Tom Scully

[Strawbs 1]

Well, I seriously believe that we as Demonlanders should start to make some noise about Blucher, Alistair Lynch and their changing story. It might not change the outcome of the Scully situation, but it will put them under some scrutiny and further question the integrity of this entire situation. Our club is clearly talking to Velocity behind closed doors, but we as supporters can be more vocal. It might sound extreme but why not raise this on talkback radio, write to journos, blog, tweet, hit some other forums etc? They're treating Melbourne supporters with complete contempt, so we should attempt to have a shot back. Now is the time.

[Bang Bang Bang 5,431]

check this out.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/could-melbourne-end-up-the-big-winner-for-losing-tom-scully/story-e6frf9jf-1226096389389

Would be a great result in the event of Scully walking, but would still rather him stay.

Just going back to the manager speculation for a minute.. you need to remember that Scully changed managers in March, so the party line trotted out by Mark Kleiman in February may differ slightly to what Blucher is saying now. Blucher was also just using the coach situation as ONE reason for waiting til the end of the season. He wasn't relaying the message directly from Tom.

Interestingly Kleiman (now at 3AW) has a twitter account that I follow and has been very vocal in his defence of Tom. His latest tweet said "Why can't people just take the word of Tom." I don't see why he'd voluntarily be saying this if Scully had signed in October under his watch. Not like he's liable anymore...

Just some food for thought. I wonder after reading that article, if some Melbourne fans will want him to go.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Sylvia Saint

[beelzebub 22,225]

Will we ever stop rebuilding?

No.. always need to revitalise your team here and there. Its a sign of a healthy program. Never rest on your laurels etc.

Must admit that kind of scenario ( as portrayed by the HUN ) had cross my conciousness. Theres an appeal.

I think ive even mentioned it somewhere under the guise of 'bird in hand v two in the draft "

If he stays..good ..if he goes..the world wont end, and we get some bonuses.

We cant EVER make this team about one player.

[Sir Why You Little 34,405]

check this out.

http://www.heraldsun...f-1226096389389

Looks like we hold some good cards right now whatever happens.

Good...That said i want the Scull to stay, but if he goes we will be ok...better than ok actually.

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

Just some food for thought. I wonder after reading that article, if some Melbourne fans will want him to go.

I'd always rather a bird in the hand but Jaeger is a pretty cool name. I guess the coolness of the name of the second pick would be the deal maker or breaker for me.

[jumbo returns 6,484]

Would be a great result in the event of Scully walking, but would still rather him stay.

Just going back to the manager speculation for a minute.. you need to remember that Scully changed managers in March, so the party line trotted out by Mark Kleiman in February may differ slightly to what Blucher is saying now. Blucher was also just using the coach situation as ONE reason for waiting til the end of the season. He wasn't relaying the message directly from Tom.

Interestingly Kleiman (now at 3AW) has a twitter account that I follow and has been very vocal in his defence of Tom. His latest tweet said "Why can't people just take the word of Tom." I don't see why he'd voluntarily be saying this if Scully had signed in October under his watch. Not like he's liable anymore...

Just some food for thought. I wonder after reading that article, if some Melbourne fans will want him to go.

If TS wants to be mercenary, why can't the Club? Are you crying that Brock Mclean left for Jordy Gysberts? Or TJ for Grimes? This is leaving a sour taste in everyone's mouth and I have been bouyed by this article after reading about a 'superdraft'. GWS enjoy your deal, welcome Mr O'Meara.

[Bang Bang Bang 5,431]

If TS wants to be mercenary, why can't the Club? Are you crying that Brock Mclean left for Jordy Gysberts? Or TJ for Grimes? This is leaving a sour taste in everyone's mouth and I have been bouyed by this article after reading about a 'superdraft'. GWS enjoy your deal, welcome Mr O'Meara.

Believe me, if he walks and we score 2 gun 17 year olds I'll be doing cartwheels. Don't want anyone at the club that doesn't have their heart in it. However I'm still giving young Tom the benefit of the doubt until I see him in GWS colours.

[Strawbs 1]

Would be a great result in the event of Scully walking, but would still rather him stay.

Just going back to the manager speculation for a minute.. you need to remember that Scully changed managers in March, so the party line trotted out by Mark Kleiman in February may differ slightly to what Blucher is saying now. Blucher was also just using the coach situation as ONE reason for waiting til the end of the season. He wasn't relaying the message directly from Tom.

Interestingly Kleiman (now at 3AW) has a twitter account that I follow and has been very vocal in his defence of Tom. His latest tweet said "Why can't people just take the word of Tom." I don't see why he'd voluntarily be saying this if Scully had signed in October under his watch. Not like he's liable anymore...

Just some food for thought. I wonder after reading that article, if some Melbourne fans will want him to go.

Thanks a lot Sylvia Saint. Yes, Tom changed managers, but not management companies. Kleiman was a Velocity employee when he represented Tom. I seriously think now is the time to turn up the heat on these guys.

[Crompton's the man 635]

Will we ever stop rebuilding?

From where I sit , and I have no claim to insight especially, there are a number of considerations and here are some :

1. the attributed compensation sounds attractive

2. we have apparently amazing young talent on our list to the extent that unless gun footballers clearly stand head and shoulders above others there will be serious competition for places in the team in the coming years ( absent a high injury toll)

3. the problem with talented 17 yos is their development track combined with the fact that when they really do start to perform we may actually be faced with the same poaching/salary cap situation we are currently in and posibly no net gain at the end of the day

4. justice demands that our list managers distribute salaries according to some kind of rational balance - the fact that the whole situation has been skewed by the AFL giving GWS an almost infinite amount of money to act seductively with unfortunately means that a prudent established club MUST act responsibly lest in our attempt to match the unmatchable we do more harm than good

My last thought is

5. if we do get good compensation we need proven and mature and established performers to bolster our toughness in the ball-winning arena ( one of my sons keeps on talking about Goddard)

Tough nuts like Moloney, Jones and hopefully Tapscott are arguably the spine of a team that can win the ball and in time our taller players will beef up like Watts has done (not finished yet)and be able to out-body opponents once we have won the ball and learned to deliver to advantage.

[pitchfork 181]

On the Jay Clark article

why exactly would GWS trade 2 players, one of apparently equal or greater stature to Scully (don't really believe it)? It's really just poor logic, and unlikely

So if we trade two comp picks for two guys (a part of the 2012 "super draft" mind you), then GWS get to use their picks following their pick, not ours? Surely they are Melbourne's compensatory picks and if we trade them they can be used after a Melbourne draft pick - otherwise they suddenly become hugely valuable to whichever team is picking first in a bumper draft ie. Hawthorn could have had Ball, Hodge, Judd.

Melbourne are very unlikely to be picking top 10 in 2012 - and if they are, than the presumed no.1 will already be gone to the dees' so GWS have no chance for him anyway

Can't wait for this to be over - Dees supporters will either have a new hero (a star and one of the tough nuts of the comp) or a new villain (hope not)

------ just a follow up to the above point re: trade value

Let's say that the value is transferred through trade (i.e. the "compensation" value of the picks is tied to the team using them, not the team initially granted them), if we held onto the hypothetical picks - the team could trade with a "rebuilding" team for a really really good player in the 25-27 y.o. range...i.e. surely it would be worth it for St Kilda to trade a Goddard for a potential 2nd pick in the top 5, or a cooney, or etc....This doesn't make much sense to me, surely the AFL didn't organise it this way, can you even trade compensatory picks?

Edited July 17, 2011 by pitchfork

[Chelly 738]

From the Jay Clark article:

"O'Meara has all the tools to be a No.1 pick.

"So while that would put Melbourne in an unbelievably strong position, it would disadvantage all the other clubs in the competition, who are in desperate need of an uncompromised draft after two really tough years."

Appalling.

A club that loses a priority draft pick should get compensated by getting picks that put it in a strong position vis a vis the other clubs. That's what compensation's about you tool!

The fact Melbourne would have to wait a year before even getting access to that talent doesn't seem to be factored into this fairy tale.

Why not give like for like and ensure the Dees are properly compensated with at least pick 1 in 2011 if Scully goes?

Also on O'Meara, the story from out west is that the lad has suddenly developed a bout of OP although my contacts tell me that it might not be dissimilar to the bout of brain damage suffered by Jack Darling last year when he was king hit after a fight. .

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

On the Jay Clark article

why exactly would GWS trade 2 players, one of apparently equal or greater stature to Scully (don't really believe it)? It's really just poor logic, and unlikely

So if we trade two comp picks for two guys (a part of the 2012 "super draft" mind you), then GWS get to use their picks following their pick, not ours? Surely they are Melbourne's compensatory picks and if we trade them they can be used after a Melbourne draft pick - otherwise they suddenly become hugely valuable to whichever team is picking first in a bumper draft ie. Hawthorn could have had Ball, Hodge, Judd.

Melbourne are very unlikely to be picking top 10 in 2012 - and if they are, than the presumed no.1 will already be gone to the dees' so GWS have no chance for him anyway

Can't wait for this to be over - Dees supporters will either have a new hero (a star and one of the tough nuts of the comp) or a new villain (hope not)

------ just a follow up to the above point re: trade value

Let's say that the value is transferred through trade (i.e. the "compensation" value of the picks is tied to the team using them, not the team initially granted them), if we held onto the hypothetical picks - the team could trade with a "rebuilding" team for a really really good player in the 25-27 y.o. range...i.e. surely it would be worth it for St Kilda to trade a Goddard for a potential 2nd pick in the top 5, or a cooney, or etc....This doesn't make much sense to me, surely the AFL didn't organise it this way, can you even trade compensatory picks?

I'm not quite sure that I will be thinking Scully is a 'hero' if he eventually agrees to sign for the Dees at the end of the season for $600K a year over 5 years.

For a start, his delay has clearly mucked the club around big time this year - he has seemingly had little to no regard for club's best interests given the way he's played this negotiation in the highly unusual prevailing circumstances.

We have had a pretty bad history of losing some really good players by catering to the excessive demands of certain other players in the past. I hope Scully's contract won't create yet another instance of this.

I haven't read the article yet, but if it suggests that we could get two excellent first rounders - well, I for one am leaning to that.

Brent Moloney has the attitude that should be applied here - namely, you don't want to play for the Dees, fine go to GWS - it'll be a blast living in Rooty Hill and playing in front of 2,500 people each fortnight.

[Tony Tea 2,784]

If TS wants to be mercenary, why can't the Club? Are you crying that Brock Mclean left for Jordy Gysberts? Or TJ for Grimes? This is leaving a sour taste in everyone's mouth and I have been bouyed by this article after reading about a 'superdraft'. GWS enjoy your deal, welcome Mr O'Meara.

EVERY draft gets labelled "superdraft" at one time or another; even the bad drafts. The proof of the pudding is in the retrospecting.

[hardtack 10,126]

I'm not quite sure that I will be thinking Scully is a 'hero' if he eventually agrees to sign for the Dees at the end of the season for $600K a year over 5 years.

For a start, his delay has clearly mucked the club around big time this year - he has seemingly had little to no regard for club's best interests given the way he's played this negotiation in the highly unusual prevailing circumstances.

We have had a pretty bad history of losing some really good players by catering to the excessive demands of certain other players in the past. I hope Scully's contract won't create yet another instance of this.

I haven't read the article yet, but if it suggests that we could get two excellent first rounders - well, I for one am leaning to that.

Brent Moloney has the attitude that should be applied here - namely, you don't want to play for the Dees, fine go to GWS - it'll be a blast living in Rooty Hill and playing in front of 2,500 people each fortnight.

I would argue that the only people that have been "clearly mucked around" and the supporters such as yourself who are insisting he is gone. The club has stated consistently that they are content with the situation as it stands and are happy to wait (yes, I know they have tabled an offer, but they at least, unlike some here, understand that Tom needs time to consider his options).

As for the Brent Moloney "attitude", as you have applied it it displays a distinct lack of knowledge of Sydney and an even greater lack of understanding of where someone on an annual income of $1mil would choose to live in Sydney - it is an antiquated and elitist view of what represents Sydney's "west" (the Rooty Hill cliche is as old as time). What surprises me more is that it comes from someone actually living in Sydney.

Edited July 17, 2011 by hardtack

[old55 21,211]

Let's say that the value is transferred through trade (i.e. the "compensation" value of the picks is tied to the team using them, not the team initially granted them), if we held onto the hypothetical picks - the team could trade with a "rebuilding" team for a really really good player in the 25-27 y.o. range...i.e. surely it would be worth it for St Kilda to trade a Goddard for a potential 2nd pick in the top 5, or a cooney, or etc....This doesn't make much sense to me, surely the AFL didn't organise it this way, can you even trade compensatory picks?

Yes you can trade the compensation picks - Geelong traded one to GC for pick 15 last year. If it's a pick with a position tied to another draft pick it's tied to the club the compensation pick was awarded to, not the club receiving the pick.

[rpfc 27,386]

In this hypothetical (fun...) I would be more inclined to get a 23-26 year old established gun, than a 17 year old.

We need leaders, and we need them now.

And I am the most patient loser on here but how are the rest of you going to cope when we have two more 17 year olds that cannot play for a year (I don't know how we get two, but, anyway...)...

We will be a younger team again - assuming Warnock, Bate and Dunn find themselves elsewhere.

So 2012 is another development year?

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

I would argue that the only people that have been "clearly mucked around" and the supporters such as yourself who are insisting he is gone. The club has stated consistently that they are content with the situation as it stands and are happy to wait (yes, I know they have tabled an offer, but they at least, unlike some here, understand that Tom needs time to consider his options).

As for the Brent Moloney "attitude", as you have applied it it displays a distinct lack of knowledge of Sydney and an even greater lack of understanding of where someone on an annual income of $1mil would choose to live in Sydney - it is an antiquated and elitist view of what represents Sydney's "west" (the Rooty Hill cliche is as old as time). What surprises me more is that it comes from someone actually living in Sydney.

Where have I ever said that 'he's gone'? All I once did was report a 'rumour' I heard at a GWS's Captain's Club function - and I was at pains to say that those statements were merely said to me, and that I had no idea whether those statements were in fact true. If you want to head into this territory, hardtack - I'd suggest you ensure some level of accuracy.

I have no idea whether he'll re-sign or not. I have limited my comments to the way the negotiation has been handled - and, in this respect, I'm happy to be on the record as stating that IMO it's been handled very poorly and, I think, disrespectfully to the club.

I also know where Rooty Hill is, fyi. It's not exactly the Greenwich Village in NYC. There is perhaps a reason it's often used as a 'cliche'.

[Guest hangon007]

Plus if we did take the two top kids plus Viney in next years draft ... would we be not just another sitting duck for another "scully saga" to happen again in 2-3 years time. Again we would not have a balanced list with all our kids when their improvement comes to be massive, massive targets for other clubs.

IMHO ... Jay is dreaming.

Although I do think the logic is right this year. ie trade with GWS ...

[rpfc 27,386]

Plus if we did take the two top kids plus Viney in next years draft ... would we be not just another sitting duck for another "scully saga" to happen again in 2-3 years time. Again we would not have a balanced list with all our kids when their improvement comes to be massive, massive targets for other clubs.

IMHO ... Jay is dreaming.

Although I do think the logic is right this year. ie trade with GWS ...

No, because they will not be eligible for FA, let alone unrestricted free agency (which is what this GWS-Free agency has been).

It just pushes back our window once again.

And as I said - how are people going to react to getting, let's just say one, 17 year old from GWS and Viney?

Two great talents I am sure, but they cannot play in 2012.

So is everyone happy with 2012 being another development year?

[hardtack 10,126]

Where have I ever said that 'he's gone'? All I once did was report a 'rumour' I heard at a GWS's Captain's Club function - and I was at pains to say that those statements were merely said to me, and that I had no idea whether those statements were in fact true. If you want to head into this territory, hardtack - I'd suggest you ensure some level of accuracy.

I have no idea whether he'll re-sign or not. I have limited my comments to the way the negotiation has been handled - and, in this respect, I'm happy to be on the record as stating that IMO it's been handled very poorly and, I think, disrespectfully to the club.

I also know where Rooty Hill is, fyi. It's not exactly the Greenwich Village in NYC. There is perhaps a reason it's often used as a 'cliche'.

Ok, firstly apologies re the "gone" comment... I should not have included you in that.

Yes, I'm sure that just as I do, you know where Rooty Hill is (I've been to the RSL and it's nowhere near as bad as people would have you believe), but my comment was mostly making the point that Tom, if he did move to Sydney, would be very unlikely to be living in the outer western suburbs.

As for the negotiations being handled poorly, both Scully, his management and the club have all been consistent in there contentedness to put discussions on hold until the end of the season. You might think it's been handled poorly, but obviously the club doesn't agree.

[furious d 447]

No, because they will not be eligible for FA, let alone unrestricted free agency (which is what this GWS-Free agency has been).

It just pushes back our window once again.

And as I said - how are people going to react to getting, let's just say one, 17 year old from GWS and Viney?

Two great talents I am sure, but they cannot play in 2012.

So is everyone happy with 2012 being another development year?

If we lose Scully we're in the same situation anyway. Both Compo picks would more than likely be banked for a year anyway. 2 17 yo's this year that are potentially top 5 poicks next year and Viney, or 2 first round picks next year and Viney. The choice is obvious. The only problem is 17 other clubs that might be keen on 1 of those 17yo's.

I think if Scully goes we'd be mad not to try packaging 1 of the compo picks with Bate or Dunn to try and get our hands on one of those 17 yo's. Maybe Spencer and our end of first round compo pick would get it done.

[drdrake 3,035]

We want to keep our compensation picks and trade our first round pick if we can. That is the real win for the club, Viney is going to cost our first pick in the national draft, this doesn't include compensation picks, it means if GWS take our first pick for one of th 17yo Viney will cost us our round 2 pick and we still have our compensation picks. I have posted this a couple of times we could walk away from the 2012 draft with what would be considered 4 first round picks.

[Neita3000 37]

We want to keep our compensation picks and trade our first round pick if we can. That is the real win for the club, Viney is going to cost our first pick in the national draft, this doesn't include compensation picks, it means if GWS take our first pick for one of th 17yo Viney will cost us our round 2 pick and we still have our compensation picks. I have posted this a couple of times we could walk away from the 2012 draft with what would be considered 4 first round picks.

I think the nomination process for father/son picks is before trade week. Meaning that when someone nominates Jack with their first rounder we have to match it and are thus unable to trade that pick throughout the duration of trade week

[Jordie_tackles 354]

We want to keep our compensation picks and trade our first round pick if we can. That is the real win for the club, Viney is going to cost our first pick in the national draft, this doesn't include compensation picks, it means if GWS take our first pick for one of th 17yo Viney will cost us our round 2 pick and we still have our compensation picks. I have posted this a couple of times we could walk away from the 2012 draft with what would be considered 4 first round picks.

How will it cost us a second round pick? if a team with a pick before us offers a first rounder we would still need to use our first rounder due to it being after theirs no? we cant trade future picks ala NBA??

[Jordie_tackles 354]

Plus if we did take the two top kids plus Viney in next years draft ... would we be not just another sitting duck for another "scully saga" to happen again in 2-3 years time. Again we would not have a balanced list with all our kids when their improvement comes to be massive, massive targets for other clubs.

IMHO ... Jay is dreaming.

Although I do think the logic is right this year. ie trade with GWS ...

I would argue the list would be even more balanced, with a slightly wider spread of kids, coming on when Moloney Green Davey retire? If we are being targeted for established players it means that we have to much quality on our list, and will receive a trade for such players extending a window further? Geelong lost players, but not the cream... Moloney was decent but him being a MFC supporter helped him get here i believe, and Prismall hasnt come on as expected at all etc

It may end up being one Scully or two Gysberts types essentially extending our depth but lower the top end slightly... honestly we seem to be in a really strong position after all the hysteria etc, our compensation will be stronger than last year due to these 17yo being available

And my preference is still for Scully to stay