DON'T CRY FOR MELBOURNE

[nutbean 8,837]

• Mateship
  
• Melbournefc
  
• MCG
  
• Premiership
  
• Career
  

I still prefer 5c in the first year

( HT - I take very little convincing on what you are saying)

[nutbean 8,837]

Yikes - now I am in trouble - after challenging Geoff Slattery by email that no Anti AFL opinion is ever published and I would like AFL.com to publish my article loosely titled " AFL got it wrong - uncontracted players should be age/service capped before being eligible to be signed by GC17/GWS" - I got this reply

Happy to receive your copy. As with any other it will be edited, but fairly.

CHeers

GS

I guess I will actually have to write something !

[jayceebee31 671]

That 2c is prudent advice.

And worth every cent .

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

- IMO Tom Scully is the most guaranteed star we've had at the club since Robert Flower and to lose him to GWS would have a significant impact on our ability to win the flag we all covet

- To suggest that Tom Scully warrants more compensation than Gary Ablett or Marc Murphy is laughable.

good post but these two points can't coexist

[Roost It 1,434]

Here's my 2c worth on all this:

- Football is not a "normal" job and footballers aren't motivated just by money

- We need to do everything reasonable and within the rules to retain Tom but that doesn't mean trying to match or even nearly match the GWS $ offer because it will have a big negative impact on our ability to remunerate other players fairly.

You certainly got your 2c worth.

With regard to retaining Tom the club needs a wealthy member to offer him what I call a "Judd" job. That being a highly paid position that involves a couple of photo shoots a year and a tidy pay cheque. Couple that with the $400,000 the club will pay him and that should ward off any suitors. I'm guessing the club's onto this as we speak.

[Rogue 585]

- Our CEO (who I think is doing a superb job) was on the committee who framed the rules so those MFC supporters bleating about them when one of our players gets caught up in it, don't have a leg to stand on

I disagree.

It's the Clubs - and particularly Geelong - who have no recourse to complain about compensation etc. I found the Geelong response to compensation regarding Ablett pretty silly since they had agreed to the rules. As you point out, Wells was on the committee.

The fans didn't decide on the rules, and many immediately pointed out the seemingly unfair aspects of compensation once details were made public.

[Akum 2,660]

To suggest that Tom Scully warrants more compensation than Gary Ablett or Marc Murphy is laughable.

Agree with everything else. For this, if we do lose Tom (which I don't think will happen), we should be compensated for what he would have given us if he had stayed. In other words, for his future not his past.

So when you compare what Scully is going to give in the rest of his career with what Murphy & Ablett are going to give in the rest of their careers, I think there is an argument for saying that we should get compensated more because we'll be missing out on more if he goes.

Which I don't think he will, so it's a moot point

[H_T 2,941]

Yikes - now I am in trouble - after challenging Geoff Slattery by email that no Anti AFL opinion is ever published and I would like AFL.com to publish my article loosely titled " AFL got it wrong - uncontracted players should be age/service capped before being eligible to be signed by GC17/GWS" - I got this reply

Happy to receive your copy. As with any other it will be edited, but fairly.

CHeers

GS

I guess I will actually have to write something !

Haha. You better get working then.

The fans didn't decide on the rules, and many immediately pointed out the seemingly unfair aspects of compensation once details were made public.

One of those was Gary March - President of Richmondfc. He had the "fans" point of view at heart. CEO Schwab stated effectively: "Gary March doesn't speak on behalf of the Melbourne Football Club" and whilst true, it was a statement. The lay of the land was present as far back as then, that our club would build and create an environment where a nucleus of players would enjoy playing at the Melbourne Football Club, grow together and help build strong foundations for a competitive list; a successful list. And that any possible poaching would be thwarted thanks to the enviroment created by Melbourne Football Club and it's increasingly supportive membership base.

Comments like this by Brent Moloney help paint part of a picture of the environment at Mfc. More so why young guns such as Tom Scully would want to be part of something special.

[rpfc 27,591]

Here's my 2c worth on all this:

- The AFL strategy to expand in NSW and Qld and have a match there every week is sound

- The AFL is justified in wanting to give GC and GWS a massive leg up for this strategy to succeed

- IMO Tom Scully is the most guaranteed star we've had at the club since Robert Flower and to lose him to GWS would have a significant impact on our ability to win the flag we all covet

- Our CEO (who I think is doing a superb job) was on the committee who framed the rules so those MFC supporters bleating about them when one of our players gets caught up in it, don't have a leg to stand on

- Andrew Demetriou was forced to publicly defend the indefensible wrt to our "alleged" tanking in 2009 and I suspect we privately lost AFL sympathy associated with our acquisition of Tom and I don't expect any special assistance

- GWS has $1M extra in the TPP which makes $9M but they are limited to $70K per 1st year player so even if they have 40 of them that leaves $6M to spend on uncontracted players

- I find it completely believable that they'd pitch a 6 year $6M deal to Tom with many of those millions front loaded in the first year or two, then he'll be on a more equitable salary in later years and GWS will put the initial payment to him (and GWS team-mates) as a "sign-on" bonus necessary to get him across.

- Football is not a "normal" job and footballers aren't motivated just by money

- We need to do everything reasonable and within the rules to retain Tom but that doesn't mean trying to match or even nearly match the GWS $ offer because it will have a big negative impact on our ability to remunerate other players fairly.

- We need to pitch mateship, premiership success, the MCG, living in Victoria and career after football playing days to Tom

- And John Worsforld said, a few round here need to: "Harden up princess!"

All excellent points.

- To suggest that Tom Scully warrants more compensation than Gary Ablett or Marc Murphy is laughable.

Disagree with this one. Not Murphy so much, but Ablett has played footy for 9 years, his future value is not as high as Murphy and/or Scully.

Yes, they get the best player in the game. But for how long?

Scully's future value is potential at this minute, but he is a generational talent that - from this point forward, looks to offer more to the AFL than Gary Ablett(Please note I said "from this point forward").

I think that is an important consideration in the unlikely event of Tom leaving, or any young talent.

[Sir Why You Little 34,700]

I would love to have been a fly on the wall at that Presidents meeting when all 16 voted apparently unanimously for the 2 new teams and the draft compensations.

It was all over in a night.

It should have been debated regulairly over at least 6 months.

What carrots did the AFL hand out??

Broadcast Revenue Projections for the coming decade???

We the Fans got absolutely duped that night, by all the representatives.

[old55 21,435]

good post but these two points can't coexist

The fact that MFC hasn't had the star players on it's list that Geelong and Carlton have had is not relevant to the comparison. I said that if MFC loses Tom Scully it would seriously impact our ability to win a flag - losing Gary Ablett has seriously impacted Geelong's ability to win a flag and if Carlton lost Marc Murphy it would seriously impact their ability to win a flag. Ablett is a proven super-star with at least 5 years left in the game - given the choice between Ablett and Scully today more than half the current clubs would choose Ablett. Marc Murphy has served his apprenticeship and is hitting his prime right at the time Carlton begins to challenge for the flag while Judd is still capable of his best, it would be a huge body blow to Carlton to lose him. James Frawley was drafted the year after Tom - would Tom warrant more compensation that Chip? I say no. I hope Tom can be an even better player than Marc but it's just hope. The view that he's more valuable and a greater loss than either of these two is parochial and based on unrealised potential.

Edited February 23, 2011 by old55

[Keyser Söze 0]

I disagree.

It's the Clubs - and particularly Geelong - who have no recourse to complain about compensation etc. I found the Geelong response to compensation regarding Ablett pretty silly since they had agreed to the rules. As you point out, Wells was on the committee.

The fans didn't decide on the rules, and many immediately pointed out the seemingly unfair aspects of compensation once details were made public.

I don't believe this is correct.

The panel and the presidents never decided on the terms of compensation, and since they did approve the rules for the entry of GWS and GC, the terms for compensation have been reviewed with more emphasis placed on the new contract they sign.

I'm sure if we'd been told we'd receive 2 late 1st round picks in return for a number 1 pick, Schwab may not have been so quick to approve.

If he'd been told we'd receive 2 top 5 picks as compensation, no doubt he'd be happy with the terms.

[old55 21,435]

I don't believe this is correct.

The panel and the presidents never decided on the terms of compensation, and since they did approve the rules for the entry of GWS and GC, the terms for compensation have been reviewed with more emphasis placed on the new contract they sign.

I'm sure if we'd been told we'd receive 2 late 1st round picks in return for a number 1 pick, Schwab may not have been so quick to approve.

If he'd been told we'd receive 2 top 5 picks as compensation, no doubt he'd be happy with the terms.

You can argue that the Tier 1 compensation is not enough for Ablett, Murphy or Scully but it's a bit late for that. The committee set original compensation and when it was apparent that Ablett was in the frame they re-visited and increased the compensation for elite players and that's what Geelong got for Ablett - the revised increased compensation - horse, gate, bolted.

Edited February 23, 2011 by old55

[mdemonski2 403]

Yikes - now I am in trouble - after challenging Geoff Slattery by email that no Anti AFL opinion is ever published and I would like AFL.com to publish my article loosely titled " AFL got it wrong - uncontracted players should be age/service capped before being eligible to be signed by GC17/GWS" - I got this reply

Happy to receive your copy. As with any other it will be edited, but fairly.

CHeers

GS

I guess I will actually have to write something !

Careful what u wish for nutbean! Go for it mate. Why not put a piece together. You have a logical, well constructed article and it would be great for a different perspective on this issue. I also think it was a terrible piece of journalism but let's do something about it, rather than limiting to just demonland. May the demon force be with u nutbean!

[hardtack 10,127]

I also think it was a terrible piece of journalism but let's do something about it, rather than limiting to just demonland. May the demon force be with u nutbean!

I agree, which is why I initially placed the comment on the AFL Facebook page that led to the "news" item on the AFL website the other day... I even suggested here that people post their own comments to get the message to the AFL that we weren't happy with Phelan's article and their implicit support of it - unfortunately very few did comment; if only as many had commented there as have commented here...sigh!

And nutbean, if you want any help "editing" your article for them, feel free to pass it by me (despite my often shoddy posts here, I am a technical writer by trade).

Oh, and I had to laugh at their comment "...As with any other it will be edited, but fairly." - does that mean that the Phelan article was edited "fairly"? Makes me wonder what their definition of "fair" might actually be.

Edited February 24, 2011 by hardtack

[H_T 2,941]

Oh, and I had to laugh at their comment "...As with any other it will be edited, but fairly." - does that mean that the Phelan article was edited "fairly"? Makes me wonder what their definition of "fair" might actually be.

Agree. I noted that too. Why tack on "fairly" ?...defending the original article and suggesting it is balanced ?

[nutbean 8,837]

I agree, which is why I initially placed the comment on the AFL Facebook page that led to the "news" item on the AFL website the other day... I even suggested here that people post their own comments to get the message to the AFL that we weren't happy with Phelan's article and their implicit support of it - unfortunately very few did comment; if only as many had commented there as have commented here...sigh!

And nutbean, if you want any help "editing" your article for them, feel free to pass it by me (despite my often shoddy posts here, I am a technical writer by trade).

Oh, and I had to laugh at their comment "...As with any other it will be edited, but fairly." - does that mean that the Phelan article was edited "fairly"? Makes me wonder what their definition of "fair" might actually be.

I will write it over the weekend and place it on here for review and suggestion - I am well prepared for people to have completely differing views from mine. I will put down the bottom of my article that these are the views of Journalist not Demonland.

My thrust will be threefold

- whilst it is the AFL's intention to have expansion teams in the competition and supporters understand that these clubs need a leg up the policies in place for these new teams undermines the decades longs philosophy of the league for a level playing field for all ( which has largely been successful due to the draft and the cap)

- no problem with the tops picks in the draft going to GWS and GC17 - the new clubs still have to develop this talent successfully and these players are not being taken from existing clubs

- the uncontracted players and extra money is a problem. If all clubs had the same cap then it is open slather - you have to be competitve in your offer to keep your player - no problems. But with the extra money, the new clubs are going to an auction with lots more cash to spend on the same house. This is further compounded as Old55 pointed out that GWS and GC17 have a disproportionate amount of first time draftees on fixed minimum salaries for two years meaning they have even more money than the established clubs to throw at uncontracted players On uncontracted players - the idea of giving the early draft picks to underperforming teams is to level the competition and surely taking a 2nd year player flies in the face of the AFL's rational behind having a draft at all.

I am going to suggest a cap on the age of uncontracted players that can be taken - Whilst I would be devastated to lose Aaron Davey - given his tenure at the club this would not be in my mind the same as losing a Scully. Hence why I find the comparison of losing Scully vs Ablett so objectional - not the same at all.

I am not sure how to write on the money issue - whilst I understand that extra money is necessary for retention and in a broad sense I understand that it is necessary to lure players - how can the AFL say it truely believes it is creating a competitive competition where all teams are given equal opportunity to win a flag when teams are being given extra money to pay the same amount of players ? ( can anyone fill me in what the extra money is ?)

[rpfc 27,591]

I will write it over the weekend and place it on here for review and suggestion - I am well prepared for people to have completely differing views from mine. I will put down the bottom of my article that these are the views of Journalist not Demonland.

My thrust will be threefold

- whilst it is the AFL's intention to have expansion teams in the competition and supporters understand that these clubs need a leg up the policies in place for these new teams undermines the decades longs philosophy of the league for a level playing field for all ( which has largely been successful due to the draft and the cap)

- no problem with the tops picks in the draft going to GWS and GC17 - the new clubs still have to develop this talent successfully and these players are not being taken from existing clubs

- the uncontracted players and extra money is a problem. If all clubs had the same cap then it is open slather - you have to be competitve in your offer to keep your player - no problems. But with the extra money, the new clubs are going to an auction with lots more cash to spend on the same house. This is further compounded as Old55 pointed out that GWS and GC17 have a disproportionate amount of first time draftees on fixed minimum salaries for two years meaning they have even more money than the established clubs to throw at uncontracted players On uncontracted players - the idea of giving the early draft picks to underperforming teams is to level the competition and surely taking a 2nd year player flies in the face of the AFL's rational behind having a draft at all.

I am going to suggest a cap on the age of uncontracted players that can be taken - Whilst I would be devastated to lose Aaron Davey - given his tenure at the club this would not be in my mind the same as losing a Scully. Hence why I find the comparison of losing Scully vs Ablett so objectional - not the same at all.

I am not sure how to write on the money issue - whilst I understand that extra money is necessary for retention and in a broad sense I understand that it is necessary to lure players - how can the AFL say it truely believes it is creating a competitive competition where all teams are given equal opportunity to win a flag when teams are being given extra money to pay the same amount of players ? ( can anyone fill me in what the extra money is ?)

Give them the money issue.

It's neccessary that they start with more money to attract players that only has kids and 'fans in theory.'

[old55 21,435]

Give them the money issue.

It's neccessary that they start with more money to attract players that only has kids and 'fans in theory.'

Agree.

Overall you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, let's try to prevent them being our eggs.

[H_T 2,941]

Give them the money issue.

It's neccessary that they start with more money to attract players that only has kids and 'fans in theory.'

Yep, the money issue.

Anyone recall this...?

*Ref: The AGE

Jake Niall's article - Dec 7, 2010.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

The view that he's more valuable and a greater loss than either of these two is parochial and based on unrealised potential.

Yeah but there is just so MUCH potential there, I watched the WB game again lately, kid is a freak. If you had to pick a number based on the probability of him becoming a star of the comp you'd go over 90%. Well I would.

[Rogue 585]

I don't believe this is correct.

The panel and the presidents never decided on the terms of compensation

That's not my understanding and it contradicts what old55 is asserting. Got a source, by any chance?

One of those was Gary March - President of Richmondfc. He had the "fans" point of view at heart. CEO Schwab stated effectively: "Gary March doesn't speak on behalf of the Melbourne Football Club" and whilst true, it was a statement. The lay of the land was present as far back as then, that our club would build and create an environment where a nucleus of players would enjoy playing at the Melbourne Football Club, grow together and help build strong foundations for a competitive list; a successful list. And that any possible poaching would be thwarted thanks to the enviroment created by Melbourne Football Club and it's increasingly supportive membership base.

Comments like this by Brent Moloney help paint part of a picture of the environment at Mfc. More so why young guns such as Tom Scully would want to be part of something special.

One, I think the framing of March's comments as having the 'fan' view creates a false dichotomy. That the compensation formula was flawed, or that the ability for players to sign for a GC/GWS (but no one else) while they are under contract for another season somewhere else is problematic for the league and the Clubs, isn't some romantic or one-eyed 'fan' point of view. The compensation formula has already been rewritten at least once.

Two, Geelong weren't complaining either...until they knew Ablett was likely to go, considered what the compensation formula would mean for them, and then thought 'oh crap, what have we done?'. For them to complain, after signing off on these rules, seems ridiculous. That is the argument I've put forth in this thread.

[nutbean 8,837]

Yep, the money issue.

Anyone recall this...?

*Ref: The AGE

Jake Niall's article - Dec 7, 2010.

Wow ! I think I am going to go down the plagiarising route - good article.

I think the solution ( not that there is a completely fair and one size fits all solution) is that whilst these new clubs have more money to spend, creating this inequality, there should be a cap on the age of the uncontracted players that are allowed to be taken. I was going to suggest 24 but I quite like Jake Nialls suggestion on a moratorium on first contract players - that would contract one = 2 years and contrat two for a scully or gysberts would be 3 years - bring us to age 23 . These players have at least given 5 years service to their existing club.( although it still smacks of losing a player just coming into their prime ! - what a conundrum)

[Range Rover 1,935]

When all is said and done, after weighing up the cash, the career, the location and the rest of it, the balance-tipping decision may come down to which coach he would rather play under and learn his trade from.

The relationship between Bailey and Scully and how it develops over the course of this year is going to be absolutely crucial.

I'm betting on Bailey over Sheedy.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Range Rover

[Keyser Söze 0]

That's not my understanding and it contradicts what old55 is asserting. Got a source, by any chance?

Don't have a link handy, but it's pretty clear when the CEOs agreed on what they agreed upon early in the year, and then later a panel was formed to preside over the compensation, and the "formula" for compensation was kept a secret, then it was announced that after lobbying from Geelong that the formula would be altered to take into account the new contract being offered to the poached player.

The goalposts shifted.

Even still, they agreed to the terms without knowing for sure what the compensation would be.