1 hour ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Oliver to Essendon, and pray we can get our pick back?

Not a chance with his wages. Although he is probably a minor upgrade on Parish and Shiels. if Shiels retires and Parish is still no good come end of season, we maybe in with a chance to get our pick back only if we cough up upwards of 30% of his salary.

But it would be a very hard sell IMO.

6 minutes ago, GS_1905 said:

Not a chance with his wages. Although he is probably a minor upgrade on Parish and Shiels. if Shiels retires and Parish is still no good come end of season, we maybe in with a chance to get our pick back only if we cough up upwards of 30% of his salary.

But it would be a very hard sell IMO.

Get the Dodoro special 😅

Just now, demoncat said:

If (and yes it’s still an if) Trac wants to leave/the club considers trading him, would the Hawks be interested?

Currently hold Carlton’s first round pick and might be the only club who could be appealing to Trac while also having enough draft capital to satisfy us

(Not advocating for it but seeing as the discourse is starting again we may as well get the thread rolling!)

Edited June 30Jun 30 by demoncat

54 minutes ago, demoncat said:

If (and yes it’s still an if) Trac wants to leave/the club considers trading him, would the Hawks be interested?

Currently hold Carlton’s first round pick and might be the only club who could be appealing to Trac while also having enough draft capital to satisfy us

(Not advocating for it but seeing as the discourse is starting again we may as well get the thread rolling!)

Let's see from the three amigos in the mid field:

> JV won't be traded ever, heart and soul of the club.

> Oliver not easy to find a spot for him outside of inside midfield. So, not very flexible magnets wise. Also, probably as low trade value as JV.

> Petracca can play forward, so he offers more flexibility to our list. You'd think the club would rather keep him and he is ahead of the two mentioned above. However, he is definitely the one that has the most trade value. And we may not need to pay any of his salary if he's traded (unlike with Oliver).

It'll be a coin toss between Oliver and Petracca. I hope whoever stays if fully committed to the coming years of rebuilding on the fly.

I think Trac is damaged goods unfortunately. Most clubs would use this to short change us.

Bombers and Hawks could both use his talent. They have trade stock as well. But let’s face it it’s a maximum 1 first rounder and not 2. Maybe a 2nd rounder. I’d take it and run if we could get that.

Oliver theoretically can get back to his best but who knows what’s going on in that kids mind.

Bottom line is we need to get active and move players on whilst they still have value.

Love that the ch 9 footy show is saying we should trade Trac and baggers should trade Cripps

Appalling show devoid from any sense of reality

I’ve said elsewhere I think we should make it known that we are open to good offers for all of our players rather than putting one or two up for sale.

I think it weakens your hand if you put a player up for trade, it also doesn’t help with morale.

If we got a good first round pick for either Trac or Clarry and went to the draft with that pick it would allow us to contribute a big percentage of the salary for next year which should ensure a good pick.

I really like the idea of Trac spending the bulk of his time forward. Saturday was proof that JV needs to be inside mid and as most say Clarry can only play mid. Gives the option of rotating a few other players through the midfield, sending Petty back and helps out the development of JVR/Jeffo. Trac can be a shock troop through the midfield on occasion ALA Dangerfield.

If Tracc and / or Clarry wanted to leave at the end of the year, why should it be that the MFC loses because of this? We negotiated a contract and a contract price in good faith with these players and they willingly signed up. We should be allowed to get fair value for the player in these situations instead of ending up paying part of their contract fee and perhaps getting a third rounder in return. That is just not fair.

What should happen is the MFC contract with the player is torn up, we get fair trade value for the player and the player negotiates his salary with the new Club. What’s wrong with this system?

I would consider a trade for either if a good offer comes along. Otherwise do we take the attitude we have two very good but not superstar players and build the team outwards and not have them as central. To me it might be better accepting they are getting overpaid rather than trading and paying part of their salary. That is surrender to another side who you have to submit to. Let’s show strength and not be an walkover

If Trac is going to to have any chance of success in the forward half, he has some mental demons regarding contested marking, which he needs to banish.

Dangerfield is so good because he is fearless in the air and an elite mark for his size.

11 hours ago, demoncat said:

If (and yes it’s still an if) Trac wants to leave/the club considers trading him, would the Hawks be interested?

Currently hold Carlton’s first round pick and might be the only club who could be appealing to Trac while also having enough draft capital to satisfy us

(Not advocating for it but seeing as the discourse is starting again we may as well get the thread rolling!)

Would he be happy with the drive to Dingley every training day?

35 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

If Tracc and / or Clarry wanted to leave at the end of the year, why should it be that the MFC loses because of this? We negotiated a contract and a contract price in good faith with these players and they willingly signed up. We should be allowed to get fair value for the player in these situations instead of ending up paying part of their contract fee and perhaps getting a third rounder in return. That is just not fair.

What should happen is the MFC contract with the player is torn up, we get fair trade value for the player and the player negotiates his salary with the new Club. What’s wrong with this system?

They would have to accept less coin at their new clubs, its as simple as that.

We need talent through the doors,picks in the 1st round not just their salary off the books.

Both Essendrug and Hawforn have the cap space and draft picks we desire.

Only issue with Essendrug is that they are in no man's land just like us atm, not appealing to players in their prime.

41 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

If Tracc and / or Clarry wanted to leave at the end of the year, why should it be that the MFC loses because of this? We negotiated a contract and a contract price in good faith with these players and they willingly signed up. We should be allowed to get fair value for the player in these situations instead of ending up paying part of their contract fee and perhaps getting a third rounder in return. That is just not fair.

What should happen is the MFC contract with the player is torn up, we get fair trade value for the player and the player negotiates his salary with the new Club. What’s wrong with this system?

I agree it makes sense but unfortunately the players have too much power in this situation. It’ll only take one player doing it before it becomes a thing.

I think it was reported that Oliver was going to take a pay cut with Geelong - after we got royally screwed of course.

2 minutes ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

They would have to accept less coin at their new clubs, its as simple as that.

We need talent through the doors,picks in the 1st round not just their salary off the books.

Both Essendrug and Hawforn have the cap space and draft picks we desire.

Only issue with Essendrug is that they are in no man's land just like us atm, not appealing to players in their prime.

Agree but Essendon is younger than our squad by a fair margin as is probably lacking an inside bull. Would be interesting to see if they pursue him. I think Trac would be swayed given the commercial appeal of Essendon too.

Oliver needs to just get away from the big smoke unfortunately.

4 minutes ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

They would have to accept less coin at their new clubs, its as simple as that.

We need talent through the doors,picks in the 1st round not just their salary off the books.

Agree they probably would have to accept less coin - but that’s their choice - leave for less or stay and be rewarded.

With their contract torn up, then we would want fair compensation through decent picks in return.

The point is, we shouldn’t be made to lose because a player wants out.

1 hour ago, Strawberry Fields said:

I really like the idea of Trac spending the bulk of his time forward. Saturday was proof that JV needs to be inside mid and as most say Clarry can only play mid. Gives the option of rotating a few other players through the midfield, sending Petty back and helps out the development of JVR/Jeffo. Trac can be a shock troop through the midfield on occasion ALA Dangerfield.

But we can't carry Oliver and JV in the midfield for 90% of the game.

Both butcher the ball.

Unless Viney can have some cameos in the forward half, more as a defensive forward.

Watching the game on Saturday was the first time I've been open to the idea of Oliver playing for another club. The product he's putting on the field is so far off a $1 million per season commodity it's not funny. And I'm also understanding that we're not going to get a first rounder for him if a club is willing to pay the majority of his contract.

Trac on the other hand - you'd really wanting to get something good in return.

2 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Watching the game on Saturday was the first time I've been open to the idea of Oliver playing for another club. The product he's putting on the field is so far off a $1 million per season commodity it's not funny. And I'm also understanding that we're not going to get a first rounder for him if a club is willing to pay the majority of his contract.

Trac on the other hand - you'd really wanting to get something good in return.

Isn't he paid 1.2 million at least?

I dont think Tracc OR Clarry will be with us in 2026!🙄

48 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Isn't he paid 1.2 million at least?

I've heard it varies over the life of the contract but I'd imagine $1 million is the average per year at the very least.

He was genuinely a liability at times on Saturday, particularly early in the game, for such a highly paid player.

Petracca is worth more in a trade, but I’d let clarry go. Trac is a point of difference, clarry is just a plodder at this stage. Massive fall from grace.

No matter where any of our players get transferred to, if maggots and maggot Media are going to treat them like they are treated and abused and scorned on the field like they are now, it will be valueless.

Someone mentioned Dangerfield. I'll tell what the difference between him and our two best players is. He gets looked after by maggots, with free kicks and that's ones given to him and against him.

You people cannot accept what is going on here. Our players attention off the ball has sky-rocketed and blokes like Hird and Bartel know it but cannot say/accept it...

2 hours ago, BW511 said:

If Trac is going to to have any chance of success in the forward half, he has some mental demons regarding contested marking, which he needs to banish.

Dangerfield is so good because he is fearless in the air and an elite mark for his size.

And elite kick