old55

So according to you Tom was lying when he said at his presser: OR Because according to you he engaged in contract talks in the following 6 weeks and committed to GWS.

I'm asking you what happened between 4 March when Scully said he hasn't signed and 14 April when you said he has? It's a simple question.

You stated your belief that "Scully was gone" on 14 April about 6 weeks after he stated that he hasn't signed with GWS and won't sign a contract until the end of the season. What happened between 4 March and 14 April?

Interesting view here ... Tom Scully Press conference 4 March http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/i-havent-spoken-to-gws-melbourne-star-tom-scully/story-e6frf9jf-1226015805893 Apparently "A crapload has gone down" between 4 March and 14 April?

Yes but eventually "We always get our man ..."

You said you believe he has agreed to go to GWS, which he categorically denied in his press conference. That's calling him a liar.

You've got a major problem understanding outcomes and consequences. If Tom goes to GWS RPFC will be guilty of believing an MFC player and supporting the club. If Tom signs with MFC you will be guilty of calling him a liar and doubting the club. The stakes are high - but only for you and your like-minded colleagues.

Really? And if he decides to go you'll be at the head of the queue saying that it's a completely understandable decision?

Good post.

Good post. I think Jamar - Gawn have just about the perfect age difference for transition. We've got them out of contract in alternating years so that's handy. I expect that we can sign Max for 2 years to end of 2013. Mark will have just turned 29 and will be an unrestricted FA target at the end of 2012 - that's when it starts to get interesting. There's Spencil in the mix too - he has been developing nicely up to his knee injury.

got a mirror?

Ironically this is where GWS and GC work to our advantage - there's no way a quality player can get to Richmond via the draft past GWS and GC who can easily match any contract stipulation. That means there'd have to be a trade and it would have to be heavily weighted in our favour. I'm not for one second suggesting we trade Max Gawn - we should retain him and we have some protection to do so.

The top 25% "match the offer" restriction only applies to the 8-9 year players - that's the "restriction". 10+ are true Free Agents. It wont be as bad as now because 8-9 yr players outside the top 25% wont cause as much angst and 10+ players rarely leave unless it's for a final flag opportunity they've been denied.

Quelle surprise! Might want to make that your sig.

Mark Williams will in all likelihood be coaching GWS next year - Sheedy is a figurehead - or they better hope so. I reckon he's a great coach who is still very current.

I agree that things will be quite different with FA but it wont be any where near as bad as this - there will be much less of the list exposed - limited FA for 8+ years and unlimited for 10+ years. And there will be a much more level playing field with the TPP in play. GWS have extra TPP and pay the bulk of their players less so they have an unprecedented amount of money

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/moon/3304131.html?showAll=y&c=y

Trengove and Tapscott haven't been exposed to GC or GWS - yet. They signed 3 year deals when they were drafted, they would've signed 2 years anyway and skipped GC. Next year they'll be exposed to GWS if we don't lose an uncontracted player to them this year. It's nonsense to suggest they're more "loyal" than Scully. Let's see what happens next year. Martin did sign with Richmond instead of GWS so he is a better example but it's not clear what went on behind the scenes - I've heard that the AFL told GWS to lay off and paved the path for the Tigers. Why would they do this for Richmond and not follow suit for Melbourne and Scully? I think it's got everything to do with Vlad being forced to say we didn't tank.

there's pow

IMO, there's no role that doesn't burn Geoff Walsh

Sensational post. Anyone seen Transformers - Darkside of the Moon? Heard it's a great movie.

That's true but as you have already pointed out elsewhere - we need to project forward to our flag core and pay accordingly. I'm not convinced he's in the top echelon (Watts, Frawley, Trengove, Scully, Gysberts?, McKenzie?), probably second tier for me (Sylvia, Grimes (too often injured to be in the top), Garland, Davey, Jamar). On that note (trying to aviod turning this into a Scully thread) - we need to pay players according to their echelon. That might mean giving GWS targets a "sign-on" front-loaded contract and a more reasonable on-going annual amount which is sustainable to other players at their level. It's unfortunate for players like Watts and Frawley who are out of the GWS window but that's probably the fairest way to work it. Scully might get $2.8M over 4 years at $450K/year (a sustainable amount) + $1M sign-on bonus to ward off the extraordinary GWS raid. Same for Trengove next year. It relies on being able to front-load inside the TPP. Sylvia might get $1.7M over 3 years as $400K/year + $500K "sign-on". Players outside the top two echelons don't qualify for sign-on. It's not perfect but it's got to be better than paying them $700K/year and having to match that for all players at the same level and also have them think that or better is what they'll automatically get in their next contract.

The big plus with Sylvia is that he's a potential big game match-winner. He's the rare type of player that can break a game open - like Paul Chapman. There's not that many of them around. When we finally get to the GF he'd be very handy to have on our sideOn the negative side he's not too strong on defence, he'll be going head-to-head with somebody and we can get burned the other way. Because of this he's not in our top echelon, probably the next rung down.

That'd be great if Maric or Petterd ever "crumbed".