Collingwood 2020 trade period

[josie]

Agreed on both counts. The story will come out one day and it will probably be that Collingwood's books were audited by the AFL and they were told that they would be over the cap. A bit like Essendon in the very early 2000s when they had to let Blumfield and a couple of others go after the AFL told them they were over the cap (or were about to be over)

And someone's head will roll.

You are in fine form Twodogs.

[mjp]

I guess what I am saying is watch that space, the fall out from "Salarygate" may be just beginning, or not.

There is zero chance of me looking at a Collingwood Fan site but WHY should there be fall-out?

I actually feel sorry for AFL clubs in this situation. If we use another club as an example - let's go with Carlton - think about this premise.

1/. They need inside midfielders.
2/. Richmond have made a terrible mess of their salary cap and need to dump Dion Prestia.

What could Carlton do to recruit him?

NOTHING. They can't make a move (trade out) on 2-3 mid-range players because the players have to disagree. So what they would have to do is the same thing as Collingwood have done - create some disharmony with the player(s) in question in order to get them out the door...hey presto, Prestia is in.

I don't like the idea that clubs should have the rights to trade a player 'anywhere' (it creates the whole NFL "have fun playing in Cleveland" corollary) but if Collingwood had the right to do so 'this' and all of the associated bad PR could and would have been avoided.

For me, we need to re-sign Bont soon. If doing that means we need to move on a contracted player (or 2), well, sign me up for that. But get Bont's signature on the paper and I really don't care how you do it. If you (the club) needs to release a statement that we have traded on player x and y for salary cap reasons, well, "#whatchagonnado"??? The fact remains that under the current rules, we would have to effectively "CUT TIES" with some (potentially) much loved players (or maybe just Josh Bruce - just joking Josh!) in order to do this...and we would really need to follow a similar approach to the one Collingwood have taken...

Or - give me another way to do it? Tell me how else they could have cleared cap room and maintained their relationships with their players understanding that the players MUST AGREE TO LEAVE!

[Daughter of the West]

There is zero chance of me looking at a Collingwood Fan site but WHY should there be fall-out?

I actually feel sorry for AFL clubs in this situation. If we use another club as an example - let's go with Carlton - think about this premise.

1/. They need inside midfielders.
2/. Richmond have made a terrible mess of their salary cap and need to dump Dion Prestia.

What could Carlton do to recruit him?

NOTHING. They can't make a move (trade out) on 2-3 mid-range players because the players have to disagree. So what they would have to do is the same thing as Collingwood have done - create some disharmony with the player(s) in question in order to get them out the door...hey presto, Prestia is in.

I don't like the idea that clubs should have the rights to trade a player 'anywhere' (it creates the whole NFL "have fun playing in Cleveland" corollary) but if Collingwood had the right to do so 'this' and all of the associated bad PR could and would have been avoided.

For me, we need to re-sign Bont soon. If doing that means we need to move on a contracted player (or 2), well, sign me up for that. But get Bont's signature on the paper and I really don't care how you do it. If you (the club) needs to release a statement that we have traded on player x and y for salary cap reasons, well, "#whatchagonnado"??? The fact remains that under the current rules, we would have to effectively "CUT TIES" with some (potentially) much loved players (or maybe just Josh Bruce - just joking Josh!) in order to do this...and we would really need to follow a similar approach to the one Collingwood have taken...

Or - give me another way to do it? Tell me how else they could have cleared cap room and maintained their relationships with their players understanding that the players MUST AGREE TO LEAVE!

Apologies if I’m missing the obvious here, but shouldn’t there be financial modeling in place BEFOREHAND to ensure they don’t have such a cap issue in the first place?

[jeemak]

Yeah, there's a good faith element involved here as well. If a player agrees to backdate a contract in good faith they probably shouldn't expect to be completely stitched up and have everything from their character to their partner's professional choices questioned.

Additionally, clubs that bite off more than they can chew with no regard for how it may affect key stakeholders in the future, which is clearly what Collingwood has done in this instance in chasing a flag, deserve no sympathy.

[bornadog]

There is zero chance of me looking at a Collingwood Fan site but WHY should there be fall-out?

I actually feel sorry for AFL clubs in this situation. If we use another club as an example - let's go with Carlton - think about this premise.

1/. They need inside midfielders.
2/. Richmond have made a terrible mess of their salary cap and need to dump Dion Prestia.

What could Carlton do to recruit him?

NOTHING. They can't make a move (trade out) on 2-3 mid-range players because the players have to disagree. So what they would have to do is the same thing as Collingwood have done - create some disharmony with the player(s) in question in order to get them out the door...hey presto, Prestia is in.

I don't like the idea that clubs should have the rights to trade a player 'anywhere' (it creates the whole NFL "have fun playing in Cleveland" corollary) but if Collingwood had the right to do so 'this' and all of the associated bad PR could and would have been avoided.

For me, we need to re-sign Bont soon. If doing that means we need to move on a contracted player (or 2), well, sign me up for that. But get Bont's signature on the paper and I really don't care how you do it. If you (the club) needs to release a statement that we have traded on player x and y for salary cap reasons, well, "#whatchagonnado"??? The fact remains that under the current rules, we would have to effectively "CUT TIES" with some (potentially) much loved players (or maybe just Josh Bruce - just joking Josh!) in order to do this...and we would really need to follow a similar approach to the one Collingwood have taken...

Or - give me another way to do it? Tell me how else they could have cleared cap room and maintained their relationships with their players understanding that the players MUST AGREE TO LEAVE!

Let's say your scenario is true. The fans want to hear the truth, and not a made up story that no one believes. Just tell fans, we need to pay DeGoey and Darcy Moore big dollars to keep them, which means we will need to off load a couple of players.

Collingwood have lost a lot of credibility with this from its own fan base.

[comrade]

Why would it get to the point that your cap is so screwed that re-signing key players means you have to sell off contracted stars in the first place? That’s mistake numero uno.

Then to ‘create’ player unrest so they feel so unwelcome that they ‘want’ to leave? That’s just poison for your culture.

If the same thing went down with us and we did to Macrae what Collingwood did to Treloar (the closest comparison I could think of in terms of status and performance), I’d be disgusted.

[Bulldog4life]

That's Whale Roberts you're talking about? Part of the Teasdale/Roberts/Jackson for John Pitura trade? Possibly one of the only times that the old "we'll give you 3 ordinary players for your superstar" has ever worked. Teasdale wins a Brownlow, Roberts places fifth in the Brownlow the only year he played with South and Francis Jackson plays 100+ games and became one of the prototype rebounding defenders.



He will be hoisted on his own pettard, I love a good mediaeval analogy.

Yep you're right on the Whale. It was in the 70's. Richmond weren't the same for a few years after that. Remember his moto "Have a ale with the Whale" when he was the publican at....not sure of the name...in South Melbourne. I had a couple with him. A hilarious huge man. Hands like spades.

[Happy Days]

They should be embarrassed. They’re the biggest organisation of their kind in the damn world and they exhibited financial mismanagement you wouldn’t expect from a 10 year old getting pocket money. Let alone the damage they’ve done to their product on field, they’re letting three best 15 (including one top 3) player walk for a second round pick.

Ned Guy needs to lose his job and I would lose Buckley too, who clearly lacks the emotional intelligence required for his position.

[Twodogs]

Yep you're right on the Whale. It was in the 70's. Richmond weren't the same for a few years after that. Remember his moto "Have a ale with the Whale" when he was the publican at....not sure of the name...in South Melbourne. I had a couple with him. A hilarious huge man. Hands like spades.

T'was the Cricket Club Hotel in South Melbourne. I worked in South Melbourne for years.

[azabob]

They should be embarrassed. They’re the biggest organisation of their kind in the damn world and they exhibited financial mismanagement you wouldn’t expect from a 10 year old getting pocket money. Let alone the damage they’ve done to their product on field, they’re letting three best 15 (including one top 3) player walk for a second round pick.

Ned Guy needs to lose his job and I would lose Buckley too, who clearly lacks the emotional intelligence required for his position.

Why Ned Guy? From what I can see he inherited the mess and was charged to clean it up. His biggest mistake was doing an interview straight after trade period ended.

[mjp]

Apologies if I’m missing the obvious here, but shouldn’t there be financial modeling in place BEFOREHAND to ensure they don’t have such a cap issue in the first place?

Yeah, there's a good faith element involved here as well. If a player agrees to backdate a contract in good faith they probably shouldn't expect to be completely stitched up and have everything from their character to their partner's professional choices questioned.

Additionally, clubs that bite off more than they can chew with no regard for how it may affect key stakeholders in the future, which is clearly what Collingwood has done in this instance in chasing a flag, deserve no sympathy.

Let's say your scenario is true. The fans want to hear the truth, and not a made up story that no one believes. Just tell fans, we need to pay DeGoey and Darcy Moore big dollars to keep them, which means we will need to off load a couple of players.

Collingwood have lost a lot of credibility with this from its own fan base.

Why would it get to the point that your cap is so screwed that re-signing key players means you have to sell off contracted stars in the first place? That’s mistake numero uno.

Then to ‘create’ player unrest so they feel so unwelcome that they ‘want’ to leave? That’s just poison for your culture.

If the same thing went down with us and we did to Macrae what Collingwood did to Treloar (the closest comparison I could think of in terms of status and performance), I’d be disgusted.

Ummm - I'm not trying to say that they haven't stuffed up or made a terrible error and we shouldn't all think bad things about them. What I AM saying is that:

1/. If you want to get contracted players OUT, you are almost OBLIGATED to create a situation where they WANT to leave...or at least feel they have no option but to leave. As you will recall during this saga, the initial response from Treloar was "I want to stay"...well, in this situation, that obviously wasn't going to fly (for whatever reason).

2/. Screwing up your cap is of course not too smart. Signing Grundy for 29 years wasn't smart and many said that at the time. Re-signing Beams was clearly not too smart...and pushing $ in other players contracts 'back' in order to fund (as per the rumours) the Beams deal (which fell in their lap - kind of the way the Treloar deal fell in our laps come to think of it!) was really, really, really, really silly. But at some point, you have to acknowledge those mistakes and FIX IT. My take was that this was Collingwood attempting to FIX IT.

3/. Yes - of course, you need to be open with your members (I could care less about supporters but those who stump up their $ deserve an explanation of sorts)...but, refer back to point 1. You say "We have cap issues and players need to go - so expect some changes". Then suddenly guys are on the trading block and they basically say "Hey - I understand you have cap issues but I'm not going - I'M HAPPY...figure something else out...". That cannot be in this current situation where players MUST AGREE TO LEAVE.

I get we all want to poke fun at the 'Pies and all of that, but if you look at the things that have left them in this situation:

1/. The recruitment of WELLS went they were 'so close' to a flag. Substitute Wells for "Travis Cloke" and that could be US!!!
2/. The extension of GRUNDY. Substitute Grundy for Bont and that's soon to be us.
3/. The 'unexpected' availability of high-priced 'difference making' mid Beams. Substitute Beams for Treloar and that could be US!!!

These are always 'there but for the grace of GOD go I' moments I think...if Collingwood had won the flag in 2018 well this would all be worth it. They - the only team to beat Richmond in a knock-out final in this era - lost by a goal to what could easily be described as a VERY dubious non-free kick followed by a great goal kicked by Sheed (I taught him that btw)...the Tiges must be walking a fine line, the Saints are 100% walking a fine line...

[Sedat]

Had they won that 2018 flag, the ends would have justified the means. Losing by a kick probably incentivised them to top up with Beams as they were legitimately so close to a premiership, and on paper, only needed to add some talent and polish to their midfield.

Contracts are as important, even more so, than trades. The fact that we are paying Treloar 600k a season mitigates that risk significantly for mine (provided his medical stacked up). He is 27yo and will be at the absolute peak of his powers for almost all of his contract. His skill set is unique to our midfield (Bailey Smith is comparable but not there yet) and will only compliment our existing pieces. He has been used in a dual inside/outside capacity at Collingwood, which he won't need to do as much with us, and his electric outside run and carry will be an extremely potent addition to a midfield that has lacked that Danger-esque explosiveness.

[Twodogs]

Ummm - I'm not trying to say that they haven't stuffed up or made a terrible error and we shouldn't all think bad things about them. What I AM saying is that:

1/. If you want to get contracted players OUT, you are almost OBLIGATED to create a situation where they WANT to leave...or at least feel they have no option but to leave. As you will recall during this saga, the initial response from Treloar was "I want to stay"...well, in this situation, that obviously wasn't going to fly (for whatever reason).

2/. Screwing up your cap is of course not too smart. Signing Grundy for 29 years wasn't smart and many said that at the time. Re-signing Beams was clearly not too smart...and pushing $ in other players contracts 'back' in order to fund (as per the rumours) the Beams deal (which fell in their lap - kind of the way the Treloar deal fell in our laps come to think of it!) was really, really, really, really silly. But at some point, you have to acknowledge those mistakes and FIX IT. My take was that this was Collingwood attempting to FIX IT.

3/. Yes - of course, you need to be open with your members (I could care less about supporters but those who stump up their $ deserve an explanation of sorts)...but, refer back to point 1. You say "We have cap issues and players need to go - so expect some changes". Then suddenly guys are on the trading block and they basically say "Hey - I understand you have cap issues but I'm not going - I'M HAPPY...figure something else out...". That cannot be in this current situation where players MUST AGREE TO LEAVE.

I get we all want to poke fun at the 'Pies and all of that, but if you look at the things that have left them in this situation:

1/. The recruitment of WELLS went they were 'so close' to a flag. Substitute Wells for "Travis Cloke" and that could be US!!!
2/. The extension of GRUNDY. Substitute Grundy for Bont and that's soon to be us.
3/. The 'unexpected' availability of high-priced 'difference making' mid Beams. Substitute Beams for Treloar and that could be US!!!

These are always 'there but for the grace of GOD go I' moments I think...if Collingwood had won the flag in 2018 well this would all be worth it. They - the only team to beat Richmond in a knock-out final in this era - lost by a goal to what could easily be described as a VERY dubious non-free kick followed by a great goal kicked by Sheed (I taught him that btw)...the Tiges must be walking a fine line, the Saints are 100% walking a fine line...

I can believe that. Did I teach you how to do it?

[ledge]

That's Whale Roberts you're talking about? Part of the Teasdale/Roberts/Jackson for John Pitura trade? Possibly one of the only times that the old "we'll give you 3 ordinary players for your superstar" has ever worked. Teasdale wins a Brownlow, Roberts places fifth in the Brownlow the only year he played with South and Francis Jackson plays 100+ games and became one of the prototype rebounding defenders.



He will be hoisted on his own pettard, I love a good mediaeval analogy.

That’s the one.

[ledge]

T'was the Cricket Club Hotel in South Melbourne. I worked in South Melbourne for years.

I won a premiership at Flem/Ken one year and off we went to the cricketers arms . Free beer and Whale serving us, he could put his hand around a jug and you couldn’t see it !