Unless people are talking about a different interview, what I interpreted Bucks saying was just that they discussed moving him on as a serious option, but then "found" enough money to keep him. It seems to have since become Eddie over-riding the FD.
After what he dished up in the 2019 prelim it would have down easier than you think.
I remember an interview last year with ? Ned Guy saying they spent most of the year assuming he’d leave and doing a lot of research into possible trade options as a replacement
“Checkers, stop skipping leg day and we’ll consider getting you onto the senior list’
I meant Markov's only done 1 year on the rookie list -wouldn't you upgrade someone whose nearly done their rookie list time so that you've got more options next year?
And he had his finger prints on the beams titanic return
I reckon its great, reward Leggy properly on a great year, if we have the means
We traded any trade capital for Schultz.
Profound
What's the reward?
Veteran
Collingwood - Beau McCreery Player Sponsor 2023
Final 8 Tipping Winner
Collingwood - Caleb Poulter Player Sponsor 2022
Collingwood - Josh Daicos Player Sponsor 2021
Collingwood - Tyler Brown Player Sponsor 2020
Collingwood Magpies - Brayden Sier 2019 Player Sponsor
Collingwood - Jaidyn Stephenson Player Sponsor 2018
Upgrade to senior list.
Need to get him and Nathan Philactides to club.
Yep, exactly this, we want to win flags, still pretty pumped about this year.
It's meaningless
The interview I listened to and read the transcript of suggested to me the decision was made by the FD to offload him and the board overrode that by “finding the money”. As I said I believe Buckley has added mayo across the breadth of that interview. My guess is it was unintentional and if you spoke to others like Guy, Hine and the footy exec (not sure if it was Licuria) you might get different feedback.
www.sen.com.au
This is all speculation obviously, but my guesses in response to the above would be that Markov’s contract isn’t as straight forward as it’s been reported and is likely a 1 year deal with easy triggers for a 2nd year. There’s also the possibility that Markov’s management negotiated him onto the senior list.
A lot can happen in 12 months. We could easily find ourselves with something significant if a player decides to move.
Feel free to share posts of people prepared to trade him on the back of his reaming of Mumford, but this is categorically untrue, IMO. I have no doubt there was a small faction on board with the thought of not requiring a strong ruck group to win a premiership, but those people overlooked why Grundy was so successful in that Collingwood mix which was his impact as a 5th mid.
In the draft thread they’re moaning about moving Ginnivan on. They don’t get the system.
This board is usually reactive to moves rather than proactively suggesting them. Anti Ginnivan sentiment was at its highest on here once his trade started to heat up. If a Grundy trade started heating up back then his the prelim and even the 18 GF would be used to defend the move. There was a small faction against Grundy, a small faction that defended the clubs moves no matter what and a small faction that would have creamed themselves over two first rounders. They would have combined to form a decent opposition view to the keep Grundy at all costs crowd.
