This constitutes a new start to discussion on the issue of whether Tom stays or goes.

Please keep it civil and respect our code of conduct. Those who know me, know full well that I'm not generally in favour of censorship but my patience has been severely tested by some of the things I read on the previous Tom Scully thread. So much so that I did a News of the World on that thread and am starting a new one.

These are the rules:

Dear all,

Like Fan, I haven't read this thread in its entirety buy I find it offensive and contrary to the core values of this site that a player's character is being impugned by people posting here.

So much so that I've taken the decision on myself to lock this thread.

Another thread can be started for those who wish to discuss the continuing saga of where Tom Scully will play next year but slurs on his character (or that of any other player for that matter) will not be tolerated. 

I repeat what Fan has stated previously:-

Anyone commenting on that aspect of this issue in this or any other thread will  have their posts deleted and if they do it twice they will be banned.

No problem WhisperingJ, happy to abide by the new rules.

Adrian Anderson was interviewed on SEN tonight, principally about the Shaw/Maxwell penalties but he was also quizzed about Melbourne's compensation if Scully leaves.

He said we'd likely get two first round picks, one in the middle of the first round and one at the end.

I took this to mean roughly picks 10 and 19, to be used at any draft over the next five years.

Are Demonland posters happy with is?

Would one pick, say a single pick in the top 3, be better?

I'd probably go for the latter ...

Two first round draft picks, plus an ironclad guarantee by the AFL,from Vlad, that MFC will never be shafted again. We tanked hard for that pick.

Hard to see how a compensation pick one can turn into compensation picsk 10 and 19 two years later - especially when it's of the AFL's doing. Oh, now I see.

Let's put the compensation picks into perspective.Say we do get picks 10 & 19 as stated by RR,that's not far off Gysberts (11) and Tapscott (18).

So my question becomes would any of you give up both Gysberts & Tapscott to keep Scully?

Patently absurd.

Thankfully, I believe Scully has scruples and wouldn't allow the club to shafted in this way if he were to leave the club and I doubt he would go to the Western suburbs of Sydney anyway.

No problem WhisperingJ, happy to abide by the new rules.

Adrian Anderson was interviewed on SEN tonight, principally about the Shaw/Maxwell penalties but he was also quizzed about Melbourne's compensation if Scully leaves.

He said we'd likely get two first round picks, one in the middle of the first round and one at the end.

I took this to mean roughly picks 10 and 19, to be used at any draft over the next five years.

Are Demonland posters happy with is?

Would one pick, say a single pick in the top 3, be better?

I'd probably go for the latter ...

We all believe/wish it would be pick 1 but we also all know that ain't ever gonna happen.

When you factor in that we also have a pick at whatever number correlating to our finishing position, that is 3 more first round picks to add to our team. Only two other teams in the comp will have as many first round picks on their list as us- GC & GWS...

We may or may not get another potentially elite kid with any of those picks, but our chances are that we'd pick one or two but hopefully 3 pretty good players and hopefully one would become elite.

In the end I really want him to stay not only because I believe he will be a great player but also because he is the kind of elite trainer that lifts the standard of the whole playing groups training. A Judd or Cousins in that respect.

Pick 1 (2009) + 2 year's education and input = Pick 1 (2011) plus late first round pick.

It's an anomalous situation that requires an independent panel's consideration and not that of a conflicted assessment from an AFL official.

Let's put the compensation picks into perspective.Say we do get picks 10 & 19 as stated by RR,that's not far off Gysberts (11) and Tapscott (18).

So my question becomes would any of you give up both Gysberts & Tapscott to keep Scully?

geez thats a good question im leaning towards keeping gysberts and tappy 2 potential very good players vs 1 potential superstar

Cheers WJ,

Personally I think he will stay, I've been very impressed with the way the club have handled the saga and think Scully would be as equally impressed and will see his future at MFC.

If we were to loose him I think we should get a priority pick at the start of the 1st round of any of the next 5 drafts but am aware that wont happen. I'll accept 2 first round draft picks where they'll fall after our first pick and end of 1st round. Use them in the 2012 draft I say so one can go towards Viney!

Use them in the 2012 draft I say so one can go towards Viney!

Wouldn't we not want to waste one of them on a player we'd be getting anyway?

Knowing the AFL, they would probably make use use them in 2012 anyway!

Pick 1 (2009) + 2 year's education and input = Pick 1 (2011) plus late first round pick.

It's an anomalous situation that requires an independent panel's consideration and not that of a conflicted assessment from an AFL official.

And he was Pick 1,,, in a very strong draft year!

Pick 1 & as you say, & a second pick in the 1st Rnd, transferable to a year of our choice, of that same value.... Say Pick 1(2011) + say Pick 13 transferable to 2012 or onwards.

Am I right in saying that we don't have to use the picks straight away? If we hold on to one of them does it "ripen" to a better pick?

If life were fair we'd get pick 1, ultimately we're down because we've pumped two years of recourses, development, and injury rehab into him so we are behind.

FWIW I still haven't given up on us keeping him, even though the AFL have made it plainly clear they want this deal to go through.

Am I right in saying that we don't have to use the picks straight away? If we hold on to one of them does it "ripen" to a better pick?

If life were fair we'd get pick 1, ultimately we're down because we've pumped two years of recourses, development, and injury rehab into him so we are behind.

FWIW I still haven't given up on us keeping him, even though the AFL have made it plainly clear they want this deal to go through.

We would have up to 5 years Pates. But it's a big "IF" (as in if he leaves), if you ask me.

In the end I really want him to stay not only because I believe he will be a great player but also because he is the kind of elite trainer that lifts the standard of the whole playing groups training.

Totally agree Grandson. His work ethic is almost unrivalled from everything I have heard, and surely must rub off on those around him. As he gets older, that would be such a great influence to have around the club. Oh Lord, please!

Pick 1 (2009) + 2 year's education and input = Pick 1 (2011) plus late first round pick.It's an anomalous situation that requires an independent panel's consideration and not that of a conflicted assessment from an AFL official.

I think it has to be borderline illegal the meddling and railroading of MFC going on at the moment. I can understand 2 1st rd picks for Ablett because he had contributed to the club that developed and paid him. He owed them nothing, and they equally owed him nothing. Scully on the other hand is the result of us using pick number one, which we had to endure severe pain to receive, and he has barely been able to give anything back to the club yet. How is it possible that they think in any form it is ok to stiff us like this. It absolutely beggars belief. It should be pick 1 for pick one, plus mid 1st rd for the development we have put in. Nothing less. I know it is fanciful to think that is the way it should work, but it's really getting up my nose. Between that and the third party deal debacle, I just feel like tearing my hair out.

I did ask in the other thread but noone responded, so I'd like to ask again: can someone say what Barrett said on TFS last night? Missed it cos of Le Tour.

Totally agree Grandson. His work ethic is almost unrivalled from everything I have heard, and surely must rub off on those around him. As he gets older, that would be such a great influence to have around the club. Oh Lord, please!

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=90852

This is why the club are prepared to pay him big bickies

It should be pick 1 for pick one, plus mid 1st rd for the development we have put in. Nothing less. I know it is fanciful to think that is the way it should work, but it's really getting up my nose. Between that and the third party deal debacle, I just feel like tearing my hair out.

Sorry but it just wont happen. The compensation rules have been set, all clubs agreed. We dont have a leg to stand on.

I did ask in the other thread but noone responded, so I'd like to ask again: can someone say what Barrett said on TFS last night? Missed it cos of Le Tour.

post #2062 in other thread

post #2062 in other thread

cheers

Sorry but it just wont happen. The compensation rules have been set, all clubs agreed. We dont have a leg to stand on.

I'm well aware it wont happen, but that doesn't stop it being BS. Or making me angry either

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=90852

This is why the club are prepared to pay him big bickies

Exactly WM. I hadn't come across that article before though, cheers. I noticed through the preseason that there were loads of mentions from Jonesy on Twitter about training with the "Sculldog". I know Jonesy is a pretty fervent trainer too, but the more of them the better for everyone I reckon.

For the second time there has been a Tom Scully discussion thread closed and a new one started. Last time it was explained that the last one had gone off the rails, so a new one was started, now it has happened again. Why not just moderate the existing one? One thread covering all the issues - good, bad and ugly - was helping keep other threads from popping up. With the second thread closed, I am sure that half a dozen new ones will start tomorrow wanting to discuss various Tom Scully issues, everyone wanting to be the first, and then combined into this.

Why not let one run in organised chaos, and moderate it , or is this moderation for moderation sake? What did closing the last one and starting a new one achieve?

To save reading the last two threads, and most of this one, RPFC will post about 200 posts arguing the exact same point with every opposing opinion that Tom Scully is a saint and should be respected as such. Half a dozen other posters including Range Rover and ADC will argue that RPFC and anyone sharing his reasonable opinion has their head in the sand and Tom Scully is gone, based on hypothetical loop holes. Someone is sure he is gone to Collingwood. Someone is sure he is gone to Richmond. Most have inside information. Nutbean will speak sense with a balanced view, Wolfmother will give some good factual information that the silent stalkers will appriciate, Wispering Jack will give a bit of Yoda like insight, and most of us will spend way too much time debating something that none of us have any idea about, or have any influence over.

So why the new thread???

So why the new thread???

See opening post.

Wouldn't we not want to waste one of them on a player we'd be getting anyway?

Knowing the AFL, they would probably make use use them in 2012 anyway!

I see your point, but that way we get Viney under father son and then still have 2 more first round draft picks in that draft which may be a very strong draft, but I guess the club will look at all the options.

Either way I'm still optimistic that's a problem the club wont have to deal with, unless it's compensations picks for Morton or Warnock???