Wow, I haven't been on the board this week and only just caught up on the news regarding third-party deals. The last page I read was 27. Feck, I'm not going to read all that, so just thought I'd add my two cents, which I'm sure has increased the page numbers - what a [censored] joke! Carlton can pay Chris Judd outside of the cap (VISY) and we can't? One set of rules for the Collingwood's, Carlton's and Essendon's and a different set for the rest of the competition.

Wow, I haven't been on the board this week and only just caught up on the news regarding third-party deals. The last page I read was 27. Feck, I'm not going to read all that, so just thought I'd add my two cents, which I'm sure has increased the page numbers - what a [censored] joke! Carlton can pay Chris Judd outside of the cap (VISY) and we can't? One set of rules for the Collingwood's, Carlton's and Essendon's and a different set for the rest of the competition.

It is definitely an issue akin to trying to use petrol to put out a bushfire, that's for sure AdamFarr

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

Exactly. Surely Tom and his management should sue for libel anyone who is publicly saying or implying that he lied?

Edited July 14, 201114 yr by Range Rover

Exactly. Surely Tom and his management should sue for libel anyone who is saying or implying that he lied?

Hehehehe. you're gonna catch a few fish with that one RR

Wow, I haven't been on the board this week and only just caught up on the news regarding third-party deals. The last page I read was 27. Feck, I'm not going to read all that, so just thought I'd add my two cents, which I'm sure has increased the page numbers - what a [censored] joke! Carlton can pay Chris Judd outside of the cap (VISY) and we can't? One set of rules for the Collingwood's, Carlton's and Essendon's and a different set for the rest of the competition.

Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon is the competition, didn't you know?

The AFL's resent salary cap fixing is a joke on every supporter/member that pay to watch this [censored]!!!!

Edited July 14, 201114 yr by tatu

The pursuit of Scully is heartening: http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-truth-of-gws-is-out-there-20110713-1he3y.html

Sums it up entirely.... The Truth is out there !!

just where ??

Tom has not lied. He and Velocity Sports have been spurting out spin and being "economical with the truth" as is the modern way to dodge the real issue. Many here should learn to read between the lines instead of believing spin and tripe.

Edited July 14, 201114 yr by america de cali

Tom has not lied. He and Velocity Sports have been spurting out spin and being "economical with the truth" as is the modern way to dodge the real issue. Many here should learn to read between the lines instead of believing spin and tripe.

Actually, I think you will find that the people who are best at reading between the lines, are the conspiracy theorists.

Tom has not lied. He and Velocity Sports have been spurting out spin and being "economical with the truth" as is the modern way to dodge the real issue. Many here should learn to read between the lines instead of believing spin and tripe.

Make no mistake, Schwarz, Barrett, Stevens and others are inferring if not outright stating that Tom stared directly at the cameras on March 4 this year and flat out lied to the public and to all Melbourne supporters.

The charges are very serious and if unfounded are a slur on Tom's character and he should sue.

So why doesn't he? What is going on here?

Makes this article from March 28 kind of interesting in hindsight doesn't it ... Recruits Forced To Lie, Stynes Says

Edited July 14, 201114 yr by Range Rover

Make no mistake, Schwarz, Barrett, Stevens and others are inferring if not outright stating that Tom stared directly at the cameras on March 4 this year and flat out lied to the public and to all Melbourne supporters.

The charges are very serious and if unfounded are a slur on Tom's character and he should sue.

So why doesn't he? What is going on here?

Makes this article from March 28 kind of interesting in hindsight doesn't it ... Recruits Forced To Lie, Stynes Says

yep, Jimmy's comments hit me a suspicious at the time, and still do now

Make no mistake, Schwarz, Barrett, Stevens and others are inferring if not outright stating that Tom stared directly at the cameras on March 4 this year and flat out lied to the public and to all Melbourne supporters.

The charges are very serious and if unfounded are a slur on Tom's character and he should sue.

So why doesn't he? What is going on here?

Makes this article from March 28 kind of interesting in hindsight doesn't it ... Recruits Forced To Lie, Stynes Says

Yeah, Tom is going to make this situation go away by taking it to the courts...

That will really help him and the club, concentrate on 2011.

Your reasoning is specious and unfair. If a tree falls in the forest and no-one sues the tree - did it really fall?

I know of many people who could sue for libel and don't because it is a painful, stressful, and, on many occassions, fruitless exercise.

Make no mistake, Schwarz, Barrett, Stevens and others are inferring if not outright stating that Tom stared directly at the cameras on March 4 this year and flat out lied to the public and to all Melbourne supporters.

The charges are very serious and if unfounded are a slur on Tom's character and he should sue.

So why doesn't he? What is going on here?

Makes this article from March 28 kind of interesting in hindsight doesn't it ... Recruits Forced To Lie, Stynes Says

At this stage I prefer not to call him an outright liar. I believe that is the case but as yet it has not been proven. Can't wait to hear the excuses come October I did not believe him in his press conference. It was clear to me he was coached as to what to say. While quite impressive in his speech he was very unconvincing when he had to make a direct answer. All this would not have happened if someone had not blabbed away to the wrong person and would have avoided the intense scrutiny at least till later in the season.

Many posters here believe what they want to believe and when Tom said he wanted to be a one club player they took it as he meant he wanted to play with us forever. But he never said he wanted to be a Melbourne player for the rest of his career. Whether he did or did not sign something with GWS last year is another matter. Where ever he ends up I am certain he will not be playing with us.

I had more to say at the time but co-incidently 20 minutes before the press conference I was suspended for a trifling matter. HT is always following me around out of morbid curiosity and very keen with the delete/suspend button.

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.

He is a journo.

His 'definitive statement' is no such thing. He is relaying the words of his sources. He doesn't 'know' anything, he is trusting others who he 'believes' know, and that is far from definitive.

So you can keep repeating that twit (or tweet...) but know that when people continually see you repeating it they see the lack of 'evidence' you are basing your belief that Tom lied on.

Many posters here believe what they want to believe and when Tom said he wanted to be a one club player they took it as he meant he wanted to play with us forever. But he never said he wanted to be a Melbourne player for the rest of his career.

Do you know the definition of a 'one-club player?'

This is what he said - "I'd love to end my career and say I was a one-club player and I anticipate that will be the case,"

I don't think he is a liar, but no-one has to agree.

I am glad that RR has come to the realisation that he thinks Tom is a liar.

He's being honest about that at last...

I've seen everything in this debate now - including a player saying he wants to be a one-club player meaning he wants to be a two-club player.

I've seen everything in this debate now - including a player saying he wants to be a one-club player meaning he wants to be a two-club player.

I wanted to be a premiership player and Brownlow medellist but I changed my mind. I didn't lie.

I am glad that RR has come to the realisation that he thinks Tom is a liar.

He's being honest about that at last...

I have said no such thing. Just reporting, hypoethesizing and quoting.

No need to get all touchy

Edited July 14, 201114 yr by Range Rover

Many posters here believe what they want to believe and when Tom said he wanted to be a one club player they took it as he meant he wanted to play with us forever. But he never said he wanted to be a Melbourne player for the rest of his career. Whether he did or did not sign something with GWS last year is another matter. Where ever he ends up I am certain he will not be playing with us..

I wanted to be a premiership player and Brownlow medellist but I changed my mind. I didn't lie.

Very different insinuation from what you wrote above.

Tom said he wanted to be a one club player, fanboys took that to mean that he wanted to be a one club player, you took it to mean he wants to be a two-club player. Top logic.

Very different insinuation from what you wrote above.

Tom said he wanted to be a one club player, fanboys took that to mean that he wanted to be a one club player, you took it to mean he wants to be a two-club player. Top logic.

The logic is, he gave himself the option of changing his mind whenever he wants to whilst keeping the fanboys happy. Now you are pinching my fanboy tag. Be careful I got a post deleted for using that word.

an aspect which leads me to believe the rumours are true is that GWS have offered him a contract, reportedly in the same ball park to where the rumours had always suggested.

One of the hopes that i was resting my hat on earlier in the year was that the rumour was only a rumour, and that GWS weren’t interested in scully at all (or at least at such massive $$$) and that it was a smoke screen started by Eddie and co to distract the media from speculating about Dale Thomas and co.

Now that GWS have put a substantial offer on the table it confirms every point of the rumour apart from that Scully has already signed....theres a piece of the puzzle missing here, and its only one piece so you can tell what the finished puzzle is going to look like...

Yeah, Tom is going to make this situation go away by taking it to the courts...

That will really help him and the club, concentrate on 2011.

Your reasoning is specious and unfair. If a tree falls in the forest and no-one sues the tree - did it really fall?

I know of many people who could sue for libel and don't because it is a painful, stressful, and, on many occassions, fruitless exercise.

It's only painful, stressful and fruitless if you're lying.

If you're telling the truth, why worry?

The guy is having his reputation smashed on national Tv and radio yet won't come out swinging.

Why? I doubt many posters on here would be so generous of spirit to these 'bastard journos' ...

Edited July 14, 201114 yr by Range Rover

Funny thing that hardtack. Seems the 19 yr old players are much more mature about this than a bunch of middle aged people hiding behind computer screens. Who'd have thought

You mean the middle aged people that have followed the club for more than 50 years and that have tipped a [censored] load of money in when the club looked like foundering?

I can't say with certainty that the players aren't going to be ok with this much the same way you can't confirm that it's all ok. Trenners will be looked after I'm sure about that but if Scully stays and in a few years he is not the star that many had hoped he would be there will (I guess) questions asked by players that are performing better and getting paid half the amount.

My opinion is that we will never know what the ramifications are because Tom Scully will be playing for GWS so it won't be an issue.

The logic is, he gave himself the option of changing his mind whenever he wants to whilst keeping the fanboys happy. Now you are pinching my fanboy tag. Be careful I got a post deleted for using that word.

i see where you are coming from.

His statements were what we wanted to hear, but stopped short of putting the rumours to bed becasue although they were headed in the right direction they were leaning towards non commital.

"I envisange this will be the case" could have said "I promise you this will be the case" - He leaves the door open that it might not happen.

en·vis·age/enˈvizij/Verb

1. Contemplate or conceive of as a possibility or a desirable future event.