titan_uranus

We have a new regime and we just turfed two MFC hall of famers, with members having deserted us all year It would be incredulous if the new leaders didn’t get out there and talk about what we’re doing.

Didn’t take long to get the classic “talk is cheap” trope. What do you want the club to do in [censored] October? Yes, judge the club on how we play. But we can’t play until March. It’s brainless to suggest the club should say nothing until March, so just accept that in October (and November-February), the only thing the club can give us is words.

Thankfully he was under contract then! Long term contracts aren’t always a bad thing. As @Lucifers Hero says, Clarry netted us such an awful return for other reasons (off field stuff, and our mishandling which led to us having no negotiating leverage).

Steelers, Patriots, Falcons

I don’t agree with any of this. You only had to look on here to see how many didn’t understand why we traded Oliver, or are upset about him/Trac, or still think it should have been “no Humphrey, no Trac”. And regardless, it’s absolutely the right thing to do for the club to acknowledge that we’ve just traded two future MFC hall of famers. The point of the letter wasn’t to tell us something we didn’t already know. It was to acknowledge something meaningful happened, and to put a full stop behind it.

Anything except this. Anything that doesn’t involve players moving jumpers. 5 was Trac. That’s a past era now. Let Langford become HL19. Make 19 the new 5.

Nah we just traded out two of the best players we’ve ever had, he 100% should have said something.

That’s a nice bonus.

Again, a sad day. A genuine champion of our club walks out the door for a largely useless pick whilst we pay him to play for a flag contender. It’s an appalling way for his chapter at Melbourne to end, no matter how you look at it. Like with Trac, it’s time for us to launch into a new era with a new midfield, but I sure hope we had good reasons for this, because to my eyes, we’ve cocked this up.

A sad day. Was my favourite player. Brought us relevance, and of course a flag. At his best, which I believe he can regain, a top 5 league player. Time for us to move into a new era with another 2 first round picks.

It’s the former. Surely. Surely…

I’m ok with using that pick. Spargo into CJ is not a loss. Whether it is a win remains to be seen, but here’s hoping!

We are and were never going to get Humphrey unless one of the following occurred: GC believed we would take Trac back, and therefore had to cave before we did GC value picks 7 and/or 8 higher than Humphrey and therefore would prefer to trade Humphrey and keep the picks Point 2 would never occur given GC’s position needing points for the academy players. So long as GC believe we won’t take Trac back, they’d never trade Humphrey. They will still get Trac and then, if need be, will trade Humphrey next year for additional picks (worth more to them in a stronger draft) or players.

What do you mean none of the other Vic clubs didn’t look at the deal? Trac nominated GC. He wasn’t inviting offers from Vic clubs. Hawthorn have been distracted by Merrett, and look what they’re offering for him. This wasn’t an open market where we were going to get to pit rivals bids against themselves.

If we knew this was coming, we should have let him go to Geelong last year. Or we should have started this process earlier than two business days before trade period, so that we didn’t have to rush it. There’s almost nothing we’ve done in relation to this situation that is anything other than shambolic. And we’re about to pay a ridiculously steep price for that.

Generally agree. We have no leg to stand on, and they know it. Unlike with Trac, where we’ve at least put up a public position of wanting him back, the way we’ve dropped this news on Clarry, so late and so abruptly, has destroyed any bargaining power we have. Coupled with a contract that no one wants (us included), we’re absolutely stuffed. We have no choice but to take their lowball offer and move on.

Unsure about this. We need pace and a willingness to take the game on, but we don’t need poor kicking. Not sure where CJ lands on that matrix. Hopefully nothing beyond a 3rd round pick for this one.

Or it could say we’re just not very good at negotiating.

Thanks for answering the smoke signal, @Chook in Perth . All this means is we’re back to what we’ve debated since this all started. Are we prepared to have Trac come back and play for us next year? If yes, we’re a chance here. If no, we’re no chance. Any insight on the club’s relationship with Trac?

Can we get @Chook in Perth to put this one to bed one way or another? (…please?)

I’ve slept on it and I’m still not a fan of 7 & 8 for Trac and McVee. That doesn’t feel like a trade that turns our heads. That doesn’t feel like a trade that is the best result for the MFC.

But if we send 24 back, then 7 and 8 aren’t our haul for Trac, they’re our haul for Trac and McVee.

This is correct. I’m confident part of the decision to sack Goodwin was PR-related - helping convince members to stay members and show up to games. If our trade period results in the above (Trac, Clarry, McVee out, and 7, 8 and 36 in), I suspect a large segment of our membership/supporter base will be upset. It will go against Guerra and Lamb’s tough words, too. Personally, I don’t think 7 and 8 for Trac and McVee is “head turning”, for example.

Yeah but on form was he really best 23 for the back half of last year or the first half of this year?

Why does the X post say three new additions but the Instagram post says four (with McLennan)?