Luke Bloody Ball

[Johnny Member]

They took the offer off the table......from there they made the decision before the trade offers.....that he had to go, so we needed to find compensation.....but also lost bargaining power, because we had signalled we did not want his services...

Luke did knock back the 50% pay cut, as many would.......he left for the reasons any player leaves a club...More money, more opportunity, lost faith of the coaches....

Lets deal in facts.

1. Luke Ball was a required player - stated by N Riewoldt publicly as well as Lyon.

2. Luke Ball had a contract of offer from St Kilda FC ON THE TABLE - source N Riewoldt.

Im going with their version cause I reckon they might have a clue.

But I realise in your world its all Lyons stuff up...and poor Luke was just an innocent victim who landed a wad of cash in yr 1....poor fella...

I'm over the Luke Ball thing.

The whole thing makes me sick - regardless of who's at fault.


But, the 'required player' thing doesn't make sense, or certainly doesn't hold a lot of weight.

The only way to show someone they're required, is surely in their contract. Telling them they're required doesn't really mean anything.

I mean to put some perspective on it, imagine if Westaway went to Ross Lyon and told him the club really wants him and he's a required person - but we're cutting his pay in half. How would he react?

If you're cutting someone's pay severely and reducing their role in the organisation, then surely it's questionable as to how much you really require them.

This post doesnt make sense.

Im "rerquired" by my company. Doesnt mean they are paying 2.5m a year????

Being "required" doesnt mean you have to be the best paid player on the list and nor does it mean your conditions (if you havent lived up to performances - and many would denote Luke Balls own form ......wasn't great) wont change. So they should - who would be happy with Luke Ball on current output being one of our highest paid players??...not me. The guys a grunt mid - plenty of them around....he aint no Judd.

Luke Ball was offered reduced terms commensurate with output. He decided the Pies terms were better - that INCLUDES cash and anyone who says it don't and he left cause he felt "jaded" are delusional.

That and a bruised ego was the end for Lukey boy. Good luck to him - to me he's just another despised filth player and thats how I'll remember him. He (rightly so) has said he's moved on from Saints...so why the f@rk do we have a multi page thread on the main board aboyut a filth player?

Turf it.

So why do people throw in 'he was a required player'? What's the relevance of it in terms of him staying at the club?

Guys aren't going to stay just because the club wants them.


It's how much they want them that's relevant. And you can only express how much you want them (or 'require' them) by the conditions you employ them under.


I have no idea what the conditions were. I don't know what he was offered in a monetary sense, and I don't know what he was told in regards to his on-field role.

It's just the 'required player' bit that doesn't make sense to me. There's lots of things in this workd that I require. But unless I pay the right price for them, I'm not going to get them. Whether I require them or not!

[Teflon]

They took the offer off the table......from there they made the decision before the trade offers.....that he had to go, so we needed to find compensation.....but also lost bargaining power, because we had signalled we did not want his services...

Luke did knock back the 50% pay cut, as many would.......he left for the reasons any player leaves a club...More money, more opportunity, lost faith of the coaches....

Lets deal in facts.

1. Luke Ball was a required player - stated by N Riewoldt publicly as well as Lyon.

2. Luke Ball had a contract of offer from St Kilda FC ON THE TABLE - source N Riewoldt.

Im going with their version cause I reckon they might have a clue.

But I realise in your world its all Lyons stuff up...and poor Luke was just an innocent victim who landed a wad of cash in yr 1....poor fella...

I'm over the Luke Ball thing.

The whole thing makes me sick - regardless of who's at fault.


But, the 'required player' thing doesn't make sense, or certainly doesn't hold a lot of weight.

The only way to show someone they're required, is surely in their contract. Telling them they're required doesn't really mean anything.

I mean to put some perspective on it, imagine if Westaway went to Ross Lyon and told him the club really wants him and he's a required person - but we're cutting his pay in half. How would he react?

If you're cutting someone's pay severely and reducing their role in the organisation, then surely it's questionable as to how much you really require them.

This post doesnt make sense.

Im "rerquired" by my company. Doesnt mean they are paying 2.5m a year????

Being "required" doesnt mean you have to be the best paid player on the list and nor does it mean your conditions (if you havent lived up to performances - and many would denote Luke Balls own form ......wasn't great) wont change. So they should - who would be happy with Luke Ball on current output being one of our highest paid players??...not me. The guys a grunt mid - plenty of them around....he aint no Judd.

Luke Ball was offered reduced terms commensurate with output. He decided the Pies terms were better - that INCLUDES cash and anyone who says it don't and he left cause he felt "jaded" are delusional.

That and a bruised ego was the end for Lukey boy. Good luck to him - to me he's just another despised filth player and thats how I'll remember him. He (rightly so) has said he's moved on from Saints...so why the f@rk do we have a multi page thread on the main board aboyut a filth player?

Turf it.

So why do people throw in 'he was a required player'? What's the relevance of it in terms of him staying at the club?

Guys aren't going to stay just because the club wants them.


It's how much they want them that's relevant. And you can only express how much you want them (or 'require' them) by the conditions you employ them under.


I have no idea what the conditions were. I don't know what he was offered in a monetary sense, and I don't know what he was told in regards to his on-field role.

It's just the 'required player' bit that doesn't make sense to me. There's lots of things in this workd that I require. But unless I pay the right price for them, I'm not going to get them. Whether I require them or not!

so you advocate paying Ball $600k a season?

You sure you dont know Dodgy fox?

Why couldnt St Kilda simply see Ball as required - but not at the price of N Riewoldt?

Does it mean they require him less than Riewoldt? - yes.
Does it mean tghey still require him? - yes.

Not mutually exclusive.

[dragit]

Maybe if we end up with pick 30 this year, we could get him back?
The Pies were pretty adamant that was his worth?

[Johnny Member]

so you advocate paying Ball $600k a season?

Not at all.

Why couldnt St Kilda simply see Ball as required - but not at the price of N Riewoldt?

Does it mean they require him less than Riewoldt? - yes.
Does it mean tghey still require him? - yes.

Not mutually exclusive.

But how bad did they require him?

Just requiring him doesn't mean anything. For the club or anyone to say 'he was a required player' doesn't make a case for either party.

If they said 'he was a required player, but we didn't require him enough to pay him as much as Lenny Hayes' then surely that's fair enough for the club to stand by.

But if they said 'he was a required player, but we didn't require him enough to pay him as much as Robert Eddy' then surely that's fair enough for Luke Ball to say thanks, bu no thanks!


That's all I'm saying. Being required doesn't mean anything.

[markp]

Lyon stated that there was a million dollar plus contract on the table that Ball walked away from, I don't recall this being contradicted by the Ball camp... I'd call that 'required'... this shyte really does belong on the oppo forum.

[Johnny Member]

Lyon stated that there was a million dollar plus contract on the table that Ball walked away from, I don't recall this being contradicted by the Ball camp... I'd call that 'required'... this shyte really does belong on the oppo forum.

It does!


I used to really rate Luke Ball. But I must admit, he's fast become just another opposition player that I hate.

[BigMart]

Luke Ball was my favourite player as a saint.......fearless, selfless and tough.

He is now my favourite opposition player.....for the same reason...

Jet person, good player...

[St Ick]

so you advocate paying Ball $600k a season?

Not at all.

Why couldnt St Kilda simply see Ball as required - but not at the price of N Riewoldt?

Does it mean they require him less than Riewoldt? - yes.
Does it mean tghey still require him? - yes.

Not mutually exclusive.

But how bad did they require him?

Just requiring him doesn't mean anything. For the club or anyone to say 'he was a required player' doesn't make a case for either party.

If they said 'he was a required player, but we didn't require him enough to pay him as much as Lenny Hayes' then surely that's fair enough for the club to stand by.

But if they said 'he was a required player, but we didn't require him enough to pay him as much as Robert Eddy' then surely that's fair enough for Luke Ball to say thanks, bu no thanks!


That's all I'm saying. Being required doesn't mean anything.

You are right, being required means very little usually, but when people consider the story that he was basically kicked out of St Kilda and had no other choice, then it means a lot. Its all about context...

[tony74]

Gee I'm really glad I began this post!!! I promise no more. I'll just comment on training news.

I repeat!!!

[satchmo]

We offered him $1 million over 3 years (because that's what you do to players we don't really want), but he put a $500k price on his head and screwed us by saying he'd only go to the filth, they offered us jack shyte, so we said get stuffed... the end.

and what did he get at collingwood over the three years? $1 million and 80 thousand. hmmm.
So he left the flag favourites and his friends for $26,000 extra a year? Or close to half that after tax.
No, money offered by the pies wasn't the reason he left.

No, the money offered above the table wasn't the reason he left.

Interesting that a club like melbourne could afford NOT to take ball. Imagine how they'd be going now with an experiened on baller like ball pumping up their kids. I bet Mrs connolly drives a lexus.

[SunburySaint]

interesting how after nearly 2 years we still whinge and moan about him

Do people here need some sort of relationship counselling over this

time to move on FFS

[satchmo]

interesting how after nearly 2 years we still whinge and moan about him

Do people here need some sort of relationship counselling over this

time to move on FFS

Off you go then.

[Teflon]

Lyon stated that there was a million dollar plus contract on the table that Ball walked away from, I don't recall this being contradicted by the Ball camp... I'd call that 'required'... this shyte really does belong on the oppo forum.

Thanks.

Getting tired talking to Dodg about "required".

$1m is "required".

[SainterK]

We offered him $1 million over 3 years (because that's what you do to players we don't really want), but he put a $500k price on his head and screwed us by saying he'd only go to the filth, they offered us jack shyte, so we said get stuffed... the end.

and what did he get at collingwood over the three years? $1 million and 80 thousand. hmmm.
So he left the flag favourites and his friends for $26,000 extra a year? Or close to half that after tax.
No, money offered by the pies wasn't the reason he left.

No, the money offered above the table wasn't the reason he left.

Interesting that a club like melbourne could afford NOT to take ball. Imagine how they'd be going now with an experiened on baller like ball pumping up their kids. I bet Mrs connolly drives a lexus.

Without a medical, who would of though?

[Teflon]

Luke Ball was my favourite player as a saint.......fearless, selfless and tough.

He is now my favourite opposition player.....for the same reason...

Jet person, good player...

Fair enough - buy a badge but don't pretend Luke was just a poor little monkey trapped as the innocent victim in a saga he and his Pie mates helped orchestrate while "big bad Lyon" stuffed it all upby himself..

For me - Luke Ball is a player that never delivered to the hype and at his best was still in no way comparable to Judd/Hodge at their best.

He's well educated and plays the "victim role" well but he's never been a Lenny Hayes - never has been and never will be.

[satchmo]

We offered him $1 million over 3 years (because that's what you do to players we don't really want), but he put a $500k price on his head and screwed us by saying he'd only go to the filth, they offered us jack shyte, so we said get stuffed... the end.

and what did he get at collingwood over the three years? $1 million and 80 thousand. hmmm.
So he left the flag favourites and his friends for $26,000 extra a year? Or close to half that after tax.
No, money offered by the pies wasn't the reason he left.

No, the money offered above the table wasn't the reason he left.

Interesting that a club like melbourne could afford NOT to take ball. Imagine how they'd be going now with an experiened on baller like ball pumping up their kids. I bet Mrs connolly drives a lexus.

Without a medical, who would of though?

collingwood?

[SainterK]

We offered him $1 million over 3 years (because that's what you do to players we don't really want), but he put a $500k price on his head and screwed us by saying he'd only go to the filth, they offered us jack shyte, so we said get stuffed... the end.

and what did he get at collingwood over the three years? $1 million and 80 thousand. hmmm.
So he left the flag favourites and his friends for $26,000 extra a year? Or close to half that after tax.
No, money offered by the pies wasn't the reason he left.

No, the money offered above the table wasn't the reason he left.

Interesting that a club like melbourne could afford NOT to take ball. Imagine how they'd be going now with an experiened on baller like ball pumping up their kids. I bet Mrs connolly drives a lexus.

Without a medical, who would of though?

collingwood?

I'm tipping if he was training in their rooms while on our list, it's pretty safe to suggest their relationship was such that they had his medical reports

[BigMart]

Teflon

Has your view on luke changed because he changed club, ultimately accepted a better position.....a promotion if you will....

Would you seriously expect him to consider staying at a place (rightly or wrongly) that was going to cut his pay, give him less opportunity and had no faith in his ability?? He did what 95% of people would do...

He does have a few things in common with judd hodge
Best and fairest
Captain
Premiership player

He is not in their league, has not been since 2006 ..... But in 05 he was considered in the AFL elite......he is now jus a very good inside mid and a club leader....

No one compared him to hayes...... Very few compare to lenny.....
What is the point of that comparison...

My points are as such

Our trading deal with luke was a stuff up, not sure how anyone could see it otherwise
Luke did what was best for him, and rightly so...should he have made massive sacrifices to make others happy??
Luke is still a valuable player, and a measured, humble and articulate guy
Plus
I love players with courage....he has it in spades

[SunburySaint]

interesting how after nearly 2 years we still whinge and moan about him

Do people here need some sort of relationship counselling over this

time to move on FFS

Off you go then.

Only if you go first......

[Teflon]

Teflon

Has your view on luke changed because he changed club, ultimately accepted a better position.....a promotion if you will....

Would you seriously expect him to consider staying at a place (rightly or wrongly) that was going to cut his pay, give him less opportunity and had no faith in his ability?? He did what 95% of people would do...

He does have a few things in common with judd hodge
Best and fairest
Captain
Premiership player

He is not in their league, has not been since 2006 ..... But in 05 he was considered in the AFL elite......he is now jus a very good inside mid and a club leader....

No one compared him to hayes...... Very few compare to lenny.....
What is the point of that comparison...

My points are as such

Our trading deal with luke was a stuff up, not sure how anyone could see it otherwise
Luke did what was best for him, and rightly so...should he have made massive sacrifices to make others happy??
Luke is still a valuable player, and a measured, humble and articulate guy
Plus
I love players with courage....he has it in spades

My view on Ball hasnt changed for a long time - prior to his departure I felt he was tradeable.

But according to you, the trading of Ball was a one sided affair...a club stuff up ...and Luke ofcourse played no part...he was just a good guy doing whats best for himself - except he detests the mercinary tag now... but ultimately thats what it was.

Sure Luke got offered $1m by Saints and didnt feel loved..... but Luke had another choice.....the choice to commit to the club and work through the deficiencies in his game Lyon (and others) clearly saw....but nup.....for all his "intestinal fortitude" Luke cut and run. You see thats where the Hayes comparison is apt......i dont suspect L Hayes would ever do that.....he strikes me as the kind of guy who if hes challenged...he ups the ante and works harder.

Yes, Luke had a good year in 05 - Hodge/Judd are elite for a reason....they do it each year....

For the record Ive never been a huge L Ball fan. Even at his best my jaws werent dropping while the so called experts were saying hes the next jesus on a footy field. Didnt see that myself. He's no Sellwood for that matter...who does it all.

He is fearless - but plenty are at AFL level, again hence the Hayes comparison...., however, Luke still cant run and kicking is ordinary. He's an ok player IMHO made to look better in a very good side this year who again can cover his limitations. We needed something else from Ball he couldnt deliver. Pies have plenty to run/spread...we didnt...Luke couldnt.

No I dont suppose I ever really expected Luke to make sacrifices after being well paid at the club for so many years.... (one of our highest paid players thanks to Grant) and under-delivering for such a long time while the club kept faith through all his injuries/study etc. Luke did exactly what I expected him to do after witnessing his handling of criticism from the coach....dropped the lip and took off.

Once again, I wouldnt imagine that response from Hayes. You're right, that comparison on so many levels is all wrong.

[barks4eva]

My view on Ball hasnt changed for a long time - prior to his departure I felt he was tradeable.

But according to you, the trading of Ball was a one sided affair...a club stuff up ...and Luke ofcourse played no part...he was just a good guy doing whats best for himself - except he detests the mercinary tag now... but ultimately thats what it was.

Sure Luke got offered $1m by Saints and didnt feel loved..... but Luke had another choice.....the choice to commit to the club and work through the deficiencies in his game Lyon (and others) clearly saw....but nup.....for all his "intestinal fortitude" Luke cut and run. You see thats where the Hayes comparison is apt......i dont suspect L Hayes would ever do that.....he strikes me as the kind of guy who if hes challenged...he ups the ante and works harder.

Yes, Luke had a good year in 05 - Hodge/Judd are elite for a reason....they do it each year....

For the record Ive never been a huge L Ball fan. Even at his best my jaws werent dropping while the so called experts were saying hes the next jesus on a footy field. Didnt see that myself. He's no Sellwood for that matter...who does it all.

He is fearless - but plenty are at AFL level, again hence the Hayes comparison...., however, Luke still cant run and kicking is ordinary. He's an ok player IMHO made to look better in a very good side this year who again can cover his limitations. We needed something else from Ball he couldnt deliver. Pies have plenty to run/spread...we didnt...Luke couldnt.

No I dont suppose I ever really expected Luke to make sacrifices after being well paid at the club for so many years.... (one of our highest paid players thanks to Grant) and under-delivering for such a long time while the club kept faith through all his injuries/study etc. Luke did exactly what I expected him to do after witnessing his handling of criticism from the coach....dropped the lip and took off.

Once again, I wouldnt imagine that response from Hayes. You're right, that comparison on so many levels is all wrong.

Perfect summation, my thoughts exactly!

[tweedaletomanning]

My view on Ball hasnt changed for a long time - prior to his departure I felt he was tradeable.

But according to you, the trading of Ball was a one sided affair...a club stuff up ...and Luke ofcourse played no part...he was just a good guy doing whats best for himself - except he detests the mercinary tag now... but ultimately thats what it was.

Sure Luke got offered $1m by Saints and didnt feel loved..... but Luke had another choice.....the choice to commit to the club and work through the deficiencies in his game Lyon (and others) clearly saw....but nup.....for all his "intestinal fortitude" Luke cut and run. You see thats where the Hayes comparison is apt......i dont suspect L Hayes would ever do that.....he strikes me as the kind of guy who if hes challenged...he ups the ante and works harder.

Yes, Luke had a good year in 05 - Hodge/Judd are elite for a reason....they do it each year....

For the record Ive never been a huge L Ball fan. Even at his best my jaws werent dropping while the so called experts were saying hes the next jesus on a footy field. Didnt see that myself. He's no Sellwood for that matter...who does it all.

He is fearless - but plenty are at AFL level, again hence the Hayes comparison...., however, Luke still cant run and kicking is ordinary. He's an ok player IMHO made to look better in a very good side this year who again can cover his limitations. We needed something else from Ball he couldnt deliver. Pies have plenty to run/spread...we didnt...Luke couldnt.

No I dont suppose I ever really expected Luke to make sacrifices after being well paid at the club for so many years.... (one of our highest paid players thanks to Grant) and under-delivering for such a long time while the club kept faith through all his injuries/study etc. Luke did exactly what I expected him to do after witnessing his handling of criticism from the coach....dropped the lip and took off.

Once again, I wouldnt imagine that response from Hayes. You're right, that comparison on so many levels is all wrong.

Perfect summation, my thoughts exactly!

+ 2

TRAITOR of the WORST kind.

[meher baba]

Interesting. The last few posts reveal, yet again, that the hatred some continue to display towards Ball is closely linked to their undying obsessive hatred of GT. Apparently Ball should have felt so guilty about being paid too much by the club in the past because of GT - even though he wasn't Lenny Hayes and couldn't kick over a jam jar, etc. - that he should have been prepared to instantly accept any offer the club put to him in 2009.

And, although we don't think he was much good, he was a required player to the extent that we required him to play VFL as a backup to Armo, Steven, etc. for 3 years. But, rather than take up an offer to be paid slightly more at the Pies and star in a couple of premiership sides, Ball should have been proud to stay at the Saints as a bit-part player to expurgate GT's past sins in having paid him too much.

So, even though most people (including the legendary man on the Clapham
omnibus) would see Ball's coice of the Pies' offer over ours as rational
and logical, it was actually an act of deep, dark betrayal.

It's a "logic" which - being based on the concept of atonement for original sin - reminds me of old-fashioned Catholic theology. But it is also a bit like Stalinism: first you drive Trotsky out of your country and then denounce
him and his supporters of betraying the revolution.

And here was me thinking it was simply a case of our wanting to free up money to pay Lovett and thereby offering Ball as little as we thought we could get away with because nobody else would want him (and we really only wanted him as a backup). And then getting the shock of our lives
when it turned out that a glamour club was feting him, saw him as a
potential star for them, and was prepared to pay him more (or, at least, about the same $$$, but on terms that were much more favourable to him).

I'm afraid that, rather than seek to atone for GT's past mistakes (the "sins of the father" if you like, B4E) it looks as if Ball made a simple business decision and took the better offer. But I rather like the idea of trying to use guilt and original sin as bargaining tactics in contract negotiations.

It's a shame Ricky Nixon is out of the game. He, for one, might have understood.......

[plugger66]

We offered him $1 million over 3 years (because that's what you do to players we don't really want), but he put a $500k price on his head and screwed us by saying he'd only go to the filth, they offered us jack shyte, so we said get stuffed... the end.

and what did he get at collingwood over the three years? $1 million and 80 thousand. hmmm.
So he left the flag favourites and his friends for $26,000 extra a year? Or close to half that after tax.
No, money offered by the pies wasn't the reason he left.

No, the money offered above the table wasn't the reason he left.

Interesting that a club like melbourne could afford NOT to take ball. Imagine how they'd be going now with an experiened on baller like ball pumping up their kids. I bet Mrs connolly drives a lexus.

Without a medical, who would of though?

collingwood?

I'm tipping if he was training in their rooms while on our list, it's pretty safe to suggest their relationship was such that they had his medical reports

Im tipping unless we have the worst medical staff in the world that if we offerred him a 3 contract then any club would assume medically he was ok.

[Johnny Member]

So if he's such an average player who can't kick, can't run and is a weak character - why the hell did we offer him over $300k per year!


That's it from me on the Luke Ball thing. Too many people can't hold an argument about the topic without getting nasty towards others.