indeed ...Interesting decision.
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 ...
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.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?
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.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.
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 $.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.
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.
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)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.