rpfc

I am assuming you are being sarcastic. You are the one bringing the rest of the team as being distracted - and the club 'diminished' - not me. It is an absolute cop-out to say that the Tom Scully Saga © is distracting this poorly led team. Another excuse for this team is the last thing they need.

Red herring? I could say the 'this is a distraction' point is a red herring... Yeah, and my point is that whatever percentage effect the Tom Scully Saga © is causing, it is dwarfed by the actual and real issues that the club and team has to face. The Tom Scully Saga © will be over by October, our other issues will still be around...

There is no need to 'water down' that 'one week' quote. lol As you agreed - Hardie was the one to mention it in the first place... And reading an enormous amount into it. It's amazing how much ssome can read into Blucher's comments, and how little into Scully's. And we don't 'know' much at all. That is why we are constantly debating the merits of rumours and the word of a Demon. No, not more smoke. People are just repeating the smoke the swear they saw weeks ago.

Green, Davey, Rivers, Moloney, and Sylvia will appreciate another excuse for their pathetic leadership and the pathetic performances of the team over the course of the season. You say Scully is being a distraction for our team, I say our team should be too busy with bigger issues to worry about a few questions here and there.

Thst was not my point. My point is that you crucifying Tom over what GWS does is unfair as he is an MFC player, and his links with GWS is unproven - if he stays your criticism would be completely unfounded. As for whether he signs now - as an MFC member I would like him to decide now, but if I were his advisor I would tell him to stick to what he has said all along and not bow to media pressure - because that is all it is. We cringe when we see Trengove asked the question over and over again. But that is hardly diminishing the club. That is being far too precious about contract negotiations. I ddin't know we were in such a pathetic state to be diminished by having to wait until September to try and re-sign a player...

You do relaise that the two lines in your post are diametrically opposed? 'He should get GWS to stop spreading rumours. He is therefore showing disloyalty.' 'He may stay' If he does stay, he couldn't have done the earlier 'getting of GWS to stop spreading rumours,' and you would have torched him on something he couldn't do. The only way he can stop the rumours is to sign. And he has already mentioned when he will sign.

You are basing this criticism of Tom on the assumption he has been recruited. And do you think Folau knows anything? I mean, honestly... You don't have to like Tom whatever decision he makes, but to criticise him for every aspect of this is unfair.

3. If you upgrade Nicholson - 4.

Blucher was having a discussion with Brad Hardie on 6PR, that is where that 'one week' came from. Hardie mentioned that he thought it wouldn't be too long after the season for a decision to be made. Blucher agreed. Hardie mentioned 'one week,' Blucher said something along the lines of 'yeah, a couple of weeks, one week, in that timeframe.' I guess it is up to the individual to determine how long isn't a suspiciously short time, how long it takes to make this kicnd of decision, and how much one wants to read into the offhand comments of Tom's manager...

You can wish to have a different coach, but Bailey cannot be accused of holding back youth... And the bigger bodies he has kept in for this games illustrates his intentions to try and win this game at the expense of games to those kids you mentioned.

You have misinterpreted. That is my intuition - that he isn't lying. And if isn't lying, then he hasn't 'gone.' And the rumours chop and change with Tom having already signed, to signing a HOA, to trying to get out of a HOA (even though it isn't binding) because he wants to stay, to him having the contract sent to his people after we sent them ours, to now back to he has already signed. It is my intuition that there is a great deal of bullsh!t in that.

Same crud.

I haven't called much fact. I have said Tom claiming he hasn't signed is a fact.

I am glad that you are having such a good time at my apparent expense. I am pretty happy with where my arguments have been on this issue. He may go, I don't think he will. He hasn't gone yet because I believe what he says. You imply I should be swayed by the iceberg of facts? I say that we only see the tip of the iceberg of facts - we simply don't know. And the amount of contradictory rumours that emerge don't sway me...

lol That is ironic considering that you attempted to correct my spelling of the said word in the first place. A greater diversion to robust debate would be erroneously correcting the spelling of others... It shouldn't sit well, but I would wager that the uncomfortableness that you feel being unable to call an MFC player something you truly believe is only superceded by the uncomfortableness of the owners of this wonderful site who have to have their name associated with you calling that MFC player something you truly believe.

I never said anyone wasn't... And with due respect, I said there is an absence of hard facts. Here is a fact - Tom Scully said he hadn't signed anything. This does not mean he hasn't signed anything, what it means is that either he hasn't signed anything or he is a liar and he has. I am making a judgement call that he isn't a liar. And of course, my judgement call doesn't make it factual - I don't think I have ever implied I had that sort of power... Maybe you have imbued me with that power? rpfc is so right, so often that BB59 believes - as rpfc posts, facts and truth are posted...

I'm glad you trusted your spellcheck with 'naive'... And I think the 'No Comment' point can be made when one doesn't make an actual comment.

Short of hard facts, it becomes a matter of intuition on the question of whether he is staying. I am inclined to believe he will stay. And I will still stand by the kid on what he said - I do not believe he has already signed.

I don't know what you mean and why you wrote 'no comment' I have no idea, you could have just not commented.

You guys love ultimatums... If they did have preliminary discussions I very much doubt that they were so blunt and blase about getting a talent like Tom Scully... I heard he wanted to do it himself... And it's only poor advisement if he is lying. But that is the judgement call at the heart of this isn't it...

No club should reveal the metrics they use (although you can infer from what Schwab talks about in a few of his WW chats/seminars) because then they can become hard and fast rules that paint the club into a corner. They will have their measurements, and I am sure the club is sounding out all the coaches mentioned. We require an established coach and not another untried coach (the reasons for that surround my issue with our 'senior' players, that I won't get into here) so that leaves Malthouse, Roos, Clarkson, Craig, and Eade amongst the possibles at this stage.

Because they definitely weren't coaching an AFL team in 2012... A Premiership coach in charge of one of the top 4 favourites could hardly be desribed as 'unfashionable.' If you would like me to classify it, I would say that Clarkson was 'unthought of' because most people didn't think it possible that Clarkson would be available in 2012. I am still not convinced he or the Hawks aren't playing some games trying to get the best contract for each other.

Well, to be fair, Bailey was the coach when a whole heap of players 'came on' in recent years...

lol I read that 29 post thread... Five posters can make something unfashionable? Just as many people agreed with the notion of Clarkson.

Garland and Howe wingers? Fevola? Sylvia gone aswell as Scully? Maloney? No. Just no.