Oppo Camp Adam Treloar (Traded to Bulldogs 2020)

Remove this Banner Ad

Timmy from Thomastown said:
It will happen. Just like trade week it will be staring competition until somebody blinks.

If nobody blinks before deadline (eg draft night) the AFL will make a decision

The trade will stand though. Those looking for blood in that respect will be sadly disappointed.
Click to expand...

I agree its not about looking for blood, both clubs & the AFL should be looking at how it occurred.

You spot on over the deadline when the AFL is forced to make a decision knowing 16 other clubs are watching.
If it hasnt been sorted, what draft order applies, who are the winners/losers?
 
Outback Footy said:
Im sorry, in that case youre very much mistaken. This is a series of massive Pies mistakes and no matter how much dodging and weaving Ed does he cant avoid it.

Youre a great club with a fantastic history but youre being really poorly managed atm. Your 2010 side should have gone on to greatness. Anyway, spilt milk. But you wont be getting any better or getting away from these ongoing issues until management fromt he top down is reviewed. What Im suggesting is you need to emulate your neighbours.
Click to expand...
I’ve been as critical of this club and how’s its run for a long time, I couldn’t even remember the last positive thing I’ve said about it from an administrative point of view. But the doomsday preaching you’re stating of long term effects are being greatly exaggerated imo.

The AFL moves on from these things quite quickly, especially if the right people are at the club. That’s the issue going forward and has been for a long time, whatever happens from this, is not.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kwality said:
I agree its not about looking for blood, both clubs & the AFL should be looking at how it occurred.

You spot on over the deadline when the AFL is forced to make a decision knowing 16 other clubs are watching.
If it hasnt been sorted, what draft order applies, who are the winners/losers?
Click to expand...

I doubt the draft order will change. In the absence of agreement I reckon the AFL will simply decide the salary subsidy Collingwood owes the Western Bulldogs. Something between nil and plenty.

Maybe they will enter into an additional pick swap as well. But that’s something all teams can do at any time.

But the bones of the trade... Treloar carries his contract over to his new club... that won’t change.
 
Outback Footy said:
The problem for Pies is that the ethics of this are obvious and written all over the issue. And the entire football industry and fandom see it as it is. A massive list management blunder (well a series of massive blunders) and now trying hard to burn a faithful player to boot.

What we know;
Adam did the Pies a massive favour by taking unders.
Pies compensated him as agreed with his new contract, signed only a few months ago, didnt the list managers know they had a problem then? If not how?
Pies shat all over him to get him to agree to move, remember he didnt want to go anywhere.
Now by all reports Pies dont want to meet their contractual (and ethical) responsibilities of paying him what they (not the dogs) agreed to pay him.
Adam needs to be paid. If the pies had been paying him market value this would never have been an issue. Dogs would still be paying him 600k (market value as I say) and Pies would have better value in the trade.
And before you all say "ah ha! You admit it wasnt a fair trade". Of course it wasnt, you needed him gone, we had the whip hand. That doesnt affect his salary at WBD in any way. Unless of course we also had an incompetent list manager.

This will all be settled, Adam will be paid and one day we'll find out how. rather than trying to blame the dogs for being such harsh (effective?) trading partners maybe start looking at the team or people at the pies who orchestrated this situation. And think about the perception in would be trade targets minds. And current players. Do you think anybody would even look at a
back ended Collingwood contract now?
Click to expand...


Look, you seem an earnest fellow and quite likeable.. but ..... you are pulling some of these figures out of your backside...

Who says 600k is market value? You, that's who. Adam arrived at Collingwood on 750 a year and no one thought that was overs. Yes he is on overs at 900 now because that's a result of the back ending.

The Pies owe him 870k in in wages pushed back apparently... i'd have no qualms about paying that amount over the five years.. leaving the Dogs to stump up about 725 a year for him.... that's probably closer to his market value.....
 
Outback Footy said:
The problem for Pies is that the ethics of this are obvious and written all over the issue. And the entire football industry and fandom see it as it is. A massive list management blunder (well a series of massive blunders) and now trying hard to burn a faithful player to boot.

What we know;
Adam did the Pies a massive favour by taking unders.
Pies compensated him as agreed with his new contract, signed only a few months ago, didnt the list managers know they had a problem then? If not how?
Pies shat all over him to get him to agree to move, remember he didnt want to go anywhere.
Now by all reports Pies dont want to meet their contractual (and ethical) responsibilities of paying him what they (not the dogs) agreed to pay him.
Adam needs to be paid. If the pies had been paying him market value this would never have been an issue. Dogs would still be paying him 600k (market value as I say) and Pies would have better value in the trade.
And before you all say "ah ha! You admit it wasnt a fair trade". Of course it wasnt, you needed him gone, we had the whip hand. That doesnt affect his salary at WBD in any way. Unless of course we also had an incompetent list manager.

This will all be settled, Adam will be paid and one day we'll find out how. rather than trying to blame the dogs for being such harsh (effective?) trading partners maybe start looking at the team or people at the pies who orchestrated this situation. And think about the perception in would be trade targets minds. And current players. Do you think anybody would even look at a
back ended Collingwood contract now?
Click to expand...
Outback Footy said:
Im sorry, in that case youre very much mistaken. This is a series of massive Pies mistakes and no matter how much dodging and weaving Ed does he cant avoid it.

Youre a great club with a fantastic history but youre being really poorly managed atm. Your 2010 side should have gone on to greatness. Anyway, spilt milk. But you wont be getting any better or getting away from these ongoing issues until management fromt he top down is reviewed. What Im suggesting is you need to emulate your neighbours.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of that. The issue though is that it has nothing to do with whether or not there was an agreement understood by both parties for how much of Treloar's salary was going to be paid for by the Pies and how much by the Dogs. It doesn't look like there was and thus it looks like both parties have stuffed up. I daresay it will end up being settled and in a way that neither team is particularly happy with.
 
cakewalk06 said:
Look, you seem an earnest fellow and quite likeable.. but ..... you are pulling some of these figures out of your backside...

Who says 600k is market value? You, that's who. Adam arrived at Collingwood on 750 a year and no one thought that was overs. Yes he is on overs at 900 now because that's a result of the back ending.

The Pies owe him 870k in in wages pushed back apparently... i'd have no qualms about paying that amount over the five years.. leaving the Dogs to stump up about 725 a year for him.... that's probably closer to his market value.....
Click to expand...
Hes older than he was then and I believe Bont is on similar, remember that our market is different to yours, what we are prepared to pay him to fit into our structure is what Ive based his market value on. Given that we were the only buyer in the market that seems fair. and of course we dont want to hamstring our future financial flexibility by tying too much into one player. My point was that we were paying him what seems a reasonable amount, not bargain basement by any stretch. The trades went in our favour simply because you were so desperate to save $, again not our fault.

You guys paid AT 750 in his prime and agreed to pay him 900 from this season on, they are your clubs valuations and might help explain the hole youre currently in financially.
 
Outback Footy said:
Hes older than he was then and I believe Bont is on similar, remember that our market is different to yours, what we are prepared to pay him to fit into our structure is what Ive based his market value on. Given that we were the only buyer in the market that seems fair. and of course we dont want to hamstring our future financial flexibility by tying too much into one player. My point was that we were paying him what seems a reasonable amount, not bargain basement by any stretch. The trades went in our favour simply because you were so desperate to save $, again not our fault.

You guys paid AT 750 in his prime and agreed to pay him 900 from this season on, they are your clubs valuations and might help explain the hole youre currently in financially.
Click to expand...

If Bont is on 600k a year I can't wait to see him in Pies colour in 2022! You are spending a lot of time railing against a piddling amount really... you guys have already gotten a gift of a prime AFL midfielder for negligible trade cost so really a little flexbility won't hurt....

If no split of the payments had been organised beforehand it's poor form by Dogs, Pies AND Treloar's imbecile manager who has clearly been leaking every step of the way to sam edmund
 
Outback Footy said:
Hes older than he was then and I believe Bont is on similar, remember that our market is different to yours, what we are prepared to pay him to fit into our structure is what Ive based his market value on. Given that we were the only buyer in the market that seems fair. and of course we dont want to hamstring our future financial flexibility by tying too much into one player. My point was that we were paying him what seems a reasonable amount, not bargain basement by any stretch. The trades went in our favour simply because you were so desperate to save $, again not our fault.

You guys paid AT 750 in his prime and agreed to pay him 900 from this season on, they are your clubs valuations and might help explain the hole youre currently in financially.
Click to expand...
You've had your fun, but you're just annoying now.

Time to move along matey.
 
I think the WB supporters should build a statue of Tom Boyd. Won 'em a flag and then let them off when he retired prematurely on a million dollar contract. There but for the grace of god go they.....
Lots of our blokes hung on for dear life and made us pay.
 
Outback Footy said:
The problem for Pies is that the ethics of this are obvious and written all over the issue. And the entire football industry and fandom see it as it is. A massive list management blunder (well a series of massive blunders) and now trying hard to burn a faithful player to boot.

What we know;
Adam did the Pies a massive favour by taking unders.
Pies compensated him as agreed with his new contract, signed only a few months ago, didnt the list managers know they had a problem then? If not how?
Pies shat all over him to get him to agree to move, remember he didnt want to go anywhere.
Now by all reports Pies dont want to meet their contractual (and ethical) responsibilities of paying him what they (not the dogs) agreed to pay him.
Adam needs to be paid. If the pies had been paying him market value this would never have been an issue. Dogs would still be paying him 600k (market value as I say) and Pies would have better value in the trade.
And before you all say "ah ha! You admit it wasnt a fair trade". Of course it wasnt, you needed him gone, we had the whip hand. That doesnt affect his salary at WBD in any way. Unless of course we also had an incompetent list manager.

This will all be settled, Adam will be paid and one day we'll find out how. rather than trying to blame the dogs for being such harsh (effective?) trading partners maybe start looking at the team or people at the pies who orchestrated this situation. And think about the perception in would be trade targets minds. And current players. Do you think anybody would even look at a
back ended Collingwood contract now?
Click to expand...
You know what doesn't look good ethically? Promising Treloar that you would take him on and having him sign a $600k deal, whilst knowing full well that you hadn't worked out the particulars of how he would receive the $300k owing to him. You convinced him to join your club on the false proviso that he would be paid more than you could actually offer and the chance of winning a premiership. If you couldn't pay up, you should have said so just like St Kilda did when approached.

What's the odds that Treloar would have looked elsewhere if he had known that there was no way that you guys could have foot the bill for his services? Guaranteed that other premiership contenders would have found room to fit him in for $600k and a lousy draft pick - and we would have dealt with them instead- if that was the actual going rate.
 
Outback Footy said:
Hes older than he was then and I believe Bont is on similar, remember that our market is different to yours, what we are prepared to pay him to fit into our structure is what Ive based his market value on. Given that we were the only buyer in the market that seems fair. and of course we dont want to hamstring our future financial flexibility by tying too much into one player. My point was that we were paying him what seems a reasonable amount, not bargain basement by any stretch. The trades went in our favour simply because you were so desperate to save $, again not our fault.

You guys paid AT 750 in his prime and agreed to pay him 900 from this season on, they are your clubs valuations and might help explain the hole youre currently in financially.
Click to expand...
Didn't your team bully Tom Boyd into retirement, and caused his mental health illness by having players s**t in his locker due to salary jealousy?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Timmy from Thomastown said:
The deal won’t be rejected. It has happened. The compensation will be arbitrated if they can’t agree.

There are two parties here and neither can claim to be in the right. As I said you have a perfect right to assume it’s all Collingwoods fault. You might be right but I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how the salary can be arbitrated when it’s a component of the value of the deal that was signed. Attributing a different contribution value changes the complexion of the trade entirely and isn’t what was agreed to.

The AFL should absolutely be rescinding the deal if the two clubs don’t come to an agreement IMO
 
Tarkyn_24 said:
I don’t see how the salary can be arbitrated when it’s a component of the value of the deal that was signed. Attributing a different contribution value changes the complexion of the trade entirely and isn’t what was agreed to.

The AFL should absolutely be rescinding the deal if the two clubs don’t come to an agreement IMO
Click to expand...

The salary compensation can most certainly be arbitrated if the AFL agreed to an extension on the basis that these clubs would close these details off later.....and now find they cant.

There is zero chance of Treloar returning to Collingwood. The deal will stand.

If they arbitrate fairly, they will see that Treloar was given away for absolute peanuts... and no salary compensation is payable by Collingwood to the Dogs. The Dogs should know that is a huge risk and should try and negotiate something more reasonable before they end up copping the entire Treloar bill.
 
Last edited:
If Collingwood were offering to pay 300k per year to let Treloar go for a nothing pick, there would have been 9 other Victorian clubs comfortably making enough room to fit him in. Our mob is incompetent as * but I sense it's the dogs who have done the dodgy here.
 
Jasper84 said:
If Collingwood were offering to pay 300k per year to let Treloar go for a nothing pick, there would have been 9 other Victorian clubs comfortably making enough room to fit him in. Our mob is incompetent as fu** but I sense it's the dogs who have done the dodgy here.
Click to expand...
Swish. Nothing but net.
 
Outback Footy said:
The problem for Pies is that the ethics of this are obvious and written all over the issue. And the entire football industry and fandom see it as it is. A massive list management blunder (well a series of massive blunders) and now trying hard to burn a faithful player to boot.

What we know;
Adam did the Pies a massive favour by taking unders.
Pies compensated him as agreed with his new contract, signed only a few months ago, didnt the list managers know they had a problem then? If not how?
Pies shat all over him to get him to agree to move, remember he didnt want to go anywhere.
Now by all reports Pies dont want to meet their contractual (and ethical) responsibilities of paying him what they (not the dogs) agreed to pay him.
Adam needs to be paid. If the pies had been paying him market value this would never have been an issue. Dogs would still be paying him 600k (market value as I say) and Pies would have better value in the trade.
And before you all say "ah ha! You admit it wasnt a fair trade". Of course it wasnt, you needed him gone, we had the whip hand. That doesnt affect his salary at WBD in any way. Unless of course we also had an incompetent list manager.

This will all be settled, Adam will be paid and one day we'll find out how. rather than trying to blame the dogs for being such harsh (effective?) trading partners maybe start looking at the team or people at the pies who orchestrated this situation. And think about the perception in would be trade targets minds. And current players. Do you think anybody would even look at a
back ended Collingwood contract now?
Click to expand...
How do you know backending his contract was Collingwoods idea?
 
Jasper84 said:
If Collingwood were offering to pay 300k per year to let Treloar go for a nothing pick, there would have been 9 other Victorian clubs comfortably making enough room to fit him in. Our mob is incompetent as fu** but I sense it's the dogs who have done the dodgy here.
Click to expand...
I think the smart lawyers down at the dogs say this as an opportunity to screw us more.
 
Prochard123 said:
Didn't your team bully Tom Boyd into retirement, and caused his mental health illness by having players sh*t in his locker due to salary jealousy?
Click to expand...

That's the rumour but one of those players is now at Essendon and one is at Geelong. At least one hung on by the skin of his teeth due to being a father-son. It seemed to have a negative affect on season 2017, we looked lost. I'll never forgive Stringer for that, he's just an unpleasant person by all accounts.
 
bresker said:
That's the rumour but one of those players is now at Essendon and one is at Geelong. At least one hung on by the skin of his teeth due to being a father-son. It seemed to have a negative affect on season 2017, we looked lost. I'll never forgive Stringer for that, he's just an unpleasant person by all accounts.
Click to expand...
Stringer dalhaus and cordy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Next Key Forward to be traded in
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
jakson68
J
SchuPie
Trade + FA targets 2024
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
4K
jimmy35
jimmy35
Jen2310
List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade & FA 2024
109 110 111 112 113
Replies
3K
Views
109K
memoryofmchale
M
G
Wrighty's Trading Smarts.
2 3
Replies
62
Views
4K
nahnah
nahnah
MyManLynch
List Mgmt. 2024 Season final list (post trade & draft)
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
RobJD
RobJD
PonsfordMagpie
Toast Round 17 = Western Bulldogs 77-89 Collingwood
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
247
Views
9K
Kirby
Kirby
beerbandit
2023 Didaka Medal - Rd 17 - v Western Bulldogs
Replies
22
Views
488
MJC23
MJC23

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top