On 14/07/2011 at 13:15, milpod said:

Anyone care to give me the top 5 reasons why Scully is worth this money/angst?

Pretty sure I haven't seen it yet.MFC supporters are crystal balling he may be Judd like?We are going to offer someone with 30 games $500,000+ per year.FOR WHAT?

Let him go,save the dollars for those who will make a difference and actually deserve the money.

1. Elite running capacity

2. What he demands of himself and his team mates

3. Elite Hands

4. He is the best player under 22 on our list

5. Nobody else deserves this money ahead of him atm who isnt or wont get it because he is

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:33, Range Rover said:

He said that GWS had lodged the signed contracts of 3, possibly 4 uncontracted players from other clubs with the AFL towards the end of last season.

It is Barrett's understanding (and David Schwarz's and others) that one of these players is Tom Scully.

The issue here is "3 possibly 4". So convoluted, and noncommittal. If he "knows" then what is with the possibly? More rubbish I'm afraid.

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:34, Jordie_tackles said:

1. Elite running capacity

2. What he demands of himself and his team mates

3. Elite Hands

4. He is the best player under 22 on our list

5. Nobody else deserves this money ahead of him atm who isnt or wont get it because he is

I would remove Elite from #3, not there yet. And for #5, you really don't think Trenners is ahead of Scully atm?

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:36, Kento80 said:

The issue here is "3 possibly 4". So convoluted, and noncommittal. If he "knows" then what is with the possibly? More rubbish I'm afraid.

That's not the issue at all and there's nothing convoluted about his view.

Whether its three or four, he believes Tom is one of them.

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:33, Range Rover said:

He said that GWS had lodged the signed contracts of 3, possibly 4 uncontracted players from other clubs with the AFL towards the end of last season.

It is Barrett's understanding (and David Schwarz's and others) that one of these players is Tom Scully.

Scully was contracted to MFC at the time (still is), so can one of them be him? Do the rules allow contracted players to sign?

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:38, Range Rover said:

That's not the issue at all and there's nothing convoluted about his view.

Whether its three or four, he believes Tom is one of them.

Doesn't this make it farcical that Vlad knows nothing about GWS contracts

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:40, Thomo said:

Scully was contracted to MFC at the time (still is), so can one of them be him? Do the rules allow contracted players to sign?

I don't know about the ins and outs of the contractual rules Thomo. I think this has been discussed quite a bit earlier in this thread, though. Perhaps someone else can shed light ...

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:38, Range Rover said:

That's not the issue at all and there's nothing convoluted about his view.

Whether its three or four, he believes Tom is one of them.

Yes, exactly. Most of the merry-go-round conversations on this thread are based around semantics. Use of words such as "believe", "possibly", "word is" etc do not go any distance at all to creating a picture of fact because they are not words designed to portray fact, only conjecture. In legal terms circumstantial evidence is not enough to prosecute. Now I know there is not going to be any definites in all of this, but the only people who have given dead set, straight up, quotes from the horses mouth are Tom himself and his management. Whether you believe them or not is up to you, but they are the only people willing to go on record with quotes from the horses mouth, so they are realistically, at the moment, the only ones we can listen to. It may come to light in 8-10 wks time (hopefully longer ) that he decides to go, but until then he deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:40, Thomo said:

Scully was contracted to MFC at the time (still is), so can one of them be him? Do the rules allow contracted players to sign?

They had a window to make contact with players prior (I think) to the end of October last year, so it is definitely possible that Damien Barrett is telling the truth. I just prefer to believe that Tom would not lie about such a thing.

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:33, Range Rover said:

He said that GWS had lodged the signed contracts of 3, possibly 4 uncontracted players from other clubs with the AFL towards the end of last season.

He was a bit vague and unsure if it was 3 or 4 gave no names.

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:33, Range Rover said:

It is Barrett's understanding (and David Schwarz's and others) that one of these players is Tom Scully.

Not quite sure that is what he said ... but if that is what he meant. It can only mean 1 think ... Toms words where not true at the press conference. Only he can sign the contract ... massive allegations by Barrett on national TV (& Ox.)

This is getting worse by the day for Tom & its only going to get worse.

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:46, Kento80 said:

Yes, exactly. Most of the merry-go-round conversations on this thread are based around semantics. Use of words such as "believe", "possibly", "word is" etc do not go any distance at all to creating a picture of fact because they are not words designed to portray fact, only conjecture. In legal terms circumstantial evidence is not enough to prosecute. Now I know there is not going to be any definites in all of this, but the only people who have given dead set, straight up, quotes from the horses mouth are Tom himself and his management. Whether you believe them or not is up to you, but they are the only people willing to go on record with quotes from the horses mouth, so they are realistically, at the moment, the only ones we can listen to. It may come to light in 8-10 wks time (hopefully longer ) that he decides to go, but until then he deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.

The Ox went definitively on record with this tweet ...

TheOx05 David Schwarz @ @gnaight don't be so naive he got the offer last October.12 Jul

Barrett and others have danced around it with semantics you are right. No doubt to avoid libel.

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:37, Kento80 said:

I would remove Elite from #3, not there yet. And for #5, you really don't think Trenners is ahead of Scully atm?

No the only reason people say that is because they are trying to remove the emotional attachment they have with Scully, so as not to be disappointed, Scully is and will continue to be better, Trengove is still a fantastic talent

His hands are very good, i was obviously trying to make a point that i think he is worth it

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:49, Kento80 said:

They had a window to make contact with players prior (I think) to the end of October last year, so it is definitely possible that Damien Barrett is telling the truth. I just prefer to believe that Tom would not lie about such a thing.

Not only could they make contact ... they were allowed to take it one step further and get a signed deal and lodge with AFL. (as per GC17)

But if Barrett is right ... Tom cannot get out of this ... only he can sign. No semantics to hide behind the veil of Velocity ... oh they didn't speak to me they spoke with my management.

But I like you prefer to believe Tom.

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:55, Range Rover said:

The Ox went definitively on record with this tweet ...TheOx05 David Schwarz @ @gnaight don't be so naive he got the offer last October.12 Jul Barrett and others have danced around it with semantics you are right. No doubt to avoid libel.

How many times you used this quote from the Ox on this thread RR. I know he said that, but without proof it is just hearsay and no level of fact whatsoever. He needs to name a source, produce a photo of the signed document or it means nothing until Tom says "I have signed with [insert club here].

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:55, Jordie_tackles said:

No the only reason people say that is because they are trying to remove the emotional attachment they have with Scully, so as not to be disappointed, Scully is and will continue to be better, Trengove is still a fantastic talentHis hands are very good, i was obviously trying to make a point that i think he is worth it

I am not trying to reduce emotional attachment at all, I just happen to think Trenners is better. I do think it is worth it to keep Tom, and I got your point, I just think his talents get overstated a little bit. Not saying his hands are useles, but not elite yet is all.

I personally don't believe you go to air on a story that big, risking your journalistic integrity, based on flimsy sources. No way.

  On 14/07/2011 at 13:58, hangon007 said:

Not only could they make contact ... they were allowed to take it one step further and get a signed deal and lodge with AFL. (as per GC17)

But if Barrett is right ... Tom cannot get out of this ... only he can sign. No semantics to hide behind the veil of Velocity ... oh they didn't speak to me they spoke with my management.

But I like you prefer to believe Tom.

Yes, you're right. I did mean contact and sign, but neglected to say that. If true the only conclusion is that Tom lied through his teeth, and I will not have that come hell or high water. If it proves to be the case, I will be devastated and angry, but I will deal with that at such time that it happens. I reckon he will re-sign, and if I'm wrong, so be it, MFC will live on.

  On 14/07/2011 at 14:03, Kento80 said:

How many times you used this quote from the Ox on this thread RR. I know he said that, but without proof it is just hearsay and no level of fact whatsoever. He needs to name a source, produce a photo of the signed document or it means nothing until Tom says "I have signed with [insert club here].

I used that quote to counter your charge that no-one on the Scully-is-gone side had yet made a definitive statement on Scully.

The Ox's tweet was a definitive statement. No ambiguity there.

The issue you raised had nothing to do with the need to provide proof of that statement.

  On 14/07/2011 at 14:03, Range Rover said:

I personally don't believe you go to air on a story that big, risking your journalistic integrity, based on flimsy sources.

No way.

I believe that is more likely than Tom lying. Did you see Hutchy having a go at Kennett on TFS a month or so ago? Hutchy was made a fool of by Kennett due to his allegations, didn't seem to mind risking his journalistic "integrity" there.

  On 14/07/2011 at 06:04, RobbieF said:

Then I simply don't want him at the club if that's the case.

You may have a different view and you are entitled to that view, but equally so am I entitled to mine. Just remember your view to me is similar to what my view is to you.

I never said, or implied, that you weren't entitled to your view.

Pray tell, what view do I hold of you?

This is where emotion kicks in. No-one is immune, some just overlay cold hard facts (interpreted both ways) and hold firm. Nothing wrong with that.

Truisms.. How about give a kid an even break?

  On 14/07/2011 at 14:08, Range Rover said:

I used that quote to counter your charge that no-one on the Scully-is-gone side had yet made a definitive statement on Scully.

The Ox's tweet was a definitive statement. No ambiguity there.

The issue you raised had nothing to do with the need to provide proof of that statement.

Scully has, and his management have. I will concede that it is possible they are lying, however I don't think so, and therefore it is a definitive statement because it is from the horses mouth.

  On 14/07/2011 at 14:07, Kento80 said:

Yes, you're right. I did mean contact and sign, but neglected to say that. If true the only conclusion is that Tom lied through his teeth, and I will not have that come hell or high water. If it proves to be the case, I will be devastated and angry, but I will deal with that at such time that it happens. I reckon he will re-sign, and if I'm wrong, so be it, MFC will live on.

I'm with you 100%.

If he has not lied he can take as long as he wants all be it under increased rumours, speculation & attempted character assassination... but if he has he needs to come clean now.

If he gets to the end of the year and chooses GWS ... the character assassination, innuendo & media speculation will not go down well for Tom & Velocity Sports.

But Tom has an option here & now. IMHO Velocity Sports as his management are mad to let this continue.

  On 14/07/2011 at 14:11, Trident said:

This is where emotion kicks in. No-one is immune, some just overlay cold hard facts (interpreted both ways) and hold firm. Nothing wrong with that.

Truisms.. How about give a kid an even break?

Yip ... but when Barrett goes on National Tv and makes those allegations. Velocity need to step up to the plate and protect him.

  On 14/07/2011 at 14:17, hangon007 said:

I'm with you 100%.

If he has not lied he can take as long as he wants ... but if he has he needs to come clean now.

If he gets to the end of the year and chooses GWS ... the character assassination, innuendo & media speculation will not go down well for Tom & Velocity Sports.

But Tom has an option here & now. IMHO Velocity Sports as his management are mad to let this continue.

Velocity, if they are still advising him to wait, are mad, yes. But if it is what he wants, then it has nothing to do with Velocity at all. They can jump up and down and bang their fists on the desk etc, but if he wants to do something his way, then that is the way. IF he has lied, you are right, he should tell all now. If not (which is our belief) then he is more than welcome to take his time, no matter how much I wish he would end this now.

  On 14/07/2011 at 14:21, Kento80 said:

Velocity, if they are still advising him to wait, are mad, yes. But if it is what he wants, then it has nothing to do with Velocity at all. They can jump up and down and bang their fists on the desk etc, but if he wants to do something his way, then that is the way. IF he has lied, you are right, he should tell all now. If not (which is our belief) then he is more than welcome to take his time, no matter how much I wish he would end this now.

Yes. But tooooo much water has NOW gone under the bridge ... Barrett just upped the anti on national TV. This has now got personal.