this thread is becoming boring, he's gone, just let him go. We've got plenty of other good young players anyway, also we will get an early draft pick

Rys Palmer and Callan Ward are "Gone" aswell. Daisy's offer has just been increased.

All based on the theory we didn't want another Brisbane Bears/ Brisbane Lions fiasco.

Agreed that the clubs agreed to it etc etc.. but there's such a massive gap between what the Bears were given and what GCS/GWS are getting that it's a massive overcorrection of what

Rules for the Bears were that you had to offer them any three players you liked as long as they'd played one senior match or a reserves final. Of course they weren't going to get anywhere under that ridiculous system (incidentally one D. Bailey was offered to the Bears but they said no!) but it's light years away from

I'd have preferred them to give them the draft picks and if they must the salary cap exemptions but do an expansion draft a'la US Sports. Each club protects 25 players and the new team can draft up to two from each club. Then they'll get a decent spread of experienced players (with the option to pick some young kids from other clubs who aren't getting a game) without having to go through all this toss - and it would make them more competitive straight off the bat, which in the case of GWS will help them get a crowd of more than 50.

I wasn't talking about compensation but about the farcical situation of having your priority draft pick ripped off you two years after you called his name out on draft night.

Not enough was done.

RR, I too will be extremely disappointed/angry if we lose Scully. But, the harsh reality is that we also have to take some responsibility for having used our number one draft pick on him if he agrees to go to GWS for the cash.

We were handed the first two picks of the entire draft. Self evidently, we could've selected anyone. This was simply a massive opportunity for this club, and not one to waste. The AFL didn't dictate to us who we should select - it was 100% our decision.

Further, all clubs were well aware of the GC/GWS threat - probably most of all, us. I expect that's why we stitched up Trengove and Tapscott so soon into their first season.

Presumably the club also looked at other talented kids in connection with these picks (eg, Martin, Rohan, Melksham, Moore (who apparently really wanted to come to the Dees), Talia, Menzel etc).

We did our DD - and the rest is history.

Word has it, Brad Scott directly (almost aggressively) asks each prospective draftee if they want to play at the Roos. If he sees any doubt, he doesn't pick them - no matter how good they are. He only wants players who desperately want to play for the club, and in turn who will bleed for the guernsey.

Perhaps (and, clearly, I don't know this) we didn't interrogate Scully's desire to play for the club sufficiently. I suppose we'll know more come October. I think it's interesting that Scully's best mate, Ryan Bastinac, recently stated "My future is here. I'm happy at North. I'm loving every minute of it."

Bastinac then speculated "Scully knows where his future lies. He's just not saying it." Now if that is actually the case, on any construction that's a very destabilising position for our first draft pick to take in the current circumstances. Article attached below, fyi.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/afl/tom-scullys-future-a-secret-ryan-bastinac/story-e6frexx0-1226076710819

Rys Palmer and Callan Ward are "Gone" aswell. Daisy's offer has just been increased.

I categorically state that neither I nor my management have had contract discussions nor has any type of agreement been signed

Of this I am 98% certain

I know I banned myself from this thread but when it gets personal I just have to defend myself

back to my self banishment and I'd just like to state that I always wanted to be a one forum poster

RR, I too will be extremely disappointed/angry if we lose Scully. But, the harsh reality is that we also have to take some responsibility for having used our number draft pick on him if he agrees to go to GWS for the cash.

We were handed the first two picks of the entire draft. Self evidently, we could've selected anyone. This was simply a massive opportunity for this club, and not one to waste. The AFL didn't dictate to us who we should select - it was 100% our decision.

I agree with this statement. I know most say you cant fault a kid for taking the money yet we hear that Martin signs halfway through his first year because Richmond is where he wants to be. We see Trengove and Tapscott extend their deals almost before the season starts. We state that we look at character of player yet if a 2nd year player accepts ridiculous money that he does not deserve what did we miss? Do we not look at their motivations for playing footy.

Secondly if we do lose Scully we must seriously assess our club and culture.If Scully was at Carlton or Collingwood would he leave or is there a failure of the club that means the best do not want to wear the red and blue?

I agree with this statement. I know most say you cant fault a kid for taking the money yet we hear that Martin signs halfway through his first year because Richmond is where he wants to be. We see Trengove and Tapscott extend their deals almost before the season starts. We state that we look at character of player yet if a 2nd year player accepts ridiculous money that he does not deserve what did we miss? Do we not look at their motivations for playing footy.

Is this a real argument? I'm usually a fan of yours BRFE so I'm just hoping your post is taking the piss.

Scully pre- and post- draft was said to be one of the most dedicated players seen at junior level. Wanting to play for coin just does not drive that kind of dedication, it has to be internal. And how do you propose we "look at their motivations" for playing footy? No kid is ever going to say "yeah, I'm really just in it for the coin" and I can't see any other way other than asking the question.

The notion that it's our fault because we chose Scully over Martin (or whoever) in the first place is up there with the biggest load of nonsense I've read in this whole Scully saga and that takes some doing.

And once more, we're running with the assumption that Scully is going to take the money and run and doesn't want to be at Melbourne. Yet another hanging before the trial.

I have it on good authority that scully is gone, my sources are impeccable, and Im willing to name my source, mark stevens!!

Never thought I would say this, but I agree with nearly everything HO007 said on page 27 of this thread.

He isn't gone, and we shouldn't think that.

Fight for proper compensation in the hypothetical but expect him to sign in Sept/Oct.

The reason I have a problem with Mark Stevens and David Schwarz telling me he is gone is that their sources are usually other journos and people in the industry who claim what they don't know or believe those they shouldn't.

Why? Because they like to be the news, they like to 'know things,' whether they know them or not - and they have the added bonus of dealing with no repercussions when they are wrong.

Never thought I would say this, but I agree with nearly everything HO007 said on page 27 of this thread.

He isn't gone, and we shouldn't think that.

Fight for proper compensation in the hypothetical but expect him to sign in Sept/Oct.

The reason I have a problem with Mark Stevens and David Schwarz telling me he is gone is that their sources are usually other journos and people in the industry who claim what they don't know or believe those they shouldn't.

Why? Because they like to be the news, they like to 'know things,' whether they know them or not - and they have the added bonus of dealing with no repercussions when they are wrong.

Rp ... I know how passionate you are about this topic but do you really think either of those two, especially Mark Stevens yesterday on Triple M, would say they are certain based on the say-so of another journo?

The repercussion if they are wrong is that their word becomes less than mud. Only an outright fool would do that and I personally don't think either of these fellows are that.

The more likely situation is that they have been told, off the record, what the truth is by sources who they implicitly trust.

It will all come out in due course.

The sources for most of the jurnos are player managers who are dealing with GWS. GWS are giving the impression they have Scully over the line, hopefully they're just over confident. I'm not realy sure what to believe and like most of us we just hope he stays.

Secondly if we do lose Scully we must seriously assess our club and culture.If Scully was at Carlton or Collingwood would he leave or is there a failure of the club that means the best do not want to wear the red and blue?

I don't agree with this at all. Like I said earlier- look at Jordie McKenzie, who refused a long-term deal with the Crows to be placed on their senior list whilst still on our rookie list. Chippa signed a 4-year deal. Like you said, Tappy and Trengove signed 3-year deals. Jack Watts signed for three. TS is the exception to the rule here.

I think that if TS were to leave because he wasn't happy with the club, then he is a seriously misguided kid. The club now has fantastic facilities, a brilliant young list that will be superb in the not-too-distant future, a growing following and profile and, most importantly, plays the equal most games of any club at the MCG each year. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing the club would envy that the likes of Carlton and Collingwood have is a larger following. If TS so desires a larger following, then he sure as sh*t wouldn't be going to GWS.

I hate this talk about 'culture'- both Carlton and Collingwood 'bottomed out' in order to scrape the barrel for the best young kids in the nation by gaining high draft picks. No one queries their cultures, and nor will anybody query ours when our kids have had time to develop and we move up the ladder. Anybody buying into this 'culture' bullsh*t has been buying too much into the quasi-prophetic ramblings of men like Mark Robinson and Jon Ralph. It's a load of crap.

Rp ... I know how passionate you are about this topic but do you really think either of those two, especially Mark Stevens yesterday on Triple M, would say they are certain based on the say-so of another journo?

The repercussion if they are wrong is that their word becomes less than mud. Only an outright fool would do that and I personally don't think either of these fellows are that.

The more likely situation is that they have been told, off the record, what the truth is by sources who they implicitly trust.

It will all come out in due course.

I don't get there from here, I'm sorry.

These journos are just as unimpressive as they seem.

There are more footy journos than footy players now and they all want to stand out.

How do they do that? By being the one in the know. They love it.

I don't think his sources would be as impeccable as he says they are.

I will believe Tom has lied when the club doesn't pick him anymore and says why.

Until then, I will trust an impressive 19 year old before I will trust rumour.

I don't get there from here, I'm sorry.

These journos are just as unimpressive as they seem.

There are more footy journos than footy players now and they all want to stand out.

How do they do that? By being the one in the know. They love it.

I don't think his sources would be as impeccable as he says they are.

I will believe Tom has lied when the club doesn't pick him anymore and says why.

Until then, I will trust an impressive 19 year old before I will trust rumour.

That's fine and your opinion's valid. But I think you're massively overstating the highlighted portion of your argument.

Wanting to stand-out is one thing. Risking sullying your own name in order to do so is quite another.

Until then, I will trust an impressive 19 year old before I will trust rumour.

Me too, but with so many rumours and so many people coming out and saying it's a done deal, it's starting to feel like 'where there's smoke there's fire'

God i hope i'm wrong

Is this a real argument? I'm usually a fan of yours BRFE so I'm just hoping your post is taking the [censored].

Scully pre- and post- draft was said to be one of the most dedicated players seen at junior level. Wanting to play for coin just does not drive that kind of dedication, it has to be internal. And how do you propose we "look at their motivations" for playing footy? No kid is ever going to say "yeah, I'm really just in it for the coin" and I can't see any other way other than asking the question.

No I am actually serious about this - and playing this hypothetical on if he goes (not assuming he is gone). The current environment with the money on offer is starting to blur the potential motivators of kids just wanting to play the game they love. I am not saying it is our fault I am saying are there signs to identify a players motivations. If so how much credence do you put in them? What is the difference to a player like Scully who under this hypothetical leaves and the examples of Martin, Trengove and Tapscott. I am just wondering how much emphasis now needs to start being put on this.

Second point though if he does go there needs to be a serious assessment on why he left as I could not see this playing out at any of the big 4 clubs.

That's fine and your opinion's valid. But I think you're massively overstating the highlighted portion of your argument.

Wanting to stand-out is one thing. Risking sullying your own name in order to do so is quite another.

Thats the thing, they dont really risk anything. If scully stays they simply say their sources were wrong or he had a change of heart.

If you want a good gauge of the ethical conduct in which journalists exhibit simply cast your attention to the UK at the moment.

What is the difference to a player like Scully who under this hypothetical leaves and the examples of Martin, Trengove and Tapscott.

Trengove and Tapscott haven't been exposed to GC or GWS - yet. They signed 3 year deals when they were drafted, they would've signed 2 years anyway and skipped GC. Next year they'll be exposed to GWS if we don't lose an uncontracted player to them this year. It's nonsense to suggest they're more "loyal" than Scully. Let's see what happens next year.

Martin did sign with Richmond instead of GWS so he is a better example but it's not clear what went on behind the scenes - I've heard that the AFL told GWS to lay off and paved the path for the Tigers. Why would they do this for Richmond and not follow suit for Melbourne and Scully? I think it's got everything to do with Vlad being forced to say we didn't tank.

i am 99.6% sure that his disposal isn't good enough for the massive $$$ being touted. there will already be enough pressure on our list in 2012 from other raiders.

we would be better to cut our losses:

Battle at GWS Park:

Starring: Tom as The Young Buffalo

Gubby Allen and Kevin Sheedy as the nasty lions

Big Jim Stynes as the Buffalo King

MFC as the herd of buffalos

AFL money men as the two evil crocodiles

Plot: Can Big Jim inflict mortal damage on the nasty lions as they seek to lure our tom away into the clutches of the GWS? Has Tom's dodgy knee been injured beyond repair by the AFL money men?

Will there be replacement baby buffalos in the event our tom doesn't make it?

HaHa Great video

Wow, Nearly 1100 posts..

Get a grip we will get an answer in 8 weeks time.

Let the kid play footy and if Melbourne make the finals it's going to be hard for him to leave. One champion player doesn't make a champion team... The football club will do what it can, if they don't get his signature so be it the club is bigger then one person, it might also give the boys a bit of ammunition for next year.. If hes going, its to a club that we shouldn't have any trouble with for the next 3-5years. Hopefully when we are having a crack at the premiership we can grab one if their potential stars that's homesick.

Trying not to post in here desperately, but just to clarify...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/regret-at-clubs-signing-off-on-list-allowances-for-expansion-clubs/story-e6frf9jf-1226085179344

With all due respect "the proposal" would never have got up. The AFL & the other clubs then have an even bigger problem.

Why pick a arbitrary 2 year period, why not 3 year, why not 4 years .... you have to have a ruling that is fair to all. You can draw a line that favours one club and not another. Which, sadly on an MFC forum few will understand & agree with.

However, it does lead into another new thread that I should start ... Why Do We Need GC17 & GWS

Martin did sign with Richmond instead of GWS so he is a better example but it's not clear what went on behind the scenes - I've heard that the AFL told GWS to lay off and paved the path for the Tigers. Why would they do this for Richmond and not follow suit for Melbourne and Scully? I think it's got everything to do with Vlad being forced to say we didn't tank.

With all due respect the Tigers tanked too ... just a different year and got out tanked by the masters in tanking ... Carlton. So I'm not sure its fair to blame AD.

Surely you have to give credit where credit is due. They got their young kids ie Martin to sign.

Why would they do this for Richmond and not follow suit for Melbourne and Scully? I think it's got everything to do with Vlad being forced to say we didn't tank.

wow

i agree that he's gone, he's been gone a while. i agree with a lot of the comments on here, why doesn't he show the club and its fans some respect and come out with it. enough people are saying in the high 99% that he's gone, a lot of high profile people say it, they all cant be lying.

the thing that kills me is that we probably wont get much if anything for him, i blame the AFL and especially Demetriou for this, there agenda is clear, make GC and GWS instant success and F%&K the rest of us. Melbourne didn't do enough either in my opinion. its time to move on, Sam Blease will probably be better anyway!!!

Go Dees

Great pick up Jerry!