titan_uranus

The logic is sound. 

He may not be the best ruckman at AFL level but neither is Darcy Fort. The concept makes sense and means we go into 2025 without the same level of fear over a possible Max injury. 

So are they on the same page? This suggests they aren’t.

42 minutes ago, WiseDeeMan said:

I was told at the beginning of 2021 specifically from a former player (hasn't been at the club for a 2-3 years now) Oliver is big, big trouble.  He is treated differently to everyone else simply because he is a good player. If others were to do some of the things he does, they would be treated very differently.  He mentioned that one day when Oliver was behaving poorly, he gave it to him straight....yet Oliver wasn't the one reprimanded, it was Goodwin who spoke with this particular player and said "you can't talk to Clayton like that, we have to be careful with him". 

I would say enough is enough.  He clearly is massive trouble and has a huge contract.  Let go of getting compensated fairly based on his playing ability alone.  It's the whole package you must look at, his character is highly questionable and his contract will haunt us for years to come if he stays.

I'm guessing here, and this is just my opinion, but we have heard Petracca isn't upset with Oliver, but more with the way the club has handled him. I would say this is consistent with the above - they have had rules for him, and rules for others.  

It also was backed up by the infamous Pert / Goodwin interview where they said we've tolerated things and he will now be held accountable for his actions.  

Overall a good move by the MFC I say. 

27 minutes ago, Swooper1987 said:

Heard the same, from a very well known and highly regarded former player who left the club following the 2021 flag. Gawn and Petracca are very much in alignment over the way the Oliver "issues" have been allowed to fester over a period of time. 

2021, eh?

So that’s before we signed him to a 7 year million dollar contract that is now the noose around our necks in trying to do what you both are implying is the right thing to do?

1 hour ago, No. 31 said:

^^ he will be 28 years old next season.

You’re in a “win now” window. You have to be. Your list is primed for a flag. Houston might only give you say 4 years but if you win a flag in that time no one will care, and tbh you should win a flag. A list with Cripps, Curnow, Mackay, Walsh and Weitering shouldn’t be battling just to make finals.

1 minute ago, Tracca said:

How are we pathetic?

 

apart from not feeding into the media [censored], nothing has changed from the last day of the season until now.

What if we were never trading Clayton? This is all a media beat up, until the club speaks tonight and if claz is there we should all take a deep breath.

 

agreed our PR team are useless but let’s hold our horses here and not shoot the club for not responding to rumours just yet

We started this. We called around and asked if clubs would deal. 

He gets all the way down the path and wants out. 

We complain there isn’t enough value in a proposed trade. 

All of which was completely foreseeable. 

As if we didn’t think clubs would refrain from throwing massive draft pick hauls given his recent history? As if we didn’t think throwing his name out there for the second year in a row would create a major media storm and [censored] Clarry off?

All the parts of this that have been within our control have been mismanaged by us. 

1 minute ago, Fat Tony said:

 

Kane’s right. 

We’re absolutely pathetic. 

17 minutes ago, Abyssal said:

“Can Melbourne hold him to his contract if the price isn’t right?”

Bewildering.

Surely he’s our player until MFC say he’s not or his contract is up.

Or perhaps “journalist” Jay Clark meant to ask ‘should’ and not “can”.

We’ve instigated this. 

Which means we’ve lost the bargaining power to hold him. 

It’s, IMO, a monumental mismanagement of one of the 5 best players this club has ever had. 

We’ve pushed him out.

We’ve ceded bargaining power. 

We’re a complete mess. 

1 hour ago, bing181 said:

 

 

So are Goodwin/the FD on the same page as Pert? This sounds like they’re not. 

There are issues with this wherever you look. 

1 hour ago, Adam The God said:

Things are never as good or bad as they seem, mate.

Yes.

There’s every chance things aren’t as bad as they seem…because they’re worse. 

We spent all year backing him in. 

As recently as last week he was all in for a big pre-season with us. 

It doesn’t matter if he transgressed. We’re morons if we expected him to be a perfect model player after everything else. We had to know it was a risk, otherwise there was no point sacrificing our season playing him through his injury. 

I find this all disgracefully poor management from the club. Not just Pert. Everyone.

So much of this story is confusing. 

Do we want to trade him, or not?

Does he want out, or not?

The fact that it’s so unclear is in itself an issue. We have repeatedly demonstrated a complete inability to control any narrative about our club. 

23 minutes ago, Tough Kent said:

I just listened to Clayton Oliver on The Unlaced Podcast with Jake Barker-Daish. It was an excellent listen. Do yourself a favour.

My takeaways:

1. Clayton is in a very good head space. He sounds like he is in a very healthy state.

2. He loves the Melbourne Football Club and all his mates there.

3. He can’t wait to get back into training, he’s going back with the 1-4 year players. He acknowledges he was not fit this year and still describes himself as being “a bit fat”. He is very confident he will get back to where he was.

4. He rubbished the claims that Melbourne’s culture is poor. “We’re all mates and love having a laugh together. We just laugh at the media because they don’t know what’s happening on the inside”.

5. He loves Gawny and all that the skipper has done for him.

This was recorded last week. If Clayton is sitting down with Geelong, I can guarantee that it is not him that is pulling the strings on any potential move.

Over to you, Melbourne.

I just listened to it too. 

I agree with your summary. If you listened just to the podcast and didn’t know anything about this week’s reports, you’d walk away from that podcast feeling pretty good about where he’s at, both individually and in relation to the club. 

Given that, it makes it even harder to reconcile what’s been reported this week, and IMO only strengthens the concerns people have about the club’s administration. 

Ravens, Bills, Colts

The podcast is out. Has anyone listened to it? 

1 minute ago, sue said:

I don't think it foilows that Pert is " making list management decisions ".   If this is true (and it's always a big IF), he could be doing it as requested by the people who do the list management.  He have had no involvement with the decision, just is the messenger boy,

In what world does the CEO become a list management messenger boy?

25 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

three journos saying three very different things in two publications

so why believe any of em

It's now four journos actually.

I had thought they were all over the place but I'm not so sure.

McClure said Oliver felt unwanted and was exploring his options.

Ralph said the club knew nothing about that and quoted Richardson as saying he's a required player and will be here next year.

Morris said that Oliver wants to stay but the club has suggested he look around, and what the club says publicly isn't necessarily what it thinks privately.

Gleeson said that over the last few weeks we've invited other clubs to pitch for him and are now walking that back.

Writing this all out, Ralph's the outlier. There is a commonality between McClure, Morris and Gleeson - Oliver feels like the club doesn't want him (i.e. because the club has shopped him around).

2025 memberships have gone on sale.

Would have thought the club might have published something about this.

I notice the Digital Membership has gone up to $350 (which is what has been happening at other clubs).

5 minutes ago, DeesignerAU said:

Meanwhile, seems to have been started again by Pert, sitting on his deckchair at his home in Noosa.



https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-inside-story-how-word-spread-that-oliver-was-on-the-market-again-20241001-p5kevi.html

This is a scathing article. 

It suggests that the club has tried floating Clarry’s name, then regretted it, and now is trying to walk it back. 

It’s inconsistent with what Jon Ralph has reported, and isn’t even consistent with McClure (McClure said Clarry wanted out, Gleeson says we’ve started this). But if it’s true, it is not good. 

3 minutes ago, SthSea22 said:

Do we really think he will be the player he once was? If not, then why not let him leave?

He simply did not step up once Trac went down

There’s plenty of evidence as to his fitness/injuries to explain why he didn’t step up this year. 

Surely we wait to see if a proper pre-season makes a difference rather than shipping off for unders. 

From Jon Ralph’s article today on Clarry:

“Melbourne’s determination to keep him is built on their belief they actually need to add to their midfield after Angus Brayshaw’s retirement rather than lose a star player who helped win the 2021 Grand Final.

In the club’s reviews after an 11-win season they were relatively happy with their trio of key forwards but knew they badly missed Brayshaw’s leadership and midfield nous.

Melbourne has made inquiries of many of the available key forwards in the competition in recent months, including Jake Waterman and Tim Membrey.

Richmond’s Tom Lynch is happy to stay at the Tigers as he finishes a long-term deal.

The Demons are still confident they will secure GWS swingman Wade Derksen, who kicked 35 goals in the VFL last year then played a mix of defence and forward in 2024.

But it seems unlikely the Demons will bring in an established key forward given the difficulty in acquiring a player who will be an upgrade on Jacob Van Rooyen, the re-signed Harry Petty and Daniel Turner. 

Instead a club which has pick five and a future first-rounder will be open to opportunities to boost its midfield weaponry.

The Demons have watched on as Hawthorn’s No. 5 draft pick Nick Watson made a huge impact in his first season including exceptional finals performances.

Taking that No. 5 pick to the draft, which has a pool of players with even greater potential, would give the Demons confidence that player could make an immediate impact in 2025.

The top 10 of the draft has elite mids of many types, as well as running half backs, key forwards and intercept defenders so pick 5 is a perfect position to choose a player who could end up the best player of the draft.

Trent Rivers moved into the midfield and won the fifth-most clearances for the club, while No. 7 Caleb Windsor made a significant impact in his debut season.

Judd McVee also got some time in the centre square late in the season.“

So Tom Morris says this:

But then Jon Ralph’s article says this:

“Despite rival clubs continuing to ask about his availability the Demons will not trade the 27-year-old and had believed Oliver was content to remain at the club.

The club and Oliver were in contact again on Monday, and a player contracted for six more years had told them he was happy to stay at Melbourne.

While Oliver is a high-maintenance player who will always need care from the club the Demons are not interested in trading him.“

They don’t appear to me to be capable of both being true. 

Edit: Ralph also says:

“Oliver had considered whether to go overseas on a training camp but has spent time with family in Echuca and continued training.

He has had to have his hand monitored by medicos to assess its progress after surgery for an injury that impacted his season along with rib and knee injuries.

Melbourne’s Lachie Hunter retired last week so the Demons are even more aware of their need to boost their midfield stocks.“

The only thing worse than watching Clarry win more AAs and B&Fs (let alone flags) at another club will be if we’re paying part of his wage to do so.