Probably - so a mystery as to why it would somehow surface now
It's a mystery that it would only come out when one party is aggrieved with the other?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Probably - so a mystery as to why it would somehow surface now
From The Age article. You haven’t negotiated the Dogs down from what was agreed on trade night. The question is was it ever only $1m or $1.5. If you accept Treloar had $4.5m left then you are also accepting you are paying $1.5mA verbal agreement is still a contract. We will never know if there was a misunderstanding or just an agreement to sort it out at a later date..
The Dogs wanted $1.5m. Collingwood eventually agreed to pay $1.0m. So they have basically met in the middle..
Its a small win. Zero was never going to be the number given the contract was backdated. We were obliged to at least stump up to smooth that out... as a starting base.
Paying part of the salary for an offloaded player as part of a salary dump is not that unusual.
What makes the Treloar deal a real cluster f**k and unbelievable is that there should be a balance. We pay a significant portion of the salary but we get a good pick or we don't pay much of his salary and get a poor pick.
But Ned the genius decided we should get crap compensation and pay a significant part of his salary.
No, your interpretation is incorrect. I have checked this sequencing with Sam Edmund and it is exactly the opposite. Bulldogs are paying more to Treloar up front in 2021 and the Pies less. We are now back ending our payout after back ending his contract caused us pain. I'm sure Beams payout is hurting us in 2021, but the departure of Stephenson, Phillips, Treloar, Atu, Dunn, Varcoe, Reid, Wills, Appleby, Scharenberg, Broomhead, Langdon and Beams while replaced by ~6-7 first year kids has not been enough to make life sufficiently comfortable in 2021 to pay $~300k on Treloar's contract. We were that far over the cap as things stood. Staggering.
5th ParagraphWho is saying this?
And why would they help us?
Makes no sense.
The other thing that makes it a debacle is that Treloar didn't fall off a cliff, he didn't suddenly become a different player. We signed a 25 year old to a contract, he hasn't regressed, he's still the same player we signed, yet we have to do a salary dump. Every other salary dump I can think of is injury or mental health related. This was just a s**t contract.Paying part of the salary for an offloaded player as part of a salary dump is not that unusual.
What makes the Treloar deal a real cluster f**k and unbelievable is that there should be a balance. We pay a significant portion of the salary but we get a good pick or we don't pay much of his salary and get a poor pick.
But Ned the genius decided we should get crap compensation and pay a significant part of his salary.
5th Paragraph
Western Bulldogs and Collingwood resolve Treloar contract dispute
Sam Edmund has all the details.www.sen.com.au
4th Paragraph
3rd Paragraph
Magpies forced to cough up $1.5m as ugly Adam Treloar split finally sorted: reports
Magpies forced to cough up $1.5m as ugly Treloar split finally sorted: reportswww.foxsports.com.au
From The Age article. You haven’t negotiated the Dogs down from what was agreed on trade night. The question is was it ever only $1m or $1.5. If you accept Treloar had $4.5m left then you are also accepting you are paying $1.5m
“The Bulldogs have been adamant they were prepared to pay Treloar around $3 million for the five years remaining on his contract and have not shifted on their agreement to pay that amount to Treloar with the Magpies agreeing to a complex deal that sees Treloar receive what he is entitled, with separate contracts in place.”
Technically probs helps us as well. We obviously have cap space, so pay extra now which means we don't pay as much in a few years. So it probably helps both teams.Who is saying this?
And why would they help us?
Makes no sense.
I'm just quoting the article.
The article clearly states that "Collingwood disputed the Western Bulldogs' belief that the Magpies had agreed to pay $1.5 million of Treloar's $4.5 million deal that extends until 2025." And that the matter has been resolved for "close to $1m"
Hence Collingwood did have a small win in that negotiation, reducing the compensation by 500k from where the Bulldogs wanted it to be.
hard to believe that we've messed up the salary cap so badly that
- we got sh*t pick compensation for Treloar
- we're paying full tote odds to pay out his contract
- Despite dropping 10 experienced players and bringing in 5 first years, we still require Bulldogs to front end his contract to allow us to stay under the salary cap in 2021 while we pay $200-300k p.a.
So much for the $2m freed up as suggested plus Langdon signing off for free.
Categoric, unmitigated failure on behalf of our administrators
There are different articles saying different things some are saying the Pies are paying 1.5 million over the 5 years Others are saying 1 million over the 5 years. Most opposition supporters are running with the 1.5 million while most Pies are going with the 1 million number. I'm not willing to accept either on face value.I'm just quoting the article.
The article clearly states that "Collingwood disputed the Western Bulldogs' belief that the Magpies had agreed to pay $1.5 million of Treloar's $4.5 million deal that extends until 2025." And that the matter has been resolved for "close to $1m"
Hence Collingwood did have a small win in that negotiation, reducing the compensation by 500k from where the Bulldogs wanted it to be.
There are different articles saying different things some are saying the Pies are paying 1.5 million over the 5 years Others are saying 1 million over the 5 years. Most opposition supporters are running with the 1.5 million while most Pies are going with the 1 million number. I'm not willing to accept either on face value.
more of a disgrace when add in Beams situationTake the mid point. 1.25m, still a disgrace.
These are the type of deals that lose flags because someone can't be paid or we can't pick someone up etc.
Bulldogs have played this perfectly. It was a take it or leave it situation. Obviously we couldn’t leave it because of the absolute incompetence of our list management personnel so had to take whatever we could get.
From a Collingwood point of view that is one of the only good points from this. None of the players wanted to leave. We had to kick them out to door bouncer style. Other clubs like Essendon can't say the same. They had 3 senior players all trying their best to leave despite at least one having a contract.That remains to been seen, when your new recruit says in interviews multiple times that he wanted to stay at his previous club, that should raise some red flags, but i guess they aren't too worried about that.
I hope we have learnt something from all this. If we had a premiership or 2 then I guess it would be a slightly different narrative but it's not.
That remains to been seen, when your new recruit says in interviews multiple times that he wanted to stay at his previous club, that should raise some red flags, but i guess they aren't too worried about that.
Its $830k over 5 years exactly. This is what the player believes.
The "$1m" suggestion is the closest to it and Id say rounded up. How much in what year was the dispute.
IU
If this is accurate, $165k or so a year on average is a pretty good outcome for us.
Its not as if Treloar is missing out on this money, its cap space thats being chewed up by WBD.
I think it's a fair thing to say that overspending on bad contracts and underspending/inability to attract the best people in key areas of the footy department has cost us silverware.