Still keen for an explanation how it's fair that GWS can target Marc Murphy 2005 pick 1, 100 games of development and about to hit his prime but it's unfair that they can target Tom Scully.

I have posted this before but it is not the uncontracted players that I have a problem with - even a 2nd year player - it is the extra cap.

I dont have a problem with them having extra draft concessions. I understand the theory of them having to "attract" players but the extra cash gets up my nose. It is like going to a auction to buy a house and having to compete with another bidder who has a couple of hundred thousand extra in his back pocket. It just makes the playing field too unlevel.

Edited February 15, 201114 yr by nutbean

I have posted this before but it is not the uncontracted players that I have a problem with - even a 2nd year player - it is the extra cap.

I dont have a problem with them having extra draft concessions. I understand the theory of them having to "attract" players but the extra cash gets up my nose. It is like going to a auction to buy a house and having to compete with another bidder who has a couple of hundred thousand extra in his back pocket. It just makes the playing field too unlevel.

Agree with your extra cap complaint. The AFL explanation is they can have extra players on their list but the vast majority will be first year draftees who themselves have a cap of about $70k/year so even with the standard cap they'd still have plenty of money left over to lure uncontracted players.

Agree with your extra cap complaint. The AFL explanation is they can have extra players on their list but the vast majority will be first year draftees who themselves have a cap of about $70k/year so even with the standard cap they'd still have plenty of money left over to lure uncontracted players.

And it is worse as GWS ( and GC17) have a disproportionate amount of draftees that are on set salaries for two years which means that they have extra $$$ to lure out of contract players.

Edit - And I didnt read a word you wrote and basically rewrote what you said - my brain hurts

Edited February 15, 201114 yr by nutbean

Still keen for an explanation how it's fair that GWS can target Marc Murphy 2005 pick 1, 100 games of development and about to hit his prime but it's unfair that they can target Tom Scully.

Not sure anyone can say its fair that they can target and take Murphy or anyone else for that matter, but clearly there is a snatching a baby out of a pram scenario here and it is more raw. Free Agency in American football ensures that teams get free acess to sign their young players at the end of their first contract and it's pretty clear the AFL has been naeve to not do the same in this instance. If when free agency comes into play the AFL follows the same path as the NFL and does not allow young players to become free agents after their first contract, then to lose Scully will be totally bizarre.

The article is absolute nonsense. Mentioning White and insinuating that Melbourne has had this coming is ridiculous. We traded White for what he was worth after homesickness decreed that he leave Fremantle and return home. Had we not secured White we would have drafted Brad Ottens. You could argue Ottens would have yielded a similar output to White, who knows. In preceeding years, Richmond put a massive price on Darren Gaspar's head and stole him from Sydney through the pre-season draft, where the Swans got nothing. Gaspar was taken pick two, Melbourne (not being able to afford or accommodate Gaspar's salary) drafted the delisted Craig Nettelbeck. You could argue that it is fair given this history for Richmond to lose Dustin Martin to GWS. Carlton sniped Nick Stevens and you can go on and on. We lost Farmer for less than market value.

Phelan's notion that Scully is not in the same echelon as players GC poached is nonsense as well. His market value has proven that the AFL environment thinks he is. He is effectively valued at $1 million per year.

Then he goes on the bleed about Adelaide's tale of woe and their loss of Nathan Bock. The Crows are privately pleased to have lost him following issues with his spouse and his irredeemible thirstyness and Walker lived on the SA border and they gave nothing to get him and had free access to him basically. It's just a rubbish article.

Yep

White + 22 (Troy Longmuir) for 2 (Brad Ottens) + 18 (Mark Alvey)

Freo traded 2 to Richmond for Chris Bond!

Freo also received pick 5 in the 1999 draft (Leigh Brown) when the AFL decided that the trade received from Melbourne wasn't enough after the Demons were found to have breached the salary cap and therefore had an unfair advantage over the Dockers in negotiations.

Effectively, the AFL decided that the compensation for White after three years at Freo and not many games played was picks 2 and 5 in uncompromised drafts and a favourable swap of second round choices.

I suspect Phelan doesn't believe Melbourne should be treated so generously in the event of Scull being poached.

The blokes a first class pr*ck.

The AFL will do what the AFL wants to do but in the end, the decision will rest with Tom Scully and I'm sure won't be guided by money alone. We've built up a good list, we're a good club now and we have a lot of advantages over GWS. I'd like to think we can make Tom happy and keep him.

The article by Phelan is poor journalism but good writing on the AFL site hasn't been its forte since that fellow Matt Burgan left them.

Could somebody please remind me who his wagon is hitched to these days?

Now, let's move on.

I have been watching far too much Family Guy.

Starting to talk and post in the manner of some of the characters in the show...

Odd behaviour...

Noticed that...hope you can make it to the season start......only a few more weeks....you can DO IT, yeah

Noticed that...hope you can make it to the season start......only a few more weeks....you can DO IT, yeah

I'll get there.

I suspect Phelan doesn't believe Melbourne should be treated so generously in the event of Scull being poached.

The blokes a first class pr*ck.

Yes i totally agree, But How is Jason Phelan able to put this view on the Website of the AFL....Who is he?

The ABC should get him on Q & A next week...!!

http://www.aflphotos.com.au/galleries/results/?photostore=afl.com.au&q=collection:AFL%202011%20Media%20-%20Melbourne%20Community%20Camp%20140211

Some nice community action to take you away from that dribble

No probs DC glad to make you smile But Hysterical is jumping on a kitchen table in a 50's sit com and screaming when a mouse is seen scuttling across the floor.

This article makes me want to take up arms for our cause.

Grab a set of horns

http://www.aflphotos.com.au/galleries/results/?photostore=afl.com.au&q=collection:AFL%202011%20Media%20-%20Melbourne%20Community%20Camp%20140211

Some nice community action to take you away from that dribble

Brilliant Timing....Thankyou. The Next Generations of Demons.

The MFC will out live the current AFL. B)

Isn't the AFL supposed to support all clubs?

Isn't the AFL supposed to support all clubs?

seems no more doesn't it. I see more of a Conflict of interest. I am wondering whether the Gold coast & GWS teams will have Larger AFL emblems on their apparrell than the 153 year old MFC....

Over the last 4 years we have begun again to fight, we are going to have to do a lot more in the future,

Thank God the Debt is paid-That will be a major help as long as we continue to grow.

Isn't the AFL supposed to support all clubs?

dear oh dear....take the boy out and give him a good thrashing

Yes he was - he was pick 1, priority picks come before the first round, pick 2 was first pick of the first round.

if we didnt get the PP we obviously would still have pick 1 and would obviously still have picked scully, therefore Trengove is the bonus.. how can you even debate that

The annoying thing I keep hearing is everyone comparing the Scully situation to GC poaching Ablett. There is a MASSIVE difference.

Ablett has been the core component of a Geelong side the has yielded two (should've been three) premierships, one year he won the Brownlow. My point is he has serviced the club well in his time there, he may have left the club but he has left his own legacy there that is arguably equal to that of his father.

IF Scully goes, which my gut tells me he won't, but if he does we will have got two years of good service (first year awesome but still a good/average player on numbers alone, and hoping for no 2nd year blues) and a likely lesser 1st round pick, as something tells me if the AFL weren't going to take the no.1 pick from GC for Ablett they won't do it for us.

FWIW as i said, i don't think he will go but only time will tell.

.....IF Scully goes, which my gut tells me he won't, .....

Unfortunately my GUT hasn't settled down enough to tell me anymore than my HEAD or HEART tells me (or even the UNMENTIONABLE)

I've even tried to study the entrails of small mammals and birds, but alas no luck so far

Poking needles and other sharp objects into my GWS voodoo doll doesn't seem to be having any effect either.

At this stage I have NFI and believe nobody

....but obviously I hope your gut is on the money

if we didnt get the PP we obviously would still have pick 1 and would obviously still have picked scully, therefore Trengove is the bonus.. how can you even debate that

"Obviously" you're wrong. If we beat Richmond they would've finished last, no-one would've got the PP and the pick order would've been 1-Richmond, 2-Melbourne 3-Fremantle. While there's no certainty who of Scully, Trengove, Martin and Morabito would've been picked and in what order, if the actual picks were repeated we would've got Trengove and therefore Scully is the bonus.

Edited February 15, 201114 yr by old55

The AFL has since posted a response to my comment (see cited topic towards the top of the previous page) inviting comment; it's on the AFL + other part of their Wall on Facebook:

"Here is the article Tim is not happy about: http://afl.to/fY9bXp What do others think? One point that should be made, Tim, is that Jason's views are his own. He wasn't commissioned or pressured by the AFL to write the piece."

Please feel free to go and add your comments to the topic.

Was rather surprised today to find that the AFL website went to the trouble of responding to my comment on their Facebook page, by devoting an entire article (this article), to it.

It is surprising.

Well done with your feedback to them.

I actually didn't bother as I felt it would largely be ignored.

I even understand the point of view from the article that they want to be like any independent media outlet, but the simple fact is that they are not and therefore must be mindful of this.

Their job is not to be critical, especially critical without all the facts.

Phelan's opinion was offensive and uninformed, and that was my issue.

Also the fact it served to push the AFL's agenda made it highly dubious of nature.

Edited February 22, 201114 yr by Keyser Söze

good on them for responding, I am very surprised

Was rather surprised today to find that the AFL website went to the trouble of responding to my comment on their Facebook page, by devoting an entire article (this article), to it.

I can't find the response on the facebook page as I would like to make comment. The original article and the response prompts the questions

- If indeed there are these sorts of opinion pieces on the AFL website ( please point me to them) then I would ask if there is an editorial staff in place that could allow this piece to be printed - or at least competent editorial staff.

A publication may publish opinion pieces (I for one dont think that AFL.com needs to run opinion pieces - there are enough media outlets already doing so) but the Editor needs to ensure that the opinion ( in fact any article) can at least stand up to logical and rigorous scrutiny.

I respect anyones right to a differing opinion - but if an opinion cannot be backed with some logic or reason then stand by for disrespect.

The article is so flawed in so many ways the editor should have told his journalist - go back and have another go.

As an example - if anyone wants to argue that it is difficult to set an age or years of service cut off for poaching uncontracted players then there is merit in this opinion. I respect the opinion of old55 in regards to Marc Murphy - should Carlton feel any less aggrieved at the attempt to lure Murphy as we should with Scully ? The difficulty is setting the line.

But to suggest that there is no difference between signing a 2nd year player ( to be poached for the 3rd year) and a 9 year player ( poached to play in his 10th season) that has played in 2 premierships, 3 grand finals and won a brownlow is an opinion that should be subject to ridicule. Gary Ablett has stated ( whether you want to believe it or not) that a large part of his reason is that he has achieved so much at Geelong and this is a chance to help a start up club. Can a 2nd year footballer make this statement ?

The same could be expressed for Jeff White comparisons - forget money, forget draft picks, forget compensation - it is stated and documented that he wanted to come home. ( refer articles to him "Crying to his mother on the phone").

To repeat - feel free to give opinions - but be prepared for backlash if those opinions have no substance or logic behind them. For an AFL site to publish opinion pieces in my opinion is unnecessary ( and this can be debated) but to allow opinion pieces to be published under the AFL Banner that are devoid of logic is just plain wrong.

Edited February 22, 201114 yr by nutbean

Thanks guys... I was expecting it to be just a small item hidden away out of sight on the AFL site, but it's at the top of their news items; very surprised. Oh and C&B, are you a Chiaki Kuriyama (aka Gogo Yubari) fan? :-)

Thanks guys... I was expecting it to be just a small item hidden away out of sight on the AFL site, but it's at the top of their news items; very surprised. Oh and C&B, are you a Chiaki Kuriyama (aka Gogo Yubari) fan? :-)

They've also put the article up again by Phelan right next to it....

nutbean is right making the point about Jeff White wanting to come home too.

Also the fact is served to push the AFL's agenda made it highly dubious of nature.

Agree with this ^