Crap. They are your words not mine. Where have I ever said that.

Again you try to put words in my mouth. Again you are believing what you want to believe.

That's exactly what you said above in your quotes - no surprise you are trying to back away from such a scurrilous and unfounded rumour now that I have called you on it. You're free to come up with some convoluted explanation of what you really meant or hide behind some mysterious gobbledegook. But Occam's Razor - every reasonable reader on this site knows what you said.

Still can't answer my questions, can you?!

Having read all of this fluff I'm not sure there is an actual answer....

Just a whole lot of hyperbole and innuendo.

Haas Tom Signed Yet? That is all i want to know.....YES or NO.

Haas Tom Signed Yet? That is all i want to know.....YES or NO.

Well no, but we're "optimistic" !!!

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by QueenC

That's exactly what you said above in your quotes - no surprise you are trying to back away from such a scurrilous and unfounded rumour now that I have called you on it. You're free to come up with some convoluted explanation of what you really meant or hide behind some mysterious gobbledegook. But Occam's Razor - every reasonable reader on this site knows what you said.

I've never backed away from 1 word I've said.

You are letting your emotions get carried away with your thinking process and trying to read into the conversation "scurrilous" thoughts ... as I said people will believe what the want to believe.

"every reasonable reader on this site knows what you said." Every reasonable reader on the site might believe in many things ... but ... that never makes the majority always right. Many times the "majority" can only see one side of the discussion.

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by hangon007

Well no, but we're "optimistic" !!!

Thanks, i shall return here in a few days with the same question, it is all i am interested in.

Pages & Pages of people venting is such a waste of time.

Wolmother's post aside.

I've never backed away from 1 word I've said.

Personally, I would be more concerned about the Tigers. Or the possibility the GWS could doing a deal with the Tigers.

You cant seriously suggest if all else fails we would let a number 1 draft pick walk for nothing!!!!

Just read that Age article and I don't understand this comment from Lynch:

"What we’ve said for the past 12 months now is that he’d assess the situation at the end of his term. Obviously GWS is out there and we’ve said to GWS, ‘We’re not speaking to you until the end of the season as well’…"

I thought GWS had not made an approach and that his management had not spoken to GWS. If that's true, then I'm struggling to reconcile that with Lynch's comments above. Lynch's comments appear to suggest that either GWS has asked them about Scully and the response was as above or that his management approached GWS and told them that they won't speak until the end of the year.

I believe that an offer has not been made, but in regards to there not being an approach from, or not having spoken to, GWS, Lynch's comments seem quite confusing.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/117246/default.aspx

Atleast they are trying to give the members something

Just read that Age article and I don't understand this comment from Lynch:

"What we’ve said for the past 12 months now is that he’d assess the situation at the end of his term. Obviously GWS is out there and we’ve said to GWS, ‘We’re not speaking to you until the end of the season as well’…"

I thought GWS had not made an approach and that his management had not spoken to GWS. If that's true, then I'm struggling to reconcile that with Lynch's comments above. Lynch's comments appear to suggest that either GWS has asked them about Scully and the response was as above or that his management approached GWS and told them that they won't speak until the end of the year.

I believe that an offer has not been made, but in regards to there not being an approach from, or not having spoken to, GWS, Lynch's comments seem quite confusing.

Lynch is talking out of his arze; I wouldn't listen to a word he says or gain some sort of comfort from what he said last night. AS IF they would wait until the end of the year to just look at offers - that is just absolute 100% BS if you ask me. You would ALWAYS at least look at offers to see how the market values your client, to suggest otherwise is just complete and utter rubbish to appease the MFC faithful.

He is 100% lying in my opinion.

Just read that Age article and I don't understand this comment from Lynch:

"What we’ve said for the past 12 months now is that he’d assess the situation at the end of his term. Obviously GWS is out there and we’ve said to GWS, ‘We’re not speaking to you until the end of the season as well’…"

I thought GWS had not made an approach and that his management had not spoken to GWS. If that's true, then I'm struggling to reconcile that with Lynch's comments above. Lynch's comments appear to suggest that either GWS has asked them about Scully and the response was as above or that his management approached GWS and told them that they won't speak until the end of the year.

I believe that an offer has not been made, but in regards to there not being an approach from, or not having spoken to, GWS, Lynch's comments seem quite confusing.

So if GWS sends an e-mail, fax, letter, phone call or bumps into Lynch with an aside that "we might be interested in Scully" (aren't "enquiries" made all the time?), what is Lynch supposed to say? He seems to have replied, correctly, with "thanks, but no thanks ... we're not speaking contractual details with anyone, not even Melbourne, until the season is over".

That is not "speaking to GWS" even in the vaguest contractual sense ... a sense that many seem to think has taken place and which Scully rightly denies having occurred.

"Speaking with GWS" in this case implies holding discussions over the possibility of Scully finding a way to get to the club and negotiating contract terms if he were to go.

Lynch is clearly indicating that discussions of this nature have not been held, and will not be held until the end of the season, if at all.

Fairly simple.

oh, and if you listen to the interview backwards, Lynch said "hangon007 knows all..."

oh, and if you listen to the interview backwards, Lynch said "hangon007 knows all..."

And he said Paul is dead ( i think this joke was done in post 1234 on the last thread - but it was worth regurgitating)

Just read that Age article and I don't understand this comment from Lynch:

"What we've said for the past 12 months now is that he'd assess the situation at the end of his term. Obviously GWS is out there and we've said to GWS, 'We're not speaking to you until the end of the season as well'…"

I thought GWS had not made an approach and that his management had not spoken to GWS. If that's true, then I'm struggling to reconcile that with Lynch's comments above. Lynch's comments appear to suggest that either GWS has asked them about Scully and the response was as above or that his management approached GWS and told them that they won't speak until the end of the year.

I believe that an offer has not been made, but in regards to there not being an approach from, or not having spoken to, GWS, Lynch's comments seem quite confusing.

Phone rings, "Hi Alistair it's Rob Poachley from GWS here, we want to discuss young Tom Scully"

Does Lynch

a) Quickly hang up phone

B) State that the instructions from his client is to consider his contractual future at the end of the season.

c) Stick his fingers in his ears and twirl around yelling "we're not listening"

Just read that Age article and I don't understand this comment from Lynch:

"What we’ve said for the past 12 months now is that he’d assess the situation at the end of his term. Obviously GWS is out there and we’ve said to GWS, ‘We’re not speaking to you until the end of the season as well’…"

I thought GWS had not made an approach and that his management had not spoken to GWS. If that's true, then I'm struggling to reconcile that with Lynch's comments above. Lynch's comments appear to suggest that either GWS has asked them about Scully and the response was as above or that his management approached GWS and told them that they won't speak until the end of the year.

I believe that an offer has not been made, but in regards to there not being an approach from, or not having spoken to, GWS, Lynch's comments seem quite confusing.

I would have thought ALL trading mangers worth their salt would have got "in touch" with Lynch regarding ALL his players both in or out of contract.

Questions is if they have the real desire ways and means to get the job done. Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.

You just never no what you might turn up.

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by hangon007

You just never no what you might turn up.

But wait - dont answer - if you order your scully today we'll throw in 6 free steak knives

oh, and if you listen to the interview backwards, Lynch said "hangon007 knows all..."

I actually did laugh out loud

"Speaking with GWS" in this case implies holding discussions over the possibility of Scully finding a way to get to the club and negotiating contract terms if he were to go.

Disagree Artie. That is more than speaking with GWS. That is negotiating a potential deal, albeit at a preliminary stage. When Scully had his press conference he denied that GWS had approached his management or spoke with his management at that point in time. Lynch's comments (if true) show that there has since been an approach or that the management have since spoken to GWS.

For what it's worth, I believe Scully. I believe what he said was true.

Therefore, it appears that GWS made a brief enquiry to his management in the period after his press conference (i.e. between March and now), which means that Scully's and Lynch's comments are true.

What Scully said was that there was no contact at all as at the time of his press conference (in March). What Lynch has implied is that there was at least minimal contact. So for both comments to be true, this minimal contact between Lynch and GWS must have occurred post-Scully's press conference.

I am not trying to blow things out of proportion, as I know Lynch's comments are pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things. It really isn't material to the whole issue but I just found Lynch's comments interesting because prior to this there was no concession from Lynch or the management group that GWS had, at the least, approached them.

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by Scoop Junior

I would have thought ALL trading mangers worth their salt would have got "in touch" with Lynch regarding ALL his players both in or out of contract.

Not for the first time you would have thought wrong - there's 640 listed AFL players in and out of contract not currently on the MFC list, there is no way that Tim Harrington has contacted their player managers and inquired about every one of those 640 players.

Not for the first time you would have thought wrong - there's 640 listed AFL players in and out of contract not currently on the MFC list, there is no way that Tim Harrington has contacted their player managers and inquired about every one of those 640 players.

hehehe .... B) This is a business not a kindergarden.

PS But at last we have found your problem. Attack me all you want.

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by hangon007

This is a public forum so, within reason, one can say anything.

With this in mind - rpfc is putting his guarantee on this - HO007 isn't worth reading when it comes to the Tom Scully issue.

This is a public forum so, within reason, one can say anything.

With this in mind - rpfc is putting his guarantee on this - HO007 isn't worth reading when it comes to the Tom Scully issue.

He's reaching with that avatar.

"Speaking with GWS" in this case implies holding discussions over the possibility of Scully finding a way to get to the club and negotiating contract terms if he were to go.

Disagree Artie. That is more than speaking with GWS. That is negotiating a potential deal, albeit at a preliminary stage. When Scully had his press conference he denied that GWS had approached his management or spoke with his management at that point in time. Lynch's comments (if true) show that there has since been an approach or that the management have since spoken to GWS.

For what it's worth, I believe Scully. I believe what he said was true.

Therefore, it appears that GWS made a brief enquiry to his management in the period after his press conference (i.e. between March and now), which means that Scully's and Lynch's comments are true.

What Scully said was that there was no contact at all as at the time of his press conference (in March). What Lynch has implied is that there was at least minimal contact. So for both comments to be true, this minimal contact between Lynch and GWS must have occurred post-Scully's press conference.

I am not trying to blow things out of proportion, as I know Lynch's comments are pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things. It really isn't material to the whole issue but I just found Lynch's comments interesting because prior to this there was no concession from Lynch or the management group that GWS had, at the least, approached them.

You really are looking at the words "speaking" in far to literal a meaning

Yes GWS has probably inquired regarding scully, but lynch would have said we cant talk about it at this stage my client is not interested until POST-SEASON, Tom has maintained this stance and it would be his manager going against his clients will to do otherwise

Yes contact or "speaking" may have occurred but in very little detail if any, contracts wouldnt have been discussed at this stage is what he is trying to express and people seem to want to miss this point

Haas Tom Signed Yet? That is all i want to know.....YES or NO.

In order to write a yes no question one must first ask where Hugh is. Who....hugh.....who.....hugh.

Back to the tropic.

I think that's a fair point Jordie_Tackles.

Lynch probably shouldn't have mentioned it, but in the end there is no real harm done and it doesn't give us an indication one way or the other.