Tom Scully, what a mercenary campaigner

Remove this Banner Ad

I liked the bit where GWS got screwed and Hawks are paying $1.5m over 3 years (at least) for a guy who can't get on the paddock and has all the loyalty of Clarkson to a Hawks player named Mitchell, Hodge or Burton.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Yay! Getting a Hawfs home game membership so that I can go with my megaphone and boo $cully every second week.

Good move Hawfs already increasing member numbers.
 
I liked the bit where GWS got screwed and Hawks are paying $1.5m over 3 years (at least) for a guy who can't get on the paddock and has all the loyalty of Clarkson to a Hawks player named Mitchell, Hodge or Burton.
is this post actually about Tom Boyd?
 
is this post actually about Tom Boyd?
Premiership hero Tom Boyd?
No, it's about Tom Scully. He looks pretty happy to be heading to hawthorn:

maxresdefault.jpg
 
I liked the bit where GWS got screwed and Hawks are paying $1.5m over 3 years (at least) for a guy who can't get on the paddock and has all the loyalty of Clarkson to a Hawks player named Mitchell, Hodge or Burton.
I never thought you'd be so salty, are you secretly a Gellonk member?
 
I never thought you'd be so salty, are you secretly a Gellonk member?
'Amused' is not the same as 'salty'.

Try a different cliche.
 
We got 2 first rounders for pick 1 - which became Hogan and could become May and Kolo tomorrow, got Pedo for pick 11, traded pick 50 to upgrade Harmes to the main list and I think we can both agree the Dees nailed pick 34.
I was surprised you ditched Pedo, thought he'd be worth keeping as KPF depth at the very least especially if you lose Hogan.
 
Melbourne really blew that 2009 draft, you can barely give away the two first picks from it, while pick 3 has a flag a Normy and a Brownlow.
They may have stuffed their first two picks but they went OK with pick 34.
 
I liked the bit where GWS got screwed and Hawks are paying $1.5m over 3 years (at least) for a guy who can't get on the paddock
FYI Scully will be on a performance based contract based almost entirely around match payments, so if he doesn't get on the park we'll pay him almost nothing.

This is Hawthorn mate, not some backwater yokel club willing to takes massive risks without considering the consequences. ;)
 
'Amused' is not the same as 'salty'.

Try a different cliche.
Yes its hard to get true intentions across on forums, but it sounded salty more than amused to me.
 
FYI Scully will be on a performance based contract based almost entirely around match payments, so if he doesn't get on the park we'll pay him almost nothing.

This is Hawthorn mate, not some backwater yokel club willing to takes massive risks without considering the consequences. ;)
You may well be right but the reports are saying the reason you got him so cheaply, pick wise, is that Hawthorn agreed to take on his fairly hefty contract?

Do you have a link to where you got your info from?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You may well be right but the reports are saying the reason you got him so cheaply, pick wise, is that Hawthorn agreed to take on his fairly hefty contract?

Do you have a link to where you got your info from?
He’s full of s**t, when you pick up a contracted player you pick up the contract, it doesn’t get thrown out and a new one with different terms.
 
He’s full of s**t, when you pick up a contracted player you pick up the contract, it doesn’t get thrown out and a new one with different terms.
You have the option to re-negotiate it. :rolleyes:
 
Yes its hard to get true intentions across on forums, but it sounded salty more than amused to me.
You sound defensive. Or, dare I say it, salty?
 
You have the option to re-negotiate it. :rolleyes:
You can re-negotiate an extension to his current contract.
It may be performance based when the current contract he signed with gws ends, but no you will not be paying him performance based the next 2 years.
It’s ok though because you’ve got heaps of space because you cleared room to pay Lynch $1.3 a year and it has to go somewhere since he took significantly less money elsewhere.
 
You can re-negotiate an extension to his current contract.
It may be performance based when the current contract he signed with gws ends, but no you will not be paying him performance based the next 2 years.
It’s ok though because you’ve got heaps of space because you cleared room to pay Lynch $1.3 a year and it has to go somewhere since he took significantly less money elsewhere.

As far as I can work out it's #freekickHawthorn.

If they can get him physically right then it's a great trade. And my information on the rules is, if they can't get him near 100% all they have to do is make sure he never comes of the long term injury list. They still have to pay him, but it doesn't count in the salary cap.
 
Became a good player in the two seasons prior to the ankle.

Could Scully crack the four club club? Just got a feeling hawthorn's not his final resting place...


As a matter of public record- have we got any 'fourclubbers' running around at the moment?
 
I was surprised you ditched Pedo, thought he'd be worth keeping as KPF depth at the very least especially if you lose Hogan.
Game has gone past him.
He tries hard but he just doesn't have the leg speed.
I just hope we're looking at a mature age ruck in the draft.
Fritsch can play as a tall forward and Tim Smith is contracted for another year.
 
Game has gone past him.
He tries hard but he just doesn't have the leg speed.
I just hope we're looking at a mature age ruck in the draft.
Fritsch can play as a tall forward and Tim Smith is contracted for another year.
Onr of the fastest in the comp but to be fair its hard to run when one foot is hanging on by a thread.
 
Onr of the fastest in the comp but to be fair its hard to run when one foot is hanging on by a thread.
I was talking about Cam Pedersen, not $cully
But still hard to run with a stuffed ankle and a dodgy knee cap
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top