Hugh Greenwood debacle

Remove this Banner Ad

ferball

Premium Platinum
Jul 24, 2015
27,745
52,845
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Come of it mate, Greenwood was hardly blindsided it was an amicable discussion. The club approached him with the situation, he agreed it was all good then North approached him with an offer that was too good to refuse. Suns didn't want to match the new contract and he's now a shunboner (typo but it's funny so i'm leaving it). Suns are Idiots and Greenwood isn't not a dog.
He's one of the highest rated inside mids in the comp (well at least according to Champion Data, fwiw) and leads the comp in tackles yet we were able to poach him with a bit over $400K a year for 3 years.

That doesn't make him a dog. It makes aware that he was being screwed by the Suns.

One year on 400K... compare that to what other inside mids of a similar ranking and similar performance are getting. I'll bet its more. So not only did the club delist him and take advantage of his goodwill, they did it while undervaluing his performance. All the blame for this rests with the people running your footy club, not the Greenwood himself. At most he would have had two years left at your club, not getting paid what some other players in the comp who are performing at a lower level than him get paid in a year.

The guy has a young family to look after and he has a responsibility to them to get the most out of the short time he has left in the game. We aren't even paying him that much. I have a feeling Trent Dumont was on more per year (couldn't say for sure tho.) Fair enough if you give your word to someone, but you do that on the basis that someone is acting in good faith. I dunno if your club was in relation to Greenwood, not just because of the delisting but cos he was on such a small wage for someone who was performing at his level.

Trying to send us Darcy MacPherson (who is getting paid more for performing less) and pick 19 without checking with him first is another symptom of the clubs terrible player management.

You can't really blame Greenwood for this but you do need to put pressure on your club to fix the footy department before you start losing all the young talent you still have at your disposal.
 

Happy Idiot

All Australian
Oct 12, 2011
745
1,622
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Gold Coast
That doesn't make him a dog. It makes aware that he was being screwed by the Suns.

One year on 400K... compare that to what other inside mids of a similar ranking and similar performance are getting. I'll bet its more. So not only did the club delist him and take advantage of his goodwill, they did it while undervaluing his performance.
Mate, you're inventing your own reality. Goodwill doesn't exist just because of good intentions, you generally need to follow through.

I'm going to donate 50% of my salary to some cancer charities next week – so go right ahead and shower the praise on me now for my excellent character and goodwill, I probably won't actually get around to doing it.

Hugh can be a dog for not following through on his end of the bargain, and the Suns can be incredibly stupid for allowing it to happen.
 

Devington

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 4, 2013
12,347
27,255
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I understand why people are judging Hugh's character, at minimum it's hard to argue this makes him look good, but at the same time I don't particularly blame him for taking up the contract offer. I think most players in his position would do the same.

Gold Coast admin are the primary party to blame though. It's a productive exercise too. Blaming or being pissed at Greenwood won't change anything, but there are people/practises at the club that should be put under immense pressure.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Iva Bigun

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 24, 2008
13,022
16,953
lane Cove Sydney
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
GWS, Celtics, 76ers
I understand why people are judging Hugh's character, at minimum it's hard to argue this makes him look good, but at the same time I don't particularly blame him for taking up the contract offer. I think most players in his position would do the same.

Gold Coast admin are the primary party to blame though. It's a productive exercise too. Blaming or being pissed at Greenwood won't change anything, but there are people/practises at the club that should be put under immense pressure.
It’s been made blatantly clear on multiple occasions that the general consensus is the club is to blame. There is some truth to the fact Hugh was perhaps a little suspect morally on this issue but overall I think you’ll find we wish him well. Now can you stop trying to push your agenda, thanks
 

CommittedSuns

All Australian
Oct 19, 2017
839
982
AFL Club
Gold Coast
This is now old news!! Good luck Hugh the kangaroos need all the help they can get so you will do well! End of discussion bring on the draft
 

The Kings Ransom

Team Captain
Aug 30, 2021
391
490
AFL Club
Gold Coast
aka DE%, no?

Hugh's 58% in 2020 put him 494th in the league.

64% in 2021 was 511th.
Not the same.
An ‘effective’ disposal can be very different than one that has meaningful positive impact.

no point comparing his disposal efficiency to all players in the league. the top 100 is probably 90% defenders that chip the ball around or go long down the line to a contest (all effective disposals)
 

eppo67

Club Legend
May 24, 2015
2,971
6,485
AFL Club
Gold Coast
It is #fakenews. The 'Agreement' if one ever truly existed, has been gone since 2014 when Geelong picked up Cam Delaney in the rookie draft, one pick before North had planned to re-draft him.

True gentleman would never bid on another teams available father/sons, or try and poach an opposition player when their current club wants to keep them.

Now there is some talk that Hugh was happy with the arrangement and promised to knock back any attempts to poach him, but really who here really knows what transpired? The more likely scenario is that Greenwood was confused and hurt by the proposal but went along with it and did his best to support the club, and played the united front card to the media.

I thought what Greenwood has said to this point makes sense, that "24 hours is a long time in football". Some in this thread are acknowledging that he was offered a deal "too good to refuse" yet at the same time, they are pointing to his lack of a moral compass in accepting it!
You clearly did not read his twitter post a short time prior to his departure.
It's extremely close to outright lying.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jen2310

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2018
19,166
28,677
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
“I was definitely shocked, I think because it happened so fast,” Miller told RSN on Wednesday.

“It was like, within 72 hours, he was playing for us and we were looking at what he was doing for our team and then all of a sudden he’s playing for North Melbourne.

“The longer I’ve been in football, the more I realise that does happen in AFL, and the system can shift really, really quickly.”

Miller described the 29-year-old’s stunning departure as a “tough scenario,” but understood Greenwood’s decision to accept a deal from the Kangaroos that was too good to pass up.


“We’re going to lose a senior player who is highly respected in the club and also a very good player in his own right,” Miller said.

“But I think even in his own words he thought that where we were as a club, in terms of his spot in the midfield group with the players we have, it wasn’t really going to be there and the opportunities. So it was going to be a lot harder for him to play in that midfield.

“But in saying that he’s going to be sorely missed, and I wish him all the best for where he’s going to go at North Melbourne because he’s probably in the best nick he’s been in since he’s been at the club.”


“Talking to Hughy, because he had conversations with the leaders, his view was that where we were heading as a club, our midfield group and where he saw himself, it was going to be a lot harder in years to come.
 

SunnerSS

GCSUNSCAST HOST
Sep 3, 2016
2,091
2,401
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I think its pretty obvious.
Club screwed up in their choice of delisting's. We knew why players had to be delisted but we also know they're should have been other choices.

We know Hugh understood the position the club was in and agreed to assist them. (We don't know if he felt jilted as some suggest or maybe he agreed to do it to protect a younger player from the emotional roller-coaster of this process. That's all speculation.)

We know Hugh told the club he would refuse all offers from rivals and that 72 hours later he could not keep his promise.

We also know the Suns had only planned for Hugh to play half a season in 2022 to allow game time to other mids.

what we know The Club screwed up and Hugh's word means nothing.
 

tenderwarrior

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 26, 2003
5,245
4,368
Launceston
AFL Club
Geelong
You clearly did not read his twitter post a short time prior to his departure.
It's extremely close to outright lying.
Close to lying, is not really lying though is it?

I did read the twitter comment pre-trade and Greenwood's response to it post-trade.

We all know at the very least it was a bad look, but a bad look vs extending your AFL career by at least two years on better $$$ under the coach (and family-friend going back multiple generations) who you owe your AFL career to is not something Greenwood will lose much sleep over, and neither should he.

All anger from Suns fans should be directly solely at the Suns Football department.
 

SnusCG

Club Legend
Aug 30, 2016
2,290
4,985
AFL Club
Gold Coast
He's one of the highest rated inside mids in the comp (well at least according to Champion Data, fwiw) and leads the comp in tackles yet we were able to poach him with a bit over $400K a year for 3 years.

That doesn't make him a dog. It makes aware that he was being screwed by the Suns.

One year on 400K... compare that to what other inside mids of a similar ranking and similar performance are getting. I'll bet its more. So not only did the club delist him and take advantage of his goodwill, they did it while undervaluing his performance. All the blame for this rests with the people running your footy club, not the Greenwood himself. At most he would have had two years left at your club, not getting paid what some other players in the comp who are performing at a lower level than him get paid in a year.

The guy has a young family to look after and he has a responsibility to them to get the most out of the short time he has left in the game. We aren't even paying him that much. I have a feeling Trent Dumont was on more per year (couldn't say for sure tho.) Fair enough if you give your word to someone, but you do that on the basis that someone is acting in good faith. I dunno if your club was in relation to Greenwood, not just because of the delisting but cos he was on such a small wage for someone who was performing at his level.

Trying to send us Darcy MacPherson (who is getting paid more for performing less) and pick 19 without checking with him first is another symptom of the clubs terrible player management.

You can't really blame Greenwood for this but you do need to put pressure on your club to fix the footy department before you start losing all the young talent you still have at your disposal.
We offered Hugh 4 years, 400k a year 2 years ago when Adelaide were offering him less years and less money and no one else in the league other than Hawthorn offered him a deal (also less than ours). Spent half the previous season in the SANFL. We took a punt on him when very few others would.

We HAD to delist someone as per AFL list management regulations coming into the draft and he handshake agreed that he was happy to be that person and that he would reject all other offers so that we complied with AFL rulings. He was guaranteed the same contract he had signed 2 years ago and was at no risk of losing his place on the team.

I think it's quite obvious if he had said 'I'm open to other teams offers if you use me as the person that gets delisted' there would be no way in hell we would have delisted him. He clearly sold himself as some sort of great club man who wanted to help out.

He hasn't even gotten a much better deal. 1 extra year (which will only be 250k) and he was told by the club we would match the offer presented to him after informing us in the last hour about this and still continued with the deal.

The club management is horrendous. No one is denying that and we're all furious.

But Hugh's character can very much be called into question and it's very obvious he's completely dogged the entire organisation on this.

In saying all this, he's 30 and we will have a fit Rowell, Miller, Anderson, Swallow, Fiorini, Davies, Hollands, Bowes and possibly Callaghan competing for spots in the middle. He's in the age bracket we need but not necessarily that we need in the position, so while it's a big loss, it's not going to be the point of difference between a winning or losing season for us.
 

Bucking Bronco

Team Captain
May 5, 2014
503
701
AFL Club
Gold Coast
"They wanted Greenwood to play half of the season [next year] and for the youngsters to go past him" were the words of a Queensland journalist in the Gold Coast Bulletin yesterday who I'm sure would have the inside scoop to some extent.

Are we really going to pretend that the player who the club was hoping would have been successfully phased out by the end of next year, and who has also been asked to allow himself to be de-listed after career best form is a dog for accepting an offer from another club who on the surface is showing infinitely more interest?
 

SnusCG

Club Legend
Aug 30, 2016
2,290
4,985
AFL Club
Gold Coast
"They wanted Greenwood to play half of the season [next year] and for the youngsters to go past him" were the words of a Queensland journalist in the Gold Coast Bulletin yesterday who I'm sure would have the inside scoop to some extent.

Are we really going to pretend that the player who the club was hoping would have been successfully phased out by the end of next year, and who has also been asked to allow himself to be de-listed after career best form is a dog for accepting an offer from another club who on the surface is showing infinitely more interest?
If this were true, the club would have just traded him. He had at least second round pick value.

This is just spin to try and make the club not look incompetent.
 

Sanders

Horne of plenty
Nov 1, 2012
32,252
46,878
AFL Club
Adelaide
So it’s looks like $500k x3 years due to a very light trigger

can see why GC opted not to match

I’m just wondering if he would’ve fetched that if he were a regular free agent during the last free agent period

don’t think he would have. Looks to me like North got caught up playing the subterfuge and ended up overpaying trying to be all clever
 

GC2015

Club Legend
May 27, 2013
2,881
3,505
AFL Club
Gold Coast
The loss of Hugh is going to hurt us in 2022 unless some of our other players step up big time. Experience and leadership are intangibles but we lack both so he’s a big loss there. He also provides a big hard body to add some buffer and protection for our younger mids. Will Rowell, Anderson and Flanders bodies’ be able to hold up an entire season without help? I’m not sure Bowes even has the physicality to last a whole season in the middle? He has the size but he’s not a crash and bash player like Greenflog.
Beyond 2022 I don’t think it will be so much of an issue but next year, yes he is a big loss.
Part of the reason I put my post together last night was to point out that other players appeared to step up in Greenwood's absence to not only make us competitive, but allow us to secure wins against teams we didn't think possible. That's what we need to take the next step as a club anyway so I can see positives in not having Greenwood next year, despite the obvious immediate loss it causes.

Who knows whether Rowell, Anderson, Flanders or Bowes' bodies will hold up for an entire season. That's the beauty and the agony of sports. You just don't know when a team is ready to make the jump.

I tend to agree with your assessment that we will probably miss Greenwood for parts of 2022 but not so much beyond that.

I don't think this is publicly available, but I'd like to know how many 'first possessions' lead to a clear second possession.
Picking the ball up off the ground and hack kicking it 20m forward is one thing.
Picking the ball up off the ground - a 5m power burst away from a contest with a handball to a teammate in a bit of space is a different thing.


Also, Greenwood ranked high in tackles inside 50 - another key stat. Be interesting to see breakdown for those games.
aka DE%, no?

Hugh's 58% in 2020 put him 494th in the league.

64% in 2021 was 511th.
That first possessions leading to a second possession stat would be an interesting but as you pointed out, I don't think it's available.

Greenwood (DE of 64% in 2021) certainly had a habit of hacking the ball out of the middle at times whereas our other leading ball winner in Touk Miller was cleaner with a DE of 71.3% in 2021. Fiorini had an even greater DE of 72.2% in 2021 and Swallow's DE sat at 70.2% this year. Rowell was the cleanest of the inside mids with a DE of 76.9% in 2021 and you may as well throw Anderson in there with his DE of 68.8% in 2021. All this really confirms is that Greenwood had the worst disposal of the inside mids in our best 22 this year but I think we all knew that already. Not sure how relevant it is because he was played in the backline this year but Bowes' DE was 73.2% in 2021 for anyone that's wondering about how we might go next year.

Another interesting insight is that although Greenwood was 7th in the league for tackles inside 50 (1.60 per game), it was actually Holman who was the best in that area for us in 2021 and was ranked third overall in the league with 1.75 inside 50 tackles per game. Holman also kicked nearly double the amount of goals Greenwood did in 2021 so it's obvious who was really taking their chances when they got them in front of goal after an inside 50 tackle. Although Holman played this role really well this year, hopefully we can find another pressure forward who will step up in Greenwood's absence next year and actually convert those inside 50 tackles into lots of goals.

Well written and detailed. I saw every home game in 2021 and watched the others on TV. Greenwood was a very good tackler but live at the ground, you couldn't help but see the wild kick to (hopefully) advantage as well as on many occasions, just as wild a handball. He was slow then and he'll probably be slower now - at least for the first part of the season. No doubt he'll be missed for that tackling pressure but he was never a big possession gatherer. I'll be happy to Anderson to move further inside (he's a gun in the making), add in a hopefully much fitter and body confident Rowell - and then Miller, Swallow, Bowes, Fiorini and a plethora of others to help out. Hollands is yet to be featured, Davies to grow into the role and we still don't know whether Callaghan or Hobbs might be here in 2022. Insanely stupid strategy by Suns and a dog act by Greenwood BUT there is still hope on the horizon with what we have.
Well put.
 

The Kings Ransom

Team Captain
Aug 30, 2021
391
490
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I think its pretty obvious.
Club screwed up in their choice of delisting's. We knew why players had to be delisted but we also know they're should have been other choices.

We know Hugh understood the position the club was in and agreed to assist them. (We don't know if he felt jilted as some suggest or maybe he agreed to do it to
We also know the Suns had only planned for Hugh to play half a season in 2022 to allow game time to other mids.
Do we really know this? I also read this somewhere, but I just can’t be sure that’s legit. We can be hopeful that the youngsters step up and take over but I’m not sure we would be planning on only playing him half the season. If we’re going ok and half a sniff of finals - he plays - dews job is on the line

I wonder what the parameters of the trigger for 2023 extension were.
So it’s looks like $500k x3 years due to a very light trigger

can see why GC opted not to match

I’m just wondering if he would’ve fetched that if he were a regular free agent during the last free agent period

don’t think he would have. Looks to me like North got caught up playing the subterfuge and ended up overpaying trying to be all clever
I’ve read 2 years at 500 with 3rd year easy trigger at 250k. Slightly better but still probably quite handsome contract for a guy in his position / age.
They probably had to overpay a touch to get him to move given the circumstances
 

SunnerSS

GCSUNSCAST HOST
Sep 3, 2016
2,091
2,401
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I think its pretty obvious.
Club screwed up in their choice of delisting's. We knew why players had to be delisted but we also know they're should have been other choices.

We know Hugh understood the position the club was in and agreed to assist them. (We don't know if he felt jilted as some suggest or maybe he agreed to do it to protect a younger player from the emotional roller-coaster of this process. That's all speculation.)

We know Hugh told the club he would refuse all offers from rivals and that 72 hours later he could
Yeah ive got a good relationship with the local Gold Coast Journo that wrote the article it was legit said that they intended to phase Greenwood out this season. Wether the club is just putting spin on it I don't know but with inside mids like Rowell, Fiorini and Davies are certainly ready for more midfield time to line up next to Ellis, Sharp, Miller, Anderson, weller and Hollands. I think Greenwood was definitely going to struggle to get a spot.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad