23 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

Yup stick to 27,  I wouldn't be surprised if Collingwood have cracked the [censored] because Grundy has said he will take a pay cut!

Pretty sure the pay cut is a furphy. The pies will try to pay as much of the 1.5M or whatever it is they are contributing as fast as they can, the bulk of it in the first 2 years. And if our cap management has been good we’ll do the same so he’s not on 650 aged 32.
 

The net result is Grundy gets front loaded by a significant amount. He might get as much as an extra million (pre tax) over the first 2 years of the deal than in the last 3. Enough to buy another investment property ahead of time and easily collect the amount he’s given up. 

46 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Herald Sun the other day suggested or indicated a round 1 Collingwood V Melbourne in recognition of this trade.

Would be Collingwood’s home game.

Hi BBP. If I remember correctly the same happened when Peter Moore played his first game for us. They hung a banner along the upper deck of the southern stand at the Punt Road end that said Moore Filth. We ended up losing that one too. 

13 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Pretty sure the pay cut is a furphy. The pies will try to pay as much of the 1.5M or whatever it is they are contributing as fast as they can, the bulk of it in the first 2 years. And if our cap management has been good we’ll do the same so he’s not on 650 aged 32.
 

The net result is Grundy gets front loaded by a significant amount. He might get as much as an extra million (pre tax) over the first 2 years of the deal than in the last 3. Enough to buy another investment property ahead of time and easily collect the amount he’s given up. 

Where has it been said the Pies will front load their contribution?

2 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Where has it been said the Pies will front load their contribution?

It hasn’t, but they’d be mad no to. If they’re bringing in 4 or 5 new players you’d surely prioritise getting rid of the pay outs to former players.

Either way Grundy will be getting paid by 2 different clubs so you’d expect some front loading, or at least more than the original deal that was signed by cash strapped Collingwood. More cash up front = an incentive for Brodie to have a small wage deduction. There’s no way his manager would agree to it otherwise.

2 hours ago, Nascent said:

Did you watch the video? Tim Lamb is literally on the phone asking if Richmond had traded the pick to Carlton while Taylor and Goodwin are affirming our selections of Bowey and Laurie prior to the trade happening with Geelong.

I'm sure we accounted multiple scenarios and pre-draft, but I don't see how anyone can say with any authority that we missed our targets after watching this video. You'd have to be on the recruiting team to say for certain.

Preamble unshown. Ignore the subtitles leading into the discussion. Some non-verbatim below, plus some subjective opinions on body language.

Goodwin: How tall is he?

Taylor to Lamb: The one you like? (quite pointed, I think).

Discussion around height, 180cm, which refers to Laurie (Bowey is a bit shorter).

Taylor, already looking disappointed, says we’re not bringing in bigs, but reassures our coach that those being discussed are ‘lovers of the game’.

I said ignore the subtitles, but here they read: The club had decided on two key prospects. However, a late trade kept the recruiters open for other options. (Basically the truth on a platter).

Lamb on the phone: Are they trading it to Carlton? (pick 20).

Taylor knows the Geelong trade-up is for Holmes. The look he gives when he says it is about as resigned as you can get (1.30 on the video).

Lamb: So we’re going to pick Bowey and Laurie (?).

Conclusion: it’s as clear as day that we wanted Holmes and got trumped by Geelong.

However, while there was media speculation in the lead up to the draft that we were keen on Holmes, I don’t think this can be considered a criticism of the club or our recruiters. It would be basically impossible to operate in some clandestine way – with player managers, family meetings, scouts, pick movements etc. – to not let on who you were interested in.

Geelong didn’t trump us based on media speculation or leaks. The whole industry knows who wants who. Our only failing, maybe, and I won’t bother going back and looking, was perhaps trading up a bit short or at all. We should have also known Geelong were keen, and could get a step in front, and probably did, but that’s the nature of live trading.

While I was death-riding Holmes, he has turned out okay. That should be another tick to Taylor. Also, I'm really useless at draft desires, but was super-keen on Laurie. He may still turn out okay too. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

Hi BBP. If I remember correctly the same happened when Peter Moore played his first game for us. They hung a banner along the upper deck of the southern stand at the Punt Road end that said Moore Filth. We ended up losing that one too. 

Wow your memory is on point. Round 1 1983 in front of 72,000.

We lost a high scoring affair 135-125 with some bloke from Collingwood called Mark Weideman kicking 5 Frankfurts. Moore only took 1 mark and 11 touches.

Demonland was feral that night.

 

1 hour ago, Nascent said:

But this is propaganda.  It's selectively edited. 

Not sure how they've selectively edited two conversations happening at the same time in the one frame.
Selectively edited mostly in terms of we are dropped in half way through - we don't know what was discussed prior. The first clip at around 20 sec may or may not have happened before our two picks. There is editing at around 1:07 (you can tell by Taylor's position not being consistent at the edit point) - maybe this was just to cut out dead space or more likely its cut out something they don't want people to hear.  I don't mean like its a big conspiracy - there's obviously conversations that should remain private.

When Lamb is asking about whether Richmond traded their pick to Carlton, Taylor is saying to Lamb "Happy to take those two... best kicks in the draft".  To me it looks like Taylor reassuring Lamb that although they might not be getting the two they were planning they're still very happy with who they will get. Why would he say it if it was their plan from the start?

Taylor and Lamb's reaction when Geelong call Holmes looks like they are disappointed - maybe they just were disappointed that Geelong got him and they know he will be instrumental to their 2022 premiership campaign... or maybe they wanted to pick him.

Do you think the club would put out a video that shows us not getting who we really wanted? It would be awkward for the recruiters and awkward for the players we ultimately take.

Just the previous year we released a video showing our disappointment in missing out on Georgiades and later Devon Robertson before turning our attention to Rivers. 

Fair enough.  Maybe they learned their lesson?

I think the fact that Geelong trade up just before us indicates they thought we or the next club/s were going to select Holmes.

Perhaps but ultimately guesswork. Cal released a post draft run-down article of varying permutations. He made no definitive link between us selecting Holmes if available but did mention that we were monitoring Angwin closely who went at GWS pick 18. Perhaps he was our real target? 

Yeah it's all guess work.  You might be right on Angwin.  It was more that you said this video clearly refers to Bowey and Laurie as the players we were after before Holmes was selected.  You might be right, but as per above I'm not convinced.

It's still great / interesting content for fans - but just because they say we wanted the two best kicks in the draft, doesn't mean it was our first plan.

Agreed.

I think we know (early days I know) that we would definitely choose Holmes over Laurie right now.  Haven't given up on Laurie but Holmes is a beauty!

At this stage certainly, but like you I haven't given up on Laurie. 

🤞

 

1 hour ago, deelusions from afar said:

 

My point wasn't so much about Laurie and Bowey being our definitive targets, more that there's not enough evidence to suggest Holmes was our number 1 man (which he may well have been).

This is the article I was referencing before that gives a good rundown on the trades and targets behind the scenes.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/533681/cals-draft-feature

Here ist mentions Adelaide offered us 18 and 28 for our back to back picks in which the crows would have selected Laurie. This would have put us in prime position to take Holmes (or Angwin or Macrae) but means we would not get the opportunity to draft either Laurie or Bowey later with perhaps 28 being used on Rosman. We have clearly weighed up the possibilities and decided that a Bowey/Laurie combination is better than Holmes/Rosman. Maybe we were hoping for a Holmes/Bowey combo but clearly aware of the risk of being trumped and were happy bringing in Bowey and Laurie in this event.

Anyway I think I've said all I want on the topic and digressed enough from the Grundy thread. Here's hoping Laurie kicks on and Grundy is traded for 27.

Edited October 7, 20222 yr by Nascent

3 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

It hasn’t, but they’d be mad no to. If they’re bringing in 4 or 5 new players you’d surely prioritise getting rid of the pay outs to former players.

Either way Grundy will be getting paid by 2 different clubs so you’d expect some front loading, or at least more than the original deal that was signed by cash strapped Collingwood. More cash up front = an incentive for Brodie to have a small wage deduction. There’s no way his manager would agree to it otherwise.

We would have to agree to that too. And the AFL. It’s not say straightforward as you imply.

as much as the filth might want to front-load grundy and treloar's contracts, they still need to balance their own books as part of that

from memory, you can pay up to 105% cap for two consecutive years, and then 95% thereafter, so it balances over a four year period?

 

Hopefully we can level the ledger somewhat on this trade. 

8 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

If we give 13 for Grundy then we have been royally screwed right up the [censored] !

5 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

If we give 13 for Grundy then we have been royally screwed right up the [censored] !

It would be 13 + 27 for Grundy + 16.

But I don’t want 13 involved in any way at all

3 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

It would be 13 + 27 for Grundy + 16.

But I don’t want 13 involved in any way at all

This ABSOLUTELY STINKS!!

Prob offer 13 just for Grundy

5 minutes ago, picket fence said:

This ABSOLUTELY STINKS!!

after already getting screwed i don't think we'll be feeling generous when we have the upper hand in this one

at least one would hope

13 to 16 and Grundy back is the only way i'd even consider it (and still hate it).

It’s sliding from pick 13 to 16

 

its not pick 13 alone. 

Oh dear

5 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

It’s sliding from pick 13 to 16

 

its not pick 13 alone. 

With 27 going their way as well. I don't like it and severely hinders any chance of getting into the top 10 this year if that's our intention. 

If recruiters think picks 8-20 are in the same bracket then its just the value on paper. More important is who we have on our board and where our preference is ranked on other boards.

This is the deal to hold our ground on. Collingwood don’t want him. There’s no way Grundy wants back in. The contracts are surely sorted. And we’re 2 picks in the 20’s apart.

Sliding 3 spots higher up to climb 2 spots late is illogical. 

Collingwood are only going to send the pick on to Hawthorn anyway. They can cope 

relax guys that journalist just said a pick slide of 13 to 16 was floated early in the trade period.  this is not a new development

no way we are sending 13 to the Pies in any trade

11 minutes ago, BigMacjnr said:

If recruiters think picks 8-20 are in the same bracket then its just the value on paper. More important is who we have on our board and where our preference is ranked on other boards.

Well that goes against the clubs strategy of  moving up the draft.

Edited October 10, 20222 yr by mo64