The Scully Phenomena

[Dan Warna]

So the tale goes he has signed with GWS

I would say if he has, If I was coach, I wouldn't let him play another game at Melbourne, won't even give him magoos money.

If this was st kilda and a player had signed with the opposition, I would expect the coach to do the same.

Let them rot.

If they sign at the end of the season that is a different matter.

[SainterK]

Really?

If I was a paying Melbourne member, Scully could be the difference between my side making the eight and playing finals or not.

So if you were Dean, you'd sit him out?

[Moods]

So the tale goes he has signed with GWS

I would say if he has, If I was coach, I wouldn't let him play another game at Melbourne, won't even give him magoos money.

If this was st kilda and a player had signed with the opposition, I would expect the coach to do the same.

Let them rot.

If they sign at the end of the season that is a different matter.

I don't understand this. Where's the incentive for players to come fwd and fess up to signing with GWS if they knew that was hanging over their head? Can't change what he has or hasn't done, so may as well get the best out of him whilst he is at your club imo. What a waste having that talent languishing b/c he has chosen to go somewhere else the following year.

If BJ or anyone else signed with GWS, I would still want them to play them

[Enrico_Misso]

It's a disgrace and a blight on the Dimwit & Co that a number 1 draft pick can just walk out so easily.
I'd be mighty annoyed if I was a Melbourne supporter.

But the word is, he has been seen eating a falafel

[Dan Warna]

So the tale goes he has signed with GWS

I would say if he has, If I was coach, I wouldn't let him play another game at Melbourne, won't even give him magoos money.

If this was st kilda and a player had signed with the opposition, I would expect the coach to do the same.

Let them rot.

If they sign at the end of the season that is a different matter.

I don't understand this. Where's the incentive for players to come fwd and fess up to signing with GWS if they knew that was hanging over their head? Can't change what he has or hasn't done, so may as well get the best out of him whilst he is at your club imo. What a waste having that talent languishing b/c he has chosen to go somewhere else the following year.

If BJ or anyone else signed with GWS, I would still want them to play them

midseason negotiation with players from other teams in the competition in my opinion is unethical.

[plugger66]

So the tale goes he has signed with GWS

I would say if he has, If I was coach, I wouldn't let him play another game at Melbourne, won't even give him magoos money.

If this was st kilda and a player had signed with the opposition, I would expect the coach to do the same.

Let them rot.

If they sign at the end of the season that is a different matter.

You are joking of course. The only thing is it isnt that funny.

[saint66au]

One of the great things about our game is that all player transfers are done in the off season. We dont announce them mid-season like the NRL and we certainly dont have mid-season transfer windows or loans like the EPL.

Long may it continue

[Stephen Theodore]

One of the great things about our game is that all player transfers are done in the off season. We dont announce them mid-season like the NRL and we certainly dont have mid-season transfer windows or loans like the EPL.

Long may it continue

Could not agree more, Saint66au.

Living up here in QLD for over 35 years, I still cant grasp the headlines in May annoucing the Coach or the player moving from Broncos to Manly for next season

[Stephen Theodore]

One of the great things about our game is that all player transfers are done in the off season. We dont announce them mid-season like the NRL and we certainly dont have mid-season transfer windows or loans like the EPL.

Long may it continue

Could not agree more, Saint66au.

Living up here in QLD for over 35 years, I still cant grasp the headlines in May annoucing the Coach or the player moving from Broncos to Manly for next season

[vacuous space]

I can't believe that Scully still dominates headlines while Thomas remains unsigned. Melbourne gaffed on that pick. Martin came out of junior bigger, faster, stronger and a better kick and Melbourne went with Scully because he was a better player at 16. They did exactly what Freo didn't do when they passed on Rich. Who's laughing at Freo now for that one?

Melbourne got gifted Gysberts for Brock McLean. They got Trengove for being so inept. They got Watts. They've got a huge stable of quality kids and a coach who is as inspiring as a burnt toast. They'll get some compensation for Scully, move on and they'll be playing finals once their next coach gets them playing to their talent level. I have a tough time feeling sorry for them.

Bailey, OTOH, would be tempted to run Scully into the ground as long as there's a chance of saving his job. They should play him as long as they have a shot at finals or believe they might keep him. If they're gone and it's clear Scully's gone, they should play guys who might actually be there next year. The same would be true of anyone on that list, if it turns out to have any substance to it.

[Armoooo]

Scully would have to be gone imo.

Surely Melbourne will be compensated with a top 3 pick.

I went to primary school with scully and while I never really knew him we did have some common friends and his professionalism will see him become a superstar. MY only concern from a gws perspective is whether or not guys like scully and Thomas are marketable enough.

[stinger]

dean bailey was on the couch tonight...said he expected scully to be a dee for ten or more years

[Dr Spaceman]

dean bailey was on the couch tonight...said he expected scully to be a dee for ten or more years

Don't think Dean will be though

[Bernard Shakey]

dean bailey was on the couch tonight...said he expected scully to be a dee for ten or more years

What would you have said?

[dcstkfc]

How many are there?

[meher baba]

How many are there?

Well, there's Tom, who may or may not be going to the GWS.

Then there's Dana, who chases after human-alien hybrids and who IMO will always be fifty times sexier than that ghost-bloody-whispering mannequin with a boob job that cowboy18 and SEN bang on about endlessly on the General Forum (sorry guys).

That makes it a case of "phenomena" rather than "phenomenon". I assume that's what you're on about. If so, give up: "phenomena" as a plural is right off the agendum!

[Johnny Member]

The game has changed.


The AFL know this. The clubs know this. The coaches know this. The players know this.


The only people left that don't, are thousands of loyal, diehard supporters. The problem for the AFL may be, that these diehards are the ones who buy memberships for the clubs every year, no matter what.

I wonder what will happen when the penny drops for these supporters?

[Thinline]

The game has changed.


The AFL know this. The clubs know this. The coaches know this. The players know this.


The only people left that don't, are thousands of loyal, diehard supporters. The problem for the AFL may be, that these diehards are the one who buy memberships for the clubs every year, no matter what.

I wonder what will happen when the penny drops to these supporters?

EXTREMELY good point and a concept I ponder often, particularly in light of the GC and GWS push.

I mean GC blatantly push memberships to the 'second team' market.

If that ain't proof of a change in the way of things, I don't know what is.

[Life Long Saint]

So the tale goes he has signed with GWS

I would say if he has, If I was coach, I wouldn't let him play another game at Melbourne, won't even give him magoos money.

If this was st kilda and a player had signed with the opposition, I would expect the coach to do the same.

Let them rot.

If they sign at the end of the season that is a different matter.

Outdated mentality!

Players no longer get to pick the clubs they play for. They are now a marketable commodity. Like it or not. Nobody bats an eyelid when this happens in any other industry.

The days of player loyalty are long gone and I trust them to be professional enough to still give their all for whomever they play.

Remember in the trade period at the end of the 2004 season when Heath Black wanted out to go back to Freo? Deal was submitted late and he remained with us...I think we all knew that he would be going back the next season. It didn't affect his performance and he was still a significant contributor to our team.

If this was happening to us I would expect our coaches to pick the best possible side to win each week whilst we were a chance to make the finals. Once that goes, then planning for next season would start. By that, I mean that you'd look at players that are either not going to be there next season or are injured and need an operation to make way for future talent. Melbourne are still a chance to play finals and Scully is an important player to their chances. I am pretty sure the league would have a talk to the Dees if they stopped playing Scully.

[Johnny Member]

The game has changed.


The AFL know this. The clubs know this. The coaches know this. The players know this.


The only people left that don't, are thousands of loyal, diehard supporters. The problem for the AFL may be, that these diehards are the one who buy memberships for the clubs every year, no matter what.

I wonder what will happen when the penny drops to these supporters?

EXTREMELY good point and a concept I ponder often, particularly in light of the GC and GWS push.

I mean GC blatantly push memberships to the 'second team' market.

If that ain't proof of a change in the way of things, I don't know what is.

I reckon it's a real worry for the AFL. And one they've created completely on their own.


They've changed the game. No doubt about that. They want an entertainment product, to attract new supporters and followers. Now that's fair enough, but in changing it to the extent that they have, they run the risk of alienating the diehards. These are the people that love the game as a religion. They love their club as a family.

If you chnage the game too much, the people that follow it as a religion may not 'believe' anymore.

If you alienate the fans from their clubs too much, they may lose the family ties that keep them coming back.


Now all of this is Ok, if you're bringing in more people than you're losing. I'd say right now, that would be the case so everything is rosy.
But, the more the game changes, and the more removed the fans are from their clubs - the bigger the risk that people will be lost.

And, if memberships are the life blood of the clubs as the AFL keep telling us, can the newcomers be relied upon to buy a membership for the whole family, if the team they follow is struggling? Or if there's some good movies on at that time of the year?


The problem is, there is only one Aussie Rules footy. But there's plenty of places to get entertained.

Very few people are loyal to entertainment.

[Thinline]

The game has changed.


The AFL know this. The clubs know this. The coaches know this. The players know this.


The only people left that don't, are thousands of loyal, diehard supporters. The problem for the AFL may be, that these diehards are the one who buy memberships for the clubs every year, no matter what.

I wonder what will happen when the penny drops to these supporters?

EXTREMELY good point and a concept I ponder often, particularly in light of the GC and GWS push.

I mean GC blatantly push memberships to the 'second team' market.

If that ain't proof of a change in the way of things, I don't know what is.

I reckon it's a real worry for the AFL. And one they've created completely on their own.


They've changed the game. No doubt about that. They want an entertainment product, to attract new supporters and followers. Now that's fair enough, but in changing it to the extent that they have, they run the risk of alienating the diehards. These are the people that love the game as a religion. They love their club as a family.

If you chnage the game too much, the people that follow it as a religion may not 'believe' anymore.

If you alienate the fans from their clubs too much, they may lose the family ties that keep them coming back.


Now all of this is Ok, if you're bringing in move people than you're losing. I'd say right now, that would be the case.
But, the more the game changes, and the more removed the fans are from their clubs - the bigger the risk that people will be lost.

And, if memberships are the life blood of the clubs as the AFL keep telling us, can the newcomers be relied upon to buy a membership for the whole family, if the team they follow is struggling? Or if there's some good movies on at that time of the year?


The problem is, there is only on Aussie Rules footy. But there's plenty of places to get entertained.

Very few people are loyal to entertainment.

Personally I think it's all a product of over-management.

They've done all this whiteboarding to create an androgynous product a la Jims Mowing that is an easy model to justify, sell, and promote if you're Jim or his underlings, but for the 'franchisees' it's a bloody nightmarish exercise hamstrung by rules, politics, .

I can't help but think that the Demetriou regime - and it is a regime - might have lingered for a season or two too long. Their good work has been done. The game is popular and financially vibrant to the extent the strugglers can be helped. But there's no harm in reverting to a more grassroots-sensitive model to ensure that core fan loyalty stays on.

[Junction Oval]

Blanket TV coverage, particularly if it is "live," will eventually take crowds away and cause Memberships to drop. Look at the NRL - low attendances, high TV audience and "privately owned" Clubs.

Most footy club members are the sons/daughters of keen members, who have taken them to the football over the years. As this link breaks down, other entertainment "options" will begin to take over. Result - lower memberships and 12 - 15,000 attending matches. How would that look!

In Europe and USA, the populations are so big that tickets are almost impossible to get, so they watch their football on TV - but that's not the culture here.

[saintspremiers]

Blanket TV coverage, particularly if it is "live," will eventually take crowds away and cause Memberships to drop. Look at the NRL - low attendances, high TV audience and "privately owned" Clubs.

Most footy club members are the sons/daughters of keen members, who have taken them to the football over the years. As this link breaks down, other entertainment "options" will begin to take over. Result - lower memberships and 12 - 15,000 attending matches. How would that look!

In Europe and USA, the populations are so big that tickets are almost impossible to get, so they watch their football on TV - but that's not the culture here.

Look it is fine if live footy on TV means that attendances drop a fair bit, together with membership revenue PROVIDED the AFL compensate clubs properly for the loss.

I already hear of plenty of people watching delayed matches on TV rather than going to the game - non members citing the cost factor. Well I reckon that's a crock as a $20 GA ticket is cheap entertainment, but I've always had a preference to being there as opposed to watching on TV, and am a member.....more to the point there are plenty of fair weather fans that only want to go to a handful of games each year.

Live footy against the gate is an essential in this era we live in, and we are several years behind best practice. The AFL should have renegoiated the TV rights a couple of years ago and gone the live model already IMO if they were smart enough/capable of twisting 7's arm!!!

It's a shame Foxtel aren't a listed company in their own right - I reckon if they were their shares would go off next season!

[totallyfrank]

difficult situation to be in, I kinda feel sorry for them. I guess it depends on how you're travelling, I doubt they'll be playing finals this year so there's no real benefit in playing him at all. Then again, do you want to be seen as a bunch of sooks? There's no win

[SinCitySaint]

Blanket TV coverage, particularly if it is "live," will eventually take crowds away and cause Memberships to drop. Look at the NRL - low attendances, high TV audience and "privately owned" Clubs.

Most footy club members are the sons/daughters of keen members, who have taken them to the football over the years. As this link breaks down, other entertainment "options" will begin to take over. Result - lower memberships and 12 - 15,000 attending matches. How would that look!

In Europe and USA, the populations are so big that tickets are almost impossible to get, so they watch their football on TV - but that's not the culture here.

Look it is fine if live footy on TV means that attendances drop a fair bit, together with membership revenue PROVIDED the AFL compensate clubs properly for the loss.

I already hear of plenty of people watching delayed matches on TV rather than going to the game - non members citing the cost factor. Well I reckon that's a crock as a $20 GA ticket is cheap entertainment, but I've always had a preference to being there as opposed to watching on TV, and am a member.....more to the point there are plenty of fair weather fans that only want to go to a handful of games each year.

Live footy against the gate is an essential in this era we live in, and we are several years behind best practice. The AFL should have renegoiated the TV rights a couple of years ago and gone the live model already IMO if they were smart enough/capable of twisting 7's arm!!!

It's a shame Foxtel aren't a listed company in their own right - I reckon if they were their shares would go off next season!

Some of what you are saying is simply not true. A day at the footy is no longer cheap entertainment. Saying $20 GA is over simplifying things dramatically. Add a partner and a couple of kids to the equation then a drink each and a pie on top of transport costs. All of a sudden your $20 has become $130 and it is now an expensive past-time. This every two weeks means you are looking at $1500 for the season for a family without even considering finals etc.... That is a lot of money for a lot of families.

Watching it on telly is a very viable alternative for a lot of people because of the cost factor. This is being reflected very well in the latest TV license.

I do agree that live televised games are a must for the game to progress and grow. GWS is not about getting people in Sydney's western suburbs tripping down to ANZ stadium on a Saturday afternoon but about getting people in western Sydney tuning in on the box.

Yes live crowds will drop but this is not necessarily a problem. Look at the premier league in England most stadiums hold between 20 - 30 K and are no where near full most games. This has stopped there being more money in the game now than ever before and it is all on the back of the television market.