nutbean

I think as Gary March said - no one expected the targeting of first and second year players. A semi reasonable assumption considering the pick of the 17 year old and all the draft concessions given.

I read all that and thought at the time that Cam Schwab got it wrong - I understand any CEO not wanting another CEO talking for his club but the essence of March's argument was and is 100% correct. From a Tiger perspective - I believe that they had to pay through the nose to keep Martin. What I didnt mention in my article - when a player reaches 23-24 (in most cases) you know what you are getting - so do i have a problem with a 24 year old being in the top 3 best paid players at a club - not as much as i do with an unproven 21 year old. It throws the whole system out of whack.

ummm...yes..wait...no...what ? Let me clear that up for those as confused as I was. The contact has no idea if the rumour is true, but the MFC are confident of the rumour not being true but rumour is strong and that is not a rumour. Clear ?

I was at origin 2 last night (on my bucket list !) - stayed at Rosehill - and GWS heartland is a futher 15 km west - uggghhhhhh. Good luck with that ! (incidently - driving infers a vehicle actually moving - I spent 48 hours in Sydney with 98% of it spent at a standstill in traffic)

The clubs formulating the concessions got it sooooo wrong. I can only think that clubs knowing how many early draft picks the new clubs would get, thought they would go after more experienced and mature players. I did offer the solution printed on the AFL website - http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/108528/default.aspx Vlad was so concerned about evenness and fair play on free agency but has choosen to completely ignore it when it comes to what is fair in regard to who is available and uncontacted for GWS/GC17 to target. I screamed it then and i will scream it now - GC17 and GWS should have been limited to the access to uncontracted players by a length of service clause.

The thing that really upsets me about Vlad is the obvious which he chooses to conveniently overlook every time this discussion comes up. If we lost TS to Richmond or Collingwood at the end of the year through them offering him something he wants more - be it money or opportunity or the perception that their club is better then I would be upset BUT we are on a level playing field as far as cap goes with these clubs. In the end we havent worked hard enough to keep him. As to the Jeff White situation ( which was a "go home" story) - Freo and MFC were competing with the same total amount of money in their pocket to spend. With GWS and GC17 they are turning up to an auction to buy a house with AFL approval allowing them to spend an inordinate amount than any of the other clubs can spend. In pure dollar terms the AFL has given the new clubs a huge competitive advantage. And to those who suggested before that GC17 was a lifestyle choice - whilst I agree it has more appeal than GWS and the beaches do sound nice is anyone truly suggesting that if all the players they contracted were offered the same money by their former clubs they would have still gone to GC17 because of the lifestyle ?? spare me.

Players did not go to GC17 for the lifestyle - it was money. Players are considering GWS because of the money. Swift decisive action and players not putting us through this again ???? come into the real world of football contract negotiations any time you are ready. The only reason we are all so panicked is because GWS is transparent in their aim to attract players. However players putting us "through this" has been happening for ever and a day and will not stop, especially with the advent of FA. There was a Collingwood offer on the table for Brad Green which is why his last contract took so long to negotiate. Cloke to Essendon the year before last, Pavlich's negotiations of his contracts. Players in demand will put clubs "through this". Its called contract negotiations on a wanted commodity.

Wow... just wow... GC17 won a pot that contained Ablett, Richatelli, Brennan with the best two pair in history. The only FACT is that GWS can pay a bucket load more money that any club can to tempt players. And most importantly - if you think GWS have such a weak hand, why are you so pannicked about giving him an ultimatum to sign now ?

And the better and more expeditious manner is delivering an ultimatum ????????? Can you please point out exactly what is your problem with the club negotiating to the timetable that has been set since last August ?

And this is a surprise to you ? Where have you been for the last 30 years ? Simple economics 101 - demand and supply. Players in demand will get the largest share of the pie. Bruce ? Green ? Davey - all on large contracts - highly in demand. Remember Woey - got too much money when he negotiated but then we offloaded him when his value decreased. What about Shane Valenti ? We offloaded him - wasnt thought good enough. We offered him zero contract. Chris Judd - do you think that Carlton wanted to pay him what they are paying him - what about Kouta and his million dollar contracts when he could hardly move. Tom wins ? is this REALLY a surprise ?

I think you'll find that Tom's management know they are sitting on four aces. Please please please please - never ever get involved in MFC contract negotiations if that is your negotiating tactic with a player in Tom Scully's unique position. "I have been left with no other option but to leave for GWS - My management stated they wanted to wait until the seasons end to negotiate my contract which is not unfair or unreasonable and is in no different to about half a dozen of my team-mates. However, Range told me to accept the contract on offer now or leave - sooooo ta-ta" (conversely, I have a fortnightly poker game that I would love you to sit in on)

There is a major difference between making a decision based on the biggest pot of money and making sure that you get the best financial outcome even though it means taking a lesser amount. The only given is that we will not be able to compete financially dollar for dollar on a contract because of cap contraints. There is talk on this board of getting TS a Judd/Visy like deal. I would assume that the wealthier benefactors at the club will have been or are being approached. If Tom's inclination as he has stated is to be a one club player, his management would be saying - the longer we leave this hopefully the more imaginative MFC will become in lining up sponsorships, ambassadorships etc so the gap between a GWS and MFC offer narrows. I am sure if Judd's management said to Pratt at negotiation time - increase the Visy deal by XXX and Judd is yours then there would have been no question as to what Pratt would have done. I am thinking ( hoping) that the MFC are having the same discussions behind the scenes now. When TS signs ( hopefully) I am thinking we are going to see marketing deals and ambassadorships in place for him.

I again am going to take TS at face value and say that as of March there hasnt been any discussion with GWS. However that is not the same as saying that his management are unaware of what is offer to a player of the ilk of Scully from GWS. There are numerous figures being bandied about and I am sure that Lynch has been made aware that Scully would earn X over X years at GWS which is not the same as "my management has not had any approaches or discussions from GWS". ( I know I can earn $2000 a week working from home from posters on lamp-posts but i havent been in discussions with anyone !!!) Actually we do have some insight into TS's motivation from his presser when he was asked how he could resist large money being offered and he said it is not all about money. I keep reading his press conference statements and if I read everything said I actually cant see how he can go unless the gulf between the two offers is THAT big. His statement would then be "I'm not motivated by money but the difference between the two offers is so large that I could not pass it up" - and then be judged accordingly.

Because bringing tonnes of bricks to the negotiation table always achieves the desired outcome.

I gave 6 - Sylvia 6 - Deezman's gf for giving me something to stare at at the game ( joking....)

We need to deal with reality - please name all the GWS recruited footballers who were certainties to go that informed their club 8 weeks prior to the end of the season that they were going. Didnt happen and wont happen here. I think Bock was the first to announce his intentions and he did that the second last week of the season and didnt play for Adelaide again.

Robbie - you are now on the quotes whiteboard at work. Heat and no light - just love it. That rates right up there with "payback is double" and "I hear your problems but sympathy is on backorder"

Surely not more boring than the Tom Scully thread

All is good - I have worked out a formula that proves decisively if he is going or staying. I hope this now clears everything up TS = Tom Scully SHF% = stay home factor percentage CO = counter offer x$ = the acceptable differential RISI% = rumour, innuendo, scuttlebutt inflation % GGWSO = Ginormous Greater Western Sydney Offer TS x SHF% x CO + x$ ______________________ TS x RISI% x GGWSO ($4M/5Y)

I would play Evans on him as a hard tag and if Dick doesnt get a sniff then we can......... Thanks Evans for Dick.

Paul is dead , Paul is dead ?

Ha ! So right - this is an ILD of the highest order ( infinite loop debate). I think the mods could delete 99.75% of the posts and put up 3 posts only 1/ he is going post 2/ he is staying post 3/ no idea either way post We have 2 facts only 1/ Late last year Scullys management said all negotiations are off until end of season 2011 2/ March 2011 - Scully stated he has signed nothing and reaffirmed fact one. I have read every argument repeated for 1/ why he is going 2/ why he is staying Everything written apart from the 2 facts is fluff, nonsense, opinion, conjecture and speculation. I fall firmly fall into have no idea either way and what will be will be. ILD

Thats the problem - it is so subjective. If he is to be a 10 year player then a difference of 500K per year racks up to $5M over his career. We know all the reasons for him to stay . We know the only reason why he would go. The decision in the end will be purely about money - end of story. Will he move for $100K a year difference ? no ? What about $300K per year ? no ? How about $500K per year ? How about a $5M gap between MFC and GWS over the next 10 years ? It many not even be about the gap - it may be about how much he wants from the MFC and the difference between two offers is not of consequence ( as you have said - maybe TS's thinking is that $1.5M is enough for me) TS doesnt seem mercenary to me ( as opposed to Pendles on a one year contract) but everyone has their price. My heart ( not my head) is telling me it more about the price that he needs from the MFC rather than difference between offers. Hopefully he can see the value in the MFC and in staying in Melbourne. You may be right Rogue, $500K difference $1.5m and $2m may not sway him. But nobody can say what will sway him - that is something only TS knows.

spot on

and thats where we differ - i wouldnt - complex negotiations - dont put a hand grenade on the table as it only has one outcome. That is to blow up in your face If Tom says he aint gonna play for us then fair enough but until all negotiations have ended, all avenues exhausted - i would not use a negotiation tactic that only has one possible outcome.