The Chazz

It will depend on what season Scully is going wait until the end of. The doubters will expect it to be the end of the Melbourne season, while the hopefuls will be happy to wait until the end of the AFL season (after the Grand Final). September is going to be the silly season in this place!

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good arguement Nutbean.

Assuming you have Tapscott on the bench? I do like the idea of Martin replacing Rivers in defence too.

With all due respect to you Sam and HT; prior to last weekend Richmond had only one 1 game since Round 9, and that included losses to Port Adelaide and the Gold Coast. Couldn't really back the Toiges looking at the form guide. While I admit, our last month has been far from ideal, I'm quietly confident, like the playing group, that we will win the last 3. The question has to be asked though - why are the players so confident? Did they know that the past 4 were write-offs, but know the next 3 should be certainties? Does this mean they only put in when they know they are going to win?

You must be a very intelligent man B59, because I'd like to think that I'm fairly switched on, and that post has made absolutely no sense to me. Perhaps the minority that have a similar opinion to me could try and crack B59's code for me, if they are able. Cheers.

I'm prepared Kento! I'll even go one step further... All in here are jumping up and down wanting The Ox, Sheehan, etc, to name their sources, well, I'll throw it back to the posters in here who say he is going. Name your source. If you don't - you are as weak as pi$$, just like the rest. Will you get your rocks off if he does go, becuase you will sit back and give us minority the "I told you so"? Reality is you have no idea. I have no idea if he is staying or going, but the only source I have that said he hasn't signed is Scully himself. Things may have changed since his presser, but as he hasn't come out and stated otherwise, I'm going to back the kid. So, unless you have seen a signed contract, I'd suggest you STFU.

This is the common attitude from posters on this topic that makes me have to decide if I should pi$$ myself laughing, or burst in to tears. Can anyone honestly, hand on heart, mother's grave, etc, say that they know what Melbourne is doing in terms of contracts for Scully as well as the other players, and know that it is an incorrect thing to be doing? What are we doing to try to impress Scully? Will Scully be the highest paid player at the Club if he is to stay? I know the smart posters on here will abuse me for bring logic/reality in to this thread, and the rest will say that I'm keeping my head in the sand. IF he goes, I'll be happy to say that I was hoping the Club did everything they could (within reason) and it just wasn't enough. IF he stays, well, those that doubted him should be...I'm buggered if I know, but it will make sick when they comment on his great seasons at the Club.

Source?

It's going to be good going to Adelaide knowing we have never lost at the venue. Viney's already outdone Bailey!!!

So, as he is still contracted for 2012, would that mean we'd have to pay his contract out? Then expect him to hang around on the RL, with the hope that at the end of next season we will re-draft him? Great culture building that would be. Also, what are the rules of nominating for the Rookie Draft? Do you have to have nominated for the National Draft first, then the pre-season draft, or can you just nominate for the rookie draft? I'm pretty sure there would be rules regarding the whole primary list/rookie list dealings. If not, it could mean that if a team didn't want to delist anyone (lucky them!), they could delist 3 players and pick them straight up in the rookie draft, but then promote 3 rookies through the national draft. Kinda like going around in circles. I think you'll agree that my first point will explain why demoting Strauss isn't a smart move. Edit - you can actually make that a 2 year pay out as Strauss is contracted until the end of 2013. Even smarter move now!

God, where do we start with this jaffa? 1. Nicholson and Evans have been retained on the rookie list for another season haven't they? They aren't going to be elevated to the senior list are they? That's how I read the contract signing. 2. We need to make at least 3 changes to our list. I'm pretty sure Maric will be in a bit of trouble, and I think Warnock will probably request a trade. While Bate is still contracted for next year, I wouldn't be surprised if he is given the flick (and is worth zilch in terms of trade value). Only thing I can see saving him would be IF Scully is to go, and that's a bloody big IF. 3. I'm not sure about Sylvia. The new coach would want to have a good chat with him. 4. You would not delist Morton. If anything, I would try and trade him to the GWS. They have a lot of 1st round picks that I could see them giving one up for him (would be a late first-rounder). 5. Bartram isn't a bad player. is disposal hurt us a fair bit yesterday, but I think he will still hold a spot for the next 12 months at least. Dunn, I'm not so sure, but I think he is safe for 2012. 6. There is no benefit in dropping Strauss to the RL. At this stagee, he will have all of next year off, and will be placed on the LTI, meaning we can upgrade a rookie (Nicho, Evans, FEV?).

You would have to seriously consider him to take a spot on the rookie list. A couple of ways to look at it; * We gave Robbie Campbell a spot on the RL, who had a lot of baggage in his own right (injuries). We also had a few developing rucks who he would've been taking their spot, but we still went with him. * If Fev is at Casey anyway, why not have him on our RL? If he's going to take up a spot down there, we might as well have the flexibility of being able to play him when requried (which I have no doubt would be a majority of the season). * Given our normal run of LTI, he would be elevated virtually straight away (could come straight in for Strauss). Would however mean that Nicholson and Evans have to wait for another LTI. * He would give us that structure that I think our forward line needs, especially while Fitzpatrick and Cook are developing. * It never hurt Carlton when he left, so those that think if our mids will become too Fev-focused, that arguement doesn't hold much weight.

Biggest positive for me was that I was out and didn't see the first half! And to hear my wife (a Geelong supporter) say at 3/4 time, "Wow, they're not playing that bad". Thought Joel Mac was very good. I've always been a fan of his, but for some reason he is one of "those" players that will play 3 good ones in a row, then have a bad one and get dropped, while "others" can play many bad ones in a row without seeing a Casey jumper.

WYL, you may be able to confirm this, but was he the first and only Captain to ever get dropped due to form? Late 80's/early 90's IIRC.

I think the locals do that good enough themseleves on a weekly basis. We wont need to go up there and start it. Could always join in though.

B59, I'm as impressed as anyone regardign the progress and leadership potential of JT, however, I think you are getting a bit excited with some of your views. I just have to ask, at what stage in the negotiations with Gawn, Tappy, Nicho and Pickles did the Club say "JT has signed, are you going to as well?". While I'm stoked that he has re-signed for 3, and Tappy for 2, I think it's a given that JT should get a longer extension due to exposed form and Tappy's injury history. You of all people should know to keep a lid on these things!

Who did you vote for E25? I voted Mathews, only because there wasn't an option "none of the above". The bottom option was the closest thing to it, but it also meant selecting an unproven candidate which I don't want to see happen. I don't selecting Mathews in this situation is the most foolish thing to do. Those that selected Laidely on the other hand...

Only if it were a male one.

Voted Lethal, mainly because I didn't like the others, especially Laidley. My view on it is that we need someone who is respected from the moment they walk through the door. I have no doubt our senior players will go to a different level if this were the case. This would be someone who, while the players may feel slightly intimidated by, has a decent coaching record and a hostory of getting every ounce of goodness out of his team. Laidley DOES NOT meet this criteria. It's about creating a culture, or perhaps more accurately, changing the culture (and attitudes of some players). There are a select few that would be able to walk in to a Club, and have the players busting their gut to earn the respect of the coach. That's what this team need to go forward. A "rookie" coach (Sanderson, Neeld, etc) would spend the first 12 months trying to earn the respect of the players, which is not where we need to be for the next few seasons.

2007 seems to be our biggest disappointment so far for mine. Was BP in charge then? The only questionable selection would be chosing Gawn over Vardy. Chances are Maxy would've been around at our next pick (which would've meant we missed out on Fitzy), but Vardy was well hyped up on here and with strong reason as it turns out. I'm not saying we have made a mistake, but in 3 years time it may be a selection that either worked or didn't work!

Brilliant effort in taking part of my post (and not all of it) to give you something to feed off. Which media outlet do you work at? In no way am I saying that we should just keep them for 2 years so we can get rid of them. I'm saying that in 2 years, I'd expect them to secure a best 22 tag, but if they don't, then, and only then, would they have had long enough in our system to be moved on. I thin kmaking that decision this year is far too premature.

I highly doubt that all of this asking for more money/out-of-salary-cap-income-earners is for one man only. I'm confident that the Club wouldn't risk paying Scully so much more than Trengove and Watts, just because we wanted to keep him away from GWS. I wouldn't be surprised if these Judd-like ambassador roles for companies have more than just Scully's name on them. It's just the media will construct articles as it is a hot topic, with the hope that it will generate more public discussion from other Clubs which will again sell more papers. Oh to be a fly on the wall at the dinner tonight. The Melbourne Football Club will be a better team with Scully in it in years to come, to say otherwise is purely based on frustration that he hasn't indicated what he wants to do next year.

B59 - we don't need to win the next 5 to make the finals. There is every possiblity that we may only win 2, or 1, or whatever. The point is, at the end of the season, if we are 8th with more premiership points than the 9th team, or should we have a greater percentage, then we deserve to be playing finals - surely even you are smart enough to understand that. And that Bradbury scenario could be very similar. We are at the back end, going through our paces. If we keep our feet and those in front of us continue to fall over, then we could get the the finishing line first (or in this case, 8th). For us to be in that situation, the equation is simple - we MUST win ALL remaining 4 games. If we do that, I don't think you could call that giving in. This entire thread could easily be shut down by Sunday night if we don't beat the Eagles. At what stage did I question your loyalty to this country? I asked if you sang our anthem when a bloke won a gold medal - far from questioning your loyalty to the Country...fwit.

So if by some fluke we win the next 4, and I know it seems near imposible at present, would you suggest we provide the 5th placed team with a walkover due to your opinion that we don't deserve our spot? Finals talk wont be premature if we are previewing the Port Adelaide game on the back of 3 straight wins. If we lose on Sunday, then finals talk will turn its attention to season 2012. Did you sing the national anthem when Bradbury won gold? I'm doubtful you did.

First thing I would like to know is where did we get all this money from that could allow us to sign Malthouse up as Football Director and Clarkson as Head Coach?