It absolutely makes no faaarking sense. Must be reasons kept under wraps.Pies4shaw wrote:^ The Fox article referenced and linked yesterday in another thread suggested we were happy to trade Thor and meet $300K of his salary at his new club but would definitely trade in McStay on a 5-year $650K per season contract. That's either taking the pi$$ or the Club seriously thinks there's merit in a direct salary-swap of McStay for Grundy (which, frankly, beggars belief). I think it's entirely possible that the Club wants to move Grundy on (although, that would be complete stupidity) but it simply cannot be for salary cap reasons.
Sooo, will YOU Booo Grundy ?
Moderator: bbmods
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54844
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
Another article said that Essendon has $3m space in their cap as they have saved up since Daniher and others left so are ready to go shopping, they (apparently) have no one on over $800k.Mr Miyagi wrote:Just ONE player is giving us a salary cap crisis? How da fuq is Geelong staying above board?!
Unless Grundy shat in Fly's porridge (and even if he did) I agree that effectively doing a net swap of a very good ruckman for a plaster dummy of a KPF is ridiculous.
The key take out seems to be that managing player payments is as important as list management. GWS is in constant salary cap trouble as they keep paying overs to retain players, then have to constantly do salary dumps. We need to set an upper limit on contracts and if that means players leave for more money, fck em, let em go and take the draft pick compensation, but create a culture and system where they'll stay for less.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
eddiesmith
- Posts: 12394
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:21 am
- Location: Lexus Centre
- Has liked: 11 times
- Been liked: 24 times
Because unlike Brodie, guys like Cameron and Dangerfield rate success and lifestyle over their own personal worth.Mr Miyagi wrote:Just ONE player is giving us a salary cap crisis? How da fuq is Geelong staying above board?!
The only players in the league earning more than Grundy are: Martin, Fyfe, McGovern and Franklin.
Remind us all about Cameron’s and Dangerfield’s “success”. From where I sit, it looks rather like they’ve both choked badly, repeatedly in big finals - if that’s the sort of “success” you value, perhaps you could go and troll Geelong, instead of Collingwood.eddiesmith wrote:Because unlike Brodie, guys like Cameron and Dangerfield rate success and lifestyle over their own personal worth.Mr Miyagi wrote:Just ONE player is giving us a salary cap crisis? How da fuq is Geelong staying above board?!
The only players in the league earning more than Grundy are: Martin, Fyfe, McGovern and Franklin.
-
LaurieHolden
- Posts: 3842
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:04 am
- Location: Victoria Park
- Has liked: 202 times
- Been liked: 185 times
Port thrown into the mix as well, why not.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2022/08/29/ ... -adelaide/
Again, I see Graham Wright stoking the competitve tender coals on this potential trade.
If indeed Geelong, Port, Adelaide and Hawthorn have asked the question, well all the better. Someone might well ratchet up their bidding, leaving the funding gap of little consequence, relative to the overall term and $ize of the current contract.
I'm sure Grundy's manager is fully aware they don't need to do a thing. I can't imagine he'd cross to a Melbourne Club. If Grundy has indeed indicated he'd be hapy to go back to SA, well that's the only scenario I think likely to play out on the trade table.
I can't help but think that any deal is contingent on the Tarranto situation, and if indeed that's starting to wane, where does this place us.
Maybe there still a left field Buddy type deal in the wings to play out that'll cause a number of Domino's to fall.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2022/08/29/ ... -adelaide/
Again, I see Graham Wright stoking the competitve tender coals on this potential trade.
If indeed Geelong, Port, Adelaide and Hawthorn have asked the question, well all the better. Someone might well ratchet up their bidding, leaving the funding gap of little consequence, relative to the overall term and $ize of the current contract.
I'm sure Grundy's manager is fully aware they don't need to do a thing. I can't imagine he'd cross to a Melbourne Club. If Grundy has indeed indicated he'd be hapy to go back to SA, well that's the only scenario I think likely to play out on the trade table.
I can't help but think that any deal is contingent on the Tarranto situation, and if indeed that's starting to wane, where does this place us.
Maybe there still a left field Buddy type deal in the wings to play out that'll cause a number of Domino's to fall.
"The Club's not Jock, Ted and Gerry" (& Eddie)
2023 AFL Premiers
2023 AFL Premiers
No Collingwood football brains trust in their right mind would trade Grundy for Todd Marshall. Marshall is yet another of those players who gets lots of goals against poor opposition. 21 of his 45 goals came in 5 matches against Adelaide, North, Gold Coast and West Coast. Players like that let you down when it counts.
Happy for the Club to trade Grundy if it wants - but there's no need for us to embarrass ourselves by talking down a great player in favour of average ones.
Happy for the Club to trade Grundy if it wants - but there's no need for us to embarrass ourselves by talking down a great player in favour of average ones.
Wherever he goes the pick will be related to how much of his salary we continue to pay. If it’s a low/dud pick then we should assume we’re paying less of his salary in future.Presti35 wrote:I think Port have already said he's off limits.mattdally wrote:If Port want him then make it happen please.
We will take Todd Marshall off their hands.
An article a few days back suggested Pick 8/Georgiades, but I cant see them giving up pick 8.
It's never as good/nor bad as it seems...
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54844
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
On a straight trade basis that would be nearly as dumb as losing Grundy and getting McStay. By the time you paid overs to Marshall you've effectively exchanged one ruckman for an inferior one to save bugger all cash.
I've read elsewhere that (apparently) the club went to Grundy's manager and said words to the effect that his big contract was done with the previous administration, the current one isn't happy with it. They would like to renegotiate for less money or, if he doesn't want that, he can look elsewhere and we would try to facilitate a trade. Nothing personal, just business.
If that is the case, it signals that the current administration doesn't think they're getting value for money.
But, the problem with that, in my understanding, is that once a contract is registered with the AFL they won't allow it to be renegotiated for overall less money. So lets say he has 5 years left for $5m, he can't renegotiate down to 5 years for $4M. We would have to increase the term on the same overall coin, eg 7 years for $5m.
Given Grundy's height and body shape I can't see him being able to play ruck for another 7 years.
The other option would be to switch payments around, seriously back end the contract to provide relief now and be paying the most at the end when the cap is higher, but we did that with Treloar and look what happened.
I've read elsewhere that (apparently) the club went to Grundy's manager and said words to the effect that his big contract was done with the previous administration, the current one isn't happy with it. They would like to renegotiate for less money or, if he doesn't want that, he can look elsewhere and we would try to facilitate a trade. Nothing personal, just business.
If that is the case, it signals that the current administration doesn't think they're getting value for money.
But, the problem with that, in my understanding, is that once a contract is registered with the AFL they won't allow it to be renegotiated for overall less money. So lets say he has 5 years left for $5m, he can't renegotiate down to 5 years for $4M. We would have to increase the term on the same overall coin, eg 7 years for $5m.
Given Grundy's height and body shape I can't see him being able to play ruck for another 7 years.
The other option would be to switch payments around, seriously back end the contract to provide relief now and be paying the most at the end when the cap is higher, but we did that with Treloar and look what happened.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Can’t you admit that Grundy held CFC to ransom when negotiating he’s last contract?Pies4shaw wrote:Remind us all about Cameron’s and Dangerfield’s “success”. From where I sit, it looks rather like they’ve both choked badly, repeatedly in big finals - if that’s the sort of “success” you value, perhaps you could go and troll Geelong, instead of Collingwood.eddiesmith wrote:Because unlike Brodie, guys like Cameron and Dangerfield rate success and lifestyle over their own personal worth.Mr Miyagi wrote:Just ONE player is giving us a salary cap crisis? How da fuq is Geelong staying above board?!
The only players in the league earning more than Grundy are: Martin, Fyfe, McGovern and Franklin.
Don’t see Danger, Selwood,Cameron Hawkins,Stewart doing that.
And when u say choked badly I’m assuming you mean in GF’s. Pies have done much better in not choking yeh?
-
qldmagpie67
- Posts: 6077
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:41 pm
- Been liked: 118 times
Mate which Grundy are you referring too ?Pies4shaw wrote:No Collingwood football brains trust in their right mind would trade Grundy for Todd Marshall. Marshall is yet another of those players who gets lots of goals against poor opposition. 21 of his 45 goals came in 5 matches against Adelaide, North, Gold Coast and West Coast. Players like that let you down when it counts.
Happy for the Club to trade Grundy if it wants - but there's no need for us to embarrass ourselves by talking down a great player in favour of average ones.
Grundy circa 2018/19 or Grundy 2020/21 and 6 games of 2022
Let’s put aside the Covid years and just look at exposed form this season and he wasn’t playing like a million dollar player
He was solid yes and in 2 games decent the other 4 he wasn’t in our best 6/8 players which is what you would expect from a player earning that sort of coin
I’m not for trading him or give him away just to save a couple hundred $k doesn’t make sense
If we got back a minimum of a 1st rounder in top 10 and either a ready made needed player or a couple later round picks snd 90% of his salary covered then you would look at the deal
Personally I think it’s less about salary and more about something else the club isn’t saying
There was no talk of this until half way through his rehab really and it’s grown legs
Clubs don’t leak this sort of info giving opposition a heads up on what we are willing to pay to off load a player it generally comes from his management pushing for there client to go elsewhere for whatever reason
We may never know the full story and there may never be a trade he may stay and play out his contract
But generally when things gather momentum like this story has the old saying where there’s smoke there fire comes to mind