Retire / Trade / Delist | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Retire / Trade / Delist

achillesjones

"just kick it to Royce"
Apr 19, 2004
2,871
1,919
I cant understand the anti vax viewpoint but I do admire his conviction to do what he believes is right, regardless of financial loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

artball

labels are for canned food
Jul 30, 2013
5,882
4,422
Interesting decision. :oops:
indeed ...

i know a couple of anti - vaxxers and they bang on about Choice and Coercion yet are happy to work with required permits, drive a car with rego and a license, pay bills, carry passports, carry a mobile, vote, use banks, etc etc etc ...

*smile* off ...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users

French Tiger

Tiger Champion
Oct 6, 2004
4,706
1,161
indeed ...

i know a couple of anti - vaxxers and they bang on about Choice and Coercion yet are happy to work with required permits, drive a car with rego and a license, pay bills, carry passports, carry a mobile, vote, use banks, etc etc etc ...

*smile* off ...
Exactly.
 

TigerFurious

Smooth
Dec 17, 2002
2,923
2,363
So, let me get this straight. GCS delist Greenwood, who had 2 years to run on his contract and presumably got paid out, with a promise to redraft him as a rookie. This was all to allow them “more flexibility” with list management.

North, ever the big game hunter, swoop in and sign Greenwood to their primary list for 2 years.

Net result is GCS loose a player they wanted to keep while paying him out for the next two years. North finally land their “big fish”. Greenwood somehow gets 4 years worth of player salary for only the next two years of service.

Is that correct?
 

Quickdraw

End of the drought
Jun 8, 2013
2,465
3,336
Might be no love lost between GCS & Norf. First clash next year might be interesting viewing :cool:
 

Wildride

Tiger Superstar
Sep 6, 2006
1,751
321
Brisbane
So, let me get this straight. GCS delist Greenwood, who had 2 years to run on his contract and presumably got paid out, with a promise to redraft him as a rookie. This was all to allow them “more flexibility” with list management.

North, ever the big game hunter, swoop in and sign Greenwood to their primary list for 2 years.

Net result is GCS loose a player they wanted to keep while paying him out for the next two years. North finally land their “big fish”. Greenwood somehow gets 4 years worth of player salary for only the next two years of service.

Is that correct?
I don't think that Greenwood got paid out, so he's only getting paid for the next two years by North, not by both GCS and North.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

TigerFurious

Smooth
Dec 17, 2002
2,923
2,363
I don't think the Gold Coast would be paying him out, they will have agreed on a contract variation for him to be transferred to the rookie list on the same wage to give the club a little salary cap cushion.

I imagine what has happened is North have seen the opportunity and offered him enough money to turn his head.
AFL site said he had two years to run on his current contract at GCS. I’m no expect but I’m fairly sure if you delist a player you have to pay them out whatever remains on the contract. You only negotiate if they are retiring before their contract ends.

Even at base wage, GCS just paid Greenwood $300k+ to go play for North.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user

The Mole

Tiger Champion
Apr 1, 2003
2,528
1,683
I always thought it was an unwritten rule that if the club was going to relist them then the other clubs wouldn't touch them. I was wrong. The AFL are not going to like their love-child GCS being made look silly like this.
 

TigerFurious

Smooth
Dec 17, 2002
2,923
2,363
Otherwise in delisting and redrafting him Greenwood will have been paid out on his original contract and then drafted again on a 75k rookie wage. It would make absolutely no sense for a club to do that.
Agree, except if GCS were struggling to make minimum TPP. Greenwood’s entire payout would go under this year cap. Would explain why Greenwood agreed to the move in the first place. He gets two years salary up front plus an extra year at least on rookie $.

Or, and this is probably more likely given their history, GCS just *smile* up.
 

TOT70

I'm just a suburban boy
Jul 27, 2004
9,567
3,036
Melbourne
The “unwritten agreement” is for development players. The thinking is that a club has already put two years development into a junior and they want to move him onto the rookie list to continue that development. They leave these guys alone because it might be them next year. Hence the agreement- what goes around comes around.

On which planet would Greenwood be considered a development player?

Gold Coast are already rorting the draft this year. They have traded most of their picks into next year, keeping only pick 3 because the AFL is allowing them to just list any players from Queensland and NT without bothering with the draft.

How much more do they want for free?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

year of the tiger

Tiger Legend
Mar 26, 2008
8,719
4,747
Tasmania
I always thought it was an unwritten rule that if the club was going to relist them then the other clubs wouldn't touch them. I was wrong. The AFL are not going to like their love-child GCS being made look silly like this.

I reckon pesky lolnorf are starting to the rock the boat and *smile* a few clubs off.

No love lost and when they finally climb the ladder with some decent players and have their own salary cap issues, watch as the other clubs rip into them, lol won’t be lol then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
3,167
2,870
Agree, except if GCS were struggling to make minimum TPP. Greenwood’s entire payout would go under this year cap. Would explain why Greenwood agreed to the move in the first place. He gets two years salary up front plus an extra year at least on rookie $.

Or, and this is probably more likely given their history, GCS just *smile* up.
GC were at peak salary cap, hence moving on Peter Wright last year and Will Brodie this year (though both were not best 22, which is exactly the type to dump)

I,d guess that GC and Greenwood mutually agreed to change in contract, similar to what we did with Cotch and Jack.
For Greenwood instead of 1 contract of 4 years, it could be 2 contracts of 2 years each, 2020-2021 and 2022-2023. So he is now officially off-contract and could be delisted, but had a new contract waiting.
In theory he gets the same money over the same duration.
No need to pay out his original contract

*of course North screwed theory
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
14,221
13,434
I like to take a look at our Under 23 team each year.

The top table is those under 23 at the start of December 2020 and then the 2nd is those under 23 as at the 1st of December 2021. Red is they are not in the Under 23 team any longer due to age, red with strikethrough is they are no longer on the list, and blue are our new draftees.

1637907977488.png

Its a pretty healthy looking team the bottom one. IMO big upgrades on those we have cut bar CCJ who we probably knew we weren't going to be able to replace this year with a like for like tall forward, it would have resulted in a massive reach unless we got JVR at 17.

Gibcus > Garthwaite
Brown > Egg
Banks vs Naish - we sure hope he will be better
Clarke and Sonsie have replaced players of different types.

When you look at that bottom table and we already have Balta and Bolton that are easily in our best 22, and we got plenty of games out of Mansell, RCD, Ralhp-Smith, Stack, Dow and Ross last year (and hopefully they take that next step forward this year) then the future looks bright with some of the other guys coming through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users