Jump to content

Gawndy the Great

Members
  • Posts

    4,243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Gawndy the Great last won the day on January 26

Gawndy the Great had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Melbourne

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Gawndy the Great's Achievements

Redleg

Redleg (4/10)

6.8k

Reputation

  1. I think the scenario should be treated like a losing a RFA. Given that Brayshaw earned circa $750K, that should equate to roughly what North got for McKay. im not sure if ladder position has anything to do with it, but it would fairly equate to an early-mid 1st round pick in 2024. Now you have to ask yourself, where would you draw the line? Is it only when the AFL forcibly medically retires a player, which it will only really do on concussion matters. Would you be prepared to accept a similar outcome if it was say Murphy at the Pies? Can this type of precedent be taken advantage of? i.e. will clubs load up players with questionable concussion outlook and offer than high salary, long term deals? i would say it would be unlikely. No one would have expected Brayshaw to be taken out like that and then forced to retire.
  2. Agreed this is squarely on the AFL. After all that was said and done re head high contact, the fact that Maynard gets off is laughable. If I’m a legal team positioning for a class action on concussion, that goes in as evidence item number #1.
  3. It’s a bad incident, but the bloke spun him in a tackle. No way he gets pinged for that. How is he supposed to know Rioli will spin him around. Having said that where the heck is PP running?
  4. I have no idea how this would work, but as employee of the AFL, i would presume some sort of work safe / insurance claim would be lodged. I would also think his lengthy contract would have had a few clauses in their around medically forced retirement. Presumably it’s a standard clause in all contracts.
  5. I dont disagree about pre-season - it has been horrific. But what exactly does standing up and taking responsibility mean? What would it take for you and the broader public to see that we are in fact taking this seriously and not burying our head in the sand? My take: 1. Hearing Gawn yesterday was refreshing, i believe his account re: culture. 2. I think Sammy Edmund also said yesterday morning on SEN, that there is an unofficial ladder of strikes that the AFL and club officials have access to. Surprisingly Melbourne is near the bottom of this despite what is being reported. If true, i am completely flabbergasted as to why that isn't discussed more openly in the media. This is why i believe Pert and Goodwin were so confident in their radio interview re: Culture last year. 3. No doubt we are undertaking our own review on all of this stuff behind closed doors to ensure we are addressing the perceived cultural issues at the club. 4. I do have a few more points that i have self-redacted because it will likely cause me a ban. 30 days in the hole over xmas was pretty difficult. So not sure what else we can do. If every bit of info the club has got on hand tells you we are strong culturally but you have these isolated incidents, why would you throw the baby out with the bath water.
  6. Yes - i know, but did we do enough to try and secure Gold Coasts Pick 4? Feels reminiscent of Max Holmes circa 2020 all over again. Were we caught sleeping at the wheel.
  7. Ill ask the inevitable question off one headline. Did we miss a trick by not chasing Sanders and ending up with Windsor?
  8. Educated guess. There is no doubt in my mind that all parties were involved in the lead up to the announcement to protect their interests. Brayshaw would ultimately want some security for his future; AFL would want to protect its brand, minimize any future legal risks and somewhat control the narrative; club would want some form of compensation for losing a player. With all that on the table, deals are often reached where everyone gets close to what they want. For what its worth, i don't think the AFL would want to be seen as forcing Brayshaw's hand as it risks some backlash and legal consequences for not suspending the action.
  9. i would guess that the management of this situation had a lot of involvement from club and AFL HQ. His medical team advised him to stop playing on the basis of the most recent scans. The AFL in no way sat idle in the background and not have their say. Had Gus elected to ignore the advice, i believe the AFL would have stepped in and revoked his playing license. I think there would have been a lot of compromises made on both sides but ultimately: 1. Gus would take full payment of contract (likely by club and AFL) and guaranteed coverage of all medical expenses and some other bells and whistles. 2. Club would be exempt from TPP implications as a result of the immediate payout. 3. AFL would have asked for some legal assurances of no legal action from Gus now or in future as a result of the QF incident.
  10. Maybe. He has been doing work experience over summer in the same building I work in. I suspect he may also look to making that a more permanent option.
  11. Brayshaw was always playing HB this year. His forced retirement will probably mean Rivers stays back permanently now and takes his spot. Probably opens up the door for Howe a bit more as the likely replacements. Salo is a solid lockdown defender that should feature more prominently this year hopefully. Issue is now we have a lot of list spots to fill over the next few years. We have a treasure trove of cash so will no doubt attract some mature talent over next trade period.
  12. Compensation should be 1. Immediate list spot - but what would we get realistically. Not going to be for like for like. 2. Salary cap space at the end of the year. This feels right and asking for anything more is excessive.
  13. Wheels feel like they are really falling off. Making top 4 would be an amazing achievement in the wake of this off season.
×
×
  • Create New...