List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion

[swoop42]

GWS won’t be accepting De Goey in a straight swap for Taranto. They consider TT to be worth a first and second round pick. The next contract he signs will start with a seven.

GWS will be willing to pay Grundy $650/$700k pa. He has no intention of leaving Victoria, so it’s a moot point.

The potential trade currency that I talked about regarding De Goey was is in the form of a 1st round selection going towards a player like Taranto.

Like I stated I doubt Grundy (or De Goey) will be directly involved and move to GWS in a trade for Taranto.

 

[cityslick1]

I know we desperately need him to help in the middle but I'd love to see a vintage 2018 DeGoey 5 goal game out of the goal square

De Goey, Johnson and Billy could be explosive to watch, with Cameron & Ginni as the big & small man foils due for a good game.

Prob is Port mids and general defenders are good, as is Hinkley as a coach.

Hoping we arent sore or emotionally spent after last week / 9 wins, and can actually step up from the form of the past two weeks

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

De Goey, Johnson and Billy could be explosive to watch, with Cameron & Ginni as the big & small man foils due for a good game.

Prob is Port mids and general defenders are good

Yeah............not ideal to lose Checkers and need De GOey forward. I like the sound of that forward line but getting them supply is the concern. We may not have much time with JDG and Elliott together in the forward line as one of them will likely be required in the middle. Even then we don't match up great against a solid midfield.

 

[Dynamics]

The Giants are reportedly under significant cap pressure, to the point that they're offering Taranto major unders despite being a required player that they value.

And they don't have a coach.

I'm missing the piece of the puzzle that links a club in that situation to a ruckman with 5 years left on a million a year deal.

 

[TradeDraft]

Reading between the lines on the CEOs comments today I reckon JDG is more likely to be here with us.
Kinda sounds like what everyone said
“contract withdrawn” purely to make it look like we did something
and all the noises now coming out from the club are “how he’s been faultless since and doing all the right things etc etc “
Pretty much conditioning the fan base that when we “revisit at end of the year” that same contract will pretty much be signed
That’s my take anyway, I could be wrong but that’s how it reads to me.

As for Grundy…it didn’t sound as promising if I was to be betting man…and he’s the one with a contract in place already.

Something is cooking in this space and I don’t believe Grundy will be here next season I’m afraid

Be Massive Mistake Trading Grundy and I still think its the Media trying to make a Story out of Nothing

 

[Scodog10]

The Giants are reportedly under significant cap pressure, to the point that they're offering Taranto major unders despite being a required player that they value.

And they don't have a coach.

I'm missing the piece of the puzzle that links a club in that situation to a ruckman with 5 years left on a million a year deal.

Disclaimer I don’t think GWS are going to be in on Grundy.

With that out of the way GWS could clear $2m in salary cap space this off-season between Taranto ($800k), Hopper ($600k), Bruhn ($300k) and Hill ($300k) perhaps even more because some of those figures are conservative. There is zero chance they’re in that much cap trouble and it likely puts them below 95% in 2023. For perspective with Ned Guy in charge we were in better shape than that after the Covid reductions.

If they could bring Grundy in and be paying him $600k pa (us chipping in the rest) that’s a massive windfall on top of the other assets they’ll bring in via the other trades.

 

[Quicky]

Disclaimer I don’t think GWS are going to be in on Grundy.

With that out of the way GWS could clear $2m in salary cap space this off-season between Taranto ($800k), Hopper ($600k), Bruhn ($300k) and Hill ($300k) perhaps even more because some of those figures are conservative. There is zero chance they’re in that much cap trouble and it likely puts them below 95% in 2023. For perspective with Ned Guy in charge we were in better shape than that after the Covid reductions.

If they could bring Grundy in and be paying him $600k pa (us chipping in the rest) that’s a massive windfall on top of the other assets they’ll bring in via the other trades.

It'd never happen. There's no way we'd chip in that much of Grundy's salary.

 

[unplugged]

I'm also not entirely sure they'd be offering Taranto cheap because yes, whilst they're (allegedly) looking to shed his salary, they'd have a suite of clubs wanting him and his value would increase as they play off against each other.

Treloar netted us nothing because it was the Dogs or bust.

 

[Scodog10]

Reading between the lines on the CEOs comments today I reckon JDG is more likely to be here with us.
Kinda sounds like what everyone said
“contract withdrawn” purely to make it look like we did something
and all the noises now coming out from the club are “how he’s been faultless since and doing all the right things etc etc “
Pretty much conditioning the fan base that when we “revisit at end of the year” that same contract will pretty much be signed
That’s my take anyway, I could be wrong but that’s how it reads to me.

As for Grundy…it didn’t sound as promising if I was to be betting man…and he’s the one with a contract in place already.

Something is cooking in this space and I don’t believe Grundy will be here next season I’m afraid

He was pretty cagey about Grundy! For me it was also how the question was framed. McLure putting it out there and saying “why don’t you just put it to bed he’ll be there next year”, but the best Anderson could really offer was he’s contracted and it’ll be his choice… Stinks a lot like the Treloar scenario. The only comment he was categoric about was that he makes us better which could be factual for 2022 and fluid for 2023.

 

[Scodog10]

It'd never happen. There's no way we'd chip in that much of Grundy's salary.

Going out on a limb here you’re thinking he’s owed $1m pa for the rest of the contract? It was the problem I always had with the speculation because it’s too much dead cap. I guarantee the max he’ll get from any other club is in the $600-700k range (because that’s all he’s really worth) and if we had to shell out $1.5-2m over the next 5 years for him to play elsewhere the story would be dead. I think he’s owed more in the vicinity of $800-900k pa moving forward hence the story remaining alive.

 

[Quicky]

Going out on a limb here you’re thinking he’s owed $1m pa for the rest of the contract? It was the problem I always had with the speculation because it’s too much dead cap. I guarantee the max he’ll get from any other club is in the $600-700k range (because that’s all he’s really worth) and if we had to shell out $1.5-2m over the next 5 years for him to play elsewhere the story would be dead. I think he’s owed more in the vicinity of $800-900k pa moving forward hence the story remaining alive.

Assume it's 900k. I can't see us paying 300k p/yr to have Grundy play for someone else.

 

[Go Woods]

He was pretty cagey about Grundy! For me it was also how the question was framed. McLure putting it out there and saying “why don’t you just put it to bed he’ll be there next year”, but the best Anderson could really offer was he’s contracted and it’ll be his choice… Stinks a lot like the Treloar scenario. The only comment he was categoric about was that he makes us better which could be factual for 2022 and fluid for 2023.

Exactly, if that was Moore they were talking about, his answers would of been something like - he is contracted for 6 more years and Moore is going no where.
On Grundy very loose answers about his future.

 

[Scodog10]

Assume it's 900k. I can't see us paying 300k p/yr to have Grundy play for someone else.

Have you listened to the Anderson interview? What would you pay Grundy as an incoming player? How much is too much?

I believe $300k is to much which is why I’m inclined to believe it’s going to be closer to $200k. Also $600k is on the bottom end of the range he’ll be offered and probably the GWS figure. Geelong (the real sleeper, IMO) might throw $700k at him and Port might as well. Both clubs have aging stars and probably need to strike over the next 50 games (especially Hinkley) so Grundy could provide the spike they need.

 

[gouki88]

AFL Trade Whispers: Pies boss leaves door ajar for $7m star’s departure

‘His decision’ - Pies boss leaves door ajar from $7m star’s departure: Trade Whispers

www.foxsports.com.au

Didn’t like his Grundy comments myself. Not that I don’t understand the reasons, I just think purely from an on-field perspective it would be a terrible move.

I would hate to see him thrive in Geelong or Port.

 

[JuniorB]

Didn’t like his Grundy comments myself. Not that I don’t understand the reasons, I just think purely from an on-field perspective it would be a terrible move.

I would hate to see him thrive in Geelong or Port.

Anderson should leave those topics to the footy department.
Wrighty is keeping his head down, though.
Good luck getting a headline from GW!

 

[Scodog10]

Anderson should leave those topics to the footy department.
Wrighty is keeping his head down, though.
Good luck getting a headline from GW!

100% agree, but he was on a bit of a hiding to nothing. Most of the fans out there have no idea how it works so if he defers to Wright the media will just say “Collingwood CEO refuses to address Grundy trade speculation”. Looking at it impartially if you’re someone that wants Collingwood to retain him they weren’t pleasing comments. Go Woods was spot on if we wanted him he’d have just said he’s contracted for 2023 and not available. They were more “he’s available, but it needs to be in our best interests” type comments…

 

[gouki88]

100% agree, but he was on a bit of a hiding to nothing. Most of the fans out there have no idea how it works so if he defers to Wright the media will just say “Collingwood CEO refuses to address Grundy trade speculation”. Looking at it impartially if you’re someone that wants Collingwood to retain him they weren’t pleasing comments. Go Woods was spot on if we wanted him he’d have just said he’s contracted for 2023 and not available. They were more “he’s available, but it needs to be in our best interests” type comments…

Definite damned if you, damned if you don't moment.

 

[AmericanMustard]

I’m not sure how much weight to take into Anderson’s comment particularly around Grundy, I’m certain they could have asked better questions.

Let’s face it, he’s not Tom Harley, they’re asking a CEO with no football/football department background list management decisions I’m sure he has nothing to do with, but maybe I’m naive.

Sure, he represents and reports to the suit wearers that want to kick De Goey out so can probably put some weight into those ones

 

[Scodog10]

Definite damned if you, damned if you don't moment.

I had those words at one point in that post! Teasing it out a bit how else could he have answered? If we assume we’re open to trading him I can’t come up with an answer that would turn the heat off. All I’ve got is “well he’s contracted until 2027” and leave it at that, but then you have follow up questions and so on and so forth.

 

[Scodog10]

I’m not sure how much weight to take into Anderson’s comment particularly around Grundy, I’m certain they could have asked better questions.

Let’s face it, he’s not Tom Harley, they’re asking a CEO with no football/football department background list management decisions I’m sure he has nothing to do with, but maybe I’m naive.

Sure, he represents and reports to the suit wearers that want to kick De Goey out so can probably put some weight into those ones

He’d definitely know the state of play re Grundy there’s no way he walks into an interview like that without that knowledge. Unlike Harley though he wouldn’t have a say on it until it gets to board level. I actually thought it was a fantastic question because it was guaranteed to generate a story no matter how Anderson answered. That’s what makes BF great though that we both see the same thing in a different way

 

[Dynamics]

100% agree, but he was on a bit of a hiding to nothing. Most of the fans out there have no idea how it works so if he defers to Wright the media will just say “Collingwood CEO refuses to address Grundy trade speculation”. Looking at it impartially if you’re someone that wants Collingwood to retain him they weren’t pleasing comments. Go Woods was spot on if we wanted him he’d have just said he’s contracted for 2023 and not available. They were more “he’s available, but it needs to be in our best interests” type comments…

Very simple solution that some sporting organisations adhere to and it works very well for them: The entire club has a blanket rule that they don't discuss contract negotiations, incomings and outgoings until they have been finalised. From the President to the bootstudder. No point in some people saying no comment then someone comes in over the top with a yeah/nah/maybe.

We have no obligation to give the media fodder for their machine and it works to our advantage to take a consistent no comment stance. Our current players also feel a level of protection and respect from the club that we don't air their linen in public view.

 

[The Phantom]

Isn’t the obvious solution to have Grundy extend his contract for a year or two in exchange for lowering his package by $200-250k per annum?
McGuire suggested as much on Footy Calcified.

 

[Scodog10]

Very simple solution that some sporting organisations adhere to and it works very well for them: The entire club has a blanket rule that they don't discuss contract negotiations, incomings and outgoings until they have been finalised. From the President to the bootstudder. No point in some people saying no comment then someone comes in over the top with a yeah/nah/maybe.

We have no obligation to give the media fodder for their machine and it works to our advantage to take a consistent no comment stance. Our current players also feel a level of protection and respect from the club that we don't air their linen in public view.

If I’m a journalist and that’s what he runs with this morning my editor is going with the headline “Collingwood refuse to speculate on the future of Grundy and JDG” I’m then throwing in sentences like “industry sources suggest Collingwood has shopped both players” “with McStay and Taranto on the clubs agenda and no salary cap squeeze we understand Collingwood need to clear cap space” and “whilst Anderson refused to be drawn into it sources within the Collingwood FD are more flexible on their futures”.

That’s fish in a barrel stuff and whilst you and I will see straight through it the average punter not on Big Footy doesn’t so it just creates talkback calls and becomes a bigger story. I definitely don’t have the solution on the best way to handle it if we’re exploring all opportunities, but I know this isn’t it.

 

[manicpie]

I don't suppose Anderson and GW had already spoken prior to Anderson's comments? There is no way the list Manager is going to make loaded statements about a contracted player, it's much easier for a board member to make those kind of statements and put it down to the fact that they know nothing about football. Rather than bashing Grundy which I have been guilty of, I would say the length and price of his contract would be of major concern for the club and I wouldn't be surprised if the contact didn't run it natural coarse

 

[Mick F]

Going out on a limb here you’re thinking he’s owed $1m pa for the rest of the contract? It was the problem I always had with the speculation because it’s too much dead cap. I guarantee the max he’ll get from any other club is in the $600-700k range (because that’s all he’s really worth) and if we had to shell out $1.5-2m over the next 5 years for him to play elsewhere the story would be dead. I think he’s owed more in the vicinity of $800-900k pa moving forward hence the story remaining alive.

It’s $950k