He hasn't signed with GWS. He is the one player on our list who has the potential to be truly elite. The club must retain him. If it doesn't I stand by my call that it's negligent by 1. Not providing an attractive enough offer and/or 2. Not providing an attractive enough workplace to be able to lose a player of Scully's ability to shitsville.

I believe Watts, Frawley and Trengove have the potential to be in the top half dozen players in the competition.

The club would be negligent if they did not try to the best of their ability. Not being able to compete due to salary and facilities is not negligent by the club.

He hasn't signed with GWS. He is the one player on our list who has the potential to be truly elite. The club must retain him. If it doesn't I stand by my call that it's negligent by 1. Not providing an attractive enough offer and/or 2. Not providing an attractive enough workplace to be able to lose a player of Scully's ability to shitsville.

The deal may have already been transacted before the Club had a chance to act. We need to wait on the actual and full facts to determine negligence. Otherwise its grandstanding.

Personally I don't believe that GWS has not approach Tom or his manager. Of course they would have. At the very least they would have made an inquiry. The club is clearly very concerned that Tom is going otherwise they would not have put Stynes in to try and get an answer. Tom gave the line he has been told to by him manager. "No I have not been approached". It is a lie and means nothing.

The evidence that Tom is leaving is becoming compelling. I think it is time we accepted this. It pains me to say this but looking at the evidence it would seem he is gone.

What evidence is there that he is leaving? Some rumors and crappy Herald Sun stories?

All you have done is call Tom a liar based of zero facts.

What evidence is there that he is leaving? Some rumors and crappy Herald Sun stories?

All you have done is call Tom a liar based of zero facts.

As far as I can tell (and I stopped paying serious attention a while back), the evidence consists of one Eddie rumour and a bunch of opinion masquerading as fact.

Tom said he hasn't been approached and he wants to wait until the end of the year, and that is good enough for me unless somebody can prove otherwise.

The deal may have already been transacted before the Club had a chance to act. We need to wait on the actual and full facts to determine negligence. Otherwise its grandstanding.

You think the club didn't know early enough that GWS would be sniffing around?

I'm curious to know whether you know more about this than you're letting on, because some of the comments you've made on the Scully issue have been a bit sus. Just wondering B)

The deal may have already been transacted before the Club had a chance to act. We need to wait on the actual and full facts to determine negligence. Otherwise its grandstanding.

So you're saying he lied to all of us, the club, the fans, his teammates.

So you're saying he lied to all of us, the club, the fans, his teammates.

No I am saying lets wait for the facts before we make misguided negligence claims.

You think the club didn't know early enough that GWS would be sniffing around?

I'm curious to know whether you know more about this than you're letting on, because some of the comments you've made on the Scully issue have been a bit sus. Just wondering B)

I only know what is in the public arena and thats not enough for the ADC like doomsday sayers to determine that he is actually going nor is it plauisble to make claims of negligence if does end up going.

This thread is so far a 12 page celebration of how little all supporters know about the true situation and how laughable it is that some can draw longbows and claim them as facts.

Like most I want Scully to stay. But I will make judgements on the facts of the matter when they arise.

The deal may have already been transacted before the Club had a chance to act.

OK..Even Im curious ( genuinely ) as to what write you here, between the lines .

If a deal , of any desccription has been struck, then surely Scully would be knowledgable of it. No ?

If tis is the case, then how on earth can he suggest otherwise without lying ?

We need to wait on the actual and full facts to determine negligence. Otherwise its grandstanding.

I dont think negligence is a suitable criteria for any of this.. It supposes , should it have happend, that it could have been prevented. And I dont really see how since the party concerned withdrew from any participation in negotitiations. . You cant get out-dealt, if there are NO cards on any table.

I only know what is in the public arena and thats not enough for the ADC like doomsday sayers to determine that he is actually going nor is it plauisble to make claims of negligence if does end up going.

This thread is so far a 12 page celebration of how little all supporters know about the true situation and how laughable it is that some can draw longbows and claim them as facts.

Like most I want Scully to stay. But I will make judgements on the facts of the matter when they arise.

Fair enough.

I'm sick and tired of these idiotic Scully threads, which is why I try to steer clear of them.

It's just that your reaction to this matter is quite interesting. I was just wondering if you knew something about the Scully issue that you can't let on.

I only know what is in the public arena and thats not enough for the ADC like doomsday sayers to determine that he is actually going nor is it plauisble to make claims of negligence if does end up going.

This thread is so far a 12 page celebration of how little all supporters know about the true situation and how laughable it is that some can draw longbows and claim them as facts.

Like most I want Scully to stay. But I will make judgements on the facts of the matter when they arise.

This is far too sensible an approach to reside on this thread...

OK..Even Im curious ( genuinely ) as to what write you here, between the lines .

If a deal , of any desccription has been struck, then surely Scully would be knowledgable of it. No ?

If tis is the case, then how on earth can he suggest otherwise without lying ?

I am not suggesting one way or the other because I dont know the facts (have to repeat myself once again). But neither do other posters that allege either that the Club is negligent or that Scully is going. They dont know. So its silly to draw conclusions.

The issue of lying is a smokescreen raised by a poster who has been shown to premature in making claims of negligence

I dont think negligence is a suitable criteria for any of this.. It supposes , should it have happend, that it could have been prevented. And I dont really see how since the party concerned withdrew from any participation in negotitiations. . You cant get out-dealt, if there are NO cards on any table.

In around about way thats my point of view too.

No I am saying lets wait for the facts before we make misguided negligence claims.

Such as he may have already signed?

Such as he may have already signed?

Just as a hypothetical...lets say he has. Develop the case for negligence >

I detect pontificating waffle from those who are willing to argue black and blue over every shade of grey that can never be proven right or wrong but tread cautiously on everything that will eventually provide a black or white answer just in case they may lose face.

Either way, there are going to be a lot of "told you so's" on this site soon.

I detect pontificating waffle from those who are willing to argue black and blue over every shade of grey that can never be proven right or wrong but tread cautiously on everything that will eventually provide a black or white answer just in case they may lose face.

I have a reasonable level of knowledge and interest in the club and Tom Scully's status but no inside information. There simply is not enough evidence either way to know what is going to happen and it's quite likely that Tom hasn't decided yet (and I don't have a problem with that). Anyone without specific inside knowledge who has a firm opinion is speculating.

Such as he may have already signed?

There is no need to repeat it so.....read (or re read slowly) post 441 for what I have said and make a hunch from there.... B)

Either way, there are going to be a lot of "told you so's" on this site soon.

Got to give some a cheap thrill....

There simply is not enough evidence either way to know what is going to happen and it's quite likely that Tom hasn't decided yet (and I don't have a problem with that). Anyone without specific inside knowledge who has a firm opinion is speculating.

Correct. Not that speculators will ever admit to that.

Anyone without specific inside knowledge who has a firm opinion is speculating.

Let he who has not speculated cast the first stone.

I have a reasonable level of knowledge and interest in the club and Tom Scully's status but no inside information. There simply is not enough evidence either way to know what is going to happen and it's quite likely that Tom hasn't decided yet (and I don't have a problem with that). Anyone without specific inside knowledge who has a firm opinion is speculating.

Agree, as stated page 4 post #141.

This thread is inane, yet I cannot look away

I detect pontificating waffle from those who are willing to argue black and blue over every shade of grey that can never be proven right or wrong but tread cautiously on everything that will eventually provide a black or white answer just in case they may lose face.

I'm curious as to whether you have any sources close to Tom/GWS/MFC?

this must be the 4th or 5th scully thread that has gone into the hundreds of posts territory

you could say it's an important issue

I cant believe some of the stuff that is allowed to be published..... i would have thought Jon Ralph would know something about what he is writing, as said, draft position, future potential, AND HIS OFFERED SALARY, will dictate his value... i dont see how we can get anything less than a top 10, top 5 pick for a number one drafted player who is sought after, being offered huge money etc

Just as a hypothetical...lets say he has. Develop the case for negligence >

In that case you'll have to go to the MRP. They know all about negligence.

Its just the case that I have made up my mind already. I post my opinion whatever it may be. As far as I am concerned there has not been one positive indicator pointing to Tom staying since the end of last season. And there is nothing to gloat about this if it comes true. And if it makes you feel better just throw your fist at the screen when you read these words.

It's that you've made up your mind already based on idle speculation and call everyone who hasn't come to the same conclusion an ostrich. Even if Tom does leave you won't have been any more right than you would've been if he stayed, because you're drawing a conclusion on facts that don't exist outside your head.