OPEN LETTER TO THE MIKE SHEAHAN by Whispering Jack

Dear Mike,

They say you have a soft spot for Melbourne and that you're really a bit of a fan of the Demons.

I remember you at the Bentleigh Club when the club was in dire straits at a particular stage just after Paul Gardner had taken over the chairmanship from Gabriel Szondy. I think about 45 supporters turned up to what was regarded as an important meeting for the club and you quite rightly slammed us in your column in the little paper for that.

Things have changed at Melbourne as you well know. These days we're beginning to stand for something again. We're not broke any more and we're a well run elite, progressive AFL club with the competition's best training facilities and an up-and-coming young team that's going somewhere in the relatively near future.

I say this because comments you made in your article Young Demon Tom Scully facing devil of a dilemma suggesting that by accepting rumoured overtures from GWS, Tom Scully "can set himself up for life" there, the clear inference being that he would not be able to achieve the same outcome if he decided to accept what presumably would be a "lesser" offer from Melbourne.

Apart from the very speculative nature of the deal purportedly offered by the GWS Giants and legal restraint of trade issues stemming from their advantageous bargaining position, the assumption you make is that Melbourne could not put together an attractive deal capable of his acceptance that would "set him up for life".

Do you really believe the bottom line in dollar terms is everything there is in a young person's life?

Why does the player's package necessarily have to match the GWS offer dollar for dollar? Apart from issues about living costs in Sydney being greater than in Melbourne and the cost of relocation and for travel by and to family and friends there's a broader matter at heart here which is one that I would expect every Demon supporter of our vintage to understand.

It's seeped in our club's history, heritage and tradition and goes to a story that sums up the major differences between our club and those plastic concoctions from expansion areas that the AFL is bringing into the competition. And it relates to the greatest footballer ever to pull on our guernsey - the man whose number Tom Scully wears every time he puts on the same famous # 31.

Every true Demon is aware from the earliest days as supporters of the club about the story of how Ron Barassi's father gave his life at Tobruk in the service of his country and how his team mates banded together and pledged to look after his widow and young son. Though they didn't actually "set him up for life" in the financial sense (after all, he had to leave to further his coaching career at Carlton after 12 years at the club), the gesture was pivotal in setting up his life not only as one of the nation's great sportspersons but as an iconic figure in this nation's history. It provided essential support and guidance for the young Ron Barassi Junior and his mother at an important stage of their lives and the story is the stuff of legends telling of something more important than money. It goes to the very core of being part of a football team.

Tom Scully will be set up for life financially wherever he plays next year and beyond but will he blossom at another club that's trying to establish itself in a hostile environment away from the game's heartland and that will probably struggle to compete in the short to medium term of his career span?

It's Tom's call but really, there's only one location where he can set himself up for life and that is in the very place that is at the same time his own home and the home of the game.

Yours sincerely,

Whispering

Well written.

Will be interesting if it makes it into anything at all at the HS or just gets filed away in the "it's too logical of an argument for me to bother responding" basket....

Great letter D'land. If I have a criticism it would have to be the line "Apart from issues about living costs in Sydney being greater than in Melbourne which i feel detracts from an otherwise sound set of arguments - I really don't think that is an argument at all when you are earning almost $1mil per year... I live in Sydney's inner west and am surviving feeding a family of four and a servicing a sizable mortgage on what I can assure you, is nothing like the sort of money young Tom is purportedly being offered... nowhere near it :-)

Please send this letter direct to Mike himself. Great analogy of the whole situation. Well Done Whispering

Great letter love ever thing that you said.

very well done mate

No offence. But I stopped reading when I saw it was about Scully and the GWS.

I have tried to stay away from the subject. But this gets brought up in every thread. So over it.

"THE Mike Sheahan"?

"The Mike Sheahan Propaganda Machine", maybe?

He is happy to report anything that makes good reading, such as the pathetic showing of support for a club struggling to stay afloat, as mentioned in WJ's article.

Opposition supporters love to read that stuff and get wound up with outrage over how little our supporters care.

It makes them feel better about how good they are as a supporter and reassures them that their club won't be the one that folds.

Just like many on here enjoy reading of the struggles of North Melbourne, as ugly as that viewpoint may be.

If he reports that there was strong support (which I understand there wasn't) the story goes nowhere.

Just like Mike is happy to report that Scully will probably leave and should.

If he writes that he probably won't, that its all unfounded conjecture and that his best option is to stay...

It doesn't make good reading and the issue dies a little more, making him have to think of something else to write to sell papers.

People forget that he has an agenda here and his allegiances are to the newspaper first and foremost.

& his statements of surety are all forgotten later on when he turns out to be wrong.

"THE Mike Sheahan"?

"The Mike Sheahan Propaganda Machine", maybe?

He is happy to report anything that makes good reading, such as the pathetic showing of support for a club struggling to stay afloat, as mentioned in WJ's article.

Opposition supporters love to read that stuff and get wound up with outrage over how little our supporters care.

It makes them feel better about how good they are as a supporter and reassures them that their club won't be the one that folds.

Just like many on here enjoy reading of the struggles of North Melbourne, as ugly as that viewpoint may be.

If he reports that there was strong support (which I understand there wasn't) the story goes nowhere.

Just like Mike is happy to report that Scully will probably leave and should.

If he writes that he probably won't, that its all unfounded conjecture and that his best option is to stay...

It doesn't make good reading and the issue dies a little more, making him have to think of something else to write to sell papers.

People forget that he has an agenda here and his allegiances are to the newspaper first and foremost.

& his statements of surety are all forgotten later on when he turns out to be wrong.

Yes the Majority of opposition footy supporters will be more than happy for Scully to head North, as a Scully playing for GWS is a lot less potent for a number of years compared to a Scully staying at MFC.

Mike would be aware of this, as his bottomline is to apease HUN readers, most of which do not like the Melbourne Football Club as a power at all.

Yes the Majority of opposition footy supporters will be more than happy for Scully to head North, as a Scully playing for GWS is a lot less potent for a number of years compared to a Scully staying at MFC.

Mike would be aware of this, as his bottomline is to apease HUN readers, most of which do not like the Melbourne Football Club as a power at all.

I think the THE Mike Sheahan comes from the way Gerrard Healey describes him on their Foxtel on the coach programme.

Well written but I was there with Mike Sheahan that night at the Bentleigh club in which I thought Paul Gardner was there as President and the ex Age guy,Steve Harris was then CEO.Mike actually asked the question on the night whether the lack of members showed where the club was at. It was I believe the AGM in 2005 or 2006.

Actually, I have never seen Mike at another whether when we were at Canberwell City Hall or our unbelievable evenings in the Dining room at the MCG.

Yep- I totally agree - we have come a MIGHTY LONG WAY under the Board lead by Jim & Don and other Board members whilst also under the management of Cam.

Maybe before you post it, may I make a suggestion and invite him to next years AGM after we make the 8 ,and Tom Scully and others show their true commitment to the Mighty Dees. I'd love to see what he writes then..GO THE RED & the BLUE.

Is that an open letter to Sheahan or a declamation to fellow supporters? Sheehan is a journalist and his main goal is to sell newspapers. I doubt if he really has more thatn a passing interest in the welfare of Melbourne or any other football club, except that the demise of a club or loss of a player is likely to sell a few more papers.

Emile Zola he ain't

Great work as usual, Jack.

Great work, Jack.

Lovely letter.

Says a lot in few words. Handy skill, that.

It's been an open secret forever that Mike is a supporter but of the barely lukewarm variety. Just like the irritatingly cynical Neil Mitchell he thought the proposed merger made perfect sense !

It's been an open secret forever that Mike is a supporter but of the barely lukewarm variety. Just like the irritatingly cynical Neil Mitchell he thought the proposed merger made perfect sense !

People who support mergers are the same people who casually compare football clubs to banks or any other type of business.

How about telling Mike if we wanted to tank we wouldn't have been in front when the siren rang in the Richmond game. If not for the ol' Jordie McMahon (God bless his cotton socks) we wouldn't have got a PP. And those filthy Blues did it to us in Rd 22, 2007 to get Kruezer and deny us NicNat or Daniel Rich.

Yeah, Mike it doesn't fit your story does it???

How about telling Mike if we wanted to tank we wouldn't have been in front when the siren rang in the Richmond game. If not for the ol' Jordie McMahon (God bless his cotton socks) we wouldn't have got a PP. And those filthy Blues did it to us in Rd 22, 2007 to get Kruezer and deny us NicNat or Daniel Rich.

Yeah, Mike it doesn't fit your story does it???

I've been saying that for years...well 18 months anyway.

Nice one WJ.

Mike has set out to write a deliberately down beat and defeatist article, maybe as JCB indicates he hasn't been to an MFC meeting since his bad experience 6 or so years ago? I mean why mention Tom supported Richmond as a kid and then frame his prediciment and decision around money? WJ is right to point out this whole side of the equation that Mike (the fiercely independent journo) has ignored.

There is no arguing that Tom Scully could have a great & fulfilling career at Melbourne whilst securing his financial future. The whole loyalty question though, I can tell you as someone who supported Richmond up until the first game of footy I went to, that allegiances CAN change. Ask Cam Schwab, Judd, Ablett. I think this whole question of loyality goes a bit to one side. If Tom stays it will be because he has connected with his team mates and money isn't the most important thing in his life. If not...the opposite.

No offence. But I stopped reading when I saw it was about Scully and the GWS.

I have tried to stay away from the subject. But this gets brought up in every thread. So over it.

Firstly, UTAH this is not just another Tom Scully thread although obviously what Sheahan describes as his "dilemma" forms a part of it. I'd like to think that the Scully aspect is more in the nature of background. It's more about us as a club and the transient nature of those who make up a team. In 10 or 15 year's time they'll all be past players but the club's heritage continues on. I'd like to think that after that time passes, a few of our younger players including Scully will have enhanced and enriched the club and, in term, they will all be wealthier for the experience and not just in the pocket.

Secondly, Jayceebee - thanks. I made a slight change to reflect what you said.

Firstly, UTAH this is not just another Tom Scully thread although obviously what Sheahan describes as his "dilemma" forms a part of it. I'd like to think that the Scully aspect is more in the nature of background. It's more about us as a club and the transient nature of those who make up a team. In 10 or 15 year's time they'll all be past players but the club's heritage continues on. I'd like to think that after that time passes, a few of our younger players including Scully will have enhanced and enriched the club and, in term, they will all be wealthier for the experience and not just in the pocket.

Secondly, Jayceebee - thanks. I made a slight change to reflect what you said.

Oh, isn't it? It certainly looked like a fairly obvious factor in the motivation for the post. Although, obviously I share your concerns and have no wish to attack one of demonland's icons . I think we should address the issue on a broader basis. If I was to elevate my expectations Mr Sheehan's jounalistic abilities above that of a mundane hack I mighy suggest that he applies a btoader analysis to the situation that all less successful established clubs face.

1 The AFL, under Demetriou, introduced a system that would even the competition and allow less successful clubs to take the pickof the best young players available by way of a draft system.

2 As part of this system clubs who failed to win a specified number of games over a certain time period were offered extra draft picks.

3 If the aim was to stabilse the competition than allowing priority picks to be poachecd after two years thwarts this aim.

4 Therefore either Demetriou was incompetent or duplicitous in his administration of the draft scheme.

5 If a competent journalist wished to provide background information he or she might wish to look at the AFL CEO's salary package, consider how effectively he has managed their stated aims and ponder how an organisation that was set up to benefit clubs now serves to undermine them.

6 He or she might also wonder why any sporting body would want to encroach on an area which is a bastion for an oposition code especially when a team that has been in the city for over twenty years is by no means established.

However, as I said before Mr sheehan is no Emile Zola.

I think we should address the issue on a broader basis.

Isn't that exactly what WJ is doing?

I will never believe a word Mike Sheehan writes in that piece of trash (Herald Sun) again.

In my eyes he has completely created a commotion to stir the pot and sell papers rather than report on the facts.

Furthermore, as jnrmac pointed out we did not manipulate any games of football.

I was there when Jordan McMahon slotted that goal after the siren and i was there when Melbourne somehow outplayed a much-fancied opponent in Carlton.

Lesson learned. Moving on.

How about telling Mike if we wanted to tank we wouldn't have been in front when the siren rang in the Richmond game. If not for the ol' Jordie McMahon (God bless his cotton socks) we wouldn't have got a PP. And those filthy Blues did it to us in Rd 22, 2007 to get Kruezer and deny us NicNat or Daniel Rich.

Yeah, Mike it doesn't fit your story does it???

Good post. The facts can stuff up a story.

After reading his most recent beat up ("Tom Scully's a poised Demon but question remains"), a piece which flatly contradicts pretty much everything he said in his video wrap-up of Scully's press conference, I think it may be time to just stop reading anything he writes. In defiance of the scientific method, he argues that "until he signs with Melbourne, he is headed for GWS." By that logic, every player who is out of contract is heading to GWS. Since the number of players who swap clubs is far smaller than those who stay, surely the move to GWS should be considered the experimental hypothesis, i.e. something which needs to be proven. And yet, none of these Nobel laureates of the press has offered the slightest evidence that we should disbelieve Scully. Instead we're expected to disbelieve everything he says "because." Spare me.