2 minutes ago, Very Jaded said:

I don't think the reports are correct, I think we'd rather take less for him but also pay less of his salary

If we are paying $700k per year for him to play for the Giants, then I expect we get pick 12.

If it's a pick in the 30s, I expect us to pay around $300k a year for him

A pick in the 30s in this year's draft is equivalent to a 4th rounder in most other drafts

Or take the whole contract and we give them a 3rd rounder.

It gets complex depending on which way we bend/how much cap space GWS can eat up.

I just hope it gets done...looking forward to team prospering without the divas.

1 hour ago, Ted Lasso said:

Not how it works Dazzle...

Generally speaking with salary dumps the portion the current club plays dictates the trade outcome, normally if the new club takes on the whole deal it's a very late pick, a pick that gets better as the money goes up and up for the current club.

with Clarry specifically though i think you're right, i suspect the Giants will pay roughly 900k pa, leaving the Dees paying about 400kpa and we'll end up with a very late pick that'll likely not be used.

and that's a good outcome for everyone. we were never getting a first round pick or anything good

I read that Clarry's deal averages $1 million p/annum over the next 5 years and $1.3m is what it peaks at. My guess would be if GWS pay $650k and we cover the balance then for the year it peaks at $1.3m then we pay half but on average would pay $350k. While our club wants a clean slate there is an element of good faith in all of this from all parties (Melbourne, GWS and Olivers Manager) and from memory GWS are usually pretty good to deal with. Clarry's manager will be well aware of the work us and Clarry have put in to the extent that he is actually playing AFL footy.

11 minutes ago, Ted Lasso said:

Great, and that might well be the case with Clarry because Melbourne want him out for reasons that almost certainly go well beyond the money.

But my point was that's not typically how a salary dump situation works, generally the selling club will either give the player away, or even offer something to clear the salary.

this is different because we're only just clearing some of the cap space, unclear exactly how much. I'd be shocked if it's not at least half of his wage though. if not a little bit more.

Isn't this exactly what this is?

Similar to the Grundy situation where we were roughly only paying 300k whilst Collingwood paid the rest. We gave up a second rounder for Grundy from memory.

12 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Im possibly wired differently to others. I get the nicety of wanting/hoping/ watching a former Dee champ succeed, as ought to be his destiny as he was... blah blah blah BLAH !!

Haha. Beelz, "Possibly?"I don't think there is any doubt about that!

Edited Wednesday at 23:191 day by Neil Crompton

We are not moving on Clarry because we CAN'T afford to pay him, we are moving him on because WE DON'T want to pay him

That is vastly different, and how much we don't want to pay him versus how much we want a good return, is what remains to be seen

We will know once the deal goes through if paying less or getting more back was the focus for us / GWS

Just now, dazzledavey36 said:

Isn't this exactly what this is?

Similar to the Grundy situation where we were roughly only paying 300k whilst Collingwood paid the rest. We gave up a second rounder for Grundy from memory.

Bowes from the Suns was probably the more traditional "Salary dump" the Suns gave up pick 7? in exchange for the Cats taking the entire salary off their hands.

Clarry is a little bit different, no club wants him at 1.3 million or whatever he's on so we're offsetting that to essentially make it Clarry at say 700k which is appealing to a lot of clubs.

I don't think we'll get anything in return, but i don't believe we're pushing Clarry out because we want the money, i think the driving force is the cultural re-set angle.

We could offer pick 23 or a future first if a team wanted to take on his entire contract for example, then it'd be a salary dump.

Grundy was more of a soft salary dump, the Pies had a huge and well documented Cap squeeze and needed to move on Treloar and Grundy for those reasons, neither were negative influences in terms of culture and they'd i'm sure have preferred to keep both if they could

It's largely semantics but i think definitions are important in this case, Clarry has effectively been sacked by the MFC, we're paying someone to take him off our hands. If this were a traditional salary dump we'd be saying well if we're paying 700k we get pick 12, but because it's not that, we won't get a lot.

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You know he can't, his post will get deleted and account suspended

Pretty sure his manager would've been involved in discussions at some point.

The meeting with Clayton, Tim Lamb, Richo and King took place in his managers office so both parties should have a full understanding of what took place.

12 minutes ago, Very Jaded said:

I don't think the reports are correct, I think we'd rather take less for him but also pay less of his salary

If we are paying $700k per year for him to play for the Giants, then I expect we get pick 12.

If it's a pick in the 30s, I expect us to pay around $300k a year for him

A pick in the 30s in this year's draft is equivalent to a 4th rounder in most other drafts

The idea of taking on $700k for a 1st rd pick is more palatable than taking on $300k and getting essentially nothing.

The cap will inevitably increase, so the additional $400k is easier to absorb. Plus we have some aging stars coming to their end, so salary cap issues shouldn't be a problem in the near future.

17 minutes ago, Very Jaded said:

I don't think the reports are correct, I think we'd rather take less for him but also pay less of his salary

If we are paying $700k per year for him to play for the Giants, then I expect we get pick 12.

If it's a pick in the 30s, I expect us to pay around $300k a year for him

A pick in the 30s in this year's draft is equivalent to a 4th rounder in most other drafts

In a perfect world sure I agree, but we're paying a premium to clear some trouble to reset the culture.

They're doing us the favour here essentially

2 minutes ago, mo64 said:

The idea of taking on $700k for a 1st rd pick is more palatable than taking on $300k and getting essentially nothing.

The cap will inevitably increase, so the additional $400k is easier to absorb. Plus we have some aging stars coming to their end, so salary cap issues shouldn't be a problem in the near future.

It depends what else we are cooking up, be it this year or next

We might decide that we want a St Kilda like war chest heading into 2026, with King having spent a year turning us from a dumpster fire to a moderately attractive rubbish tip, so we can go after the likes of Butters

And if we think there is nothing worth getting excited about in the first round of the draft beyond the first 6-8 picks, then it might be a risk worth taking

1 minute ago, Mouseymoo said:

They're doing us the favour here essentially

No they're not

They are getting a gun inside mid, to cover for Kelly who will miss the entirety of 2026 more or less

They are in the window, they need to win now, and they are getting a quality player for 4 cents

Is he a mess? sure. So is Bailey Smith.

It's a risk they can afford and want to take

Let's not pretend like we are dumping a 28 year old bit player who has done nothing note worthy in his career

Clarry could absolutely go there and be a star again with a fresh start, and help them win their 1st flag

9 minutes ago, Very Jaded said:

We are not moving on Clarry because we CAN'T afford to pay him, we are moving him on because WE DON'T want to pay him

That is vastly different, and how much we don't want to pay him versus how much we want a good return, is what remains to be seen

We will know once the deal goes through if paying less or getting more back was the focus for us / GWS

Based off what exactly? You're clearly adamant this is the case considering guys like Cal Twomey, Jon Ralph and Tom Morris have all reported that we are more then happy to still pay a chunk of his salary (700k) even if it meant accepting a low pick as well.

17 minutes ago, Very Jaded said:

No they're not

They are getting a gun inside mid, to cover for Kelly who will miss the entirety of 2026 more or less

They are in the window, they need to win now, and they are getting a quality player for 4 cents

Is he a mess? sure. So is Bailey Smith.

It's a risk they can afford and want to take

Let's not pretend like we are dumping a 28 year old bit player who has done nothing note worthy in his career

Clarry could absolutely go there and be a star again with a fresh start, and help them win their 1st flag

He used to be a gun, whether he can reclaim that for is another question.

He is also a risk. One can always relapse. There is a chance this can blow up in GWS's face and they'd be aware of that, hence we have limited hand.

12 hours ago, Demonland said:

He would know what disaster looks like as he was the professor of disaster as a coach!!!!

6 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Based off what exactly? You're clearly adamant this is the case considering guys like Cal Twomey, Jon Ralph and Tom Morris have all reported that we are more then happy to still pay a chunk of his salary (700k) even if it meant accepting a low pick as well.

Based on the fact that we don't have salary cap issues

So again, can we afford to pay him? Of course

Do we want to pay him? No I don't think we do

I have always been a big supporter of Clarry and thought we were going to get him back to his best.

But....that interview has put me off him and showed his maturity, he could have woukd the window up, so he clearly wanted to speak. But to talk about a club that has done what it has over the past 2-3 years to support you in the lowest times is very unprofessional and also a smack to us the supporters who have showed care, love and support the whole time.

Coukd have been the greatest Dee of all time, and had a great career, but the way he has acted this week, not only towards us, but also Collingwood had showed his intelligence or there lack of.

Good Luck Clarry, but with this and Trac to GC just more ammo for me to hate the expansion clubs. (Not that this is their fault)

2 minutes ago, Mouseymoo said:

He used to be a gun, whether he can reclaim that for is another question.

He is also a risk. One can always relapse. There is a chance this can blow up in GWS's face and they'd be aware of that, hence we have limited hand.

How is this different to holding onto a player who is at risk of another ACL? Or has a growing history of concussion? EVERY player is at risk of suffering something that actually takes them off the playing field for weeks, months, an entire year. 'Oliver is a risk' is such a cheap, below-the-belt shot, especially given it implies 'off-field issues'. Oliver has more risk of redoing a hamstring strain, or breaking his hand again than anything else.

2 minutes ago, Adina88 said:

How is this different to holding onto a player who is at risk of another ACL? Or has a growing history of concussion? EVERY player is at risk of suffering something that actually takes them off the playing field for weeks, months, an entire year. 'Oliver is a risk' is such a cheap, below-the-belt shot, especially given it implies 'off-field issues'. Oliver has more risk of redoing a hamstring strain, or breaking his hand again than anything else.

Because Oliver's risks are behavioural and they come with a differnt set of complications and ramifications to the rest of the team.

Someone at risk of doing a calf muscle doesn't pose a risk to your clubs culture. What a bizarre comparison you just presented.

6 minutes ago, Mouseymoo said:

Because Oliver's risks are behavioural and they come with a differnt set of complications and ramifications to the rest of the team.

Someone at risk of doing a calf muscle doesn't pose a risk to your clubs culture. What a bizarre comparison you just presented.

And without being inside the four walls of the club yourself, you have absolutely no idea about 'club culture'. Why the hell do the rest of the team speak so highly of him if he's such a 'cancer'? What a bizarre insinuation that on the one hand, Petracca is the most professional player in the league with the highest standards that rubs off on the rest of the team, and yet one single person can be so negative, and the rest of the team so naive and impressionable that they would be negatively influenced by someone's individual off-field health issues. Have some respect for the rest of the team as being free-thing individuals with their own agency. Stop scapegoating a single player as the bane of all the club's problems.

Melbourne supporters are a weird bunch.

If we get nothing for him and end up paying GWS up to $3.5Million then we would have been better off just tearing up his contract (for breach of contract)

However, proving breach of contract would require a contract that has strict conditions

In a normal workplace he would have been marched out of the joint

A torn up contract frees up around $7Million in cap space (over 5 years) and allows the club to being in some genuine talent

But it's all academic as we've gone down the path of trying to trade him

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Isn't this exactly what this is?

Similar to the Grundy situation where we were roughly only paying 300k whilst Collingwood paid the rest. We gave up a second rounder for Grundy from memory.

Only paying 300k of Grundys salary & still didn’t play him

Grundy 2nd & Jordan 3rd in Swans b&f

Losing ANB 5th in Crows b&f

Hogan, Bedford & now 4 time b&f Clarry at GWS

3 time b&f Petracca

AA May leaving for free!!!

We really should demand some answers to how OUR club has completely collapsed 4 years after a premiership

1 hour ago, Very Jaded said:

We are not moving on Clarry because we CAN'T afford to pay him, we are moving him on because WE DON'T want to pay him.

Is that last 'pay' a typo?

Aren't we moving him because we don't want to pLay him. Pay has little to do with it.

49 minutes ago, Very Jaded said:

Based on the fact that we don't have salary cap issues

So again, can we afford to pay him? Of course

Do we want to pay him? No I don't think we do

You can still salary dump even if you dont have salary cap issues.

Clearly they want him out for cultural purposes but also having a part of his salary off the books is just an bonus, not because we are bursting at the cap hence why we are happy to fork out 700k of his salary according to reports.

2 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

You can still salary dump even if you dont have salary cap issues.

Clearly they want him out for cultural purposes but also having a part of his salary off the books is just an bonus, not because we are bursting at the cap hence why we are happy to fork out 700k of his salary according to reports.

I think we are both saying the same thing, but in different words

We want Oliver out, not for money reasons, but of course the less we have to pay him to play for another club, the better

HOWEVER, if we want to dump a whole heap of his salary because we have stuff planned in future that we need more cap space for, then perhaps we will be happy to take pick 800 from GWS and only pay a nominal amount of his remaining deal

We were fully maximising our chances to win a premiership from 2022-2024. Of course we have salary cap issues.