Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Pies4shaw wrote:Oh, slangman, I forgot - football isn’t a multi-billion dollars business and the players should be grateful to be paid. Time for you to live in the universe we inhabit, I reckon.

The fact that it’s a multi million dollar business is why the discussion will be had. Players get traded and/or delisted whilst still under contract and they also regularly seek to break their contract for a better offer at another club.
I live in the universe where Treloar got traded against his will and have no doubt that the club will do the same with Grundy if they thought that it was in the best interest of the club.

Grundy ($950,000) - McStay ($600,00) - Melbourne/Grundy subsidy ($300,000) = $50,000

Summary: so for $50,000 we rate McStay ahead of Grundy? Staggering.

Depends what trade picks we get for Grundy IF he goes. It's not as binary as that.

and its 5 years from 29 onwards, who knows how badly he might perform?

Ronnie McKeowns boots wrote:and its 5 years from 29 onwards, who knows how badly he might perform?

Especially for a player who peaked and was found out at just 25.

^ We weren’t talking about De Goey, though.

Jordy was winning Collingwood finals at 26 so yet again you’re completely wrong. But nothing new for your Grundy love affair.

slangman wrote:

Pies4shaw wrote:Oh, slangman, I forgot - football isn’t a multi-billion dollars business and the players should be grateful to be paid. Time for you to live in the universe we inhabit, I reckon.

The fact that it’s a multi million dollar business is why the discussion will be had. Players get traded and/or delisted whilst still under contract and they also regularly seek to break their contract for a better offer at another club.
I live in the universe where Treloar got traded against his will and have no doubt that the club will do the same with Grundy if they thought that it was in the best interest of the club.

That’s not remotely an answer to the point I made - and unless you’re actually simple, you must know that. You were proposing that he should just agree to take a pay cut and I said in substance that that was a stupid piece of nonsense. If you think there’s some reason why a fellow who has a contract that entitles him to be paid $4.5 million, say, would agree to accept $3.5 million - when you know no one else in their right mind would do that, perhaps you might explain what it is. It strikes me that such a proposal would be just disingenuously jerking around an employee who’d accepted a deal in good faith. Grundy may well leave - all the other indications are that he probably will - but he’s simply not going to take a pay cut to do so - whatever his new club agrees to pay, Collingwood will be forking out the difference.

You're absolutely right P4S. Also, it seems fairly obvious that it is the club which has encouraged him to seek a trade elsewhere. For whatever reason, the club thinks it would be better to trade Grundy and use the saved salary cap elsewhere. The problem will be however, that other club's will understand Collingwood's position, and certainly require us to fork out around $300,000 of Grundy's salary for the next 5 yrs. That being the case, the logic of letting Grundy go is something which alludes me.

^^^Rude my info that isn’t the case
All the media talk about us willing to pay $300k is dumb if it’d the club saying it
Think about it Rude why would we advertise publicly our plans to pay that to any suitor ?
This media frenzy has been stirred up by Grundy’s management to force the clubs hand to accept unders and fork out overs
Simple fact is this could have been a non issue if Grundy had just once gone public and said he is staying end of story
He hasn’t and you can make of it what you will but a educated guess would suggest he isn’t speaking because it’s in his best interests not the clubs to remain silent
Personally I don’t care if he stays or goes he wants out good riddance don’t want players here that don’t want to be here

eddiesmith wrote:

Ronnie McKeowns boots wrote:and its 5 years from 29 onwards, who knows how badly he might perform?

Especially for a player who peaked and was found out at just 25.

This is partially right. Grundy can't leap anymore so he has been less and less effective in the centre bounce. He is still a monster around the grounds.

Exactly qld67. Never ever do I want players who don’t want to play for Collingwood. Just not worth the risk of them using us as a springboard to go elsewhere.

watt price tully wrote:
Yes indeed. Nice change of tack and straw man by whatsinaname.

If this is what you have to tell yourself to sleep at night, then good for you. You've fooled nobody.

stui magpie wrote:Depends what trade picks we get for Grundy IF he goes. It's not as binary as that.

I think it is and I hate the word binary .... make that non binary

inxs88 wrote:

stui magpie wrote:Depends what trade picks we get for Grundy IF he goes. It's not as binary as that.

I think it is and I hate the word binary .... make that non binary

Fairy Nuff.

Look, It's easy to get into the McStay for Grundy and look at it as a net negative, which it would be, but the fact is that's a financial take and not reality.

If we do let Grundy go, we should get decent draft pick(s) and/or players in return. That's the extra element assuming it isn't a Treloar like fire sale.

So McStay replaces Grundy in the salary cap but we get access (hopefully) to some decent draft picks.

If that's the case, I can live with it. I don't like it but I can live with it.