Sooo, will YOU Booo Grundy ?

[mudlark]

This is soooooooooooooo ridiculous.

Athletic, dominant big men come around once in a generation and we want to trade the one we've got?!?

Why did we sign him to such a huge contract in the first place? Because he's an absolute gun.

Why are Melbourne so keen to get him? Because he's an absolute gun.

Why do Geelong want him? Because he's an absolute gun.

It's just a shame that he's out for the year so he didn't get the chance to remind those in the football department what abject stupidity the proposed trading of him represents.

If the Club wants to take us back to the Steve McKee, Chris Bryan, Guy Richards days then sure, go ahead. Trade him out. But this would be a mistake that we will look back on and wince.

No disrespect to Cox and Cameron - they have been great. But truly, they ain't no Brodie Grundy.

A like button , I would suggest, would get a 1000 for this excellent comment. 100% correct as well.

[stui magpie]

If he is gone, as I suspect, then it will be a lesson to him and his manager, for playing hardball and demanding such a massive contract from Collingwood. Other players (hopefully including JDG) will also realise that they put their Collingwood careers at risk if they secure monster contracts. Premiership era teams achieve greatness by getting everyone to sacrifice a little for the greater team cause.

yes as the fricken cats players have. As mr Miyagi said.

i dont get it i really dont,
800,000 k to an extra $200k what do they want to be remembered for? do they have no love of the game? do premierships mean nothing?
very sick of the mercenaries

how good would it be if Jordys manager fronted and said, ok, put the offer on the table, including the clauses, yes hes worth $800k if he keeps his nose clean, imagine what that would do to team spirit right now?

grundy hasnt really played all year, i still think under Fly he would be a different player, as they all are, but if he wants to be an ass, seeya.

im really really over the pampered players that lead such a charmed life, playing sport, adulation, way more than enough dollars, they had it much better than us locked up 5klm 2 hours of daylight a day commoners for the last 2 years, life is not just about money. as much as i hate the cats, for some reason players take cuts to stay there.

I don't disagree in principle, but you need to put salaries in context.

These kids come straight of high school on around $100k pa. For that they give up all privacy, their weekends, get subjected to constant public scrutiny by armchair experts like us all about their character and worth, get told what to eat, what they can do when they aren't "at work" because they are basically on 24/7 x 365.

The average career is 3 years or less and each club list has around 40 players, many each year who do all that work and never get a game, then have to go out and find a job they have no training for.

Only the top 100 out of more than 700 players get over $500k pa, the best get more, and with free agency and trading, the market determines the price, within the salary cap.

Is any AFL player worth $1M pa? No. But the AFL earns billions from media rights and the players deserve a slice of that. Do actors deserve to get paid $20M for a movie when someone with potentially more skills but less profile is getting a fraction of that working in small productions? No. But again capacity to pay comes into it. If I star in a movie that makes $500M I want a slice of that, and it will be a lot more than if I star in a movie that breaks even with a budget of $50k.

I don't begrudge any of the players how much they earn. If you can score $1M pa for playing footy, go for it because once you pass 35 you won't be earning a fraction of that even if you go into the media and become a star.

It's a reverse career path. Most people start off earning a low salary, work their way up and maximise their earning capacity when they're 40+. Footballers are washed up and out of the system by then.

[eddiesmith]

This is soooooooooooooo ridiculous.

Athletic, dominant big men come around once in a generation and we want to trade the one we've got?!?

Why did we sign him to such a huge contract in the first place? Because he's an absolute gun.

Why are Melbourne so keen to get him? Because he's an absolute gun.

Why do Geelong want him? Because he's an absolute gun.

It's just a shame that he's out for the year so he didn't get the chance to remind those in the football department what abject stupidity the proposed trading of him represents.

If the Club wants to take us back to the Steve McKee, Chris Bryan, Guy Richards days then sure, go ahead. Trade him out. But this would be a mistake that we will look back on and wince.

No disrespect to Cox and Cameron - they have been great. But truly, they ain't no Brodie Grundy.

A like button , I would suggest, would get a 1000 for this excellent comment. 100% correct as well.

Doubt it as much like Buckley's coaching ability, more and more people continue to see the light about Grundy.

[mudlark]

This is soooooooooooooo ridiculous.

Athletic, dominant big men come around once in a generation and we want to trade the one we've got?!?

Why did we sign him to such a huge contract in the first place? Because he's an absolute gun.

Why are Melbourne so keen to get him? Because he's an absolute gun.

Why do Geelong want him? Because he's an absolute gun.

It's just a shame that he's out for the year so he didn't get the chance to remind those in the football department what abject stupidity the proposed trading of him represents.

If the Club wants to take us back to the Steve McKee, Chris Bryan, Guy Richards days then sure, go ahead. Trade him out. But this would be a mistake that we will look back on and wince.

No disrespect to Cox and Cameron - they have been great. But truly, they ain't no Brodie Grundy.

A like button , I would suggest, would get a 1000 for this excellent comment. 100% correct as well.

Doubt it as much like Buckley's coaching ability, more and more people continue to see the light about Grundy.

My opinion of your opinion is you are mostly wrong.

[pietillidie]

...you need to put salaries in context.

These kids come straight of high school on around $100k pa. For that they give up all privacy, their weekends, get subjected to constant public scrutiny by armchair experts like us all about their character and worth, get told what to eat, what they can do when they aren't "at work" because they are basically on 24/7 x 365.

The average career is 3 years or less and each club list has around 40 players, many each year who do all that work and never get a game, then have to go out and find a job they have no training for.

Only the top 100 out of more than 700 players get over $500k pa, the best get more, and with free agency and trading, the market determines the price, within the salary cap.

Is any AFL player worth $1M pa? No. But the AFL earns billions from media rights and the players deserve a slice of that. Do actors deserve to get paid $20M for a movie when someone with potentially more skills but less profile is getting a fraction of that working in small productions? No. But again capacity to pay comes into it. If I star in a movie that makes $500M I want a slice of that, and it will be a lot more than if I star in a movie that breaks even with a budget of $50k.

I don't begrudge any of the players how much they earn. If you can score $1M pa for playing footy, go for it because once you pass 35 you won't be earning a fraction of that even if you go into the media and become a star.

It's a reverse career path. Most people start off earning a low salary, work their way up and maximise their earning capacity when they're 40+. Footballers are washed up and out of the system by then.

Great post and analysis.

No one likes massive disparities, but footy resides within a world where there are massive disparities, so it effectively competes with those exaggerated incentives (through basic economic opportunity cost and substitution) even if it's much more balanced.

Footy also has its own weirdo dynamics: it's competitive but within a very limited space; it's commercial yet also a community entity sponsored by members; it's a brutal and very limiting career choice at the most crucial time for career development, incentivised by admiration, potential glory and short-term high earnings.

The AFL has the dynamics about right in my view. Compare it to the pseudo-competition of the Premier League (and other European football leagues) with its massive disparities between clubs (and between chances of winning), and it is a vastly superior 'competition' in the strict sense of the word.

The athletes, competition and spectacle are phenomenal considering its market. I always use the AFL as an example of an organisation that focuses on quality of competition, which pretty much captures my own politics and economics: the right balance between access, incentive and evenness of competition, all of which are necessary.

Within that you get some clubs and players that do very well, but there are no deranged billionaires flying to the moon with spare change. Meanwhile, there is no club that can't win the cup, while young, modestly talented and older players are taken care of far better than ever before. On top of that, you get a massive community contribution and a great product (culturally, athletically, as pure entertainment, etc.).

I think people forget that the competitive bidding element that inflates contracts is part of that overall balance, as annoying as it can be in single instances. Also, the human element is still every bit as real in terms of some clubs paying too much (especially, ahem, when that player is crucial in the mind of a coach, and in turn the coach's success is crucial in the mind of the club president), and in terms of players doing better under different coaches and club cultures.

Combine those dynamics with injuries and mental health considerations, and a player can very quickly become a scapegoat for those lacking in world insight and self-control, as we've seen with Grundy.

[RudeBoy]

If he is gone, as I suspect, then it will be a lesson to him and his manager, for playing hardball and demanding such a massive contract from Collingwood. Other players (hopefully including JDG) will also realise that they put their Collingwood careers at risk if they secure monster contracts. Premiership era teams achieve greatness by getting everyone to sacrifice a little for the greater team cause.

yes as the fricken cats players have. As mr Miyagi said.

i dont get it i really dont,
800,000 k to an extra $200k what do they want to be remembered for? do they have no love of the game? do premierships mean nothing?
very sick of the mercenaries

how good would it be if Jordys manager fronted and said, ok, put the offer on the table, including the clauses, yes hes worth $800k if he keeps his nose clean, imagine what that would do to team spirit right now?

grundy hasnt really played all year, i still think under Fly he would be a different player, as they all are, but if he wants to be an ass, seeya.

im really really over the pampered players that lead such a charmed life, playing sport, adulation, way more than enough dollars, they had it much better than us locked up 5klm 2 hours of daylight a day commoners for the last 2 years, life is not just about money. as much as i hate the cats, for some reason players take cuts to stay there.

I don't disagree in principle, but you need to put salaries in context.

These kids come straight of high school on around $100k pa. For that they give up all privacy, their weekends, get subjected to constant public scrutiny by armchair experts like us all about their character and worth, get told what to eat, what they can do when they aren't "at work" because they are basically on 24/7 x 365.

The average career is 3 years or less and each club list has around 40 players, many each year who do all that work and never get a game, then have to go out and find a job they have no training for.

Only the top 100 out of more than 700 players get over $500k pa, the best get more, and with free agency and trading, the market determines the price, within the salary cap.

Is any AFL player worth $1M pa? No. But the AFL earns billions from media rights and the players deserve a slice of that. Do actors deserve to get paid $20M for a movie when someone with potentially more skills but less profile is getting a fraction of that working in small productions? No. But again capacity to pay comes into it. If I star in a movie that makes $500M I want a slice of that, and it will be a lot more than if I star in a movie that breaks even with a budget of $50k.

I don't begrudge any of the players how much they earn. If you can score $1M pa for playing footy, go for it because once you pass 35 you won't be earning a fraction of that even if you go into the media and become a star.

It's a reverse career path. Most people start off earning a low salary, work their way up and maximise their earning capacity when they're 40+. Footballers are washed up and out of the system by then.

An excellent analysis stui. I guess my only addendum to that would be that there need to be some constraints on players pursuing high end contracts, given that footy is a team sport. I don't begrudge any player getting a well paid salary, given everything you've eloquently outlined above. However, as long as the AFL imposes a salary cap on clubs, I am more admiring of elite players who sacrifice a little to enable their club to put together a potential Premiership winning list. I would hate to see a situation where 3-4 players at our club were on million dollar (or close to it) contracts, with the rest of the team languishing on average money. Having said that, I would support any campaign by the AFL-PA to increase salary-caps and to significantly increase minimum salaries for players.

[Boot]

I don't want Grundy to leave Collingwood, but all the media talk has him virtually out the door.
However, I do understand the salary cap problems a massive contract on a ruckman can cause. However what I just cannot stomach at all is the media talk that Collingwood is prepared to pay up to $300K of Grundy's salary for him to play against us. This just doesn't make any sense to me, especially if its true that Daniel McStay is being signed by Collingwood for 5 years on $600K per year. If Collingwood is paying $300K of Grundy's on-going salary of $950K then the salary cap saving of getting rid of Grundy is only $650K. So we get a net gain of McStay & $50K in the salary cap for Grundy... just doesn't add up!!

However, maybe we also get enough trade value for Grundy that we can trade with GWS for Tim Taranto, Tanner Bruhn and Bobby Hill. Then it starts to make more sense.

[Pies2016]

^ ^ ^

I choose not to believe all the salary talk that gets put up by the media. I find very odd that every journo seems to be able to tell you McStays alleged new deal but I’m yet to read confirmation he’s nominated Collingwood as his new home by any of those same journos.
As for Grundy, should he go, it will only take a couple clubs to genuinely want him and that guesstimated $300,000 p. a. will come down quickly. Either that or the trade return would be ramped up. And let’s not forget, if the final offer isn’t to Collingwoods liking, then a dual A A stays and proceeds to remind a few just get good he is.

[princem007]

If Grundy wants to really stay why wouldn’t he renegotiate his contract ? Take $800k a year to be part of a successful team so we can recruit more players in. I feel players put money before success. Team first approach.

[qldmagpie67]

Many good comments but the bottom line remains the same
The club overpaid for him on this new contract
Simple fact is Ned Guy was horrible at his job
We jumped at shadows that didn’t exist
Grundy’s management did a outstanding for there client but in turn it royally screwed us over
I have it on very good authority the SA offer was $700k a year for 5 years and last year was a club option
That would have been a decent deal both player and club
Let’s just compare apple and apples
The only other player on our list getting anywhere near Grundy’s wage at the time of that deal signed was JDG
Ask yourself how many games has JDG won off his own back and how many games has Grundy won off his own back ?
And before people say it’s a team game yes I’m aware of that but JDG has massive more impact in games than Grundy does
When he was injured we were 3-3 since then we’ve gone 12-3
Not saying it’s because he was out we won but I am saying not having him out there hasn’t impacted our results
At the time of his injury on 2022 performances he was ranked 9th rated ruckman in the competition on champion data

[eddiesmith]

Many good comments but the bottom line remains the same
The club overpaid for him on this new contract
Simple fact is Ned Guy was horrible at his job
We jumped at shadows that didn’t exist
Grundy’s management did a outstanding for there client but in turn it royally screwed us over
I have it on very good authority the SA offer was $700k a year for 5 years and last year was a club option
That would have been a decent deal both player and club
Let’s just compare apple and apples
The only other player on our list getting anywhere near Grundy’s wage at the time of that deal signed was JDG
Ask yourself how many games has JDG won off his own back and how many games has Grundy won off his own back ?
And before people say it’s a team game yes I’m aware of that but JDG has massive more impact in games than Grundy does
When he was injured we were 3-3 since then we’ve gone 12-3
Not saying it’s because he was out we won but I am saying not having him out there hasn’t impacted our results
At the time of his injury on 2022 performances he was ranked 9th rated ruckman in the competition on champion data

Fantastic post that will upset a few

Interesting on the contract offer as I recall some claiming he was offered in excess of a million a year for 5 years and Collingwood went to 7 to match the total value because they couldn’t match it over 5.

I’d trust your sources over that rubbish!

[Pies4shaw]

^ ^ ^

I choose not to believe all the salary talk that gets put up by the media. I find very odd that every journo seems to be able to tell you McStays alleged new deal but I’m yet to read confirmation he’s nominated Collingwood as his new home by any of those same journos.
As for Grundy, should he go, it will only take a couple clubs to genuinely want him and that guesstimated $300,000 p. a. will come down quickly. Either that or the trade return would be ramped up. And let’s not forget, if the final offer isn’t to Collingwoods liking, then a dual A A stays and proceeds to remind a few just get good he is.

The media talk about salaries cannot be correct unless the people looking after player contract matters at Collingwood are simpletons. McStay is a potato. It would make no sense whatsoever to pay $300K of Grundy's salary to have him play for Melbourne and then pay $600K to McStay (who can't get a touch against Melbourne). The effect of that would be to replace a great player with a talentless hack - at effectively the same cost. That way lies madness.

[think positive]

yup!

[lazzadesilva]

The media talk about salaries cannot be correct unless the people looking after player contract matters at Collingwood are simpletons. McStay is a potato. It would make no sense whatsoever to pay $300K of Grundy's salary to have him play for Melbourne and then pay $600K to McStay (who can't get a touch against Melbourne). The effect of that would be to replace a great player with a talentless hack - at effectively the same cost. That way lies madness.

Hearing heaps of comments that Collingwood should immediately withdraw any offer to McStay because his performances lately have been crap. It is still feasible to abandon the chase for him and put that money towards a far better prospect who might be available? Hard to get excited about a player described as being a spud by their own supporters and by some of ours

[stui magpie]

McStay is a potato. It would make no sense whatsoever to pay $300K of Grundy's salary to have him play for Melbourne and then pay $600K to McStay (who can't get a touch against Melbourne). The effect of that would be to replace a great player with a talentless hack - at effectively the same cost. That way lies madness.

We rarely agree but yes.

Put it this way, if the plan IS to play McStay as a forward we achieve the net same financial result and a better football outcome by keeping Grundy and just playing him as a key forward where, on his worst day, he'd have to offer more than McStay.