Don’t feel sorry for Melbourne over Tom Scully
Columnist By Michael DiFabrizio, 13 Sep 2011 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, Dean Bailey, GWS Giants, Melbourne Demons, tanking, Tom Scully
Related coverage
Yesterday what we all already knew became official. Tom Scully will be a GWS Giants player next year. It was a proud day for the competition’s newest club, yet a sad day for its oldest club. But it’s about at this point where we should stop feeling sorry for Melbourne.
Yes, they’ve just lost a player they were hoping would lead them out of the wilderness. A number one draft pick, at that.
However, no matter how many press conferences they hold attempting to portray Tom as the bad guy, the fact is their claim to him in the first place wasn’t rock solid – according to their own coach for the past three seasons, the club tanked in order to win the priority pick they used to take Scully.
Okay, Dean Bailey didn’t use the T-word. So what? With the words he did use, he didn’t have to.
Yeah, the AFL decided not to investigate the matter. Again, so what? Just because the league has turned a blind eye doesn’t mean the rest of us should.
Bailey told us at his final press conference that he “had no hesitation at all in the first two years (of his coaching stint) in ensuring the club was well placed for draft picks”. Herald Sun journalist Jon Ralph read through the lines with an article entitled How Melbourne tanked in 2009, looking at the team’s extraordinary loss to Richmond in Round 22 of that year.
Adrian Anderson has said that the league would be concerned should it be presented with evidence of a club deliberately not trying to win in order to gain draft picks.
That seems to describe what happened at Melbourne in 2009. It did even before Bailey made his comments.
So now, when the player Melbourne gained by not complying with league rules leaves for another club, it’s hard to muster up much sympathy. They’ll get compensation – probably the highest level of compensation possible – so on paper the Dees will still come out ahead.
But to have come this far without an AFL investigation, they should be considering themselves lucky. They most definitely should not be fronting the media pleading for sympathy.
Scully, for his part, didn’t ask for sympathy yesterday.
There was the token acknowledgement that money was a factor, he cited the opportunity to be part of a new club, basically he just said all the things you’d expect. It was pretty much a carbon copy of Gary Ablett’s press conference a year ago.
That said, it was probably fair enough he didn’t play the sympathy card.
In February we had the headline “Scully move denied”. In March it was “Scully says he could be a Demon for life”. And on it went, all year long – last month came “Lyon knuckles down on keeping Scully” and even ten days ago, “Scully future not set”.
Fast forward to yesterday and what were we reading? “Scully’s six-year deal” and “Scully best-paid player in AFL history”.
Demon fans have a right to feel led on. All year they were being fed false hope. Scully, while silent for the most part, allowed the circus to carry on.
The worst part was two days ago, when Scully was at the airport in Melbourne and asked if he’d made a decision yet. “Nah mate I haven’t, clearly haven’t,” was his response. Later that day, though, a YouTube video of him in a Giants polo was uploaded.
No one can blame Scully for moving to a club that offered him more pay. Most people if offered ridiculously more money for doing the same job at another company would do the same thing without batting an eyelid.
No one can blame Scully for moving to a club that is a very realistic chance of winning a premiership in the future. Perhaps Melbourne are in a similar position, but this season didn’t do much to reinforce that notion.
No one can blame Scully for being the highest paid player in the game. If the Giants feel like paying that much to a second-year player who may or may not live up to his potential, that’s their prerogative.
But one area where Scully has left himself open to blame is the way he let this saga drag on.
Tweet of the day yesterday went to bookmaker Alan Eskander who asked, “Why the fuss about Scully? Like Ablett, we all knew early in the season. His charade about making a decision is insulting our intelligence.”
It was a charade. It does now seem like an insult to our intelligence.
But as this story now finally winds down, there’s one glaring conclusion that needs to be reached.
Melbourne come away with two compensation picks that they would never have got had they followed the letter of the law. Tom Scully comes away with a contract and salary that should set him up for many years into the future. The GWS Giants come away with one of the best youngsters in the game.
The glaring conclusion is that everyone involved in this situation has come out a winner. Everyone single individual and club is better off.
And don’t for a second think that’s not the case.
Recommend this story.
Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- AFL, Dean Bailey, GWS Giants, Melbourne Demons, tanking, Tom Scully
September 13th 2011 @ 9:12am
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Let’s just wait and see what compensation the Dee’s are offered before we say they have got a good deal.
What is clear is that it is absolutely ridiculous for Scully, a player with less than 30 games experience who has struggled with a serious injury this year and with 3 brownlow votes in his career is paid more than Ablett, Judd, Goodes, (possibly even Judd And Goodes Combined next year).
It is also clear that if the Suns won just the 3 games with Ablett, Bock and Rischitelli as their Marquee players GWS will really struglle to win one with Scully, Ward and Davis.
September 13th 2011 @ 9:59am
Ian Whitchurch said | September 13th 2011 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Macca,
This is how the AFL salary cap and free agency works.
Players tend to be either good, or out of contract, but not both. It is very, very rare that a great player goes out of contract, and is in a position to move clubs.
Thus GWS cannot just offer, say, a Buddy Franklin $3m a year – he is very good but he is under contract and therefore untouchable (the alternative would be to say ‘We’ll pay Buddy $3m a year’, and have him go on a one man wildcat strike, usually called a “holdout”, until he is traded to the club he wants and then signs for $3m a year. As a code, the AFL doesnt want that, and the AFLPA isnt thrilled either, as their membership as a whole doesnt benefit from most of the money going to a few star players).
A team has a budget to be split between it’s squad. Rookies get minimum wage – even high draft picks only get 10 grand or so in bonus money. A team with lots of draft picks therefore has lots of cap room in the first few years, until these contracts need to be extended.
There is a small pool of players who are both good and out of contract.
Their existing clubs get to offer these good players new contracts at the same time – and Callan Ward, for example, got offered a million over 3 years, and Scully got offered $3m over 5 years from Melbourne.
GWS can front-load contracts – for example, offer $2m a year for the 2 years when they have lots of underpaid kids, and then a much more reasonable $500k a year for the 3 years after that … thus freeing cap room to extend the high draft picks that become good players.
So GWS either overpays for the few players who are both good and out of contract, front loading the contracts to free cap space for two or three years time, or it can have unspent cap room and a team full of spuds.
Finally, building a expansion team to win now is a stupid game. You might have been able to squeeze two or three more wins out of Gold Coast if they traded high draft picks for established players, but this would mean they dont have a potentially very good core of players to open a premiership window once that core gets 50 games under their belt.
Pain now for gain later, in short.
September 13th 2011 @ 10:14am
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Ian – “So GWS either overpays for the few players who are both good and out of contract” My point is they have over paid excessivley, the Suns got Ablett for less than GWS got Scully, does that seem like a logical deal to you? There were many “stars” out of contract for GWS to target but they all turned them down, over paying for an unknown quantity doesn’t solve that problem.
“Finally, building a expansion team to win now is a stupid game.” True but given the large number of players (and high draft picks to boot) they will now have all hitting their peak at the same time, given Davis, Scully, Ward and Palmer (who struggled to get a game at Freo this year) are all less than 21 and given the fact that they will have less success in the short term than the Suns keeping the concession picks they get this year will be harder.
September 13th 2011 @ 11:48am
Ian Whitchurch said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Macca,
Its overspend on players you’re backing to be part of your core group in your premiership window with money you have to spend now, or it’s to fill up team slots with players you are confident who wont be, or its not spend the money at all.
Remember, by front-loading the contract, Ward and Scully can be on $300k a year each when it comes time to re-sign Coniglio or whoever at the end of their rookie contract.
September 13th 2011 @ 11:57am
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Both those blokes will be on much more than $300k in 2 years, even if Scully get’s $2m next year and the year after it still leaves $2m over 4 years or $500k a year.
September 13th 2011 @ 12:01pm
Ian Whitchurch said | September 13th 2011 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Macca,
So they give Scully $2.2 this year and $2.2 next year … once you read the CBA and understand how the cap works, you can understand why GWS and GC have done what they’ve done. Basically, they have moved cap room from now, when they dont need it and cant use it, to the end of the initial contracts, when they will need it and can use it.
September 13th 2011 @ 1:10pm
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
I understand what they have done Ian but they are still paying Scully $800k from year 2-6 which is massively over what he would get anywhere else. Look at the Murphy, Gibbs, Kreuzer & Watts none of them will earn anywhere near $6m in the 3rd to 8th years of their careers. Murphy (who will probably be all Australian this year) just signed for about $500k a year, $300k less than what Scully will get for the same period.
And as I said the Suns (who cold do exactly the same thing) got Ablett for less. Which ever way you cut it they have over paid.
September 13th 2011 @ 10:47am
simebunker st andrews said | September 13th 2011 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Don’t feel sorry for Melbourne.
Football is a harsh environment,though I do not believe anyone could understand(not sympathise or feel sorry) how a number 1 draft pick could be removed from a club in this fashion.The draft is about equalisation,to defile this goes against everything the AFL has stood for since draft inception.
To isolate tanking is ridiculous and lacks UNDERSTANDING, if you can go to the recesses of your mind ,look up K in your footy catalogue and go to Kreuzer.
Kreuzer cup ,remember?Melbourne was on the wrong end of tanking,and would have been remiss not to take advantage of a situation if presented in the future.
The Karma police are not at work here.
September 13th 2011 @ 11:30am
Michael DiFabrizio said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Macca, I believe the size of the contract is one of the things that comes into the equation so it’s fairly likely the max compensation would apply. Even if it doesn’t, as I said, Melbourne still come out ahead.
September 13th 2011 @ 11:39am
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:39am | Report comment
So even if they get the “max” compensation of 2 first round picks, what exactly does that mean? When can they use them and where in the pecking order will they sit?
Also the size of the contract is only one of the factors, given Ablett had won a couple of premierships and a brownlow and Geelong got 2 first round picks is Scully really worth the same?
September 13th 2011 @ 11:47am
Michael DiFabrizio said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:47am | Report comment
Look, not saying he WILL get the max compensation. Just that it would seem likely. You get the sense even if the criteria doesn’t give them two first round picks, Melbourne will lobby hard given his status as a recent No. 1 draft pick. But either way, it doesn’t affect my argument one way or the other. Melbourne still come out ahead.
September 13th 2011 @ 11:53am
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:53am | Report comment
“But either way, it doesn’t affect my argument one way or the other. Melbourne still come out ahead.” Of course it effects your argument, if they only get 1 first round pick which is taken at pick 12 or something they are not better off.
Could you also answer my question of when and where they can take these picks?
September 13th 2011 @ 11:57am
Michael DiFabrizio said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:57am | Report comment
The first pick would be taken after their normal pick in the first round of the draft in any one of the 2012-14 drafts, or at the end of the first round should they use it this year. The second pick is a middle-of-first-round selection in future years, or the end of the first round if used this year.
September 13th 2011 @ 12:00pm
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
So if they get 1 pick and the finish mid table for the next couple of years (which should be likely) they lose a number one pick and get a number 12 or so (or 18 if they use it this year), and if they get a second it would also be around 12. To me without the second pick they are much worse off and with it they are only slightly better off if both picks work out.
September 13th 2011 @ 12:11pm
Michael DiFabrizio said | September 13th 2011 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Yes but what I’m saying is, two (or even one) first round picks is better than no one at all, which is what they would have got had they not gone down the tanking path.
September 13th 2011 @ 1:34pm
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
By that logic pick 100 is good enough compensation because it is more than they would of got if they hadn’t “tanked”
September 13th 2011 @ 9:15am
jack russell said | September 13th 2011 @ 9:15am | Report comment
So if you were in the same position as the MFC you would not do the same? (What ever it is they are supposed to have done) You are a paragon of virtue and very naive. Exactly what “law” has the MFC broken? Please enlighten me. (I would also like to know what team you follow.)
September 13th 2011 @ 9:22am
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Yes Jack, did the Hawks tank in round 24 this year? Where does playing kids to see what you have on your list stop and tanking start?
September 13th 2011 @ 11:36am
Michael DiFabrizio said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:36am | Report comment
“Where does playing kids to see what you have on your list stop and tanking start?”
It starts when what you’re doing has nothing to do with playing kids or experimenting for the future. It starts when your best midfielder is sent down back to guard a small forward. It starts when two of your best forwards are dropped for two players with 3.9 to their name all season. It starts when Frawley and Warnock are played up forward. It starts when your ruckman is manning Nathan Brown. It starts when any player who starts to dominate gets sent to the bench.
The Hawks still wanted the win in Round 24. In fact, they did everything they could on the day to get the four points. Is that what the Dees did against Richmond in 2009? No way.
September 13th 2011 @ 11:48am
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Yeah Melb probably did push the boundaries but playing some players out of position does allow you to see others in their position. Carlton have been roundly accused of tanking when Ratten took over but they also found a full back named Jamison.
Who were the palyers with 3.9 to their name?
September 13th 2011 @ 11:53am
Michael DiFabrizio said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Russell Robertson and Colin Sylvia were overlooked for the Rich game in favour of Jake Spencer (0 goals, but a rookie so fair enough give him a chance) and Michael Newton (3.9 from four games).
September 13th 2011 @ 1:59pm
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
Robertson & Sylvia were nown quantities why not play 2 kids to see what they have got, Newton with 12 scoring shots in 4 games was obviuosly a good target, just struggled to kick it.
September 14th 2011 @ 11:50am
Bayman said | September 14th 2011 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Michael,
On balance, I’m inclined to your point of view but, from memory, it still nearly went pear-shaped for the Dees. Didn’t they lose that game, or Richmond win it, on the back of a Jordan McMahon goal on the bell. Maybe I’m thinking of another game – at my age the memory goes just after the legs!
On reflection, if I’m correct, did McMahon ever play another game for the Tigers after his match winning goal? I mean Richmond, of course. He’s now playing for Glenelg, his original club (the SANFL Tigers).
September 13th 2011 @ 11:40am
Michael DiFabrizio said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Adrian Anderson has said publicly that the league would be concerned should it be presented with evidence of a club deliberately not trying to win in order to gain draft picks. Sorry but this is what has happened at Melbourne.
Now, the AFL haven’t taken any action against Melbourne. The club has seemingly flirted with the line between what would and would not be investigated and got away with it, so good on them. They took the risk, they get the reward. But as a fan I’m not going to feel sorry for them two years later when the karma bus arrives.
As for what team I follow, well, let’s just say whenever I sit down to write an article the team I follow gets left at the door. I believe this should be the case for all serious journalists.
September 13th 2011 @ 9:33am
Richard said | September 13th 2011 @ 9:33am | Report comment
I agree. Everyone has done well out of this. Melbourne has a long way to go before they will taste Premiership success and in the meantime they get another bite (or two) at getting a champion. The club remains dysfunctional at this stage, so what’s to lose for Tom Scully by leaving? In fact he has everything to gain. It won’t stop the disappointment among Melbourne fans and that’s completely understandable. I would have been just as disappointed had Daisy made the same decision. Seems to me though that Tom Scully has handled a difficult situation very well and considering his age, it’s a great credit to him. He’ll need that maturity that’s for sure. There will be a lot of expectation on him from all sides, and a lot of heat will come if he can’t deliver.
September 13th 2011 @ 9:38am
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 9:38am | Report comment
“in the meantime they get another bite (or two) at getting a champion” Losing a number 1 draft pick to get a “first round” pick (possibly 2) is hardly the same thing, first round could be pick 17!
September 13th 2011 @ 10:03am
Ian Whitchurch said | September 13th 2011 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Macca,
They should have thought about that before they played weak, bruise-free football in signing a number one draft pick to a two-year, rent-a-player deal. If they had showed confidence in their scouting staff, and loyalty to Scully, then he would have been on a four-year deal with incentives, and we wouldnt be having this conversation … but instead, the Melbourne Football Club played weak, bruise-free football and tried to cover the risk of Scully being not as good as hoped by signing him on a two year deal
It was soft, it was weak, it was bruise-free football, and now they are paying the price.
September 13th 2011 @ 10:17am
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Correct me if I am wrong but draftees first deal is a standard contract, Melbourne couldn’t have altered it if they wanted.
September 13th 2011 @ 11:44am
Ian Whitchurch said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Macca,
You’re wrong. Go read the AFL Collective Bargaining Agreement.
http://www.afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/policies/collective_bargaining_agreement_2007_2011.pdf
September 13th 2011 @ 11:51am
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Sorry I was wrong, it is a minimum of 2 years. Can you name the last number 1 draft pick to be offered (or to have asked for ) more than 2 years?
September 13th 2011 @ 10:33am
Tim said | September 13th 2011 @ 10:33am | Report comment
O’kay, lets take into account that MFC may have gone out and organised a lose due to irregular player positions. If Melbourne did not get the priority pick then we would Only have gotten Tom Scully as he was the number 1 pick. Now September 2011 Tom Scully has sighned to GWS. Does this mean that Melbourne would have lost there number 1 draft pick? 25th of August 2007 MFC played Carlton. Melbourne was full of injuries and Carlton were blantly tanking. If Carlton had won that game Melbourne would have picked both Watts and Naitanui. Bryce Gibbs is still at Crlton, Gold Coast and GWS have not thrown stupid money at him. So does it seem fair that MFC are the ones to loose out?
September 13th 2011 @ 11:44am
Michael DiFabrizio said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Tim, it’s an interesting point to bring up the Kreuzer Cup game, as another poster has already done. I guess in this case two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because the Dees were on the wrong side of tanking once, doesn’t mean it makes it ok for them to go out and tank themselves.
September 13th 2011 @ 11:32am
Johnno said | September 13th 2011 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Where is Garry Lyon when melbourne needed his help , hay and keep tom scaly. Where are you Gary Lyon, busy on the footy show , hay hay.
September 13th 2011 @ 12:05pm
Ian Whitchurch said | September 13th 2011 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Macca said,
“Sorry I was wrong, it is a minimum of 2 years. Can you name the last number 1 draft pick to be offered (or to have asked for ) more than 2 years?”
http://goldcoastfc.com.au/news-and-media/news/big-zac-smith-locked-in/page-1/
Note he was extended *before* Gold Coast played a game of AFL footy.
September 13th 2011 @ 1:15pm
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Not exactly the same thing there is it Ian, they had him at the club for a year, watched him play against men in the VFL and extended an existing contract. What did they offer Swallow or any of the other high draft picks the got last year?
Melb followed standard practice of every other AFL club for all their first round picks for the last who knows how many years.
September 13th 2011 @ 12:49pm
brendan said | September 13th 2011 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Your right Micheal it is quite ironic that Melbourne tank (apparently) and the player they recieve leaves them.It is a lay down misere now that the standard player answer for leaving there club is ” havent made my mind up will weigh it up at the end of the season”.Melbourne have done the right thing and not thrown there salary hierachy out by not paying more than they can afford.Next year it will be interesting to compare the success of Collingwood who had too up the ante to keep Swan,Pendlebury and Thomas to the Demons.(Im not suggesting Melbourne will finish above Collingwood).As a mad Geelong supporter i realised that we have done well out of Ablett leaving both in draft selections and salary cap relief so hopefully the Demons can bolster there list and as you suggested get something out of tanking a few years back.
September 13th 2011 @ 2:12pm
jack russell said | September 13th 2011 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
So what AFL Law did the MFC break? Don’t know do you because they didn’t. You seem to be only to happy to put the boot into a struggling club. I repeat what team do u follow? I am old enough to have seen ever club go through a tough period. So name your club and I will remind you of their bad times. Get off the back of the MFC you bully.
September 13th 2011 @ 3:38pm
Michael DiFabrizio said | September 13th 2011 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Jack, surely you know it’s not the job of journalists to be fans. What club I follow is irrelevant, it had zero impact on the writing of this piece. For all anyone knows I could be a Melbourne supporter.
Look, I just call things how I see it. You may think I’m just “happy to put the boot into a struggling club”, but are you aware last week I was praising Melbourne? I wrote positively about the way the club was handling its coaching search. I don’t have it in for the Melbourne Football Club. I’m not merely kicking them while they are down. Again, I just call things how I see it.
Here’s last week’s column: http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/09/06/brett-ratten-deserves-another-carlton-contract/
September 13th 2011 @ 4:15pm
Deezy said | September 13th 2011 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Exactly Jack, every footy club’s been in this situation before! The MFC did nothing new, what WAS new was that their no 1 draft pick got swooped up for $6m.
Though as a dees supporter I’m actually glad we didn’t spend millions on a player that was still a bit of an uncertainty. Hopefully we’ll be able to put the money saved to good use.
September 13th 2011 @ 2:30pm
John Hines said | September 13th 2011 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
what a load of rubbish tom scully getting 6m he’s not even worth 2.5m
September 13th 2011 @ 2:36pm
Ian Whitchurch said | September 13th 2011 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Macca,
Read these two stories. Especially, check the datelines on them.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-10-20/afl-gives-western-sydney-a-helping-hand/1110460
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/zxzafl/afl-draft-picks-round-by-round/story-fn4hg9de-1225804305210
Melbourne, when they signed Tom Scully to a two-year deal, knew he would be coming out of contract *now*, when GWS could make him an offer. It was dumb, it was weak, it was bruise-free football, and Melbourne did it all by themselves.
September 13th 2011 @ 2:58pm
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Ian – It takes 2 people to sign a contract and if Scully’s manager had of advised him to take any more than 2 years knowing GWS could be pushing up players values he would of been dumb.
Given GWS can have a second crack at uncontracted players next year were the Suns dumb on signing Swallow et el?
What about all the other players who came out of contract in the last 2 years wrere their clubs all dumb as well?
September 13th 2011 @ 3:04pm
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
Plus Ian do you really expcet Melb would of expected GWS to pay such a ridiculous amount for Scully? As I said he will get $300k a year more than Murphy after this year and $1.5m a year more than Murphy this year?
September 13th 2011 @ 3:16pm
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
It should also be noted that Scully was offered $3m over 5 years by Melb which is $100k a year more than Murphy, so they had allowed for a massive increase, one that would also see him being paid far too much, but not just the ridiculous figures GWS has paid.
September 13th 2011 @ 3:45pm
Ian Whitchurch said | September 13th 2011 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
Macca,
For a number one draft pick, who you tanked to get and think is the future of the club ? Yeah, it was weak. Non-one knew that GWS would target specifially him, but locking him up was the safe thing to do. My guess is, like you, Melbourne didnt bother to understand the rules and how they interacted.
Next, the offer wasnt ridiculous. There are very, very few very good uncontracted players … let me put it this way – who would you have rather they made offers to ?
Finally, regarding Swallow, GC werent lazy and did bother to understand the rules of the game.
http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=106179
Swallows contract expires in 2013. Which, needless to say, is safely outside GWS’ window.
If you dont want your good players to leave in Free Agency, *dont let them become free agents*.
September 13th 2011 @ 4:01pm
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
“Next, the offer wasnt ridiculous. There are very, very few very good uncontracted players … let me put it this way – who would you have rather they made offers to?” Marc Murphy was out of contract this year and probably was approached by GWS but signed with the blues for less than what they signed Scully for, Pendlebury, Thomas and Swan were all out of contract this year, Joel Selwood is another in fact here is a list of targets identified earlier this year (note Brandon Matera & Charlie Dixon are on it)
http://www.aflonline.com.au/afl-news/2011/05/03/exclusive-list-of-potential-gws-targets/
There are very few fery good players uncontracted but Scully is yet to prove he is a very good player (he averaged less than 21 possessions this year) and to pay him more than Murphy is clearly over the odds.
I find it completely plausible for Melb to assume that Scully would be well down the list and that the money he was offered is more in line with a Pendlebury, Selwood or Murphy than him
September 13th 2011 @ 4:08pm
Ian Whitchurch said | September 13th 2011 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Macca,
Offers were made to Pendlebury, Thomas and Swan.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/western-sydney/gws-dangles-huge-bait-to-snare-stars-20110306-1bjlc.html
Same to Selwood
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/cats-keep-hold-of-selwood-but-gws-pose-new-threat-for-club-20100503-u3tf.html
Every time *any* of these players signed an extention, the market for the few remaining got better and better … and now Scully is a rich young man.
But it would have been better and safer not to let it get to this, but Melbourne insisted on playing soft, bruise-free football and not locking up their star young players on long contracts.
September 13th 2011 @ 4:15pm
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Exactly offers were made to all those three which by your logic would mean both collingwood and geelong are dumb for letting those stars come out of contract this year, I am sure Melbourne have been trying to get Scully to extend his contract all year too.
As for the market getting better and better for those left, if scully had of said no does that mean that Ryan Bastinac should then be offered $7m over 6 seasons and that would still be fair compnesation.
Yes it worked out really well for Scully but that doesn’t change the fact he amount he is being paid is well above the odds!!
September 13th 2011 @ 4:28pm
Macca said | September 13th 2011 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
“Every time *any* of these players signed an extention, the market for the few remaining got better and better” In Fact this is exactly my point, GWS are getting inferior players at inflated prices