Jamie Elliott Contract Standoff: A Star Forward Disrespected by Collingwood?
The AFL world has been left stunned after revelations emerged that Collingwood’s initial contract offer to Jamie Elliott was described by insiders as “borderline offensive.” For a player who just delivered one of the best individual seasons in recent memory—booting 60 goals, becoming a match-winner time and again, and arguably deserving All-Australian honors—the notion that the Magpies valued him at a figure below the AFL average wage has ignited heated debate across the footy landscape.
Fans, commentators, and rival clubs are left asking the same burning question: How could Collingwood let it get to this point?
—
Elliott’s Breakout Season
Jamie Elliott has long been a cult figure at Collingwood. Known for his high-flying grabs, explosive pace, and ability to impact the scoreboard when it matters most, he has been the kind of forward who gives Magpies supporters hope every time the ball comes near him. But this season was different.
After overcoming years of injury setbacks, Elliott finally delivered the kind of consistent, season-long brilliance that had always seemed possible. His tally of 60 goals was the most of his career, and he did so while often playing against the opposition’s best defenders. Not only was he a reliable goalkicker, but his pressure acts and ability to drag defenders out of structure made him invaluable to Collingwood’s system.
Many felt Elliott was unlucky not to earn All-Australian selection, with his stats and influence certainly stacking up against those who did. For a forward in today’s era to kick 60 goals while maintaining elite work rate off the ball is no small feat.
—
The “Offensive” Offer
Given his stellar season, it’s no surprise Elliott expected to be rewarded. But when details leaked about Collingwood’s contract offer, the reaction was swift and brutal. Reports suggest the Magpies tabled a deal that valued Elliott below the league’s average player salary of roughly $400,000–$450,000 per year.
To put it bluntly, this is a figure more in line with developing youngsters or role players—not a star forward who was central to the club’s success. One industry source called the offer “an insult,” while another said, “Any other club would be throwing big money and long-term security at him—Collingwood basically asked him to take a pay cut from respect.”
The term “borderline offensive” has since been thrown around widely, highlighting just how far off the mark the Magpies may have been in valuing one of their most important players.
—
Collingwood’s Salary Cap Squeeze
Of course, context matters. Collingwood has been juggling salary cap pressures for years, and this offseason is no exception. With stars like Nick Daicos, Jordan De Goey, and Darcy Moore all commanding hefty deals, the Magpies have been forced to make tough financial decisions.
The problem is, this isn’t just any player. Elliott’s value to Collingwood cannot be measured purely in numbers on a balance sheet. His presence in the forward line gives the Magpies a dimension few other teams can match. Losing him—or undervaluing him—would send a terrible message both to the playing group and to fans who idolize him.
—
The Rival Clubs Circle
If Collingwood thought they could slip a lowball offer past Elliott, they underestimated just how coveted he is. Rival clubs—most notably the Gold Coast Suns and North Melbourne—have already been linked to the star forward. Both are reportedly prepared to offer multi-year deals worth significantly more than Collingwood’s opening bid, with figures closer to $600,000–$700,000 per season being floated.
For the Suns, Elliott represents a proven forward who could support Ben King and accelerate the club’s push toward finals. For North, he’d be both a marquee signing and an experienced leader in a rebuilding side. In short, Collingwood’s mistake could easily become another club’s masterstroke.
—
The Fan Backlash
Perhaps the biggest fallout from this saga has been among the Magpie Army. Supporters have expressed disbelief that the club would risk alienating one of their most beloved stars. Social media has been flooded with reactions ranging from frustration to outrage:
“Sixty goals and you pay him less than average? Disgraceful.”
“Jamie Elliott bleeds black and white. The club better fix this before it’s too late.”
“If we lose him because of money, it’s the biggest blunder since the Treloar trade.”
For a fanbase already sensitive to player retention issues in recent years, this saga cuts deep.
—
What Happens Next?
Negotiations are ongoing, and most expect Collingwood to significantly improve their offer in the coming weeks. The club knows it cannot afford to lose Elliott—not after the year he’s had, and not when rival clubs are circling like sharks.
But damage has already been done. Even if Elliott stays, the perception that Collingwood undervalued him may linger, and it could shape how other players feel about their worth inside the club.
The Magpies now face a critical choice: rectify their mistake and lock down a player who has given his all, or risk losing both Elliott and the goodwill of their fans.
—
Conclusion
Jamie Elliott’s situation is more than just a contract negotiation—it’s a test of Collingwood’s ability to balance finances with loyalty, respect, and recognition of genuine on-field value. Offering below the AFL average wage to a 60-goal forward is, in many eyes, indefensible.
If the Magpies don’t act swiftly to repair this, they could face a nightmare scenario: watching one of their brightest stars light up another club’s forward line.
Because as one fan put it best: “It’s inconceivable that Collingwood would let it get to this.”
