Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Piesnchess wrote:OK you Deeees Toffs, and Hillbilly Gawn, who sat in on this fiasco, give us Petracca and Jackson for him, and its done deal. Nothing less.

I think both the Dees and Cats will consider the year a failure if they don't win the flag and both would make a play for Grundy if they don't win. Cats have a stacked forward line but would benefit from a ruckman and Melbourne are clearly not happy with their forward line and want to rotate a ruckman as a forward and would love to have Grundy rucking while Gawn plays forward.

Best case scenario is that both don't win the flag giving us two very eager buyers

I hope that Craig Mcrae and Graham Wright understand that building a list isn't about one crack at a flag, and I think they do.

Buddy left Hawthorn and they didn't collapse, Sydney got him and they didn't quite get there.

Geelong got Cameron and Dangerfield and it hasn't won them a flag, yet.

Richmond got Lynch and they won more flags, but they were in the window.

Melbourne got May and Lever, and whilst it didn't have an immediate impact, they got there.

Teams don't win flags on the the back of one player, Brodie makes us better in the middle, but so would another A grade mid.

If we can trade Grundy, and get more than one player that make the whole team, then we are in front. I don't think Graham Wright is going to under-estimate Brodie's trade value.

Brodie is an A grader as a ruck, but we currently have 3 ruck options (not A grade) apart from him.

We are doing very well so far in 2022, but moving forward our list has deficiencies, and you need to give something to get something.

I don't just want a crack at a flag (although I'd take it this year) I want a dynasty.

The club will do what the club will do, and all the logic and justifications are fine, but I just have a problem with offering a player a contract then trading them later because we think it's too much.

Don't fkn do it in the first place.

I know they do it in the USA all the time, but our laws are different.

[quote="Rd10.1998_11.1#36"]Good to see no one is totally overreacting to these rumours

Mr Miyagi wrote:Grundy wasn’t happy under the previous coaches, “talking around corners” to encourage a change etc. We haven’t really seen how he’ll go with Fly

End of the day, I’d rather him playing for us right now than not

If, as you claim, Grundy was secretly encouraging mutiny against previous coaches, then that is another good reason to get rid of him, not a reason to keep him, as you appear to conclude, as it adds to the impression that he is all about himself and not about the football club.

stui magpie wrote:The club will do what the club will do, and all the logic and justifications are fine, but I just have a problem with offering a player a contract then trading them later because we think it's too much.

Don't fkn do it in the first place.

Two counter points:

1. It HAS been done...
2. It WAS done by the prior list guru/footy boss/board/president.

But yes I agree, don't do it in the first place.

Ultimately if Grundy wants to stay then this whole thing blows over. He has total control over the outcome.

I cant accept your argument that the club shouldn't explore what they can do to try and resolve the bad deals made by others in the past.

A club paying the first $800,000 for Grundy with Collingwood the balance is what I originally had in mind.

Under that deal a single (likely late) 1st round selection would probably be the outcome we accepted to get that amount off our books.

Subsidising a club as much as $300,000 per year however to take a 28yo dual AA ruck off our hands just seems to generous a proposition.

While I agree with others across the boards that there is no chance the Grundy trade will generate two 1st round selections if we're offering to pay $300,000 a year towards his salary you'd want to hope that any trade return will be greater than a late first round selection.

swoop42 wrote:https://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/1193456/brodie-grundy-injury-update

For mine this club statement featuring comments by Wright set off alarm bells immediately as it came across as a quite clinical, even cold assessment of the situation

Now some might accuse me of reading to much in to it but given all the other noise surrounding Grundy at present I just can't help but feel that Wright elected to choose his words carefully here.

Some might accuse you not of reading too much into Wright's statements about Grundy's injury but of reading far too little into everybody's statements in the prior month or two about a Grundy trade, which already made it bleeding obvious that that is what Wright is trying to achieve.

magpieazza wrote:

think positive wrote:yes another grundy thread is just what we need!

Pretty pertinent question and worth chatting about i thought. If its not your piece of cake put it back in the fridge and close the door.

or maybe just continue on with the trading Grundy thread! Oh lookie!

stui magpie wrote:The club will do what the club will do, and all the logic and justifications are fine, but I just have a problem with offering a player a contract then trading them later because we think it's too much.

Don't fkn do it in the first place.

I know they do it in the USA all the time, but our laws are different.

At least it’s not the 21 million Ricardo will walk away with!

Trading him is crazy talk. I’d like to see him get on the park, all the players look better when those around them are playing the same game.

Threads like this are great - they help us sort the Collingwood supporters from the moron trolls.

I still reckon Hawthorn are a good fit if they want him and if he wants to go. This trade doesn’t risk the dual ruck tandem with Gawn and Hawthorn have the money. Hawthorn will need a ruckman given McEvoy’s retirement.

Pies4shaw wrote:Threads like this are great - they help us sort the Collingwood supporters from the moron trolls.

Tru dat.

^ Moreover, on the available evidence, it was plainly the correct call. Why would you expect a player who carries so much responsibility for a team to have no opinion on whether the coaching is good or bad after several years? The players get one career - and they shouldn't be expected to play under people they think are numpties, merely because someone else made the decision to keep the numpties in charge.