Whilst I understand the obvious intent of the rules ..There is a certain niaivety to suggest all players are little angels.. They are after all humans, and humans have frailties etc. And guess what...some even lie...and cheat etc.

So lets all pretend shall we..!!

So why the new thread???

Thomo, Jack already covered most of this in his OP. One thing I will say though is once these threads get legs it becomes a full time job to moderate them. It wouldn't be uncommon for the Scully threads to grow by 5 pages in between Demonland visits for me on a busy day, and I visit several times a day. The other thing is that it's so painful to read that sometimes I just don't want to look. So unless someone devotes themselves to just sitting there watching the Scully thread all day and night, occasionally the threads are going to get more momentum than the mods can keep on top of.

The other thing is that I don't think a lot of pearls of wisdom have been lost in the locked threads have they?

And once again I implore people to use the "Report Post" button (bottom left of each post) to help make the job of monitoring poor posts easier.

Whilst I understand the obvious intent of the rules ..There is a certain niaivety to suggest all players are little angels.. They are after all humans, and humans have frailties etc. And guess what...some even lie...and cheat etc.

So lets all pretend shall we..!!

Personally I wouldn't be happy with people calling me a liar based on rumour and without evidence, but people are different I suppose.

Hope the kid has a ripper game today. I reckon he will.

There is a certain niaivety to suggest all players are little angels..

Odd post. I'm pretty sure the COC doesn't say "no slandering the players because they're all good boys".

The detail that we could use the picks in any of the next five drafts is significant.

Firstly, we can hold off this year and take more of an interest in 2012, when the first round will be half a dozen picks shorter without the GWS intrusion (obviously making mid/end first round picks earlier) and the draft pool is expected to be much much better.

Secondly, we can hold onto a pick for aroudn 2014-15, and use it to give that extra little kicker in the search for the Selwood or Sidebottom ready-to-go first year player that can give a contender the advantage.

Anyway, I believe that the Club's offer to Scully is substantial but not ridiculous, in the circumstances. I strongly hope it is hugely front-ended such that after a one-year spike (a 'loyalty bonus') it returns to something comparable to similarly important teammates. That helps to put the whole thing into the past quickly, and we can all get on with the fun stuff.

Personally, I'm feeling reasonably comfortable that Scully will find the offer and future at the Demons an acceptable one.

Can the MFC trade Scully to GWS in the mini draft and pick up Jaegar O'Meara who would be a certain top 5 pick if he was eligible?

Interesting point; now they have offered Tom Scully a contract it means they are unable to approach any other MFC player so if he declines the offer they will miss out on an uncontracted player from our club, this year. That means if we can sign all the required players and Scully doesn't sign we come out of this unscathed.

Mind you I don't think that will be the case, but it could all be an elaborate ploy by the club to protect our players, smiley face inserted here.

Interesting point; now they have offered Tom Scully a contract it means they are unable to approach any other MFC player so if he declines the offer they will miss out on an uncontracted player from our club, this year. That means if we can sign all the required players and Scully doesn't sign we come out of this unscathed.

Mind you I don't think that will be the case, but it could all be an elaborate ploy by the club to protect our players, smiley face inserted here.

That would be a cunning plan.

Interesting point; now they have offered Tom Scully a contract it means they are unable to approach any other MFC player so if he declines the offer they will miss out on an uncontracted player from our club, this year. That means if we can sign all the required players and Scully doesn't sign we come out of this unscathed.

Mind you I don't think that will be the case, but it could all be an elaborate ploy by the club to protect our players, smiley face inserted here.

That would be smart by the club though wouldn't it?

If - hypothetically - you know that the player is going then you'd want to at least feign interest in keeping him.

They can only take one of our uncontracted stars, after all. And by making your 'phantom' offer substantial ($3 mil over 5 years), you make your case for quality compensation that much stronger.

I wonder if they'd do that? Umm ... hmm .. mmm

Interesting point; now they have offered Tom Scully a contract it means they are unable to approach any other MFC player so if he declines the offer they will miss out on an uncontracted player from our club, this year. That means if we can sign all the required players and Scully doesn't sign we come out of this unscathed.

Mind you I don't think that will be the case, but it could all be an elaborate ploy by the club to protect our players, smiley face inserted here.

I didn't realise that was the rule. Like you're alluding to I doubt it's deliberate - but what a fantastic side effect if Scully does sign.

Interesting point; now they have offered Tom Scully a contract it means they are unable to approach any other MFC player so if he declines the offer they will miss out on an uncontracted player from our club, this year. That means if we can sign all the required players and Scully doesn't sign we come out of this unscathed.

Mind you I don't think that will be the case, but it could all be an elaborate ploy by the club to protect our players, smiley face inserted here.

No they can approach as many as they want. Just they have to trade for the second player onwards. ala GC17 - Brisbane last year with Brennan & Rischitelli .. the real bonus here is if both players are un-contracted they both still create compensation picks. B)

It might be even smarter of us ... If Scully is 100% committed to go (which I hope is not the case) ... see if he will look at any other clubs. Its just possible GWS might not be the best deal for us.

Ultimately the power will sit with the player. I've heard a strategy where some clubs are very, very keen to deal with GWS to get a few spots booked in for next years draft due to its strength.

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

But who are you "angry" at?

But who are you "angry" at?

The AFL for ignoring the request of the advisory committee that 2nd year players be out of reach of GWS. Had they taken that recommendation, there would be no issue about losing a number 1 draft pick at the end of their first contract, therefor no issue regarding compensation value for such a player.

Something that needs to be taken into account is that the AFL and the AFLPA have not reached an agreement on the new pay deal. Until that is done, why would any player sign a contract as the salary caps will rise to align with the new wages?

The AFL for ignoring the request of the advisory committee that 2nd year players be out of reach of GWS. Had they taken that recommendation, there would be no issue about losing a number 1 draft pick at the end of their first contract, therefor no issue regarding compensation value for such a player.

Scully could have had a 1 yr extension at MFC (like Pendlebury, and effectively Tapscott and Trengove), then would have been available at the end of 2012 to GWS. Not much difference: go at end of 2011 vs end of 2012; I'd prefer the former if it is going to happen.

Scully could have had a 1 yr extension at MFC (like Pendlebury, and effectively Tapscott and Trengove), then would have been available at the end of 2012 to GWS. Not much difference: go at end of 2011 vs end of 2012; I'd prefer the former if it is going to happen.

Very true Mono.

If there is any argument for not going, this article sums it up.

Send it to TS

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/sydney-crowds-are-a-giant-problem/story-fn7si05c-1226095541377

Just look at the photo.

The AFL for ignoring the request of the advisory committee that 2nd year players be out of reach of GWS. Had they taken that recommendation, there would be no issue about losing a number 1 draft pick at the end of their first contract, therefor no issue regarding compensation value for such a player.

I thought it was us that made the request, think the Tigers also made noises ... not the committee! Do you have a link?

So I thought it was the opposite ... the AFL did not ignore the request of the List Management Committee ... they accepted the changes the committee requested.

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 would have thought pick 7to 9 & 14 to 17 were the most appropriate for compensation for Scully.And I would be happy with that IF we loose him.

If there is any argument for not going, this article sums it up.

Send it to TS

http://www.heraldsun...c-1226095541377

Just look at the photo.

Will be weird won't it? Million dollar footballers running around in a VFA type atmosphere.

There has definitely been a novelty factor about watching the debut of the Suns this year. But it wears off after a while. I think that

effect will be lessened next year and people won't care as much about GWS.

I thought it was us that made the request, think the Tigers also made noises ... not the committee! Do you have a link?

So I thought it was the opposite ... the AFL did not ignore the request of the List Management Committee ... they accepted the changes the committee requested.

Hang on it was the Committee that made suggestions but were "ignored" by Vlad. The Committee were there as window dressing and that is all. The AFL are on a mission and nothing was going to derail it.

The AFL changed the rules for Geelong with regard compensation for Ablett last year after complaints were made.

The AFL changed the rules on 3rd Party contracts but it refuses to look at current contracts and their implications.

The AFL changes the rules to suit whatever mission it is on.

The AFL was originally set up by the Clubs and is now controlling those (most of those)Clubs that set them up. They control them by virtue of their ability to handout money. They set rules not in conjunction with the Clubs as originally mandated but now set the rules to suit whatever agenda they have at the time. No supporter should believe anything that Vlad and Anderson etc say. This is big business. There are no emotional investments within the AFL. We are all emotionally invested in our Clubs. There lies the difference.

We should all hark back to the calls for Hawthorn and Melbourne to merge. Who was pulling the strings then. We were being pushed by other forces to merge. Thank goodness the Melbourne supporters and those within the Club didnt acquiesce. We are now stronger for it.

I hope Tom stays but I am equally certain that if we can maintain the core group of Trengove, Watts, Gysberts, Grimes, Mckenzie, Frawley, Tapscott, Gawn that we will still be feared without him. The Club has to be on alert because the AFL care nothing for MFC and will happily assist GWS to plunder ours or any other Club that does not have any clout.

Something that needs to be taken into account is that the AFL and the AFLPA have not reached an agreement on the new pay deal. Until that is done, why would any player sign a contract as the salary caps will rise to align with the new wages?

Ive raised this earlier.. This , as it would apply to Scully , is al but moot. He wil lget hwt ahe ends up getting irregardless of the agreement. His "dollars" are in a different sphere compared to the greater majority who's contract might be influenced.

So possibly ..re .'any' player it might apply...not so re Tom i'd suggest.

The AFL changed the rules for Geelong with regard compensation for Ablett last year after complaints were made.

This is wrong ... The AFL changed nothing. Sorry you have got your facts wrong here. So from that spot I stopped reading ... just sounds like an anti-AFL rant.

The facts are the AFL agreed to the changes the committee recommended .... massive, massive difference.

The thing that bugs me about the "3rd party arrangements" thing is are these rules actually written down anywhere? Or do the AFL just make them up on the run? Surely the club would be well aware of the exact wording of the rules? And if the rules are written down in plain english then how can they be "tightened" without being changed and re-worded.

As a paying MFC member for 20+ years and as a member who contributes $500 each year to the MFC I think I have the right to demand they call the AFL on this and demand the AFL show them the rule instead of just bullying us through the media.

I think these 3rd party agreements are a joke anyway and shouldn't be allowed. But the facts are they are allowed, at least 114 players in the league have them and the only clubs that don't are us and North. Now that we want to use a 3rd party agreement for one of our players the rules have suddenly been "tightened".

Surely there are ways around this though. If the AFL won't let a player accept one at the same time he is coming out of contract surely an arrangement could be made for Scully to have an "arrangement" kick in a year after he signs. Or for one of his family members to be "looked after". Or any other number of ways around it?

However as I said I think the club should take a stand and demand the AFL put the exact wording of the rule to us so we know exactly what we are dealing with.

I noticed that Gary Lyon has $11 odds to couch next year. I also recall Lyon saying he spoke to Tom regularly. Wonder if Tom will stay next year with Gary as coach.

Probably connecting dots that shouldn't be connected, but this thread is famed for that so why not