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?Teflon wrote:This post doesnt make sense.Johnny Member wrote:I'm over the Luke Ball thing.Teflon wrote:Lets deal in facts.BigMart wrote: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....
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...
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.
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.
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!