Tom Scully

[Guest hangon007]

Point being players can move more freely between clubs, players WILL take a pay cut to win a premiership, lose one premiership player replace with another, rinse repeat, players WILL go to the club they desire, will be a nice way to finish a career

EDIT - finals being the other draw card, teams playing finals over extended periods

Oh ... so they are going to take a "pay cut" to maybe win a premiership?

Does that not fly in the face of nearly every player that says I would love to be a 1 team player?

or is its going to maybe just extended players careers in teams who are dropping down the ladder or not in a "premiership window" ... to move to a club that might be in the window hence increase the length of some careers.

Rule number 1 ... dont be playing at a club if you are 28 YO or above if they are not in a "premiership window." It can be savage.

Point is they can now if they really want to ... just not sure the desire is always there, plus many times the clubs choose to rebuild when it suits them also.

Just in case you missed it ... If you look after and RESPECT your players ... human logic says they will do the same to you. However, when you treat them likes pieces of meat and trade them when it no longer suits you, their is a "better" deal elsewhere or they are having a down year ... hello let me guess what they will do to you.

[daisycutter 29,711]

It's based on the club that has received them, not the team that trades for them.

or.....its based on the trader not the tradee

[Guest hangon007]

Jolly and Ball at the Filth say Hi!

Think you will find they traded them in prior to winning the premiership ...

But dont let the facts get in the way ... sounded good.

Edited July 18, 2011 by hangon007

[old55 23,687]

Yes, whether it will get you two of those 17 year olds is another story.

And whether we want more kids is another...

It's not another story - it IS that story. 2011 1st rounders wont outbid 1st rounders that have a 5 year use-by-date. And a club would have to offer a very good player to trump those 5 year picks. We'd be in a very good position to snare those picks - or at least one of them with one of ours. We could add an experienced player like Bate to the mix - it could be a good deal for GWS.

If we lose Scully we want stars - even 17yo stars. You mentioned a 23-26yo star as a target and that would be lovely - but give me one feasible example.

Edited July 18, 2011 by old55

[Bang Bang Bang 5,839]

The picks are based on Melbourne and where we finish, not GWS.

It's like the Ablett compo.

It's based on the club that has received them, not the team that trades for them.

Fair enough, I was guessing a bit with my estimations.

Still, with those picks + the likes of Morton (a #4 pick in another life) gives us some chance of landing one of these kids.

And I keep going back to Scully himself, I'm one who still firmly believes he will stay, but I'm almost enjoying the speculation about the handsome compensation we could potentially receive.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Sylvia Saint

[Guest hangon007]

2011 1st rounders wont outbid 1st rounders that have a 5 year use-by-date. And a club would have to offer a very good player to trump those 5 year picks. We'd be in a very good position to snare those picks - or at least one of them with one of ours. We could add an experienced player like Bate to the mix - it could be a good deal for GWS.

In principle I agree with you. But the big "ifs" come into play. You hand all the power to GWS once Scully moves on. Yes, it would be right if ALL the ifs went your way ... but then is that good for GWS?

If we lose Scully we want stars - even 17yo stars.

Do we want more "star" kids who we have to develop & then could be possible ripe for the picking? IMHO a team rip for the picking in a few years will be ... Gold Coast.

I would have thought this years coach could lose his head for taking that very attitude. Tough call to make on an existing or new coach. IMHO many are running out of patience, just not sure if we can financial & physiological sustain many more "development" years.

But plenty water to still go under the bridge.

Edited July 18, 2011 by hangon007

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

I'm sure the club thinks about it, but I am equally sure it is not having any affect at all on our performances - thankfully the kids that play for the club are far more focused than many of their supporters.

And I'm not sure what the "beamer attitude" has to do with anything, as Scully has said more that leans toward staying than going (go back and read/re-read his presser comments). My comments were directed at the accuracy of the statements.

To the contrary, I think several supporters want the club to maintain its disciplined focus on responsible list management, and not be distracted by the wholly exceptional circumstances of a new team entering the competition and, in turn, seeking to appease the not-so rational reactions of certain cheerleaders who seem to think Tom Scully is a sure thing to be the next Chris Judd and that he should be paid accordingly.

I would like Scully to stay at the Demons for the rest of his playing career. But not on any terms, and certainly not if he's not wholly committed to the journey - particularly if we can get really good compensation if he decides to leave.

I genuinely don't see how this is an unreasonable, irresponsible or irrational position to be taking in the circumstances.

[Jordie_tackles 354]

Oh ... so they are going to take a "pay cut" to maybe win a premiership?

Does that not fly in the face of nearly every player that says I would love to be a 1 team player?

or is its going to maybe just extended players careers in teams who are dropping down the ladder or not in a "premiership window" ... to move to a club that might be in the window hence increase the length of some careers.

Rule number 1 ... dont be playing at a club if you are 28 YO or above if they are not in a "premiership window." It can be savage.

Point is they can now if they really want to ... just not sure the desire is always there, plus many times the clubs choose to rebuild when it suits them also.

Just in case you missed it ... If you look after and RESPECT your players ... human logic says they will do the same to you. However, when you treat them likes pieces of meat and trade them when it no longer suits you, their is a "better" deal elsewhere or they are having a down year ... hello let me guess what they will do to you.

point number 1, yes every day of the week, Jolly, Ball, Ball took a huge cut this year to help out the pies, they will do it for a serious chance a ta flag

Point 2, old player wont move to teams low on the ladder as they are rebuilding why would they bother?? what does the player get apart from a game??

Point 3, you hit on the head well done

im suggesting team who consistently play finals will be able to draw such talent on the move to them

Also clubs cant stop players moving under full free agency, where atm they need to go into the draft if a deal cannot be struck, removes all the risk from switching clubs

dream that nothing will change if you want, the AFL is just catching up with the rest of the world, its inevitable

[Jordie_tackles 354]

In principle I agree with you. But the big "ifs" come into play. You hand all the power to GWS once Scully moves on. Yes, it would be right if ALL the ifs went your way ... but then is that good for GWS?

Do we want more "star" kids who we have to develop & then could be possible ripe for the picking? IMHO a team rip for the picks in a few years will be ... Gold Coast.

I would have thought this years coach could lose his head for taking that very attitude. Tough call to make on an existing or new coach. IMHO many are running out of patience, just not sure if we can financial & physiological sustain many more "development" years.

But plenty water to still go under the bridge.

If you are losing players to other clubs it mean you have an ABUNDANCE of talent, this is good, we will be compensated, i like this idea, you will always lose players we need to deal with this it happens to all clubs, Geelong lost many players over the journey won 2 flags and are still challenging

GC having kids "ripe for the pickings" will surely push us over the edge so why recruit anyone we may lose another player on our list......these kids will push our cap further than any 17yo will

[Jordie_tackles 354]

Think you will find they traded them in prior to winning the premiership ...

But dont let the facts get in the way ... sounded good.

you could say they chased a premiership at another club??? pushing them over the edge??

*Cough* Free agency *Cough*

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

Just how good are these 17 year olds anyway?

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

But the big "ifs" come into play. You hand all the power to GWS once Scully moves on. Yes, it would be right if ALL the ifs went your way ... but then is that good for GWS?

Do we want more "star" kids who we have to develop & then could be possible ripe for the picking? IMHO a team rip for the picks in a few years will be ... Gold Coast.

There's really only one "if" and that's Scully.

Anderson has basically confirmed that we'd receive two first rounders as compensation, we can on-trade them, they last for 5 years, GWS have to trade 4 seventeen year olds, and Melbourne's picks either by themselves or packaged with a Morton would be very hard to beat.

And yes, of course we want more star kids. Imagine Jaeger, Viney and another couple of really talented kids coming into the side in 2013. The really talented kids like Trengove, Martin, Heppell, Swallow start making an impact very quickly due to the elite junior programmes that are now in place.

If we have to lose Scully there'd be no better replacement than another kid that is touted by those that know as being pick 1 quality. There's a term for it. It's called a "no brainer".

Edited July 18, 2011 by The Tweed Pig

[Guest hangon007]

To the contrary, I think several supporters want the club to maintain its disciplined focus on responsible list management, and not be distracted by the wholly exceptional circumstances of a new team entering the competition and, in turn, seeking to appease the not-so rational reactions of certain cheerleaders who seem to think Tom Scully is a sure thing to be the next Chris Judd and that he should be paid accordingly.

I would like Scully to stay at the Demons for the rest of his playing career. But not on any terms, and certainly not if he's not wholly committed to the journey - particularly if we can get really good compensation if he decides to leave.

I genuinely don't see how this is an unreasonable, irresponsible or irrational position to be taking in the circumstances.

IMHO this is a really good point. But your pay rates are what the market decides ... yet we are "hopefully/ allegedly" getting a 40% discount. Did Carlton get a 40% discount when the obtained Judd ... NO. Funny thing is this could be their very Achilles heal and be 1-2 players short in salary cap room when it finally counts.

"maintain its disciplined focus on responsible list management" is all about building towards a premiership ... not filling your list with "star" young kids who are always 2-3 years away. Some day you have to traverse the gap from "potentially" building to producing. That is infinitely harder the younger your list is.

Edited July 18, 2011 by hangon007

[Tatu 416]

Correct me if i'm wrong? but thought that the free agency that comes in 2012, was for players who'd given 7 years of service for their club?

[Guest hangon007]

There's really only one "if" and that's Scully.

Anderson has basically confirmed that we'd receive two first rounders as compensation, we can on-trade them, they last for 5 years, GWS have to trade 4 seventeen year olds, and Melbourne's picks either by themselves or packaged with a Morton would be very hard to beat.

And yes, of course we want more star kids. Imagine Jaeger, Viney and another couple of really talented kids coming into the side in 2013. The really talented kids like Trengove, Martin, Heppell, Swallow start making an impact very quickly due to the elite junior programmes that are now in place.

If we have to lose Scully there'd be no better replacement than another kid that is touted by those that know as being pick 1 quality. There's a term for it. It's called a "no brainer".

You miss the whole point ... the first if is Scully. The rest of the "ifs" are completely out of your hands.

GWS can do what they want. IMHO they will space the 17YO over 2 years to suit themselves ... not to suit other clubs. If another club want to take a kid that they are interested in ... why is that good for them? Answer its not. Unless the deal is a rip snorter for them you cant discount they may deal for kids on a "needs" basis over best available ... you would think that might work out even better for them. If I dont need mids why should I pay a top price for them? Maybe just maybe they can construct a better deal with a club who needs and wants to fulfill a particular need.

[hardtack 10,612]

To the contrary, I think several supporters want the club to maintain its disciplined focus on responsible list management, and not be distracted by the wholly exceptional circumstances of a new team entering the competition and, in turn, seeking to appease the not-so rational reactions of certain cheerleaders who seem to think Tom Scully is a sure thing to be the next Chris Judd and that he should be paid accordingly.

I would like Scully to stay at the Demons for the rest of his playing career. But not on any terms, and certainly not if he's not wholly committed to the journey - particularly if we can get really good compensation if he decides to leave.

I genuinely don't see how this is an unreasonable, irresponsible or irrational position to be taking in the circumstances.

Do you seriously believe that the club is tabling an offer that is purely designed to appease the cheerleaders? I think you will find that the general consensus is that based on his potential and his performances to date (ok, Saturday night was a hiccup in an otherwise pretty exceptional first season and a half), he is probably worth paying to hold on to. I don't profess to being any kind of an expert, but when I hear media pundits such as Robinson and Whateley commenting that he is well ahead of where Ablett was at the same stage of his career, then I sit up and listen; you may or may not have a high opinion of them, but they build their careers around watching players and assessing performances.

And on the point of commitment, I believe that should be a two way street. The club obviously believes they have someone special in Scully and they are prepared to commit to keeping him by tabling an offer they consider commensurate to his talent. It is not Scully's fault that GWS are offering ridiculous amounts. I am positive that if Scully decides to take our club up on its "lesser" offer, he will be totally committed going forward and will play his heart out for the Dees for many years to come, hopefully rewarding the club's faith in his potential, many times over.

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

You miss the whole point ... the first if is Scully. The rest of the "ifs" are completely out of your hands.

GWS can do what they want. IMHO they will space the 17YO over 2 years to suit themselves ... not to suit other clubs.

Perhaps you'll need to remind me of the "ifs".

We WILL get two picks as compensation if Scully goes. GWS HAVE to trade 4 seventeen year olds over a two year period. And it would be difficult for any other club to match what we can offer GWS, due to the 5 year period of our compensation picks.

Perhaps you can provide some examples of what would trump us?

I'm surprised you find this so difficult.

Edited July 18, 2011 by The Tweed Pig

[Guest hangon007]

point number 1, yes every day of the week, Jolly, Ball, Ball took a huge cut this year to help out the pies, they will do it for a serious chance a ta flag

Are you sure about Ball leaving for less pay? I think you will find it was the opposite.

Jolly left due to family reasons ... you are kidding yourself if you thought it would be any different under FA.

Point 2, old player wont move to teams low on the ladder as they are rebuilding why would they bother?? what does the player get apart from a game??

Bingo think you answered that yourself .... ahhh he gets a game? Better than being retired.

Point 3, you hit on the head well done

Thank you

im suggesting team who consistently play finals will be able to draw such talent on the move to them

I'm suggesting in reality clubs that win premierships will find it hard to do these "deals" due to lack of salary cap room. Take Collingwood last year they are struggling to hold onto their stars unless they take massively under what the market is pre-pared to pay ie Cloke & Swan

So how does that help them in free agency? ahhhh ... sorry but it doesn't. In reality in might actually cost them a player.

Edited July 18, 2011 by hangon007

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Do you seriously believe that the club is tabling an offer that is purely designed to appease the cheerleaders? I think you will find that the general consensus is that based on his potential and his performances to date (ok, Saturday night was a hiccup in an otherwise pretty exceptional first season and a half), he is probably worth paying to hold on to. I don't profess to being any kind of an expert, but when I hear media pundits such as Robinson and Whateley commenting that he is well ahead of where Ablett was at the same stage of his career, then I sit up and listen; you may or may not have a high opinion of them, but they build their careers around watching players and assessing performances.

And on the point of commitment, I believe that should be a two way street. The club obviously believes they have someone special in Scully and they are prepared to commit to keeping him by tabling an offer they consider commensurate to his talent. It is not Scully's fault that GWS are offering ridiculous amounts. I am positive that if Scully decides to take our club up on its "lesser" offer, he will be totally committed going forward and will play his heart out for the Dees for many years to come, hopefully rewarding the club's faith in his potential, many times over.

I agree with this statement.

[Guest hangon007]

Perhaps you'll need to remind me of the "ifs".

We WILL get two picks as compensation if Scully goes. GWS HAVE to trade 4 seventeen year olds over a two year period. And it would be difficult for any other club to match what we can offer GWS, due to the 5 year period of our compensation picks.

Perhaps you can provide some examples of what would trump us?

I'm surprised you find this so difficult.

Perhaps you just need to re-read ... but not people strong point around here.

I'm surprised you think its all so simple. It all comes down to how under-handed GWS, Sheedy & Gubby want to be and how desperate the other clubs are.

But sure you let Scully go for a few "if" buts and maybees. Thats the idea of the whole article.

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

But sure you let Scully go for a few "if" buts and maybees. Thats the idea of the whole article.

I'm not letting him do anything. I'm trying to use logic and work my way through the liklihood of certain scenarios if he decides to leave. You originally intimated that Jay Clark's article was pretty much baseless and others, including me, find it very plausible. You haven't been successful in explaining to me why it's not.

There's far more chance of us picking up one or two of these 17 year olds than there is of Scully ending up at Richmond. Get my drift?

[old55 23,687]

Perhaps you just need to re-read ... but not people strong point around here.

I'm surprised you think its all so simple. It all comes down to how under-handed GWS, Sheedy & Gubby want to be and how desperate the other clubs are.

But sure you let Scully go for a few "if" buts and maybees. Thats the idea of the whole article.

GWS doesn't have control over which players are in the mini-draft - for example O'Meara committed to the draft - whoever GWS give 1st pick to can take him.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/giants-hold-the-key-for-young-bloods-20110705-1h0rp.html#ixzz1SPth9wNB

[Robert 0]

I'm sure the club thinks about it, but I am equally sure it is not having any affect at all on our performances - thankfully the kids that play for the club are far more focused than many of their supporters.

And I'm not sure what the "beamer attitude" has to do with anything, as Scully has said more that leans toward staying than going (go back and read/re-read his presser comments). My comments were directed at the accuracy of the statements.

Well I am hoping the club more than thinks about it and I am hoping the players are far more focused than their supporters!

If scully goes then as beamer says if you don't want to be at the MFC the fark off ... I would have thought that is easy for most to understand!

[Guest hangon007]

GWS doesn't have control over which players are in the mini-draft - for example O'Meara committed to the draft - whoever GWS give 1st pick to can take him.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/giants-hold-the-key-for-young-bloods-20110705-1h0rp.html#ixzz1SPth9wNB

Nope you are right ... but they have FULL control over who the deal with.

[Tatu 416]

sure you let Scully go for a few "if" buts and maybees.

Don't think anybody is saying they want Scully to go, for the compensation picks...