The AFL will never let the GWS team fold.

I firmly believe they will succeed over time.

The exact same things could be said of the Storm before their introduction.

The Swans have a steady supporter base.

Having a second team to create a rivalry and greater media exposure is the key.

"Derbies" and "Showdowns" create hype and interest.

But at the same time, it'll be 100 years before they have a stadium and can get crowds anything like we can at the MCG.

There just arent enough pros other than the money to entice a bloke like Scully.

Question... brief question... WHERE IS THE ARTICLE'/REPORT???

This rumour has been circulating and my old man even txt'd me this morning that GWS had offered Scullz $6m over 6 years. I see no report on this "fact".

It's bs until reported otherwise.

  On 01/02/2011 at 20:46, jnrmac said:

Can we change the ridiculously flaming thread title on this????

146 posts for a dumb rumour on Big Footy that's touted as fact by the current headline.

what are you talking about? This is obviously a huge issue with plenty of merit to it

whether or not the particular rumour is accurate, the greater discussion about our young guns being poached is a very real and frightening topic well worthy of discussion

  On 01/02/2011 at 22:34, DirtyDees DDC said:

Good Grief! 14,000 at GWS home matches? Is that that per month or per year?

They will be lucky to get 5,000 paying customers per game at their home matches. I know some mad keen sports fans in Sydney and they are adamant that AFL will not work in the western suburbs. Sydney is the most anti-AFL city in Australia, and Western Sydney is the most anti-AFL region in Sydney. They don't like AFL. It's not tough enough for Rugby fans, and it has no international connection for soccer fans.

Scully is a footy fanatic who has dreamed at playing games at the'G' in front of big crowds. Is he really going to give up his dream; move away from family and friends, and play in a suburban park for a team that might fold in 10 years?

I don't think money is the main issue here. Tom is like every kid that plays AFL - he wants premierships and he wants to win. He knows he will get paid very well wherever he plays, but he does not know if he will play in a premiership team.

Let's say he plays for another 12 years after 2011. Assume 9 clubs win flags in those 12 years (same result as 1999 to 2010). That means the remaining 9 clubs will miss out. Tom has to be a part of one of those nine successful teams. If he thinks the Dees will win a flag, and he can stay in Melbourne and play in big games at the 'G', then I reckon he'll stay.

5,000 will be a good crowd.

As someone who went to many swans matches in the quiet years it was a farce.

(Although it was the only way to get an afl hit I wont travel out west for a game its just too hard, weekend traffic in sydney is appalling. It is fanciful to think people will travel from distant parts of sydney or even the distant parts of western sydney to get to a game. Sydney does not have the public transport access to the main grounds like Melbourne).

You could hear the players talking to each other the crowds were about 2,000 or so at the SCG.

Western Sydney is very unlikely to take to AFl even RL gets very small crowds (a good crowd is 15,000) and relies on the TV revenue and ratings.

People just do other things than go to organised sport on the weekend.

The AFL is on a long and very hard road up here. That is bound to be a big factor in any decision.

Whatever happens Scully will be a good player but we will have an outstanding team with or without him.

  On 01/02/2011 at 23:39, Curry & Beer said:

what are you talking about? This is obviously a huge issue with plenty of merit to it

whether or not the particular rumour is accurate, the greater discussion about our young guns being poached is a very real and frightening topic well worthy of discussion

C & B, a careful studied response to a rumour is all well and good, but fear, frightening, etc etc is nothing more than harmful perpetuation of the rumour

  On 01/02/2011 at 05:20, loges said:

What a farce Dumitriou has created. Whats the point of getting a priority pick if you only have the player for 2 years?

This is my thinking exactly..What is the point of having any Priority Picks??

So that a Soulless Franchise organization can pounce on a young gun in his 3rd year, just as he really begins to fire.

If Scully is lured to GWS in his next contract, i will be gutted.

I just hope that he sees the long term potential of the MFC

  On 02/02/2011 at 00:23, Robbie57 said:

Western Sydney is very unlikely to take to AFl even RL gets very small crowds (a good crowd is 15,000) and relies on the TV revenue and ratings.

People just do other things than go to organised sport on the weekend.

The AFL is on a long and very hard road up here.

I don't think anyone at the AFL thinks that it's going to be otherwise. But they have to start somewhere sometime. They need a game every week in NSW and Qld to really become established and build on the footholds of Sydney and Brisbane. It will likely take 50 or 100 years to fully pay off but, like me, the AFL has ultimate faith in Australian Football being far superior to all the other football codes. That RL gets small crowds is not a definitive indicator - relatively it's a ordinary game. Quality alone wont win the hearts and minds - the AFL has to be proactive, aggressive and persistent. I support the expansion and I understand GWS getting a big leg up even if it means a cost to my club.

It will also make a difference with the generational change.

More exposure and more kids growing up playing the game, will lead to bigger crowds.

We need to get em young, and that's exactly what the AFL has set out to do.

  On 02/02/2011 at 01:44, old55 said:

I don't think anyone at the AFL thinks that it's going to be otherwise. But they have to start somewhere sometime. They need a game every week in NSW and Qld to really become established and build on the footholds of Sydney and Brisbane. It will likely take 50 or 100 years to fully pay off but, like me, the AFL has ultimate faith in Australian Football being far superior to all the other football codes. That RL gets small crowds is not a definitive indicator - relatively it's a ordinary game. Quality alone wont win the hearts and minds - the AFL has to be proactive, aggressive and persistent. I support the expansion and I understand GWS getting a big leg up even if it means a cost to my club.

I can't believe anyone could say that

Why act as if the AFL is some dwindling organisation?

It has over 600,000 members, over 7 million through the gate annually and TV rights/sponsorship deals that are beyond belief lucrative

It's pure greed and it may well put the kybosh on our supposed dynasty

Pure greed?

You really do have blinkers on, don't you?

It's for the betterment of the game.

  On 02/02/2011 at 01:44, old55 said:

I don't think anyone at the AFL thinks that it's going to be otherwise. But they have to start somewhere sometime. They need a game every week in NSW and Qld to really become established and build on the footholds of Sydney and Brisbane. It will likely take 50 or 100 years to fully pay off but, like me, the AFL has ultimate faith in Australian Football being far superior to all the other football codes. That RL gets small crowds is not a definitive indicator - relatively it's a ordinary game. Quality alone wont win the hearts and minds - the AFL has to be proactive, aggressive and persistent. I support the expansion and I understand GWS getting a big leg up even if it means a cost to my club.

I understand that point of view what i was trying to say is that its not going to be an attractive propostion for someone trying to get every dollar out of their career.

I have reflected a bit more on this after reading what Torres said about his transfer. All the usual stuff about playing at a top team and in Europe.

It seems to me if you look at these things as a business proposition or as a manager seeking to eke out every dollar you can for your player (and commission for you)then the up front dollars are not the end of the equation.

No doubt they have a keen eye to the total package for the elite players. For example I doubt Ablett would have moved to GC if he had not already achieved a premiership and GC didn't offer a unique profiling opportnity for him. GC is an AFL friendly area in which he can expect opportunities from local sponsors and outside football. It was in that respect a no brainer for him.

I would like others insights and inputs on the likely formula but isnt it a bit like this:

1. $$$$'s

2. Length (and security) of deal.

3. Extra dollars leveraged off the teams performance and support base.

4. Does the club generate extra publicity and thus sponsor interest ensuring greater personal sponsorship.

5. What life after footy opportunities does this deal/club offer.

6 Non tangible items, lifestyle, family, girlfriend, etc

If you have not already achieved success to increase your return you need to be in a club with real prospects of success or be paid over the odds to compensate for the diminished return for not being in a successful club (ie a Friday Night Football team).

GWS doesn't fit that model neatly and thus if they are to get young elite players they must offer very big $$$'s for a long time in the hope this will be enough to get some players in.

I bet you could construct a model which shows the proper weighting for each factor and the dollar outcome over a 12 year career.

What's more if Whiteboard Wednesdays are anything to go by I bet Cam has done exactly that and is presenting the material in that way to Scully's management.

The risk with that approach is he may be more susceptible to poaching from the filth who might produce a better outcome under a formula approach.

What about simple quality of life?

I'd take a job that paid 10% less to work with a bunch of my good mates in the city I love, as opposed to working with a bunch of relative strangers in the west of Sydney for more.

And if I was earning an inflated AFL salary, I'd probably be happy with 30% less, because I know on that money I'd still be very comfortable.

For us normal people, the money would make a real difference, but at that level it'll just mean he can afford an extra jetski and a second apartment in New York..

  On 02/02/2011 at 01:58, Keyser Söze said:

Pure greed?

You really do have blinkers on, don't you?

It's for the betterment of the game.

Do you ever actually address the content of someone's post when you disagree with them?

Q. Please explain to me how the game is in any need of "betterment" when it has 600,000 members, 7 million attendances and extremely lucrative sponsorship/broadcasting deals, getting stronger and stronger after 150 years. What exactly would happen if we did not keep expanding

Thanks in advance for an actual response to the above content instead of the 'you wouldn't understand' that you normally trot out when you have nothing in the bank

  On 02/02/2011 at 02:25, Robbie57 said:

GC is an AFL friendly area in which he can expect opportunities from local sponsors and outside football.

1. $$$$'s

2. Length (and security) of deal.

3. Extra dollars leveraged off the teams performance and support base.

4. Does the club generate extra publicity and thus sponsor interest ensuring greater personal sponsorship.

5. What life after footy opportunities does this deal/club offer.

6 Non tangible items, lifestyle, family, girlfriend, etc

That's just money too though. You are talking about it as if it is a non-financial motivation but it is just more greed.

In fact your whole list is just all about money except point 6, which is about 5% of the overall consideration

I'm not going to draw on the Scully debate specifically as it is a wait and see situation. I must admit though that the though of a lot of this being in the hands of his manager who could make an absolute mint out of this is worrying. A generic concern I guess.

  On 02/02/2011 at 02:54, Keyser Söze said:

What about simple quality of life?

I'd take a job that paid 10% less to work with a bunch of my good mates in the city I love, as opposed to working with a bunch of relative strangers in the west of Sydney for more.

And if I was earning an inflated AFL salary, I'd probably be happy with 30% less, because I know on that money I'd still be very comfortable.

For us normal people, the money would make a real difference, but at that level it'll just mean he can afford an extra jetski and a second apartment in New York..

But what if the job offer was 50 or 70 or 100% more?

You would soon make some new friends and remember it is only 18 months ago that JS started with a new bunch and he seems happy with them.

  On 02/02/2011 at 03:23, 1858 said:

I'm not going to draw on the Scully debate specifically as it is a wait and see situation. I must admit though that the though of a lot of this being in the hands of his manager who could make an absolute mint out of this is worrying. A generic concern I guess.

I think you over estimate how much the agents get.

I have it on good authority that the going rate is 3% but lets say it is 5%

5% of $500 000 is $25 000

5% of $1000 000 is $50 000

I would not call $25 000 a mint as you actually have to work for it

  On 02/02/2011 at 01:54, Curry & Beer said:

I can't believe anyone could say that

Why act as if the AFL is some dwindling organisation?

It has over 600,000 members, over 7 million through the gate annually and TV rights/sponsorship deals that are beyond belief lucrative

It's pure greed and it may well put the kybosh on our supposed dynasty

Where did I say the AFL is dwindling? It's booming. And it's booming on the back of aggressive expansion into a national competition. This expansion is incomplete.

  On 02/02/2011 at 03:26, old dee said:

But what if the job offer was 50 or 70 or 100% more?

You would soon make some new friends and remember it is only 18 months ago that JS started with a new bunch and he seems happy with them.

But they aren't all that new.

He had previously been teammates and close friends with all of Jack Watts, Jack Fitzpatrick, Jordan Gysberts, Sam Blease, James Strauss...

And he has made those friendships now. It's not just about developing new ones, but about turning your back on existing relationships.

  On 02/02/2011 at 03:13, Curry & Beer said:

That's just money too though. You are talking about it as if it is a non-financial motivation but it is just more greed.

In fact your whole list is just all about money except point 6, which is about 5% of the overall consideration

You're ignoring logic.

I'm not even going to bother trying to further explain - it really does seem too complex a concept for you, otherwise you'd already understand it.

  On 02/02/2011 at 03:53, Keyser Söze said:

You're ignoring logic.

I'm not even going to bother trying to further explain - it really does seem too complex a concept for you, otherwise you'd already understand it.

Happy to include quality of life in the formula.

Cost of living is a factor as well, not sure of the relativities between Melbourne and Sydney these days.

I also agree most of the factors I listed are "money" or economic, that was my point. You can give a weighting or monetary value to things like quality of life, family friends etc and apply them to the formula.

If being close to family in Melbourne has value to you of 10% then a $900k offer in Melbourne is the same as a $1M offer in Sydney.

Same for being a premiership player etc.

  On 02/02/2011 at 03:53, me said:

Thanks in advance for an actual response to the above content instead of the 'you wouldn't understand' that you normally trot out when you have nothing in the bank

  On 02/02/2011 at 03:53, Keyser Söze said:

You're ignoring logic.

I'm not even going to bother trying to further explain - it really does seem too complex a concept for you, otherwise you'd already understand it.

staggering

try again

Q. Please explain to me how the game is in any need of "betterment" when it has 600,000 members, 7 million attendances and extremely lucrative sponsorship/broadcasting deals, getting stronger and stronger after 150 years. What exactly would happen if we did not keep expanding

  On 02/02/2011 at 03:36, old55 said:

Where did I say the AFL is dwindling? It's booming. And it's booming on the back of aggressive expansion into a national competition. This expansion is incomplete.

thank you for actually posting some CONTENT on the topic, unlike some others

I believe the VFL was struggling a bit when national expansion started happening, and yes, it helped bring it back to life

However, the situation NOW is that it is NOT struggling - the current model seems perfectly sustainable

All that's going to happen is that smaller clubs like us and North will get shafted, beginning with this player poaching

  On 02/02/2011 at 03:31, old dee said:

I think you over estimate how much the agents get.

I have it on good authority that the going rate is 3% but lets say it is 5%

5% of $500 000 is $25 000

5% of $1000 000 is $50 000

I would not call $25 000 a mint as you actually have to work for it

I wouldn't call $25k a mint either but how exactly are these player manager fees worked out? Are they based on 1yrs player earnings or the duration of the player contract?

When Ablett went to GC I'd be interested to know how much Pickering made.

Scully may not command $10m over 5 yrs like Ablett but he will be exposed to an inflated market due to the GWS concessions and it would be a long term proposition here over multiple contracts you'd expect. I don't for 1 minute believe this $6m for 6 yrs stuff as a 6 yr contract is a rediculous exposure to risk. I wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility of something close to $1m as an average yearly earning though if GWS are hell bent on getting him. You sound like you know a bit about this caper and I have little insight so perhaps my concerns are misguided but I think it is at least an element in the context of Scully and GWS due to the false market.

  On 02/02/2011 at 04:13, Curry & Beer said:

staggering

try again

Q. Please explain to me how the game is in any need of "betterment" when it has 600,000 members, 7 million attendances and extremely lucrative sponsorship/broadcasting deals, getting stronger and stronger after 150 years. What exactly would happen if we did not keep expanding

There's not "nothing in the bank", I just ignored what was a nonsense question because old55 already answered it sufficiently.

Nobody has once said the game is in "need" of betterment.

But that is not to say it is not a good thing.

The game and it's administrators should always be striving to grow and improve the game where it can.

Manageable expansion is good for the game.

I don't need to go for a run or eat fruit, but I choose to because it is beneficial for me.

You may be familiar with the saying "if you're not moving forwards, you're going backwards."

It may not seem necessary to expand, but in time you may find the game gets weaker or misses opportunities because it didn't.

I just can't figure out where you find a negative in all this.

Maybe it's selfish reasons for you and you're only concerned about MFC?

I'm a football purist and want to see the game prosper, above all.