Put them both on match payments!!

they already GET match payments

If i read those stats without knowing the name of the player involved, I would estimate his worth to the club between the $200k - $250k per year bracket, no more. How do they stack up against Jordie Mck?

Non of my arguements have been based on him deserving to be paid massive amounts, and i dont believe thats what he wants, if he stays at Melbourne he as already turned down his pay day and it will be for football reasons, he will be paid well no doubt but not crazy as some people believe imo

Edit for other midfielders : http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare.asp?SeasonID=&PlayerName1=brent+moloney&PlayerName2=nathan+jones&PlayerName3=colin+sylvia&PlayerName4=&Compare=Add+to+Comparison&SelectedPlayers=1960%2C1975%2C

seem he averages more disposal per game so far than any other of our top midfielders

Interesting thing I get from This Post. The club must have a lot of confidence in keeping him if they put him on the letter along with our other young stars.

So don't appease Tom's demands - appease Colin's demands?

I don't think that is a very strategic approach...

Theo Epstein is the man in the front office of the Boston Red Sox - he knows a player's worth to his organisation - he is ruthless and single minded.

He gets the list of players, determines their worth, and then tries to sign those he wants within the parameters of their worth.

This is how Harrington and Schwab will do it and we should expect nothing less.

Tom and Colin will be offered contracts commensurate to their worth.

And if they are not appeased...

Hasta luego, por favor.

I wish it was this easy but the AFL has alot more restrictions on player movement than MLB. Also, even given the Scully saga, player loyalty seems a more prevalent occurance within AFL culture.

This means that such a system will never be possible as clubs are not able to easily replace a 'scully' with a player they believe to be of equivalent value.

For example, if this were the case and we really believed Scully to be worth say 300 000 a season we would offer no more than this as we could easily recruit an equivalent player in by just offering a fair price. Furthermore, if we thought he could become an 800 000 player we would never offer him so much now as we could simply over slightly above the odds to any other 800 000 player in now or in the future.

The reality is that player of the potential of a Scully dont come around so often and are incredibly hard to gain on the trade market. Therfore we find ourselves in our current position where we are considering offering him more than 3 times his present value for the chance to have him around when he might be good enough to pay that back.

I dont like the idea of offering such a young player so much but i understand that the club has no choice but to play the game.

Sorry, where did you get these figures from..?

Sorry, figures arent meant to be realistic...just demonstrating that the club cannot afford in negotiations to simply offer Scully what he is worth at the present moment to the club.

Over the odds offers have to be made to players you want to keep, as with a highly restricted trade market Scully is not a replaceable player.

Has anything Happened yet??

ahaha this actually made me: LAUGH OUT LOUD.

they already GET match payments

The saying 'put them both on match payments' means they should only get match payments...

Whhoossshh!

I wish it was this easy but the AFL has alot more restrictions on player movement than MLB. Also, even given the Scully saga, player loyalty seems a more prevalent occurance within AFL culture.

This means that such a system will never be possible as clubs are not able to easily replace a 'scully' with a player they believe to be of equivalent value.

For example, if this were the case and we really believed Scully to be worth say 300 000 a season we would offer no more than this as we could easily recruit an equivalent player in by just offering a fair price. Furthermore, if we thought he could become an 800 000 player we would never offer him so much now as we could simply over slightly above the odds to any other 800 000 player in now or in the future.

The reality is that player of the potential of a Scully dont come around so often and are incredibly hard to gain on the trade market. Therfore we find ourselves in our current position where we are considering offering him more than 3 times his present value for the chance to have him around when he might be good enough to pay that back.

I dont like the idea of offering such a young player so much but i understand that the club has no choice but to play the game.

I think I know what you are saying, but my interpretation of a players worth involves their market value.

What I am trying to say is that we should be single minded in our approach to a flag and offer only what fits into our plan. And I am sure TH and CS will.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/knee-problem-ends-adam-cooneys-season/story-e6frf9jf-1226116269981

http://www.heraldsun...f-1226116269981

Exactly the same injury as Scully, and exactly the same injury that has caused me 2 years of pain and immobility (though it seems Cooney and Scully have pain relating to the bone itself not the surrounding tendon).

Good luck paying $1mil a seaon for that!

http://www.heraldsun...f-1226116269981

2 picks and 3 mill saved look good huh !!

We dont know the details of Watts negotiations so enlighten me as to why it took 3 months from starting talks to get there ?

Look closer

Tell me the difference between Scully and Green ( our captains) negotiation where there was an offer on the table from Collingwood for more money than he was on at Melbourne and kept us in suspense until after the end of season. ( and yes - I am a hypocrite as this information came out in the media - the same media who is whipping us into a frenzy over Scully).

Besides the unprecedented media because of the purported dollars on offer from GWS - what is the difference between the Green and Scully negotiation ?

So what you are telling me is you believe the media in relation to Green but not in relation to Scully. Not only that you're comparing apples and oranges in the first place

Look closer

So what you are telling me is you believe the media in relation to Green but not in relation to Scully. Not only that you're comparing apples and oranges in the first place

And you are the one giving abstract replies like 'have a closer look' as a reason for the differences between the unknown and unseeable fruit...

Exactly the same injury as Scully, and exactly the same injury that has caused me 2 years of pain and immobility (though it seems Cooney and Scully have pain relating to the bone itself not the surrounding tendon).

Good luck paying $1mil a seaon for that!

I'm sure I've heard that Scully's is different in nature to Cooney's injury...

I don't think, without some sort of inside knowledge, that we're really qualified to make that judgment.

As I understand, I had exactly the same injury as Blease, but I returned to playing and my original form after 6 months...

We dont know the details of Watts negotiations so enlighten me as to why it took 3 months from starting talks to get there ?

I am playing devils advocate as we do not know if he was happy with the figures offered, unhappy , whether there was something else on the table ?

Tell me the difference between Scully and Green ( our captains) negotiation where there was an offer on the table from Collingwood for more money than he was on at Melbourne and kept us in suspense until after the end of season. ( and yes - I am a hypocrite as this information came out in the media - the same media who is whipping us into a frenzy over Scully).

Besides the unprecedented media because of the purported dollars on offer from GWS - what is the difference between the Green and Scully negotiation ?

I have no idea about the details of the past signings, and no idea if Scully is going or staying. One big difference that I see is that Scully had denied talking with GWS, but GWS have said that they were talking to him last year. I don't remember any dishonesty from either side in the other negotiations.

Tom Scully = Days of our lives

I have no idea about the details of the past signings, and no idea if Scully is going or staying. One big difference that I see is that Scully had denied talking with GWS, but GWS have said that they were talking to him last year. I don't remember any dishonesty from either side in the other negotiations.

Funny, cos Gubby Allen and Sheedy have denied GWS having spoken to him.

Only a vague interview with Silvagni says that they were.

I'd be inclined to believe the side that isn't contradicting itself.

Funny, cos Gubby Allen and Sheedy have denied GWS having spoken to him.

Only a vague interview with Silvagni says that they were.

I'd be inclined to believe the side that isn't contradicting itself.

As I said in another reply to you Artie (or whatever alias it is this week), Sheedy and Allen denied signing Davis to avoid problems with the AFL after Davis held his press conference. I find it strange that you would choose to trust the word of Sheedy and Allen, but I guess it is convenient for this argument.

I would believe the person with nothing to gain by lying, and is not sly enough to remember the party line. I think out of the four it not hard to work out who that would be.

Tom Scully = Days of our lives

quite so Macdonald !!

As I said in another reply to you Artie (or whatever alias it is this week), Sheedy and Allen denied signing Davis to avoid problems with the AFL after Davis held his press conference. I find it strange that you would choose to trust the word of Sheedy and Allen, but I guess it is convenient for this argument.

I would believe the person with nothing to gain by lying, and is not sly enough to remember the party line. I think out of the four it not hard to work out who that would be.

It's e25.

Get it right.

I don't trust the word of Sheedy or Allen.

If you were smart you'd realise the point is that the GWS side contradict themselves.

They're not sure what lie it is they're telling today.

GWS have everything to gain by lying, and Silvagni is part of that.

Delude yourself as you will.

I have no idea about the details of the past signings, and no idea if Scully is going or staying. One big difference that I see is that Scully had denied talking with GWS, but GWS have said that they were talking to him last year. I don't remember any dishonesty from either side in the other negotiations.

The major difference is the intense ( x 100)media scrutiny. I cannot remember in my lifetime when there has been such spotlight on one almost out of contract player - maybe the Judd situation but that played out much quicker than the Scully situation. There are so many "unnamed sources" with differing stories and also contradictions from some named sources.

I therefore have chosen to believe TS because at the end of the day he is a MFC player and its costs me nothing to take him at his word. Until someone else comes and shows me proof to the contrary where he has signed or where he was offered a contract last October I choose to disregard the scuttlebug because TS is an MFC player and it costs me nothing to take him at his word. Heres the rub - He will stay or he will go - whether he was approached , not approached, signed , not signed doesnt make a lick of difference. I choose to believe he hasnt signed or made up his mind because it costs me nothing to take him at his word and he is an MFC player.

The major difference is the intense ( x 100)media scrutiny. I cannot remember in my lifetime when there has been such spotlight on one almost out of contract player - maybe the Judd situation but that played out much quicker than the Scully situation. There are so many "unnamed sources" with differing stories and also contradictions from some named sources.

I therefore have chosen to believe TS because at the end of the day he is a MFC player and its costs me nothing to take him at his word. Until someone else comes and shows me proof to the contrary where he has signed or where he was offered a contract last October I choose to disregard the scuttlebug because TS is an MFC player and it costs me nothing to take him at his word. Heres the rub - He will stay or he will go - whether he was approached , not approached, signed , not signed doesnt make a lick of difference. I choose to believe he hasnt signed or made up his mind because it costs me nothing to take him at his word and he is an MFC player.

The above, as well as the fact that if he stays, I can be comfortbale next year cheering him on, or asking for his autograph or photograph knowing not once did I call him a liar (or said that he has gone = same thing as calling him a liar). And, if he does go, I couldn't give a toss how many on here give us the old "told you so", it will just give me greater delight to have no respect for him and give me an opportunity to boo him evey time I see him!

The major difference is the intense ( x 100)media scrutiny. I cannot remember in my lifetime when there has been such spotlight on one almost out of contract player

Except for last year with Ablett ...

IMO MFC believes it is still possible that Scully will sign with us - why include him in the most prominent position in the 100% e-mail otherwise?