Wasn't he a mad richmond supporter, maybe that's where the richmond rumours started.

Anyhow, he will not leave after 2 year. If he does it will be COMPLETELY unprecedented. He knows we are building a group that are going to be special. We're going to be a powerful team in years to come, and we also have the means and ability to pay him very well in the process. Nothing to suggest he'd leave

  On 28/11/2010 at 11:56, two sheds jackson said:

If you've actually got something to say, then go ahead and say it. Don't make outlandish claims and then act pissy and indignant when people question you on them, and say "fine, don't listen to me then, clearly you blokes know better".

You've basically come out and said that Richmond are a huge worry and that they have the "ways and means" of securing Scully, moreso than any other club. And then when asked why you think Richmond are in such a good position, you've refused to even remotely try to substantiate your claims, instead just repeating that Richmond are definitely the club to worry about, and that we have our fingers in our ears if we dont realise this.

Why waste everybodies time by posting cryptic and inane crap? Why not either just write a post saying that Richmond are the club you're most worried about, and saying why, or just write nothing at all? Either would have been a hell of a lot better than what you've done.

Thanks for that. I dont have to "substantiate" anything. I can post whatever I want. Many will only believe what they want. Fine by me.

  On 28/11/2010 at 12:14, sylvinator said:

Wasn't he a mad richmond supporter, maybe that's where the richmond rumours started.

IMHO clubs care little who players barrack for. Its more about needs then the will & the ways.

However, supporters seems to be fixated by it.

  On 28/11/2010 at 12:14, sylvinator said:

Anyhow, he will not leave after 2 year. If he does it will be COMPLETELY unprecedented. He knows we are building a group that are going to be special. We're going to be a powerful team in years to come, and we also have the means and ability to pay him very well in the process. Nothing to suggest he'd leave

Yip. Agree. But I have a feel their is a difference between paying him well to having the best offer on the table.

Players dont necessarily, take the best offer if its not where they want to go. Lets just hope Tom wants to stay with us.

  On 28/11/2010 at 12:13, hangon007 said:

Somewhat romantic notation. However, I also hope you are correct.

However, that said that wont stop other clubs that have the will & the ways to have a crack ... if they have the goods to get the job done.

Sometimes certain windows of opportunities only open up for a short-period of time. AFL football is a business for all parties involved.

Sure it is a romantic notion, but it is also the truth. If Tom is being looked after & he loves what the MFC are doing as a club he will stay.

No matter how much cash you shove at someone if there heart aint in it, they will never give 100% over a sustained period.

Now once free agency comes in, players will move. But like any new system, it will spike and then settle down.

The MFC is on the rise now, and Tom is a large part of that, so i would be hoping he is smart enough to see it through for the long term.

I have no doubt people have been in his ear from other clubs. But he is employed by the Demons so i expect another contract to be drawn up during next season.

Richmond may be sniffing, but i do not expect the MFC to do anything less than Fight dam hard for what is our own.

  On 28/11/2010 at 12:22, hangon007 said:

Thanks for that. I dont have to "substantiate" anything. I can post whatever I want. Many will only believe what they want. Fine by me.

You're free to post what you want, and people on here are free to think your posts are completely full of glib, attention-seeking tripe and utterly devoid of substance.

What is the point in repeatedly making a bold assertion and refusing to try to substantiate it, other than to get attention?

  On 28/11/2010 at 12:22, hangon007 said:

Thanks for that. I dont have to "substantiate" anything. I can post whatever I want. Many will only believe what they want. Fine by me.

a good description of poor discussion skills

obviously you have nothing with which you can substantiate or there would be no reason not to just go ahead and substantiate

I have to say, this thread is bull*hit.

on a bit of a light note, he is too small to leave, imagine if beamer or sylvia got a hold of him in the clinch for another team, bye bye scully hahaaa

but seriously, he wont leave, firstly we are streets ahead of most developing teams, secondly we should be able to match contract offers other than those from gws, thirdly, from what i gather he is a really loyal and good bloke so im thinking red and blue is where he will stay.

  On 28/11/2010 at 12:34, two sheds jackson said:

You're free to post what you want, and people on here are free to think your posts are completely full of glib, attention-seeking tripe and utterly devoid of substance.

What is the point in repeatedly making a bold assertion and refusing to try to substantiate it, other than to get attention?

If I wanted attention. I would be posting in nearly every thread. If you havn't noticed I pick & choose what threads I post in.

And may I point out I thought I was allowed to say what I want & how I want to say it. (as long as its no personal attacks) Last bit of decent advise I got around here was "its an AFL football forum for god sake"

People can think what they want. Fine by me.

  On 28/11/2010 at 12:33, why you little said:

The MFC is on the rise now, and Tom is a large part of that, so i would be hoping he is smart enough to see it through for the long term.

I have no doubt people have been in his ear from other clubs. But he is employed by the Demons so i expect another contract to be drawn up during next season.

Richmond may be sniffing, but i do not expect the MFC to do anything less than Fight dam hard for what is our own.

Yip I'm with you 100%. Personally, I would prefer to get the contract written up now. As I said earlier, its depends on how certain teams seasons unfold as too how many tricks they have in the bag to get the job done. I would much prefer to avoid these temptations.

Lets learn from the Cats and Eagles mis-fortunes just to name a few.

[

May i ask one question? Do you have some solid evidence of this taking place (Friends, neighbours, work colleagues in the know) or is it merely a whim at this point?

I ask because if you didn't have any info, there would be no reason to post this other than to cause a stir.

  On 28/11/2010 at 13:05, why you little said:

May i ask one question? Do you have some solid evidence of this taking place (Friends, neighbours, work colleagues in the know) or is it merely a whim at this point?

I ask because if you didn't have any info, there would be no reason to post this other than to cause a stir.

funny

look, given that gws has access over 2 years to uncontracted players, that gives them access to more than 1/2 the competition.

we need to get used to the fact that someone from our club WILL go. hopefully not, but it probably will happen. and whoever does go, we will be better off without the money hungry [censored].

hopefully *please please please* dont let it be tommy. and i dont htink it will. but until he is locked up until 2025....... who knows.

  On 28/11/2010 at 13:05, hangon007 said:

Lets learn from the Cats and Eagles mis-fortunes just to name a few.

Yes, the misfortunate premiers.

  On 28/11/2010 at 13:18, Benno said:

look, given that gws has access over 2 years to uncontracted players, that gives them access to more than 1/2 the competition.

we need to get used to the fact that someone from our club WILL go. hopefully not, but it probably will happen. and whoever does go, we will be better off without the money hungry [censored].

hopefully *please please please* dont let it be tommy. and i dont htink it will. but until he is locked up until 2025....... who knows.

yes good call, I have conceded to myself that there is a good chance one of our beauties will go. You'd reckon Grimes, Jurrah and McKenzie are safe, for various reasons, but any of the others including Scully, Watts, Trengove, Morton and Frawley could well get pinched by someone at some point, and any of them would sting badly.

  On 28/11/2010 at 13:05, why you little said:

[

May i ask one question? Do you have some solid evidence of this taking place (Friends, neighbours, work colleagues in the know) or is it merely a whim at this point?

I ask because if you didn't have any info, there would be no reason to post this other than to cause a stir.

You may ask. I will only answer it this way. To get a "marquee" player to move you need a sequence of events to happen - sorry it just doesn't happen every day because you need the sequence to fall all your way.

1/ You must have a player out of contract.

2/ You must feel strongly that the player suits your clubs needs. Sometimes the perceived internal pressure will put you off.

3/ You must get the players management to at least be interested to talk. (IMHO this hopefully will be the stumbling block that saves our bacon)

4/ You must have the internal structure to have the facility to get a "deal" done that is more than attractive over the long, long term.

5/ You must have the draft picks to get in the "ball park", you want to avoid AFL "BS" scrutiny

6/ You must have a "reliable" alternative route to get the deal done if your current club wants to play "hard-ball"

  On 28/11/2010 at 13:53, hangon007 said:

You may ask. I will only answer it this way. To get a "marquee" player to move you need a sequence of events to happen - sorry it just doesn't happen every day because you need the sequence to fall all your way.

1/ You must have a player out of contract.

2/ You must feel strongly that the player suits your clubs needs. Sometimes the perceived internal pressure will put you off.

3/ You must get the players management to at least be interested to talk. (IMHO this hopefully will be the stumbling block that saves our bacon)

4/ You must have the internal structure to have the facility to get a "deal" done that is more than attractive over the long, long term.

5/ You must have the draft picks to get in the "ball park", you want to avoid AFL "BS" scrutiny

6/ You must have a "reliable" alternative route to get the deal done if your first port of call wants to play "hard-ball"

I know all that. Have seen it happen many many times. You haven't told me what i asked. If you can't do it....just say no.

I want to know where your information on such matters is coming from.

  On 28/11/2010 at 12:52, hangon007 said:

If I wanted attention. I would be posting in nearly every thread. If you havn't noticed I pick & choose what threads I post in.

You have a tendency to take left-field viewpoints, and then when people ask you to support them or even just explain them, you steadfastly refuse to do so on the grounds that you "don't have to if you dont want to". As a result, you come across as somebody who simply says outlandish things in order to get attention.

Case in point, you've said that you believe Richmond are a serious threat to nab Tom Scully, and that if things pan out "a certain way" this year, there is a very good chance he will be a Tiger. Unsuprisingly, people have asked what information you're basing this on. Some people havnt even gone so far as to ask for a source, but are simply curious as to how you've arrived at this conclusion. Basically, you've responded to them by saying "I don't HAVE to explain myself! If you want to believe that everything is rosey at the club and that theres no chance Scully is leaving, then you can please yourselves, it's not my problem!". Now as you said, you've got every right to behave in such a way, but I'm sure you can understand how it makes you come across as somebody who simply makes wild statements to get attention.

  Quote

And may I point out I thought I was allowed to say what I want & how I want to say it. (as long as its no personal attacks) Last bit of decent advise I got around here was "its an AFL football forum for god sake"

It certainly is. And, being a footy forum, most people come here to, you know, discuss footy. As in, one person gives a viewpoint, another person will say, "oh, really? and why do you believe that?", and the first person will explain how they arrived at said viewpoint, and attempt to substantiate the viewpoint with reason and logic. Next thing you know, you have a lively conversation.

That's the whole point of a discussion forum; we say what we think and we explain why we think it. It would be pretty pointless, boring and ridiculous if everyone here just did what you did, and refused to expand on their positions when asked to on the grounds that they "don't have to".

  On 28/11/2010 at 14:07, two sheds jackson said:

You have a tendency to take left-field viewpoints, and then when people ask you to support them or even just explain them, you steadfastly refuse to do so on the grounds that you "don't have to if you dont want to". As a result, you come across as somebody who simply says outlandish things in order to get attention.

Case in point, you've said that you believe Richmond are a serious threat to nab Tom Scully, and that if things pan out "a certain way" this year, there is a very good chance he will be a Tiger. Unsuprisingly, people have asked what information you're basing this on. Some people havnt even gone so far as to ask for a source, but are simply curious as to how you've arrived at this conclusion. Basically, you've responded to them by saying "I don't HAVE to explain myself! If you want to believe that everything is rosey at the club and that theres no chance Scully is leaving, then you can please yourselves, it's not my problem!". Now as you said, you've got every right to behave in such a way, but I'm sure you can understand how it makes you come across as somebody who simply makes wild statements to get attention.

It certainly is. And, being a footy forum, most people come here to, you know, discuss footy. As in, one person gives a viewpoint, another person will say, "oh, really? and why do you believe that?", and the first person will explain how they arrived at said viewpoint, and attempt to substantiate the viewpoint with reason and logic. Next thing you know, you have a lively conversation.

That's the whole point of a discussion forum; we say what we think and we explain why we think it. It would be pretty pointless, boring and ridiculous if everyone here just did what you did, and refused to expand on their positions when asked to on the grounds that they "don't have to".

No problems that not my intention. Sorry, if my actions have mis-lead you.

  On 28/11/2010 at 14:20, hangon007 said:

No problems that not my intention. Sorry, if my actions have mis-lead you.

You can post what you want - and I have learnt to trust certain posters over others.

But you're making allusions to nothing, and it's just silly.

I can't tell you why it's silly - it just is...

  On 28/11/2010 at 13:53, hangon007 said:

You may ask. I will only answer it this way. To get a "marquee" player to move you need a sequence of events to happen - sorry it just doesn't happen every day because you need the sequence to fall all your way.

1/ You must have a player out of contract.

2/ You must feel strongly that the player suits your clubs needs. Sometimes the perceived internal pressure will put you off.

3/ You must get the players management to at least be interested to talk. (IMHO this hopefully will be the stumbling block that saves our bacon)

4/ You must have the internal structure to have the facility to get a "deal" done that is more than attractive over the long, long term.

5/ You must have the draft picks to get in the "ball park", you want to avoid AFL "BS" scrutiny

6/ You must have a "reliable" alternative route to get the deal done if your current club wants to play "hard-ball"

F-

Scully IS vulnerable to a GWS offer as an out of contract player but that's it. The only way he can get to another club is via a trade and we can play "hard-ball" as you say and refuse to trade him. Your point 6 must be alluding to the Pre-season draft - why you don't just come out and say it I don't know - but even if your mystery non-GWS club finished last (not easily achieved) they won't have 1st pick in the PSD, GWS will - see this year GC has first PSD pick. It would be well known that the move was afoot from the trade machinations and GWS would make sure they have a pick and have the salary cap space to meet any contract specification if Scully is available for "free" in that draft. So Scully can get to GWS but that's it - he'll either be at MFC or GWS in 2012.

Please advise otherwise ...

  On 27/11/2010 at 11:32, Redleg said:

I am sure our FD is on to this.

I'm more than positive.

  On 29/11/2010 at 03:40, old55 said:

The only way he can get to another club is via a trade and we can play "hard-ball" as you say and refuse to trade him.

So Scully is not allowed to enter the draft? Just watch who you play "hard ball" with when a player is potentially out of contract.

Just like the Saints played hard ball with the Pies! Just like the Eagles tried to play hard ball with the Blues.

  On 28/11/2010 at 14:03, why you little said:

I know all that. Have seen it happen many many times. You haven't told me what i asked. If you can't do it....just say no.

I want to know where your information on such matters is coming from.

We are the navy blues, the old dark navy blues. Now if they (The Visy Park Boys) were most likely to be the lowest finishing Victorian side I would be even more concerned. B) However, I'm not sure what relationship they would have with GWS if they needed them. I'm pretty sure they would have some salary cap room but not enough to accommodate Scully. Plus they dont have that beautiful draft pick in the bank as a bargaining chip.

This thread keeps getting more bizarre