old55

If Scully announces at the end of the season that he has signed with GWS what "truth will come out" that can't come out now?

But you "like to watch".

I accept that is quite possible too. That's what you're been saying happened. I wanted you to directly acknowledge it, which you did, and I don't support you being banned for holding that opinion. As I said it could be true. I think there's two possibilities - my scenario and your scenario. In my scenario with your hypothetical deadline, Tom maintained his plan and said "well you'll have to wait, just like the MFC". As we've both pointed out, if he ultimately announces he has signed with GWS we may never know the truth. If he signs with MFC we will. Let's say your scenario is true - do you think he could have announced that he'd signed with GWS? Do you think, as you stated above, that he's badly advised not to announce that he's signed with GWS? I think my scenario is far more consistent with good advice from his managers.

I don't think that's true at all - IMO he's been well-advised. I've posted this before - but here goes again ... There's a strong possibility he'll accept the GWS offer and there always has been. It was an impossible situation for him to accept the GWS offer before the 2011 season and come out and announce that. And that situation has continued for the duration of the season. We'd have MFC supporters insisting he play out the season in Casey 2s and some lunatic fringe abusing him there when he did - you only have to read some of the posters on this site to realise this is what would happen. A completely untenable situation for MFC and Tom - much worse that what we have experienced. Therefore postpone the decision. How hard is this to understand?

Green went off at Bate for colliding with him for a ground ball when he was running to goal and Bate was coming out - maybe fair enough. But then needlessly flew front-on for a mark later when Petterd clearly had the sit 20m out - Pettered didn't take the mark. It hasn't been Brad's best year.

I agree, if that's the professed reason he leaves we can't just say "well it's obvious it's the money" we need to look hard at the reasons - he's turning his back on some substantial positives - the MCG, number 31, an improving list. We all know we've had problems over the years going all the way and that's because we've lacked stars and players who will "pay the price" - that's the reason Scully was such an exciting acquisition - he directly addresses these two deficiencies and will drag the whole fabric of the club up with him. That's why GWS are so interested too of course.

Agree on the Ablett comparison. If it happens [see what I did there] that's why it will be interesting to see what he says, I maintain that people struggle to say they did it for the cash.

It's going to be fascinating to see the explanation Tom gives if he decides to go to GWS. If he says it's for the money then he'll be forever known in the broader football community as Tom $cully, the mercenary, even if he has unselfish aims like providing for his family in mind. It'll be tough for him to come out and say this even if it is true. If he says it's not for the money, then that suggests a strong cultural issue at MFC - the culture at GWS is better? The broader football community will write that off as MFC - perennial losers - a description we've done a fair bit to earn over the decades. But I suspect this explanation won't go down too well with the Demon faithful. Much easier to stay Tom.

cue Sheedy

In: Gawn, Scully, Jurrah, Davey Out: Bate, Gysberts, Bennell, Maric

Different thread ... same shtick - you're pretending to misunderstand the argument. I said 3 players have to go from the senior list - You said you wouldn't name them because it would belittle them I asked does it belittle Cheney or Warnock to trade them? Yes different drafts - same requirement that 3 players have to go from the list. It doesn't matter how deep the drafts are - 3 players have to go from the list. I understand that we may only use 3 picks and I understand that an upgrade has to be in those picks to be effective. The Cheney upgrade was a 3rd round upgrade. But you don't even have to use the pick and it's not "belittling" to get Matthew Warnock to the club he wants to go to for pick 99. The bottom line is 3 players have to go from the list and talking about trading them is not belittling them.

Your logic is impeccable Jack - unfortunately as we have both become aware - logic and consistency don't necessarily apply to the AFL.

Was Kyle Cheney "belittled" when he was traded to Hawthorn for greater opportunities in return for a pick upgrade exchange? Would Matthew Warnock be "belittled" if he was traded to Carlton to bolster their key defence and have a chance to play in a premiership in return for a similar pick upgrade? Look well played to you - you've had me going for a long time. But it's apparent that all along in every post you've just been taking the pi55 - it's impossible that anyone could seriously hold the ridiculous opinions you post. Joke's over now - you win.

It's good to out the truth - that White was a 3 year player not one. But my understanding of the pick 5 to Fremantle was because it came out later with the Gutnick confession that MFC went over the salary cap at the time we enticed White to join us and Fremantle were unfairly disadvantaged - the pick was compensation for that.

What other changes do you propose?

You don't get the concept that we HAVE to lose 3 players for picks or nothing.

You have to make 3 list vacancies even if you fill them with rookie upgrades. You have to lose a player to upgrade a rookie As I said, there is only 3 ways to make list vacancies 1. delist for nothing 2. trade for draft picks (includes lose a player to GWS for compensation picks) 3. trade for draft pick upgrades How hard is it to understand? A minuimum of 3 senior list players have to be off our list. It's a simple question - which 3 players are you going to lose and which of the 3 options above are you going to lose them for?

With 3 players you can't trade "like for like" - you actually have to make 3 vacancies on your list, that means either: 1. delist for nothing 2. trade for draft picks 3. trade for draft pick upgrades It's a simple question - which 3 players are you going to lose and which of the 3 options above are you going to lose them for?

You do realise we HAVE to lose 3 players off our list - it's an AFL rule. Which 3 would you lose and what for?

He said it's not unique for a club to lose a #1 draft pick soon after selecting him and used Jeff White as an example. He bull-sh1tted about how GWS don't have a big TPP advantage because altho they have $1M extra they have 55 players - however dopey Tim, Andy and Dermott failed to remind him that the vast majority of those players will be draftees on a mandatory $70K or less so there's a [censored]-load of money left over. He finally said that he hoped Scully stays at Melbourne but it's up to MFC to convince him to stay.

Yes that's right. AFL Player Rules I'm afraid it doesn't say anything about compo picks so it's not clear if our next pick was a compo pick whether that would be in the frame. It just says next draft selection so I'm assuming that it would be until advised otherwise. The point might be moot because one compo pick is AFTER our pick and the other is after the non-finals teams so they're likely to be close together anyway.

Pendlebury was drafted in 2005 - 2012 will be his 7th year. Restricted FA comes in at 8 years service.

You can't trade future draft picks even for GWS 17yos - I'm not sure where you got that idea - I'd love to see a source. We can trade the compo picks to GWS though and they have a 5 year life spab so are in effect "future" picks. The rule for F/S is that you have to give your next available pick after the nominating club's pick. F/S comes before the trade so we will have our regular 1st rounder. It's not clear whether compensation 1st rounders come into play but I suspect they do if you've nominated to use them in that year.

And apparently AFL players get paid too much?