1858

Did you get the thankyou letter for Demon Heartland?

Or it may have been an email, I can't remember. I got something.

But yeah, it was good.

Got an email too. The range of recipients was quite extensive, a good initiative all up. 549 members donated and hopefully more in 2010. Enforcer, have you renewed your membership at all? If not then when you go to the renewal page you will probably see the Demon Heartland bundled with your membership, not itemised seperately. I'm not sure all members will appreciate this despite being a great cause.

He is a star. He should be the highest paid player at our club if he ends up here. That money, not in hands of Burgoyne, will be spent on the contracts of younger players.

You keep peddling this assumption - what is it based on?

If Burgoyne can't get a trade to Hawks or Dons, and goes into the PSD, he has to nominate a contract price. If he nominates $750K, whoever drafts him has to pay it. I certainly hope the MFC doesn't and i doubt the Hawks will or can. Maybe the Dons will with SC space.

He might be just shooting himself in the foot (or is that the knee )

Unless there is a pre-determined figure between himself and MFC and agreement to get him the PSD in the first place then I am not entirely sure that he will hold the same figure if he goes in the PSD under "normal" conditions. If we don't pick him then Richmond, Freo can all have a chance so it will show how much he wants to come to MFC or maybe I am missing something here.

Article: Burgoyne weighs up three tempting options

you haven't read my original post properly...please re-read...it says....'if i was applying for a job...and i had three choices or could ask to speak with many companies...'

That covers your first argument....of 10 choices and only speaking with 3 clubs/shortlist as you put it...

No point in arguing over semantics, if by "choices" you mean preferences then I see what you are saying. If by "choices" you mean options then I stand by my statement. In context of this scenario, he supposedly is in favour with MFC but his price tag makes it very hard for me to beleive.

if i was applying for a job...and i had three choices or could ask to speak with many companies...i would review all options available and not just narrow my selection to the one, I thought i wanted. It's called being open minded.

Actually, Burgoyne has 10 choices not 3. His prime motivation is "reportedly" to move to Victoria.

We are on his "shortlist" of 3 yet for some reason he wants to price us out of the market or at least completely bend us over, I find that curious tbh. He is supposedly keen to join us - but only if we pay 750k per year, go figure. Our PSD pick couldn't possibly have anything to do with us being part of the puzzle. If the figures quoted in the media are correct then I find the whole thing on the nose, yes I understand that you don't beleive everything that you read but now and again you can join a few dots and it doesn't look on the level.

it doesn't take a genius to workout that going to hawks is easiest option for him...it's pretty easy money for him...the list is far more developed than melbs...going to melb he's going to be playing with a lesser level/inexperienced players...so based on that theory he's going to be working harder for his money...so that's why he's asking for more money...i would be too...

A tad melodramatic I think, Port hardly have the most experienced side. In fact poor old Kane Corns has done all the heavy lifting and has run himself into the ground over the years - Port are looking to ship him on. Either way, if Burgoyne thinks he would have his work cut out at Melbourne it doesn't justify the figure he has apparently asked for (IMHO) and it could be argued to be pretty contradictory to nominate a team as a preferred option then put such a huge barrier up for the club in question.

If he some how falls to the PSD then sure we snaffle him but I think 750k or even that ball park is way over the odds, the club will ultimately decide if it gets that far.

I'm with you, some people just dont get the modern day game/business ... what more can you say.

Modern business in AFL and player management evolves every year IMO. Every year player managers get "smarter" in how they do business. Players trying to get the best deal they can is nothing new but the ways they do it should at least be with a straight bat. If Burgoyne genuinely doesn't want to go to MFC then he shouldn't have approached us - period. I actually find it insulting that a player thinks he can dictate to a club his market price and then redefine it for another. Sure he can do it but if our club has any fabric of pride they will go and tell him to shove his 750k up his ass. The reality is that his management has been talking with HFC since June, Hawthorn is his preference and you don't walk out on a club in September unless you have some semblence of a done deal.

Funny thing is if they were in his shoes, taking the emotion out of it ... they would do exactly the same.

Really? Feel free to rattle off all the players who have stuffed around clubs to get their price up just to tell one of the clubs that they have to pay more for the privalege and where they arguably had no intention of going to the club - we didn't chase him, he nominated us remember. There is business and then there is exploitation of clubs, it might be a reality but it doesn't mean we bend over and go along with it.

All those infavour of SB not trying to get the best deal for himself should go to there boss right now and request a pay cut!!

Is there meant to be any meaning in this notion. I am sure 1000s and 1000s of Australians are under paid in what they do already, why would they ask for a pay cut - police, nursed, teachers etc. If we indulge Burgoyne in his excess premium which he has thrown at our club then we are mugs. Seriously some of the posters who are happy to pay him what ever it takes because of who we are make me sick. We don't need to bend over to buy stars, we'll create them instead. I can only laugh at these comments about who makes sense and who is jumping to conclusions - what a naive bunch of souls.

Also I have seen Cam Bruce's name pop up, WTF does he have to do with anything? A veteran of the club who has given great long term service. Yes, he's perhaps over paid for what we get but that is the legacy we have, it doesn't justify anything when we make future decisions.

Burgoyne wants to go to the Hawks and it is pretty obvious that has been the case since June. He wants to go ahead and play games in order to force Port's hand in to getting him over to the Hawks and many of you guys are just lapping all this up: but but, he's a star we need a star, he might still come our way, we have the money - FFS wake up people we are being used!

Unless delisted, he cannot go into the ND.

Uncontracted on or before October 31. Very unlikely but if it did then at least we would get something out of him.

It won't happen but I think the best thing that Burgoyne could do as far as we are concerned is go into the ND. I don't want him at our club given the circumstances.

If I am going to spend the next 4 or 5 years with my fingers crossed that a player on significantly top money doesn't do his knee it better not be in the knowledge that it cost us a good draft pick to get him. Apparently 1 of his knees is "bone on bone" - which is commonly regarded as a serious condition regardless of how well we understand the situation - yes our medicos will ultimately decide but I get the feeling that there is a problem there that won't go away. I anticipate it may be a year by year prospect with Burgoyne and given his premium he will be thrown in everything for us to get a return on him. I am not convined that he will automatically revert to the footy that was akin to him in the 2007 season or earlier, in other words I agree with others who speculate that his better years are behind him.

If Hawthorn are prepared to part with pick 9 and if Port are keen on some of the Hawthorn players then we will be looking at pick 2 to sway them our way - an absolutely rediculous scenario to engage in. Pick 18 and a player for Burgoyne simply won't happen.

Then there is the question of are we pulling the trigger too soon with respect to pulling out the cheque book for a 27 yr old. The club has been very prudent with the salary cap and the players have worn that to a degree. With our other club initiatives of raising funds would it be better to sit on that and reinvest in the club for a year or so and then strike later when the iron is hot? It is not one sided, there are pros and cons to gaining big name players but I hope the club uses it's money wisely.

Then there is the whole scenario of us being on the shortlist. Are we a genuine preference or simply a tool being used by Burgoyne's management to box Port into a deal with Hawthorn? If the Burgoyne management are trying to manipulate Port then they should watch out. Port is one club that doesn't like being dictated to.

Burgoyne sounds like a decent bloke and has been a great footballer but all things considered I think I would let someone else take him on.

PSD for sure! other than that I would probably pass on him.

I don't understand the OP.

More or less suggesting that the level he has played at this year couldn't possibly be an improvement purely due to the number of games?

A major point is that the loser of St Kilda v Collingwood gets Adelaide (certainties to thrash Essendon), whilst the loser of Geelong v Bulldogs gets Brisbane or Carlton. Bris or Carlton much easier than Adelaide. Big plus for Doggies should they lose to Geelong.

Who will also have an extra 2 days rest before the 1st semi.

"Blue is nothing without the Red".

WTF??????? :angry: :angry: :angry: (Sorry- but this is my initial reaction upon 1st seeing this)

My initial reaction to your post is of similar sentiment funny enough, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and read on...

WHY ARE WE GETTING RID OF 'ROBBO' - AT 3 YEARS YOUNGER THAN MACCA - AND WHO HAS (IMO) PLAYED BETTER THAN MACCA ALL YEAR!!!! YET KEEP THE MILLERS, NEWTONS, BELLS and MACCAS???

I could give a trivial question a trivial answer but that would be of no value as none of us really know what the motivations of the club are behind closed doors. All I can suggest is that perhaps Robbo is not part of the future up forward and he is contending with younger contracted players who can slot in 1 for 1. In the case of McDonald perhaps the club decided that his impact on the club was too significant to let him go, all things considered with his age, position etc and leadership. I know that you, like many others on this sight may like to argue for the sake of it so I must stipulate that this is purely a suggestion here.

There is no doubt in my mind that this has been Maccas worst season and he has under-performed all year with only a couple of exceptions. (Even if it is due to injury... Robbo had no pre-season due to injury, so that excuse cannot be used)

Nothing against Macca! He's been a legend of the club for years. But if he was not captain, he would have been dropped many times during the course of the season

Comparing McDonald to Robbo is probably fruitless if you consider the likely reasons why McDonald is valuable to the club. McDonald had a bit of a bad patch through the middle of the season but he hasn't been that bad tbh. Robbo has had ups and downs too but unfortunately for him perhpas the club didn't see his type of game as being one where his experience would rub off on others to that of our current captain - is that so hard to comprehend?

McDonald plays in a part of the ground where rotations are important and where he can be used tactfully with the younger players - interaction if you like. Robbo on the other hand would most likely be kept in 1 spot that would completely rob someone else of development. What would be the point of keeping Robbo on and usind him on and off up forward? The mechanics with McDonald playing are much more logical. Also Wheatley and Whelan have both retired and it is pretty safe to say that we have ready made defenders to step up 1 for 1. Our midfield will require a lot of development.

-Again, This is a dig at the club the Melbourne Football Club - (not J-Mac), who just recently sacked 3 fantastic players that are a lot younger than 33 (as J -Mac is) - because they weren't apart of the long term plans..

HOW CAN AN OLDER PLAYER AT 33, BE APART OF ANY LONG TERM PLANS????????????????

To me this is worst management than anything 'Danners mob' ever did.. (or didn't do)

He isn't taking the spot of a youngster on our list, his leadership is obviously highly regarded by the club who will blood at least 3 key mids next year. We will have 1 of (if not the) youngest lists in the league - Bailey will need as much leadership on ground as possible without compromising player development, McDonald fits this bill better than any of the other 3 senior players leaving the club IMO.

I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT BE RENEWING MY MFC MEMBERSHIP FOR THE 2010 SEASON.

How a supporter/member could consider that let alone for the reason you have offered is beyond me.

Footballers !!!!! That is what they are. I'm a leader at my job, So in your opinion I should be pulling on the red & blue each week, [censored] we have 4-5 better players that can lead as good as Jmac.

Again, Bailey obviously begs to differ.

FFS since when was maccas being picked on leadership qualitites alone .

I don't see how you can make such a call. Leadership aside, the club wouldn't pick McDonald if they didn't think he would be able to play to a required level or such that he was being given a "charity" spot in the side. Not a good message for the players and not a good situation to keep a player.

The question peope on this forum need to ask is WOULD HE GET A GAME AT ANY OTHER AFL CLUB? If anyone answers yes go and apply for a job at the MFC footy department, Your a shoe in !!!

We are NOT any other club and quite frankly that question gets bandied around from time to time too often about players with little regard to context. We are MFC and we have our own priorities and goals and it would not be prudent by the club to not ensure we have the best possible group of young players as we go forward. Given the circumstances, the MFC brains trust beleives that he is good enough to play for our team and that is all that matters - but if you really want a team I'll say Port, I'll take McDonald over Josh Carr atm. McDonald is not going to be consistently cutting it up next year, you don't expect that from a 33 yr old but that isn't the point. He can play at a good level though as we have seen in the last month. We are talking one more year here not a 3 yr contract. He is on the veterans list ffs so the cost is minimal for such a potential gain with our list going forward. I admit that I am a touch surprised at how keen the club was to re-sign him but that's the point isn't it? - I'm on the outside and they are the inner sanctum and if they were that keen to sign him then he must be doing something right and play a very important role that many of us may not understand.

Are we that bereft of leaders. The following names will suffice Moloney, Green, Bruce and Davey all are better than Maccas. The best people for the best positions. IMO the footy department are kidding themselves.

This is where the club may beg to differ and I know who's opinion I'll put my trust in. It comes down to whether Bailey thinks he needs McDonald in his effort to shape a next-gen midfield and also off the ground in general, obviously he does so who are we to argue?

Sorry HT, I know this isn't really constructive criticism, but I passionately dislike your new signature.

Very good.

I expect that McDonald will be used sparingly in a complementary role subject to where his body is at throughout the season with the youngsters obviously given priority. If the article is anything to go by, it is a positive situation that both the club and Junior were keen for him to go on instead of him having to be talked out of retirement and IMO is testament that we made the right decision when MFC gave him the captaincy last year.

This is the reason why this is a howler !! I am speechless.

What I expect the club to do and what they end up doing are not guaranteed to be the same. However if the club believes that McDonald will aid their process in developing youth then why wouldn't they keep him on? It is not as if they have retained a 33 yr old mid because they think we have a stab at the flag next year, he will be there for guidance one would think and to help share the load over 22 weeks from younger shoulders. The club has obviously applied a cost/benefit analysis to this.

This was a decision which could have gone either way for me but I understand why he has been kept on. If we look at our midfield which will be younger than ever with the influx of new talent and with a greater rotational pool, leadership will be very important. Our midfield is something that we must get right or we can kiss goodbye a premiership window - this doesn't just mean acquiring young talented players and throwing them in.

My personal view on captaincy is that a good captain is not only a leader in their own right but also an extension of the coach on the ground. If we are going to harness McDonald's leadership qualities then it has to be on the ground as well as off because Bailey will have his work cut out getting all of these kids to come together.

I expect that McDonald will be used sparingly in a complementary role subject to where his body is at throughout the season with the youngsters obviously given priority. If the article is anything to go by, it is a positive situation that both the club and Junior were keen for him to go on instead of him having to be talked out of retirement and IMO is testament that we made the right decision when MFC gave him the captaincy last year.

1858, you may misunderstand my point. Not for once do I condone anyone abusing another person, regardless of whether they are a player, umpire or spectator. I've already made the point that I don't do it. But it's a bit rich seeing players do it in every single match knowing that their actions influence their fans (let's face it, whether they want it or not they are role models) and then turn around and complain about the odd online comment.

I whole heartedly agree that players are role models Jarka but if we look at the game of footy itself, the AFL is moderately sterile compared to most unregulated or "lower" leagues in the country. At nearly any game of footy from about u18 upwards at any level you will see the kind of player behaviour that I think you are referring to. If is a competetive sport. Unfortunately at AFL level your are in the national spotlight and any triumphs or failures that you have will be well documented either properly or improperly in the public realm. I am not trying to justify what Robbo said here, my position is quite simply that I take on board what he says to a degree and can understand that some players who struggle on the field can probably feel the heat off it more than others due to many circumstances which could be exacerbated via online communication. Whether AFL players need to "harden up" a little bit here or whether what Robbo was referring to is a little bit more complex than that I don't know and is out of my scope.

The reason why the AFL is trying to stamp out abuse towards umpires is because they know that fans will parrot this type of behaviour. If they want to get serious about stamping it out they need to lead from the front as a group and stop the trash talk on the field.

You may think that's unreasonable, but you need to think about the issue not just from your own point of view. You're obviously well educated and intelligent, the problem mostly stems from those who haven't been as fortunate in terms of education.

TBH I don't think footy fans need to mimic players to gain a disdain for umpires or their decisions but that is a matter of opinion I guess. Obviously I understand why the AFL is trying to stamp out umpire abuse and has done a reasonably good job I think - especially in the media. Players are fair game in the media btw. This is getting off the issue a little though...

I still don't think that there is a case for hypocrisy here. Depression is quite simply a condition not an opinion or position. I don't see how a player can be a hypocrite if they suffer depression. Furthermore I don't have any problem with Robbo making reference to player depression in the context that he did as long as he is being honest and genuine and not just laying it on a bit.

I guess what I mean is, I expect players to read it once or even twice out of curiosity, but you learn from your mistakes and would do well to steer well clear.

Yeah, no doubt I understand you completely I don't know why a player would keep "coming back for more" so to speak if they are not in favour or are in bad form. I guess some of them have a lot of time on their hands lol. You would think that being part of a professional would be to steer clear and focus on your profession and anything that detracts from that would be ignored. This is all the more reason why I think Robbo's point about depression to me was insightful. I didn't think the players worried too much about what was out there but perhaps they do more so than we think - who knows?

Mind you, I have heard of the players jumping on from time to time just to have a laugh at how out of touch with reality we posters are.

I'm sure they grow out of that fairly quickly.

It would be hard to resist at least at some stage of your career I'd imagine.

I'll tell you the hypocrisy of your argument (by the way I don't abuse players) and the one put forward by Robbo.

Robbo is worried about a player hearing or reading negative comments which could contribute to depression, fair enough, seems reasonable. But let's look how the footballers themselves behave on the ground...the level of trash talk on the field makes anythign I've read on demonland look like an argument between two kindergarden kids. What they say to each other on the ground is far worse than what goes on around here, and the majority of footballers engage in the trash talk.

That's a pretty trivial way of looking at it. What happens on a footy field or on the ground in most proffesional sports usually stays there and more often than not players shake hands at the end of the game or at least have the chance to return fire - it is fair game. Character assasination in the public realm is completely different surely you can fathom that.

Not reading the gutter trash criticism does make you immune.

I'm really surprised any players would be stupid enough to do it.

I am too Enforcer but human nature is a curious thing and some times it can be unavoidable when opinions are put out there with the well expressed intermingled with the not so well expressed.

Most people in life aren't on 6 figure incomes by the time they're in the early 20's with no tertiary education either.

I think your point is irrelevant. Being on a good salary doesn't automatically make people immune to the effects of gutter trash criticism in the public realm. If you think that player salary is a good enough excuse for people to say what they want in any old way whether it is founded or not then that is up to you, I am not interested in convincing people otherwise. People will say what they want to say.

Really? You think so? Insightful?

That's what I typed isn't it?

Of course depression occurs in AFL football, it is common in all facets of life.

Reading negative posts about themselves are never going to help the situation, but you have to have some semblance or common sense.

I see so depression and common sense are mutually exclusive when you are publically maligned without the chance to defend yourself. "All facets of life" - well yeah of course it occurs in all facets of life but it doesn't take away from the point Robbo was making. Most people "in life" don't have their name put up in the public eye and have to put up with any old crap that is attached to it. I agree that an AFL player should be pretty thick skinned with this sort of thing but it is human nature that when you are in the firing line you want to see why.

Criticism is a fact of an AFL player's life and if you can't accept it you shouldn't be there.

Criticism within the football fraternity or club usually makes a player improve. Criticism outside of that where any old trash can be typed and is there for all to see at any time (such as the internet is) is a different situation. As I said, constructive criticism is fine (and I suspect this is what you are also referring to) and IMO most people on this site express their views in a proper manner. Whether their views are founded or not is up for debate but that is what forums are for and I agree that is life (as it should be). Some AFL footballers cop it more than others though and such is the way, constructive criticism can degenerate to something else over time.