Hugh Greenwood debacle

Remove this Banner Ad

Choppers said:
I've got no problem with Hugh leaving, good for him. Family comes first imo.

But doesn't 3 years job security equal more money............just sayin'
Click to expand...

Not really. More money would mean being offered the same length of contract/ job security by both clubs and then choosing the one that pays more.

He's a 29 year old, so getting a contract that almost guarantees you playing for another 3 years is a big thing as opposed to a club that just decided to delist you.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Better Loosen Up said:
Not really. More money would mean being offered the same length of contract/ job security by both clubs and then choosing the one that pays more.

He's a 29 year old, so getting a contract that almost guarantees you playing for another 3 years is a big thing as opposed to a club that just decided to delist you.
Click to expand...
Supporting a club that sorts through other Clubs dumpster rubbish *sigh*
A true bottom feeder
 
Lot of very chirpy Norf supporters in here, could you imagine if Bods was here...

200.gif
 
Better Loosen Up said:
Not really. More money would mean being offered the same length of contract/ job security by both clubs and then choosing the one that pays more.

He's a 29 year old, so getting a contract that almost guarantees you playing for another 3 years is a big thing as opposed to a club that just decided to delist you.
Click to expand...

If you can't see that getting 800K for 2 yrs is not more money than 400K for 1 yr, then I can't say anymore...so I'll just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
 
The Kings Ransom said:
Why would we be putting him in on less money? You’ve just plain made that up.

Greenwood was given a 3+1 contract so I would dare say we always intended for him to play 3 years and potentially not the 4th..
That seems to be what the club was still sticking to until north swooped in with a large an unexpected offer.

totally agree that we need a 5 year plan.

In the past 5 years we’ve drafted high end talent mainly in the midfield and forward line.

Taken mature aged key position players in supplemental periods

taken fringe mature aged players with leadership qualities to try and develop a positive culture.

taken a few academy kids

tried to sign up players in advance of them reaching the end of their contract.

whilst not everything has worked out as planned; I think we’ve pretty much stuck to the overarching plan as above.
Click to expand...
Didnt say they put him on less money. I said "probably" because in most cases where they do that, they are actually reducing their pay or in some cases, where a player is expecting an increase, they put the fear of not being re-listed in their mind so they accept the same money. Different situation for different players but it is common in the AFL, not just GC. Dont forget this comes off the back of not getting anything or getting way less than the market value, for players in the past under the same list manager. Martin comes to mind. Where ego gets in the way of common sense and the club suffers. PS I am a regular visitor to the GC so I do support the club as my second team and want to see them successful. But Im kind of getting sick of it. Wasting draft pick value and making anti-culture building decisions then blaming players, the AFL or someone else. Suns need to take ownership of their moves...but I wait like every year, for the improvement next year. Irks me when supporters love a player one minute then when he decides to leave, its the players fault. Ahhh no it aint. Im calling BS on it. Suns messed up...yet again.
 
nutstar said:
Too many here are glossing over this absolute clusterf**k of a move by the suns.
Sure Hugh went back on his word, but for the club to have been in this position shows exactly how poorly ran we are.
Sure there may be blessings in disguise from this. But it doesn’t change the fact that we truly screwed the donkey on this one.
Click to expand...

but Evan’s and Cameron and even Hugh said it was a club decision… that they were all happy to move on 🤷‍♂️
 
Choppers said:
If you can't see that getting 800K for 2 yrs is not more money than 400K for 1 yr, then I can't say anymore...so I'll just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
It’s reported as 1.25 million over 3 years.

vs.

400k over 1 year (and probably not the extension)

seems pretty clear to me that security = more guaranteed money.
 
natedogg_79 said:
The league really needs transparency on player contracts. It's frankly ridiculous that we don't know enough financial details on this debacle. Is there any other salary capped league for any sport in the entire world that has this must secrecy on financials ?
Click to expand...

the strange thing is that it’s the players who should be demanding that salaries be made public

it was Marvin Miller of the MLBPA who first demanded the open transparency of player wages. The league and owners fought long and hard against it but the players eventually won.

players salaries were depressed because a team could say, oh I can’t pay you that much, even Bob isn’t on that much and you’d agree that he deserves more wouldn’t you?

and so forth.

Secrecy only benefits the clubs because players can’t easily benchmark their contracts across the team and league
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lord_Flashheart said:
Lot of very chirpy Norf supporters in here, could you imagine if Bods was here...

200.gif
Click to expand...
Don't worry. The current ledger between us and them is 8-7 in their favour. We'll sort that out next year and have an overall winning record against them. I suspect this time next year they'll still be languishing towards the bottom of the ladder while we're either playing finals or are very close to it.

As a city, we should really hate North Melbourne anyway. They used us for cash and when we gave them the opportunity to move here in order to clear their massive amounts of debt, they spat in our face. North also stole our 2018 academy captain Bailey Scott when we put 5+ years of work into developing him into an AFL level talent meanwhile the Roos had absolutely nothing to do with his development prior to drafting him. Now they've stolen Hugh Greenwood.

As someone else pointed out in this thread, remember what opposition fans say in moments like these and fire right back at them when it's our time. The strange thing about North Melbourne fans is they were awarded the wooden spoon two months ago but still have the cheek to take shots at other fanbases. Really tells you everything you need to know about their supporters.
 
Better Loosen Up said:
Or maybe he went to a club that was giving him pretty much 3 years job security vs his own club that just delisted him.
Click to expand...
Well, that's what Jen said. He went for the money is the same as going for job security ... same in my ones. Nothing against him as he needs to look after himself and family but it is what it is.
 
SandyToes said:
He'll have a lifetime to reflect on his actions and reconstruct the truth in his own mind so he can sleep easier
Judas
Click to expand...
I do agree with your sentiments but something here is very fishy.
The Club admitted they knew of the risk in delisting Greenwood with the promise of a relist.
This is very suspicious to me. Why would they take a risk if they were not prepared for the risk to play out as it has well and truly done.
It's very suspiciously odd to me the whole affair.
 
eppo67 said:
I do agree with your sentiments but something here is very fishy.
The Club admitted they knew of the risk in delisting Greenwood with the promise of a relist.
This is very suspicious to me. Why would they take a risk if they were not prepared for the risk to play out as it has well and truly done.
It's very suspiciously odd to me the whole affair.
Click to expand...
I completely agree
The Club has taken a shellacking over this but its hard to believe they were that naive
At the end of the day list spots were needed prior to trade week(which excluded the possibility of trades)and presumably The Moneyball Computer spat out Greenwood
No doubt we would have redrafted him-better to have him playing rather than paying him to do nothing- but the lack of commentary from senior Club officials over this suggests no-one responsible is being sacked or censured
My heavy handed Judas regarding Greenwood commentary isn't for members of this board;)
 
Can someone explain why we had to delist Greenwood etc in the first place? I know under AFL rules we have to draft a minimum of 3 players, but I had thought this was was going to be pick 3 plus the two academy selections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top