Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

The news tonight said that we’ll still be paying our portion of it, Melb is off the hook.

Not sure how that works, but that’s what they said.

burnsy17 wrote:The news tonight said that we’ll still be paying our portion of it, Melb is off the hook.

Not sure how that works, but that’s what they said.

I also heard the same thing.

This contract is still haunting us.

Jezza wrote:

burnsy17 wrote:The news tonight said that we’ll still be paying our portion of it, Melb is off the hook.

Not sure how that works, but that’s what they said.

I also heard the same thing.

This contract is still haunting us.

Not if we win the flag this season and thus far Pies are completely vindicated in the decision to offload him.

We've moved on from the terrible administration that signed the deal, all we can do really.

burnsy17 wrote:The news tonight said that we’ll still be paying our portion of it, Melb is off the hook.

Not sure how that works, but that’s what they said.

I could paint a different story... I don’t know the facts of the contract either but other “sources” are suggesting that Collingwood has a contract with Melbourne only regarding the subsidy of his contract - no one else.

This is fairly common in contract law - not being able to novate an agreement to a third party without consent from both principals. If that is the case, why would we agree to anything without some kind of sweetener (if at all)?

I don’t think this contract continues to haunt us. Better to have lanced the boil. Win, lose or draw in the next couple weeks, we’re better without him whatever it costs. His actions around rejecting Port Adelaide because they didn’t have a work/life balance (if true) add to my opinion he’s better elsewhere.

Now Mods if we could lock this thread so that it’s not in our top 5 or 6 topics in a week where we are playing in a bloody Prelim!!!

Meredith1965 wrote:SEN reporting that Grundy won’t be going to Port. They made a football presentation to him, but he was more interested in “work-life balance”.

On $1m per annum, after being declared surplus to requirements at two clubs, I am not sure this would be the focus of a serious person and elite athlete.

I don’t wish him ill, but I am glad he is not with us any more.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/09/13/ ... certainty/

On Footy Classified Monday, they accused Caro of going off this report (when she told Adelaide radio Port had dodged a bullet). But Caro replied that she'd contacted Port and Sydney officials and they'd confirmed it.

The others then defended Sydney by saying Geebung also sell themselves on "lifestyle". Not just that, Caro said.

Anyway... Sydney would be fools to allow Melb. to play hardball with them.


And on Footy Classified Wednesday, Eddie said Melb. had their Future Planning meeting and by agreement of both sides, Grundy did not show up.

Makes sense. He's gone. No need to go through some sorta act.

If he wants work-life balance, Poort would be perfect - work 6 months, have the rest of the year off!

piffdog wrote: I could paint a different story... I don’t know the facts of the contract either but other “sources” are suggesting that Collingwood has a contract with Melbourne only regarding the subsidy of his contract - no one else. !

I agree that this is likely/SOP but our original 7 year contract with him is still valid as I understand… so not sure where that leaves our liabilities in the end exactly but don’t think we can walk away

Rd10.1998_11.1#36 wrote:If he wants work-life balance, Poort would be perfect - work 6 months, have the rest of the year off!

piffdog wrote: I could paint a different story... I don’t know the facts of the contract either but other “sources” are suggesting that Collingwood has a contract with Melbourne only regarding the subsidy of his contract - no one else. !

I agree that this is likely/SOP but our original 7 year contract with him is still valid as I understand… so not sure where that leaves our liabilities in the end exactly but don’t think we can walk away

I think this would be unlikely. Admittedly I have none with player contracts but in my experience you wouldn’t write an addendum to a prior contract (for Melbourne) - that would be way more complicated having to add in clauses on a new contract which say “everything in the Collingwood contract remains except clause 1 where the annual salary is x, clause 4 where the team is Collingwood and so forth.

The contract is more likely a new one between grundy and Melbourne (after all he doesn’t care where his pay checks come from) and it is almost certain that Collingwood don’t physically have him in the payroll so to speak. There is likely a seperate agreement between Collingwood and Melbourne about the top up payments which are allocated accordingly under the relevant salary cap etc. this would be the agreement which says “we, Collingwood, agree to pay you x as compensation towards player grundy and is subject to grundy being a registered player at your club.

I suspect that the actual cash transfer for grundy has been 100% completed already. So if we are contributing say $200k over 3 years in a notional sense, our agreement with Melbourne says “here is $600k in recognition of a contribution towards player grundy contract” - Melbourne can do with that whatever they want.

I might be wrong on all of this, but potentially a more likely setup. If I ever run into Wrighty in an airport lounge or something I’ll grill him about it.

How many more years are we supposed to be paying him?

This situation infuriates me no end.

^ Agree, we should NOT have to give this wandering nomad player one more red cent, not one fooking thin dime, tell the Swanettes to get right royally stuffed. Not one more penny, no way Jose.

Did I see somewhere today that Grundy didn't attend the Melbourne end of season meeting, and that no one minded?

I would say that if the deal was with Melbourne to cover a portion of his salary, then we are off the hook. But if the deal was with Grundy (ie if you leave we will) then that will be another matter.

BUT that is pure speculation by me with no grounding in any fact..

piffdog wrote:

Rd10.1998_11.1#36 wrote: our original 7 year contract with him is still valid as I understand

I think this would be unlikely...The contract is more likely a new one between grundy and Melbourne... and it is almost certain that Collingwood don’t physically have him in the payroll

The difference between a conventional business contract/addendum is here you have a body (AFL) which regulates and approves all players contracts. The contracts are lodged with them, not privately between club and player. Also there is a salary cap in place which they control

I don't think you're right that we pay to Melbourne, whether that's in bulk or season by season, and they can do what they like with it - the money contributed by Collingwood is earmarked for Grundy

We're all guessing but I'm sure I read previously (with another player transfer) that the original contract stands, a new contract is drawn up between the player and their new club, and the original club makes up the shortfall as agreed/specified during the trade - and that amount remains in the original club's salary cap

However I can't think of an example where said player then moved to a 3rd club before the original contract expired. Grundy's contract with Collingwood was until the end of 2027 I think, so still 4 years remaining. Maybe we're in uncharted waters

I guess we'll find out soon enough because he is defintely out of there

WhyPhilWhy? wrote:Did I see somewhere today that Grundy didn't attend the Melbourne end of season meeting, and that no one minded?

I would say that if the deal was with Melbourne to cover a portion of his salary, then we are off the hook. But if the deal was with Grundy (ie if you leave we will) then that will be another matter.

BUT that is pure speculation by me with no grounding in any fact..

I agree with your logic; however no doubt Jon Ralph-Mouth will get the dirt on the contract's fine print closer to pending trade period...

ANNODAM wrote:How many more years are we supposed to be paying him?

He was contracted until the end of 2027.

Ok my sources have said the following
Grundy was owed by us for the remaining 5yrs of his deal a little over $4m
He had a big chunk front ended on his contract
The club agreed to pay $150k a year for 5 years ($750k total)
This was all paid this season to give Melbourne time to make adjustments to there cap going forward to fit Grundy in (we had already earmarked his money to be paid under the cap as if he was staying originally)
So depending on how much Melbourne paid his this year he will be owed a maximum of a little over $3.2m which would be Melbourne responsibility as I understand it
Now depending on the terms of the deal between us and Melbourne on what would happen if this scenario played out it may change things but I believe we won’t be on the hook for any more payments to Grundy going forward
We have obviously spent some or all of this cash on upgrades and new players already

As for Melbourne it’s likely they will pay have to pay around $250/$300k a season to get him off there books if they want to get anywhere near a 2nd round pick back
My understanding is Sydney has said if there on the hook for anymore than $500k a season there will no draft pick higher than 4th round pick being handed over to take on his salary
It depends which way Melbourne wants to go have higher draft pick or cap space