Ron Burgundy

RR, I too will be extremely disappointed/angry if we lose Scully. But, the harsh reality is that we also have to take some responsibility for having used our number one draft pick on him if he agrees to go to GWS for the cash. We were handed the first two picks of the entire draft. Self evidently, we could've selected anyone. This was simply a massive opportunity for this club, and not one to waste. The AFL didn't dictate to us who we should select - it was 100% our decision. Further, all clubs were well aware of the GC/GWS threat - probably most of all, us. I expect that's why we stitched up Trengove and Tapscott so soon into their first season. Presumably the club also looked at other talented kids in connection with these picks (eg, Martin, Rohan, Melksham, Moore (who apparently really wanted to come to the Dees), Talia, Menzel etc). We did our DD - and the rest is history. Word has it, Brad Scott directly (almost aggressively) asks each prospective draftee if they want to play at the Roos. If he sees any doubt, he doesn't pick them - no matter how good they are. He only wants players who desperately want to play for the club, and in turn who will bleed for the guernsey. Perhaps (and, clearly, I don't know this) we didn't interrogate Scully's desire to play for the club sufficiently. I suppose we'll know more come October. I think it's interesting that Scully's best mate, Ryan Bastinac, recently stated "My future is here. I'm happy at North. I'm loving every minute of it." Bastinac then speculated "Scully knows where his future lies. He's just not saying it." Now if that is actually the case, on any construction that's a very destabilising position for our first draft pick to take in the current circumstances. Article attached below, fyi. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/afl/tom-scullys-future-a-secret-ryan-bastinac/story-e6frexx0-1226076710819

Hardtack, I owe you two apologies. First, you are correct on not calling for me to be banned. You simply defamed me. It was the enlightened man that is "Thomo" that called for my banning - seemingly for merely reporting a Tom Scully related matter (that he found disagreeable) on this thread. Having now re-read the relevant section of this thread, it strikes me as odd that "Thomo" would call for my banning. Ironic really. Second, apologies for not spelling your name correctly. I see that it is hardtack, not "hardtrack".

Sylvia is my favourite player. I'd be absolutely devastated if he didn't finish his career at the Dees. We must re-sign him.

Quick word of warning here, DemonWA - despite that you appear to love the Dees and you appear to be posting your views in good faith, your view appears slightly contrary to the poster-boy view of the world espoused by the open-minded thinker that is "hardtrack". I expect that, if you persist in expressing such contrarian views, he will call for you to be banned from this website ... for life (refer to previous posts by "hardtrack" on this thread). It matters not that GWS may have expressed similar views to a national television audience or that every major newspaper has also reported such things. Apparently it is all clearly humbug and to simply proffer a similar view here is the height of blasphemy. The one fact I take from this thread is that no one really has any idea what Scully will ultimately do at the end of this season ... except "hardtrack", that is. As an aside, I hope Scully re-signs with the Demons at season's end. However, I think the GWS threat is real and I suspect we will have plenty more sleepless nights before we know whether we've secured his signature or not.

Great post WM - a very interesting update. I also appreciate the fact that you understand I was merely reporting something I'd heard, ideally for the benefit of the thread. But for your post, I have to say I harboured genuine concerns after hearing what I'd heard on the weekend. I now feel more relaxed - this thing has been a bloody roller-coaster. I really hope your mate, number 31, stays with this club. I suspect if he re-signs, he'll be a Demon for life. As an aside, it was interesting listening to Diesel Williams being interviewed by Mike Sheehan last night. He said he wanted to stay at Geelong. They offered him $45K to stay; the Swans offered him $100K to leave. He asked for $5K more from the Cats and they refused. Had they offered that to him, he says he would've stayed - perhaps for life. The Cats played in 4 grand finals since he left, and you'd have to think he would've had an impact in those games. It's weird how history takes its course. Bottom line though - it seems to take a lot for a young player to leave his first club. You'd therefore hope we've got a lot of cards up our sleeve.

I love Bennell. And Nicholson. And Howe.

And that's why I went to the effort of correcting the (potentially) misleading part of my first post. What I have written above is a boringly accurate statement of what occurred on the night. It is my belief, reasonably founded, that the CEO made these remarks to my friends in the context of the GWS Coterie. I have specifically stated that I don't know whether those remarks are factually correct, just that they were made. If I had been sufficiently petty, I could have asked him to make those comments directly to me so as to appease some people on Demonland who, whilst I suspect don't actually know the probative value of hearsay in an evidential sense, would seemingly feel that this 'rumour' may be more worthy of being posted. That said, in good faith I posted it thinking it might be interesting to some of you. Clearly it is not interesting to some of you - my apologies. Not everything I read on this site is particularly interesting/immpressive to me either, but I avoid becoming hostile towards other posters (as laughably easy as that would be) - perhaps because I'd like to think we all share the same common goal. And just to give you the heads up on hearsay and rumours - virtually everything that is posted on this site is, in some way or another, hearsay. If we could only post concluded facts on this site, there probably wouldn't be a forum at all. I have also heard a similar 'rumour' from two other sources, but because of the exacting reporting requirements clearly demanded here (ironic really given the quality of much of the writing), I will refrain from posting any more hearsay on the topic. As an aside, like all of you, I want Scully to play 350 games for this club.

I can't believe I'm getting to sucked into this, but, given that my initial post was rather clumsy, I feel obliged to set the record straight. GWS is making an effort to develop its corporate membership base at the moment. It is my understanding that they are really struggling and they have very little corporate support. Rightly or wrongly, I am seen to be someone that may be interested in such a membership, essentially because I live in Sydney and work at a large company, enjoy AFL but do not support the Swans. My heart beats true though. I have a couple of mates whose firms have signed up for corporate memberships. Neither of them support GWS - it's all for marketing opportunities. They are well educated professionals and I would trust their word more than many of the posters on this site. It also helps that I know them. Both of them said to me on the night that the CEO (who was sitting about 10 metres away - I think he's a former North player, Dale Holmes) told them earlier that night and also at another function a couple of weeks ago that GWS had some type of 'commitment' from Scully or Scully's management (I didn't interrogate this distinction), but that Scully had not actually 'signed' anything. That said, they said GWS was confident that he would in due course. Make of this what you will, but it didn't seem like a completely fabricated story. It also seems that, despite what has been said publicly, there have been some communications between or on behalf of the parties. It actually beggars belief to think otherwise. I told them both that I thought this rumour was all b.s and that Eddie Maguire had manufactured the whole thing. They then said, the CEO's over there - do you want to hear it from his mouth? I declined, essentially because I had the sh1ts and had no reason to doubt that the CEO had said this to them (irrespective of whether there was/is any truth to the rumour). That being the case, I didn't see the upside in having a drunken (potentially hostile) conversation with a bloke whose club had generously invited me to its function. Later that night, Dipper signed a hat for a mate of mine. I did not speak to him about anything related to AFL, Tom Scully, GWS or the MFC. He struck me as a top bloke. I didn't speak to Sheedy at all. In short, I didn't want to. I trust this now clarifies the situation.

I don't want to get into an internet slanging match with some nerd over the computer here. In short, I don't want Scully to leave the club. I'm simply reporting what I heard - and, to my mind, it seemed to have some substance to it. Then again, perhaps you're right and it is all absolutely b.s. I don't know and I suspect you don't know either. However, you can believe whatever you want. You can also simply ignore the post and, perhaps even, resist the temptation to write wholly juvenile responses.

This is a Tom Scully thread. I'm simply reporting what I heard last night. Neither Sheedy nor the CEO told me this. One of the foundation members did. I told him I thought it was all crap - he then responded by saying, "matter for you. We reckon it's pretty well a done deal". Everyone else seemed to think it's a done deal too. Needless to say, it didn't exactly make for a good night. So Jack7, it's possible you're a modern day Socrates, but my instinct tells me you're probably not. Cop a tip, hand on it or not - don't be surprised with posters putting 'Tom Scully' related reports on a 'Tom Scully' thread. That's kind of what this forum is for ... but heh, perhaps I'm assuming a basic level of intelligence from everyone in the Demonland community, arguably an assumption that I may now need to revisit. FYI - I don't know whether Scully's signed with GWS or not. I sincerely hope he hasn't.

Perhaps this is naive, but I only want players who live and breathe the MFC. Not charlatans seeking the best commercial deal.

I attended the GWS 'Captain's Club' function at the Swans v Pies game last night. Spoke to Sheedy, Dipper and the GWS CEO. Essentially, it seems they think they have Scully. He has not 'signed' anything, but he 'committed' to GWS last October. Reading between the lines, it is probable that, whilst he said he's 'committed' to the GWS, he's probably now having second thoughts. Nonetheless, GWS appears confident. I felt like throwing haymakers at everyone wearing orange and grey hats last night, Bloody p1ssed off - this is unfair. Should have taken Trengove at 1, Martin at 2.

From my perspective, the issue is not so much Tom Scully - but the thought that we were gifted picks 1 and 2 and may not ultimately get the benefit of what that could potentially have delivered us. And, for what it's worth, it is a big issue. Objectively. Only earlier tonight on 'On The Couch' did Roos, Healy and Sheahan raise it once again. I hope Scully was listening, because Roos thinks his future should be well and truly at the Demons.

Please don't kill any semblance of intellectual integrity that this site may have preserved to date. It's this type of reaction that killed Demonology a few years back. You clearly have many genuinely concerned posters reading this loop - I don't expect making it a one way street will do anyone any favours, including the club we all support. Just my view though. Feel free to censor it as you see fit.

Trengove could very well captain this club one day. I have no doubt about his loyalty - he also seems to have the smarts and good character about him. I reckon he'd sign a 15 year deal if it was offered to him, and he'd influence his team mates to do the same. Scully seems different. Great future player perhaps, but I now wish we picked Martin or Rohan or anyone else at pick 2 (Trengove at 1) - because Scully's not paying sufficient respect to this club at the moment (even if he ultimately does agree to terms). Most kids of his age would be absolutely stoked to be seen to be an integral part of an AFL club's future, but this seems almost irrelevant to Scully. I find it wholly bizarre that he seems, almost wilfully, to ignore what the club and its supporters would love him to do. At his age, such discipline and lack of impressionability is almost pathologically weird. As an aside, the way the club handled Junior last year was a mistake. We are still paying for it IMO.

A few observations: 1. this rumour has elements of the 'moon landing' conspiracy theory about it - a lot of it is based on innuendo and pure speculation rather than hard evidence and fact-based analysis (of which there is not really much to go on, other than what's formally been communicated by Scully, the club and his management); 2. if Scully does wish to play out his career at the Dees, it's actually in his interests to try and negotiate a good deal now. And that deal should not be for the most cash his manager can possibly squeeze out of the club. Despite many of you thinking it's all about the cash, I don't actually think it's everyone's first priority - certainly it hasn't been for me in my career. In my observation, most 'high performers' don't think first about the cash - certainly not so early in their career curve; rather they focus on the longer term opportunity and developing their underlying skill set. If Scully does wish to be a one club player, surely it's in his interests to assist the club in keeping the core of this group together, albeit on a bloody sweet deal. If he holds the club to ransom, we may potentially lose an otherwise required player and this could jeopardise Scully's dream too (assuming he wants to taste the ultimate glory with the one club, ie the Dees); 3. GC, which to my mind had a much more compelling case to a young AFL player than GWS, was only ultimately able to secure some of the Lions talent because of the Fevola situation - and it was also situated just down the road. The 'sun' and the moon collided for Ablett to go there - the reasons are well documented. Those reasons don't seem to exist for Scully - so it would presumably be solely a cash-based decision for him. That said, he doesn't strike me as a 'cash is the only king' kind of guy (absent some really bad advice from his management). But then again, I don't know him - and there's absolutely no hard evidence to support this view - it's based merely on my observation from afar and some fourth hand hearsay.

Bailey has been very, very good for us. He may not ultimately take us to a flag, but I hope he does. If we get another head coach in due course, I hope the club retains him in some capacity, perhaps as a development coach.

Trengove. Both will be great players (in their own way), but Trengove strikes me as a better club man - and we need that. In fact, if Scully does head north, he will have killed the great opportunity that was afforded to this club. We could've had Trengove and Martin (who's proven himself to be loyal), or Trengove and Rohan (or Melksham or any other top 10 pick from that draft).

No Jolly either.

Nope.

I've a mate who recently spoke to Mike Sheahan and Sheahan apparently told him that Scully has signed with GSW for $6M over 5 years. I was devastated when I heard this. However, I now think this rumour is wrong. I put the rumour to another friend of mine a few days ago (who's heavily involved with GWS), and he said he thinks the rumour's a beat up, but that GWS doesn't wish to extinguish it as it generates talk and, obviously, they would sign Scully if they could (but not for any amount of money). He said their targets were actually slightly older players - for instance, Taylor Walker, whom he said they've secured for next year. Obviously they'd love a Pendlebury, Murphy or Thomas, but it won't be easy for them to get them, even with their fat cheque book. The win against the Dons will be great for morale amongst our younger brigade, and Scully's part of that. If we can beat the Pies next weekend, he'll probably want to put pen to paper for a 15 year deal with the Dees ... or, at least, I hope he will.

A series of very big wins ...

I agree Choko. I've been thinking the very same thing - not logical, just gut feel. That said, we'll probably get pumped by 60 now.

Six million over five years to play for GWS is a lot of money. I've heard he thinks that's a good deal. And yes - this is all fourth hand hearsay and therefore unreliable.

A lot of people think trading players is like trading footy cards. It's an internet game. Players value goes up and down as quickly as the value of stocks being traded on the ASX, and most of it is not founded in any sense of reality or good judgement. The reality is that good clubs need people/players like Moloney. Not only would he get a start at every other club, the leadership qualities he brings are what makes him vitally important to this particular club. You would always lose more than you would gain trading someone like Moloney. Malthouse, I expect, would say this about Maxwell. He's clearly not the best player in the league, let alone that club - but he's the Captain of the best team in the comp. He would not ever be 'on the table', so to speak. And whatever we may say and think about the Pies, the fact is they get this stuff right. Bailey didn't quite appreciate the effect his handling of the McDonald situation would have on our list, and it's simply because his lens was limited to on-field performance and giving the junior players more game time. Makes sense on paper - but look at the effect it's actually had in reality. We need that guy walking around the club (in some capacity) this year - and I don't believe he is. The same argument IMO applies to some other players mentioned on this thread (eg, Jones, Green etc). So, in discussing the trading of players, I suggest people broaden their focus a little.