On 13/07/2011 at 02:10, RobbieF said:

I said that the Player Manager was the one who is possibly twisting the truth not Tom Scully. Don't you find it a little bit strange that the player manager would all of a sudden go to GWS and say "we believe that you have a bit of interest in Tom so would you like to make an offer"? Isn't that just a little bit strange to you? Where did he get that idea from, the media perhaps, or perhaps it was the other way around and they approached him, if so when?

I just think that it's a bit fanciful to think that there is absolutely no truth to this rumour and if you don't then you are obviously more trusting than I am. If anyone thinks that the player manager coming out and stating that this is the first contact between GWS and him or his organisation and that clears up the matter then they live in La La Land.

Maybe because Scully is the best young talant in the competition and they would be stupid not to want him, have an offer for him, i can name 16 other clubs that would want him.....

  On 13/07/2011 at 06:58, dandeeman said:

"The rules have been tightened up since then so any arrangement entered into with the purpose of keeping someone at a club or getting them to move a club would go into the salary cap"

Okay. Player is then offered a deal which is contingent on them living in Melbourne. Don't mention playing for the MFC at all.

I like this quote by the writer:

As reports emerged on Wednesday that the Demons would offer a third-party deal as part of the package to keep Scully from the clutches of GWS,

If Melbourne offer the deal, it is not a third-party deal is it!

Anderson comments that:

"The rules have been tightened up since then so any arrangement entered into with the purpose of keeping someone at a club or getting them to move a club would go into the salary cap," he said.

Good luck trying to prove that a deal between a business and Scully that is on normal commercial terms has been made "with the purpose of keeping someone at a club". Unless there is some link between the MFC and the arrangement I would think that trying to prove that such a purpose existed is going to be very difficult for the AFL.

Anyway, why does the AFL have to come out and comment on everything Scully-related with continual undertones of him leaving? As others have said it is like they are desperate for him to leave. It's a real us-versus-them and there would be nothing sweeter than for him to stay and we win a flag and stick it right up them.

  On 13/07/2011 at 07:02, Striker475 said:

Okay. Player is then offered a deal which is contingent on them living in Melbourne. Don't mention playing for the MFC at all.

On the right track I reckon. If said player enters into a third party contract with another employer conditional upon playing at said club that would be an issue, if not I see no issue.

  On 13/07/2011 at 07:06, Scoop Junior said:

I like this quote by the writer:

As reports emerged on Wednesday that the Demons would offer a third-party deal as part of the package to keep Scully from the clutches of GWS,

If Melbourne offer the deal, it is not a third-party deal is it!

Anderson comments that:

"The rules have been tightened up since then so any arrangement entered into with the purpose of keeping someone at a club or getting them to move a club would go into the salary cap," he said.

Good luck trying to prove that a deal between a business and Scully that is on normal commercial terms has been made "with the purpose of keeping someone at a club". Unless there is some link between the MFC and the arrangement I would think that trying to prove that such a purpose existed is going to be very difficult for the AFL.

Anyway, why does the AFL have to come out and comment on everything Scully-related with continual undertones of him leaving. As other have said it is like they are desperate for him to leave. It's a real us-versus-them and there would be nothing sweeter than for him to stay and we win a flag and stick it right up them.

and Eddie and all the other Clubs

  On 13/07/2011 at 01:28, Benno said:

lol@ eddie mcguire complaining that two first round draft picks is too much

he wants 4 of them for thomas

yeh it wasn't lost on me, McChin is getting nervous.

  On 13/07/2011 at 00:11, Nasher said:

Exactly, we're back to calling Scully a liar again. The fun never stops.

  On 13/07/2011 at 00:14, rpfc said:

Here we go again.

I recognise that tree...

.....You mean the one with the dead horse under it ?!!!

  On 13/07/2011 at 06:34, P_Man said:

Have there been any reprimands against Carlton if third party deals are suddenly frowned upon?

Make no mistake, they'll do everything they can to ensure he goes to GWS, especially now that it would appear the star player options are becoming fewer and fewer. Why else would GWS be offering this disgusting amount of coin?

So now the AFL has tightened up on the rules. When did they make tighten up the rules and why are they not epplying those tightened rules to Judd's case and including his Visy deal in Carlton's total player payments this year?

If the tightened rules make it impossible for one club to compete with another for the servies of a player then I believe the club offended against by this situation has an actionable case against the AFL.

The AFL and its Commission cannot be above the law.

  On 13/07/2011 at 07:06, Scoop Junior said:

Good luck trying to prove that a deal between a business and Scully that is on normal commercial terms has been made "with the purpose of keeping someone at a club". Unless there is some link between the MFC and the arrangement I would think that trying to prove that such a purpose existed is going to be very difficult for the AFL.

yep they could look at it and even know it... but they cant restrain it. As you suggest if its not Stamped with MFC...then its just happily coincidental...of course

  On 13/07/2011 at 06:34, P_Man said:

Have there been any reprimands against Carlton if third party deals are suddenly frowned upon?

Make no mistake, they'll do everything they can to ensure he goes to GWS, especially now that it would appear the star player options are becoming fewer and fewer. Why else would GWS be offering this disgusting amount of coin?

I love how the AFL make so many retrospective rules. OK for Carlton to cheat Melbourne (quite possibly anyway) out of Judd but not OK for Melbourne to keep Scully on a similar basis. The AFL will bend over backwards to make these new clubs successful, and it stinks. The days of earning a premiership are going out the window and being replaced with silverware that is sold to the highest bidder.

  On 13/07/2011 at 00:34, Range Rover said:

I'd be very surprised if at least some of you are now not starting to at least question your previously held beliefs about this issue.

Honestly RR my opinion of his character has only been reinforced after the machinations over the last couple of days.....

I don't know if he will stay or go, but he has not lied and should be treated with a hell of a lot more respect than he is.

I would love this to be over with him deciding to stay put, we all would, and it is annoying that this won't happen, but we knew that wasn't going to happen.

And now an actual contract has been delivered for the first time reinforcing what Tom told us in March. Even Sheahan said he was starting to feel sheepish about doubting the kid.

Maybe he goes (as is his right) but until we (and everyone else for that matter) know definitely, how about we have some belief in a young man who is still one of our own.

to Mr Anderson BITE ME you clown why wern't you this diligent when mr visy judd came to town you can not have your cake and eat it too if thats the case Mr visy's deal will now be in the salary cap or doesnt that suit the afls agenda.Keep kicking struggling clubs when their down that will even up the competition

Anyhow Lets wait for the kid to tell us his decision

  On 13/07/2011 at 01:10, Range Rover said:

You can't. But I disagree with this notion that journalists get everything wrong.

Research would show that they get a hell of a lot right, a lot of the time.

Sure they get a lot right......

But when they don't have the absolute facts (which I doubt they do) they have to rely on rumour and innuendo just like the rest of us.

And this is where everything gets lost. There are no facts here.

Thus it all comes down to opinion, supposition and educated guess work, and while that shouldn't be dismissed but shouldn't be taken as gospel either.

Look at it this way. Plain English this time - it might hurt.

If you had two franchises ... one was making you money the other was costing you money - Would you treat them both the same.

Plus the supporters of the franchise costing you money, where arrogant pricks and only see things from their side of the fence and want everything to go their way.

What would you do? Let me think about it. Dont be mistaken a clear message is being sent - you have to earn your stripes in this business.

  On 13/07/2011 at 07:59, hangon007 said:

Look at it this way. Plain English this time - it might hurt.

If you had two franchises ... one was making you money the other was costing you money - Would you treat them both the same.

Plus the supporters of the franchise costing you money, where arrogant pricks and only see things from their side of the fence and want everything to go their way.

What would you do? Let me think about it. Dont be mistaken a clear message is being sent - you have to earn your stripes in this business.

That's the thing though - MFC aren't losing the AFL money anymore. Not with a $1.25bn TV rights deal. Divide that by 18 and you get over $60mil a club, all 18 of which are required for the massive deal.

The AFL has to pump $5mil of that back into the MFC as operating costs - so what? They still have $50mil sitting there.

  On 12/07/2011 at 23:59, Range Rover said:

From the Ox's Twitter ...

gnaight ben davids @TheOx05 obviously you were totally wrong on the scully situation as he has only just gotten the offer. Do the club a favor and shut up!

TheOx05 David Schwarz @ @gnaight don't be so naive he got the offer last October.

You must be absolutely joking if you think the GWS are only now making contact with players agents and throwing numbers about. They would have started prior to last years contracts period to get into players heads before they signed long contract terms.

If you think this little charade now is the the first contact, your being naive or trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes for some reason.

Gws decided to put the word out months ago, that they would accept mature players, spread out over this year and next year, seemingly as the TV Rights deal was getting in the way of signing them @ that time... earlier this year.

The Ox is trying to get to the truth. But it's not being offered up. And probably will never be.

  On 13/07/2011 at 05:40, Demonator said:

I don't think it will/can happen as I think Adrian Anderson said today that any third party arrangement will need to be included as part of the salary cap.

They're really trying to make it easy for him to be 'White Anted'.

But @ least if any other clubs had eyes for a 3 way deal involving Tom, then the compensation makes that a tougher arrangement. But it seems Anderson is trying to clear a pathway to GWS to make it easier for them,, and harder for us and others.

  On 13/07/2011 at 08:11, dee-luded said:

You must be absolutely joking if you think the GWS are only now making contact with players agents and throwing numbers about.

Velocity advised Melbourne in writing in August 2010 they were going to put off Scully's contract negotiations until after the 2011 season.

I'll give you London to a brick GWS first approached Velocity in or before August last year.

  On 13/07/2011 at 04:50, Mono said:

Why else delay a decision then; he has the 2 offers now. (Unless of course he wants to talk to other clubs at years end? )

Edit:

Hypothetical: Thomas accepts GWS offer, but via a trade (rather than out of contract deal). The filth get pick 1 from GWS and have heaps of space in salary cap. They trade for Scully with pick 1. (MFC cannot say no.)

Just a thought.

Why would GWS give up pick one for Thomas when they can get him for nothing? Makes no sense. I think this thread is turning people mad.

  On 13/07/2011 at 06:59, nutbean said:

No its not a dangerous path to take. He is not deciding who the coach should be - he may be deciding how it affects him.

As a hypothetical - if he is weighing up the value of the non financials and it is a line ball decision if he wants to leave for the bigger buck or not - do you not think it might add a lot more weight to the decision to stay if he knows that a Malthouse is coming who is a premiership coach - or conversely, he has so much love and respect for Bails that he will leave if he is axed. He may be in love with notion of being coached by Sheeds ( OMG !!!)

It is no secret that Bails is also out of contract and will be reviewed at seasons end - I would suggest that TS would factor it into his decision making.

Seems like a fairly Gen-Y perspective to me, to be honest. If true, it's all about how it affects him. I want players with heart - players who desperately want to play for this club - players who put club and team interests ahead of self.

As an aside, top players on $600K plus a year should be able to influence the destiny of a club without waiting to see who the head coach is.

Two first round draft picks, Colin Sylvia in our leadership group in 2012 and not blowing our entire salary cap on a 20 year old - the longer this saga goes on, the more I'm starting to think I might actually be happy with that outcome.

After all, I don't know how much Geelong's missing Ablett in 2011 ...

  On 13/07/2011 at 08:59, Ron Burgundy said:

Seems like a fairly Gen-Y perspective to me, to be honest. If true, it's all about how it affects him. I want players with heart - players who desperately want to play for this club - players who put club and team interests ahead of self.

As an aside, top players on $600K plus a year should be able to influence the destiny of a club without waiting to see who the head coach is.

Two first round draft picks, Colin Sylvia in our leadership group in 2012 and not blowing our entire salary cap on a 20 year old - the longer this saga goes on, the more I'm starting to think I might actually be happy with that outcome.

add in Viney as a further sweetener possibly. It bemuses me just how much curry is given to the notion we're dead without this kid ( Scully ).. last time i looked 18 players took to the field and yes its better when a few are guns to inpsire others but it cant ever be about just one.

Id be getting a little tired of it all if I were any of the other more than decent Melbourne players ( young ). I sincerely hope the guy decides to join the ride that is the Dees to enjoy over the coming journey but its not all over red rover if he goes. I think the Melbourne offer is decent..and reasonable ..all things considered. If some 3rd party ex gratia funds just happen to fall into his lap then all well and good but surely we have to stop short of prostrating before this kid.

On this note of 'extras' I fervently hope Scully isnt the only beneficiary of such 'genorisity' and that other young Dees are rewarded too.

  On 13/07/2011 at 07:33, Samsara said:

I love how the AFL make so many retrospective rules. OK for Carlton to cheat Melbourne (quite possibly anyway) out of Judd but not OK for Melbourne to keep Scully on a similar basis. The AFL will bend over backwards to make these new clubs successful, and it stinks. The days of earning a premiership are going out the window and being replaced with silverware that is sold to the highest bidder.

Those days have been gone for a while...Gold coast and GWS premiership cups have already been engraved...

  On 13/07/2011 at 08:26, Tony Tea said:

Velocity advised Melbourne in writing in August 2010 they were going to put off Scully's contract negotiations until after the 2011 season.

I'll give you London to a brick GWS first approached Velocity in or before August last year.

EXactly! If they don't get in early enough, they stand a big chance of missing their targets.

State the intentions early, forecasting what they want, and that they'll pay big to get it done. It's not rocket science, let alone quantum physics. And it's not an auction. Unless it's a silent auction.

The revelations of the past 24 hours have severely damaged the credibility of a number of commentators in the media. The Ox, Eddie and Mark Stevens are three of the more prominent persons who stuck out their necks making claims that they had it on good authority that Scully to GWS was a done deal. It appears now that it is not.

It's of interest that having had their credibility smashed by the Scully situation, McChins and Stevens are now seeking to minimise any claim Melbourne might have for compensation if Scully does decide to go to GWS. Both in unison acting as spoilers. They seem to be acting as proxies for someone.

Anyone care to guess who?

  On 13/07/2011 at 10:25, Whispering_Jack said:

The revelations of the past 24 hours have severely damaged the credibility of a number of commentators in the media. The Ox, Eddie and Mark Stevens are three of the more prominent persons who stuck out their necks making claims that they had it on good authority that Scully to GWS was a done deal. It appears now that it is not.

It's of interest that having had their credibility smashed by the Scully situation, McChins and Stevens are now seeking to minimise any claim Melbourne might have for compensation if Scully does decide to go to GWS. Both in unison acting as spoilers. They seem to be acting as proxies for someone.

Anyone care to guess who?

Dunno who Stevens might be acting for, but he is on the record saying Melbourne should receive fair compensation:

  Quote

Melbourne deserve fair compensation if Tom Scully leaves

If he was worth a No.1 pick then, he is certainly worth a No.1 pick now.

The solution is simple: If Scully goes, give Melbourne the top pick in the 2012 draft, once GWS is done with raiding all the best talent.

It is the only way the league can get close to fairly compensating the Dees.

Has he been backing away from that opinion?