Tom Scully in September ...

[Guest Gareth Keenan]

Yep, we've been along this road before... but who exactly do you think Schwarz's source would be?

Can we trust anyone from GWS?

If it's anyone from MFC, surely if it were true we'd know by now.

So the question is, do you really think Schwarz heard it directly from Scully, yet he is yet to tell the club?

So he'd tell David Shwarz, but not the club... strange logic.

[Kento80 83]

It's a nice, cozy position to take. Having a bit each way and claiming the 'moral high ground'.

But in this instance it's the wrong one. The real 'moral high ground' is attained through logic and reasoning.

I would have thought the nice, cozy position was the one where you think your intellect is above everyone else therefore nothing you say or think could ever be wrong RR?

[Range Rover 1,935]

Yep, we've been along this road before... but who exactly do you think Schwarz's source would be?

Can we trust anyone from GWS?

If it's anyone from MFC, surely if it were true we'd know by now.

So the question is, do you really think Schwarz heard it directly from Scully, yet he is yet to tell the club?

So he'd tell David Shwarz, but not the club... strange logic.

I'll write an opinion piece if the mods will let me once it's all over, but it will probably be deleted and I'll be banned.

[Guest Gareth Keenan]

It's a nice, cozy position to take. Having a bit each way and claiming the 'moral high ground'.

But in this instance it's the wrong one. The real 'moral high ground' is attained through logic and reasoning.

Interesting thing to say, when you consider your belief in David Schwarz and then you read my last post...

It's one thing to trust David Shwarz. It's another thing to trust his decision of who to put his own trust in.

This is where he has fallen down.

[Range Rover 1,935]

I would have thought the nice, cozy position was the one where you think your intellect is above everyone else therefore nothing you say or think could ever be wrong RR?

On many topics, football tactics for example, I'd readily admit others have it over me. On this issue, I reckon I'm spot on.

[Kento80 83]

Interesting thing to say, when you consider your belief in David Schwarz and then you read my last post...

It's one thing to trust David Shwarz. It's another thing to trust his decision of who to put his own trust in.

This is where he has fallen down.

Bazinga!

[Guest Gareth Keenan]

I'll write an opinion piece if the mods will let me once it's all over, but it will probably be deleted and I'll be banned.

Well, I'd actually be interested in reading it, even though I doubt anyone would expect me to agree with it.

I'm sure there'd be others in the same boat.

Maybe you could PM the piece.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Interesting thing to say, when you consider your belief in David Schwarz and then you read my last post...

It's one thing to trust David Shwarz. It's another thing to trust his decision of who to put his own trust in.

This is where he has fallen down.

Again, we'll see very soon whther or not he has fallen down.

[Kento80 83]

On many topics, football tactics for example, I'd readily admit others have it over me. On this issue, I reckon I'm spot on.

Exactly, which gives you no more moral high ground than I claim to have. If on the other hand proof comes to light that you were right all along and TS is a lying, moneygrubbing mercenary, then I will bow down to your superior wisdom. Dont think it's likely to happen, but who knows. And I surely don't think that because I believed Tom, it makes me morally beyond reproach. All it does is show which side of this issue I lie on.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Well, I'd actually be interested in reading it, even though I doubt anyone would expect me to agree with it.

I'm sure there'd be others in the same boat.

Maybe you could PM the piece.

Maybe I could post it on Wikileaks B)

[Tatu 416]

Is it possible that Scully sign a HOA and is obliged to go up north and look at the facilities, reguardless of weather he stay or goes...

Edited September 9, 2011 by tatu

[Goodvibes 3,596]

It's a nice, cozy position to take. Having a bit each way and claiming the 'moral high ground'.

But in this instance it's the wrong one. The real 'moral high ground' is attained through logic and reasoning.

It's certainly not a nice, cozy position for anyone who genuinely wants one of the key pieces to our future success to remain. You'd genuinely prefer winning a ridiculous debate with a collection of anonimous internet forum posters than see your club come closer to winning a premiership. It's pathetic.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Exactly, which gives you no more moral high ground than I claim to have. If on the other hand proof comes to light that you were right all along and TS is a lying, moneygrubbing mercenary, then I will bow down to your superior wisdom. Dont think it's likely to happen, but who knows. And I surely don't think that because I believed Tom, it makes me morally beyond reproach. All it does is show which side of this issue I lie on.

There will be no definitive proof of anything. Only a preponderence of circumstantial evidence.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe for some crimes that's still enough to convict.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

Is it posible that Scully sign a HOA and is obliged to go up north and look at the facilities, reguardless of weather

The HOA he signed contains a clause that says that he doesn't have to go up there if it's raining.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Goodvibes

[hardtack 10,555]

I'm going to step in to bat here for Bezelbub. Like others, I re-posted the Big Footy quote in mock jest (at least I hope they did) but it seems people actually do take the anonymous 'inside words' from a football forum poster seriously.

They shouldn't. It's disingenuous to lump a quote from an anonymous poster with anonymous sources in with quotes from journalists who's names are known and who have known, established contacts in the football industry. Even Kim Hagdorn, seemingly at the very bottom of that tree, can claim that.

If anything Hardtack, it makes your stance look ridiculously weak to put up such offerings and suggest that they are 'interesting'. They're not interesting. They're meaningless. As meaningless as the joke thread started by Chook on Scully signing with the MFC this morning.

Same goes for anyone who regards anything 'Wolfmother' has said on the matter to carry any weight on proceeedings in this thread.

If only it had been that quote you reposted - the post I cited was a completely different one. The poster of the one you cited was discredited on BF, the poster of the one I cited has not. To repeat for the umpteenth time, I believe none of what I read in forums or the press on this issue, as I prefer to take Scully at his word until it is proven otherwise. However, being a public forum, there is absolutely no harm in throwing statements such as that into the mix; people will still believe only what they choose to believe... no harm done.

[nutbean 8,838]

Agreed 100% NB. The only issue here is that some like myself, rpfc, hardtack, GK et al believe what Tom has to say on the issue and others do not, instead choosing to accept the word of self serving individuals with no proof. This is not to say that they are not correct, but without proving it, Tom is the only one who's word can be taken for what it is.

I was once of that camp - I have shifted ground slightly because anything is possible. I actually dont hold any opinion now on anyone telling the truth or not. Someone is telling porkies for sure. I no longer trust or distrust the journo's sources ( although I will shred them for inaccuate reporting), I neither trust nor distrust Tom and will not villify him. I choose to ignore all the froth and bubble and accept that he will sign a contract with someone.

(this is on doctors orders !)

Edited September 9, 2011 by nutbean

[Pennant St Dee 13,240]

No conspiracy Kento, just facts. I'm dealing in them and you aren't.

Why aren't you?

Are we children here STFU and just chill until the decision is made either way, neither of you are dealing with facts. The facts are between Scully his management the two clubs and his management. Wolfmothers facts are of a conversation he had with him, I don't know WM or his relationship with Tom beyond being his sponsor so can't comment on how open or guarded Tom would be in conversation with WM.

I hop from thinking every day on what his decision will be. I deal with facts every day in my job and analysing them and it is a difficult thing to do so can we just await the decision and maybe discuss MFC with Tom in 2012 or what we target in return for compensation picks

[Guest Gareth Keenan]

Again, we'll see very soon whther or not he has fallen down.

I don't know that we will.

I think Schwarz has heard it from a dodgy source, but is still playing the percentages in repeating the claims of his source.

It doesn't necessarily mean his source was correct in any way at the time he conveyed that info to Schwarz.

I can tell Schwarz that it will rain tomorrow because I did a cartwheel on Tuesday.

Schwarz can in turn tell his listeners he is 98% sure it will rain tomorrow, and he heard it from a good source.

If it does rain, is it because I did a cartwheel? Or is it just a happy coincidence that makes me look like I am right?

Edited September 9, 2011 by Gareth Keenan

[Sir Why You Little 37,051]

The Longer this goes on the more i believe the words of Tom Scully. The Journalists are as clueless as you and i.

[Tatu 416]

The HOA he signed contains a clause that says that he doesn't have to go up there if it's raining.

It's always raining somewhere...

Edited September 9, 2011 by tatu

[Range Rover 1,935]

Okay ... enough.

This is my last post until the 'decision' is announced.

[nutbean 8,838]

There will be no definitive proof of anything. Only a preponderence of circumstantial evidence.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe for some crimes that's still enough to convict.

Criminal Court - beyond reasonable doubt - not a hope in hell that you would get it over the line

Civil Proceedings - balance of probabilities - you still have to have a little something called evidence - circumstantial opinion doesnt count. not a hope in hell you would get it over the line.

And just for your reference - by its very nature, Courts must not convict on circumstantial evidence. Courts decide whether evidence should be considered circumstantial ( and therefore carry zero weight) or not.

Edited September 9, 2011 by nutbean

[Goodvibes 3,596]

Okay ... enough.

This is my last post until the 'decision' is announced.

I hope he takes the whole of September to decide!

[Jaded No More 68,966]

Prove it.

You are a massive [censored].

I was at that dinner. It happened. I'm not sending you photos to prove it. Deal with it

[hardtack 10,555]

I hope he takes the whole of September to decide!

A saucer of milk to table three please!

Edited September 9, 2011 by hardtack