On 19/10/2017 at 12:35, mauriesy said:

It's an open market. The fact that we let him go for pick 31 indicates what the competition for him was.

Or equally if not more likely given our happiness to pay that the concept of a ' trade' here was a nonsense.

He was packed up and shipped off. Thats all. Melbourne would have abd did take ANYTHING as it suited the situation.

People are coming at it very wrongly if they suppose this was ever about what we might get lol.

I understand why the powers that be reached the crossroad.

We ( well the current overseers of the FD brainstrust ) seem to not want to utilse Jack. Another will.

I get it.

This whole saga reminds me of tabloid 'urgency' , of how the lowly sensationalist type shows would conduct an interview then subsequently change the grabs of questions and answers, rearrange in an edit to showcase and promote a different version.

The facts and effects are indeed all there. 

The construct morphed with someones script change.

  On 19/10/2017 at 23:17, hemingway said:

Tough decision does not necessarily equate to right decision. 

Sometimes the tough decision is the easy decision. 

That is a tautology if ever I have read one Ernest.

  On 19/10/2017 at 23:41, jnrmac said:

That is a tautology if ever I have read one Ernest.

if not maybe 'easy'...possibly it might have been the "quick' one

But I can see the tautology 

  On 19/10/2017 at 23:32, beelzebub said:

This whole saga reminds me of tabloid 'urgency' , of how the lowly sensationalist type shows would conduct an interview then subsequently change the grabs of questions and answers, rearrange in an edit to showcase and promote a different version.

The facts and effects are indeed all there. 

The construct morphed with someones script change.

There's no doubt that Brendan McCartney is an influence on this decision, he's a key member of the FD.

There doesn't seem to be any editing of the script here. 

“It comes down to Jack’s performance but it is around preparation and commitment, all the extra things that he could be doing that other players are doing at certain stages.” Mahoney said on AFL Trade Radio. 

“It is a really important stage where Jack is at as an experienced player at the footy club with the amount of games he has played, with such a young list, he has a big influence on our young players. That’s what comes with being an experienced player ... he is very clear on our expectations about him."

"But the list management group felt that Jack's consistency of performance while at Melbourne hasn't been at the level expected of a player with his experience," Melbourne football chief Josh Mahoney said.

I still cannot understand what your conspiracy theory is.

  On 19/10/2017 at 23:24, beelzebub said:

Or equally if not more likely given our happiness to pay that the concept of a ' trade' here was a nonsense.

He was packed up and shipped off. Thats all. Melbourne would have abd did take ANYTHING as it suited the situation.

People are coming at it very wrongly if they suppose this was ever about what we might get lol.

I understand why the powers that be reached the crossroad.

We ( well the current overseers of the FD brainstrust ) seem to not want to utilse Jack. Another will.

I get it.

There was a certain duplicity on behalf of the club. 

The decision had been made to get rid of Watts at any price.

However, the narrative was  ""we are allowing Jack to pursue other options, however, if he chooses to remain at Melbourne, he knows what our expectations of him are......" or words to that effect. 

Denis Pagan's review  - New Daily http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/afl/2017/10/19/afl-trades-2018/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20171020_TND

Melbourne: Lever in is a big plus but did the Demons give away too much to get him? The Dees didn’t handle the Jack Watts situation well, either.

Port Adelaide: The Power lost several players – but none of them were walk-up starts in the first 22. Rockliff, Steven Motlop and Watts are great ins. A super trade period.

  On 20/10/2017 at 00:51, sue said:

Denis Pagan's review  - New Daily http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/afl/2017/10/19/afl-trades-2018/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20171020_TND

Melbourne: Lever in is a big plus but did the Demons give away too much to get him? The Dees didn’t handle the Jack Watts situation well, either.

Port Adelaide: The Power lost several players – but none of them were walk-up starts in the first 22. Rockliff, Steven Motlop and Watts are great ins. A super trade period.

Thanks Denis

  On 19/10/2017 at 22:18, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

So, Chewy, are you going to stick with the Demons now or are you going to shift your allegiance to Port? 

 

Really interesting question. Of course I'll follow Jack at PA but I feel very attached to, and excited by, the playing group at MFC. I would love to see them be successful and would love to be a part of that. The young men i have met at MFC are undoubtedly ripping young blokes. And i happily admit to having a pretty severe mancrush on Petracca. He could be anything. His lower body strength reminds me of some of the absolute greats - Matthews, Ablett Snr & Jnr, Voss. His ability to keep his feet while he's ripping the ball out of the scrums our game has become infected with is unmatched by anyone in todays game. So my attachment to the team is f#*%ing hard to let go off.

But there's one more bit of information that i should disclose that makes it a little difficult for me to maintain the level of support i have given over the last 9 years.

You see my son, who lives with Jack, is actually Jack's cousin. And you know what that means.

At the very least i will barrack for the Dees whoever they are playing (excluding PA of course). Even against 'my' club prior to my conversion to the Dees (the Saints). 

And when he plays against the Dees, if Viney, TMac or Jonesy happen to give Jack a good whack around the ear I'll be there cheering them on and encouraging them to do it again. Hahaha. Little 6astard deserves it every now and again.

 

Does that make Jack >>>> Lowbacca ...Lowie...a ...Jedi !! 

New Summer's release from Skwosh ?

 

If anyone here follows the NBA, they'll know that the league is filled with a whole bunch of unfulfilled talent, and potential superstars who never put in the hard yards or excel beyond a certain point to strive for greatness. Carmelo Anthony is a great modern day example. New York is arguably a better team now that he's gone, despite getting not much in return and losing 30 points per game as a result. 

I didn't like what we got in return, but I still feel this is an instance where we are a better team when you consider the variables. We can now as a club move on from that era and focus on a new core group. There isn't a young player in the team that was *expect* to be great, who hasn't yet lived up to where we thought they'd be. Oliver as exceeded expectations. Petracca is on track. Hogan is a workhorse and competitive beast and we know he'll have his break out season. Guys like Kent are fringe players that we *hope* to get more from, but don't necessarily expect it. We expected it from Watts and never got it. It's always wait wait wait. We needed to move on. 

I have no doubt this team is bound for greatness. We need competitors. Relentless, uncompromising competitors. It took ANB three seasons to be more important to the team than Watts was at any point in his career. 

Hogan, Garlett, ANB, were carrying Watts in the forward line. We needed Watts to do the carrying. He couldn't.  That's fine. We moved him on.

Time to get over it.

  On 19/10/2017 at 23:17, hemingway said:

Sometimes the tough decision is the easy decision. 

What? 

  On 20/10/2017 at 02:19, praha said:

If anyone here follows the NBA, they'll know that the league is filled with a whole bunch of unfulfilled talent, and potential superstars who never put in the hard yards or excel beyond a certain point to strive for greatness. Carmelo Anthony is a great modern day example. New York is arguably a better team now that he's gone, despite getting not much in return and losing 30 points per game as a result. 

I didn't like what we got in return, but I still feel this is an instance where we are a better team when you consider the variables. We can now as a club move on from that era and focus on a new core group. There isn't a young player in the team that was *expect* to be great, who hasn't yet lived up to where we thought they'd be. Oliver as exceeded expectations. Petracca is on track. Hogan is a workhorse and competitive beast and we know he'll have his break out season. Guys like Kent are fringe players that we *hope* to get more from, but don't necessarily expect it. We expected it from Watts and never got it. It's always wait wait wait. We needed to move on. 

I have no doubt this team is bound for greatness. We need competitors. Relentless, uncompromising competitors. It took ANB three seasons to be more important to the team than Watts was at any point in his career. 

Hogan, Garlett, ANB, were carrying Watts in the forward line. We needed Watts to do the carrying. He couldn't.  That's fine. We moved him on.

Time to get over it.

That's fine.  I have no problem with that.  But the question remains, at what price?

  On 20/10/2017 at 01:08, ChewyOnMyBoot said:

Really interesting question. 

The fact that it's an interesting question to you, and not an instant answer of 'of course I'll be sticking with the Dees' says all we need to know about you Chewy.

Jog on, pal.

  On 20/10/2017 at 00:51, sue said:

Denis Pagan's review  - New Daily http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/afl/2017/10/19/afl-trades-2018/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20171020_TND

Melbourne: Lever in is a big plus but did the Demons give away too much to get him? The Dees didn’t handle the Jack Watts situation well, either.

Port Adelaide: The Power lost several players – but none of them were walk-up starts in the first 22. Rockliff, Steven Motlop and Watts are great ins. A super trade period.

Hi Sue -

Honestly, I've known Denis very well for many years. At times he can be quite eccentric in his thinking process.  Think even he would admit he has lost touch with what is going on these days. 

Nice bloke, genuine bloke but at times can be as mad as a hatter 

 

  On 20/10/2017 at 02:24, iv'a worn smith said:

That's fine.  I have no problem with that.  But the question remains, at what price?

We won't know that until this time next year. But why have a coaching team at all if we're not going to value their player insights? They've made it clear that he wasn't up to standards. That to me is enough. Imo we should have traded Watts in Roos' first year. He stuck with him because he saw such a massive rot. That's four years of positive reinforcement, and it still needs to be drilled home. People hate change especially if it's unpopular change. But the reaction from a cross section of the fan base is reflective of how the club was run for decades. Even during the Daniher years, we were reluctant to trade or even drop poor performing players. I remember Yze not performing for weeks on end, being ineffective, but still getting games because he was close to the games played record. Eventually it got to a point where the coaching team didn't have a choice. We haven't been this brutal in my time supporting the club. People feel emotional because of what the club has put him through, but we can't praise the club and cultural changes, and then turn a blind eye to players of Watts' calibre. Nothing against the bloke but gee, he's ten years into his career now. He shouldn't need to be reminded. The simplest way to look at it is we lost a talented and skilled player. The cost is the risk. I'm confident it's as loud and clear a message as the playing group needs. He wasn't the isolated caused of the problem, but he was a catalyst. A bit like Vickery at the Tigers. Does anyone not think moving him on is *part* of the reason we saw such a significant shift? Someone takes his spot and establishes new standards and expectations.

  On 19/10/2017 at 22:38, ChewyOnMyBoot said:

I absolutely agree with you - it is best for both parties and thats ok.

And if you don't have much of an opinion of Jack's worth as a footballer, that's ok too. Everybody is entitled to an opinion.

But as to "If Geelong wanted him they would have grabbed him, they didn't... Port the only ones who put a bid in?" - that's codswallop. And I suspect that like many on DL you are using that statement to somehow back up you're opinion of Jack's worth as a footballer.

Geelong absolutely 100% made an offer to Jack. But as it turns out, Port Adelaide absolutely nailed their presentation to Jack and the role that they want Jack to play is completely aligned with what he believes are his strengths.

Furthermore, if you want to take a guess at how many other clubs enquired of PC requesting that they be consulted should Jack's initial choice fall through I can tell you that 2 is wrong and anything below that is wronger. Hahahahaha.

Them's the facts. Sorry to disappoint you.

Chewy I understand your family connection, you're 'coming out'  so to speak and the admiral job you did of presenting your ( maybe the families) side of the story.

Nonetheless I would have to disagree with your suggested level of market interest in Jack.

 Sadly for us there was not strong or significant demand as far as I was able to detect from the external information available . IMO it supports our FD and maybe the broader AFL clubs valuation.

In any event the market spoke and the fact is that it was pick 31.

Its not the worst position in the world, but  some distance from Weller , Lever or Gibbs like unfortunately for us.

 

 

 

 

  On 20/10/2017 at 02:25, Wiseblood said:

The fact that it's an interesting question to you, and not an instant answer of 'of course I'll be sticking with the Dees' says all we need to know about you Chewy.

Jog on, pal.

Sadly predictable Wiseblood. Did you read any more of my post? Or was it a case of premature joculation?

Perhaps if you read the rest of my post you would be able to put that statement in context.

And what's with the "Jog on, pal"? Are you saying that me, as a fully paid up member of 9 years, has no right to express an opinion on here unless it correlates with your view of the world? If that upsets you then maybe you should take your own advice.

  On 20/10/2017 at 00:51, sue said:

Denis Pagan's review  - New Daily http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/afl/2017/10/19/afl-trades-2018/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20171020_TND

Melbourne: Lever in is a big plus but did the Demons give away too much to get him? The Dees didn’t handle the Jack Watts situation well, either.

Port Adelaide: The Power lost several players – but none of them were walk-up starts in the first 22. Rockliff, Steven Motlop and Watts are great ins. A super trade period.

Should we bring Denis in as our chief negotiator and use his Travancore real estate knowledge.

There's no rules against underquoting in the trade game. But the Crows low balling Lever made him look around!

Bit worried that Denis values Matt Lobbe as a big in.

  On 20/10/2017 at 03:10, Dockett 32 said:

Chewy I understand your family connection, you're 'coming out'  so to speak and the admiral job you did of presenting your ( maybe the families) side of the story.

Nonetheless I would have to disagree with your suggested level of market interest in Jack.

 Sadly for us there was not strong or significant demand as far as I was able to detect from the external information available . IMO it supports our FD and maybe the broader AFL clubs valuation.

In any event the market spoke and the fact is that it was pick 31.

Its not the worst position in the world, but  some distance from Weller , Lever or Gibbs like unfortunately for us.

 

 

 

 

Thanks. I have tried to be open minded about it all. Nah. It was only me. Jack doesn't know about me being on here and I'm sure he'll kill me if he finds out. And I have only recently told Jack's mum and dad.

We all have the choice in what we want to believe. But I don't think that I'd be making any over-the-top statement by suggesting that not all information is made available to the public. I'm not here to brow beat people into believing me. Just to share what I know to be the facts. And I know what the level of market interest was in Jack. Believe me or not, that's fine.

The real problem the FD had is in what they said to Jack and to PC about Jack's chances of remaining a Dee. From the outset, PC knew that the club couldn't/wouldn't take Jack back and so MFC had no wriggle room when it came to negotiating for higher picks. And, my opinion is, that I'd be quite certain that PA knew that too. So why would they offer anything better when they know they can get 'away' with pick 31 and MFC contributing to Jacks package.

But again I'm not here to beat you into believing my stories.

I wish the Dees every success but really hope the FD get their heads around some better, more respectful, player management practices.

  On 19/10/2017 at 22:38, ChewyOnMyBoot said:

I absolutely agree with you - it is best for both parties and thats ok.

And if you don't have much of an opinion of Jack's worth as a footballer, that's ok too. Everybody is entitled to an opinion.

But as to "If Geelong wanted him they would have grabbed him, they didn't... Port the only ones who put a bid in?" - that's codswallop. And I suspect that like many on DL you are using that statement to somehow back up you're opinion of Jack's worth as a footballer.

Geelong absolutely 100% made an offer to Jack. But as it turns out, Port Adelaide absolutely nailed their presentation to Jack and the role that they want Jack to play is completely aligned with what he believes are his strengths.

Furthermore, if you want to take a guess at how many other clubs enquired of PC requesting that they be consulted should Jack's initial choice fall through I can tell you that 2 is wrong and anything below that is wronger. Hahahahaha.

Them's the facts. Sorry to disappoint you.

I was wrong about the club trading Jack.

I was, however, right about there being no chance if he left it would be for a cellar dweller and in all likelihood he would go to a top 4 club.

Port is a much better option for Jack than Geelong i think. Not least because i they are in a much better position, in my humble, to win a flag in the next 5 years than the Cats. For the Cats its next year or never.  

  On 20/10/2017 at 06:04, binman said:

I was wrong about the club trading Jack.

I was, however, right about there being no chance if he left it would be for a cellar dweller and in all likelihood he would go to a top 4 club.

Port is a much better option for Jack than Geelong i think. Not least because i they are in a much better position, in my humble, to win a flag in the next 5 years than the Cats. For the Cats its next year or never.  

never say never binman unless talking about the mfc 

  On 20/10/2017 at 05:28, ChewyOnMyBoot said:

Thanks. I have tried to be open minded about it all. Nah. It was only me. Jack doesn't know about me being on here and I'm sure he'll kill me if he finds out. And I have only recently told Jack's mum and dad.

We all have the choice in what we want to believe. But I don't think that I'd be making any over-the-top statement by suggesting that not all information is made available to the public. I'm not here to brow beat people into believing me. Just to share what I know to be the facts. And I know what the level of market interest was in Jack. Believe me or not, that's fine.

The real problem the FD had is in what they said to Jack and to PC about Jack's chances of remaining a Dee. From the outset, PC knew that the club couldn't/wouldn't take Jack back and so MFC had no wriggle room when it came to negotiating for higher picks. And, my opinion is, that I'd be quite certain that PA knew that too. So why would they offer anything better when they know they can get 'away' with pick 31 and MFC contributing to Jacks package.

But again I'm not here to beat you into believing my stories.

I wish the Dees every success but really hope the FD get their heads around some better, more respectful, player management practices.

From what I've read Sydney, Collingwood, Geelong and Port were interested in Jack.  Jack decided in week one of trade week that he wanted to go to Port but couldn't announce it as lose ends were being tied up.  I took this to mean the trade picks and the portion of salary to be paid by Port.

So I for one believe you that Jack had other offers.  

I heard WB's Football Manager, Chris Grant yesterday talk about Stringer and why he was being let go.  Unlike mfc he made it clear the issues were best kept in-house as they wanted to treat Jake with dignity and respect.

The same cannot be said of mfc's coach, captain and football manager.  Their public critique of Jack was constant; a very harsh way to treat a loyal albeit imperfect employee who is being exited.  People say everyone knew Jack's deficiencies.  Probably true but our club didn't need to keep reminding everyone of them and certainly not after the deal was done, which Mahoney did.  Not sure what was going on inside mfc but deliberately devaluing one's asset isn't very smart in my book. 

Despite all that, our Jack held his head high and did not once comment on what mfc was putting out to the public.  He took it on the chin.  He was gracious, respectful and showed goodwill to the end.  You must be a very proud uncle, Chewy. 

  On 20/10/2017 at 07:03, Lucifer's Hero said:

From what I've read Sydney, Collingwood, Geelong and Port were interested in Jack.  Jack decided in week one of trade week that he wanted to go to Port but couldn't announce it as lose ends were being tied up.  I took this to mean the trade picks and the portion of salary to be paid by Port.

So I for one believe you that Jack had other offers.  

I heard WB's Football Manager, Chris Grant yesterday talk about Stringer and why he was being let go.  Unlike mfc he made it clear the issues were best kept in-house as they wanted to treat Jake with dignity and respect.

The same cannot be said of mfc's coach, captain and football manager.  Their public critique of Jack was constant; a very harsh way to treat a loyal albeit imperfect employee who is being exited.  People say everyone knew Jack's deficiencies.  Probably true but our club didn't need to keep reminding everyone of them and certainly not after the deal was done, which Mahoney did.  Not sure what was going on inside mfc but deliberately devaluing one's asset isn't very smart in my book. 

Despite all that, our Jack held his head high and did not once comment on what mfc was putting out to the public.  He took it on the chin.  He was gracious, respectful and showed goodwill to the end.  You must be a very proud uncle, Chewy. 

Chris Grant stepped in after Beveridge and others trashed Stringer early in the piece. 

I didn't see anything about Watts said that was nearly as bad as this:

  Quote

“It is because first and foremost I operate from a platform of care and duty to our players and I’ve got to look after the whole group,” the coach said.

That's a stinging comment. 
Then the guy had his dirty laundry aired in public about his cheating, gambling and poor preparation/rehab. Once that was done the Dogs could only say nice things.

Melbourne could've been a touch wiser with Watts but from the get go it was a list management decision far more than it was about Jack's personality. The comments about his commitment to training etc were still about his footy and not about his character. 

I do agree with the sentiments that Watts handled himself very well.