Stupid hypothetical because I'm bored.

With the talk of essendon and saints manipulating free agency compo, perhaps we can do the same with the swans.

Grundy and Jordon are strongly linked there with the media consensus being a 2nd round pick will get it done with Swans taking on the remainder of his wage. 

Jordon will likely net us a 3rd round pick (in the 50s).

Here's my dumb proposal.

1. Trade Grundy to Swans for pick 31.

2. Offer to pay 500k per year for the remainder of his contract. Swans therefore only paying 150k for him.

3. Get Swans to pay over the top for Jordon, 800k over 3years, triggering band 1 compensation (pick 14 to dees).

Grundy and Jordon to Sydney with the swans paying 950k for two players (close to average AFL wage).

Melbourne lose Grundy and Jordon but gain pick 14 and 31. 500k for 5 years the downside however we will be freeing up approx;

- 500k with a potential harmes move.

- 150k for Jordon

- 400k for Hibberd and Melksham

Tomlinson, Brown and T-Mac off this list next year will save close to a million, we shouldn't be tight for cap space.

Melbourne then has 13 and 14 which is superior to the Bulldogs offer for Pick 4.

Out: Grundy, Jordon, 500k x 5yrs

In: Pick 4 and 31

Dumb, I know.

Edited September 27, 20231 yr by Nascent

4 minutes ago, Nascent said:

With the talk of essendon and saints manipulating free agency compo, perhaps we can do the same with the swans

Don’t the AFL have to tick off on all trades? Surely the AFL would look at this as a manipulation of the rules and reject it?

15 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Don’t the AFL have to tick off on all trades? Surely the AFL would look at this as a manipulation of the rules and reject it?

They do, and there is certainly potential for it to be rejected.

However there is nothing actually illegal about any of these transactions.

They've approved salary dumping moves previously and free agency compensation is its own box and in theory it's just about meeting set criteria. In this scenario, Jordon has age, multi-year contract and price that should trigger band 1. AFL won't be getting involved in what clubs decide they're willing to pay for certain players.

Just remember Geelong got pick 7 and Bowes last year and only gave up money for him.

It's a loophole, one that may be closed after this year if my scenario or the essendon/st kilda one happens.

28 minutes ago, Nascent said:

Stupid hypothetical because I'm bored.

With the talk of essendon and saints manipulating free agency compo, perhaps we can do the same with the swans.

Grundy and Jordon are strongly linked there with the media consensus being a 2nd round pick will get it done with Swans taking on the remainder of his wage. 

Jordon will likely net us a 3rd round pick (in the 50s).

Here's my dumb proposal.

1. Trade Grundy to Swans for pick 31.

2. Offer to pay 500k per year for the remainder of his contract. Swans therefore only paying 150k for him.

3. Get Swans to pay over the top for Jordon, 800k over 3years, triggering band 1 compensation (pick 14 to dees).

Grundy and Jordon to Sydney with the swans paying 950k for two players (close to average AFL wage).

Melbourne lose Grundy and Jordon but gain pick 14 and 31. 500k for 5 years the downside however we will be freeing up approx;

-500k with a potential harmes move.

- 150k for Jordon

- 400k for Hibberd and Melksham

Tomlinson, Brown and T-Mac off this list next year will net close to a million off next year, we shouldn't be tight for cap pace.

Melbourne then has 13 and 14 which is superior to the Bulldogs offer for Pick 4.

Out: Grundy, Jordon, 500k x 5yrs

In: Pick 4 and 31

Dumb, I know.

We would be paying $500,000 a year for 5 years for pick 4.

I still hold hopes that we can get Swans pick 11.  Without Grundy they are stuffed and there are no other elite rucks available.  Obviously a pick goes back to them.

2 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

We would be paying $500,000 a year for 5 years for pick 4.

I still hold hopes that we can get Swans pick 11.  Without Grundy they are stuffed and there are no other elite rucks available.  Obviously a pick goes back to them.

That's the simpler and more ideal outcome. I'd be happy with 11 for Grundy and 24 if possible.

2 hours ago, Demons11 said:

You would take Naughton in a heart beat

In less.

Would complete our forward line, with Jefferson developing at Casey.

26 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

We would be paying $500,000 a year for 5 years for pick 4.

I still hold hopes that we can get Swans pick 11.  Without Grundy they are stuffed and there are no other elite rucks available.  Obviously a pick goes back to them.

We’ll probably have a go at Gold coasts pick 10 that they get off the dogs this year 

4 hours ago, Roost it far said:

I wonder if we’re going to be brave. Offer something substantial to fill a need? It appears our draft hand is weaker than we hoped.

Why is the that  do you think Haven't heard this before. Always had to give way to F/S and some Academy picks. 

On 9/26/2023 at 3:11 PM, Bates Mate said:

Great in the air and like him as a player but couldn't bear to watch him fluff easy kicks at goal every week

This. He’s a dreadful set shot for somebody who is so otherwise skilled. Mind you, he’s only 23, so perhaps capable of some de-programming. 

19 minutes ago, Lewis said:

We’ll probably have a go at Gold coasts pick 10 that they get off the dogs this year 

Yes, if they get it.

My theory is the AFL have orchestrated the package to NM so they can use the two future picks to obtain GC 4 but won't give a pick 3 to NM for McKay.  That keeps the integrity of the early picks but gives NM two early picks.  It means we keep 5 (6 after Walters) but GCS won't have 10.

We'll see what happens but IMO it's a pretty elegant solution for the AFL and the other clubs.  

Edited September 27, 20231 yr by Slartibartfast

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting... My present thoughts on TMac and BBB staying for another year are that I'm ambivalent simply because we have so many others leaving thus freeing up spots. Are we better off with them leaving allowing us to plunder the lower levels of the draft and trying to find a diamond. (In saying this I'm assuming injuries and form will preclude both from senior selection in 2024)

Pity you have to give all draftees 2 years as a one year option for lower level choices might actually encourage clubs to give the outliers a chance. Sure we have the mid year rookie draft but not sure that it's the answer as increasingly those players within the elite full time training universe offered by AFL improve at a different rate.

We won a flag with Mitch Brown and Majak on the list, everyone knew what their roles were and no one batted an eye lid. at the same age BBB and TMac will be playing the same roles however because of their successes and careers to date they are being valued and critiqued harder

35 minutes ago, Turner said:

We won a flag with Mitch Brown and Majak on the list, everyone knew what their roles were and no one batted an eye lid. at the same age BBB and TMac will be playing the same roles however because of their successes and careers to date they are being valued and critiqued harder

If they were taking up the same amount of cap space as Brown and Majak, then fine

4 hours ago, binman said:

Apart from the fact that he is woeful kick for goal. 

In all seriousness we should not be drafting or trading in any player who is not an elite kick. Not one. 

@binman But has he trained with Choco's sherrins? 

A potentially big twist in the Grundy deal... (Collingwood playing the spoiler)

This column can reveal that, when the deal goes through, Collingwood will seek clarity from the AFL as to whether the club can remove itself from the deal, and therefore clear the $350,000-a-year space in their future total player payments.

A senior club source, who wouldn’t speak publicly due to the confidentiality of player contracts, confirmed the Magpies had discussed internally the status of Grundy’s seven-year Collingwood contract if he were to move clubs again.

Collingwood’s position will be that it had a deal with Grundy and Melbourne, but not with Grundy and Sydney. It’s a position that might be difficult to get past the bosses at AFL HQ, given that Andrew Dillon and Laura Kane are both lawyers.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/money-money-money-why-the-grundy-poker-game-is-heating-up-20230926-p5e7s6.html

8 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

A potentially big twist in the Grundy deal... (Collingwood playing the spoiler)

This column can reveal that, when the deal goes through, Collingwood will seek clarity from the AFL as to whether the club can remove itself from the deal, and therefore clear the $350,000-a-year space in their future total player payments.

A senior club source, who wouldn’t speak publicly due to the confidentiality of player contracts, confirmed the Magpies had discussed internally the status of Grundy’s seven-year Collingwood contract if he were to move clubs again.

Collingwood’s position will be that it had a deal with Grundy and Melbourne, but not with Grundy and Sydney. It’s a position that might be difficult to get past the bosses at AFL HQ, given that Andrew Dillon and Laura Kane are both lawyers.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/money-money-money-why-the-grundy-poker-game-is-heating-up-20230926-p5e7s6.html

Surely Melbourne will have legally-reliable  clarity on this before he is traded.  
 

It would be an absolute mess if this gets poked at post trade. 

9 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

A potentially big twist in the Grundy deal... (Collingwood playing the spoiler)

This column can reveal that, when the deal goes through, Collingwood will seek clarity from the AFL as to whether the club can remove itself from the deal, and therefore clear the $350,000-a-year space in their future total player payments.

A senior club source, who wouldn’t speak publicly due to the confidentiality of player contracts, confirmed the Magpies had discussed internally the status of Grundy’s seven-year Collingwood contract if he were to move clubs again.

Collingwood’s position will be that it had a deal with Grundy and Melbourne, but not with Grundy and Sydney. It’s a position that might be difficult to get past the bosses at AFL HQ, given that Andrew Dillon and Laura Kane are both lawyers.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/money-money-money-why-the-grundy-poker-game-is-heating-up-20230926-p5e7s6.html

Collingwood have a deal with Grundy not Melbourne 

4 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Surely Melbourne will have legally-reliable  clarity on this before he is traded.  
 

It would be an absolute mess if this gets poked at post trade. 

Nail on the head

By asking the question post trade who takes the risk.

 

11 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

A potentially big twist in the Grundy deal... (Collingwood playing the spoiler)

This column can reveal that, when the deal goes through, Collingwood will seek clarity from the AFL as to whether the club can remove itself from the deal, and therefore clear the $350,000-a-year space in their future total player payments.

A senior club source, who wouldn’t speak publicly due to the confidentiality of player contracts, confirmed the Magpies had discussed internally the status of Grundy’s seven-year Collingwood contract if he were to move clubs again.

Collingwood’s position will be that it had a deal with Grundy and Melbourne, but not with Grundy and Sydney. It’s a position that might be difficult to get past the bosses at AFL HQ, given that Andrew Dillon and Laura Kane are both lawyers.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/money-money-money-why-the-grundy-poker-game-is-heating-up-20230926-p5e7s6.html

The simple solution would seem to be to tell Collingwood to %^#$ their #$%^ with a $#%#.

They traded a player on a contract and agreed to pay a portion of that contract, ongoing, as part of the trade.

What's next? If we on-trade a draft pick do we have to return the original trade value to the source club?

If Collingwood are even fantasising about being able to renege on their trade agreement it is a piercing insight into just how profound their hubris is and, I would argue, a probably cause for a salary cap cheating investigation of them.

11 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Surely Melbourne will have legally-reliable  clarity on this before he is traded.  
 

It would be an absolute mess if this gets poked at post trade. 

Paul Connors says it is a deal between Coll and Grundy for the life of the deal. Coll won’t agitate and risk pissing off Connors. He’s one of the most powerful people in football.

14 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

Collingwood have a deal with Grundy not Melbourne 

They do but what does it say.

One of the things about contracts is imagining imponderables and dealing with them.

GCS contracted Ablett junior and massively front loaded his five odd year deal. The contract had no clawback provisions when he left early. Then there was the Treloar fiasco. (Admiitedly not the lawyer's fault that time)

 

 

Edited September 27, 20231 yr by Diamond_Jim

It kind feels like the Collingwood FC are in the air, ready block the Melbourne FC, and will come down at us with a shoulder charge. 
 

An admin version of Maynard. 
 

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

A potentially big twist in the Grundy deal... (Collingwood playing the spoiler)

This column can reveal that, when the deal goes through, Collingwood will seek clarity from the AFL as to whether the club can remove itself from the deal, and therefore clear the $350,000-a-year space in their future total player payments.

A senior club source, who wouldn’t speak publicly due to the confidentiality of player contracts, confirmed the Magpies had discussed internally the status of Grundy’s seven-year Collingwood contract if he were to move clubs again.

Collingwood’s position will be that it had a deal with Grundy and Melbourne, but not with Grundy and Sydney. It’s a position that might be difficult to get past the bosses at AFL HQ, given that Andrew Dillon and Laura Kane are both lawyers.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/money-money-money-why-the-grundy-poker-game-is-heating-up-20230926-p5e7s6.html

If this eventuates no club would agree to take on part payment of a players contract ever again.

I simply can’t see a world in which the AFL want that to happen.

This has already been floated weeks before and it keeps coming back to Collingwood have a deal with Grundy, not Melbourne.

Still a few days out from the Grand Final and journo's are running out of stories.

Watch North send all 3 of their special assistance picks to the Suns for pick 4, end up with 3 picks in the top 5 and basically get it for nothing. 

No wonder the entire league is absolutely fuming, 

11 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

If this eventuates no club would agree to take on part payment of a players contract ever again.

I simply can’t see a world in which the AFL want that to happen.

Also Melbourne won't sign off on a trade until they have an answer on this and simply there is no benefit in paying him to play for another premiership contender. 

if dees have to pay for him, keep him as backup for Gawn