21 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Grundy’s served his purpose by keeping Gawn fresh and firing at the business end of the year.

I think it’s more than fair that we grant him a trade so he can seek the number 1 ruck role elsewhere next year.

And then next year and the year after?

12 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

 

Doesn't matter, he won't be traded.

I didn't say he would be traded......nor do I think the club want him traded. However Brodie himself, one of the best in the comp at his field, may want to look elsewhere....why would he want to be lining up at Casey as a backup, especially with Max, us and forwardline firing without him, he deserves better.

6 minutes ago, SFebes said:

I didn't say he would be traded......nor do I think the club want him traded. However Brodie himself, one of the best in the comp at his field, may want to look elsewhere....why would he want to be lining up at Casey as a backup, especially with Max, us and forwardline firing without him, he deserves better.

His agent, Damien Barrett may request a trade, the MFC are in total control of his tenure.

play him this week v north to give gawn a good run in for finals and then ship him port or swans @ eos

I get the sentiment and it’s unfortunate for Grundy that things to date have not worked as planned.  Along side Max firing, Petty/JVR and Melksham playing well does not help his case.

But the guy is getting paid close to a million dollars a season.  So unless we get a very good deal, which includes decent ruck depth then I say suck it up, and get better.

I get the vibe Grundy is a professional, he understands this is his job and won’t be a bad influence or rock the boat.  He seems to clever for that.  
 

There’s a quote floating around on FB demon news from twitter where spoken claims Collingwood would still be on the hook for the $ for Grundy even if he trades 

3 hours ago, Superunknown said:

There’s a quote floating around on FB demon news from twitter where spoken claims Collingwood would still be on the hook for the $ for Grundy even if he trades 

yeh 100% thats how contracts work. a side could essentially sign him for 400-450k a year, we pay 200k and collingwood paying 350-400

3 hours ago, Rossmillan said:

But the guy is getting paid close to a million dollars a season.  So unless we get a very good deal, which includes decent ruck depth then I say suck it up, and get better.

Either Lycett at 30yo or Hickey at 32yo could come in and fill the backup role for a couple years, although both are pretty banged up but unlikely a Sweet/Strauchan/Bryan type wants to sit on the bench at a different side. 

My left field one would be big Goober Crossley from Southport, was looking a real player at GCS pre is cocaine ban and has slotted back in seamlessly at vfl level since.

8 hours ago, Turner said:

My left field one would be big Goober Crossley from Southport, was looking a real player at GCS pre is cocaine ban and has slotted back in seamlessly at vfl level since.

Really impressed me in that Grand Final. Obviously a big jump to AFL for a ruckman but could be worth inviting to train over Summer?

21 hours ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

My Pie supporting mate says he heard / read an interview with Graham Wright, he apparently said that should Grundy be traded that they are no longer responsible for part of his wage. Citing their deal was with Melbourne not a third party. I wouldn’t have thought it mattered. Do the Pies have a case on a technicality in his contract?

21 hours ago, SFebes said:

I think that would be correct. We'd then take on the remainder of what his new contract is.

ie; $950,000 is the apparent figure

New club $600,000

We pay $350,000

Collingwood $0

But I'm probably wrong. Its still a lengthy contact too from memory?

I don't think this is clear or even known as it's never happened before.

The argument that Collingwood wouldn't be on the hook is that they only have an agreement with us - i.e. they pay $350k or whatever it is towards his contract whilst he plays for us. If we then wanted to trade him, the argument is that they would say to us "you can do whatever you want but we're not going to keep paying the $350k".

Of course, I can't see why they couldn't agree to do it - it wouldn't change what they'd budgeted for in their salary cap. I think the idea is that it's just opportunistic, with the new contract they could squeeze us and hold off on contributing anything, forcing us to find the money if we or Grundy really wanted to find a trade.

 

36 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I don't think this is clear or even known as it's never happened before.

The argument that Collingwood wouldn't be on the hook is that they only have an agreement with us - i.e. they pay $350k or whatever it is towards his contract whilst he plays for us. If we then wanted to trade him, the argument is that they would say to us "you can do whatever you want but we're not going to keep paying the $350k".

Of course, I can't see why they couldn't agree to do it - it wouldn't change what they'd budgeted for in their salary cap. I think the idea is that it's just opportunistic, with the new contract they could squeeze us and hold off on contributing anything, forcing us to find the money if we or Grundy really wanted to find a trade.

If Collingwood won't pay their approx 300k per year I doubt there's a trade.

No ones offering Grundy $1M per year and if you are Grundy are you prepared to forego $1M (the Collingwood subsidy) over the next 3 years

19 hours ago, Superunknown said:

There’s a quote floating around on FB demon news from twitter where spoken claims Collingwood would still be on the hook for the $ for Grundy even if he trades 

I think we could be pretty confident, that the the transfer deal doesn’t say, Pies are off the hook if we trade Grundy.

I don’t think the parties would have even envisaged a further trade.

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

If Collingwood won't pay their approx 300k per year I doubt there's a trade.

No ones offering Grundy $1M per year and if you are Grundy are you prepared to forego $1M (the Collingwood subsidy) over the next 3 years

there won't be a trade anyway.

The point everyone (especially the media) seems to miss with the Grundy debate (and apologies if covered already but I can't read 122 pages of comments) and this may not be how it was envisaged when he was recruited but... Grundy's presence on our list whether it be to fill in when Max was injured or to share rucking duties with Max in games has allowed Max to get to round 20 in really good shape. He's fresh, not banged up like he was this time last year. If that allows Max to ruck solo for the rest of the season and have a dominant finals series then the investment in Grundy (who may not get another game in the period) has been worth every cent!

On 8/1/2023 at 12:26 AM, Turner said:

yeh 100% thats how contracts work. a side could essentially sign him for 400-450k a year, we pay 200k and collingwood paying 350-400

Either Lycett at 30yo or Hickey at 32yo could come in and fill the backup role for a couple years, although both are pretty banged up but unlikely a Sweet/Strauchan/Bryan type wants to sit on the bench at a different side. 

My left field one would be big Goober Crossley from Southport, was looking a real player at GCS pre is cocaine ban and has slotted back in seamlessly at vfl level since.

So in effect we'd have to pay $200k  to save $400-450 for a wasted trade. Then if Gawn gets injured we are stuffed.

 

6 hours ago, Demon Jim said:

The point everyone (especially the media) seems to miss with the Grundy debate (and apologies if covered already but I can't read 122 pages of comments) and this may not be how it was envisaged when he was recruited but... Grundy's presence on our list whether it be to fill in when Max was injured or to share rucking duties with Max in games has allowed Max to get to round 20 in really good shape. He's fresh, not banged up like he was this time last year. If that allows Max to ruck solo for the rest of the season and have a dominant finals series then the investment in Grundy (who may not get another game in the period) has been worth every cent!

You don't have a bloke on a 5 year contract to fulfill that role.

I don't think BG will be moving clubs. However, is it possible that the agreement to pay part of his wages is between the CFC and BG himself so it goes wherever he goes and Melbourne have agreed to a separate contract with him? 

On 8/1/2023 at 4:03 PM, drysdale demon said:

there won't be a trade anyway.

Hahahah you were saying exactly this with Luke Jackson last yeah.

My opinion is it does not really matter how he goes in the VFL, up to a point. His actual presence is the point.

Will possibly play in two or three of the last games and then, depending on fitness and opposition and conditions he will play.

Who have we beaten with him in the side? The forward business is just a ruse.

49 minutes ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

I don't think BG will be moving clubs. However, is it possible that the agreement to pay part of his wages is between the CFC and BG himself so it goes wherever he goes and Melbourne have agreed to a separate contract with him? 

Yes that is possible, if not probable.

12 hours ago, Willmoy1947 said:

My opinion is it does not really matter how he goes in the VFL, up to a point. His actual presence is the point.

Will possibly play in two or three of the last games and then, depending on fitness and opposition and conditions he will play.

Who have we beaten with him in the side? The forward business is just a ruse.

And how has our forward line looked without Grundy in the past 3 weeks?

And as if we're going to keep chopping and changing our structure leading up to the finals just to keep Grundy happy.

Grundy is only a direct replacement for an injured Max, and god forbid if that happens.

12 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Hahahah you were saying exactly this with Luke Jackson last yeah.

Fair Dinkum, Grundy's mum isn't ordering him home. Jackson was out of contract, Grundy is contracted for another few years and the MFC have complete control over his future.

You seem one of the ones on this site who falls for anything that the mdia scribes come up with.

24 minutes ago, mo64 said:

And how has our forward line looked without Grundy in the past 3 weeks?

And as if we're going to keep chopping and changing our structure leading up to the finals just to keep Grundy happy.

Grundy is only a direct replacement for an injured Max, and god forbid if that happens.

You make good points even though you seem to have bias against him. In our game two good big players should beat two good small players and i think there is room for him and Max in the same side given conditions.

You know on a fine day we beat the League Leaders and favourite, don't you, with those two in and it should have been more.

We will keep changing our structure, I'm afraid, depending on many things. And it will have nothing to do with Grundy being happy.

Just as Grundy replaced Max earlier this season with success, he will do it again if necessary.

I think Brodie plays this week. North, Carlton and Hawthorn each run two rucks.

Despite Max's great form and high gametime, I don't think we want to [censored] him solo over that period.  In the last 3 weeks when he has gone solo, it has been against opposition with a solo ruck.

After Hawthorn, I think it depends.  Selection will be fascinating.