WHY ARE COLLINGWOOD APPARENTLY PLAYING HARDBALL WITH BRODY GRUNDY'S NEW CONTRACT?

[greening22]

If media reports are correct, why are the so-called brains trust at Collingwood playing hard ball with Brody/Brody Grundy's new contract. Personally, I would give him whatever he wants contract-wise. I mean he only had 73 hit outs last night as well as 20 plus disposals. Imagine where this club would have been this year without him. Moreover, I would make him the new captain ASAP as Pendlebury's best days are behind him as evidenced by his peformance against GWS yesterday & in turn in the 2018 Grand Final against West Coast. I certainly would not be giving it to Taylor Adams. But what would a person such as myself who has been to Collingwood games ever since the 1966 Grand Final know. In my view Grundy is the best ruckman Collingwood has had since Len Thompson & even better than Peter Moore; 2 Brownlow medals not withstanding. OK. But knowing this club we are risking losing Grundy back to Adelaide while we pay - and/or have paid - extraordinary amounts to players such as Wells, Mayne & Beams. It is totally irrational. But should I really expect more from this group of clowns? I now look forward to all of the critiques coming my way. Bye.

 

[JB1975]

It appears that the definition of 'hardball' has taken a turn, to now include the refusal of one negotiating party to instantly and completely give in to the demands of the other party.

 

[barrackers]

Reportedly three years vs seven years - there’s a heap of middle ground there, but if it take seven then so be it.

 

[Soups]

I think everyone needs to chill and not believe everything they see.

 

[Doc1763]

If media reports are correct, why are the so-called brains trust at Collingwood playing hard ball with Brody/Brody Grundy's new contract. Personally, I would give him whatever he wants contract-wise. I mean he only had 73 hit outs last night as well as 20 plus disposals. Imagine where this club would have been this year without him. Moreover, I would make him the new captain ASAP as Pendlebury's best days are behind him as evidenced by his peformance against GWS yesterday & in turn in the 2018 Grand Final against West Coast. I certainly would not be giving it to Taylor Adams. But what would a person such as myself who has been to Collingwood games ever since the 1966 Grand Final know. In my view Grundy is the best ruckman Collingwood has had since Len Thompson & even better than Peter Moore; 2 Brownlow medals not withstanding. OK. But knowing this club we are risking losing Grundy back to Adelaide while we pay - and/or have paid - extraordinary amounts to players such as Wells, Mayne & Beams. It is totally irrational. But should I really expect more from this group of clowns? I now look forward to all of the critiques coming my way. Bye.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[LuckyLee]

I want Grundy to be a one-club player but is there any truth in argument that rucks are a bit over-valued? Grundy played the game of his life yesterday but we still lost. For all his dominance, we lose the clearances count most weeks. Similarly, Gawn has often put in amazing performances in Dees' defeats over recent years.

To put it another way, how many premiership winning teams in the past 20 years have had a superstar ruckman? West Coast's victory last year without Natanui is but one example of teams getting it done with a makeshift ruck division.

So, if he really wants to go back to Adelaide and we can get say two top ten picks for him........

 

[manicpie]

If media reports are correct, why are the so-called brains trust at Collingwood playing hard ball with Brody/Brody Grundy's new contract. Personally, I would give him whatever he wants contract-wise. I mean he only had 73 hit outs last night as well as 20 plus disposals. Imagine where this club would have been this year without him. Moreover, I would make him the new captain ASAP as Pendlebury's best days are behind him as evidenced by his peformance against GWS yesterday & in turn in the 2018 Grand Final against West Coast. I certainly would not be giving it to Taylor Adams. But what would a person such as myself who has been to Collingwood games ever since the 1966 Grand Final know. In my view Grundy is the best ruckman Collingwood has had since Len Thompson & even better than Peter Moore; 2 Brownlow medals not withstanding. OK. But knowing this club we are risking losing Grundy back to Adelaide while we pay - and/or have paid - extraordinary amounts to players such as Wells, Mayne & Beams. It is totally irrational. But should I really expect more from this group of clowns? I now look forward to all of the critiques coming my way. Bye.

I agree with what you say but giving anyone 5+ years can be very risky for the long term, especially on the big money he will recieve

 

[TradeDraft]

Guess like most Contract Talks. One goes Low as possible and other Goes High as Possible then with Talks meet somewhere in the Middle.

Plus we are not 100% Sure that the Reports are True

 

[golazo]

Because you can have a ruckman who gets 50 less hitouts than the other and still win the clearances convincingly.

 

[adammania9]

Because it’s sensible list management. There’s still 12 months until expiry, who knows what can happen until then? For years and years, clubs have been burned by giving star players massive contracts that they can’t play out and it’s completely tied up freedom in list management. It would be much better that we sign him for 5 years as opposed to 7.

Grundy WILL re-sign, stop stressing out over it.

 

[Piestration]

Is he a great player? yes.
Do we want to lose Grundy? No.

Do we need to sell the farm to keep him? No way.

As good as he is i think we should pay overs to keep him but not a Kings ransom. Let them do their job and negotiate a win win for both parties. Managing the list is the most important thing and bringing in guys to better balance and improve us is our first priority. Grundy may have had 273 hitouts yesterday but we lost. The tigers made it with Nankervis, Cats with no one and the Giants beat us with Mummy for * sake.

Our backline is solid and we have an abundance of small forwards. We desperately need quality insiders and a KPF. Next season will be very competitive with the Tigers, Eagles, GWS, Brisbane and the Bulldogs. We need to improve and I'm afraid we will be left behind if we don't address our concerns.

Who would replace Grundy? I don't know but we can't just move forward with same same (Cox & Reid). So if Grundy was to go (not that I want him to) it would open the door for options (picks & $$$).

IMO Degoey, Moore & Billy are bigger priorities.

 

[Good_Old]

Because there's a salary cap enforced on all teams.

 

[Markfs]

i suppose if de goey asks for 7 years, we give it to him...

and moore...

and stephenson...

who else has current value?

 

[jmac70]

Loving the caps lock thread title!

 

[sr36]

If media reports are correct, why are the so-called brains trust at Collingwood playing hard ball with Brody/Brody Grundy's new contract. Personally, I would give him whatever he wants contract-wise. I mean he only had 73 hit outs last night as well as 20 plus disposals. Imagine where this club would have been this year without him. Moreover, I would make him the new captain ASAP as Pendlebury's best days are behind him as evidenced by his peformance against GWS yesterday & in turn in the 2018 Grand Final against West Coast. I certainly would not be giving it to Taylor Adams. But what would a person such as myself who has been to Collingwood games ever since the 1966 Grand Final know. In my view Grundy is the best ruckman Collingwood has had since Len Thompson & even better than Peter Moore; 2 Brownlow medals not withstanding. OK. But knowing this club we are risking losing Grundy back to Adelaide while we pay - and/or have paid - extraordinary amounts to players such as Wells, Mayne & Beams. It is totally irrational. But should I really expect more from this group of clowns? I now look forward to all of the critiques coming my way. Bye.

Patience. Sounds like a pretty standard negotiation so far. If the media reports are accurate, hes asked for big dollars per year for 7 years. We've said we will pay that amount for 3 years, but 7 is too big a risk. Last time we were in this situation, we gave a huge contract and it became a noose because Cloke fell off a cliff.

 

[partypie]

Just because certain teams in another state who shall remain unnamed throw 7 year contracts at players with trigger and get out clauses that favour them heavily it doesn't mean we should.

I still think Brodie will be a one-club player and we'll end up tabling something in the region of 5 years / '5+' mil before too much time has passed. How much the '5+' ends up being is where the grey area is.

 

[Eric_Melvin]

IS IT BRODIE? ITS BRODIE!

 

[Kirby]

It’s not the Brodie Grundy football club.

 

[danielnajdek]

Because giving a ruckman a 7 yr contract is irresponsible.

 

[TKiL]

Loving the caps lock thread title!

EFA - only one spelling error (Brodie's name), but apostrophe is correct

 

[danielnajdek]

Because you can have a ruckman who gets 50 less hitouts than the other and still win the clearances convincingly.

Brodie isn't the problem it's the mids. There's no way we should consistently lose clearances with the number one ruck in the comp. Start with a better midfield coach.

 

[HFF]

Because they need to save money for another offering to players in the ilk of Daniel Wells or Chris Mayne...who offer more value to Collingwood and deserve inflated tenures and dollars.

We are doing the same with Elliott which is just stupidity.

 

[Yidaki]

As much as I love Grundy, 7 years is just way too excessive of a contract. The club needs to look after itself here too. 7 years would suck the teet out of the salary cap and would restrict future trades etc. I know Grundy wants security but he also needs to realise that 7 years is not really feasible for a club like Collingwood. So if he wants to stay then he should take a 4-5 year deal. That's decent. Otherwise, he will have to seek that security elsewhere. Great gun player, but ruckman aren't the be all and end all (take last nights game for example). Midfielders and forwards are where you want to splash the cash and long term contract talk.

Speaking of long term contracts, what is the longest contract that has been offered to a Pie player before?

 

[HFF]

As much as I love Grundy, 7 years is just way too excessive of a contract. The club needs to look after itself here too. 7 years would suck the teet out of the salary cap and would restrict future trades etc. I know Grundy wants security but he also needs to realise that 7 years is not really feasible for a club like Collingwood. So if he wants to stay then he should take a 4-5 year deal. That's decent. Otherwise, he will have to seek that security elsewhere. Great gun player, but ruckman aren't the be all and end all (take last nights game for example). Midfielders and forwards are where you want to splash the cash and long term contract talk.

Speaking of long term contracts, what is the longest contract that has been offered to a Pie player before?

We have given Adams and crisp 5 year deals this year.
Yet we are offering one of our top 3 players 3 years?
He’s the best player in his position in the competition too.
It’s quite laughable.

 

[Nuwanda]

Brodie isn't the problem it's the mids. There's no way we should consistently lose clearances with the number one ruck in the comp. Start with a better midfield coach.

I couldn’t agree more. I also think people forget that Grundy’s value is not just limited to tap outs like plenty of ruckman. He does well is possessions (providing the team with another onball option) and clearances.

People are happy to point the finger at Grundy because our midfielders fail to rove to him. When they have done so, the team looks a million bucks.