Choko

Maybe none, and of course we hope we are doing things cleverly. But it's relevant that other clubs don't treat their captains and veterants in the same way we have. Relevant to culture.

All 5 of the named sides have won premierships in the past 15 years. So when we criticise how they have done things differently, we might not want to be too smug. Clearer?!

All 5 sides that can rightly claim to have made more better decisions than we have over the journey, unfortunately including Collingwood.

Exactly

Instead we sign Jetta up until 2012. Very good.

Your example actually proves my point. Here's why. Collingwood dropped the guys it did. They did NOT delist them, they did NOT force them out. They simply did not guarantee them a game. Thye main ones I am talking about are O'Bree and Lockyer. If McDonald wasn't good enough to earn a game, then he shouldn't be played. But there is a difference between delisting and dropping. And the other thing is, Lockyer, O'Bree, etc.. offered leadership. Further, if Collingwood could win a flag whilst "carrying" Lockyer, Medhurst, O'Bree, Fraser and Davis, then I think we could have retained our captain, who was more than earning his spot. I note that Presti was out for a longer than expected time with his injury, and Collingwood have let him decide whether to play on. So thanks for your example!

Get out of this forum. Too much logic.

No. The club has handled this badly in my opinion. If the issues are club, and not money or length of contract related, then get it all out before trade period. It is never a good outcome to be left with nothing, and it is in the club's interest that it doesn't happen, but it did. Also, and it has been said on here before, but the message we sent when we couldn't keep our final spot on the list for James McD was a terrible one. James McD was not after a "free ride". He, more than anyone, deserved to choose his time. This Bruce issue proves it, because now in hindsight, we would probably "keep" McDonald. You don't play chess with your captain. And there are many people here who are painting this out like Bruce went in and said he wants his place in the 22 guaranteed. It's rubbish. He was definitely concerned that he might not maintain his spot in the 22, but that's very different to hoilding the club to ransom by somehow demanding that Bailey guarantee to pick him. No club would agree to guarantee to pick a player.

Good one. It's just a shame this didn't happen when we could have traded him.

Honestly mate, u should be embarrassed by that. Cam made a decision in his self interest, as you and I do every day. It's not a question of making an ethical protest, its a question of the interests if his career. I think he's made the wrong choices, but that's beside the point. But your accusations that cam has pushed back against the youth led revival is simply made up to promote yourself. There are a number of players who nominate cam as a role model. Also, whilst he was never captain material, you're being a keyboard hero suggesting he offered no leadership except his age. His work ethic and honesty was very much valued. We will move on from him, he's hardly indispensable, but don't speak rubbish.

I am far from a sufferer of MFCSS, and my track record will demonstrate it. I am also unfortunately a grown-up. But if you think that there is no impact in forcing your captain and selfless clubman into retirement before he is ready to go, when he is playing good footy, you are dreaming. Ask anyone what happened at the MFC when we traded Andy Lovell.

That's all fair enough and reasonable. BUT: For whatever reason, people are framing it as if Cam was saying "I want to be assured that you will pick me each week". Quite frankly, that's rubbish. No player is that selfish or unrealistic, let alone someone in a leadership group. What he wanted assurance on is that he was part of the plan and that if he was still playing well, he wouldn't be forcibly retired. And I think that's fair enough. I think there's little doubt Cam could see the writing on the wall - delistings getting harder next year, our trashing on Junior. So he made a self-interest call to go when he had currency and was wanted. What the club stuffed up on was, NO SH*T HE MADE THAT DECISION. We got nothing for him, and we could have gotten good value from Hawks, Carlton, etc... You reap what you sow MFC, and the Junior decision was just rotten. And for those of you who think Cam's crap, explain why he will slot into the 22 of a premiership contender in 2011?

Right, which is how you will feel if the MFC mismanages Jack Grimes' contract negotiations?

I think the Feral Scum is the opposite of the situation, as usual. It was not about money, it was about getting more than the one year and having faith that the club wouldn't p*ss him off if it was only a 1 yr deal. That was the assurance. he couldn't get it from us because we have a track record now. I have no problem if Junior, Bruce, Brad Johnson or anyone are told that they will not be guaranteed a senior game if they don't have form. But that's not what it was. And that's not ruthless.

There is ruthless and stupid. If we played hardball with Scully and he left, that might be seen as the ultimate in ruthlessness.

This isn't ruthless. This is without a doubt a response to sacking our captain. No good club does that. How many clubs lose top 6 b&f for nothing in the pre-season draft?

I'm extremely [censored] off to be honest. I know for a fact that his decision has a lot to do with the way he saw McDonald being treated. He wanted two years, and we wanted one. If we were a club that backed its players, like Hawthorn with Crawf, then he would probably have had faith that we would look after him the way players look after club. Hawks gave Crawf one, he wanted two.... the difference being they let him decide when to retire (within reason). Everyone knows that McDonald wanted one more, and everyone knows that the former captain has more of a role to play than Michael "oxygen thief" Newton. But we farked him off anyway. Once Cameron saw the way we were willing to retire our captain, who is easily up with the most selfless blokes to wear the red and blue, who can blame him?

Spot on. But the people who should be listening won't.

My nickname is thrilled he is back!

Harsh on the Ox! Camera work on channel 7 is disgustingly bad. Ads take forever on both netowrks. Agree totally with Sunday coverage. 7 is doing a junk job.

I understand where you're coming from, but I reckon the best marketing is momentum based on victories. Essendon had a lot of Friday night Etihad games last year, but in fact it can be a poison chalice if you're uncometitive or your team isn't in the running. Now that we are genuinely pushing for finals action, I would take a good footy draw over a good marketing draw any day.

I haven't seen anyone who wanted to lynch the club when we traded Trapper for Jack Grimes make a full apology yet....

+1

I don't think Neita harbours any ambition of coaching at all. He is involved full time at the club as it is. So no!

Hmm... is that because we tanked?