Yeah great strategy - trade our leading goal kicker who has spent most of the year on one leg in a team that is the lowest scoring team in the AFL!

Guys, as the new coach will be crucial in piloting the clubs recruitment goals for the next 3 years at least, I can guarantee that no contract or trade talk is going on at all until that is decided. Calm yourselves. Robbo is the MFC

  Ted Fidge said:

The new coaching panel may do anything.

Robbo ... Whelan ... Rivers ... Brock ... no-one is safe if the new broom thinks it's best for the long term.

Maybe a bit of soul ripping is what's required?

We're starved for success and something has to give.

exactly...no one has any place cemented nor should they. The players work for the team...not the other way round.

I have no doubt the new powers that be will keep those that matter..and trade those that can be ( for the betterment ) of the team. If ther's no bettering the team by trading 'this or that' then they simply wont be traded

  The Fergburger said:

Robbo will play out his days with the Demons. He's turning 30 next year and we won't get much for him in trade week.

The boys love him at the club so he probably won't go.

That's one of the problems we have at Melbourne. As much as the boys might "love" him, it's necessary for us to act rationally and to retain players for better reasons than that one.

  rumpole said:

That's one of the problems we have at Melbourne. As much as the boys might "love" him, it's necessary for us to act rationally and to retain players for better reasons than that one.

Fair point.

Regarding Robbo, I suggest that - considering Robertson's age and role - the value we're offered for him in a trade will probably be less than what he's worth to us right now.

was just on Ch9 news, says he has been with us for 11 years, wants to stay with us forever

but has only been offered 2 years, not the 3 he wants (club rules)

collingwood (i wouldn't be able to watch footy again) and the bulldogs have enquired about his services

just confirmed on 9 news that robbo is looking for a 3 year deal, club only offering 2...

collingwood and bulldogs already inquired about getting his services...

I think the club is right to only offer 2 years - he has been injured on a regular basis and at his age we can't afford to lock ourselves into a long term contract that we cannot get out of.

He will stay though, I just don't think he is the type to leave. We told him he is a required player, it's not as if we want to get rid of him.

  vanlo said:

just confirmed on 9 news that robbo is looking for a 3 year deal, club only offering 2...

Even with everything that may happen, I hope the club will actually stick to offering him two.

Three years is a proven risk plus he is thirty-ish, injured, and we have been burned by three year contracts before.

I will never argue that a player should not try to get the most that he can, he has every right to.

But I can imagine that the club would have other concerns about that length of deal.

It will be interesting to see how this will be handled, especially since other clubs may be interested.

Can't really see him leaving though !!!

He is in his rights to try and get the best deal for himself, however as I said before, can anyone actually see him leaving the club he loves for an extra year?

If at the end of 2009 he deserves an extension, he'll get one.

Nobody should really be getting a 3 year deal. It's just too risky, especially for players over 26 years of age (why did we sign Bruce for 3 years, I don't know!).

  brey9186 said:

was just on Ch9 news, says he has been with us for 11 years, wants to stay with us forever

but has only been offered 2 years, not the 3 he wants (club rules)

collingwood (i wouldn't be able to watch footy again) and the bulldogs have enquired about his services

Yeah I saw it. I'd hate to lose him and I'd really really hate it if Collingw&%$ got him. It would shatter me to see him in black and white. It also sounded like he went to the club to talk about his contract and he was disappointed they didn't come to him first. Can't they give him a two year deal with an automatic option for an extra year in there. He has been with us for 11 years and only 28. I'd really don't see a problem giving him the 3 years. I know he has had this knee injury but over pre season he will get that cleaned out. Hopefully the new coach can talk him into staying.

  Jaded said:

He is in his rights to try and get the best deal for himself, however as I said before, can anyone actually see him leaving the club he loves for an extra year?

If at the end of 2009 he deserves an extension, he'll get one.

Nobody should really be getting a 3 year deal. It's just too risky, especially for players over 26 years of age (why did we sign Bruce for 3 years, I don't know!).

Agree, except with the use of the word " nobody". There are some players above 26 you would sign for 3 years and take the risk. If Neita was 27 would you worry about giving him a 3 year deal?

PS. WJ I wonder if your mate has got anything to do with this?

  Redleg said:

If Neita was 27 would you worry about giving him a 3 year deal?

There are exceptions to every rule, but I'd be cautious regardless.

  brey9186 said:

was just on Ch9 news, says he has been with us for 11 years, wants to stay with us forever

but has only been offered 2 years, not the 3 he wants (club rules)

collingwood (i wouldn't be able to watch footy again) and the bulldogs have enquired about his services

Robbo's nearly stuffed physically now , he's got one more good season in him.

Give him 1 or let him go.

Yze got 3 - wrong decision.

Bizzell got 3 - wrong decision.

Robertson ? I'd happily trade him for the right deal.

Btw, many supporters strongly criticised the club for those aforementioned 3 year deals at the time. There's no benefit of hindsight here.

  DV8 said:

Robbo's nearly stuffed physically now , he's got one more good season in him.

Give him 1 or let him go.

Spot on. I can't believe the club has offered him two years with that wonky knee of his. If another club or clubs have expressed interest then all I can say is give him a rest this weekend because if he does his knee a la Neita, his trade value would be south of zero.

  Hannabal said:

Yze got 3 - wrong decision.

Bizzell got 3 - wrong decision.

Robertson ? I'd happily trade him for the right deal.

Btw, many supporters strongly criticised the club for those aforementioned 3 year deals at the time. There's no benefit of hindsight here.

Yes.

If we keep giving extended contracts to players that are nearly done, out of just generosity, then we'll soon all be flying to surfers paradise every other w/end to see a game.

  DV8 said:

Yes.

If we keep giving extended contracts to players that are nearly done, out of just generosity, then we'll soon all be flying to surfers paradise every other w/end to see a game.

The Northern RooDees...

I love Robbo and allways have. But demanding three years is not what should be offered to him.

He is too old to be offered that sort of contract.

I think he'll sign for two years, why would you want to go to Collingwood

Exactly why would he want to go to noteethwood anyway.

I don't know much about how these things work but wouldn't the contract be performanced based so if he really hardly played in the 3rd season the only damage would be that we've delayed getting another draft pick for a year.

And what if it turned out he's good for another 5 years?

  Courtney_Fish said:

I don't know much about how these things work but wouldn't the contract be performanced based so if he really hardly played in the 3rd season the only damage would be that we've delayed getting another draft pick for a year.

And what if it turned out he's good for another 5 years?

Here's the HUN's story - ROBBO WAITS FOR NEW DEAL

Robbo's contract would not be performance based. The club needs to hold firm on this one, otherwise we will have every player that age wanting 3 years contracts and holding the club to ransom aover it, set the trend now, 2 years after 29 no matter who the player.

shouldn't this be more plausible if he was on the veterans list? in 1 or 2 years considering the general amount of youth on our list he would be the only one on the vets list so I cant see a 3 year contract being so much of a problem... although rules are rules.

  Jaded said:

Nobody should really be getting a 3 year deal. It's just too risky, especially for players over 26 years of age (why did we sign Bruce for 3 years, I don't know!).

3rd year of Bruce's deal will be Veteran's listed so normally that would means that he would be paid less than market value for the next two years so it makes a lot of sense. Also need to keep in mind that he won't turn 31 until after the 2010 season so it's not a massive risk.

The other side of this is that if no-one gets a 3 year deal, say goodbye to any potential premierships because other clubs will snap up our best players who want some security - particularly 26 and 27 year olds who are in the prime of their careers.

Having said that, any more than 2 years for Robbo would be foolish at his age and with his style of play. I do think 2 years rather than 1 would be fair though and balance the risk/reward question.