Sooo, will YOU Booo Grundy ?

Use this forum for non-Collingwood related footy topics that don't relate specifically to any of the other forums. For non-footy sporting topics please use Nick's Sports Bar and for non-sporting topics please use the Victoria Park Tavern.

Moderator: bbmods

Post Reply
User avatar
burnsy17
Posts: 7856
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:03 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 3 times

Post by burnsy17 »

Yes McStay has been soft tonight. Outmarked easily by mid sized defenders.

This decision by our club is a weird one. What could Wright, who is an excellent operator, possibly see in him??

It’s not even the Grundy v McStay conversation - even McStay in as an independent addition to the list regardless of the Grundy situation is a very odd one…. He’s crap!!
Beware the swooping Magpie.
User avatar
uncanny
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Castlemaine
Been liked: 12 times

Post by uncanny »

Agreed. Surely this changes their minds on recruiting him.
woodsmen rule
User avatar
Piesnchess
Posts: 26205
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:24 pm
Has liked: 230 times
Been liked: 94 times

Post by Piesnchess »

uncanny wrote:Agreed. Surely this changes their minds on recruiting him.


+ 3, this Mcstay does not impress me one iota, we would be **** to give up Grundy for this jerk, it cannot happen now, grossly overrated by Wrighty, for sure. :o :?
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.

Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb.
User avatar
Jezza
Posts: 29545
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
Location: Ponsford End
Has liked: 271 times
Been liked: 356 times

Post by Jezza »

Piesnchess wrote:
uncanny wrote:Agreed. Surely this changes their minds on recruiting him.


+ 3, this Mcstay does not impress me one iota, we would be **** to give up Grundy for this jerk, it cannot happen now, grossly overrated by Wrighty, for sure. :o :?
"Jerk"? Why? :shock:
🏆 | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | 🏆
User avatar
Piesnchess
Posts: 26205
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:24 pm
Has liked: 230 times
Been liked: 94 times

Post by Piesnchess »

^ Cos hes an overrated Brisvegas Lion.
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.

Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb.
User avatar
eddiesmith
Posts: 12394
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:21 am
Location: Lexus Centre
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 24 times

Post by eddiesmith »

McStay is clearly independent to the Grundy situation but some have tried to latch onto it every time he has a poor game to make it seem like it’s a straight swap and we’d be mad to consider it.

They are right, which is why it isn’t…

Clearly Grundy being moved in is because the club realised he was surplus to our needs after the performance of Cox and Cameron and saw an opportunity to create some space for an a grader we actually need. We’ve already missed out on one or two this year, so hopefully they just put it in the bank and start chasing someone now for next season.

Or we can keep Grundy, keep our cap $@&^# and McStay and Frampton really are the best we could ever hope for over the next 5 years.
watt price tully
Posts: 20842
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm

Post by watt price tully »

Last week Brisbane and McStay played very well. Last night they were very poor. To judge McStay in that game is silly. Next Charlie Cameron and Lachie Neal are rubbish too in that criteria.

The issue is not trading Grundy for McStay. The issue is Grundy currently costs “us” too much because of the overs a previous administration chose to pay him. This necessarily impacts on the pies ability to have choices with respect to maintaining current players and the ability to attract new players. This has been stated many times earlier by other posters.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
User avatar
RudeBoy
Posts: 22172
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:08 pm
Been liked: 148 times

Post by RudeBoy »

watt price tully wrote:Last week Brisbane and McStay played very well. Last night they were very poor. To judge McStay in that game is silly. Next Charlie Cameron and Lachie Neal are rubbish too in that criteria.

The issue is not trading Grundy for McStay. The issue is Grundy currently costs “us” too much because of the overs a previous administration chose to pay him. This necessarily impacts on the pies ability to have choices with respect to maintaining current players and the ability to attract new players. This has been stated many times earlier by other posters.
The problem is, from a purely salary cap perspective, if we end up paying close to $300,000 of Grundy's million dollar salary plus a reported $650,000 to McStay, then we have only 'saved' around $50,000. That part of it clearly makes no sense.
User avatar
themonk
Posts: 2225
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 4:12 pm

Post by themonk »

RudeBoy wrote:
watt price tully wrote:Last week Brisbane and McStay played very well. Last night they were very poor. To judge McStay in that game is silly. Next Charlie Cameron and Lachie Neal are rubbish too in that criteria.

The issue is not trading Grundy for McStay. The issue is Grundy currently costs “us” too much because of the overs a previous administration chose to pay him. This necessarily impacts on the pies ability to have choices with respect to maintaining current players and the ability to attract new players. This has been stated many times earlier by other posters.
The problem is, from a purely salary cap perspective, if we end up paying close to $300,000 of Grundy's million dollar salary plus a reported $650,000 to McStay, then we have only 'saved' around $50,000. That part of it clearly makes no sense.
WPT, nice try mate but some just don't get it, they see things in isolation and make decisions in the moment.

Forget long term strategy
User avatar
What'sinaname
Posts: 20136
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:00 pm
Location: Living rent free
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 35 times

Post by What'sinaname »

burnsy17 wrote:Yes McStay has been soft tonight. Outmarked easily by mid sized defenders.

This decision by our club is a weird one. What could Wright, who is an excellent operator, possibly see in him??

It’s not even the Grundy v McStay conversation - even McStay in as an independent addition to the list regardless of the Grundy situation is a very odd one…. He’s crap!!
I am glad you didn't delist Leon Davis after the 2002 GF.
User avatar
Pies4shaw
Posts: 34886
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:14 pm
Has liked: 136 times
Been liked: 182 times

Post by Pies4shaw »

^ Because you so much enjoyed seeing him be useless in several more? Did it escape your attention that the only Grand Final Collingwood won between 2002 and 2011 was the one he didn't play in?
User avatar
warburton lad
Posts: 2786
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 10:47 am
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 60 times

Post by warburton lad »

A few observations:

* firstly, I am in the 'Keep Grundy' camp because his best is very good and I think that he can regain his very best form after a horror 2022 with injuries.

*secondly, all of Cameron, Cox and Grundy deliver different attributes to the team: Grundy is excellent at roaming the ground as a 200cm ruck rover if you will; both Cox and Cameron are capable of multiple goal returns when resting forward; none of the three could be regarded as an elite 'tap-ruckman'; Cameron and Cox are very capable marking around the ground.

* thirdly, salary-cap space is an issue for all 18 clubs. My perception of what our club is trying to do here is make a balanced call on whether to trade Grundy (freeing up cap-space) or to convince Grundy of the merits of remaining on the same money (total), but extend his contract by another year this dropping his annual salary for the next five years from $950 (approx) to around a more manageable $800 pa (approx). but adding another year. These are the sacrifices some players at some clubs make to chase the player/s necessary to win a flag- Naturally, there is no legal obligation for Grundy to take a pay cut such as this.

*finally, Grundy has given excellent service for the majority of his time in Black & White. It is not his fault that the previous Board/List Management team at Collingwood offered him the huge contract. Whilst he and his manager would have been involved in the negotiations that led to the seven year contract, at the end of the day, the Magpies made the legal offer which Grundy agreed to.

Whichever way this goes, I will always be grateful for the way Grundy helped to lead the team to the 2018 Grand Final and that thrilling goal that he kicked in that famous win over the Tigers with 4 seconds left in the match.

Floreat Pica comrades.
Firm in the belief that number 17 flag is only months away...
User avatar
Big T
Posts: 10228
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:31 am
Location: Torino, Italy
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 82 times

Post by Big T »

warburton lad wrote:A few observations:

* firstly, I am in the 'Keep Grundy' camp because his best is very good and I think that he can regain his very best form after a horror 2022 with injuries.

*secondly, all of Cameron, Cox and Grundy deliver different attributes to the team: Grundy is excellent at roaming the ground as a 200cm ruck rover if you will; both Cox and Cameron are capable of multiple goal returns when resting forward; none of the three could be regarded as an elite 'tap-ruckman'; Cameron and Cox are very capable marking around the ground.

* thirdly, salary-cap space is an issue for all 18 clubs. My perception of what our club is trying to do here is make a balanced call on whether to trade Grundy (freeing up cap-space) or to convince Grundy of the merits of remaining on the same money (total), but extend his contract by another year this dropping his annual salary for the next five years from $950 (approx) to around a more manageable $800 pa (approx). but adding another year. These are the sacrifices some players at some clubs make to chase the player/s necessary to win a flag- Naturally, there is no legal obligation for Grundy to take a pay cut such as this.

*finally, Grundy has given excellent service for the majority of his time in Black & White. It is not his fault that the previous Board/List Management team at Collingwood offered him the huge contract. Whilst he and his manager would have been involved in the negotiations that led to the seven year contract, at the end of the day, the Magpies made the legal offer which Grundy agreed to.

Whichever way this goes, I will always be grateful for the way Grundy helped to lead the team to the 2018 Grand Final and that thrilling goal that he kicked in that famous win over the Tigers with 4 seconds left in the match.

Floreat Pica comrades.
Nailed it
Buon Giorno
Mr Miyagi
Posts: 7709
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:55 pm
Has liked: 99 times
Been liked: 184 times

Post by Mr Miyagi »

Pies4shaw wrote:^ Because you so much enjoyed seeing him be useless in several more? Did it escape your attention that the only Grand Final Collingwood won between 2002 and 2011 was the one he didn't play in?
That’s a shit comment, mate.
watt price tully
Posts: 20842
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm

Post by watt price tully »

RudeBoy wrote:
watt price tully wrote:Last week Brisbane and McStay played very well. Last night they were very poor. To judge McStay in that game is silly. Next Charlie Cameron and Lachie Neal are rubbish too in that criteria.

The issue is not trading Grundy for McStay. The issue is Grundy currently costs “us” too much because of the overs a previous administration chose to pay him. This necessarily impacts on the pies ability to have choices with respect to maintaining current players and the ability to attract new players. This has been stated many times earlier by other posters.
The problem is, from a purely salary cap perspective, if we end up paying close to $300,000 of Grundy's million dollar salary plus a reported $650,000 to McStay, then we have only 'saved' around $50,000. That part of it clearly makes no sense.
That’s true too assuming the amounts are correct. However, the other parts of a deal might lie in such things as draft picks, value adding in relation to draft picks and swaps and say a sliding scale of Grundy co-payment.

Let me get my people to speak with your people
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Post Reply