Carlton in the Media (articles, podcasts etc)

[Blueboiiz]

Thinking about it more, i am now convinced the club discarded Brock more for his attitude and lack of discipline

 

[BlueBelle]

I'd be upset if I hadn't heard that I was losing my job from my boss too...but it's my personal policy not to air my dirty laundry in public, so I'd probably address that directly with the person I'm upset with. Making comments like that in the media just makes you look like a petulant child.

I agree with you but it's not very different to Mick having a go at Waitey publicly about him leaving.

Pretty hypocritical from Mick IMO

 

[BlueBelle]

Who? Warnock?

He has next year to prove himself now and next year started 10 weeks ago for him.

He has been sunning himself in Europe for the past few weeks!

 

[HARKER]

We're still on about Brock?

If the suggestions of Brocks doings are true, it will end any talk of him having remained on our list.
It may though necessitate it's own thread. We'll see.

 

[BlueBelle]

We're still on about Brock?

If the suggestions of Brocks doings are true, it will end any talk of him having remained on our list.
It may though necessitate it's own thread. We'll see.

Ummm what have I missed? :/

 

[Jatz]

There's information/rumours going around as to why Brock wasn't offered a contract and it has nothing to do with his playing ability.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I agree with you but it's not very different to Mick having a go at Waitey publicly about him leaving.

Pretty hypocritical from Mick IMO

Very different IMO. Waite officially left a week after meeting with Mick face to face and giving him no indication he was thinking of going. Clearly he knew he was going.

Mick, McKay, Wiley and Buttifant met with McLean and indicated they were thinking about using him as a mentor to the younger players. McLean came out of that saying he got positive vibes about another contract but you never know until it is signed. That was mid-September. 2 and a half weeks later, McKay added some uncertainty into that as trade week began. As the trade period progressed, the prospect of adding Whiley to the mix to get Jaksch came up and McLean was surplus to needs. McKay was running the trade period, McLean was away, McKay phoned him and told him it was looking unlikely we would retain him. He was eventually delisted nearly 6 weeks after that initial positive meeting. At no time did Mick meet Brock face to face during this period and lead him on, knowing he was gone.

I believe 100% that Brock was going around again as far as Mick was concerned 6 weeks prior and things changed. I do not believe that Waite was staying when he met with Mick and things changed in that week.

 

[kjr8]

I've got a feeling MM didn't want him out and wanted to wash his hands of the decision by those made above him with Brock. All along MM said he wanted to keep him and Brock said that MM had said that to him in exit meetings yet the list managers who handle the trading bring in Whiley and decide Brock is surplus to requirements. Dumb decision IMO heaping the burden on the young guys like Whiley, Cripps & Bell without an old stager there as back-up or to take some of that workload in 2015

We'll never get where we want to go if the young fellas never step up or at least get the opportunity to. If we still need brock as a backup, then we're in deeper strife than we all realise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AceAndy]

There's information/rumours going around as to why Brock wasn't offered a contract and it has nothing to do with his playing ability.

What is the information going around ?

 

[BlueBelle]

Very different IMO. Waite officially left a week after meeting with Mick face to face and giving him no indication he was thinking of going. Clearly he knew he was going.

Mick, McKay, Wiley and Buttifant met with McLean and indicated they were thinking about using him as a mentor to the younger players. McLean came out of that saying he got positive vibes about another contract but you never know until it is signed. That was mid-September. 2 and a half weeks later, McKay added some uncertainty into that as trade week began. As the trade period progressed, the prospect of adding Whiley to the mix to get Jaksch came up and McLean was surplus to needs. McKay was running the trade period, McLean was away, McKay phoned him and told him it was looking unlikely we would retain him. He was eventually delisted nearly 6 weeks after that initial positive meeting. At no time did Mick meet Brock face to face during this period and lead him on, knowing he was gone.

I believe 100% that Brock was going around again as far as Mick was concerned 6 weeks prior and things changed. I do not believe that Waite was staying when he met with Mick and things changed in that week.

That's not what Brock said on SEN and that is what my opinion is based on.

Brock said he met with Mick 6 weeks out from the season ending and Mick said All was good.

His exit interview with Mick, McKay and Buttifant went even better than that. Brock's words.

Then he got a call from his manager saying he doesn't like where it's heading and then the call from McKay came through.

My view about Mick being hypocritical is more to do with facing the music and being honest. He should've called Brock himself given two convos had were based around him staying.

 

[BlueBelle]

There's information/rumours going around as to why Brock wasn't offered a contract and it has nothing to do with his playing ability.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Sharks On A Plane]

Care to elaborate?

Likes to party does the old Brockstar.

 

[Big Sim]

Well if some of you are questioning Mick's values and moral fibre, its only fair to question Brock's as well ..

Thinking about it more, i am now convinced the club discarded Brock more for his attitude and lack of discipline, then for football ability (think we all agree he probably had another year in him)

We have a young group of talented young kids coming through, i have no problem with Mick getting rid of a trio of players with bad habits, Waite, Robbo and Brock.

You have no idea what you are talking about. He was squeezed out for list balance reasons. It happens. He was under the impression he was getting another year. When he was told that was off the table he was gutted and vented. Why make up some other scenario that's slights his character when that one makes sense?

 

[Big Sim]

Time for a Brock Slander thread. Open up with how not shaking hands with Saint Kirk was a dog act and then how being gutted to be playing so poorly that he was subbed off was even worse.

Yet he was thought highly enough of by those who count tobepart of the leadership group. Hmmm.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That's not what Brock said on SEN and that is what my opinion is based on.

Brock said he met with Mick 6 weeks out from the season ending and Mick said All was good.

His exit interview with Mick, McKay and Buttifant went even better than that. Brock's words.

Then he got a call from his manager saying he doesn't like where it's heading and then the call from McKay came through.

My view about Mick being hypocritical is more to do with facing the music and being honest. He should've called Brock himself given two convos had were based around him staying.

Yes, 6 weeks before the season ended. That's back in July. Then again in September and it was still positive but Brock hadn't accepted it as a done deal yet, then it started changing over the trade period and McKay kept them informed every step of the way.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...chat-with-mick-malthouse-20140914-10gt8k.html

But a meeting with Malthouse, director of coaching Rob Wiley, fitness boss David Buttifant and football operations head Andrew McKay revealed to McLean the club had a lot more confidence in him than he had in them.
"[It] went really well, and was really positive and gave me a lot of confidence that they want me around next year.
"I caught up with my manager on Friday ... we had a brief chat about it, he's in constant talks with the club just trying to work through it.
"At the moment every indication is that we'll get one done for next year, but until the actual signature's put on the paper you never know. But we're both confident."
At that meeting a leadership and mentoring role was outlined for McLean, one with a focus on teaching the Blues' burgeoning youth ranks about the professional standards required to become an elite player.

So even though the journo said we had offered a new contract, Brock was optimistic but indicated it wasn't over the line yet. There was also the talk about what we wanted from him next year.

Some here have raised some speculation that some professional standards we were looking for may not apply now. That might make sense if we can now no longer use him in this capacity.

The point is that we had positive talks several weeks prior and when things changed McKay was in charge of the situation. It may be that this was not a Mick decision at all. The list manager phoned Brock to raise the possibility he might not get a contract, they had a heated discussion by Brock's own admission, and the list manager phoned him when the decision was made. What do you think Mick would have added to that scenario, given phone calls weren't being well received and Brock as late as last week had still not made an appearance in person?

I think we don't really know whose call it was, but we do know that McKay was heavily involved in the positive meetings and when things started to change.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

You have no idea what you are talking about. He was squeezed out for list balance reasons. It happens. He was under the impression he was getting another year. When he was told that was off the table he was gutted and vented. Why make up some other scenario that's lights his character when that one ales sense?

Yes, it appears to be list balance based. Anything else is speculation.

Time for a Brock Slander thread. Open up with how not shaking hands with Saint Kirk was a dog act and then how being gutted to be playing so poorly that he was subbed off was even worse.

Yet he was thought highly enough of by those who count tobepart of the leadership group. Hmmm.

There's a middle ground here. Brock doesn't need to be demonised because he lashed out at the club and the club doesn't need to be demonised based on Brock's version of events. As we know the club seldom give us a blow by blow on these sorts of things so they are at a disadvantage.

Was Brock a walk up best 22 player in 2015? Not for mine, so there is no issue.

 

[BlueBelle]

Yes, 6 weeks before the season ended. That's back in July. Then again in September and it was still positive but Brock hadn't accepted it as a done deal yet, then it started changing over the trade period and McKay kept them informed every step of the way.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...chat-with-mick-malthouse-20140914-10gt8k.html



So even though the journo said we had offered a new contract, Brock was optimistic but indicated it wasn't over the line yet. There was also the talk about what we wanted from him next year.

Some here have raised some speculation that some professional standards we were looking for may not apply now. That might make sense if we can now no longer use him in this capacity.

The point is that we had positive talks several weeks prior and when things changed McKay was in charge of the situation. It may be that this was not a Mick decision at all. The list manager phoned Brock to raise the possibility he might not get a contract, they had a heated discussion by Brock's own admission, and the list manager phoned him when the decision was made. What do you think Mick would have added to that scenario, given phone calls weren't being well received and Brock as late as last week had still not made an appearance in person?

I think we don't really know whose call it was, but we do know that McKay was heavily involved in the positive meetings and when things started to change.

Even if it wasn't entirely Mick's call, he's still the Senior Coach. Even a "so I know Macca has spoken to you and all I can say is I'm sorry if you were lead to believe otherwise, it was our intention but...." conversation.

 

[ESKIE]

Many players are happy when there times up, Brock probably would have preferred it was on his terms.

 

[BlueBelle]

Many players are happy when there times up, Brock probably would have preferred it was on his terms.

Yep. It's a shame they made the choice for him

 

[ESKIE]

Yep. It's a shame they made the choice for him

Well he is at that age, he probably was hoping for one more year, someone else may pick him up. Doubt it tho.

We don't know the full story either, not that Brock is fibbing but behind club walls, who knows

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Even if it wasn't entirely Mick's call, he's still the Senior Coach. Even a "so I know Macca has spoken to you and all I can say is I'm sorry if you were lead to believe otherwise, it was our intention but...." conversation.

It might depend on that conversation with McKay. Was Brock even approachable at this time? He had to go back to the club, maybe Mick was planning to meet with him then?

There are too many things we don't know about to assume that after all of these years of coaching, Mick decided to be disrespectful and change his usual face to face style ... just for Brock McLean. I'd just caution against falling too far into one camp based on one side of a story.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Yep. It's a shame they made the choice for him

Him and about 99 other players at this time of year. 'Tis the nature of the beast. However in that article I quoted earlier, it suggest Brock had made the decision to retire if we didn't offer him a contract as he didn't think other clubs would be interested. It's not as though he hadn't considered this possibility.

 

[Aphrodite]

There's information/rumours going around as to why Brock wasn't offered a contract and it has nothing to do with his playing ability.

What is the information going around ?

Let's not speculate as to what or not those rumours might be!

 

[Aphrodite]

Time for a Brock Slander thread. Open up with how not shaking hands with Saint Kirk was a dog act and then how being gutted to be playing so poorly that he was subbed off was even worse.

Yet he was thought highly enough of by those who count tobepart of the leadership group. Hmmm.

I don't think so!

 

[Jatz]

Let's not speculate as to what or not those rumours might be!

I didn't but yes, agree.