If Scully was discovered to have signed with GWS...

[Hannabal]

Is this any different to Nathan Buckley and the Brisbane Bears?

It's very different. Buckley told Brisbane up front that he'd only stay one year. He was coming off a premiership at Port Adelaide, as well as a Magarey Medal, and wasn't far off 21 when he played his first game at Brisbane.

They were very different circumstances.

 

[CM Sean]

I thought the correct saying was; "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."?

(in reference to the quote as mentioned earlier, but the other way around)

BTW: as for Buckley, didn't he always wanna play for Collingwood? As far as I know he wanted to play for them all along so... it's very different. GWS is new, he wouldn't wanna go there because he "likes that team better", It'd be for the pay-check if anything believable.

 

[jimmyclean]

I thought the correct saying was; "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."?

Yep you're right I didn't even think about it, the point is still relevant though.

The AFL community was essentially 'fooled' into thinking that players rumoured to be signing with GC who left their contract unsigned until the end of the season weren't a done deal from the outset.

This time around the AFL community is smelling a rat around every corner, and expect Scully to hear about it.

 

[Clash Hendrix]

Nathan Buckley also wasnt a draft pick. He was picked up through some weird state zoning that the Bears had back then that allowed them to claim him as a player from the Northern Territory because he played football there in his youth. Plus as has been mentioned, he was upfront about the fact he would leave Brisbane after one season.

As far as the Scully situation is concerned, Im already exhausted by it and we're not even midway through February. If he stays its a great indication of the vibe at the club. If he leaves, he'll have shown about as much disrespect to the club as anyone ever has.

In the end, I think he stays.

 

[MightyHawks]

It's very different. Buckley told Brisbane up front that he'd only stay one year. He was coming off a premiership at Port Adelaide, as well as a Magarey Medal, and wasn't far off 21 when he played his first game at Brisbane.

They were very different circumstances.

Don't forget the rules have changed re conduct prejudicial to the draft.

If Scully had always intended to go to GWS after his initial 2 year contract then he would've been unable to communicate that to clubs who were interested in drafting him.

I'm not saying it's a crap situation and I don't think that anyone intended players like Scully to be signed by GC and GWS under these rules, but...

And I'm going to point a finger of blame fairly and squarely at the Melbourne Football Club.

Now if you were a team that was sitting on the bottom of the ladder and anticipating that you might get a few high draft picks then why would you approve the rule that GC and GWS could sign uncontracted players without raising the issue that the might pinch top 10 draft picks after their initial 2 year contract has expired.

Don't forget that Melbourne approved the rules with no objection about potentially losing a number 1 pick.

Clearly GC and GWS are very cleverly exploiting the rules for their own benefit.

Schwab talking to Demetriou in January smacks of Horse Bolted Gate Shut After. This is something he should've raised in late 2008, early 2009.

 

[gopies1981]

I will be very suprised if Scully left the Dees! All his familiy live in Melbourne and also the biggest factor all you Melbourne Supporters have forgotten is that wthin the Next 5 years Melbourne will be an on-field powerhouse and if all goes well should get 1 to 2 premierships while GWS will be struggling to make the finals til about 2016 atleast.

If Scully was say 5 years older and already had won a premiership with melbourne id say he would go!

Only players who leave clubs for more money is due to 2 reasons;

1. Family lives in that state
2. they have already had premiership success
3. Have never had premiership success but will go to another club who is close to premierhip success.

I think it is 99% that Scully will stay at melbourne for atleast to 2014!

 

[Demon 16]

Mark Kleiman, Scully’s Melbourne-based manager, today said Scully continued to enjoy an excellent relationship with the club, and remained committed to building his future with the Demons in a most exciting time for the club. He also confirmed that Velocity Sports had not had talks with GWS in relation to Scully.

This bit of the statement worries me as its utterly unbeleivable. Puts the entire press release into doubt.

 

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Who the hell does he think he is. One year in and he's holding the club to ransom already.

Who the hell do you think you are? Fat Eddie "thinks" he's gone and you want to crucify the kid. Go support Richmond - they like eating their own.

id be ropeable right now were i a dee's supporter...

'putting off negotiations until the end of the season'... what a joke, we've heard it all before...

the club should refuse to play him until he signs...

problem solved...

But you're not a Dees supporter so your opinion on our list management is irrelevant.

Take Sheed's advice and worry about your own backyard.

 

[Ando727]

Yep you're right I didn't even think about it, the point is still relevant though.

A proverb needs to be correct, otherwise it's worse than useless - it can sometimes make the opposite point to what you were intending. The proof? At least one poster here thought you were off your rocker!

 

[jimmyclean]

A proverb needs to be correct, otherwise it's worse than useless - it can sometimes make the opposite point to what you were intending. The proof? At least one poster here thought you were off your rocker!

Actually I think I could argue a proverb is one thing that doesn't need to be correct, 'Don't throw stones in Greenhouses', you still get what I mean.

Like I said though, my point is still relevant.

Tom Scully 2011 is playing out like so many GC players 2010. The AFL community has seen it before and for Scully's management to stand there and pretend like we are stupid and can't see the writing on the wall is ridiculous.

 

[Ando727]

Actually I think I could argue a proverb is one thing that doesn't need to be correct, 'Don't throw stones in Greenhouses', you still get what I mean.

I mean correct in the sense that it is logical, not necessarily historically. That example is logical, so no problem.

Like I said though, my point is still relevant.

It is, but it relied on the person already knowing the correct version to understand where your's went wrong.

Tom Scully 2011 is playing out like so many GC players 2010. The AFL community has seen it before and for Scully's management to stand there and pretend like we are stupid and can't see the writing on the wall is ridiculous.

You're right, it's untenable but that may actually work in our favour if Tom finds the speculation too distracting and unpleasant, he may tell his manager, "stuff this, let's just sign the new deal so I can concentrate on my football". If he doesn't sign, this is going to be the longest year in history for him - and if he or his manager thinks the questions will die down eventually, they are very much mistaken. He will be hounded until he commits.

 

[jimmyclean]

You're right, it's untenable but that may actually work in our favour if Tom finds the speculation too distracting and unpleasant, he may tell his manager, "stuff this, let's just sign the new deal so I can concentrate on my football". If he doesn't sign, this is going to be the longest year in history for him - and if he or his manager thinks the questions will die down eventually, they are very much mistaken. He will be hounded until he commits.

I totally agree. The pressure will only mount until a decision is made, and lets face it, if he made a decision to go GWS that won't become public (or at least acknowledged publicly by Scully). So there is only one decision he can make to allay media pressure, but the longer this decision is put off the more it will appear that he has no ability/willingness to make the pressure go away and therefore must be destined for GWS.

Edit- And in regards to a proverb being correct, I didn't mean logically or historically. I was referring to peoples ability to recognise it as something they have seen before and ignore mistakes they see in it. Much like the brain has the ability to do with wrods.

 

[Ando727]

I totally agree. The pressure will only mount until a decision is made, and lets face it, if he made a decision to go GWS that won't become public (or at least acknowledged publicly by Scully). So there is only one decision he can make to allay media pressure, but the longer this decision is put off the more it will appear that he has no ability/willingness to make the pressure go away and therefore must be destined for GWS.

I have no doubt that if he didn't have his manager in his ear, Tom would sign with Melbourne. Managers are very domineering types and the younger and less experienced the client, the more influence they can exert over them - in the name of doing the best by the client of course, but ultimately it's about money and the cut the manager will receive. Very few of them are on a flat rate - so it's commissions, commissions commissions.

Edit- And in regards to a proverb being correct, I didn't mean logically or historically. I was referring to peoples ability to recognise it as something they have seen before and ignore mistakes they see in it. Much like the brain has the ability to do with wrods.

There are literally thousands of proverbs - a good many of which we have never heard, so if we heard one for the first time or we went to a different country where they have different proverbs, we would need it to be logical or we couldn't get a message out of it. I take your point about the one you gave though, it is one of the most popular ones around.

 

[demonfan9]

And I'm going to point a finger of blame fairly and squarely at the Melbourne Football Club.

Now if you were a team that was sitting on the bottom of the ladder and anticipating that you might get a few high draft picks then why would you approve the rule that GC and GWS could sign uncontracted players without raising the issue that the might pinch top 10 draft picks after their initial 2 year contract has expired.

Don't forget that Melbourne approved the rules with no objection about potentially losing a number 1 pick.

Clearly GC and GWS are very cleverly exploiting the rules for their own benefit.

That's what the AFL publicly claims. But behind closed doors, who knows what the clubs thought. They may have been pressured into agreeing to these conditions by the AFL? Perhaps we did raise it with the AFL, and were told to STFU or risk harming our financial support? I highly doubt the each of the 16 club CEO's said "yep, looks good Andy. Where do I sign?" without some form of debate.

 

[jack the ripper]

if goes its bad luck, iv got high hopes for gysberts, blease and strauss, by the way j viney says hello, J grimes isnt after massive pay packets, i would take frawley, grimes, jurrah, trengove,sylvia,jamar and watts before tom, there not paying over the odds for a 74kg midfielder, but as i stated earlier i think he will stay.

 

[EasternTiger]

the scuttlebutt is he's gone.

 

[MightyHawks]

That's what the AFL publicly claims. But behind closed doors, who knows what the clubs thought. They may have been pressured into agreeing to these conditions by the AFL? Perhaps we did raise it with the AFL, and were told to STFU or risk harming our financial support? I highly doubt the each of the 16 club CEO's said "yep, looks good Andy. Where do I sign?" without some form of debate.

I have to disagree with you there.

The clubs had a real opportunity to discuss the assistance packages for the two new clubs.

Don't believe MFC raised the possibility of losing a Scully type player.

The rules are also a direct consequence of what happened when the Bears started...

Everyone had to give the Bears 3 players each of your choice.

While Essendon gave them Roger Merrett, Collingwood Mark Williams, Footscray Brad Hardie, and Hawthorn: Ken Judge, Rodney Eade and Rod Lester-Smith.

Out of interest, who did the Demons give them?

Carlton I believe gave them a couple of blokes who'd retired...

 

[cackstar]

Comrades, I have never eaten tripe in my life but this posting above is a good enough approximation.

This is the dumbest post I have ever read on our board. And that is really saying something.

We willingly entered into a two year contract with Tom. He is half way through. He has got every right to defer negotiations until the end of the season.

If we adopted this idiocy above, we are guaranteed to lose him to GWS for chicken feed.

Tom will stay. Caro was dead right in her assessment of his personality: he is not a risk taker; he is methodical in everything that he does. We have embedded him well into the club on a number of levels. He will go if morons dressed in red and blue razz him up.

Moderators, this thread has said everything that needs to be said ad infinitum. It is now the law of diminishing returns. It is also attracting the likes of Meltdown Mario / Damir Roo / Tampon Dean, who have a licence to throw petrol on the fire with some mock sympathy.

I reckon it should be locked so we can all move on.

Biffinator.

The thread read IF SCULLY WAS DISCOVERED TO HAVE SIGNED WITH GWS....If that gets confirmed what would your thoughts be then? 22 more games is not really going to make that much difference for scully in the long run. I think he should just sign so he, club and members can focus on the on field. If it was confirmed he should be banished simple as that so another young player can be given a chance, thats all I was saying but next time I'l keep my opinion and frustration to my self so I don't upset your preciousness!

 

[MAXIMUM GRUNDAGE]

I have to disagree with you there.

The clubs had a real opportunity to discuss the assistance packages for the two new clubs.

Don't believe MFC raised the possibility of losing a Scully type player.

The rules are also a direct consequence of what happened when the Bears started...

Everyone had to give the Bears 3 players each of your choice.

While Essendon gave them Roger Merrett, Collingwood Mark Williams, Footscray Brad Hardie, and Hawthorn: Ken Judge, Rodney Eade and Rod Lester-Smith.

Out of interest, who did the Demons give them?

John Fidge, IIRC.

 

[AllenJakovich13]

John Fidge, Mark Withers & Dale Dickson

 

[MAXIMUM GRUNDAGE]

Mark Withers was another one. Also, according to Demonwiki, Fidge was sacked by the Bears for punching Warwick Capper in an intra-club game. Should've got a medal instead. Although it doesn't help that he also slagged off coach Peter Knights.
Dale Dickson was the 3rd one.
Edi Ninja'd by Jako.

 

[demonfan9]

I have to disagree with you there.

The clubs had a real opportunity to discuss the assistance packages for the two new clubs.

Don't believe MFC raised the possibility of losing a Scully type player.

The rules are also a direct consequence of what happened when the Bears started...

Everyone had to give the Bears 3 players each of your choice.

While Essendon gave them Roger Merrett, Collingwood Mark Williams, Footscray Brad Hardie, and Hawthorn: Ken Judge, Rodney Eade and Rod Lester-Smith.

Out of interest, who did the Demons give them?

Carlton I believe gave them a couple of blokes who'd retired...

I don't have any facts to base my opinion on, and I'm not sure if you do or not. But I just find it hard to believe that each club so happily accepted the AFL's proposal in regards to GC and GWS draft concessions. We often hear whispers from club recruiters that the two new teams will sweep the competition away in the next decade - and this was before GC even recruited anyone. So surely if the recruiters were thinking that the draft concessions were a bit much, the clubs were thinking that too.

The grey area in this whole issue is how strongly the clubs raised the issue with the AFL; or how strongly they were allowed to raise it. The AFL can be a very powerful force, as we all know, so don't be surprised if they forced some clubs to agree to the draft concessions. Of course the AFL wanted to give GC and GWS a good start, but would every club official have been that stupid that they blindly agreed to the proposal without any resistance? Surely not.

 

[Marns]

Good Warning

I hate this "T" word

By the way Marns, any comments regarding Scully contracts please? Thoughts?

Thanks

I think his management are ill-advised. I think if they really wanted to do what was best for Scully (that isn't solely about money), they'd tell him to sign soon because the question will be asked every single week that he doesn't. If he is to be able to focus 100% on his footy, he'd get it over and done with.

I think the AFL are the main ones to blame. They're desperate to nurse these teams into the league that they'll sacrifice the good of the existing 16. Apparently adding two new teams is for the good of the game, but I don't see how we're to benefit from losing one of the best young players in the competition. I know they don't want to see a new side in doldrums for the next decade because it will cost the AFL big time, but (and I've said it from the start), the salary concessions and pillaging of drafts is over the top. I think we're going from one extreme to the other. From, say the Brisbane Bears and Fremantle - both struggled in their infancy and had to rely on considerably less AFL/VFL support - to what we have with GC and GWS, where they're given just about everything. These teams will be very good within five years.

As for Scully, who could blame him? I mean, you're going to a non-football market to play on a team that is a few years back in their development, but having big money dangled in front of you is a tough one to reject.

 

[Klyntonius]

Pretty much the way I see it, Scully's management have naievely figured that by releasing a one time statement that the questions will go away. Well they won't and I won't be surprised to see decisions one way or another brought forward to quiet the innuendo.
The other thing that is overlooked is how Scully (like GAJ at Geelong) would be the homegrown hero for Melbourne in our new home base of Casey. I could see plenty of extra earning potential for him out of that and I would like to think that a halfway competent manager would realise this as well.

Won't write him off til I hear the bad announcement.

 

[jonty15]

It is certainly a big test for the AFL's compensation scheme, because losing a number one pick after two years should certainly net you 2 first round picks, one of which should be pretty high. The standard of kids at Melbourne around that age bracket is amazing and if he goes those picks would be invaluable in succession planning in the future. As a tigers supporter, it kills when you pick 2-3 good kids for finishing low, then go to 10-11th for a year or two and mess up a pick.

Hopefully he stays though, that game he played in the wet last year... wow