jordie Gysberts made me chuckle out loud.

I'm still pretty annoyed about what happened with Mitch, but I have to admit now that the season is underway I'm less concerned about him. We got Lumumba, and he's already showing he's a good pick up for us. Not saying I wish him well, but I just don't want to waste any time thinking about him.

But I also don't think there should be any sledging from the players about what he's gone through, genuine or not. There are people going through depression and it comes back to them as well.

Usually if something has been said though, if it's in bad taste, the offending party has put their hand up if called on it. That Lake has flatly denied it makes Clark (and Selwood) seem pretty foolish and weak.

It all just leaves me wanting Freo to tear the Cats a new one on Sunday...

who's Clark ?

The Aussies should give back the Ashes. Should have bowled half volleys outside off stump to Jon Trott to get him back into form.

  On 10/04/2015 at 08:15, Elusive Tunbridge said:

I guess you're keeping this going because you're embarrassed that no-one takes your source, a scientology front organisation, seriously. Calling your stance scepticism may give you a warm feeling, but it's not so impressive since the climate denialists hijacked the word.

Questioning my credentials is another weak smokescreen, like asking "How many games of AFL have you played?" But the short answer to your question is "Yes".

You're being a little bit silly. I'm not "embarrassed" when I don't profess to be an expert on a topic. I'd only be embarrassed if I was a professional who got it completely wrong. Now that would be embarrassing.

I don't have any knowledge on this subject, other than some of the views I've read. But I don't automatically dismiss those views.

So out of interest, do you dismiss the views of other professionals in this area that seemingly disagree with you ? Are you insinuating they're all involved with Scientology ? Would you risk your professional integrity publicly by doing so ? If so, thanks for the heads up. It's hard to know from afar. So many claims and counter claims.

I always feel enlightened by people that know more about a topic than me. That's usually not hard, of course. So, out of interest, what are your credentials exactly ? Keen to know.

Btw, you're welcome to ask me about football.

Clark is full of BS & everyone in footy knows it. Whether he had depression or not, he ditched the MFC cause he needed a new environment for dealing with his depression according to the unnamed medical advise he got...... However, he was already back at the MFC rehabbing, using our staff & facilities when he 'got better & started working towards a comeback'. What other life changes have been made? He stayed with the same mrs he got depression with & what do you know, went back to his old profession of AFL player within a few months, all he did for this 'life change to help him deal with depression' was go from a bottom 4 fancy to a top 4 fancy. And he got paid out 90% of his over the top salary for hardly any games with us, including his wage he would have earnt for this year from us!!! He is a spineless weak creep. I'm soo glad he went to the ailing aging cats so he be there for their downward spiral. Meanwhile we can wave to him in the next couple of years as we pass them on the ladder. F u Clark, mentally ill or not, go rot, case closed!

Good riddance & welcome H!!

  On 10/04/2015 at 08:15, Elusive Tunbridge said:

I guess you're keeping this going because you're embarrassed that no-one takes your source, a scientology front organisation, seriously. Calling your stance scepticism may give you a warm feeling, but it's not so impressive since the climate denialists hijacked the word.

Questioning my credentials is another weak smokescreen, like asking "How many games of AFL have you played?" But the short answer to your question is "Yes".

yes, you've played afl footy?