Ron Burgundy

Yep, I think there's a lot in that, Kento80. I've always thought the way Bailey handled Junior's 'retirement' was an unmitigated disaster for the club. (On this point, I know others differ.) The effects of Junior's axing are still being felt IMO - and I suspect the club's handling of it would've had a major effect on an impressionable young player like Scully in his first season at an AFL club.

There's one major problem with this analogy - that is, Scully won't need to work in a sports store at Knox City six days a week if he accepts the Dees' offer. He will immediately become one of the wealthiest 20 year olds in the country. Again, it's the intangibles that are difficult to explain to some. The interesting thing about this thread (among the not so interesting bits) is that there is a debate about modern sport - and the appropriateness of the differing motivations of players these days. In effect, some are saying - there should be some commitment to the club beyond the mere contractual terms. Others are saying, in effect, the players are professional athletes and won't be able to command these salaries forever - AFL is a ruthless game and clubs are not immune to disloyal behaviour, hence get the best terms you can while you can. There's no correct answer to this IMO - it just depends on one's own personal perspective. For me, I want to see our players bleed for the guernsey - I think this builds a top club culture - but I do respect that not all share this view. As an aside, I cannot see any good reason as to why Scully would not simply accept the Dees' offer if he, like Robbie Flower, wished to stay at the club to the exclusion of all others. As to the issue of 'mucking the cub around' - any business, club etc that manages cashflow wishes to have certainty in expenditure and income as far as possible. They hate the opposite - uncertainty in expenditure. I would've thought the club simply cannot negotiate many other player contracts whilst an offer of $3M over 5 years is on the table, though not accepted - and one that is uncertain to be accepted before, say, October this year. It's July now. This is virtually a science fact.

Totally agree. But not all will. It's hard trying to explain the intangibles to some people.

I agree with this statement.

To the contrary, I think several supporters want the club to maintain its disciplined focus on responsible list management, and not be distracted by the wholly exceptional circumstances of a new team entering the competition and, in turn, seeking to appease the not-so rational reactions of certain cheerleaders who seem to think Tom Scully is a sure thing to be the next Chris Judd and that he should be paid accordingly. I would like Scully to stay at the Demons for the rest of his playing career. But not on any terms, and certainly not if he's not wholly committed to the journey - particularly if we can get really good compensation if he decides to leave. I genuinely don't see how this is an unreasonable, irresponsible or irrational position to be taking in the circumstances.

Where have I ever said that 'he's gone'? All I once did was report a 'rumour' I heard at a GWS's Captain's Club function - and I was at pains to say that those statements were merely said to me, and that I had no idea whether those statements were in fact true. If you want to head into this territory, hardtack - I'd suggest you ensure some level of accuracy. I have no idea whether he'll re-sign or not. I have limited my comments to the way the negotiation has been handled - and, in this respect, I'm happy to be on the record as stating that IMO it's been handled very poorly and, I think, disrespectfully to the club. I also know where Rooty Hill is, fyi. It's not exactly the Greenwich Village in NYC. There is perhaps a reason it's often used as a 'cliche'.

I'm not quite sure that I will be thinking Scully is a 'hero' if he eventually agrees to sign for the Dees at the end of the season for $600K a year over 5 years. For a start, his delay has clearly mucked the club around big time this year - he has seemingly had little to no regard for club's best interests given the way he's played this negotiation in the highly unusual prevailing circumstances. We have had a pretty bad history of losing some really good players by catering to the excessive demands of certain other players in the past. I hope Scully's contract won't create yet another instance of this. I haven't read the article yet, but if it suggests that we could get two excellent first rounders - well, I for one am leaning to that. Brent Moloney has the attitude that should be applied here - namely, you don't want to play for the Dees, fine go to GWS - it'll be a blast living in Rooty Hill and playing in front of 2,500 people each fortnight.

Most reports I've heard have Taylor Walker at GWS next year. Jessie White could be a possibility. Even though he has all the hallmarks of a top forward, it just doesn't appear to be working for him at the Swans. Both parties may be open to a change of scenery (for the right deal).

Agree with each of these. Add in the West Coast and Bulldogs games too.

Nice avatar Robert ...

I was chatting to a West Coast supporter last night who seemed to know a bit about the happenings at Collingwood. I think everyone perhaps knows this, so it's not a particularly remarkable observation - but, apparently, there is genuine tension between Malthouse and Buckley, and Malthouse's gig next year is a long way from being sorted out. He then asked what I thought about Bailey, to which I said I really liked him and hoped he would stay at the Dees next year in some capacity, though not necessarily as the senior coach. In this guy's view Malthouse will be looking for a senior coaching role next year - and, assuming he is, he speculated that whichever club secures Malthouse will also get Scott Watters (who will form part of Malthouse's team and succession plan). Malthouse thinks Watters is an absolute gun who will be a truly fantastic senior coach in the near future. Malthouse apparently thinks he's the best assistant coach he's ever worked with. I don't know much about him, but I'm interested to know what other people think/know about Watters. Perhaps the club should be trying to set up a chat with him?!

Trengove - our future Captain Watts - our future vice Captain Petterd, Sylvia and Martin were absolutely sensational last night, as was Frawley. I thought Maric was very lively too - a really good game from him.

I don't think anyone's suggesting he's not going to be a very good player (in due course). But $5M over 5 years?! Midfielders in that echelon deal with hard tags week in, week out. I'd rather take Judd on those terms. In fact, I'd rather get two first rounders and distribute the excess cap to the other talented kids on our list who are desperate to play out their careers at this club.

Reflects well on Jack. I genuinely see him as a future captain of this club. He strikes me as an educated, well rounded young man - and, as a result, his lens on contract discussions will be broader than most. I have absolutely no fear about him seeking better opportunities at other clubs in due course. Why? Because he'll have a career after football and he probably realises the benefits that will flow from having played his whole career at the Dees. He also strikes me as a team oriented individual. Probably likes having a beer with his team mates after a game - and, if so, I like that. I don't want automatons playing for this club - I want to see some passion/heart in our younger brigade. Love of club stuff. Trengove, Grimes, McKenzie and Jack's mate, Luke Tapscott, seem to have the essential qualities.

Nothing is hard to comprehend about this Kento80. But I don't really think this is the actual issue that is irritating so many supporters. To my mind, the issue is that Scully seems intent upon sticking to a strategy that was apparently conceived in about August last year, even though the landscape has dramatically shifted since that time. In fact, the earth has very nearly completely orbited the sun since then. Scully's strategy of deferring talks was possibly a reasonable enough strategy at the time it was formulated. IMO it is no longer a reasonable strategy - to the contrary, it has all the hallmarks of a disrespectful strategy as it is placing the club in a very difficult position. It is producing a toxic effect and is dominating virtually all MFC-related discussion at the moment. The MFC's very generous offer is on the table. It is known. The benefits for Scully in waiting until the season's end to consider it are, on any construction, disproportionately less to the benefits the club would derive in knowing what Scully intends to do (in the current circumstances). If we lose Sylvia (or any other required player) because of this, I for one will be absolutely livid. And I find this whole 'I don't understand why some supporters are angry that I want to wait till the end of the year' perspective to be naive in the extreme. In the adult world, things change - and sometimes quite rapidly. One can't always expect to be able to doggedly stick to some strategy that is of benefit to oneself only, though significant detriment to others, and expect not to suffer some fall out from it. Surely anyone with any emotional intelligence understands this. For the contract amounts/terms that are being suggested, I believe a certain level of responsibility comes attached with it. Scully is no longer a 17 year old prospective draftee - his management is positioning him as a future dominant figure in the game. And, in this context, I would be grateful if he (or his management) would respect the impact that his dogged determination to make his decision in his 'own time' is having on this club - and pay the club the respect of letting it know what he intends to do.

Old55, I don't think anyone is questioning Scully's ability to make the decision in his 'own time', or his ability to withstand 'the pressure' of making his decision in his own time. The issue is whether this is an appropriate stance for Scully to take in the current highly exceptional circumstances: 1. given that, as an AFL club, the MFC operates in a 'team' context and is trying to cultivate a 'team oriented' culture; and 2. given the quantum of the offer and the potential for the MFC to secure two first round draft picks, whether the MFC should even be making Scully our long term marquee player in light of his apparent reluctance to commit to the club on anything but his own timing. (Personally, I would like to see more passion, if not total desperation, of a 20 year old player being offered so much by the club to want to commit to it immediately.) Despite the club's 'professional' PR approach in relation to the Scully situation, I fail to see how Scully's position would not actually be very disruptive to the club in terms of its overall list and media management. It must be an enormous distraction for them. And, as to why we have well over 1,000 posts here - it's because we're not talking about the contract of some fringe player - Scully's contract will presumably have a direct and immediate impact on the way in which the club approaches all other contracts up for renewal in the next few years. I just hope there will not be some other list casualties because of Scully's unwillingness to commit to the club on the club's timing, rather than on his own (eg, Sylvia).

Totally agree.

Much of the focus of this thread has been on what Scully will do, or what he has apparently agreed to do, at the end of the season (ie, re-sign with us or go to GWS). Personally, I have no idea what he'll do. However, given the sums being discussed, it's clear that he's on the verge of becoming one of the highest players in the competition - with either club. He'll be up there with Goodes, Judd, Franklin, Brown, Pendlebury, Thomas, Murphy, Goddard, Riewoldt, Pavlich etc. That said, it begs the question - what do people actually expect of one of the, if not the, highest paid player on our list? I pose this question in the context that we've had a dearth of really good senior leaders in recent years, and we now have some serious young talent coming through - and quite a few of these younger guys show definite leadership potential (eg, Trengove, Grimes, Watts, McKenzie, Frawley, Tapscott etc). I, for one, want more than some clinical AFL playing Boba Fett being our highest paid player. I want a team/club obsessed leader like Moloney, albeit hopefully also possessing the skills of Chris Judd. And is it too much to expect that such a player has some sense of the effect that his decisions/actions may have on the club - or is it simply fair game for that player to focus only on one's own agenda/game plan, virtually in a vacuum? In the context of these questions, is Scully the player we should pin our hopes on? I trust some of you will have an opinion on these questions. That said, I'd be really interested in hearing them.

Seems like a fairly Gen-Y perspective to me, to be honest. If true, it's all about how it affects him. I want players with heart - players who desperately want to play for this club - players who put club and team interests ahead of self. As an aside, top players on $600K plus a year should be able to influence the destiny of a club without waiting to see who the head coach is. Two first round draft picks, Colin Sylvia in our leadership group in 2012 and not blowing our entire salary cap on a 20 year old - the longer this saga goes on, the more I'm starting to think I might actually be happy with that outcome. After all, I don't know how much Geelong's missing Ablett in 2011 ...

This club is bigger than Tom Scully. If true, I find the suggestion that a 20 year old is assessing whether our club and its culture is 'good enough' for him to be quite patronising. I would expect/hope that all of our players are absolutely stoked to be playing in the red and the blue. Footy (and footy clubs) are not wholly a logical science - there's got to be some heart in it. I'm concerned as to the effect this issue would be having on the rest of the player group. They're all Demons too, and some of them are currently much better players - and much more important to the future of this club - than number 31. Most of them appear to love the club too. Hence, if we're talking two first round draft picks as compensation, I'm starting to feel more relaxed. I just don't hope we stuff up what has clearly been a very disciplined approach to list management over the last few years trying to compete with GWS over Tom Scully. Our offering is good. But if it's not 'good enough', I say bring on two first rounders who will have a tear in the eye when they're presented with their very own red & blue guernsey. Sure everyone has different priorities - and good luck to Tom Scully if being a life long Demon is not one of his main priorities - but they're the types I reckon we should be recruiting as juniors. I'm now going to trying and focus on this week's game against Port. This issue is doing my head in.

Thanks for this summary, Diablo - much appreciated. And for yours as well, Axis. Living in Sydney, it's good to read these reports. Irrespective of the Scully situation, I think back to 2003 and to 2007, 2008 and 2009 when I genuinely feared for the future of this club. All I wanted then was a guarantee that we had a long term future. Now, each time I hear Schwab, Connolly, Lord Jim or Bailey speak, I know we have that. In fact, I now think how many flags we are going to win in the next decade. And that's bloody nice. Let's not forget where we are coming from as a club. We have a lot to be thankful for.

Probably not the only club that would be interested ...

As an aside, in the context that Scully has not yet done enough to command $1,000,000 a season to play AFL - a fairly safe assumption IMO - I think he needs to also consider the following. That is, I think it would be very difficult for an, as yet, unproven 20 year old kid to line up each week against the likes of Adam Goodes, Joel Selwood, Jimmy Bartel (the list goes on) in the knowledge that: - they were probably also courted by GWS, and didn't ultimately take the bait; - they are being paid much less than him, essentially to ply the same trade - albeit on a more effective basis; and - they would be quietly assessing him (perhaps not so quietly) week in, week out. That, I expect, would be a lot for a 20 year old to shoulder each week. Whereas, in sticking fat with the Dees, I expect those very same players would probably think very highly of a young player who made the decision to show loyalty to the club that picked him with the pick they could've used on any other player in the competition. GWS, on the other hand, has probably offered the cheque book to many other players before knocking on Tom's door. Obviously not every senior player would think this, but I expect most of the very top echelon would - club loyalty strikes me as being a big consideration at that level.

I agree. I'm heartened by our offer, assuming it's being accurately reported. Personally, I think it's an absolute no-brainer for Scully to stay at the Dees, given the clubs' respective offerings (in a global sense that is, ie list, history, location, cash etc). The MFC's offer just has to be competitive - certainly it's in the ball park. I expect plenty of other (currently) better players at rival clubs (Franklin, Goddard etc) have had the GWS money thrown at them too, yet to date most appear to have stuck fat with their clubs. And arguably the money's more important to such players, given that they are in the 'business' end of their careers. I'm now looking for our number one draft pick to do the same. It's not like he'll be playing for us on a pro bono basis.

Agree. The MFC must have some cards here, particularly given that GWS can't seem to attract any decent corporate support (the AFL aside). And, one would think, the GWS never will - certainly not in the timeframe that may suit a young player thinking about his career in 6 or so years from now.