'Scully talks'

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

This is the only sensible Tom Scully scenario i have read...The Broadcast rights are worth SO MUCH, he would have been negligent to sign a contract before then.

Once the players Association have worked out their percentages, a contract will be signed.

Hopefully countersigned J. Stynes.

AGAIN

why has Dane Swan signed a contract full of clauses that ensure he won't miss out in any way due to changes that occur in the near future. What is the difference between Scully and Swan

just answer that question for me please

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Are you serious? What relevance does the fact that he is far bigger target than most that are out of contract? You don't understand.. seriously? I won't expect you to actually clarify your point because I know you don't do that

Why don't you just make a template for your posts that says EVERYTHING'S FINE AT MELBOURNE STOP TALKING ABOUT IT

seriously save your nothing 'arguments', people here actually discuss things

Yes, exactly. What relevance does it hold that Scully is a bigger target?

GWS might want him more, but it doesn't change the fact it is in Scully's own personal best interests to wait.

Do you think he should forsake his best interests for the good of the club? For your own peace of mind?

And to what end? We sign him, we sign him 2 months ago, we sign him at the end of the season - what is the difference in all 3?

Same outcome for the club, except... it only saves weak-minded supporters like yourself from drowning in despair.

Hahah my 'nothing' arguments?

I'd say the same for yours.

Any chance you might bring some logic and reasoning to the table on this topic? On any topic?

[Guest Artie Bucco]

AGAIN

why has Dane Swan signed a contract full of clauses that ensure he won't miss out in any way due to changes that occur in the near future. What is the difference between Scully and Swan

just answer that question for me please

Didn't realise you were aware of the details of Swan's contract.

Care to share them?

Any reason why you pick one single player to compare Scully to, and ignore all the others that remain out of contract?

Any reason you choose a player who is older and more expensive than what GWS would realistically want to acquire?

Edited May 19, 2011 by Artie Bucco

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Yes, exactly. What relevance does it hold that Scully is a bigger target?

GWS might want him more, but it doesn't change the fact it is in Scully's own personal best interests to wait.

Do you think he should forsake his best interests for the good of the club? For your own peace of mind?

And to what end? We sign him, we sign him 2 months ago, we sign him at the end of the season - what is the difference in all 3?

Same outcome for the club, except... it only saves weak-minded supporters like yourself from drowning in despair.

Hahah my 'nothing' arguments?

I'd say the same for yours.

Any chance you might bring some logic and reasoning to the table on this topic? On any topic?

your problem is that you respond to things that the other person hasn't said. All I said was that somebody pointing out 'there's heaps of guys out of contract' means nothing because Scully is the big fish in the eyes of a club who can easily outbid us, so we should be more worried about losing him than other clubs should be about losuing their mediocre players. Surely, surely, surely that is not too difficult to understand.

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

AGAIN

why has Dane Swan signed a contract full of clauses that ensure he won't miss out in any way due to changes that occur in the near future. What is the difference between Scully and Swan

just answer that question for me please

He plays at Collingwood, they have so much money at present it is indeed a Tax Burden. They are happy to Sign all sorts of contracts with incentives.

Tom Scully's circumstances are different, quite simple when you think about it a little.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Didn't realise you were aware of the details of Swan's contract.

Care to share them?

Any reason why you pick one single player to compare Scully to, and ignore all the others that remain out of contract?

Any reason you choose a player who is older and more expensive than what GWS would realistically want to acquire?

ummmm it was in the papers buddy, i'm not surprised you don't know what you're talking about. He is a big fish like Scully, out of contract, rumoured to be on the GWS radar and he signed, PROVING that this 'is in his best interests to wait' argument doesn't stand up. Why can't we have Scully sign a similar contract to the one Swan signed, there are a few extra clauses in it. It's a straightforward and perfectly reasonable question. There may well be a perfectly good reason why it's good for the goose (Swan) but not for the gander (Scully) I would appreciate if someone could point it out

Now please respond only to the things I have written, don't just mention other random things that cross your mind.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

He plays at Collingwood, they have so much money at present it is indeed a Tax Burden. They are happy to Sign all sorts of contracts with incentives.

Tom Scully's circumstances are different, quite simple when you think about it a little.

well gee that is so not the explanation i was looking for

[Guest Artie Bucco]

your problem is that you respond to things that the other person hasn't said. All I said was that somebody pointing out 'there's heaps of guys out of contract' means nothing because Scully is the big fish in the eyes of a club who can easily outbid us, so we should be more worried about losing him than other clubs should be about losuing their mediocre players. Surely, surely, surely that is not too difficult to understand.

Hahahaha duck and weave, twist your argument...

Of course Scully should be a priority for the club to re-sign.

Nobody would dispute that.

You were saying something entirely different.

Go on, weasel out of this some more.

I can't wait.

[daisycutter 29,707]

Didn't realise you were aware of the details of Swan's contract.

Care to share them?

Any reason why you pick one single player to compare Scully to, and ignore all the others that remain out of contract?

Any reason you choose a player who is older and more expensive than what GWS would realistically want to acquire?

Are you serious?

Was Ablett (older and more expensive) not a realistic acquisition for GCS.

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

well gee that is so not the explanation i was looking for

Why should everyone do exactly the same thing at the same time, just because you start Ranting loudly??

This will be Tom's first REAL contract, if he wishes to take his time he is legally entitled to do so.

He is contracted to us till October 2011 at this moment. That gives him 5 months.

[beelzebub 23,382]

The more I ponder this situation the more something isnt quite right. I fullyunderstand the position many take , that he is fully in his rights to haggle for hsi best outcome. No problem with that. However. We are dealing with a specific industry where there are also limited employers, limited pemutations and outcomes. We should also visit the notion that as much does Melbourne owe Scully due consideration to his view, that Scully/Velocity also should respect the position of Melbourne. Personally I dont see this much.

Supoosedly the wanting await the outcome of dispersions is the key to any continuance of contract negotiations between the parties. On the surface this has much merit. But as with much in life there can be some very simple solutions to complex problems. Often though these are driven by the motives of those concerned.

I put it to intersted readers that if, IF the real desire of Scully was to remain a Demon and that the only hurdle was an amount on a forward contract then this is very simply overcome.

It can be done in a number of ways.. As mentioned before , both parties could sign a heads of agreement with it outlining concerns and mutually agreed upon conditions subject to further realisations of amounts forthcoming..

or

Scully/Velocity could sign a years extension with say a notional agreement to pay an amount agrreable , say a decent proportion of an approximation of his forward market value . This might be in th eorder of say 500,000. This is say a non refundable deposit against the actual contract to be determined once all lnumbers are understood. The only expectaion ought to be a get out of jail for MFC should Scully fulfill health /fitness etc. Bit like putting a deposit on a house ( in unconditional sale...etc )

In this manner any specualtion as to destination and allegiance is laid to rest. Scully has money in the bank and room to manouvre. Melbourne can plan, and everyone else can have a beer .

This is not hard.

And yet its not beinig done.

So you have to ask why??

I do

[Guest Artie Bucco]

ummmm it was in the papers buddy, i'm not surprised you don't know what you're talking about. He is a big fish like Scully, out of contract, rumoured to be on the GWS radar and he signed, PROVING that this 'is in his best interests to wait' argument doesn't stand up. Why can't we have Scully sign a similar contract to the one Swan signed, there are a few extra clauses in it. It's a straightforward and perfectly reasonable question. There may well be a perfectly good reason why it's good for the goose (Swan) but not for the gander (Scully) I would appreciate if someone could point it out

Now please respond only to the things I have written, don't just mention other random things that cross your mind.

Well... If it's in the papers, it MUST be true.

Lacking on detail though, were they?

Just as accurate as the recent Morton article, maybe?

Rumoured to be a target of GWS and actually being a target of GWS are 2 different things.

You can safely assume GWS would not want Swan at the price they'd need to pay to pry him away from Collingwood.

Swan is also a very different case in terms of money to be earned, stage of career and career achievements.

Not exactly an apt comparison.

Why? How about, because Swan's value isn't likely to change between now & the end of the season, whereas Scully's value could skyrocket?!

He could play the second half of the season and poll 15 brownlow votes - surely that would be significant change in circumstances which would make it irresponsible to have signed so early in the season? No?

So, if another player does something that is not in his best interests, it makes it a good decision for Scully to follow suit?

Remember, football players are all of varying intelligence and

Now what relevance does all this have, if you were only saying that Scully is a priority to re-sign?

None.

Because you were saying a lot more than that.

NB. All very well for you to make accusations of me "inventing things" you have said, but I'd love for you to actually provide some evidence of it.

Just one example would be nice.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Are you serious?

Was Ablett (older and more expensive) not a realistic acquisition for GCS.

Yeah, I am.

They didn't want Swan, they wanted Pendlebury or Thomas.

Swan would now be a year older, and I don't think he's as good a player as Ablett.

Plus, bringing Swan in would cost more than they'd want to realistically pay, leaving not much in the coffers for anyone else.

[beelzebub 23,382]

Why should everyone do exactly the same thing at the same time, just because you start Ranting loudly??

This will be Tom's first REAL contract, if he wishes to take his time he is legally entitled to do so.

He is contracted to us till October 2011 at this moment. That gives him 5 months.

Yep...and in pracctically any business the parties would want to nut out the way forward long before the due date. Its just common sense, let alone common respect.

Leaving it to the last moment just invites speculation.

[John Crow Batty 8,878]

Why? How about, because Swan's value isn't likely to change between now & the end of the season, whereas Scully's value could skyrocket?!

Skyrocket? Well he better get out quick and start playing awesome football then.

I haven't heard Tom say something comforting like "I will be playing for Melbourne next season. The contract details I'll sort out at the end of the season".

Given all the angst, insecurity, disruption and impoverished position of the club both on and off the field and it passes he does eventually sign with us it will be a tremendously selfish position for him to take. I don't think he is that selfish.

And some of our supporters here seem more interested in weighing Scully's interests over the clubs.

Edited May 19, 2011 by america de cali

[Guest Artie Bucco]

What if there's already plenty of speculation, and you don't really care about more being generated, you are only focused on the contract negotiations?

I'm yet to see a single compelling argument.

I have however come across many people who'd seem to do themselves a serious disservice in any business negotiations.

[H_T 3,049]

Yep...and in pracctically any business the parties would want to nut out the way forward long before the due date. Its just common sense, let alone common respect.

Leaving it to the last moment just invites speculation.

Does the same speculation exist for players Sylvia & Morton, whose contracts also expire at the same date ?

Could it just be that Scully is determined to resume with the senior line up asap fit and put his best foot forward for the remainder of the 2011 season to enhance his value as per agreement between velocity sports management and mfc back in August 2010 ?

Could it just be ?

Could it just be that all is quiet on the issue because they have stated they don't talk contract matters publicly (ref: CS) ?

Could it be that nervous nelly's with beads of sweat are keeping up with their weekly vent of displeasure ?

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Hahahaha duck and weave, twist your argument...

Of course Scully should be a priority for the club to re-sign.

Nobody would dispute that.

You were saying something entirely different.

Go on, weasel out of this some more.

I can't wait.

WTF. I'm not sure i've ever encountered someone with a poorer ability to comprehend and respond appropriately to what someone is actually saying and it's very annoying so i'm not talking to you any more.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

PWNED?

Is that what you kids say?

[The Chazz 4,077]

The more I ponder this situation the more something isnt quite right. I fullyunderstand the position many take , that he is fully in his rights to haggle for hsi best outcome. No problem with that. However. We are dealing with a specific industry where there are also limited employers, limited pemutations and outcomes. We should also visit the notion that as much does Melbourne owe Scully due consideration to his view, that Scully/Velocity also should respect the position of Melbourne. Personally I dont see this much.

Supoosedly the wanting await the outcome of dispersions is the key to any continuance of contract negotiations between the parties. On the surface this has much merit. But as with much in life there can be some very simple solutions to complex problems. Often though these are driven by the motives of those concerned.

I put it to intersted readers that if, IF the real desire of Scully was to remain a Demon and that the only hurdle was an amount on a forward contract then this is very simply overcome.

It can be done in a number of ways.. As mentioned before , both parties could sign a heads of agreement with it outlining concerns and mutually agreed upon conditions subject to further realisations of amounts forthcoming..

or

Scully/Velocity could sign a years extension with say a notional agreement to pay an amount agrreable , say a decent proportion of an approximation of his forward market value . This might be in th eorder of say 500,000. This is say a non refundable deposit against the actual contract to be determined once all lnumbers are understood. The only expectaion ought to be a get out of jail for MFC should Scully fulfill health /fitness etc. Bit like putting a deposit on a house ( in unconditional sale...etc )

In this manner any specualtion as to destination and allegiance is laid to rest. Scully has money in the bank and room to manouvre. Melbourne can plan, and everyone else can have a beer .

This is not hard.

And yet its not beinig done.

So you have to ask why??

I do

So it seems all simple in you mind B59, but what part of "I'll leave my contract negotiations until seasons end" isn't simple for you, and you're not on your Pat Malone. Am I putting my head in the sand? Some would say so, but we have been told a story right from day one (last August), so I have absolutely no reason to accuse any party of not acting appropriately.

It's sad how some people just wish for an issue so they have something to worry about.

The talk of Scully more than likely going to Richmond is some idiotic theory that someone made up, with absolutely no evidience of this even being remotely correct, except those that read that he barracked for Richmond growing up.

Much to the opinion of some, including you I think B59, Scully will play a massive role in our push to premiership glory. If we lost him, it would be a massive setback for our Club, our players, and us as supporters. Scully is no Brock McLean, this kid can and will win many games by his dominance. He is potentially Judd-like, and we all know how Judd can win a game on his own. Take Judd out of Carlton and they struggle, even with Gibbs and Murphy. Saying that Scully would be no great loss, or things like that the team is greater than any individual is nothing other than putting your head in that stuff you find at the beach that burns your feet on hot days. While I agree that 1 man doesn't make a team, in this case, Scully is the self-raising flour in a sponge recipe, without it it's a flop, but yeah, the mixture might taste nice for a while, but it wont win any prizes (far out that's a weird way of looking at it, too much Masterchef!).

I believe he will sign, and that's based on nothing other than what I heard in his press conference. If he leaves, well, he's lied to me, my fellow teammates, and my Club, if that's the case, he will be hated. It will be as painful as some in here saying "I told you so". Whatever, you have no idea and you have a 50% chance of getting it right, good on you genious'!

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Well... If it's in the papers, it MUST be true.

Lacking on detail though, were they?

Just as accurate as the recent Morton article, maybe?

Rumoured to be a target of GWS and actually being a target of GWS are 2 different things.

You can safely assume GWS would not want Swan at the price they'd need to pay to pry him away from Collingwood.

Swan is also a very different case in terms of money to be earned, stage of career and career achievements.

Not exactly an apt comparison.

Why? How about, because Swan's value isn't likely to change between now & the end of the season, whereas Scully's value could skyrocket?!

He could play the second half of the season and poll 15 brownlow votes - surely that would be significant change in circumstances which would make it irresponsible to have signed so early in the season? No?

So, if another player does something that is not in his best interests, it makes it a good decision for Scully to follow suit?

Remember, football players are all of varying intelligence and

Now what relevance does all this have, if you were only saying that Scully is a priority to re-sign?

None.

Because you were saying a lot more than that.

NB. All very well for you to make accusations of me "inventing things" you have said, but I'd love for you to actually provide some evidence of it.

Just one example would be nice.

let's not speculate on whether swan was a GWS target. It is clearly very reasonable to assume that he may have been as was reported. The fact is he was able to work out with his club a way of getting the deal done with specific clauses so that everyone is happy. They did this because they know it is just bad news for the club to have things like this hanging over their heads. We, on the other hand, have not been able to do this and as a result our supporter forum is chockers with these unsettling discussions. I am asking why is it different.

beezlebub is right that there is something a little off about the situation

[beelzebub 23,382]

Does the same speculation exist for players Sylvia & Morton, whose contracts also expire at the same date ?

Could it just be that Scully is determined to resume with the senior line up asap fit and put his best foot forward for the remainder of the 2011 season to enhance his value as per agreement between velocity sports management and mfc back in August 2010 ?

Could it just be ?

Could it just be that all is quiet on the issue because they have stated they don't talk contract matters publicly (ref: CS) ?

Could it be that nervous nelly's with beads of sweat are keeping up with their weekly vent of displeasure ?

could it be your just incapable of reading ?? could it ??

If you read my post throuroughly...and if youre intelligent enough to understand than you would understand he could have his cake and eat it too. That would be just desserts ( pi ) as recognition of his stautus.

Could it be that Sylvia and Morton arent in his position ?? could it

An analogy... a black hole was discovered and understood not by what you could see or understand..but by what you couldnt. I,e the absence of something allowed its understanding. A process of elimination.

Im not nervous at all. In many respects I couldnt care less. He's only one. No one player is a lonely saviour .

With or without him we will ( eventually ) get much better. Arguably nicer with him but if he goes then so be it.

but could it be that what sounds like a duck ..is a duck...could it ??

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

I believe he will sign, and that's based on nothing other than what I heard in his press conference. If he leaves, well, he's lied to me, my fellow teammates, and my Club, if that's the case, he will be hated. It will be as painful as some in here saying "I told you so". Whatever, you have no idea and you have a 50% chance of getting it right, good on you genious'!

disagree with that, if he was to leave there is nothing he has said that can be called an outright lie. He said he hasnt spoken to anyone yet. That doesnt mean he's not going to speak to someone later. That is why i wasnt thrilled with that presser because as KB said staright after 'he didnt totally put it to bed'

[Guest Artie Bucco]

let's not speculate on whether swan was a GWS target. It is clearly very reasonable to assume that he may have been as was reported. The fact is he was able to work out with his club a way of getting the deal done with specific clauses so that everyone is happy. They did this because they know it is just bad news for the club to have things like this hanging over their heads. We, on the other hand, have not been able to do this and as a result our supporter forum is chockers with these unsettling discussions. I am asking why is it different.

beezlebub is right that there is something a little off about the situation

I'd say they've done it because there is no advantage in him holding out until the end of the season.

If anything, Swan's value could only drop. He could have suffered a severe injury or drop in form.

With Scully there is a very clear advantage in holding out until the end of the season.

Right now he is recovering from injury so his value has not increased over this season from last.

When he returns, if he plays as he was expected to before injury, his value should rise significantly.

Does that not sufficiently explain the difference between Scully & Swan in this instance?

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

Yep...and in pracctically any business the parties would want to nut out the way forward long before the due date. Its just common sense, let alone common respect.

Leaving it to the last moment just invites speculation.

But Speculation is just that BB, for Discussion Boards to get all jizzed up about.

It's not every year the Broadcast rights are such a big deal, considering the GFC from 18 months back-The AFL did way better than they expected.

Let the AFLPA sort out their terms and negotiations will begin.

Would you organize & Book a long world trip before you knew your exact Superannuation entitlements upon retirement?

I wouldn't.