rpfc

It is thoughtful... I assume you are being sarcastic? I would have wondered why we were trading a player against his will, out of thin air, for pointless return. I would have preferred he stay, like the club. But I am not about to apply what we know now to a decision during trade week that would have been incongruous and not understandable then.

Getting back to Old's incredible question - what would you have said if we traded Bruce for pick 45? What if we did that trade when he hadn't made up his mind yet? What would the people think then about the way we treat our players? Stop applying hindsight to decision - it is metaphysical impossibility, intellectual wankery, and a waste of time.

In fact, under FA, Bruce leaving at this stage after trade week would have provided us a draft pick. That is the system in baseball, I am sure about that. Not sure about others.

They are going to give him a second year trigger so hypothetically: He could play the first 15 games and get 2012 automatically, then he could do his hammy be out for 5 come back and do it again ala Buckley (as per your previous example regarding Junior...). So now, in this hypothetical situation, Hawthorn has $250/300k tied up in an injured 33 year old in 2012. Is that what we would like to see at the Demons? You get one year when you over 30 - why? Because our talent derives from the 2007-2009 drafts. 30 year olds are 10 years older than our talent - why should we give them longer contracts?

It makes sense. If anyone, or nearly anyone, other than E25 said that you wouldn't have noticed. There is no point in trading for depth. If there is a role for a bloke, there has to be a significant chance that he could be given said role. Otherwise, what is the point?

We have been trying to tell everyone. He is an arrogant wuckfit and I have complete confidence that he won't be the first list management mistake under Bailey.

Very good but... The font for demonland is a bit cartoonish. Time for that gothic one. Something assertive. Cheers rpfc

What a question! Applying hindsight to a decision is not only pointless it is a contradiction of terms, a metaphysical impossibility. And you're right old, if we had tried to trade him because we had an inkling he was leaving the how would the fans react then? I really haven't seen one thing the club has got wrong in it's list management since 2007.

So we keep them because they are the difference between 9th and 7th? Or do we stand our ground and say we might want to put a kid in their place so that we finish 9th but that experience allows us to progress up the ladder in future years? And '1 year and then see ya' contract, huh? Is that what it was? Because I saw it as a commitment of a third of a million dollars for a 31 year old who won't be in our flag tilt. He was fortunate to get offered what he did. He should have stayed and backed his ability to give more worth in 2012 than a rookie listed player, because that was what he was arguing so vehemently for; he would still be one of only 2 players eligible for the VL. He must not have much faith in his ability anymore. The famous Bruce arrogance is gone, perhaps?

Once trade week is over, its a zero-sum game. We had a contract, he probably decided after TW to leave. How in the fand of luck are we supposed to yield anything? Sh!t happens.

I doubt it, he was probably hanging out for an extension trigger. We didn't give him one, someone else might. Good luck to them. I hope it all ends in tears.

I have already posted this but having a level of confidence that a 11 year veteran will accept a $300k deal is not a character flaw, or a sign of complacency. I don't even think Cameron thought he was going pre or during trade week. This argument is a non-starter with me. We didn't get anything for Bruce because that is the nuance of the system, a player can wait, a club is forced to wait. A game of chicken can lead to a club not being rewarded. Boo-hoo. He wouldn't have got us much anyway.

What was the point of hanging on to White, Robbo, and Yze et al. when all they could do is make us th 3rd worst team rather than the worst team? And you not only have romanticised this period of failure, but the output of these players at the end of their careers. No club decided any player that we had discarded at the end of their careers was worth another go until Miller and Bruce. And one of those players we didn't discard, but we actually offered a contract, while the other will be on the Rookie List only. I enjoyed watching those players too, but they know the game - you don't deliver, you're in trouble.

You are making your own assumptions are you not? The facts are this: We offered him a fair and reasonable contract in the reported region of $300k for one year. Other club(s) came in at some stage and offered a contract. He rejected our contract offer. He decided to leave the club. The Communication Breakdown (always capitalise Led Zep) was hardly a breakdown - we wanted him, we offered a reasonable contract, we waited for him to come to his senses and end the game of chicken, he decided to show us he wasn't bluffing. We move on. Or at least some of us do.

I appreciate your work in Kenya, but let's stick to what we are good at, hmmm? It was Guerra, and it was a tackle. He may deserve a two year deal, but not from the Demons. We are trying to win a flag. He isn't, and never was, Flag Core under Bailey.

I know this is your worry. There is no perfect way to move stalwarts out. We love to second guess the FD, and give them our 20/20 hindsight but they have been the one thing you need to be... Honest. The rest is BS and double talk.

Ralph wrote an article saying we were seen as immoral in the eyes of Bruce or words to that effect. He wants to win a flag, fine. My problem is with this [censored] he has created through Nixon which leads this board full of MFCSS because we are to blame for acting in our own interests.

I just meant that footy clubs aim to pay for players, coaches, equipment, etc but have little need to consistently garner profits from the business. Yes they are good but three years of breaking even is a pretty good result. A bloody good result considering where we were.

Really? You go from hand-wringing about the fan reaction, to bitterness over our current youth (while earlier making reference to Bruce and Green being vestiges of the successful 2000 team - even though they were untested rookies!), to cynicism over the "unbridled optimism" around the club. See it now?

Well, he was trying to win them a flag... Maybe in this future these disgruntled players with long memories have won flags because Bailey was so driven.

Not just Jack. Any tall is going to take a decnt amount of time. I reckon 23 is bit off, actually. 25. See you in 6 years Jack.

I hope you kids realise that even if Fitzpatrick is a good player - he is about 4 years away at least.

There is really only so many times we can beat that drum. You can get all our heavies together and brainstorm about investment opportunities but charity when you are no longer a charity case doen't sit well with me. Besides, footy clubs shouldn't focus on profits. Invest in all the areas you think is neccessary and a break even result is just fine - we aren't a corporation.

So now Bailey is in danger of losing the players? FFS. From what I have read and heard, Bruce wanted a stipulation of a second year after a certain amount of games played. Is that fair enough? What if he plays the 15 games that gets him 2012 and then does his knee? Or gets dropped? The players are not idiots - they know this business. And they also know that a very good contract was on the table and Bruce baulked. If anyone hsa 'lost' the players down at Olympic Park it's Cameron.

Colin Garland!