sue

You've taken a vote/poll? Even if true, it would just speak to the immaturity of football supporters when it comes to things about their club. Too much emotion clouds judgement, and since there is almost nothing to say why anyone supports one team over another, emotion has to be the main factor. ( I support Melbourne because my footy-ignorant mother thought Geelong and C'wood looked like prison stripes and red and blue looked nice. Doesn't stop me from being one-eyed, moaning about umpires, bad treatment by the AFL/MRO, you name it.)

From her posts she has more than moved on. I thought she was just making the point about what can be said publically to maintain your negotiating position.

I'm staggered that you would base your view of the total incompetence of the club on a single rumour. Even if true, it is hardly the sin of all time. Get a grip.

Even if those 'rumours' are true, and the management didn't spot that, it is hardly egregious incompetence or unprofessionalism.

So, even if they knew for certain he was leaving, you would have them say something other than they said. I wouldn't put you in charge of negotiating the puchase of a lettuce.

I asked a similar question and can only assume it was the treatment of Clarry that is intended. It may have been done well or been mistaken as seen by Tracc, but neither is necesarily "unprofessional". The word is easy to throw around when people want to spit the dummy. I'm afraid that while we have some supporters here who wear rose-tinted glasses, we have some who jump at anything negative and always assume the worst. Something in the middle is best, but if I have to make a choice, I prefer the former.

Exactly what was the incompetence? Can't be the immediate dealing with the injury because they needed 2 goes at a fully equipped hospital to get it right. It can't be incompentence by not getting 60,000 to every game - lack of miracles is not incompetence. So of all the things rumoured where the club had any control, how it dealt with Clarry is the only rational possibility. And maybe the club dealt with that well.

Sadly I concur, though if this desire to play in front of large crowds only occurred recently, you'd have to cut him some slack given the injury. If he had that in mind when or shortly after he signed on for 7 years, then diva is the right word. But at this stage, whadda we know?

I think he meant you as an example of a supporter.

Interesting that the commentators who made such a fuss about the free kick count when it favoured st Kilda said nothing when it was almost even at the end. Even BT’s arithmetic skills would show there must have been a similar ‘bias’ to make it even at the end

When can we expect to know if the Club is going to appeal or not?

Didn't the AFL say a few years back that to discourage head high contacts they would award frees against players for ducking. But they did not follow through - all they have done is (sometimes) not award a free against the opponent for head high contact.

There is no need for 'but' in the sentence above.

Should get off, but won't. Sadly. Meanwhile Maynard who deliberately clobbered a player who will never play again as a result and had zero penalty, had the audacity to take issue with Kozzie. Makes me sick.

Well either he will have gone public before then or he will do so there, having attracted a larger audience than he might have got otherwise.

I agree he is not going to be personally influenced, but part of the negotiations will be his salary at MFC. The less keen he is to "sell" himself to us, the greater the salary he might want to overcome his reluctance. No? I assume in the above that he can back out and stay with Port after he says he wants a trade to MFC? If not, I'm wrong and he is in a weak position.

But maybe that was just 'rumoured' to help with negotiations and forcing us to pay more for a supposedly reluctant player.

yeah, I get that point. The point I was making, perhaps obscurely, is that that is no reason to discount what Lyon said as meaningless. Of course, we won't know till we know, but I'd much prefer Lyon to say what he said than echo Morris et al.

umm, you might have cared more if Lyon had made a 'rational critique' on why both of them were leaving. What I mean is that you have to give some weight to him making comments which pleases Demonland.

I wonder how many times you've thought 'he shouldn't be playing' and the player came back on OK and you forgot all about it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Pleased to see someone pushing MFCSS to new heights.😀

How can you conclude'something is not right' (presumably meaning club culture or whatever) when of your 7 points only a couple or maybe only one is meaningful: 4 finals losses (you concede it happens, and there were plenty of reasons beyond our control) Gus wasn't knocked into next year by the MFC ANB has made it crystal clear why he is leaving has nothing to do with the club JV rumours ? Did you listen to his post match interview - would have knocked any rumours dead to anyone listening without panic in their heads. Then there is Smith and who knows what happened there and it probably is personal and has little to with club. So that leaves just the currrent Petracca issue which may be more due to him rather than the club. We don't know. The sky is falling

We all know?! All I know is that: 1. at the ground our docs didn't know how serious it was, 2. at first the hosptial with all its equipment had the same impression 3. It was only a second lot of scans/tests at the hospital that found serious issues. How is that 'badly mishandled' by the club? If Tracc's family think that they need to reconsider. (I could be ruder, but won't given they were probably traumatised at the time. But to still believe it and use is as an excuse for whatever...?)

I keep clear of footy journalism so I am totally in the dark about Morris. If Tracc's managers are leaking, why are they leaking to only Morris? What's in it for them to give him exclusives?

What was that post about?