nutbean

And you suggest I agree with you ? Wow.... So that's how it works ay ?

In a word...unenforceable

To me the problem is that he didn't play for us in his first contract - he played 15 games ? I don't like that Rivers left but no hard feeelings - he played plenty of games - many good a few stinkers - players come players go I don't like the Frawley left but no meh - he played plenty of games - many good - many not so good - players come players go. In answer to Saty's question - if he came and played a full three years and then left for success - I would consider him mercenary. I believe you have to put in a bit of time into a club you transferred to before you earn that right

or in our case OD - not the full pounds shillings and pence.

I am sure the chief ombudsman will have a fixed term of 5 years to ensure that that person is free from political interference...what a second .... I love the idea but getting the politicians to agree bipartisanly on anything is a pipe dream - agreeing on a commission would be problematic let alone agreeing on the make up of the commission. I do agree we need some sort of circuit breaker to snap us out of this current inability of politicians to constructively address large pressing issues. My despair is that I cannot see anyone on the political landscape with enough talent or vision to provide the breaker to produce those sort of outcomes.

good luck with that one....

you have to have stupidity to support our mob and I have got an abundance.

Where have we ruled ourselves out ? The article has ruled us out. I seemed to recall that Paul Roos had no interest in coaching again and then went on to further say he wouldn't be coaching us and those were direct quotes ! I don't believe anything I read on players going or staying until the ink is dry on a contract. We can all cast opinions and I reckon he will go and it will be for a combination of success and money.

who are you and what have you done with Greg Denham

On Roos - I was only quoting a poster that seems to have some cred ( may or may not be true). I actually don't lose interest them - I invest too much. For example - on Rivers - near the end of his career and wanted to play finals - I quite like seeing him play well ( except against us of course). I absolutely get the change of environment - but to me - is it the club environment or the being an AFL footballer environment. Is there any less pressure to perform at Cats ? If he gets injured at Geelong will he feel any less guilty ? C&B was right that Clarks actions are disliked by the general football public - Anthony Hudson mentioned halfway through the third quarter that "Dees supports would feel livid about Clarks performance". He is a geelong supporter and can feel that sentiment ! He is only echoing what many are feeling - it is not restricted to just Dees supporters. Clark specifically said that he felt guilty about taking our money and not playing - one of his reasons for retiring. I restate my opinion that he either needed a change of environment meaning away from football but if he is mentally healthy enough for all the rigors of playing, training and travelling then the best way to ease the guilt of getting paid by the MFC and not playing is to feel good about yourself and giving back to the club. I 100% agree with you that he was given that advice to change and followed it - if I was comfortable with my mental health professional I too would probably follow his advice - I just don't agree with the advice. ( I think I am more dirty with the advice he was given than Clark himself !)

I don't completely agree with you. I agree with a lot of your arguments - I just don't agree with the vitriol and that he took a big steamy one on us. I just think he followed his doctors orders and I don't agree with the opinion proffered by his doctor.

Actually that is incorrect - if the facts spoke for themselves everyone would be on the same page. I think everyone has right to be upset/annoyed/disappointed that we have lost a potential Coleman medalist. By there is diverse opinion on the "facts" surrounding him leaving starting with him having depression, on the road to recovery and the doctor advising to him change environments - all the way through to his illness being bogus and its all a great rouse to get him out of our club ( and all manner of opinion in between). I actually believe Clarks story from beginning to end - with the big proviso that I don't agree with the professionals opinion that he needed to change clubs. He is either mentally fit enough to play footy or he isn't and if he is then examine our club environment which is better than it has looked in a decade. No reason to move clubs - then he needed to ask himself whether he owes us anything. He said on his retirement that he felt guilty about taking our money and not playing - there is an easy way to overcome that guilt I would have thought. Saty - on it being a professional sport - I don't have problem with that. I don't dislike Scully because he accepted a gazillion dollars to go to the GWS - I dislike like him because I have never heard a footballer stare down a camera and tell the lies he did. I don't dislike Rivers or Frawley - I don't begrudge Moloney going ( i do dislike his classless shot at Neeld being fired). But with Clark I believe the club went above and beyond the call to ensure we did the right thing by him and I was proud of the way the club handled it. According to a poster who purportedly knows stuff (GNF) Roos was livid when the comeback but not with us unfolded - I don't blame Roos for being livid. Rivers, Frawley and Moloney owed us nothing and they were well paid so their debt was pretty much squared away. I can't say the same about Clark

and you call yourself a Melbourne supporter...for shame...

This is exactly where I sit..

I have been reserved in my criticism as I have taken him at face value regarding his depression. I know of a few people who have suffered from this ailment and am close to a few professionals working in this area. Those trying to find a" one size fits all" in relation to depressive issues unfortunately have limited understanding of the problem itself. The one point of conjecture on all I have talked to is the requirement of a clean break from the club. Again I will take it at face value that his doctor recommended this. But the clean break from the environment from the few I have talked to is not from the club but from the pressure of the football industry itself. I can well understand that a doctor would recommend a clean break from the 2012/13 version of the club but the 2014/15 version ? There is also some validity to the opinion that it is better to be in a winning culture and realistically we will be mid table at best - but will the same doctor recommend that if the Cats are on the nose in the next couple of years that Mitch moves away from that environment as well ? To me the two criteria's for Mitch should have been - is it good for his well being to play football ? If the answer is yes then second question is - is the club a good environment for him to be in - MFC - 2012/13 absolutely not - MFC 2014 and onwards - I think the answer is yes. This is why am I disappointed in all that has happened.

wrong on so many levels ( but a little bit funny)

These sort of carefree approaches to Hogans delicate disposition annoy me. Why are you rushing him ? I would put him on ice until we are in the premiership window and then only give him a run two weeks before the finals so he is cherry ripe - he could be our Clark Keating..

It is exactly the small nature of this that has everyone peeved. It is not a particularly hard thing to get right. The idea that you can have a kick beforehand doesn't cut it - especially for those with small children ( with short attention spans !). Move as many closed sessions as you want - this does not affect the punters. Inconveniences are disrespectful as you have invited the membership to come and watch and kept them waiting for over an hour.

I know that. You will pay less for a crop which hasn't even sprouted yet but you believe will be very good as opposed to what you will pay for crop that you wait to sprout and it is plain for all to see how good it is. The risk is that the plant turns out to be a weed ( we have seen a few of those in our time)

I love facts.

What does that tell you ? It tells me that something so simple has been botched up and angered people. How many times have we all heard how important membership is to clubs ? Ours is one of the clubs that desperately needs members - we finally have something to look forward with new recruits and a stable coaching and administrative team. Then the club angers members by stuffing up something relatively simple. I am not overreacting - I just get disappointed when the club gets the easy stuff so wrong.

precious about getting something simple right ? If you advertise a time - stick to it - that's not precious - that's treating your members with respect.

The disappointing thing is it is not that hard to get this right. So much bad will over something that seriously did not need to happen. ( I have always said - if you are going to get your butt kicked for doing something wrong - make it something big. There is nothing worse than copping a hammering for something that could have so easily been averted)

Make senses to me. If the club believes he is going to be good it is a much cheaper alternative locking him away for another two years now rather than waiting for 18 months of exposed form and then see his contract price increase significantly.

Sunnyboys were great -so good to see Jeremy Oxley in a good place.... However - The Cat Empire - You cannot help but dance and jump and sing when they play. I don't know how many times I have seen them but they never ever go through the motions ( unfortunately The Whitlams at the Corner - did go through the motions). There is a reason that the Cat Empire is my favourite live band - i always walk away ( albeit with a limp as I jump around like an idiot) with a huge smile on my face.