27 minutes ago, Cheap Seats said:

 

You're implying the other argument is wrong because the MFC will do what's right by Grundy. Fact is they don't need to, they can keep him in the VFL for 4 years.

Im not speaking for the MFC and what they will do, but the argument keep him in the VFL has merrit becuase if that's where the MFC sees teh best value for him so be it.

you're correct in your point though the highlighted point is a small detail. I would argue the contract holds the most weight in this argument.

 

If you’re going to fix the ‘grammer’ you might want to do the spell check too…

And, no, the ‘keep him in the VFL’ argument does not have merrit.

Unless ‘merrit’ is a small woodland creature or something.

4 minutes ago, rpfc said:

If you’re going to fix the ‘grammer’ you might want to do the spell check too…

And, no, the ‘keep him in the VFL’ argument does not have merrit.

Unless ‘merrit’ is a small woodland creature or something.

Haha nothing to say, thats what i thought

7 minutes ago, Demonsterative said:

The club have always tried to do its best by its players. It’s called being a club of choice. Long term reward for treating players well, and creating a culture within and outside the club. 
 

Keeping Grundy is a lose/lose situation for all involved. 

At the end of teh day the club will do what it thinks is best for both. Don't lose any sleep over it.

Doesen't mean the other side of the argument is wrong.

It begs the question, why did he sign in the first place? It's probably safe to say we don't know what's going on and listening to the media holds as much weight as everyone elses opinions.

37 minutes ago, Cheap Seats said:

 

You're implying the other argument is wrong because the MFC will do what's right by Grundy. Fact is they don't need to, they can keep him in the VFL for 4 years.

Im not speaking for the MFC and what they will do, but the argument keep him in the VFL has merrit becuase if that's where the MFC sees teh best value for him so be it.

you're correct in your point though the highlighted point is a small detail. I would argue the contract holds the most weight in this argument.

 

Well that would be plain stupid and unprofessional. 

We have always acted professional in the way we've accommodate past players in either looking for a fresh start or seeking a trade.

It's why past players leave good terms with the club.

4 minutes ago, Cheap Seats said:

At the end of teh day the club will do what it thinks is best for both. Don't lose any sleep over it.

Doesen't mean the other side of the argument is wrong.

It begs the question, why did he sign in the first place? It's probably safe to say we don't know what's going on and listening to the media holds as much weight as everyone elses opinions.

You’re right CS. The club will do what is best for all parties. 
 

Recent history says the punitive route will not be part of anyone’s thinking. 

29 minutes ago, rpfc said:

If you’re going to fix the ‘grammer’ you might want to do the spell check too…

And, no, the ‘keep him in the VFL’ argument does not have merrit.

Unless ‘merrit’ is a small woodland creature or something.

Like these little guys?

14 minutes ago, Nascent said:

Like these little guys?

Cheap Seats does remind me of those woodland creatures. 
 

And yes, I have seen that episode…

42 minutes ago, Cheap Seats said:

Haha nothing to say, thats what i thought

I have said my bit, you’re the one with only nonsense to add. 

Keeping Grundy only to let him rot in the VFL for $600k+ a year? No winners in that one.

12 hours ago, rpfc said:

I have said my bit, you’re the one with only nonsense to add. 

I agree your argument is weak, I didn't lose any sleep over it.

Edited September 7, 20232 yr by Cheap Seats

13 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Well that would be plain stupid and unprofessional. 

We have always acted professional in the way we've accommodate past players in either looking for a fresh start or seeking a trade.

It's why past players leave good terms with the club.

I have no issues with that argument, and I agree it's good leadership.

My point was in relation to others saying it's wrong to keep him in the VFL.

I'm not communicating about the actions the MFC might or should take. Fact is if the MFC decides Grundys best value to the club is in the VFL there isn't much apart from bitching publically he can do.

Argue the right or wrong of the decision all you like but clubs in the past have kept players against their will. It's not an unrealistic option.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Cheap Seats said:

I have no issues with that argument, and I agree it's good leadership.

My point was in relation to others saying it's wrong to keep him in the VFL.

I'm not communicating about the actions the MFC might or should take. Fact is if the MFC decides Grundys best value to the club is in the VFL there isn't much apart from bitching publically he can do.

Argue the right or wrong of the decision all you like but clubs in the past have kept players against their will. It's not an unrealistic option.

 

 

If he seeks a trade i think Melbourne will happily accommodate that for him.

Grundy will still be with us till season over regardless of everything going on.

What happens if Gawn gets injured Grundy comes in and we win or lose the GF with him in the ruck.?

 

On 9/4/2023 at 1:34 PM, Roost it far said:

Lobb's a spud, I'd happily take Lynch for $700K for 2 years

Had had more injuries than most in his last 2 years and lucky not to be outed by the MRO a few times. Would put him on a games played base contest with bonuses for 3 years and tske a chance. Or pay $800 per year for 3 and upset all and sundry. 

3 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

If he seeks a trade i think Melbourne will happily accommodate that for him.

You're probably right, but it's not the point I was discussing so we'll move on.

16 hours ago, rpfc said:

Cheap Seats does remind me of those woodland creatures. 
 

And yes, I have seen that episode…

Haha yes, sorry you're a victim. It's not personal.

I assume we're done here so I'll let you kids go back to imagination land. 

An ageing Max Gawn with Grundy playing understudy is a good problem to have. Rostering on in alternating weeks next year could afford both players longevity they might otherwise not get. Having a experienced, quality ruck matters.

[censored] they should have played Grundy tonight. Tmac offered zero. Grundy would have at least pinched hit in the ruck.

1 minute ago, Cheap Seats said:

[censored] they should have played Grundy tonight. Tmac offered zero. Grundy would have at least pinched hit in the ruck.

Agree, I thought the McDonald move was correct but he was even less mobile than I thought he would be.

Also, I prefer him taking centre bounces over Gawn.

42 minutes ago, Cheap Seats said:

[censored] they should have played Grundy tonight. Tmac offered zero. Grundy would have at least pinched hit in the ruck.

Grundy is going to get a chance to show how valuable he is. JVR will get at least a week and maybe more. JJ is now a must to come in as well.

Surely Grundy plays next week 

Grundy could’ve been useful tonight. Surely he’s gotta play next week.

I said it in the pre game, the podcast, everywhere. I did not want this afterthought on whether we could have used Grundy or not.

Don't think it would have been a massive difference but geez.

8 minutes ago, layzie said:

I said it in the pre game, the podcast, everywhere. I did not want this afterthought on whether we could have used Grundy or not.

Don't think it would have been a massive difference but geez.

I'm not sure it would have been a big factor either, although being able to throw Grundy into the ruck in the first quarter, when Cox won the first 9 hit outs of the game, could have shifted the momentum and kept us closer at quarter time.

Whoever lost tonight were always going to look at selection and say what might have been.

I’d play Grundy the ruck and have Gawn rotate between forward and dropping back into defence.