nutbean

This situation is no longer destabilising for the club. IT HAS DESTABILISED THE CLUB. I don't think the club or any other club for that matter can withstand the current publicity barrage without avoiding serious damage and hope to get on with playing decent footy for the season.

The statement from Toms manager yesterday was unbelievable and incredibly dismissive and insulting considering all the heat this has generated. Stating that Tom won't be entering contract discussions till the end of the year so that he can concentrate on his footy. Surely by now Tom and his manager should be aware that by their stonewalling and selfishness they have created a monster. If Tom is inclined to stay with us he will realise the damage this has caused and will endeavour to sort out this situation quickly. On the other hand if has already signed with GWS there is nothing much he can do but ride out the storm and keep on pretending.

I think now that Bailey has to make a strong stand for the clubs sake and kill this cancer one way or another. If he doesn't get a firm commitment from Tom then make it clear to him and the rest of the world that he won't be playing with us anymore. This will clear the air. It would be a sad loss but any other way out will be a sign of weakness and resignation. We don't want to be Sheedy's proxy star player development team.

Wow ! Let the football start and all this nonsense be damned. What will be will be. The quickest way to force TS to GWS is by demanding a different timetable to his management that stated as early as last August no contract negotiations will be done until seasons end 2011.

Jack Watts did not sign until the end of last season - the major difference is that the GC17 drums were not beating for him like the GWS drums are beating for Tom.

Would you suggest that Collingwood throw the same ultimatum to Pendles, Thomas and Swan who Sheedy has stated that at least one will be A GWS player.

Here's the deal - for the last decade we have only had a miniscule amount of players that other clubs showed interest in. This is a changed landscape now that we will have to get used to - our new batch of up and coming stars will be approached to be poached. We will keep most and maybe lose some. So be it.

The list managers will do what they have to do - but the last thing that I think they will be doing is backing anyone into a corner with ultimatums. A nonsensical way to negotiate and sure to force players out the door.

Watt??? I thought we had dozens of HBF!!

I love Grimes' generalship in the back half - I only want him in the middle "pinch hitting" - when there is definite need for it - sort of like throwing Lake forward when the bullies need a spark. Otherwise I like him where he is just fine

Give it a rest - it's obvious that the post was my opinion, like every one of yours on this thread. You guys are just looking to cause trouble like half the demons fans on these forums. Try to reply to posts without the toolishness.

Find a hobby or something.

And opinions have to stand up to scrutiny.

If your opinion is that you will be nervous that Scully has not signed before the end of next year then you wont get an argument from me.

So here is my hobby - looking up words in the dictionary. When you said it is obvious that Scully has decided to leave if he has not signed by round one i looked up the word obviously and came up with

—Synonyms

1. plain, manifest, clear, palpable, unmistakable

I think it is not plain, manifest, clear, palpable or unmistakable that Scully has decided to leave if he hasnt signed by round one.

I would suggest it is more obvious that his manager thinks he will get a better deal at seasons end rather than beginning of the season. There is more evidence of players not signing contracts that are lapsing until seasons end to get a better deal than there are players that not signing contracts because they have made up their minds to leave.

Jack Watts ? Nathan Jones .....

Was just giving my opinion, no need to be a [censored].

Im new here but i am guessing that when you start your opinion with "it is obvious" when it really isnt obvious then ridicule is gonna happen

That's what spending too long at Ology does to a person.

I resemble that remark !

No, it should be obvious to us all. If he hasn't signed by round one, he's already decided to leave. The GC experience should have taught us all how it will go.

I don't think it should be obvious at all. If I was the manager of Scully I would certainly be advising NOT to sign by round one.

What is obvious is his star is rising and his worth at seasons end with a year of visible progression would be far more than if he signs before round one. I don't think it makes it obvious he is leaving. I think it is obvious he is looking to get a better contract at seasons end ( and that is more than hopefully for MFC).

If it is obvious that Scully has decided to leave if he hasnt signed before round one why wasnt it obvious that Jack Watts was also leaving at the end of last season because of his tardiness in not signing earlier ?

I agree - I already asked that but got a cryptic bullsh1t reply.

Here's two improbable ways it COULD happen:

1. Richmond finish last and get pick 4, they trade their end of first round pick to GWS for pick 300 and in return GWS agree not to take Scully. This only works if Richmond finish last.

2. Even worse for GWS, Richmond don't finish last and trade their first rounder say 6 (like this year) and their end of 1st rounder to GWS for pick 3. GWS again don't pick Scully in their first 2 picks.

Both completely far fetched - GWS would simply pick Scully, he's far more value than either of those two alternatives.

Then there's the question of why would Scully go to Richmond ahead of GWS who could pay him twice as much or more than Richmond or MFC. It must be because he barracked for them I guess.

It's not surprising that H007 is too embarrassed to make these suggestions for real ...

So the only way Scully can get to Richmond is

1 /by trading into a position with GWS that they wont take him and Richmond are the next live pick. So not only would Richmond have to pay Scully a fortune at Richmond , but also make an extraordinary offer to GWS for them not to take him.

2/ MFC conceding he will leave and wanting to get something back for him and Richmond giving us the best offer

Ummm...I'm thinking no and no

Prepare to be outraged if Scully or Trengove go to GWS.

(Prepare to wake up if either go to Richmond - it's only a bad dream)

It cant even see it being a bad dream - I can see unregistered players getting to Richmond but so far I havent seen anyway that a "Scully" can get to Richmond unless we trade him to Richmond because he wants out( yeah... right...) - So I will ask again - is there anyway unless we agree that a "Scully" can get to Richmond in 2012 ( except the situation where he nominates for the draft and every pick before Richmond passes...yeah ....right...)

I'm very fluent, but i still don't get it either

Accepting that there is one grain of truth in the "Richmond are a real worry" theory, I have a question - the only guarantee that an out of contract Scully has is that he can go to GWS as they will have first selections. If we cant negotiate then he ( or any player)can nominate for the ND or PSD - GWS first grab at him.

My question is as follows - can GWS draft someone in the ND or PSD and then do a deal with another club and pass the player on ?

Sheedy's comment that he will help other clubs get what they want if it helps their cause - how does that work ?

( for the record - I dont share the concern that Tom will leave - not to say we should not be vigilant, and knowing the FD will leave no stone unturned, history shows that besides the "go home factor" VERY FEW footballers move to another club after two seasons)

O'Bree?

Veszpremi?

Hislop?

Gaspar?

The Bears wanted to keep O'Bree and it was bigger money from the Pies that got him so that is one for you.

I would suggest Veszpremi was traded happily ( Swans could have easily kept him if they wanted to) and Hislop was lack of opportunities at a strong club ( also could have been kept) . I see those two as different to Rocca and Buckley whose clubs fought tooth and nail to entice them to stay. I can't remember about Darren Gaspar - was that go home factor ?

I knew there would be others ! The fact remains that very few high quality footballers move clubs after a couple of seasons

I find it interesting to see what "good" 2nd year players ( or players very young in their career) have left their club for greener ($) pastures.

My dodgy memory comes up with 4 off the top of my head

Frank Marchesani - 16 games with Fitroy in 1979 and then asked for a clearance to Carlton after his first season in 1979

Anthony Rocca - two seasons with the Swans before traded to Collingwood end of 1996 season however he made it clear it was the go home factor and wanting to play with his brother

Nathan Buckley - He shifted to Collingwood end of 1993 after one season playing with the Bears. Buckley only agreed to play with the bears if he had a get out clause in his contract at end of year one to the club of his choice.

Jeff White came to Melboune after 3 years at Freo

These are the four higher profile players I can remember in my lifetime ( and three of those were go home factor/wanting to play in Melbourne) and I guess whilst I wouldnt bury my head in the sand, players of only two/three seasons moving to other clubs is a rarity.

They're paying him $600K?

Wow. Didnt know that.

Another reason the Lions are in so much trouble financially.

Imagine! Black & Power having to settle for well under market value because Adcock is being paid better than Ablett (pre-GC).

Not to say Black & Power haven't probably been paid handsomely in past years.

whoooaaa - didnt say $600K but all reports from the media ( and we all take that as gospel ! not....) is that he has been given "HUGE" dollars to stay at the Lions, hence the reason they moved Brennan on to free up money to pay him as they were in all sorts of cap problems.

And Black and Power havent settled for under market as it is all about timing and when contracts come out. I think ( i will stand corrected) that Black and Power came out of contract this year and are still being well paid in the new contracts but less than the last contracts which is about right - twilight of their careers. So their new pay would be going down whilst Adcocks will be going up dramatically.

Ablett three years ago was on the cusp off being sensational when he signed his last contract - his contract renewal was one year too early - had it been one year later Geelong would have had to pay god knows how much more. The first year of his last contract was his true breakout superstar year. We signed Frawley for 4 years - if he keeps improving exponentially it may prove to be a cheap contract ( it could go the other way).

From a financial standpoint, the one I really dont understand is Trengove and why he signed for 3 years ? At the time there was much conjecture about who would go number one - Sculley or Trengove - I ask now - who will get the bigger contract for 2012 and probably onwards ? Sculley by a long way - as a drafted player I would have only gone with a two year contract.

Adcock is an interesting choice for an example...

Anyway, in paying 92% or 100% of the cap in lean years, we could (should) have been majorly front-loading contracts.

Not sure if we were, but Tim Harrington was not with the club at that time and his role did not exist.

Wouldnt pay $600K for Adcock either but Brisbane have stumped up huge amounts to keep him.

I agree with you on front loading ( as we are reportedly doing now) - I think we are more savvy on player management these days ( Cam Bruce being a very good case in point)

That is the point 45HG16 is making - others would not have had paid Bruce that money, but we had to pay someone that money - we HAVE to spend 92%. Generally, the salary cap means that poorly performing clubs are in the main paying certain players too much and a fair few Geelong players have accepted below their worth to stay at Geelong.

The best example now is WCE - they are reportedly having salary cap problems - that means that they are paying their playing group the same amount as Geelong/Collingwood - there are some seriously overpaid footballers in the west ( and Brisbane too)

repyling to myself now !

Someone did make the suggestion of buying better players instead which I like - I would love to have said " Cam, you aint worth $600K - would rather spend it on Jed Adcock" and since he is out of contract, go out and get him - the problem with this is we can only get an out of contract ( or an in contract) player through trading draft picks which means it may cost us more than we want to spend if the other club plays hard ball ( ie the reason lots of deals dont get done at trade time )- then if the player is out of contract and no deal is done during trade week and he definitely wants out , he falls into the ND or PSD with a price on his head and could be picked up by others before us ( like we had the opportunity with Luke Ball)

It doesn't remove the fact he was getting paid overs in regard his true worth as a footballer, so it is not really about being stuck on the point. The point is valid no matter the circumstance. As people will always highlight in good sides, those players are getting paid below what the market would pay.

No one else in the market place would have paid what we did for Bruce.

That is the point 45HG16 is making - others would not have had paid Bruce that money, but we had to pay someone that money - we HAVE to spend 92%. Generally, the salary cap means that poorly performing clubs are in the main paying certain players too much and a fair few Geelong players have accepted below their worth to stay at Geelong.

The best example now is WCE - they are reportedly having salary cap problems - that means that they are paying their playing group the same amount as Geelong/Collingwood - there are some seriously overpaid footballers in the west ( and Brisbane too)

Quite a few people get (unreasonably) stuck on this point IMO.

This is the simple product of the salary cap system. For the last 4 years of his career at the Dees, Bruce was one of the leaders of probably the worst team going around.

Who would you have paid more to?

Someone has to be the highest, why wouldn't it go to one of our most consistent players? And if he's in the top 2-3 money earners in the worst performed club it's obvious how he'd be in the top 50 or so earners in the league, especially when you consider that the Geelongs, St. Kildas etc. have to share the same pie (and bigger slices) to more players.

This is true - it has always stuck in my craw ( the craw, not the craw) that we had to pay out 92% of the salary cap in our lean years - it means that poor performing clubs have to pay some of their players over the odds and good players who want to remain at their current successful clubs have to accept less as more players within that club need higher salaries based on their quality. On the one hand the cap keeps a leveler playing field - no salary cap and the financially strong clubs will put the strugglers out of business. On the other hand - what the hell way is that to run a business !!! "I'll pay you more than your worth because I have to spend 92% of the salary cap"

I'll add my 10 cents worth.

I thought Cam Bruce was good over the years with obvious deficiencies.

What I do think is very relevant to this debate is the point being made that "we could have kept him if we wanted to"

I agree with this and I applaud the club. The club wanted to keep Bruce but the club made it clear in the offer ( less money with no second year guarantees) what his actual value was to the club. Bruce's own valuation of himself was was higher than the club's - so be it. This is not being treated with contempt - it is a difference of opinion on value. The waters are now very muddied as he apparently is getting less money and has stated that he has to work hard to get more years from the Hawks as well. And it is now also not clear if he was always going to leave to chase a premiership.

This valuation process will happen with every footballer. MFC don't give 4 year contracts anymore - oh..except in the case of Frawley. Why ? Because it was seen to be for the benefit of the club and footballer. End of story. We place a value on each footballer - some we will have to pay over the odds to keep some and others we will put an offer on the table at the clubs value and say take it or leave it ( as we did in the Cam Bruce case and I do beleive we overpaid on previous contracts but it was in the clubs interest to keep him at that stage). We will also break our no more than 1 year contracts after age 30 when we have a superstar that hits 30. We havent had one in a long time so therefore we havent needed to give a contract longer than that. The club makes decision based on their valuation and how much they want to keep a player - they have not made a mistake with Bruce nor have they treated him with contempt.

Lastly - i wish him no ill will but dont want to wish him success as anything that gives another team an advantage by definition is to the disadvantage of the MFC. I do not want him to make the Hawks stronger as we will be fighting with them and other teams for higher spots on the ladder. ( I have an ex whom i do wish well as i am not in competition with her or her new partner for a premiership !)

This is not a comment regarding Cam, this is in response to the astounding number of posts having a go at "how we treat our players".

I say Bravo and its about time the MFC started acting professionally as this is a professional game. In business if you were limited to a certain number of employees and could only pay a certain amount of money then this discussion wouldnt be happening. No player wants to hear that the football club considers that their time is up. This is not played out in the media - there is dialogue with the players. Cameron Bruce didnt want to hear that we will only guarantee him one year. Ooze and Whitey - both wonderful players did not want to hear that there were better alternatives - go with the youth.

Players fit into clubs - clubs do not fit in with players. MFC has not seriously misread Cameron Bruce - the negotiations with Aaron Davey - he wanted four year - we wanted him and did not play Russian Roulette. With Cameron Bruce there was always a doubt that unless we could give him guarantees he would walk. The FD weighed up the risk and decided - take it - or leave it

Again - Bravo MFC for acting like a professional football club