Don't want, (or need) to start a new thread - still want to post it though

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe this question needs its own thread however…..

What happens to collingwoods “ Grundy subsidy” if Melbourne get rid of him? Surely any new club he lands at does not get the benefit of the subsidy….. we have no agreement with anybody but Melbourne. If he’s not on the Dees books any more then surely the deal is cancelled. Why should we pay them a salary subsidy for a player they no longer have on their books?
 
TIL Eddie Betts is an all Australian selector..... A few weeks back he posed a question to the panel on fox footy if Taylor Adams was a better GWS or Collingwood player.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Maybe this question needs its own thread however…..

What happens to collingwoods “ Grundy subsidy” if Melbourne get rid of him? Surely any new club he lands at does not get the benefit of the subsidy….. we have no agreement with anybody but Melbourne. If he’s not on the Dees books any more then surely the deal is cancelled. Why should we pay them a salary subsidy for a player they no longer have on their books?
I think our commitment would still be to Brodie. Melbourne pay him an agreed amount and we continue to pay the balance of what his contract amount was worth with us.
 
Maybe this question needs its own thread however…..

What happens to collingwoods “ Grundy subsidy” if Melbourne get rid of him? Surely any new club he lands at does not get the benefit of the subsidy….. we have no agreement with anybody but Melbourne. If he’s not on the Dees books any more then surely the deal is cancelled. Why should we pay them a salary subsidy for a player they no longer have on their books?
Just like Collingwood have an obligation for the difference in Melbourne's contract vaue with Brody and his contract value with Collingwood, if Melbourne were to offload him, then they would be responsible for the difference between their contract and the new contract value with another club. Brody will always be remunerated at the original contract sum with Collingwood for the duration of that contract term.
 
Just like Collingwood have an obligation for the difference in Melbourne's contract vaue with Brody and his contract value with Collingwood, if Melbourne were to offload him, then they would be responsible for the difference between their contract and the new contract value with another club. Brody will always be remunerated at the original contract sum with Collingwood for the duration of that contract term.

What a shame, I was desperately looking for a loophole!
 
Finals history since introduction of the final eight based on ladder position. 23 seasons

Top spot has made the GF 16 times for an 8-8 record
second has made the GF 12 times for an 8-4 record
Third has made the gf 12 times for a 6-6 record
Fourth has made the GF 3 times for a 0-3 record
Teams outside top four have made the GF 3 times for a 1-2 record.

So second has a better win loss record than first, but first makes more grand finals. The record from fourth is appalling.
 
Last edited:
Just like Collingwood have an obligation for the difference in Melbourne's contract vaue with Brody and his contract value with Collingwood, if Melbourne were to offload him, then they would be responsible for the difference between their contract and the new contract value with another club. Brody will always be remunerated at the original contract sum with Collingwood for the duration of that contract term.
Surely it depends on how the contract is written.
And that could be between us and Brodie, or us and Melbourne.

Here’s a wild card thought.
What if Brodies goes to Port (for arguments sake) and we do a side deal with Port giving them a draft pick upgrade or a player on the cheap in exchange for them taking over part/all of our payments to Grundy?

Is it possible?
Can anyone conceive an actual scenario?
 
Finals history mk2. Since the final eight came in.

Interstate sides have won five premierships when their opponents had home state advantage … Brisbane (3), Sydney and west coast 1. They won a further three when the MCG was neutral… Sydney west coast ( playing each other tri years running) and port when they stopped Brisbane’s four peat.

They have lost eight where their opponents had home state advantage, net score -3.

More recently interstate sides have played in eight of the last ten grand finals and only won two.
 
Finals history mk2. Since the final eight came in.

Interstate sides have won five premierships when their opponents had home state advantage … Brisbane (3), Sydney and west coast 1. They won a further three when the MCG was neutral… Sydney west coast ( playing each other tri years running) and port when they stopped Brisbane’s four peat.

They have lost eight where their opponents had home state advantage, net score -3.

More recently interstate sides have played in eight of the last ten grand finals and only won two.
And one of those two had to happen against us.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

A myth that Crows supporters will repeat ad nauseum for the next 100 years…..

That they missed finals in 2023 because of the goal umpire in round 22.

Reality is that they finished 1.5 games out of the eight.
You might want to re-think that. Deduct 4 points from the swans and the Crows are in.
 
You might want to re-think that. Deduct 4 points from the swans and the Crows are in.
Forgot they played the swans lol. Oh well suck eggs crows!

There are 2300 minutes plus time on in a season of football so to blame their fate on 30 seconds of that and ignoring situations that may have changed outcomes in the other 99.98% of the season is pretty shallow analysis.

Almost as shallow as my original post on this topic hahah
 
Forgot they played the swans lol. Oh well suck eggs crows!

There are 2300 minutes plus time on in a season of football so to blame their fate on 30 seconds of that and ignoring situations that may have changed outcomes in the other 99.98% of the season is pretty shallow analysis.

Almost as shallow as my original post on this topic hahah
You are also forgetting the swans won a game because of a north interchange infraction.

Swannies def don’t deserve to be playing finals
 
Forgot they played the swans lol. Oh well suck eggs crows!

There are 2300 minutes plus time on in a season of football so to blame their fate on 30 seconds of that and ignoring situations that may have changed outcomes in the other 99.98% of the season is pretty shallow analysis.

Almost as shallow as my original post on this topic hahah
Despite that, they are correct. That gets called a goal and they play finals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top