It’s been always reported this is a seperate contract between Collingwood and Grundy. Don’t blame the pies for having a crack at getting out of it but they’ll end up paying him regardless. If somehow they’re off the hook you suspect Grundy will be taking a pay cut to leave us. 

  On 27/09/2023 at 10:22, Dwight Schrute said:

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, 

They’d be silly not to try. If they get 4 we can then try to deal with them. Harmes and #15 feels a bit light. They would probably ask for a bit more or take it all to the draft and get a 3 quality players.

Instead I’d try to chase a pick in 6-10 range with our #15 and F1 and secure O’Sullivan. Cats said #7 on the table. 

Looking at the two videos of Viney and Petracca with their 3 vote games floating around on socials, they were both working really well with Grundy earlier in the year. It's a pity.

Nice to see an actual rumour.

Anyone follow WCE enough to know what we are looking at?

  On 27/09/2023 at 09:12, 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. 

Contract is between Collingwood and "player Grundy".

Then Collingwood got a deal with us.

They are still liable to Grundy no matter who he is playing for.

Not sure if mentioned, but apparently we're into Aaron Cadman!

Contracted to the end of 2024 if that means anything.

  On 27/09/2023 at 02:34, 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. 

Options are limited. I’d take him. Fantastic contested marking ability. Chocco would help sort his kick for goal technique. 

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:20, ElDiablo14 said:

Contract is between Collingwood and "player Grundy".

Then Collingwood got a deal with us.

They are still liable to Grundy no matter who he is playing for.

I think this is what is confusing most. To my understanding Collingwood aren’t trying to get out of paying Grundy their component and making us pay it. Instead they are campaigning to have the component of Grundy’s salary they are paying to be removed from their salary cap. No?

  On 26/09/2023 at 05:11, adonski said:

(Not real btw)

Or is it not not real..? What has #ETthetradewhisperheard? All will be revealed.

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:23, dee-tox said:

Not sure if mentioned, but apparently we're into Aaron Cadman!

Contracted to the end of 2024 if that means anything.

Completely off-piste if true. Why would we go for another young key tall who won’t be a huge amount of help to us for the next 2 years?

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:07, dazzledavey36 said:

Makes sense. In my brief appraisal of the tall forwards on club lists, these 2 stood out for Westcoast as desireable cheap options for us (discounting Oscar Allen as a possibility). Bailey particularly with his ability as a forward ruck.

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:19, BW511 said:

Nice to see an actual rumour.

Anyone follow WCE enough to know what we are looking at?

Williams came on towards the end of the year. Not the biggest but a good leap and started winning more taps. Not the most skilled or biggest ball winner but can follow up. Was a forward as a junior so he does have some forward craft but he’d be a second ruck who can play forward. Not exactly a forward/ruck but he’d be a strong body and leap at the ball forward if we are lucky. 

I liked Jamieson in his draft year when he was Jacko’s back up. Athletic running wingman. Hasn’t done much of anything at afl level so far. Would very much be a back up and a roll of the dice. 

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:31, Ethan Tremblay said:

Or is it not not real..? What has #ETthetradewhisperheard? All will be revealed.

Apparently Naughts was so enamoured with how he looked in red & blue, that we're back on 

  On 27/09/2023 at 09:01, 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

I don’t know on what basis the pies can renege on paying Grundy. They committed to paying him twice. When they signed him to the original contact and when they traded him to us. Grundy will be paid his full whack with the pie’s contributing their share. 

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:23, dee-tox said:

Not sure if mentioned, but apparently we're into Aaron Cadman!

Contracted to the end of 2024 if that means anything.

Considering he went for pick 1 last year, what would GWS expect us to pay to get him? And why? They’re not going to replace him as a future KPF option this year and the only way they’d entertain it is if there were serious Jesse-Hogan-like red flag issues we’d have to ignore. 

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:26, BDA said:

Chocco would help sort his kick for goal technique. 

We kicked 16.28 in the last two games of the year.
 

I love Choc, don’t get me wrong, but the hype around his ‘magical cure’ for poor-kicking is ridiculous. 

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:33, The Jackson FIX said:

Completely off-piste if true. Why would we go for another young key tall who won’t be a huge amount of help to us for the next 2 years?

I kinda like it! Sure he looked ordinary at times in his seven games this year but maybe we think he is ready?

Certainly has the build maybe not the tank.

And maybe our attitude is if you're going to go for a tall forward why not get the most talented youngster out there? Invest in the best?

Edited September 27, 20231 yr by dee-tox

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:35, Mach5 said:

Considering he went for pick 1 last year, what would GWS expect us to pay to get him? And why? They’re not going to replace him as a future KPF option this year and the only way they’d entertain it is if there were serious Jesse-Hogan-like red flag issues we’d have to ignore. 

There’s a clear precedent. Tom Boyd: pick 4 and Ryan Griffen.

They’d have to be certain Cadman was all but gone next year, which would be a shock because they traded up for him in the belief he’d stay. 

Pick 5 and Oliver? (They probably couldn’t afford him in the salary cap). Pick 5, 2 more first and a second?

Edited September 27, 20231 yr by DeeSpencer

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:23, dee-tox said:

Not sure if mentioned, but apparently we're into Aaron Cadman!

Contracted to the end of 2024 if that means anything.

Didn’t exactly set the world on fire this year

  On 06/09/2023 at 19:20, Rednblueriseing said:

We're is the logic in (McAdam) choosing  Melbourne when we have Burgos apprentice.... did he not see how long it took for Clarry to recover from a hamstring?

Perhaps that is exactly why McAdam prefers to play under the apprentice than under Burgess.  Clarry was allowed time (frustrating as hell to him and to us) to recover; McAdam was, or feels he was, forced along too quickly and reinsured. 

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:34, BDA said:

I don’t know on what basis the pies can renege on paying Grundy. They committed to paying him twice. When they signed him to the original contact and when they traded him to us. Grundy will be paid his full whack with the pie’s contributing their share. 

Without knowing the inner workingS my expectation would be that when a player changes clubs in this way, the contract agreement would be novated to the “new club”, and a “new contract” created between the “old club” and the player for the balance. Collingwood must be of the belief that the terms of the “additional contract” for the balance must include reference to the “new contract” with the “new club”, and if that agreement is to be terminated (by being novated again to a 3rd club) then the additional contract would also be terminated (or would maybe require their acceptance for a 3rd club to be included). Regardless, it appears that their strategising on this is being done by someone with a poorer understanding of contract law than even I have.

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:34, BDA said:

I don’t know on what basis the pies can renege on paying Grundy. They committed to paying him twice. When they signed him to the original contact and when they traded him to us. Grundy will be paid his full whack with the pie’s contributing their share. 

I brought this up a while ago. I suggested that Collingwood may seek not to pay anything towards Grundy’s contract if he moves on as the current deal is between Melbourne and Collingwood. 

  On 27/09/2023 at 11:43, DeeSpencer said:

There’s a clear precedent. Tom Boyd: pick 4 and Ryan Griffen.

They’d have to be certain Cadman was all but gone next year, which would be a shock because they traded up for him in the belief he’d stay. 

Pick 5 and Oliver? (They probably couldn’t afford him in the salary cap). Pick 5, 2 more first and a second?

Oliver? 3 firsts? What the heck ? - If True, A trade might be more of a mutual interest in that GWS might rate a few midfielders in the top 5 more than Cadman, are happy with Hogans form and would do it for pick 5 and 2nd or Future 1st at worst. So it's really Sanders vs Cadman. Is my guess anyway.

Edited September 27, 20231 yr by John Demonic

  On 27/09/2023 at 05:46, Slartibartfast said:

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.  

Integrity and AFL in the same paragraph?  Interesting. 

  On 27/09/2023 at 06:59, Ouch! said:

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

Ouch!  That worked out really well in both our finals, didn’t it?

  On 27/09/2023 at 10:22, Dwight Schrute said:

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, 

North made PF what, 7 years ago, and have mismanaged their list. How do they qualify for special assistance?