WHY ARE COLLINGWOOD APPARENTLY PLAYING HARDBALL WITH BRODY GRUNDY'S NEW CONTRACT?

Remove this Banner Ad

Didn't Jon Ralph write a article the other day saying Grundy hasn't decided whether he wants to stay in Melbourne. It also said that he was in no hurry to make a decision as his contract doesn't expire for another year. So basically it contradicts everything reported about him chasing a 7 year deal.
 
Didn't Jon Ralph write a article the other day saying Grundy hasn't decided whether he wants to stay in Melbourne. It also said that he was in no hurry to make a decision as his contract doesn't expire for another year. So basically it contradicts everything reported about him chasing a 7 year deal.

I would not Believe what Ralph Said
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I want Grundy to be a one-club player but is there any truth in argument that rucks are a bit over-valued? Grundy played the game of his life yesterday but we still lost. For all his dominance, we lose the clearances count most weeks. Similarly, Gawn has often put in amazing performances in Dees' defeats over recent years.

To put it another way, how many premiership winning teams in the past 20 years have had a superstar ruckman? West Coast's victory last year without Natanui is but one example of teams getting it done with a makeshift ruck division.

So, if he really wants to go back to Adelaide and we can get say two top ten picks for him........
Yeah I remember Ottens singlehandedly winning the prelim against us in 2007. Rucks are definitely critical
 
Yeah I remember Ottens singlehandedly winning the prelim against us in 2007. Rucks are definitely critical
Jolly did alright too in 2010. Losing Grundy would be a disaster of biblical proportions.
 
Probably the same dimwit holding this up is the same person who thought giving Dayne Beams 4 years was a brilliant idea.

Let that sink in, a 4 year deal for a 29 year old made of glass is fine, but 7 years for a man at the peak of his powers isnt.

“Lack of flexibility” what a joke, if you want flexibility maybe delist/trade one of the many midfielders we dont need.
 
We have given Adams and crisp 5 year deals this year.
Yet we are offering one of our top 3 players 3 years?
He’s the best player in his position in the competition too.
It’s quite laughable.

Brodes people want 7 we offered 3, it’s probably not that hard to see where the negotiation will end up.
 
Probably the same dimwit holding this up is the same person who thought giving Dayne Beams 4 years was a brilliant idea.

Let that sink in, a 4 year deal for a 29 year old made of glass is fine, but 7 years for a man at the peak of his powers isnt.

“Lack of flexibility” what a joke, if you want flexibility maybe delist/trade one of the many midfielders we dont need.
I totally agree. Brody in not just a ruckman but as well a very competent mid-fielder. In my opinion you are getting 2 A grade plus players for the price of 1 albeit for 7 years. Now that I think about it again, what about 6 years. Would Collingwood fans be happy with that. I sure would. Especially as we would not have made the finals with this one man. No doub!. As well we should offer him the captaincy. So what do all of you think about this. Bye.
 
People are happy to point the finger at Grundy because our midfielders fail to rove to him. When they have done so, the team looks a million bucks.


I sometimes wonder if because they expect the dominant hitouts the midfield put in just that little bit less effort at the contest that leads to the lost clearances...
 
Because you can have a ruckman who gets 50 less hitouts than the other and still win the clearances convincingly.
Yes but how much of that is to do with Grundy's taps to positions vs our midfielders not being in (or getting to) that position for whatever reason? It looked far too prescribed yesterday and repetitive for it to look anything different than Grundy tapping it where he had obviously been told to/they've trained for and the GWS players beating our players to the ball
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I think the question should be why is Grundy so naive as to comment blithely in the press about his deliberations.
Have the thoughts by all means but I don’t think it is helpful for team cohesion to have comments about leaving out there in the press from such an important player, especially coming into a final and especially at Collingwood where the press jump on any tiny thing about the Pies. All it does is put his teammates and coaches in a position where they then get questions about it.
If he truly has the pull to go home to Adelaide but still cares for the club, tell the list management team at the club now, and they can then decide whether they wish to trade this year and get a KPP now or wait until next year and be compensated with a high draft pick. I like him, but if I were the captain or coach I would say better for everyone not to make comments in the media. Some of the younger players may not understand his thinking nor be mature enough to handle it. I thought it was destabilising. Jamie on the other hand was cautious about what he said. Again, if Grundy wants to go, he should deal with this internally and make sure Collingwood has time to work out the best compensation.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
We have given Adams and crisp 5 year deals this year.
Yet we are offering one of our top 3 players 3 years?
He’s the best player in his position in the competition too.
It’s quite laughable.
If the reports are true - don't get caught up on length. Length and money are interconnected. A longer contract gives the player more security, but is riskier for the club because they can fall off a cliff leaving a massive dint in the salary cap with little onfield return - eg. Cloke and Reids big contracts. Thus long contracts would generally come with a salary per year discount for the club. His money demands are obviously bloody large. We've said that we are willing to meet those demands for 3 years, but think it's too big a risk to lock in huge money for a longer time frame. His contract doesn't end for a year, they'll come to an agreement
 
Who is that?
The real bozza.

You can believe it, because he's not one of those fake bozzas.

Although the fact that his handle has the number 1 after the real bozza does suggest that he could be a fake bozza and not the real bozza.
 
Probably the same dimwit holding this up is the same person who thought giving Dayne Beams 4 years was a brilliant idea.

Let that sink in, a 4 year deal for a 29 year old made of glass is fine, but 7 years for a man at the peak of his powers isnt.

“Lack of flexibility” what a joke, if you want flexibility maybe delist/trade one of the many midfielders we dont need.
100% in the camp in offloading one of Treloar/Beams/Sidebottom.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

WHY ARE COLLINGWOOD APPARENTLY PLAYING HARDBALL WITH BRODY GRUNDY'S NEW CONTRACT?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top