Jump to content

Featured Replies

Can’t stop players from wanting to leave. 

Is he an absolute fool for leaving a club who has done so much for him and is a major flag contender in the new few years to go to a garbage club with no game plan and a terrible coach? Yes. 

Should we milk him for all he’s worth and extract maximum value out of Freo’s pathetic and never ending desperation to land him? 100%

I am all about improving our club. 

I want him to stay but he if wants to go, let’s make our club better as a result. 

I back the club to get it done. 

 

I'll leave you with one last thing....

Melbourne will be the "Kings" of KP players next year ?

26 minutes ago, Bring Back Barassi said:

Yes, it panned out that way, but we could have extracted more at the time if we played hardball

Based on what form? The bloke was dropped a week after his 150th game. 

He's not an All Australian, has finished top 5 in the BnF just once in his career, every coach he has had in his career has dropped him.

And then went off to Port and stunk it up there aswell.

 

Just a broad view thought

Through the death of his father, through cancer, through signficant injury... there is a whole range of existential stuff playing out for him...and has been for sometime.

I wouldn't blame him if he seeks the coin to play in his home state, where his mates are, at the expense of the relationships he has formed here...because nothing is guaranteed.

He's 23 and may not value (because he is 23) what we perceive as a successful period of time...he may be a really pragmatic bloke, and think that, he has time in his career to be part of something bigger back home.

Even though there is a whole lot of $$$ on offer presumably, it's clearly bigger than that for the bloke.

10 minutes ago, MurDoc516 said:

gaff wants 1.1m from a bottom 8 team. he still could sign for weagles for the 750k the offered. 

True. But i understand this was the figure dees received from his management and opted out as a result not prepared to pay that much and gaff moved onto roos for discussions. 

 


Love Hogan...but he's worth trading just so all of us don't have to put up with the 'Hogan going home' talk every off season for the next 10 years. ****ing over it!

Thanks for the 40 or so goals a year Jesse. All the best. C ya.

May for Hogan. I'll take that deal thanks

 

59 minutes ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

I’d accept brayshaw and their first rounder for hogan. 

what are brayshaw's attributes? will he be a star like hogan? will the pick be a star like hogan??

 

 
8 minutes ago, Jaded said:

I am all about improving our club. 

I want him to stay

Sorry Jaded if I steal your post but these two lines intrigue me

What if the result of him leaving...i.e trades etc..Improves the club ??

I ask as Im club first, player afterwards

many are/have possibly suggested...we simply have to make the best of a bad situation. 
I think it's a good situation we can do really well out of. And in doing so Jesse doesnt come off too shabby either

granted...I think differently to many


6 minutes ago, Goodvibes said:

Sorry, where's all the Whitfield talk coming from?

I dropped him in there  - #1512

I could have easily said Kelly... I suppose.

Edited by Danelska

5 minutes ago, Rocky said:

what are brayshaw's attributes? will he be a star like hogan? will the pick be a star like hogan??

 

Maybe not but if hogan wants to leave you’re tossing up a better deal now or a compo pick potentially next year 

If we go with a pick and player combo, I'd be looking to get the Brisbane first rounder instead of theirs.  I know two spots isn't a huge deal, but it means we can either on trade it for whatever we need or select the player we really want.

Dunno what you guys are on about. Norf didn't trade Carey, why should we trade Hogan. ONE GOOD REASON.

Just now, Patches O’houlihan said:

Maybe not but if hogan wants to leave you’re tossing up a better deal now or a compo pick potentially next year 

i'd suggest the footy dept. would go after more guaranteed returns that that.

 


44 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

So pick 5 is already more than we paid for Lever. 

If Jesse is traded, we aren't going to get two top 5 picks IMO. We may get a top 5 plus a later first rounder or players to that value.

I agree...sorry..that probably irks you

But youre right I think.   I sense the trading is to get May..and some up and comer perhaps.  The drafts picks are a different issue per se.

The club  ( ours ) just wants ITS result...then it's all good as far as it goes

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

Sorry Jaded if I steal your post but these two lines intrigue me

What if the result of him leaving...i.e trades etc..Improves the club ??

I ask as Im club first, player afterwards

many are/have possibly suggested...we simply have to make the best of a bad situation. 
I think it's a good situation we can do really well out of. And in doing so Jesse doesnt come off too shabby either

granted...I think differently to many

There are only 3 players, who if they left our club, I would be heartbroken and cry over. They are Oliver, Gawn and Gus (Viney  and Jetta not included as I just assume they would never leave). 

Hogan is a very good player. Of that I have no doubt. If he stays we are still able to improve our list and we maintain a very good player. But if he leaves, I hope we maximize his value to improve our list. 

Just now, Rocky said:

i'd suggest the footy dept. would go after more guaranteed returns that that.

 

Such as? 

43 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

The club will not pay what gaff wants. 1.1m

They recognise the need to bring a star studded young group up together a la geelong pay wise. No outliers paywise and the team has bought into this philosophy.

The club needs to improve now, whilst we are hot. 

We must trade hard

It's gonna be interesting if a suitable deal can't be reached and he ends up staying 


8 minutes ago, Goodvibes said:

Sorry, where's all the Whitfield talk coming from?

Delusion. 

1 hour ago, MurDoc516 said:

I'm sorry but i'll lose serious faith in the club if we trade him for one [censored] first round pick. We paid two to get him and we should demand two high picks in return. I'm happy to get one pick now and one in the future to help us secure any future deals, but i'd spit chips if we gave him up for one first rounder. His stats for his age are on par with Josh Kennedy ffs.

The way i see it is we are getting two first rounders and one of them will go to the suns for May. What we do with the other pick is anyone's guess. I'd like to make a play for Sam Walsh but he's like a no.1 pick. The King brothers are the high prospect talls in the draft. 

Totally agree MD516. Anything less than 2 first rounders (especially a high first round pick) and we must simply not do any deal. Like you have said, we gave up 2 first rounders for him, then when he went through all his dreadful times we have stood by him and supported him.

The article suggests he is open to a trade if we are, leading me to assume he will only go if we get his market rate in return.

 
6 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Statement from the club

Here we go...

Rick Ashley, Gold WB!

One of the posts of the year.

Edited by Jibroni

7 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I agree...sorry..that probably irks you

But youre right I think.   I sense the trading is to get May..and some up and comer perhaps.  The drafts picks are a different issue per se.

The club  ( ours ) just wants ITS result...then it's all good as far as it goes

Sadly the other reality is that we aren't in a strong position when only one year out from him being an RFA.

Yes he is contracted, but if freo are confident of getting him after next season they wait a year and get him for nothing.  We get better value now, but we won't get two first rounders. 

 

Edited by Guest


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 63 replies
  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Haha
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies