rpfc

You have to pick three kids in the draftHO, that is what they are saying. That means, with trading, you still have to have three less players at the draft than you do right now.

The situation is unique, the timing is not. That is what Jack Trengove was saying.

If we lose him than we may as well keep Bailey whatever happens toward the end of this season because it will again push back our window - more than losing Scully would. Losing both would mean a couple of years in my opinion.

Yeah, prime trade material... He's suddenly a mug, whose teammates no longer trust him - how is that for a red herring...

It won't end it. But as long as the tense is correct (ie. 'Will Tom go?' rather than 'Is Tom gone?') then it should be fine.

It's in the rules so I don't know how ferocious we have to be... And I'm guessing you were being flippant with the withdraw of contract comment?

I cannot boo a player that wears that jumper. Please explain how one can do that. I understand it, but I don't comprehend.

"GWS - So you are offering the compo picks? MFC - Yeah, and Bate and Dunn. GWS - Oh, ok. So you are offering the compo picks?" Stop overrating our depth players, they don't play AFL well.

The stupid article says we can get TWO players. I am happy enough with the logic that the mid-round pick and a player might get you one of these 17 year olds. I do not see how the second compo pick at the end of the first round gets you the SECOND 17 year old, which is where the article become fanciful, if it wasn't there already.

I was talking about that in the abstract. I am troubled by people thinking that pick 10 and Pick 20 in the 2012 draft will be the same as Tom Scully (I am making two assumptions: 1. We don't trade the picks, and 2. We use them in the next unspoiled draft). The kids we get will be more speculative and will push back our window. That's my point. And that's why I hope we trade those picks, or at least one, for an established player.

I think those examples hold plenty of water. Just less media attention...

Again, a HUN article... It's allowed. But I fail to see how a pick at the end of the first round will be enough to get one of those kids... They are extremely talented no doubt but that pick, even if it is 'floating' will be pick 19 at best, and that won't cut it. Easily gazumped.

I think you are overstating the celebrity of footy journalism. Or maybe you are not. These guys do like it when they are apart of the story...

They move with the tides. Most are adamant he is gone. But last week, after we found out that Tom wasn't lying, most thought he would stay. Now they are back on the GWS bandwagon. They are idiots when it comes to this sexy stuff. The better story is for him to wait, and for him to go, and if they can get MFC officials to do something stupid in the interim then that's the cherry on top.

And we are back to HUN articles being the gospel truth... You guys really need to get some friends in the industry and the will tell you how much horsesh!t flies around the footy media industry.

Re-post please. And I hope you don't think Morton, Bate, or Dunn are going to get anything...

Second that. I have no faith in Green, Rivers, or Moloney in big games like this. I know that is unpopular but Brent has been terrible in the thrashings we have endured. Jones has been far more consistent than those three and I expect him to continue that form.

I would be happier if we went out and got a commensurate replacement as soon as possible (and if possible). I don't like the fact that losing an influential 20 year old will push back our window. I don't think Pendlebury will be available but getting Boak or similar would make me feel better about things.

I saw your point, ht. I am far more concerned with the 'distraction' of having weak-minded senior players than the 'distraction' of Tom's contract. This is just another bloody excuse for poor performance. And I will absolutley [censored]-slap (with words) anyone that blames a loss to the Hawks on Tom's contract situation...

I 'm surprised by how easily posters think our club and it players can turn to water due to protracted contract negotiations with Tom Scully... Get a grip. And stop giving the club so many excuses. Brad Green isn't having an awful year because of the 'Tom Scully distraction.' 1. We aren't being toyed with. We have given a contract - it will accepted or it won't. 2. We will be compensated for the loss of Tom should he choose to go. 3. There is no evidence that we are being lied to by Tom or his camp. 4. The players are getting on with it - we and the media are not.

Ransom requires negotiation. We have given our best offer, it won't change because we cannot afford any more. It isn't ransom. As I have said before, Harrington can plan on Scully being on the $3m over 5 (or around that mark) and move on because it is either going to be that, or he is going to have an extra $600k if he leaves. For me, a big club with some self-confidence wouldn't let the negotiations with any talent distract them the way you think it is distracting us. We have made our offer, it will accepted or not accepted - move on.

A top 3 pick is worth more than two first round picks. That is a definitive fact considering that we turned down a port offer of picks 8 and 9 for the pick that got us Trengove. Evidently the club didn't think that the picks that got John Butcher and Andrew Moore didn't equal the pick that got Jack Trengove. They were right and they are still right. I hope that we can trade those picks we get, if Tom leaves, for a commensurate talent.

Contract negotiations with Tom Scully is not the reason other clubs think we are soft. lol Other clubs think we are soft because we are happy to coast along with moderate success llike we did under Daniher, because when we play big games in the past 15 years we usually wilt to a pathetic level, because we love to play an outside style of 'bruise free' footy, because we love to recruit great exponents of that 'bruise free' footy (Bruce, White, Yze and Green etc), because we turn up to games utterly convinced we can't win and are satisfied to get close, because...I really could go on. We have been a joke, I think a while longer than many fans would think. That is why the general football public see us in such a poor light, not because of a 20 year old exercising his right to delay contract talks.

Well, it's good you're not the President because Tom would just say - I will decide in September like he has always said. The rest is just classic George

I believe his manager would prefer he go, obviously there is a bigger payday if he does go. Outside of that, I still don't see anything in these articles that sway me either way, other than vindicate Tom and the fact that he hasn't already signed. I hope he stays and am confident we have the people to convince him we are the best place for him. I am also confident that we will be given the appropriate compensation that will enable us to get a similar talent, but I am resigned to the fact that if he does go it will push our window back a, yet to be determined, amount of time. We will see in September.