Brad Green's Contract Discussions

[gaz86]

I know we've just had a change of coach and football department but I'm unsure to why it hasn't been done by now. Is Green seriously looking elsewhere or is he unhappy at Melbourne?

Are we looking at another Cameron Bruce situation here, where a difference in opinion on length of contract may make him walk? Even though he had terrible year this season, would be bad to end his relationship with the MFC on poor terms and after the Junior and Robbo debacles, we couldn't do it again could we?

That said, anyone wanna take a stab at the sort of contract he'll get? Could he be only offered 12 mths?

 

[maxmustard]

Absolutely must keep him despite what everyone will probably say. Had a poor year for sure, but fans always need always need heroes and villains, it was his turn this year. I think if he was going to leave he would have done so a few years ago when the dogs wanted him. Can't see him going.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

I agree that we need to keep him but the ONLY reason I think he is worth keeping is for his experience. We can sit him in a forward pocket for another year or two and he can give some advice etc to the younger ones coming through.

The big question though is whether or not he will keep the captaincy - if Neeld says he won't then maybe he leaves? Who knows.

 

[dee64]

I believe that the club's policy of only offering 1 year deals to over 30's is flawed. The club was basically saying that we're better off trialling a pick 60+ rookie draftee, than keeping a proven hard bodied player who is on our veteran's list. Hopefully this changes under the new regime.

Regardless of Brad's leadership abilities or lack of, his performance and injury history warrant a 2 year contract, with possibly the 2nd year being performance based.

 

[cheney]

I know we've just had a change of coach and football department but I'm unsure to why it hasn't been done by now. Is Green seriously looking elsewhere or is he unhappy at Melbourne?

Are we looking at another Cameron Bruce situation here, where a difference in opinion on length of contract may make him walk? Even though he had terrible year this season, would be bad to end his relationship with the MFC on poor terms and after the Junior and Robbo debacles, we couldn't do it again could we?

That said, anyone wanna take a stab at the sort of contract he'll get? Could he be only offered 12 mths?

If he doesnt want to be there, Piss him off.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Must sign. We can't afford to lose more experienced players.

 

[gaz86]

Totally accept both Cheney's and TPM's arguments. Can see why right now we need commitment from players to work hard and it doesn't look like he is totally committed atm.

But yes, I think we cant afford to lose him like we did with the others. Been a great serviceman for the club and gun player for years. His experience will help greatly. That said, maybe being captain isn't helpful to him and maybe with the pressure off being said captain may help him get back some of the form that he once had.

Dee64, I know why we offer 1 year deals and not allow for 2 year deals, however I think its disingenuous of the club to say that we really can make a decision in 1 year. Things happen and players can fall away. But Green showed some of his best too just not as much as we'd like him to. Personally, its time we stopped solely focusing on youth, youth and more youth and start pushing to mature the group overall. Green is someone we need to hang on to for now.

 

[StingaArmstrong]

Give him two years. Proven consistent performer over a long period of time. He really was a victim of poor delivery into forward line (+ game plan/style). In the past when we were struggling he went back as a loose man which he didn't do much this year, most likely through coaches instructions.

We really have short memories sometimes...

 

[Chip_]

I believe that the club's policy of only offering 1 year deals to over 30's is flawed. The club was basically saying that we're better off trialling a pick 60+ rookie draftee, than keeping a proven hard bodied player who is on our veteran's list. Hopefully this changes under the new regime.

It's definitely flawed, but I the club took this stance in a re-build & now needs to review this policy.

Maybe Green should sit down with Neeld & define his role within the team, have a performanced based extension built into his contract around what sort of player they want him to be, be that 40 goals or whatever.

 

[00Stinger]

I believe that the club's policy of only offering 1 year deals to over 30's is flawed. The club was basically saying that we're better off trialling a pick 60+ rookie draftee, than keeping a proven hard bodied player who is on our veteran's list. Hopefully this changes under the new regime.

Regardless of Brad's leadership abilities or lack of, his performance and injury history warrant a 2 year contract, with possibly the 2nd year being performance based.

Why?
Players like Richardson and Crawford were happy with 1 year deals once they reached 30, why is this not good enough for Green?

How many players over 30 get offered more than one year deals at their clubs?

 

[Demon 86]

I agree that we need to keep him but the ONLY reason I think he is worth keeping is for his experience. We can sit him in a forward pocket for another year or two and he can give some advice etc to the younger ones coming through.

The big question though is whether or not he will keep the captaincy - if Neeld says he won't then maybe he leaves? Who knows.

Bingo- that is surely the key reason for the holdup. FWIW I think he won't be in the leadership group next year. If we're stripping the Captaincy from him it's best to not demean him by making him a deputy (alla Hawthorn taking Mitchell out of leadership group this year).

He will stay on though.

 

[Chip_]

Good point. Green should also be a strong enough presence, like Mitchell, that he's a leader regardless of title.

 

[Captain Jack]

Give him what he's asking for, we've screwed over enough senior players already. He's had one bad year, but has been a great player for us for many years before that.

 

[RandB]

How many players over 30 get offered more than one year deals at their clubs?

Fair question and I reckon not many. Bruce moving to Hawthorn is a good case in point. He was offered 1 year (the same as at Melbourne) with the opportunity to prove himself and make a case for a 2nd year.

It will be interesting to see what happens there although perhaps the only thing going for him is that Hawthorn may save his spot for next years's stronger draft given their average picks in a average draft this year and they may not want to waste the list slots.

 

[kv_baby]

Taking chest marks 2 meters out from goal aint leadership

 

[dee64]

Why?
Players like Richardson and Crawford were happy with 1 year deals once they reached 30, why is this not good enough for Green?

How many players over 30 get offered more than one year deals at their clubs?

Crawford wasn't happy with his 1 year deal and I can recall his angst at the time, whilst Richo was a year by year prospect due to injury.

I wouldn't have a clue what the contractual deals are with all the current over 30's, but you've plucked out 2 players who retired a few years ago. I don't seem to hear too much angst from other club veterans.

Cam Bruce left us because he was given a conditional 2 year deal by the Hawks, and we ended up with getting nothing for him. I'm assuming you'd be ok with Green doing the same, because they'd be plenty of clubs who'd offer him a 2 year deal.

 

[Chip_]

It will be interesting to see what happens there although perhaps the only thing going for him is that Hawthorn may save his spot for next years's stronger draft given their average picks in a average draft this year and they may not want to waste the list slots.

I'd say he's screwed because I doubt he made the mark to activate the 2nd year of the contract, he's the oldest player on their list & while they may keep player turnover to a minimum, they still have to get rid of 3 players. Bateman is 2nd oldest but only just turned 30, Cheney could be in trouble too if out of contract.

 

[Spirit of 39]

We need to sign Green under any circumstances. Two reasons:

1. What a horrible message it would send if we lost another disenfranchised player over the age of 30.

2. We need his experience.

 

[kv_baby]

Crawford wasn't happy with his 1 year deal and I because they'd be plenty of clubs who'd offer him a 2 year deal.

No chance any club would let him wear gloves to take chest marks and hand pass to invisible players for 2 years.

 

[RandB]

Cam Bruce left us because he was given a conditional 2 year deal by the Hawks, and we ended up with getting nothing for him. I'm assuming you'd be ok with Green doing the same, because they'd be plenty of clubs who'd offer him a 2 year deal.

A 1 yr contract is a 1 yr contract.

Sure he might have heard all the right words about the possibility of a 2nd year but at the end of the day if he isn't up to it Hawthorn won't be keeping him simply because it was a "conditional 2 yr deal" and they didn't want to be seen as ingenuous.

Hawthorn simply fed a precious player what he wanted to hear. If they don't retain him this will fall flat on its face in a way and over time 30+ players won't put as much emphasis on moving for such deals as Bruce did IMO because it will be proven to be hit and miss.

I'd say he's screwed because I doubt he made the mark to activate the 2nd year of the contract, he's the oldest player on their list & while they may keep player turnover to a minimum, they still have to get rid of 3 players. Bateman is 2nd oldest but only just turned 30, Cheney could be in trouble too if out of contract.

I haven't put any thought into who the other delistees at Hawthorn could be so it was a generalistic approach but you could very well be right about that Chip.

In any event I think Green is worthy of a 2 yr deal but I can appreciate the club's consistency if they go about it year by year from now on.

 

[Demon 86]

^^

I thought I heard something bout the second year being automatic if he played X amount of games for them?

 

[Captain Jack]

^^

I thought I heard something bout the second year being automatic if he played X amount of games for them?

Yeah, pretty sure it was something like 16-18 games for a second year... he got nowhere near that.

 

[RandB]

^^

I thought I heard something bout the second year being automatic if he played X amount of games for them?

Such a clause may have existed so I'm not discounting 'dee64's' observation. Realistically though, apart from having something written down on paper (if it was) it is still down to the same manipulation as anything else and you have to take such a thing with a grain of salt.

 

[Super Demon]

I can't see what kind of problem Brad would have with a One Year Deal.

He needs to back himself that he will be able to play to the required level again in 2013.

As for the captaincy?

I'd be hoping that Brad is man enough to put up his hand and admit that it really wasn't his strong suit.

Required Player in 2012
Probably Required Player in 2013

 

[Crusty Demon]

Give him a 2 year deal but take the captaincy from him. It never sat well with him all year. I'm sure both parties will come to an agreement, but after the year Green had, I'm not sure how much scope he has for bargaining. I agree with many here that we can't afford to lose another senior player, and lets not forget how good he was the year before.

Relieve him of his captaincy and offer him a nice 2 year package and that should see his career out(hopefully with class).