45HG

Quite a few people get (unreasonably) stuck on this point IMO. This is the simple product of the salary cap system. For the last 4 years of his career at the Dees, Bruce was one of the leaders of probably the worst team going around. Who would you have paid more to? Someone has to be the highest, why wouldn't it go to one of our most consistent players? And if he's in the top 2-3 money earners in the worst performed club it's obvious how he'd be in the top 50 or so earners in the league, especially when you consider that the Geelongs, St. Kildas etc. have to share the same pie (and bigger slices) to more players.

I'd wager that you didn't know that he was at the club before seeing this clip and that this clip was the very source for this thread. Do you know what his role is at the club? Do you know how the players feel about it?

As has already been shown, this is largely irrelevant as Bruce had already contacted the Hawks for a position next year. The only was it is relevant is that if Bruce had've told the Dees that he was moving on, Junior may still be playing next year. You're just ignoring facts now Bobby. How do you suppose we could have kept him "IF WE WANTED TO?" We couldn't have offered him more money, as the contract he settled for was for less - so that doesn't matter. And his new contract was also for one year on a - to quote from Bruce himself - 'year-to-year' proposition. When Bruce finally told Bailey his decision, Bailey asked if there was "anything" he could do to change his mind - Bruce said there wasn't. Typical MFCSS. You'd rather the club be to blame or falter than see that your favourite player left the club by choice.

Who's that?

I know it's the off season, but try and keep the posts on the topic. Posters are reminded to "play the ball, not the man." If you need clarification, read the Code of Conduct. Thank you.

Bizarre. He's at a club that didn't even initially want him after he approached them, he's on less money than we offered him and he has to live by the same year-to-year basis that he would've at the same club that gave him his start in AFL footy - and some would probably still think he was pushed. As Garry Lyon says, the footy club doesn't owe the player anything. We gave him a go at the MFC to have a shot at AFL, he played for us for 11 years and he walks out and people still want to criticize the club. Unreal.

Couldn't believe my eyes when the guy responded.

I like the Fork's sig.

Funnily enough I ... never mind.

As I understand it, you can have either 2 veterans, 2 rookies or 1 of each playing on your main list. Bruce leaving meant we were able to take an extra pick in the rookie draft, possibly allowing us to claim Campbell, and one rookie will be able to play.

A little from column A. and well, you know the rest.

Incorrect.

I'm missing the heart of each (any?) argument. What are people actually arguing? Is anyone arguing, or are people just vehemently stating their respective points of view?

If you have a genuine inqury, and perhaps can illustrate why you want to know, I'm sure they'd be able to help you out.

Long live #45!

Contact the Dees?

When the rest of us know that it's really 1/4 full

Fixed. Ouch!

I (especially) wish young Kelvin the best of luck! Great to see a Dee in the #45 again.

...they wouldn't be scoring shots.

Fourth time he's done it too - three have them have been crucial IIRC

David Neitz had 999 scoring shots.

Green is 6 away from 300 goals. C(/sh)ould have a lot more. Good quiz HT, thanks for that.

Macdonald is 3 from 100.

Jamie Charman