Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

RudeBoy wrote:I think some people are overlooking the fact that Grundy has a contract for $1 million a year for another 5 years, so he would need to want to go to another club for a deal to be done. All the reports now suggest he is well settled in to living in Melbourne, which would seem to knock a return to Adelaide out of the equation. Seems like the Dees would be HIS favoured destination, if Collingwood want his salary off their books.

Which is why Hawthorn is the best option for us in every way and it’s still in Melbourne.

Correct weight eddie.

Moreover, Brodie deserves far more respect than he's getting, even if the deal was too risky for any one player. Disgraceful maligning of an AA player who carried Buckley's team during grim and in my view unwatchable times.[/quote]

Mate I think people aren’t so much denigrating what he used to play like circa 2018/19 more so what he has delivered in 2020/21 and small sample size 2022
If he was uncontracted now what sort of offer would he revive based on exposed form from previous 2 seasons ?
Yes I’m well aware they were Covid affected but many other players form surged during this time when his has slid backwards and in some stats alarmingly so
I’ll go back to my initial sentiments when the deal was offered
You don’t pay ruck men that sort of money unless there kicking 40+ goals a season as well as doing 70% of ruck work a game
On his current averages he won’t kick 100 goals in his career (averages under 6 goals a season)

Look at these stats (averages) per game
2018/19 against 2020/21/22
Disposals 20.3 v 16.8 (-3.5)
Hitouts 41.5 v 31.1 (-10.4)
Marks 4.1 v 3 (-1.1)
Tackles 4.8 v 3.8 (-1)
Clearances 5.8 v 4.3 (-1.5)

All this since accepting $7 million from the club
If your paying a Wines or Petracca or Neale a million a season you see them impacting and winning games for there team Grundy doesn’t win matches for Collingwood and his efforts while very good don’t often impact the club winning many games either
Yes he’s a better ruckman than Cox or Cameron and yes his way better around the ground than them but simple fact is with a new coach we were 3-3 until he was injured and 12-3 since he was injured
Yes I am aware the team was still learning the new game style but we are winning games without him and if we had $700/$800k in cap space we could find much better ways to spend it then on a ruckman
Ask the dogs and Richmond if they needed a million ruckman to win competitions

mudlark wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:Assuming we keep JDG, I can't see us landing a 'big fish' like Taranto unless we trade Grundy to free up enough salary space.

It’s been reported today , that Collingwood have gone COLD on Tarranto and will focus on Bobby Hill.

Taranto almost certain to end up at Richmond, and McStay, Weiderman and Bobby Hill almost certain to end up at Collingwood.

After watching Grundy squirm his way thru an interview at our Friday training session on the CFC website, I am certain that he is gonski. No ifs, no buts, no maybes, just plain gonski. Get used to it Pies fans.

^ I saw that and I reckon you are reading to much into it. He must be feeling pretty down, being out for rest of the season, as the side may go on further and end up with a Premiership, and he will not be part of it. He looked bit down too me, how would you be feeling, knowing you may miss out on Premiership glory ?

^But a premiership wouldn’t define him….

But I get what you’re saying.

Everything is just speculation. I’m sure he’d love to stay with the group. It will be the list managers that will be the ones who will be responsible for whatever occurs and the consequences

lazzadesilva wrote:

mudlark wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:Assuming we keep JDG, I can't see us landing a 'big fish' like Taranto unless we trade Grundy to free up enough salary space.

It’s been reported today , that Collingwood have gone COLD on Tarranto and will focus on Bobby Hill.

Taranto almost certain to end up at Richmond, and McStay, Weiderman and Bobby Hill almost certain to end up at Collingwood.

Weideman? Seriously? A big no thank you.

qldmagpie67 wrote:Moreover, Brodie deserves far more respect than he's getting, even if the deal was too risky for any one player. Disgraceful maligning of an AA player who carried Buckley's team during grim and in my view unwatchable times.

Look at these stats (averages) per game
2018/19 against 2020/21/22
Disposals 20.3 v 16.8 (-3.5)
Hitouts 41.5 v 31.1 (-10.4)
Marks 4.1 v 3 (-1.1)
Tackles 4.8 v 3.8 (-1)
Clearances 5.8 v 4.3 (-1.5)


need to remember 20-21 were shortened games AND he was clearly impacted psychologically by the hub life- as we all know he is not your 'typical' footballer

Also need to remember that at time of contract-it would have been reasonable to assume TPP would continue to increase each year as they had- making his $1mil a year look a good deal for us by the end of it (increasingly smaller % of TPP)

Yet due to COVID, TPP in 2021 sits slightly above 2017 level and about $6.5 million below 2018 level

So with all this in mind- Grundy's deal has actually hampered us as it is now a greater % of TPP than when signed

Like others have said- would any of you take a 20-30% pay cut? I wouldnt

The most logical solution to this is to add $ and years to his contract- say an extra 2 years at $300k which could then enable total to be spread out at around $850 a year - seems the veteran list discount no longer exists- but could potentially look to have him in coaching/player welfare for final 2 years with a portion paid out of TPP

or even look to rejig the existing contract to make it incentive based- it makes it very hard when a bloke on $1mil isnt playing for almost the whole season.

I'm sure Wrighty and the gang have thought of every possible scenario and trust they will do what is right by the club.

FWIW I think Brodie will stay

go to him, we need you to take a hit for the team, if not move on

more pressing needs than Grundy, so trade him to ensure:
moore permanently as our CHB (another Roughhead type)
a clearance king

a key forward like Gunston would allow De Goey more midfield time

If we could achieve that, send Grundy on his way

^ De Goey’s woeful inaccuracy already guarantees him “more midfield time” - whether at Collingwood or at a team that tolerates “matchwinners” going at 45% from scoring shots.

Pies4shaw wrote:^ De Goey’s woeful inaccuracy already guarantees him “more midfield time” - whether at Collingwood or at a team that tolerates “matchwinners” going at 45% from scoring shots.

I presumed if grundy was to go then we could hang onto De Goey, otherwise the fans would tear the place down....

Pies4shaw wrote:^ De Goey’s woeful inaccuracy already guarantees him “more midfield time” - whether at Collingwood or at a team that tolerates “matchwinners” going at 45% from scoring shots.

I presumed if grundy was to go then we could hang onto De Goey, otherwise the fans would tear the place down....

Was that worth saying, either time? Grundy stays, Grundy goes - that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether we keep our lazy, under-prepared, too frequently-injured “match winner”.