On 14/02/2011 at 01:36, Keyser Söze said:

Paranoiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I'm sorry you feel that way

At the end of the day, if Scully goes then we need to accept it and move on. If he is that way inclined to chase money (no fault of his, it is within his rights) then if it isn't this year, it could be in three years times with free agency coming in (assuming we were able to convince him to sign 3 year contract). This would hurt just as much because it would mean 5 years of development into the lad. If it is in him to want to jump ship, it would be better if he did it now as we would get at least some compensation.

The Melbourne Football Club can win a flag without Tom Scully. If he goes, which i think he will, there's a chance he'll finish his career as the player who threw away a premiership for money. The future is brighter in the red and blue, Tom.

  On 14/02/2011 at 01:41, america de cali said:

I'm sorry you feel that way

Ok, you think Scully has purposely and carefully worded his statement to include a caveat, so in essence he is not lying to the football public.

What could be the possible reasoning behind this? What is his motivation?

If he is going to deceive everyone, what is the point?

Deception by omission is just as reprehensible as deception by lying.

He won't have a clear conscience.

I don't know what makes you think he'd waste his time and energy on such a detail.

If he were going to deceive us all, it is much easier to just release a blanket statement denying everything.

  On 14/02/2011 at 01:31, dandeeman said:

http://www.melbourne...35/default.aspx

...

I enjoyed this post.

Purely because you have used logic and made solid arguments.

  On 14/02/2011 at 01:49, Keyser Söze said:

Ok, you think Scully has purposely and carefully worded his statement to include a caveat, so in essence he is not lying to the football public.

What could be the possible reasoning behind this? What is his motivation?

If he is going to deceive everyone, what is the point?

Deception by omission is just as reprehensible as deception by lying.

He won't have a clear conscience.

I don't know what makes you think he'd waste his time and energy on such a detail.

If he were going to deceive us all, it is much easier to just release a blanket statement denying everything.

As far as I know GWS can only sign uncontracted players to an AFL contract. Sculy is still contracted but it does not stop them using loop holes or bending the rules to get in early. The failure of his management to refute this possibility can only generate more traction for the rumours. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of what GWS is allowed to do or can't do can offer further information.

  On 14/02/2011 at 01:49, Keyser Söze said:

Ok, you think Scully has purposely and carefully worded his statement to include a caveat, so in essence he is not lying to the football public.

I know its picky but Tom Scully (himself) has not made a statement. The statement was by Velocity, his management.

There is a difference, albeit subtle, but nevertheless important.

Although Mark Kleiman would know if Scully has signed or not he is not responsible for contract negotiation with clubs.

All contract talks between velocity sport and the clubs are conducted by Alister Lynch...

An intersting element in the saga about Scull potentially going to GWS has been the dicussion about how much better off he will be finanacially he if goes. However i belive that this benefit maybe to an extent illusory and that there are significant longer term financial opportunity costs Tom would forgoe if he were to move (to say nothing of the lifestyle oppurtunity costs such as having his support network weakened)

Other posters have noted the cost of relocation etc so that is one obvious area. Another relates to his marketability and capacity to attract personal sponsorhip and endorsements, both now and post playing days. I doubt Scully has the type of personality and/or x factor to be the "face" of GWS (or become a "celebrity") so therefore his chances of getting huge sponsorship dollars in Sydney 9a non footy town) may be more limited than has been suggested by some. Indeed he may in fact be in a better position in Melbourne to attract sponsers as he would be living in a footy mad town where his footy skills are lauded. Also his repuation may take a hit ie a view that he is mercenary or disloyal.

However the biggest potential opportunity costs from a financial perspective relate to his chances of being in a successful, premiership winning side. It goes without saying Melbourne are much more likely to be successful in the next 6-7 years than GWS. If we do push on he will have a chance at playing in a premiership winning side and therefore a chance at winning a Norm Smith. Being in a winning team and being a gun midfielder will give him a great shot at winning a Brownlow (or 2). He will not get these opportunities at GWS, who i believe may take 10 years to seriously threaten, by which time tom might be close to retiring.

All the footy greats have a history of playing well in finals and usually a flag next to their name. Robbie Flower's lack of final footy can be the only reason he is not routinely considered by (non melbourne)people to be one of the modern greats. Flags, finals, Brownlows and success. All are within Scull's reach at Melbourne. If he wants to be one of the greats then he is more likely to achieve that at Melbourne. Even if that is not the motivating factor and money is, achieving those things will set him up finanacially for life and continue to drive his income long after he has retired from footy (which is likely to be when he is only 30-31 if modern trends continue). Endorsements, media opportunities etc will be enhanced by achiveing these things and being one of the best. And once he gets them he will still be in a position to leave Melbourne at say 26 for a huge figure, as did Barassi and Ablett before . Melbourne as i said is football mad and a footy great will almost always do well here financially

If he plays at GWS he is unlikely to become a great of the game. If he goes there for only a few years before moving again (which i reckon would be on the cards ie wanting to "come home" as Judd did) it would simply reinforce an image of someone chasing the dollar and negatively impact on future endorsements. I hope the advice he is getting takes into account these future potential earnings and ensures he doesn't simply focus on an offer in the here and now. I'll bet anything Schwab and co have gone through all this with Tom (or will if given the cahnce)and heres hoping he heeds the message

Firstly I think for any player to say - "well it wasn't my statement - it was my managers" would be treated with the contempt it deserves - yup - I think it is picky. They are one in the same

What has me intrigued is the part of the statement that says Velocity hasnt had any discussions with GWS - and before we start banging on about 3rd parties - I would find it hard to see a 3rd party contract being able to be signed without Velocity involved and GWS in there somewhere.

Mark Kleinman really didnt need to say that unless it is blantant lie. He could have gone with "we havent signed anything but would be negligent not to listen" but to state that there has been no management discussion with GWS - I find that statement extraordinary. I find it difficult to believe that Velocity have no idea what GWS have put on the table. Therefore I think that there must something on the table from whoever but that would also lead me to think that nothing has been signed ( signing letters of intent with a 3rd party ?)

Either people have got it really really wrong - or that statement is just a full on lie.

There a formal and informal discussions.

There may have been no formal discussions, but I'm sure Scully's management would have informally garnered an idea of what GWS would offer.

GWS or their proxies could have said. Take the money now. In six months the offer may not be there.

  On 14/02/2011 at 02:40, america de cali said:

GWS or their proxies could have said. Take the money now. In six months the offer may not be there.

I have little doubt that his management have a fair idea of what is on the table - my question is - without direct talks with GWS however can you even sign a letter of intent ? Sit down with a proxie and sign a letter with him saying - when GWS come calling with an offer of $XXX I promise to sign ?

My statement remains - if the statement is true that Velocity hasnt talked with GWS then I cant see that anything could have been signed. If it is an outright lie then who knows.

Without having a chance to even see what MFC were offering?

You think Scully was that desperate to get out?

Your theory has no legs at all.

It's practically a thalidomide baby.

  On 14/02/2011 at 02:47, Keyser Söze said:

Without having a chance to even see what MFC were offering?

You think Scully was that desperate to get out?

Your theory has no legs at all.

It's practically a thalidomide baby.

I think that they already have an MFC offer on the table too and it is probably not all that close to the GWS offer - but we also know how negotiations go - and if they are on hold they aint really going anywhere. I understand signing early to stay at a club like Murphy has done - it defies all logic to sign early to get out of a club unless you are desperately unhappy.

Bingo.

Scully's management would have to be incredibly naive to fall for the "sign now, or the offer comes off the table..."

Has anyone ever considered that the supposed offer of $6m over 6 years is just a touch fanciful; we are talking about $1m a year for a 19 year old kid who has played 20 games and over a six year period? I don’t think that any club can build their side around one junior player who has yet to establish himself as the best player of his draft, let alone the best player in his age group and beyond in the competition.

There are several things about this firstly, most of the clubs shy away from anything in excess of 4 years and usually reserve their larger contracts for established players. Secondly the $1m might seem a lot now but in 4 years time it may be low by then current standards. So if there is a contract it is stupid on both sides because it locks a player in for too long a period and it restricts the player from earning more at a later date when money is more readily available.

Most managers want their established players to sign 2 or perhaps 3 year contracts now as it gives them more flexibility in the future, what may be a big number now could be considered to be undervalued in a few years time. So if this is really the offer then I’d be very wary of accepting it if I were his management team, Tom might have an earning capacity much higher than that in say 3 years from now; the way the AFL is moving that would be more a probability than a possibility. After what happened with Judd there is no reason to believe that personal sponsorship won’t become the norm and if he is at a club like Melbourne and he renegotiates his contract in say 3 years time it could include a very big “off salary cap” incentive.

Interesting times and the way player payments are moving and the way deals are being done all that glitters in not necessarily gold.

Well and truly considered the quoted $6mil over 6 years as fanciful, but for the sake of argument I've accepted it's what most people will believe.

No one except Scully's management and GWS would have any chance of knowing the correct figures.

  On 14/02/2011 at 04:02, Keyser Söze said:

Well and truly considered the quoted $6mil over 6 years as fanciful, but for the sake of argument I've accepted it's what most people will believe.

No one except Scully's management and GWS would have any chance of knowing the correct figures.

Wouldn't you love to know.

More defying of logic on 6 years - if you had a player that was "potentially" as good as Scully - would you be advising him to take a 6 year deal ? - at 27 maybe when you can have insurance against "how good will I be after 30" - however at 19 - wouldnt you be looking at 3 years to maximise a new contract at 22 years of age ? Doesnt make sense. ( I looked at locking in Frawley over 4 as to MFC's advantage not particularly his)

And $1m per year - wow - just wow.

So Eddie never gets it wrong ????

Tell him he's Falafelling !!!!!!!

Funny how this weighty discussion suddenly becomes all about Eddy.

Betstar have a market whether he will go to GWS or not - $1.50 Yes $2.60 No

Common the no!!!!!

http://www.betstar.com.au/betting.asp?Sport=Australian+Rules&MatchComp=Comp&EventName=AFL+%2D+Little+Tom+The+Giant%3F

Tim

  On 14/02/2011 at 02:25, nutbean said:

Firstly I think for any player to say - "well it wasn't my statement - it was my managers" would be treated with the contempt it deserves - yup - I think it is picky. They are one in the same

So you've never heard of "credible deniability"?

Velocity never said the statement was approved by Tom. Tom has made no statements. Obviously he would know if he had signed anything but he wouldn't necessarily know any of the other stuff.

GWS can go suck a fat one

  On 14/02/2011 at 04:53, Go Dees said:

Betstar have a market whether he will go to GWS or not - $1.50 Yes $2.60 No

Terrific value.