Tom Boyd requests trade to the Bulldogs

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
showmethemoney.png
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Presumably the Dogs have front-loaded Boyd's contract so that a fair chunk of his salary will be paid in the first three or so years of his contract. Then as the contracts of players like Liberatore, Bontempelli, Macrae, etc, begin to be renewed, the Dogs will be able to manage their list appropriately.

Well done on the Dogs taking the plunge. This is the reality of the modern, 21st century list management.
 
Presumably the Dogs have front-loaded Boyd's contract so that a fair chunk of his salary will be paid in the first three or so years of his contract. Then as the contracts of players like Liberatore, Bontempelli, Macrae, etc, begin to be renewed, the Dogs will be able to manage their list appropriately.

Well done on the Dogs taking the plunge. This is the reality of the modern, 21st century list management.

Front loaded from 2016 onwards. 2015 can't exceed 200k according to the rules in place.
 
Not talking about others clubs why should GWS give a toss about the perspective of other clubs? I'm talking about the perspective of the double digit amounts of kids they have. Boyd leaving because he demanded it, what's to stop the rest of the team doing it?
Let's just see if all their players run for the door now. I doubt it.
 
Yes I get that your captain wanted out and he had to go, but to cart him off - your best player - together with pick 6 that would secure an elite kid, was overs for what you got in return.

I don't mind the Dogs, nothing really against them as a club. But I don't think this last week has been their finest moment.

Pick 6 is generally a cursed draft pick. Take out Macrae and Wingard and look at who else has been taken in recent memory

With Griffen gone anyway think of it as pick 6 for Tom Boyd. Would you take him at pick six?
 
Bulldogs finally get that true key forward and will have for over 10 years, and they get 'compensation' for their gun who was going to leave.

Massive win.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'd be highly pissed off if I was Libba, McCrae, Dalhaus (to name a few) and Boyd was coming in for $1.1 million a year after having only played six very ordinary games.
It was because of those blokes that they came.
He was teammates with Honeychurch and Bontempelli at Vic Metro and Honeychurch at the rangers.
He would have played with and against the likes of Stringer, Macrae, Hrovat

They were the ones who convinced him to come, so much the opposite of your point.
 
Interesting to see the range of responses from neutral supporters...

I think everyone would agree that in the end both clubs did was best for their own situation...

GWS received the best they could get for Boyd and Dogs salvaged their captain walking out on them.

Win/WIn.
 
Smacks of desperation from the Bulldogs board.

Already in crisis mode, they needed a big win to placate members.

Giving up their best player, captain and paying part of his salary PLUS pick 6 for an unproven number 1 draft pick is well overs.

There was talk about giving away Cooney for a pick in the 50's as well.

If Collingwood are the trade bandits, the Bulldogs are the helpless victims (similar to Brisbane last year).

I'd think it would be a different story if the Collingwood list management team was in the same situation.
 
GWS were clearly not going to be able afford Boyd in the future along with all their other gun young players so probably a good time to let him go before they waste much more time developing him and wasting game time on him.
 
Pretty much a win/.win you would say at the moment.
That said, if the contract duration is as reported, Boyd had better play some sensational footy for the money he's getting.
Still, hindsight is wonderful- we'll have to wait and see how it all unfolds down the track.
 
GWS were clearly not going to be able afford Boyd in the future along with all their other gun young players so probably a good time to let him go before they waste much more time developing him and wasting game time on him.

Yes and no. The better player he becomes, the more trade value he has. Quite the opposite if he never developed in to the player his potential leads us to believe.
 
Smacks of desperation from the Bulldogs board.

Already in crisis mode, they needed a big win to placate members.

Giving up their best player, captain and paying part of his salary PLUS pick 6 for an unproven number 1 draft pick is well overs.

There was talk about giving away Cooney for a pick in the 50's as well.

If Collingwood are the trade bandits, the Bulldogs are the helpless victims (similar to Brisbane last year).

I'd think it would be a different story if the Collingwood list management team was in the same situation.
Hahahahaha smacks of desperation, rightio pal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top