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

Will Phil be qualified to stand in as coach when senile Kev gets lost on the way from the nursing home to Paramatta or wherever this artificial franchise is based??

Todd was a highly qualified stand in for Yoda.

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

Yes, but that in-and-of-itself isn't a reason that the situations are different - as one man's standing in the game is up to the opinion of the individual - Phil HWMNBN may be as good a scout as Todd is a Player Development & Strategy head - we don't know.

But the one thing that makes the situations different is that we have an inducement that unlike this job for Phil HWMNBN - is inherent in the system.

The Father/Son rule was the primary catalyst to Jack coming to Melbourne - not Todd coming to the club. Gleeson tries to infer that he could have stayed in Adelaide as they were keen but in that mini-draft - he could have gone anywhere. We provided some stability a long way out from when he was eligible and the rest is history.

I essence: I come to the same conclusion but for a different reason.

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.

Nicely put.

It's a shame if many fans are accepting of this situation. I sent a heated letter to the AFL & got a generic response, which is what I expected. This entire episode has been a blight on the AFL.

Occupy AFL house perhaps? Mmm, maybe not.

Nicely put.

It's a shame if many fans are accepting of this situation. I sent a heated letter to the AFL & got a generic response, which is what I expected. This entire episode has been a blight on the AFL.

Occupy AFL house perhaps? Mmm, maybe not.

Don't worry there are some supporters who forever will think this whole episode stinks.

Nicely put.

It's a shame if many fans are accepting of this situation. I sent a heated letter to the AFL & got a generic response, which is what I expected. This entire episode has been a blight on the AFL.

Occupy AFL house perhaps? Mmm, maybe not.

The real issue is less that we have had to experience pain and make a sacrifice for these new franchises, but more that the pain and sacrifice has not been shared equitably among all clubs.

The difference as I see it is Phil Scully would still be tiling roofs if it wasn't for GWS's meddling. I highly doubt Todd Viney - or Barry Mitchell - would've had too much trouble getting fairly senior gigs at AFL clubs without the help of their talented sons.

The difference as I see it is Phil Scully would still be tiling roofs if it wasn't for GWS's meddling. I highly doubt Todd Viney - or Barry Mitchell - would've had too much trouble getting fairly senior gigs at AFL clubs without the help of their talented sons.

The theory was they were grooming Todd to take over at Adelaide when Craig finished.

Well he must have been doing steel decking roofs as I haven't seen a tile roof that would support him.

Ha ha ! Yes , either that or perhaps he decided ( long ago ) to "Lay down the tools"

Spose , being up on those roofs , you'd get quite good at "Spotting"

....

What I suggested reflected the greyness of the issue not the black and white that you are naively claming.

But thanks for bravado and typos.

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

Well done on missing the point. I never besmirched Todd at all.

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.

In a nutshell. But its benefit will be wasted where it is needed most.

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 .

A call to the AFL would have achieved nothing. A call to the Herald-Sun on the other hand...

A call to the AFL would have achieved nothing. A call to the Herald-Sun on the other hand...

That is , of course , if you assume that our Club doesn't have a good working relationship with the AFL .

It might seem that way , especially with the way they've structured some of the rules which might not suit our Club .

Every issue is separate and should be dealt with in accordance to procedure .

In the end , it's the AFL who adjudicate on any wrongdoing .

My point was that we should at least let the AFL know that we're not happy re the $cully affair - this may help with future dealings .

Going to the Media is fraught with danger - they may not take our side .

Edited October 31, 201113 yr by Nuggets

In the end the AFL adjudicates on everything and it's amazing how well the outspoken clubs fare compared with the timid, subservient ones.

But I suppose that's the AFL mantra - the meek do not inherit.

The meek will inherit once they sort themselves out and become the strong.

The meek will inherit once they sort themselves out and become the strong.

Correct, as soon as we stop thinking and acting like we're meek.

Correct, as soon as we stop thinking and acting like we're meek.

The MFC has done no wrong here. A club champion returns and his son decides to accept a father/son ruling. Phil $cully is no more than a related wallet to drop cash into. Part time recruiter...how convenient.

The MFC has done no wrong here. A club champion returns and his son decides to accept a father/son ruling. Phil $cully is no more than a related wallet to drop cash into. Part time recruiter...how convenient.

I think Jack is intimating that we rolled over on the compo picks and took the 'two holdens' and should have held out for a Lexus or Mercedes to replace our treacherous Bentley...

No Beamers though!

They tend to get smashed...

I think Jack is intimating that we rolled over on the compo picks and took the 'two holdens' and should have held out for a Lexus or Mercedes to replace our treacherous Bentley...

No Beamers though!

They tend to get smashed...

Point taken, but no club was going to get that. I agree we should get the GW$ first pick next year, but the fat controller would never agree to that. At least now with free agency clubs will think twice before tanking. Winning keeps a team united and happy. Losers leave.

Recycling old jokes rpfc? You're so much better than that

Point taken, but no club was going to get that. I agree we should get the GW$ first pick next year, but the fat controller would never agree to that. At least now with free agency clubs will think twice before tanking. Winning keeps a team united and happy. Losers leave.

We might get some sort of "Ex Gratia Payment" in the future from the AFL . Wouldn't think it would be a draft pick for reasons you have outlined . Maybe another "Kind" draw in 2013 ?

Anyway , a possible small win is that people are less inclined to say "You tanked for $cully so you got your just desserts" from here on in - The focus in a lot of people's eyes may be in "how" we lost him . Or at least we can "steer" people in that direction .

The tanking jibes annoy me . So many other Clubs have done it and we are ( were ? ) the flavour of the month .

Tanking in the AFL has happened at least a dozen times over the years - Pies in 2005 , Blues in 2006 and 2007 , Hawks in 2004 and 2005 - it's a long , grubby list .

Edited November 1, 201113 yr by Nuggets

We might get some sort of "Ex Gratia Payment" in the future from the AFL . Wouldn't think it would be a draft pick for reasons you have outlined . Maybe another "Kind" draw in 2013 ?

Anyway , a possible small win is that people are less inclined to say "You tanked for $cully so you got your just desserts" from here on in - The focus in a lot of people's eyes may be in "how" we lost him . Or at least we can "steer" people in that direction .

The tanking jibes annoy me . So many other Clubs have done it and we are ( were ? ) the flavour of the month .

Tanking in the AFL has happened at least a dozen times over the years - Pies in 2004 , Blues in 2006 and 2007 , Hawks in 2004 and 2005 - it's a long , grubby list .

Yes but the MFC tanked longer and harder than previous efforts (and i do not blame it at all) our list management had been shocking for the previous 2-3 years. But with hindsight would i do it again? I don't think so. The gains were good but certainly not fantastic. I definately prefer winning.

Recycling old jokes rpfc? You're so much better than that

The best always reference past comments in.

Keeps the loyal fans happy...