25 for Greenwood is probably slightly unders when you just consider his ability and results from this year but when you consider that he's out of contract, he nominated a club and 25 was just about all that club had to trade then it changes the entire situation. 25 is fair when you consider not only his ablity and results of this year but the other factors involved. We are by no means getting 'bent over.'
Agree with all of that, what I don't get is the mindset from some is the 'we have no leverage, so something is better than nothing'
Why shouldn't we turn the screws on Collingwood and play hardball? See if teams like the Dogs are going to pay if we send him to the PSD? Yeah something is better that nothing but that isn't the only risk. Probably hasn't been demonstrated in Levi's scenario, but letting players get to clubs of their choosing automatically gives the impression that 1. Opposition clubs in subsequent situations will know we will cave in and 2. Next player out of contract will have their manager in their ear trying to do the same thing Levi/Pickering has done.
Admittedly all the above is worst case scenario as we have good morale around the club, but im rather disappointed we didn't push for more from a club that has a history of being kents during trade week. Levi doesn't owe us anything and we don't owe him anything by getting him to Collingwood.