THE TOM SCULLY TO GWS THREAD

[Sir Why You Little 18,219]

I see it as exactly the opposite: for a kid the money is nice, but one of the lower priorities.

And it keeps being presented as if it is a choice between $6 million and nothing.

In the end it might be a difference of a couple of million.

When you're already earning a couple of million over a few years, the extra money isn't that great a pull when put up against long-term success with a bunch of your mates at the mecca of AFL.

I know that if I was presented with those options, which choice I'd make, and it's not the money.

Quality of life is so much more important.

Don't forget also on 6 million a lot of that would go in tax to the Govt. Just another consideration.

[The Oracle 67]

The part of the rumour that doesn't quite gel with me is the length of the term. I think these days it's a risk to offer large sums for long periods. From a club's point of view it doesn't know how the player's career might pan out with injuries, form and the like. For the player, the big $'s might sound good but if he's that good then he might be worth more in years 4, 5 & 6. Who knows?

The fact of the matter is that Tom would be well off leaving the matter in control of his manager and the club. Hopefully, they'll be able to nut out a contract that is commensurate with his real worth and allow him to concentrate on developing his career for the next round of contract talks in three years time. Footballers are not all mercenary and there are ways in which a player, his management and his club can look after his interests in an orderly way.

[dee-luded 2,956]

Money does talk, this is true... but not everyone walks. See Petterd and A. Swallow.

Hopefully, like Petterd, Tom realises what's brewing at the Dees and that it's good enough to surpass the $6m GWS offer. Time will tell.

Money also talks different languages, & sings different tunes. I guess the young player has to work out if he wants the money but also the types of players/environment that, that money will create.

Think back to, v v v v

Edited February 4, 2011 by dee-luded

[skills32 189]

Spoke to Sam Bleases uncle at the intra club today, he says Scull is a good freind of Sammys and he doesnt think he will go to GWS.

Mainly because he is very much a homebody, wants to be close to family and has many great mates at melbourne.

That's the post I have been waiting for.

Now I don't have to come back to this thread again.

Thanks Dee Zee

[brendan 2,205]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/scully-contract-talk-hurts-dees/story-e6frf9io-1226000621248

another article on this matter

was the MFC supporter who jumped up anyone on here

[dee-luded 2,956]

http://www.heraldsun...o-1226000621248

another article on this matter

was the MFC supporter who jumped up anyone on here

Hmmn, thats a worry.

Maybe we should bombard the AFL-Vlad with our disapproving emails!

[america de cali 4,457]

I have made a resolution with myself. Cross horns, I solemnly promise not to discuss on this forum anything further to do with Tom Scully and his contract situation until post round 11 or unless verifiable news appears in the meantime. I encourage others to do the same.

Edited February 6, 2011 by america de cali

[Dappa Dan 2,177]

That recent HUN article explains how Bailey sees things and gives a bit of perspective on what Tom is thinking and what he wants.

Seems Scullz knows he's part of the Demons' core nucleus going forward and ultimate success in the oldest club in the world - home of the MCG - is hard to go past (even with $6m waved in his face!).

- Footy in Victoria is the ultimate in AFL

- Home ground as the MCG is the ultimate in AFL

- Jimmy Stynes inspiring is the ultimate (and I'm sure he could sway Tom)

Yes. That's all well and good. And we have a compelling case... however, two of those points have ALWAYS been true, and it never stopped players taking the money before. Jimmy would be a hard man to say no to... certainly harder than any of our other presidents... but I keep coming back to the main problem here.

Money talks. It always has and always will. If someone offered me hundreds of thousands more a year, that could go to my family... or to my ouse extensions... I'd take it. Pure and simple. We can hope Scully will be loyal, and dignified, and in some ways he will be, regardless of what road he takes... but I can't hate the kid for taking a huge paycheck. The truth is sooner or later we will start to lose players...

I think the ones who have to adjust here are us. The onus is on the footy department and club itself to convince them and make it work financially. I have faith they will, but this is part and parcel of being successful. Players will leave eventually. you can't hoard as much talent as we have without losing a few.

[stranga 184]

I have made a resolution with myself. Cross horns, I solemnly promise not to discuss on this forum anything further to do with Tom Scully and his contract situation until post round 11 or unless verifiable news appears in the meantime. I encourage others to do the same.

I agree with Dapa, Money talks, particularly when its such large amounts. Unfortunately I think Scully will leave unless maybe we get close to a grand final this year which is unlikely. I hope im wrong but its possible he hasn't been at the club long enough to build a level of affiliation and loyalty that would outweigh the amounts of money being spoken of.

However this is really putting a dampener on what should be an exciting season so i also pledge not to discuss this topic until there is substantial news.

[hardtack 6,913]

Money talks. It always has and always will. If someone offered me hundreds of thousands more a year, that could go to my family... or to my ouse extensions... I'd take it. Pure and simple. We can hope Scully will be loyal, and dignified, and in some ways he will be, regardless of what road he takes... but I can't hate the kid for taking a huge paycheck. The truth is sooner or later we will start to lose players...

I would like to think that Scully's management is a little more astute than many give them credit for and see that a couple of good seasons at the Dees that see us playing finals, can only add to Scully's reputation and value further down the track.

A quick grab for $6 mil now will see him most likely languishing in a team that will be going nowhere for at least 3 or 4 seasons to the point where his value will go south - maybe that's not such an issue when you are as far into your career as Ablett was, but for someone just starting out it is necessary to be a little more far-sighted.

[Clint Buzzkill 16,444]

Is Scully worth around $1 million per year? I don't think so. He will be a very good player but I would be surprised if he reached the heights of Judd, Ablett or Goodes.

[Brocky 4]

both North Melbourne and the demons will lose 2 of our young players each.

Your story lacks credibility, as GWS can only take one player from each club.

[Territory 43]

Without having read all 7 pages on this topic, can someone tell me what the facts are?

Has GWS confirmed their pursuit or it is all hearsay?

Edited February 7, 2011 by Territory

[H_T 2,860]

Your story lacks credibility, as GWS can only take one player from each club.

That's correct. Over the period of two years.

[iv'a worn smith 1,976]

Sculls is a gun, no doubt. Of course he will attract more than a passing interest from GWS. But the contrast between the "Ablett" saga and Tom Scully could not be more stark. G Ablett jnr had won two flags with the Cats and the ultimate personal achievement of a Brownlow. There was not that much more he could achieve in Victoria. More importantly, perhaps, in terms of his move to GC, is that he has a brother training with the GC and other family connections there. At the end of his days at Geelong, the friction between him and Thompson was almost palpable.

Tom Scully is a Victorian (Melbourne) boy, through and through. There is gulf between the attraction of the Gold Coast and the NRL parochialism of Greater Western Sydney. The GC will achieve success far more quickly than GWS in my view. TS has made some great mates at the MFC and I think DB will handle the issue in a far better way than Thompson did with Ablett at Geelong.

Let's not forget, it was Mark Kleiman, Scull's player manager that first flew this kite, as player managers do. I reckon, with Jimma, Cam Schwab and CC's influence, Tom Scully will stay at the MFC and would put money on it. Tom has much to achieve in his footy life and I think he will realise that those achievements will be attained at the MFC, well before the GWS.

Sure money talks, and while we can't match GWS' offer, we have more room in the cap to make sure Sculls is looked after. There are intangibles in footy that rise above the almighty dollar and even as Tom Scully embarks on what will surely be a stellar career, I think he knows that, even at his young age.

[Hobbits's 17]

There's no doubt that the jungle drums are beating. My Brother listed a property for sale a few weeks ago and the vendor told him that Scully had signed with GWS during their recent window. Apparently a player agent had told him. This client is a Melb supporter.

how could Scully sign with any club, he has got a current contract to honour ?! that can't be right.

[daisycutter 17,334]

how could Scully sign with any club, he has got a current contract to honour ?! that can't be right.

It is right

It doesn't interfere with honouring his current contract as contract start/end terms don't overlap

Additionally out of contract players can bypass the drafting rules and sign up with GWS upto one year before their current contract expires. Announcement of signing doesn't have to be public until drafy time.

This applies to GWS for this year and next year with a max of 1 o-o-contract player/club

Compensation in terms of draft picks are supplied by AFL not GWS

[Rhino Richards 1,447]

Other related topics have been "locked" down on this forum - DISGRACEFUL. Maybe they should have been merged - yes, but not shut down. The decision to consider them "tedious" and only for "masochists" can only be a subjective judgment at best. This is an important issue for Members, perhaps the most important for a very long time, in terms of player management. Not too mention the more general repercussions if he were to go. I note the reminder from the moderators on the code of conduct. Such a code should also extend to arbitrary censorship.

I also note a reference to this matter taking another "30 weeks" before it is resolved. What a great coup for the club if it could muster the wherewithal to get the job sooner, not too mention the kick along it would give the membership drive.

They were locked down as they deemed by the owner of the site as being repetitious and unnecessary when the discussion can be carried out here. There were no new points raised in the closed threads and no one was or is prevented from having their say...even when it totally off the point like yours Iva. Thanks for your "sky is falling" warning. I am sure you will make the most of the 30 weeks to vent your anguish on the issue.

[iv'a worn smith 1,976]

They were locked down as they deemed by the owner of the site as being repetitious and unnecessary when the discussion can be carried out here. There were no new points raised in the closed threads and no one was or is prevented from having their say...even when it totally off the point like yours Iva. Thanks for your "sky is falling" warning. I am sure you will make the most of the 30 weeks to vent your anguish on the issue.

Thanks RR for your sage advice. So why not merge them as has been done with other topics which were similarly related?

Edited February 7, 2011 by Rhino Richards

[RalphiusMaximus 5,205]

Other related topics have been "locked" down on this forum - DISGRACEFUL. Maybe they should have been merged - yes, but not shut down. The decision to consider them "tedious" and only for "masochists" can only be a subjective judgment at best. This is an important issue for Members, perhaps the most important for a very long time, in terms of player management. Not too mention the more general repercussions if he were to go. I note the reminder from the moderators on the code of conduct. Such a code should also extend to arbitrary censorship.

I also note a reference to this matter taking another "30 weeks" before it is resolved. What a great coup for the club if it could muster the wherewithal to get the job sooner, not too mention the kick along it would give the membership drive.

Nonsense. I applaud the decision to close the other threads down. The last thing we need is to flood the place with pointless speculation about something that none of us know anything about. Personally, I'd like to see them shut this thread down as well.

[Rhino Richards 1,447]

Thanks RR for your sage advice. So why not merge them as has been done with other topics which were similarly related? I trust you heed the Code of Conduct as us mere mortals have recently been instructed to do.

We have sought not to merge the threads as the context of the posts have often been put out of order with the major thread into which they were merged. In addition, as I previously stated the other threads were repetitious and as a result served no purpose being merged. But I am sure you were sharp enough to work that out.

[Rhino Richards 1,447]

Nonsense. I applaud the decision to close the other threads down. The last thing we need is to flood the place with pointless speculation about something that none of us know anything about.

Thanks Ralphius. It did seem quite straightforward even for most ardent soapbox warrior.

[rpfc 15,103]

Offended by the closing down of nonsensical, duplicative, hand-wringing Scully-Gawn! threads?

Honestly...

The football is almost here, people.

[Whispering_Jack 17,612]

Clearly I was drawing a link to RM's use of the pejorative word "Nonsense" in response to my previous post.

Hi I'va.

At one stage yesterday there were four Tom Scully to GWS threads operating at once. We felt that this was way over the top - one thread was becoming a vehicle for abuse, another was repetitious and yet another had just about run its course. The decision was made after a reasonable amount of deliberation but really, the situation with four threads on what was more or the less the same subject matter was just too much.

To enable those who still wanted to discuss the situation, we left one open.

Bear in mind, one is probably too much given that the situation with Tom may not be resolved for 6-8 months.

Sorry, but the way things are going with this thread, it might not be open much longer.

[jnrmac 10,845]

The site is hardly going in to meltdown. As far as heated discussion (or venting/whinging) goes, this is barely a blip on the radar.

Care to re-assess your post Nasher??