Rumour Bluemour Discussion XXXIX

[Earls Smother]

It's a joke, but Gulden a first and next year first for Curnow and maybe some popcorn thrown in.

This is not just directed at you, but the discussion in general.

When has a team ever overpaid in a trade deal with players? Gulden alone would be overpaying (given age) and weakens their current team.

Adelaide overpaid for Gibbs, WC overpaid for Kelly, but these deals always involve picks, which don't tangibly weaken the team (at least at the time).

The only way I see us getting a player that is at least the equal of Charlie, is via a third (or even fourth) club. Sydney would have to conjure pick 2 from WC, then "overpay" us with picks 2 and 9 and whatever. We then overpay Port for Butters (for example). We would only do the first deal, if we knew the second one was in place.

You might get overpaid in young talent, like we arguably did by giving Kennedy to WC, but that takes years to evolve. For that to happen, you would think GC or GWS would have to be involved.

 

[ABigOlDoofus]

Coaches saw him as a defender—he flat-out refused. Why? Because that was Dad’s territory. Instead of embracing the challenge, he demanded to play forward. He struggled.

Man, on a certain level, I get it for Jack. Not excusing him or saying he was justified in his behaviour, but imagine the pressure placed on him, not only by his father who doesn't exactly seem like a barrel of laughs, but the community as a whole. He was the third generation in Carlton's most famous name, the Silvagni before him considered by most to be a top 5 key back in AFL history at absolute worst. Add onto that coming in at a very lean time for the club where the fans were looking for anything to latch onto, any glimmer of hope, I also would not want to play down back.

No matter what he did, there is 0 chance he could live up to the expectations that would have been placed on him if he started his career down back. Hell, people were shi**ing on him no matter where he played until he came back as that defensive mid. Tough, tough environment to be put in.

 

[RPCB]

MEDIUM DEFENDER, OUTSIDE MIDFIELDER

#7​

Campbell Chesser​

Height: 186cm
Weight: 83kg
D.O.B: 27-04-2003

POSITION: Balanced Midfielder/Defender

SNAPSHOT: "A speedy and productive mover on the outside, Chesser breaks the lines from half-back or the wing but has also shown a good balance in his ball winning."

What Chesser had shown in the previous fixture and his Under 16s year, was his clean ball use and athleticism, allowing him to strive through the midfield with his classy ball movement going forward.

To complement this, Chesser is a two-way runner, winning possession in the defensive 50 and moving it on well, then generally running hard to impact up the field in the same passage of play.

At the next level, Chesser is going to offer classy use of the footy, particularly by foot, whether he’s playing on the wing, off half-back or through the middle.

Chesser remains composed going in the thick of things, threading kicks out to teammates in space with solid placement to make them as easy to mark as possible.

STRENGTHS:

• Speed
• Kicking
• Class
• Versatility
• Outside run
• Breaking the lines

IMPROVEMENTS:

• Contested game
• Tackling

Those strengths instantly make him sound like the best player at Carlton. Holy shit.

 

[Bluebag13]

Some people here won’t like what I’m about to say, but I don’t particularly care.


If Carlton had been a better-run club—regardless of who was coach—Jack Silvagni and Charlie Curnow wouldn’t have ended up in this position.

Jack Silvagni

On Monday night I posted that while we all love how “unconditional” Jack plays, he’s actually been one of the most conditional players we’ve had in 20 years. I stand by that.

We’ve given Jack more love and latitude than almost any late draft pick in AFL history. Since the modern father-son system came in, no pick in the 50s has been indulged the way he has.


A late pick usually plays with gratitude, grabs any role offered, and fights to prove themselves. Not Jack.

Early Career

Coaches saw him as a defender—he flat-out refused. Why? Because that was Dad’s territory. Instead of embracing the challenge, he demanded to play forward. He struggled.


The club tried to reinvent him as a midfielder/utility in the VFL. Showed promise, and when tested in the seniors (on Nat Fyfe, no less), he excelled. That could’ve been his position. Instead, he dismissed it almost as soon as it started.

Voss Era

Voss finally found a role that stuck—forward/backup ruck. Jack played it well, his most consistent stretch. But let’s be clear: it was his preferred forward role with a compromise attached. He said all the right things, but history shows he only accepted roles on his terms.

Reality check: he was a fringe player. Solid, but not indispensable. And the club was almost always fair with him - a couple of omissions come to mind as the outlier rather than the norm.

The turning point.

Injury struck. The team moved on. Kemp got a chance up forward late in the year and showed traits Jack never had—separation, leap, athleticism. Combine Kemp with Charlie and Harry and suddenly the forward line looked set.


Jack saw the writing on the wall. Almost a decade in, he finally requested to be considered as a defender. At last.


To his credit, he trained hard, came into the season looking fit, and showed glimpses down back. But injuries again ended his season early.

We’re talking about pick 53 who twice refused the roles the club identified for him. He only accepted the defender role when his forward spot was gone.

Any other pick 53 who pushed back like that would’ve been cut long before they got the chance to “figure it out.”

Carlton didn’t just tolerate Jack. We bent over backwards for him—showing him more love and patience than almost any other player in his draft range would ever get.

Instead, Jack demonstrates that he's entitled.

You want players to have freedom? Jack had it at a level never before seen.

Charlie Curnow

Some people won’t like this either, but let’s talk about Charlie Curnow.

We all know he’s a freakish talent. When he’s on, he’s unstoppable. Back-to-back Colemans don’t happen by accident. But the path to get here? It’s not just about perseverance—it’s also about freedom and agency that most players would never be granted.

Charlie hasn’t exactly lived like a monk. Many off-field activities that most footballers would never get clearance for—he’s indulged them. Those freedoms have directly contributed to setbacks. His injuries haven’t all been “bad luck”—some of them trace back to lifestyle and choices outside the club’s control.

At Carlton, that behaviour didn’t see him reined in. Instead, he was trusted to keep doing his thing while the club absorbed the consequences. Any other player—especially one without Charlie’s raw talent—would’ve been pulled into line, told to focus on footy, or quietly shown the door.

And when the injuries piled up, Charlie wasn’t treated like a standard player. He had a say in his rehab. When the club wanted one approach, he wanted another—and more often than not, he got his way. He stepped away from standard timelines, rebuilt his body on his terms, and the club gave him the latitude to do it.

That’s not how it works for most footballers. Usually, it’s “do the program or you’re out.” Charlie got trust and space

Eventually, it worked. Carlton’s patience and indulgence paid off—he returned, dominated, and has become everything we hoped he’d be.

But let’s not pretend this treatment was normal. If a lesser player had suffered repeated setback from personal choices, they’d have faced greater scrutiny. Charlie’s once-in-a-generation talent bought him freedoms that others wouldn’t even dream of.

Charlie’s game style reflects the same freedom. He plays with a laid-back, individual-first approach. He’ll pull off the spectacular, but when the contest demands a second effort or a hard chase, too often he doesn’t deliver. He’s not a gut-buster. He’s not the type to grind away for a teammate’s benefit.


That’s been part of the package from day one: mercurial, brilliant, but not always team-first in the one-percenters. Again, it’s tolerated because he can turn a game on its head with one burst of brilliance.

Charlie Curnow is a superstar. But he’s also the beneficiary of a system that bent over backwards—not just for his recovery, but for the freedoms he took off the field that played a role in his injuries.

That gamble paid off for Carlton from 2022 through most of 2024. But let’s be honest: almost no one else would’ve been given that much rope.

The Common Thread​

Carlton bent over backwards for both Jack Silvagni and Charlie Curnow. Jack was indulged when he knocked back roles and only accepted positions on his terms. Charlie was indulged when his off-field choices contributed to injuries and when his laid-back, individual-first mindset meant he wasn’t always giving second efforts.

Both were given freedoms, patience, and agency that most AFL players would never receive. Their talent (in Charlie’s case) and surname (in Jack’s case) bought them leeway that others simply wouldn’t have had.

A better-managed football club would have struck the balance: giving both players some freedom to be themselves, but holding them accountable early, setting hard boundaries, and keeping them in line. Instead, Carlton blurred those lines and let indulgence become the norm.

This definitely matches what we as fans see, and fantastic post. Just one small thing did you get chatgpt to write this for you, just doesn't read like your normal posts

 

[Sharks On A Plane]

Jack only "showed glimpses" down back?

Let the revisionism begin.

 

[Sharks On A Plane]

This definitely matches what we as fans see, and fantastic post. Just one small thing did you get chatgpt to write this for you, just doesn't read like your normal posts

The generous sprinkling of em dashes—are just one of the giveaways

 

[TheThunderboltKid]

Jack only "showed glimpses" down back?

Let the revisionism begin.

13 out of 128 games could be described as a glimpse

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Makes sense. He'd be in similar money too

He’s also in their top 3 players and appears to be entirely happy and professionally engaged. There is no world in which they trade him.

 

[Blue Pulse]

Some people here won’t like what I’m about to say, but I don’t particularly care.


If Carlton had been a better-run club—regardless of who was coach—Jack Silvagni and Charlie Curnow wouldn’t have ended up in this position.

Jack Silvagni

On Monday night I posted that while we all love how “unconditional” Jack plays, he’s actually been one of the most conditional players we’ve had in 20 years. I stand by that.

We’ve given Jack more love and latitude than almost any late draft pick in AFL history. Since the modern father-son system came in, no pick in the 50s has been indulged the way he has.


A late pick usually plays with gratitude, grabs any role offered, and fights to prove themselves. Not Jack.

Early Career

Coaches saw him as a defender—he flat-out refused. Why? Because that was Dad’s territory. Instead of embracing the challenge, he demanded to play forward. He struggled.


The club tried to reinvent him as a midfielder/utility in the VFL. Showed promise, and when tested in the seniors (on Nat Fyfe, no less), he excelled. That could’ve been his position. Instead, he dismissed it almost as soon as it started.

Voss Era

Voss finally found a role that stuck—forward/backup ruck. Jack played it well, his most consistent stretch. But let’s be clear: it was his preferred forward role with a compromise attached. He said all the right things, but history shows he only accepted roles on his terms.

Reality check: he was a fringe player. Solid, but not indispensable. And the club was almost always fair with him - a couple of omissions come to mind as the outlier rather than the norm.

The turning point.

Injury struck. The team moved on. Kemp got a chance up forward late in the year and showed traits Jack never had—separation, leap, athleticism. Combine Kemp with Charlie and Harry and suddenly the forward line looked set.


Jack saw the writing on the wall. Almost a decade in, he finally requested to be considered as a defender. At last.


To his credit, he trained hard, came into the season looking fit, and showed glimpses down back. But injuries again ended his season early.

We’re talking about pick 53 who twice refused the roles the club identified for him. He only accepted the defender role when his forward spot was gone.

Any other pick 53 who pushed back like that would’ve been cut long before they got the chance to “figure it out.”

Carlton didn’t just tolerate Jack. We bent over backwards for him—showing him more love and patience than almost any other player in his draft range would ever get.

Instead, Jack demonstrates that he's entitled.

You want players to have freedom? Jack had it at a level never before seen.

Charlie Curnow

Some people won’t like this either, but let’s talk about Charlie Curnow.

We all know he’s a freakish talent. When he’s on, he’s unstoppable. Back-to-back Colemans don’t happen by accident. But the path to get here? It’s not just about perseverance—it’s also about freedom and agency that most players would never be granted.

Charlie hasn’t exactly lived like a monk. Many off-field activities that most footballers would never get clearance for—he’s indulged them. Those freedoms have directly contributed to setbacks. His injuries haven’t all been “bad luck”—some of them trace back to lifestyle and choices outside the club’s control.

At Carlton, that behaviour didn’t see him reined in. Instead, he was trusted to keep doing his thing while the club absorbed the consequences. Any other player—especially one without Charlie’s raw talent—would’ve been pulled into line, told to focus on footy, or quietly shown the door.

And when the injuries piled up, Charlie wasn’t treated like a standard player. He had a say in his rehab. When the club wanted one approach, he wanted another—and more often than not, he got his way. He stepped away from standard timelines, rebuilt his body on his terms, and the club gave him the latitude to do it.

That’s not how it works for most footballers. Usually, it’s “do the program or you’re out.” Charlie got trust and space

Eventually, it worked. Carlton’s patience and indulgence paid off—he returned, dominated, and has become everything we hoped he’d be.

But let’s not pretend this treatment was normal. If a lesser player had suffered repeated setback from personal choices, they’d have faced greater scrutiny. Charlie’s once-in-a-generation talent bought him freedoms that others wouldn’t even dream of.

Charlie’s game style reflects the same freedom. He plays with a laid-back, individual-first approach. He’ll pull off the spectacular, but when the contest demands a second effort or a hard chase, too often he doesn’t deliver. He’s not a gut-buster. He’s not the type to grind away for a teammate’s benefit.


That’s been part of the package from day one: mercurial, brilliant, but not always team-first in the one-percenters. Again, it’s tolerated because he can turn a game on its head with one burst of brilliance.

Charlie Curnow is a superstar. But he’s also the beneficiary of a system that bent over backwards—not just for his recovery, but for the freedoms he took off the field that played a role in his injuries.

That gamble paid off for Carlton from 2022 through most of 2024. But let’s be honest: almost no one else would’ve been given that much rope.

The Common Thread​

Carlton bent over backwards for both Jack Silvagni and Charlie Curnow. Jack was indulged when he knocked back roles and only accepted positions on his terms. Charlie was indulged when his off-field choices contributed to injuries and when his laid-back, individual-first mindset meant he wasn’t always giving second efforts.

Both were given freedoms, patience, and agency that most AFL players would never receive. Their talent (in Charlie’s case) and surname (in Jack’s case) bought them leeway that others simply wouldn’t have had.

A better-managed football club would have struck the balance: giving both players some freedom to be themselves, but holding them accountable early, setting hard boundaries, and keeping them in line. Instead, Carlton blurred those lines and let indulgence become the norm.

So nothing has really changed or been learnt from the Fevola days. That's really poor culture, players see favouritism, no matter how big or how small.

What annoyed me about Jack when playing forward, if you want to be an effective forward, you should be a good kick at goal, his kicking at goal was near on 50/50 throughout his career which is very average.

Nothing surprises me about Charlie, naturally gifted athlete who hasn't had to work too hard to be a good player. Chalk and cheese between him and Ed

 

[Coops93]

More than one way to lose a player.
Keeping the Charlie we had this year is hardly worth it.
A lot to be mended if he stays and will actually thrive.

I think this is an underdiscussed part of keeping Charlie.

It's well and good to say he's contracted and he's a gun so we keep him no matter what, but psychology is as big a variable in athletes performances as athletic, if not even more.

Is Charlie going to come in after we shut him down with the full of beans energy that won him 2x Colemans? Or is he going to mope around, not be completely motivated and may actually end up being a locker room distraction? The club know his personality more than we do, but imo we've seen him mope around the field plenty of times before. He's not always a locked it 100% effort kinda guy and he does go through motivational lulls within games, let alone seasons.

If he's coming back to the club unhappy next year, is holding him to his contract actually beneficial for anyone?

I could well be wrong and he could rock up in outstanding nick and full of motivation, but just based of the moods we've seen before, and in particular this year just gone, I don't have high hopes for that outcome.

 

[Ninja Worrier]

Club should bring Ed back as a coach

 

[Coops93]

The whole thing is like some type of bizarre pantomime driven by his manager and spoon fed to the media.

So first of all, Charlie's linked to a move to GCS, so the move is for 'lifestyle reasons'.

And then all of a sudden, the Swans come to the party, so then the story changes to 'he wants a fresh start' and 'play in a city where he's not in a bubble'

Tbf, I think the lifestyle change and being out of the AFL bubble applies to both Sydney and the Gold Coast, I don't think that changes much. Especially as there's basically no reason for the Suns to be interested in Curnow and he's more likely to get to Sydney, who actually need a key fwd.

 

[Wickzki]

This definitely matches what we as fans see, and fantastic post. Just one small thing did you get chatgpt to write this for you, just doesn't read like your normal posts

I've lost a lot of confidence in my straight up writing so when I write something that I feel is important to me or I feel can be easily misread I will run it through ChatGPT and work with it to tighten up the language, etc. The thoughts are definitely mine.

 

[Matty411]

I'm interested to see preseason if Charlie stays now. A lotttt has been said in the media and on these here forums.

 

[GoBlues!]

Club should bring Ed back as a coach

Now there was a player who played his guts out every week and was grateful to be playing for the Blues.

Little brother could take a few lessons from him.

 

[Coona Blues]

Some people here won’t like what I’m about to say, but I don’t particularly care.


If Carlton had been a better-run club—regardless of who was coach—Jack Silvagni and Charlie Curnow wouldn’t have ended up in this position.

Jack Silvagni

On Monday night I posted that while we all love how “unconditional” Jack plays, he’s actually been one of the most conditional players we’ve had in 20 years. I stand by that.

We’ve given Jack more love and latitude than almost any late draft pick in AFL history. Since the modern father-son system came in, no pick in the 50s has been indulged the way he has.


A late pick usually plays with gratitude, grabs any role offered, and fights to prove themselves. Not Jack.

Early Career

Coaches saw him as a defender—he flat-out refused. Why? Because that was Dad’s territory. Instead of embracing the challenge, he demanded to play forward. He struggled.


The club tried to reinvent him as a midfielder/utility in the VFL. Showed promise, and when tested in the seniors (on Nat Fyfe, no less), he excelled. That could’ve been his position. Instead, he dismissed it almost as soon as it started.

Voss Era

Voss finally found a role that stuck—forward/backup ruck. Jack played it well, his most consistent stretch. But let’s be clear: it was his preferred forward role with a compromise attached. He said all the right things, but history shows he only accepted roles on his terms.

Reality check: he was a fringe player. Solid, but not indispensable. And the club was almost always fair with him - a couple of omissions come to mind as the outlier rather than the norm.

The turning point.

Injury struck. The team moved on. Kemp got a chance up forward late in the year and showed traits Jack never had—separation, leap, athleticism. Combine Kemp with Charlie and Harry and suddenly the forward line looked set.


Jack saw the writing on the wall. Almost a decade in, he finally requested to be considered as a defender. At last.


To his credit, he trained hard, came into the season looking fit, and showed glimpses down back. But injuries again ended his season early.

We’re talking about pick 53 who twice refused the roles the club identified for him. He only accepted the defender role when his forward spot was gone.

Any other pick 53 who pushed back like that would’ve been cut long before they got the chance to “figure it out.”

Carlton didn’t just tolerate Jack. We bent over backwards for him—showing him more love and patience than almost any other player in his draft range would ever get.

Instead, Jack demonstrates that he's entitled.

You want players to have freedom? Jack had it at a level never before seen.

Charlie Curnow

Some people won’t like this either, but let’s talk about Charlie Curnow.

We all know he’s a freakish talent. When he’s on, he’s unstoppable. Back-to-back Colemans don’t happen by accident. But the path to get here? It’s not just about perseverance—it’s also about freedom and agency that most players would never be granted.

Charlie hasn’t exactly lived like a monk. Many off-field activities that most footballers would never get clearance for—he’s indulged them. Those freedoms have directly contributed to setbacks. His injuries haven’t all been “bad luck”—some of them trace back to lifestyle and choices outside the club’s control.

At Carlton, that behaviour didn’t see him reined in. Instead, he was trusted to keep doing his thing while the club absorbed the consequences. Any other player—especially one without Charlie’s raw talent—would’ve been pulled into line, told to focus on footy, or quietly shown the door.

And when the injuries piled up, Charlie wasn’t treated like a standard player. He had a say in his rehab. When the club wanted one approach, he wanted another—and more often than not, he got his way. He stepped away from standard timelines, rebuilt his body on his terms, and the club gave him the latitude to do it.

That’s not how it works for most footballers. Usually, it’s “do the program or you’re out.” Charlie got trust and space

Eventually, it worked. Carlton’s patience and indulgence paid off—he returned, dominated, and has become everything we hoped he’d be.

But let’s not pretend this treatment was normal. If a lesser player had suffered repeated setback from personal choices, they’d have faced greater scrutiny. Charlie’s once-in-a-generation talent bought him freedoms that others wouldn’t even dream of.

Charlie’s game style reflects the same freedom. He plays with a laid-back, individual-first approach. He’ll pull off the spectacular, but when the contest demands a second effort or a hard chase, too often he doesn’t deliver. He’s not a gut-buster. He’s not the type to grind away for a teammate’s benefit.


That’s been part of the package from day one: mercurial, brilliant, but not always team-first in the one-percenters. Again, it’s tolerated because he can turn a game on its head with one burst of brilliance.

Charlie Curnow is a superstar. But he’s also the beneficiary of a system that bent over backwards—not just for his recovery, but for the freedoms he took off the field that played a role in his injuries.

That gamble paid off for Carlton from 2022 through most of 2024. But let’s be honest: almost no one else would’ve been given that much rope.

The Common Thread​

Carlton bent over backwards for both Jack Silvagni and Charlie Curnow. Jack was indulged when he knocked back roles and only accepted positions on his terms. Charlie was indulged when his off-field choices contributed to injuries and when his laid-back, individual-first mindset meant he wasn’t always giving second efforts.

Both were given freedoms, patience, and agency that most AFL players would never receive. Their talent (in Charlie’s case) and surname (in Jack’s case) bought them leeway that others simply wouldn’t have had.

A better-managed football club would have struck the balance: giving both players some freedom to be themselves, but holding them accountable early, setting hard boundaries, and keeping them in line. Instead, Carlton blurred those lines and let indulgence become the norm.

Are you telling me the Bolton indoctrination didn’t work. Or perhaps the Bolton way telling them that they are THE FUTURE, THE LEADERS gave them an entitlement from day one. (Reckon it did, we had the older top tier and a tier of SOS acquired journeyman place holders that created factions to a ridiculous level. Team unity has been skewed ever since.

 

[Dominator_7]

Jack only "showed glimpses" down back?

Let the revisionism begin.

Playing only 13 out of 23 games and not all of them good, is showing glimpses.
Some people acted like we’ve lost peak Stephen and not Jack Silvagni

 

[Wickzki]

Jack only "showed glimpses" down back?

Let the revisionism begin.

He only played 13 games this season.

Glimpses may be a little too critical but it's not a full season's body of work.

 

[Will_Hayward]

The generous sprinkling of em dashes—are just one of the giveaways

Those are en dashes... em dashes are longer.

 

[Will_Hayward]

I've lost a lot of confidence in my straight up writing so when I write something that I feel is important to me or I feel can be easily misread I will run it through ChatGPT and work with it to tighten up the language, etc. The thoughts are definitely mine.

Appreciate that, however your regular posts are very well written and benefit from your true voice.

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

All these posts saying Jack/Charlie refused to do this or demanded that….do we have any actual evidence this was the case or is it just spitballing?
BTW I agree with the premise of these posts, but are they opinion or facts?

 

[Chemical]

All these posts saying Jack/Charlie refused to do this or demanded that….do we have any actual evidence this was the case or is it just spitballing?
BTW I agree with the premise of these posts, but are they opinion or facts?

Well all the rumours regarding these two have been true lately

 

[Coops93]

As long as we get band 1 compo.

I could just picture SOS sitting in the LM meeting when they're working out the contract going "What's the $ amount for Carlton to receive band 1? $850,000 a season? Well, how about we make the contract for Jack $849,999 a season...."

 

[Wickzki]

Are you telling me the Bolton indoctrination didn’t work. Or perhaps the Bolton way telling them that they are THE FUTURE, THE LEADERS gave them an entitlement from day one. (Reckon it did, we had the older top tier and a tier of SOS acquired journeyman place holders that created factions to a ridiculous level. Team unity has been skewed ever since.

I think so mate. We gave the "kids" a lot of affordances.

We held them to far too little accountability. Kept going under Teague. By the time Voss got them it was a runaway train. If you try and incorporate changes, force players to be more accountable as identified by the likes of Weiters and Walsh this year some just cannot handle it.

They've grown together as individuals and mates. They haven't grown together as a team and we've watched it play out badly this year.

 

[The Flying Doormat]

Some people here won’t like what I’m about to say, but I don’t particularly care.


If Carlton had been a better-run club—regardless of who was coach—Jack Silvagni and Charlie Curnow wouldn’t have ended up in this position.

Jack Silvagni

On Monday night I posted that while we all love how “unconditional” Jack plays, he’s actually been one of the most conditional players we’ve had in 20 years. I stand by that.

We’ve given Jack more love and latitude than almost any late draft pick in AFL history. Since the modern father-son system came in, no pick in the 50s has been indulged the way he has.


A late pick usually plays with gratitude, grabs any role offered, and fights to prove themselves. Not Jack.

Early Career

Coaches saw him as a defender—he flat-out refused. Why? Because that was Dad’s territory. Instead of embracing the challenge, he demanded to play forward. He struggled.


The club tried to reinvent him as a midfielder/utility in the VFL. Showed promise, and when tested in the seniors (on Nat Fyfe, no less), he excelled. That could’ve been his position. Instead, he dismissed it almost as soon as it started.

Voss Era

Voss finally found a role that stuck—forward/backup ruck. Jack played it well, his most consistent stretch. But let’s be clear: it was his preferred forward role with a compromise attached. He said all the right things, but history shows he only accepted roles on his terms.

Reality check: he was a fringe player. Solid, but not indispensable. And the club was almost always fair with him - a couple of omissions come to mind as the outlier rather than the norm.

The turning point.

Injury struck. The team moved on. Kemp got a chance up forward late in the year and showed traits Jack never had—separation, leap, athleticism. Combine Kemp with Charlie and Harry and suddenly the forward line looked set.


Jack saw the writing on the wall. Almost a decade in, he finally requested to be considered as a defender. At last.


To his credit, he trained hard, came into the season looking fit, and showed glimpses down back. But injuries again ended his season early.

We’re talking about pick 53 who twice refused the roles the club identified for him. He only accepted the defender role when his forward spot was gone.

Any other pick 53 who pushed back like that would’ve been cut long before they got the chance to “figure it out.”

Carlton didn’t just tolerate Jack. We bent over backwards for him—showing him more love and patience than almost any other player in his draft range would ever get.

Instead, Jack demonstrates that he's entitled.

You want players to have freedom? Jack had it at a level never before seen.

Charlie Curnow

Some people won’t like this either, but let’s talk about Charlie Curnow.

We all know he’s a freakish talent. When he’s on, he’s unstoppable. Back-to-back Colemans don’t happen by accident. But the path to get here? It’s not just about perseverance—it’s also about freedom and agency that most players would never be granted.

Charlie hasn’t exactly lived like a monk. Many off-field activities that most footballers would never get clearance for—he’s indulged them. Those freedoms have directly contributed to setbacks. His injuries haven’t all been “bad luck”—some of them trace back to lifestyle and choices outside the club’s control.

At Carlton, that behaviour didn’t see him reined in. Instead, he was trusted to keep doing his thing while the club absorbed the consequences. Any other player—especially one without Charlie’s raw talent—would’ve been pulled into line, told to focus on footy, or quietly shown the door.

And when the injuries piled up, Charlie wasn’t treated like a standard player. He had a say in his rehab. When the club wanted one approach, he wanted another—and more often than not, he got his way. He stepped away from standard timelines, rebuilt his body on his terms, and the club gave him the latitude to do it.

That’s not how it works for most footballers. Usually, it’s “do the program or you’re out.” Charlie got trust and space

Eventually, it worked. Carlton’s patience and indulgence paid off—he returned, dominated, and has become everything we hoped he’d be.

But let’s not pretend this treatment was normal. If a lesser player had suffered repeated setback from personal choices, they’d have faced greater scrutiny. Charlie’s once-in-a-generation talent bought him freedoms that others wouldn’t even dream of.

Charlie’s game style reflects the same freedom. He plays with a laid-back, individual-first approach. He’ll pull off the spectacular, but when the contest demands a second effort or a hard chase, too often he doesn’t deliver. He’s not a gut-buster. He’s not the type to grind away for a teammate’s benefit.


That’s been part of the package from day one: mercurial, brilliant, but not always team-first in the one-percenters. Again, it’s tolerated because he can turn a game on its head with one burst of brilliance.

Charlie Curnow is a superstar. But he’s also the beneficiary of a system that bent over backwards—not just for his recovery, but for the freedoms he took off the field that played a role in his injuries.

That gamble paid off for Carlton from 2022 through most of 2024. But let’s be honest: almost no one else would’ve been given that much rope.

The Common Thread​

Carlton bent over backwards for both Jack Silvagni and Charlie Curnow. Jack was indulged when he knocked back roles and only accepted positions on his terms. Charlie was indulged when his off-field choices contributed to injuries and when his laid-back, individual-first mindset meant he wasn’t always giving second efforts.

Both were given freedoms, patience, and agency that most AFL players would never receive. Their talent (in Charlie’s case) and surname (in Jack’s case) bought them leeway that others simply wouldn’t have had.

A better-managed football club would have struck the balance: giving both players some freedom to be themselves, but holding them accountable early, setting hard boundaries, and keeping them in line. Instead, Carlton blurred those lines and let indulgence become the norm.

In Curnow's case I'd be levelling most of the criticism at the coaching staff/football department for allowing this situation to develop.
As for Jack, there were factors across the club associated with the surname which contributed to the story line of this soap opera.