List Mgmt. Trade and F/A - Part 3

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Timmy from Thomastown said:
Then it’s not a deal. What’s the afl up to, approving deals that haven’t even been agreed yet?

That said if there’s no firm agreement about how much Collingwood should subsidise..... then it has to be nothing!!!! Or at least Collingwoods final offer. Could be a small win for us here.

Dogs might regret not letting Dunkley go.
Click to expand...

All good points (sorry for the intrusion).

I’m really surprised that the deal hadn’t really been locked in (and still isn’t). At this point, after Treloar has done all the media with the Doggies, they can’t really go back on that you’d think.

Hopefully Pies get a bit of a win here 👍🏼
 
partypie said:
It is for pretty much everyone else not based at the Holden Centre.

Paying a portion of a contract usually equates to getting something back in return (usually in the form of a somewhat useful draft pick), but we gave him away for pretty much nothing (net gain in DVI points for us was equivalent to a pick in the early 60's) and yet they are still allegedly looking to keep us on the hook for 1 mil+ over 5 years?
Click to expand...

We signed the contract. We traded him to a team that agreed to pay a percentage of that contract.

It is what it is... don't blame anybody but Collingwood for poor management of their money.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Collingwood club banner



Cam McCarthy
Fremantle


McCarthy fills a need for Collingwood as a key forward, with Brody Mihocek, Mason Cox and Darcy Cameron as the Pies only tall targets inside 50.


The Magpies failed to land a key forward during the trade period, and after his Dockers exit, McCarthy expressed a desire to play in black and white.


At his best, McCarthy showed glimpses of being a star, displaying his talent for the Giants after he was selected with pick 14 in the 2013 draft.


Collingwood have long been rumoured to target a key forward, and McCarthy is a proven goal kicker with 99 goals from his 70 AFL games.


While he is more likely to continue his career in the WAFL, he presents as a possible option for the Pies.


Brandon Matera
Fremantle


The Magpies have a number of medium sized forwards who play taller in Jordan De Goey, Will Hoskin-Elliott and Jamie Elliott.


The loss of Jaidyn Stephenson to North Melbourne and Travis Varcoe to retirement extenuates the Pies’ need for a ground level crumbing forward, with the inconsistent Josh Thomas and developing Callum Brown the only Magpies adept to playing that role at AFL level.


Matera played just five games for Fremantle in 2020 but is still capable of having an impact, evidenced by his 30 goals in 2019. Matera has played 144 games and has kicked 170, proving his ability to hit the scoreboard.



The AFL delisted free agents your club should target

We've selected two delisted free agents who should be on your club's radar.
www.sen.com.au www.sen.com.au
 
Kappa said:
If the Dogs have to pay Treloar 900k for 5 years that trade turns into a absolute disaster for them.

If you take into account his terrible ball use and poor defensive running, he's probably worth about half of that.
Click to expand...

That could actually happen?

I'm not confused as to what's going on here.
 
Although Treloar was salary and performance driven, I suspect that after Treloar and Beams we’d be unwilling to venture into Cam McCarthy country even on minimum chips.
 
CasuallyDressed said:
That could actually happen?

I'm not confused as to what's going on here.
Click to expand...
No it can’t happen. One year of his contract was back ended to be $900k, not the entire 5 years.

The Dogs probably thought we’d pay $300k in Treloar’s $900k year, and $100k for each other year. We’re probably saying $100k each year or GFY.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
Although Treloar was salary and performance driven, I suspect that after Treloar and Beams we’d be unwilling to venture into Cam McCarthy country even on minimum chips.
Click to expand...

Never Say Never
 
CasuallyDressed said:
Yeah... that's not how it works.
Click to expand...

Actually it is..... if you get peanuts for an A grader (or B+) then the quid pro quo should be that you don’t subsidise any salary
Kappa said:
If the Dogs have to pay Treloar 900k for 5 years that trade turns into a absolute disaster for them.

If you take into account his terrible ball use and poor defensive running, he's probably worth about half of that.
Click to expand...

It would be a stinker for them!!! He’s only on 900 because Collingwood backloaded him , so we should at least subsidise to compensate for the backloaded nature of the contract.

Doubt we will get away with paying nothing... there is goodwill at stake and we want to maintain a good trading relationship.

If however there is some murky ground regarding the final agreement.... we should hold our ground!
 
CasuallyDressed said:
We signed the contract. We traded him to a team that agreed to pay a percentage of that contract.

It is what it is... don't blame anybody but Collingwood for poor management of their money.
Click to expand...

Apparently nothing was actually agreed to if the detail in the story is correct around the Bulldogs agreeing internally (I'd read that as being within their recruiting team) on a figure based of some "belief" (largely propagated by the media?) that we'd be willing to cover up to a third of his contract number over the 5 year period. The one thing that is clear is that nothing was signed off on by when the trade was submitted, hence the initial and now further extension of time on submitting the paperwork.

I'm perfectly ok with us playing hardball on this, the way other clubs did with us during trade period, as it's well past time for our list management team to grow a frigging spine when it comes to dealing with other clubs. What happens here could be a small step in that direction if they hold their nerve and drive that percentage of Treloar's salary we are still going to pay down to a reasonable amount.
 
Kirby said:
His whole article makes very little sense. He talks at one time of us paying $300k a year and then says something weird about the stand off being as much as $200k in one of the seasons. How can those 2 things co-exist?
Click to expand...

The way I interpret what Barrett is trying to say is that clubs assumed/believed that Collingwood would pay $300K per year across every year for the 5 year term and Collingwood has said, nope we’re only going to pay $100K in years 4 and 5 (for example). It is a very poorly worded article.

I’m amazed at the assumption Pies would pay 30% of Treloar’s wage for the entire 5 years. That is crazy talk! Pay what he is owed with regards to the amount in the years that were pushed out/backended, with a cursory contribution of 10 - 20% for a year or two, and that is it. If the Bulldogs chose to take on Treloar with his contract, then that’s on them. More so by trying to take advantage of the Pies and reaming us in the trade. Maybe it is the karma bus warming up the engine on route to the western suburbs. Hopefully Ned Guy is motivated to redeem himself and hold fast on the negotiation, it would go some way to salvage a small positive from the wreckage.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The good part is that after the media backlash and torching, you would think that the club would hold firm on their position re Treloar.
 
tranquilli lace said:
This is actually extraordinary. Considering what we gave back in terms of 2nd round picks I’d be inclined to tell them to ship off. Could be a silver lining.
Click to expand...

There will be no “take it or leave it” not a reversal of the transaction. They will go back to the transcripts, find out what has or hasn’t been agreed, and close the deal.

If they can’t agree I have no doubt the jury will step in and decide for us.
 
JLC said:
The good part is that after the media backlash and torching, you would think that the club would hold firm on their position re Treloar.
Click to expand...

They should be angry at the Dogs not Collingwood about this
 
Pragmatic Shill said:
Here's what the Hun reported during trade period:

The Herald Sun understands Collingwood had made clear to clubs that it would be prepared to wear as much as $100,000 of that $900,000 average salary over the life of the contract.

Clubs might push for the Pies to pay even more of his salary – even up to $150,000 per year – if they can come up with a trade that also suits Collingwood.

On SM-G981B using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
Sounds like the Dogs swallowed what Sam Edmund was serving up.
 
McOrist said:
The Dogs now with a tight salary cap due to Ads contract and retaining Dunkley. The Bont becomes a free agent in 2021. Hmmm......
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. What if we busted their salary cap and made a godfather offer to Bont the next year?

#itsaconspiracy
 
The Royal Sampler said:
Although Treloar was salary and performance driven, I suspect that after Treloar and Beams we’d be unwilling to venture into Cam McCarthy country even on minimum chips.
Click to expand...
If we weren’t willing to get Hogan for nothing then we definitely won’t get McCarthy.
 
Timmy from Thomastown said:
Then it’s not a deal. What’s the afl up to, approving deals that haven’t even been agreed yet?

That said if there’s no firm agreement about how much Collingwood should subsidise..... then it has to be nothing!!!! Or at least Collingwoods final offer. Could be a small win for us here.

Dogs might regret not letting Dunkley go.
Click to expand...

This would not be a small win, it would be a big loss.

If it ever actually turns out that we are backing away from a commitment we made in good faith then that is disgraceful, and would probably need to spell the end of those involved.

Whatever happens, we need to rebuild the values of our club from a position of integrity, and if we end up high fiving each other because we've 'shafted' the Bulldogs, I'd be pretty fed up.

I really hope we can come out of this with both sides agreeing that whatever the terms are are true to the original understood intent.
 
Jelly Bean said:
This would not be a small win, it would be a big loss.

If it ever actually turns out that we are backing away from a commitment we made in good faith then that is disgraceful, and would probably need to spell the end of those involved.

Whatever happens, we need to rebuild the values of our club from a position of integrity, and if we end up high fiving each other because we've 'shafted' the Bulldogs, I'd be pretty fed up.

I really hope we can come out of this with both sides agreeing that whatever the terms are are true to the original understood intent.
Click to expand...

I agree. We shouldnt back down from whats been agreed just because a loophole has opened up. That would be detrimental long term to our trading relationships with all clubs. I was only joking that we pay nothing...but sticking firm to our final offer might be a small win...which is what I said.

However if there is genuine disagreement about the exact details of the trade and what has and hasnt been agreed, then we should hold our ground.
 
Jelly Bean said:
This would not be a small win, it would be a big loss.

If it ever actually turns out that we are backing away from a commitment we made in good faith then that is disgraceful, and would probably need to spell the end of those involved.

Whatever happens, we need to rebuild the values of our club from a position of integrity, and if we end up high fiving each other because we've 'shafted' the Bulldogs, I'd be pretty fed up.

I really hope we can come out of this with both sides agreeing that whatever the terms are are true to the original understood intent.
Click to expand...
Given the need for extensions etc, I don’t see how we could possibly have made a commitment like that. If we had then the deal would have been finalised on the day.
 
Can anybody tell me how many vacant list spots we currently have given what we know about trades delistings, rookie promotions and the new list limits?

Looks to me that we have outs:

Reid
Varcoe
Scharenberg
Broomhead
Treloar
Atu (rookie)
Stephenson
Phillips
Beams
Appleby
Wills
Dunn (rookie)

Ins

Big fat zero

Promotions from rookie list

Mihocek

So thats nine net exits from the senior list and three from the rookie list (including one promotion)???

Cuts to list sizes
4???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Jen2310
List Mgmt. Collingwood Trade and FA
1081 1082 1083 1084 1085
Replies
27K
Views
985K
manicpie
manicpie
SchuPie
Trade + FA targets 2024
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
148
Views
10K
Pedro
Pedro
Anzacday
Player Watch Darcy Moore (Part 2)
50 51 52 53 54
Replies
1K
Views
43K
ElliottsMaggies
ElliottsMaggies
JuniorB
Certified Legendary Thread Covid, Life, UFOs, Food, & Wordle :( Part 2
51 52 53 54 55
Replies
1K
Views
42K
jimmy35
jimmy35
Maggie5
Competitions Goal Kicking Comp Game 3
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
3K
Pedro
Pedro
Jen2310
  • Locked
List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion 2023
858 859 860 861 862
Replies
22K
Views
847K
Jen2310
Jen2310
steviewonder36
Is the 2023 Premiership team weakest of the past 3 since 1958
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
black is White
B

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top