deejammin'

Oliver also liked the MFC comment that Cambell was coming to the club. Trolling maybe? His mother also called the reporting a load of 💩. Tim Lamb literally challenged the idea we “shopped him around” and said that it was incorrect day one of trade period, he also challenged the idea Clayton was “desperate to leave” last day of the trade period. The President also made two comments saying he was never being traded as did the head of football. That’s about as strong as a club can go. Pert’s in the middle of two reviews. The board/governance one as a subject and the FD one directly, he shouldn’t being doing media while involved in those processes. Whether it was run of the mill or not is irrelevant they could’ve put Clayton in a cats jumper and had him run laps of GMHBA we were NEVER going to trade him this year. The entire media narrative was the GFC and potentially Clayton’s management putting pressure on us to trade and others whiteanting Pert.

If your version of events is true at the moment when he was at his weakest, with a President who supported him gone and two reviews starting but not organised Pert chose to do something widely seen as his biggest flaw and go rogue on one of the highest profile players at the club after an exit interview against the wishes of the FD, the board and the player himself all at a time when he was most likely to cop a dismissal as a result. Seems likely…

“Self inflicted” = primarily caused by Geelong’s leaking to the media and Clayton’s management putting pressure on the football club. There’s a huge difference between “shopping around” a player and finding out their value. All clubs like to know what all of their players are worth, even if they don’t trade them, or remotely intend to trade them, fact is these conversations happen about a majority of players every year, even if players do t like it. The fact this was leaked so heavily has a lot more to do with Geelong and the media trying to force Melbourne’s hand at a weak moment rather than the club self-inflicting anything. No one was planning to trade Oliver. These private conversations usually stay private, the reasons these didn’t were twofold, destabilise Oliver within the club in the hope you can shake him loose for very little and to attack a seemingly very unpopular Gary Pert. Interesting how mere weeks after Roffey’s departure the blowtorch turned fully on Pert, almost like there’s people out there with axes to grind against him or something….

I believe that also. What a hero!

Lamb says it in his final trade week presser at 3.20. Says “I spoke to Trac, he messaged me the other night after we got pick 9, he’s like a big kid he’s that excited and that happy and ready to go ”. I think Lamb also says something similar in his MFC site interview. If you want to get into semantics of text vs call go for it. Contrary to media like Barrett, Lamb is not a liar, he plays the draft game, but he doesn’t lie. Even if you think it is it’s risky to lie about a “disgruntled” current player who can simply prove him wrong. I believe him.

This article from Barrett sounds like a petulant ten year old, “clap clap”? Pathetic. It’s not even accurate, the “positive spin” on our trade period is that we got pick 9 and go into a super draft with two top ten picks. You can argue we overpaid, that our first round pick next year will be higher than 9 because we’re going to have a terrible year (I disagree). But this is clearly a pathetic dummy spit that the “ last minute Geelong offer” that the club was going to “have to take” that he was banging on about in his last one of these sliding doors, never came to pass. Also that his shots at Pert haven’t landed yet, our “mess of a club” is completing its reviews, ensuring due process and going about its business. Trac called Lamb to congratulate him on pick 9, while Clayton loves the club and will come out and say so. Meanwhile Tim Lamb sat and had three sausage rolls on the last day of trade week and talked about pick swaps as Damo looks like a fool because his narrative, that Lamb was lying and Clayton was desperate to leave looks less true than, Richo, Green, Goodwin and Lambs narrative that they were never trading him and while Geelong had Clayton’s interest he was never going and was ok with that. Barrett clearly, clearly, hates our CEO personally, and hates our club and is not impartial with his reporting, remember that next time.

I think Verall is the one. His best play has been as a ruck/forward. Not a first ruck. He takes good marks, is athletic for a big man but not quite big crash and bash enough for the monster rucks. He was forced to play No 1 ruck more than he should’ve with Fullarton a bust, now with Cambell I can see him playing forward/ruck and earning an AFL place. We may well go JVR, Turner, Verall forward and send Petty back again. Then there’s the enigmatic Jeffo, who could be anything, or nothing.

I was just about to write just that. Apparently there are players from up to three other clubs, the majority NOT being MFC players.

Please elaborate on the disaster? Issues, sure. But we have strong membership, our attendance is regularly in the top 5-7 in the league, we’re financially solvent and in a much better position than the debt demotion days, our brand was ranked the sixth most valuable across AFL and NRL, we’re at the business case stage for FINALLY getting a home base, our AFL team is the most consistently competitive we’ve had since the late 80s/90s and we won a premiership, we pioneered AFLW and have a premiership there too and our VFL program has been consistently strong with a premiership also, only failing when the seniors have injuries. What is the disaster? A board split? An unpopular CEO? Someone leaking against the unpopular CEO? Ex employees suing us? That’s bad, sure, we need to fix it and restore unity but most clubs have similar things going on, surely a disaster was what we were when Jackson took over, we’re nowhere near that!

Agree to disagree. Let’s revisit it in a couple of years. I think he’ll be one of our best players and most important leaders for the whole period of this contract. Let’s see.

His career average disposals was 22.6 vs 21 this year, but his handballs went down from 12.2 to 9.8 while his kicks went UP from 10.4 to 11.2, this was because he was playing a different role in the midfield, rather than being the extractor he was on the end of chains kicking the ball. His marks were basically the same at 2.6 vs 2.8, his tackles went UP from 5.8 to 6.2 (both ELITE) his totally clearances basically the same 4.6 vs 4.9. He kicked one more goal and one less behind and his kicking efficiency was up. That’s not trending down my friend, that’s a slightly different role. If your argument is we should’ve haggled over one more season with our VC, 3x B&F and best mid for the season I hardly see how that proves that it was a confected feel good story, North would’ve given him 4 years in a heartbeat, as would many other teams.

Trending downwards?! What rubbish. This was his best year by a street. He’s improved his kicking, his pressure is immense, he’s great at the contest, quicker than he’s been on the outside and improved his ability to rotate through the forwardline. 3 more years is exactly right.

I really don’t understand this Viney’s deal was a sugar hit report from Barrett. The Roos were after him, Clarkson sounded him out in a press conference, he was our best mid by a street this year, won our B&F and clearly would’ve wanted an extension for his family security and used the Roos and other interest to get himself the best deal. If the club waits another week to announce it so it doesn’t look like it’s coming off the back of the Trac stuff what difference does that make? Are they suggesting Viney’s letter wasn’t genuine? Rubbish! The same reporter claiming Viney’s extension was PR stunt was leading the charge on him going to the Roos until the extension was signed. There’s plenty of negatives floating around about us at the moment, and there’ll be more after the review is done but this is a completely transparent media beat up.

Fascinating how as soon as real trades started happening this story sank like a stone. Nothing has actually changed, his salary was always the same, the clubs position was always the same, the fact Clayton met Geelong was always there, and yet while there was nothing going on otherwise this story was at fever pitch, now there’s real trades happening… crickets. Maybe, just maybe, there never was a story but the media needed something to rave about?! I’m sure they’ll all say it’s magically gone quiet over the weekend though..

Also explains why they lose so many finals. As soon as it’s the more neutral G they fold.

I rate Houston. But I’m a bit relieved we didn’t get Houston. Adding picks 5 and 9 to our list of young talent should see us seriously competitive for a very long time and should JT nail one or both picks in a super talented draft we could have a superstar.

Incredible win! Finals still a remote possibility but we have to do it the hard way. Probably have to win all three, Rich and Hawthorn will be tough then we need to belt Collingwood to have a chance. With our cavalry back and those kind of incredible performances by Hanks, McNamara, Hore, Goldy, Maeve, Zanks and Gillard and with Campbell and Gall improving every week we can do it. Let’s go Dees!

I largely agree with you that it’s possible the club is saying no and Geelong and Clayton’s management are still trying. They are welcome to present offers, I don’t think anyone has a problem with that, I also think MFC’s public statements have gone so far now that there’s no way it can happen, regardless of the offer but let’s see. The Derksen Oliver comparison is pretty erroneous though. Derksen is not guaranteed any senior games at GWS, Oliver is first choice mid for us when fit. Derksen has a young family that he wants to move home to MFC, Oliver would live in essentially the same city and isn’t moving for family reasons. Derksen has one year remaining on a relatively low contract at GWS, while MFC had reportedly offered 3 years at a higher rate offering more job security. Oliver is set for life on his wage at the Dees. They’re pretty different cases. I don’t think anyone has a problem with clubs chasing players or making offers. But leaking through the media, applying pressure to a club through the media, continuing this after a club’s President and list manager had stated it’s not happening and your list manager has put it to bed. That’s pretty disrespectful, I’d be pretty unhappy if we were doing that. As far as I can see Lamb has said we’re interested in Derksen but he’s contracted. No meetings on farms, cleaning out lockers, calls for the removal of CEOs, ignoring President’s statements. It’s pretty wildly different and a false equivalence. I also like that clubs are finally holding players to their contracts. It might finally restore some balance in the trading system.

If they did/do won’t truly be relevant for at least a year though. They’ll want to put their best foot forward even if they do want a trade to make sure clubs maintain interest and our club will be doing everything it can to provide the best environment so they stay. Even then they and we will have the same dilemma in a year if the club wants to hold them to their contracts.

Thank you very much for your excellent and informative response BLWNA. Out of interest what was the impetuous for the Fair work Ombudsman stating they were legally distinct (because tone is near impossible online I’m asking because I’m curious, not challenging you). Was there a particular case that established this? Also, at the risk of derailing this thread further (although let’s face it, it’s way off the cliff now). What are the chances Pert could include external pressure and site sources like these articles as part of a wrongful dismissal suit should the MFC ever sack him? I think the defamation question is still interesting though (to me), if Pert can show a pattern of behaviour undermining his position and casting doubt on his reputation as part of a wider and longer defamation suit. Given Barrett has a long history with him, back to the Collingwood days, would these comments not be part of that pattern even if protected by being a journalistic comment or are they excluded entirely?

I’m not saying he will sue the AFL or AFL media for the article. I’m saying should Pert sue Damien Barrett for defamation OR the AFL in the event he claims income loss or damage to his career/reputation as part of a wider wrongful dismissal case against the MFC and AFL the AFL hosting these comments on a site they have editorial control over is not something that is good to have to defend as part of the wider case. All those journalists have been writing all sorts of things, however I have never seen a columnists directly call for an external clubs CEO to be removed on the AFL (media) website. Can you find that somewhere? Max Gawn is currently cited in a certain ex-pres case, for comments in an on field interview. You think articles on the AFL (media) run website wouldn’t be cited in any Pert case? Victim mentality? What?! Damien Barrett is literally calling for our CEO to be sacked, I’m not claiming to be the victim, I’m engaging in a discussion of why I wouldn’t be comfortable with that if the AFL were my business. Yep, the AFL website is run by AFL media, a subsidiary of the AFL that has key editorial and legal decisions overseen by AFL HQ. It’s a buffer that would work to protect the AFL from a lot, but I’ve never really seen it tested. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a defamation case against AFL media? There’s slagging off and there’s directly calling for someone to be “removed”. It’s not a great look and could be challenged if Pert gets sacked and goes on a legal bender like a certain ex-pres.

Where it gets blurry is when it’s published on the official AFL website. By publishing that content and supporting it there is a tacit imputation that the AFL condones or even shares the opinion. That’s not something a governing body should be doing and should Pert end up suing for unfair dismissal, industrial relations issues or defamation I wouldn’t be wanting to defend it legally.

Sure, but I think this makes it crystal clear, Oliver will NOT be traded. Green may be an interim President with a plan to replace him longer term but he’s not going to want to be made to look like an [censored] by his own club within the space of a week. BTW, Kennett, Maguire, Kosh, Cochrane all used social media and media statements a huge amount in their presidencies. We just had a President in Roffey who stayed largely silent and was crucified for it this year! You can’t win, I’m just glad Brad has made it clear to us members that this is nonsense, which was the intent of the tweet. Brad Green, Clarry’s Mum, Tim Lamb, Andrew Mackie have all poured cold water on this story in the last few days. I think a big part of the reason Barrett is keeping it going is to target Pert. I think he and probably the AFL are worried that if Melbourne come through this trade period with Oliver, Petracca a few picks and Sharp and possibly Derksen supporters may feel ok about their club and wait for the results of the reviews, rather than assemble a lynch mob to remove Pert and possibly Goodwin, which has been their agenda for quite some time.

I was increasingly worried that maybe there was something to this. But now we know Damien Barrett hates him so much I think he has to stay on. If only to make Barrett look like the [censored] he is.

Facts in this article: Clayton is training hard to be ready for pre-season. Melbourne and Geelong have had no meaningful discussions of a trade for Oliver in trade week this far. No offer has been tabled. Two Demons officials said no trade will be entertained. Conjecture: Oliver might have been willing to take a pay cut to get to Geelong.