Phil Scully and Todd Viney

[Retrospective 104]

Dees deal also has dad issues

Interesting article... of course we all know the 2 situations are completely different, but it did highlight (for me anyway) the way the AFL manages issues like this and ends up with multiple shade of grey

[pitmaster 3,577]

What was that number again? 220 senior games, or something like that, a Bluey (Truscott) in the trophy cabinet, a team mate of Stynes, Lyon and the mighty Grinter...I can see why you might compare the Scully and Viney situations but really there is no comparison.

One has a history of commitment, loyalty and achievement, the other has lunch.

[Tony Tea 2,809]

"The Todd Viney situation at Melbourne is completely different because his son is not even at the club yet and the father is a respected assistant coach," Anderson said.

[Striker475 696]

it was a half a page of a tripe article to be honest. Completely ignores the fact that TV is a club great and former captain. In fact, the article is more damning of Adelaide, with the Crows trying to sneak Jack out from under Melbourne's noses through Todd's influence.

[beelzebub 23,382]

What utter muck raking..

Todd is/was an established assitant. He WAS already at melbourne, he is beinig paid fair money for his job. Nothing underhanded about this. We take Jack as father/son. Nothing new in that.

The Scully issue is so full of smllely substances its not funny. Phil moves to where his son now owrks and takes a nuff nuff job at way above market value.. , extremely dodgy stuff.

Couldnt be more different if they tried.. Gleason's a [censored] obviously

[Tony Tea 2,809]

The shorter Gleeson:

The Phil Scully deal is dodgy.

There is no suggestion Melbourne have been dodgy.

There is nothing wrong with Melbourne signing the Vineys.

Melbourne are 100% within their rights to sign Todd then Jack.

I do not accuse Melbourne of malpractice.

Melbourne did exactly as they are entitled.

The rules are full of loopholes.

The Phil Scully deal is hopelessly fraught.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Todd is/was an established assitant. He WAS already at melbourne, he is beinig paid fair money for his job. Nothing underhanded about this. We take Jack as father/son. Nothing new in that.

The Scully issue is so full of smllely substances its not funny. Phil moves to where his son now owrks and takes a nuff nuff job at way above market value.. , extremely dodgy stuff.

Couldnt be more different if they tried.. Gleason's a [censored] obviously

Todd was an assistant coach at Adelaide. He was enticed to MFC and then a month later blow me down we signed his son. Of course there not connected.

Do you know what Viney is on to determine his salary is "fair"?

The slap at Gleeson is unnecessary.

While the AFL has ruled on the Scully matter, its a fine line with Viney. Despite the bleating, the questions should be rightly asked.

[rpfc 28,735]

Gleeson raises an interesting point.

It's a grey area.

But the reverse of his argument makes it faulty - he is tacitly saying that we cannot ethically take this father/son player and employ his father at the same time. And that is not in the spirit of the rule as the father is connected to the club anyway, the father/son rule is a legalised inducement that other clubs don't have to the particular youngster in question.

[beelzebub 23,382]

Todd was an assistant coach at Adelaide. He was enticed to MFC and then a month later blow me down we signed his son. Of course there not connected.

Do you know what Viney is on to determine his salary is "fair"?

The slap at Gleeson is unnecessary.

While the AFL has ruled on the Scully matter, its a fine line with Viney. Despite the bleating, the questions should be rightly asked.

Give me a break Rhino.. ffs if i said white youd argue black jsut to be you.

That you are incapable of spotting the obvious difference surprises me none.. Are you suggesting that Phils job is really a fair dinkum reflection of value /recompense ?? Get real. The fairness of whatever Todd is on has never been discussed as an issue. Only you raise it. Not even teh glorious Aged suggest so. Conversely the media bring into focus the idea that Phil is on about twice his supposed coin of market. Huge difference. The timeliness of things as you so happily suggest as a point has some validity but only in as much as what happened first. Yes we employed Todd. yes we eventually signed Jack.. There was never a gauranteee to that though.. Given the underhandedness of the who;e GWS ?Scully lie it would surprise me not at all shoulf the notion of emplying dad been there from all but day one. They just like to allow a few days ( as minimal as possible ) to transpire before changing things.

This is a total crock Rhino and you know it.

An unwarranted crack at Gleason...now youre funny. He even gives his own reasoning. "it was different" but then continues to smear. did that evade your ntice ?

[hoopla 418]

This clearly a case of too many journalists chasing too little news.

The situations are so different they do not bear comparison. Apart from the obvious ... there is the small matter of a father wanting to settle his family in Melbourne so as to minimize the uncertainties/distractions facing his son during his VCE year !!

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

Todd was an assistant coach at Adelaide. He was enticed to MFC and then a month later blow me down we signed his son. Of course there not connected.

Do you know what Viney is on to determine his salary is "fair"?

The slap at Gleeson is unnecessary.

While the AFL has ruled on the Scully matter, its a fine line with Viney. Despite the bleating, the questions should be rightly asked.

fair go Rhino, you are just having a crack for the sake of it. Todd is a club champion and a respected coach. Phil $cully is merely a second bank account to launder money. His job is not worth a $100+ k's

[Yoda 33]

Gleeson's is an article you can't successfully argue against unless you can prove Phil's a dud talent spotter.

But ... like all things Scully, you don't need to prove anything. Just use your common sense.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

I think the article makes a reasonable point. It's actually a good, interesting article (which is unusual these days).

Gleeson simply says that it's very difficult to prove that the deals are linked, since a similar thing has happened with Scully as happened with Viney.

He's not saying that the AFL or Melbourne have done the wrong thing, only that it will be interesting to see where they draw the line if such a situation arises again.

You need to read the article, b59, without having the preconception that the article is a smear article. It's actually a good, well balanced article. You've been reading the Hun for too long.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

It was agreed that Jack would join Melbourne under the father/son rule and my understanding was Todd wanted to relocate back in Melbourne. Todd was apparently approached by a couple of other clubs about an assistant coach position, we offered him a role he accepted it and that's the end of the storey.

How anyone can relate one to the other is beyond me, Todd is a former Club Captain, Champion and Legend; Phil the father of one of their recruits has limited experience and was chased by no one. Even the AFL regard his position as one without any value..

[beelzebub 23,382]

I think the article makes a reasonable point. It's actually a good, interesting article (which is unusual these days).

Gleeson simply says that it's very difficult to prove that the deals are linked, since a similar thing has happened with Scully as happened with Viney.

He's not saying that the AFL or Melbourne have done the wrong thing, only that it will be interesting to see where they draw the line if such a situation arises again.

You need to read the article, b59, without having the preconception that the article is a smear article. It's actually a good, well balanced article. You've been reading the Hun for too long.

I read it AOB. I understand it quite well. As a rule I treat most media with equal disdain. Even Gleason isnt that sure apparently what hes arguing.

I didnt infer he said anything remotely like the Dees had done the wrong thing I put it that his argument is bumkum and contradictory.

In simple terms hes trying to compare apples and oranges and just come up smelliing liek a ripe banana !!

[Whispering_Jack 30,580]

I think the article makes a reasonable point. It's actually a good, interesting article (which is unusual these days).

 

Gleeson simply says that it's very difficult to prove that the deals are linked, since a similar thing has happened with Scully as happened with Viney.

 

He's not saying that the AFL or Melbourne have done the wrong thing, only that it will be interesting to see where they draw the line if such a situation arises again.

 

You need to read the article, b59, without having the preconception that the article is a smear article. It's actually a good, well balanced article. You've been reading the Hun for too long.

It's interesting and balanced from a particular perspective but he misses the point. 

When it was reported earlier this year that Melbourne might have been looking at ways in which it might bolster its financial offer to Scully by including a Judd-like marketing component in his salary, it took less than a nano-second for Adrian Anderson to come down on the idea like a ton of bricks. Verbotten. 

On the other hand, there was no transparency from GWS over the Phil Scully deal and the Giants only fessed up to it when the Hun got onto the story. Their Board didn't even know about it, such was the lack of transparency from Gubby and co. It was a shonky, sordid deal that took advantage of an already unlevel playing field and the AFL had no alternative but to include Phil's disclosed salary in GWS's total player payments - failure to do so would have resulted in an even bigger stink. As it is, the sanction is meaningless. GWS won't get to 100% of the salary cap this year anyway. It gets Scully (and Scully 2) and is allowed to get away with its little heist as planned. 

And of course ... Melbourne remains undercompensated and unable to act while many of its fans accept that situation without so much as a whimper.

The Todd Viney situation is of course, a total red herring. It wouldn't be if Todd was a roof tiler aspiring to hold a major development position but that's nowhere near the case and we all know it.

[DemonDave 1,089]

There is another similar scenario brewing with Barry Mitchell, and his son being drafted by Sydney under the father-son rule:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/125653/default.aspx

[Whispering_Jack 30,580]

There is another similar scenario brewing with Barry Mitchell, and his son being drafted by Sydney under the father-son rule:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/125653/default.aspx

Yet another red herring.

[beelzebub 23,382]

It's interesting and balanced from a particular perspective but he misses the point.

When it was reported earlier this year that Melbourne might have been looking at ways in which it might bolster its financial offer to Scully by including a Judd-like marketing component in his salary, it took less than a nano-second for Adrian Anderson to come down on the idea like a ton of bricks. Verbotten.

On the other hand, there was no transparency from GWS over the Phil Scully deal and the Giants only fessed up to it when the Hun got onto the story. Their Board didn't even know about it, such was the lack of transparency from Gubby and co. It was a shonky, sordid deal that took advantage of an already unlevel playing field and the AFL had no alternative but to include Phil's disclosed salary in GWS's total player payments - failure to do so would have resulted in an even bigger stink. As it is, the sanction is meaningless. GWS won't get to 100% of the salary cap this year anyway. It gets Scully (and Scully 2) and is allowed to get away with its little heist as planned.

And of course ... Melbourne remains undercompensated and unable to act while many of its fans accept that situation without so much as a whimper.

The Todd Viney situation is of course, a total red herring. It wouldn't be if Todd was a roof tiler aspiring to hold a major development position but that's nowhere near the case and we all know it.

sadly all missed by some

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

It's interesting and balanced from a particular perspective but he misses the point.

When it was reported earlier this year that Melbourne might have been looking at ways in which it might bolster its financial offer to Scully by including a Judd-like marketing component in his salary, it took less than a nano-second for Adrian Anderson to come down on the idea like a ton of bricks. Verbotten.

On the other hand, there was no transparency from GWS over the Phil Scully deal and the Giants only fessed up to it when the Hun got onto the story. Their Board didn't even know about it, such was the lack of transparency from Gubby and co. It was a shonky, sordid deal that took advantage of an already unlevel playing field and the AFL had no alternative but to include Phil's disclosed salary in GWS's total player payments - failure to do so would have resulted in an even bigger stink. As it is, the sanction is meaningless. GWS won't get to 100% of the salary cap this year anyway. It gets Scully (and Scully 2) and is allowed to get away with its little heist as planned.

And of course ... Melbourne remains undercompensated and unable to act while many of its fans accept that situation without so much as a whimper.

The Todd Viney situation is of course, a total red herring. It wouldn't be if Todd was a roof tiler aspiring to hold a major development position but that's nowhere near the case and we all know it.

Well Said WJ...another piece of Journalism that is merely Fishing.

Comparing Phil $cully to Todd Viney is really pushing it.

[Macca 17,032]

It's interesting and balanced from a particular perspective but he misses the point.

When it was reported earlier this year that Melbourne might have been looking at ways in which it might bolster its financial offer to Scully by including a Judd-like marketing component in his salary, it took less than a nano-second for Adrian Anderson to come down on the idea like a ton of bricks. Verbotten.

On the other hand, there was no transparency from GWS over the Phil Scully deal and the Giants only fessed up to it when the Hun got onto the story. Their Board didn't even know about it, such was the lack of transparency from Gubby and co. It was a shonky, sordid deal that took advantage of an already unlevel playing field and the AFL had no alternative but to include Phil's disclosed salary in GWS's total player payments - failure to do so would have resulted in an even bigger stink. As it is, the sanction is meaningless. GWS won't get to 100% of the salary cap this year anyway. It gets Scully (and Scully 2) and is allowed to get away with its little heist as planned.

And of course ... Melbourne remains undercompensated and unable to act while many of its fans accept that situation without so much as a whimper.

The Todd Viney situation is of course, a total red herring. It wouldn't be if Todd was a roof tiler aspiring to hold a major development position but that's nowhere near the case and we all know it.

Spot on , Whispering Jack .

The reality is that sometimes you have to go into bat even though you know you probably won't win - A bit like making a contest at Centre Half Forward .

However , I reckon that Cameron Schwab may have made a couple of discreet phone call to the AFL over the $cully affair - at least I hope he has .

Nothing wrong with standing by your principles . All part of being proud , strong Demons who stand for something .

Fair play should be one of those principles we stand for .

[rpfc 28,735]

I agree that he is fishing for a 'Demons as hypocrites' line in there.

But I keep coming back to the fact that we got Viney due to the Father/Son rule - of course there is going to be a conflict with the kid!

It's inherent in the system.

[beelzebub 23,382]

I agree that he is fishing for a 'Demons as hypocrites' line in there.

But I keep coming back to the fact that we got Viney due to the Father/Son rule - of course there is going to be a conflict with the kid!

It's inherent in the system.

yes..its by association...not by design. One is cause the other is consequence.

I rather like the "fishing" analogy.

[Diablo Deemon 220]

Todd has the credentials, pedigree, experience, history, intellectual property and has put in the hard yards

Phill has a son who has potential and is willing to ride on his coat tails

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

Todd has the credentials, pedigree, experience, history, intellectual property and has put in the hard yards

Phill has a son who has potential and is willing to ride on his coat tails

Exactly.