Disappointed in the club

[Bernard Shakey]

Milton, you are not a monster.
You are a benevolent employer who just makes money as a by-product of being such a great employer.

You would be the most unique employer in this country. Congratulations, but I don't believe it.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Clearly it's dogged Ball and hurt the club's brand (clubs mightn't want to trade in the future see Port for details).

No they wont offer up crap and then not negotiate at all, epecting us to cave in at the last moment.

If they want a saints player than they have to trade fairly.

How is offering picks 25 and 62 for someone even we rate so lowly we only give him half a game (when he's not playing in the VFL) "crap"?
We only had to give up pick 16 for Lovett, and he's likely to make far more of an impact than Bally and will probably play for years longer, having only started a few years ago, so picks 25 and 62 are reasonable in comparison. Especially when you consider Ball could now nominate for the National draft and be picked up by Collingwood with pick 30.
That would mean they'd get the guy they were after, for even less than they offered us and we get NOTHING (except egg on our faces and a bad wrap at the trade table.)

You are kidding right? Do you honestly believe that Melbourne will pass him up in the draft?

As stated many times over, the picks were not good enough for what Luke is WORTH TO COLLINGWOOD. Why would you let a player such as Luke go to Collingwood to strengthen their team for next to nothing in return? Pick 25 with get you not a lot in this draft. Whereas the value of Luke to Collingwood and their attempts at a GF berth next year are equal to a first round pick.

Whereas if he was picked up by Melbourne, they won't have a shot at the final for the next 2+ years, so his worth is a little less due to the immediate impact he will have to their team. Losing him for nothing to a team that doesn't figure in finals calculations for a couple of years is a lot better than losing him for nothing to a team that *could* potentially challenge us next year.

Make no mistake, Luke would struggle to get an ongoing position in our team (due to depth and quality of players on the list), but that would not be so at another 10+ clubs in the league. It is not a matter of whether our coaching team rates him highly (which obviously they do because he was offered a 3 year contract), it is about whether he is good enough to make a spot in the team and keep it. Pretty good position to be in, don't you think?

Yes I do and now I have proof, unless they're bluffing- which I doubt, as they're trying to convince Luke to nominate for the PSD:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

So as I said, Ball could now nominate for the National draft and be picked up by Collingwood with just pick 30.
Meaning they'd get the guy they were after, for even less than they offered us and we get NOTHING. We'll be a laughing stock if this happens and others may be wary of dealing with us next year, because we f***ed this one up so badly. It will be even worse if they happened to offer us Nathan Brown (who could easily play 250+ games) for Bally and we knocked him back, only for them to get Ball for pick 30 and we get, please repeat after me: NOTHING (but lessons, egg on our face, etc).

[Milton66]

Milton, you are not a monster.
You are a benevolent employer who just makes money as a by-product of being such a great employer.

You would be the most unique employer in this country. Congratulations, but I don't believe it.

Actually, no I'm not the only one. There's quite a few of us.

And at least get your facts correct in your bid to be a smar@rse... I never said I was a charity.

My employees are compensated in direct proportion to the value they add to the business. Hard the Lone Ranger here Bernard Cranky.

That you do not believe me is probably more a by-product of having a scarcity mindset. Still it must be difficult for you to believe anything that goes against the belief system ingrained on you by your parents... as it is for most people.

[saint75]

It will be even worse if they happened to offer us Nathan Brown (who could easily play 250+ games) for Bally and we knocked him back, only for them to get Ball for pick 30 and we get, please repeat after me: NOTHING (but lessons, egg on our face, etc).

Excuse me? What do you think the stumbling block was? We WANTED Nathan Brown and they would not deal. At least try to get some of your facts right before you start ranting and raving.

By the way, do you think that Port would let Ball go in the draft? I think not! They are crying out for strong leadership at their club. There are quite a few teams that will pick Ball up before Collingwoods Pick 30 one would think.

[Mr Magic]

Here's how Collingwood can get Ball:-

He needs to nominate himself for the PSD.
He needs to put a salary on himself of $900,000

No CLub can afford to have $900,000 deducted from their salary cap, so Collingwood needs to do something underhanded (against the spirit of the rules).

They might find a 'willing partner' in Paul Connors?

All contracts have to be lodged with the AFL by Ocober 31?

I expect that the deal they've struck with Darren Jolly (Connors' other client) is for at least $500,000 and for more than 1 year. That contract would not have been lodged yet at the AFL.

What would happen if they lodged a contract for Jolly of $100,000 in the first year and $500,000 in the second year?

Ball would get $900,000 in the first year according to his contract.
His second year contract would be for $100,000.

Both players would receive $1,000,000 over the 2 year period and COllingwood wouldn't have gone over their salary cap.

Someone tell me please if I've got this wrong?

[SainterK]

Why be upset with the club?

Luke wanted to leave St Kilda, he is still very much able to do so as far as I am concerned?

If the club choses to be compensated or not, this should not impact on Luke whatsoever.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

It will be even worse if they happened to offer us Nathan Brown (who could easily play 250+ games) for Bally and we knocked him back, only for them to get Ball for pick 30 and we get, please repeat after me: NOTHING (but lessons, egg on our face, etc).

Excuse me? What do you think the stumbling block was? We WANTED Nathan Brown and they would not deal. At least try to get some of your facts right before you start ranting and raving.

By the way, do you think that Port would let Ball go in the draft? I think not! They are crying out for strong leadership at their club. There are quite a few teams that will pick Ball up before Collingwoods Pick 30 one would think.

Get my facts right? Did you not read what I said before your "rant'? Or is it OK for you to do it but not me, or anyone else? If you were paying attention, you'd have seen that I said "if they happened to offer us Brown". How is that a statement of fact? It's a "hypothetical".
I made that hypothetical as a result of it having been reported that we "asked for Brown AND pick 30 for Ball", which led me to believe that maybe they'd offered us Brown and we wanted pick 30 thrown in as well. If not, so be it, but I sure as hell didn't state it as fact.
If we seriously wanted Brown and pick 30, then this is either the weakest draft ever by far, or we did the exact same thing that so many have accused Collingwood of on here (way overvaluing their guys at the trade table, meaning trades don't get done). I reckon it's the latter, but it's just an opinion, if that's OK.

[Mr Magic]

It will be even worse if they happened to offer us Nathan Brown (who could easily play 250+ games) for Bally and we knocked him back, only for them to get Ball for pick 30 and we get, please repeat after me: NOTHING (but lessons, egg on our face, etc).

Excuse me? What do you think the stumbling block was? We WANTED Nathan Brown and they would not deal. At least try to get some of your facts right before you start ranting and raving.

By the way, do you think that Port would let Ball go in the draft? I think not! They are crying out for strong leadership at their club. There are quite a few teams that will pick Ball up before Collingwoods Pick 30 one would think.

Get my facts right? Did you not read what I said before your "rant'? Or is it OK for you to do it but not me, or anyone else? If you were paying attention, you'd have seen that I said "if they happened to offer us Brown". How is that a statement of fact? It's a "hypothetical".
I made that hypothetical as a result of it having been reported that we "asked for Brown AND pick 30 for Ball", which led me to believe that maybe they'd offered us Brown and we wanted pick 30 thrown in as well. If not, so be it, but I sure as hell didn't state it as fact.
If we seriously wanted Brown and pick 30, then this is either the weakest draft ever by far, or we did the exact same thing that so many have accused Collingwood of on here (way overvaluing their guys at the trade table, meaning trades don't get done). I reckon it's the latter, but it's just an opinion, if that's OK.

Why even raise a hypothetical?
We apparently submitted a list of players (including Brown) that would for the basis fo the deal and they were all rejected by Collingwood.
Maybe we wanted Brown and their pick #30 for Ball and our pick #32?

It never got to that point becasue Collingwood was reluctant to trade most of their players.

My beef is not with Ball for wanting to leave.
My beef is this 'natural inclination' to blame us for everything when it's quite likely we weren't to blame.
Even now your post reads like you are looking for a reason to blame the Saints for the deal not getting done.

IMO, there are only 2 parties responsible - Connors and Collingwood.
They wanted something from us - Luke Ball.
They came to us adn wanted us to 'give' him to them.
It's not up to us to accomodate them just because they want it.

If we're such a bad citizen to deal with, how come X Clarke is at Brisbane without any fuss?
How come Farren Ray is with us?
How come Schneider and Dempster are with us?
How come King is with us?

[saint75]

It will be even worse if they happened to offer us Nathan Brown (who could easily play 250+ games) for Bally and we knocked him back, only for them to get Ball for pick 30 and we get, please repeat after me: NOTHING (but lessons, egg on our face, etc).

Excuse me? What do you think the stumbling block was? We WANTED Nathan Brown and they would not deal. At least try to get some of your facts right before you start ranting and raving.

By the way, do you think that Port would let Ball go in the draft? I think not! They are crying out for strong leadership at their club. There are quite a few teams that will pick Ball up before Collingwoods Pick 30 one would think.

Get my facts right? Did you not read what I said before your "rant'? Or is it OK for you to do it but not me, or anyone else? If you were paying attention, you'd have seen that I said "if they happened to offer us Brown". How is that a statement of fact? It's a "hypothetical".
I made that hypothetical as a result of it having been reported that we "asked for Brown AND pick 30 for Ball", which led me to believe that maybe they'd offered us Brown and we wanted pick 30 thrown in as well. If not, so be it, but I sure as hell didn't state it as fact.
If we seriously wanted Brown and pick 30, then this is either the weakest draft ever by far, or we did the exact same thing that so many have accused Collingwood of on here (way overvaluing their guys at the trade table, meaning trades don't get done). I reckon it's the latter, but it's just an opinion, if that's OK.

No rant and rave from me, just amazed that you are getting your shorts in a knot and displaying misplaced anger at the St Kilda FC over a 'hypothetical' scenario. Quite weird really.

Anyhoo, carry on with your St Kilda bashing. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good post......

[groupie1]

Why would it be stated that 'if players want out, we'll move them on (paraphrasing), yet, when it comes to the crunch, Ball is now in limbo? Something (even draft picks even) is better than zilch if he goes into the drafts.

What would you have done?

IMO it's better to attain something from the deal than have a player walk.

Look at Nick Stevens, and Brett Voss in 2001 (leaving the Lions). Also Shanahan leaving StK to go to Melb in 1998. Better to get something from any valued player.

Your point is good mate, but i could argue we did get value from Ball more likely to go to Melbourne than Collingwood. The value is Collingwood remains that bit behind us. there's the value. We traded a player into the PSD and in return did not strengthen any close rival clubs.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

There are quite a few teams that will pick Ball up before Collingwoods Pick 30 one would think.

So which are these "quite a few teams that will pick Ball up before Collingwoods Pick 30" in the National draft?
Even Melbourne, who claim they're extremely keen to get Ball, have admitted that they're not even prepared to pick him up with their 4th overall pick, and I expect it would be the same for most of the clubs that finished in the bottom half of the ladder. They're not likely to be prepared to use up a relatively high draft pick on someone who will be on the "wrong side" of 25, has a very suspect body and seems to have lost his ability to run and kick well (and costs a lot of money). They'll be wanting someone who's likely to be around when they next are legitimately vying for a Premiership. Melbourne have even been quoted as saying they're even a slight chance to pick him up with pick 50.
I strongly doubt Port would use their no. 16 pick for him. While Fremantle and West Coast, (who play their home games at the big Subiaco ground, and have picks 20, 22, 23) would be unlikely to want to use a pick that high on someone as slow as Ball. Imagine him playing at Subiaco every second week. North have picks 21 and 25, but they're years away from a flag, so I doubt they'd take him.
There are some clubs who have a pick between 20 and 30, who would probably be willing to take Ball, if they're Premiership window" is open now, but there's a thing called a "salary cap".
Whatever price Collingwood was prepared to pay Ball a week ago is the price he could/would put on his head in the draft. That would probably be around $300,000 and would eliminate some of those interested clubs from the race. Like Geelong (pick 28), who have no room in their salary cap for him and one would imagine Brisbane (pick 27) wouldn't either, after getting Fev, X Clarke, etc. Essendon and Adelaide may have room (picks 24, 26 and 29) but they also played finals this year and them getting Ball with one of those picks would be little different from Collingwood having gotten him with pick 25. Except of course, that we get nothing in return this way.
So I expect if Ball nominates for the National Draft, he will either be picked up by Adelaide (who are probably more of a threat to us than Collingwood), Essendon (who are also on the rise, with their young list and having played finals this year) or Collingwood, with pick 30. If I were Ball, I'd much rather go to one of those clubs than Melbourne, where he may never play a final.
This is why I reckon we stuffed up and I'm going to call a spade a spade, not just support every thing the club does, even when I think it's stupid. I support the club, but don't support this situation. If you have a problem with that, I don't care in the least.
When I heard he didn't get traded, I was disappointed, but then when I heard we knocked back pick 25 I was shocked and then pissed off, which is what I'm expressing here. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is a forum for expressing our opinions about the club.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

My beef is not with Ball for wanting to leave.
My beef is this 'natural inclination' to blame us for everything when it's quite likely we weren't to blame.
Even now your post reads like you are looking for a reason to blame the Saints for the deal not getting done.


If we're such a bad citizen to deal with, how come X Clarke is at Brisbane without any fuss?
How come Farren Ray is with us?
How come Schneider and Dempster are with us?
How come King is with us?

What natural inclination? I'm calling it as I see it. After it happened, most on here seemed very quick to blame Collingwood, but I get the feeling, from what I've heard from "neutral observers", not the parochial St Kilda people, or those who hate Collingwood, that on this occasion we stuffed this one up. If so, it's better to admit it and learn from it, than just be parochial and have it continue, which is not in our best interests.

[Mr Magic]

My beef is not with Ball for wanting to leave.
My beef is this 'natural inclination' to blame us for everything when it's quite likely we weren't to blame.
Even now your post reads like you are looking for a reason to blame the Saints for the deal not getting done.


If we're such a bad citizen to deal with, how come X Clarke is at Brisbane without any fuss?
How come Farren Ray is with us?
How come Schneider and Dempster are with us?
How come King is with us?

What natural inclination? I'm calling it as I see it. After it happened, most on here seemed very quick to blame Collingwood, but I get the feeling, from what I've heard from "neutral observers", not the parochial St Kilda people, or those who hate Collingwood, that on this occasion we stuffed this one up. If so, it's better to admit it and learn from it, than just be parochial and have it continue, which is not in our best interests.

I have absolutely no idea who your 'neutral observers' are but please explain how they (and you) figure we 'stuffed this up'?

We entered trade discussions with Collingwood over Luke Ball.
They didn't offer us anything we wanted.

So according to you we should have just given Ball to them?

Carlton gave up pick 26 for Lachlan Henderson from Brisbane.
Collingwood gave up pick 14 for Darren Jolley
We gave up pick 16 for Andrew Lovett.

Please tell us all what Luke Ball was worth vis-a-vis these trades?

[plugger66]

My beef is not with Ball for wanting to leave.
My beef is this 'natural inclination' to blame us for everything when it's quite likely we weren't to blame.
Even now your post reads like you are looking for a reason to blame the Saints for the deal not getting done.


If we're such a bad citizen to deal with, how come X Clarke is at Brisbane without any fuss?
How come Farren Ray is with us?
How come Schneider and Dempster are with us?
How come King is with us?

What natural inclination? I'm calling it as I see it. After it happened, most on here seemed very quick to blame Collingwood, but I get the feeling, from what I've heard from "neutral observers", not the parochial St Kilda people, or those who hate Collingwood, that on this occasion we stuffed this one up. If so, it's better to admit it and learn from it, than just be parochial and have it continue, which is not in our best interests.

I have absolutely no idea who your 'neutral observers' are but please explain how they (and you) figure we 'stuffed this up'?

We entered trade discussions with Collingwood over Luke Ball.
They didn't offer us anything we wanted.

So according to you we should have just given Ball to them?

Carlton gave up pick 26 for Lachlan Henderson from Brisbane.
Collingwood gave up pick 14 for Darren Jolley
We gave up pick 16 for Andrew Lovett.

Please tell us all what Luke Ball was worth vis-a-vis these trades?

Forgetting the Henderson one as that was part of the Fev deal I would suggest Bally is worth about pick 20-30 based on those other deals. I think we sould have taken pick 30 even if we sell light as it still would have been our highest pick in the draft this year. It might be ok to say we would be getting robbed for that but losing Ball for nothing doesnt help anyone apart from melbourne. Did anyone think Port Adelaide did the right thing with Stevens a few years ago? I doubt it back then but a bet a few will say they did now that we have also done it.

[joffaboy]

Did anyone think Port Adelaide did the right thing with Stevens a few years ago? I doubt it back then but a bet a few will say they did now that we have also done it.

Won a flag in 2004.

I thought they did the right thing.

Josh Mahony thought they did the right thing.

Didn't give a potential GF rival a free hit and then won the flag in 2004.

Great move.

[plugger66]

Did anyone think Port Adelaide did the right thing with Stevens a few years ago? I doubt it back then but a bet a few will say they did now that we have also done it.

Won a flag in 2004.

I thought they did the right thing.

Josh Mahony thought they did the right thing.

Didn't give a potential GF rival a free hit and then won the flag in 2004.

Great move.

When they actually did it did you think it was the right thing. I bet you like everyone else laughed at them but we love the hindsight.

[markp]

Forgetting the Henderson one as that was part of the Fev deal I would suggest Bally is worth about pick 20-30 based on those other deals. I think we sould have taken pick 30 even if we sell light as it still would have been our highest pick in the draft this year. It might be ok to say we would be getting robbed for that but losing Ball for nothing doesnt help anyone apart from melbourne. Did anyone think Port Adelaide did the right thing with Stevens a few years ago? I doubt it back then but a bet a few will say they did now that we have also done it.

It comes down to principle and setting a precedent... you don't give into the demands of hijackers for the same reason.

[plugger66]

Forgetting the Henderson one as that was part of the Fev deal I would suggest Bally is worth about pick 20-30 based on those other deals. I think we sould have taken pick 30 even if we sell light as it still would have been our highest pick in the draft this year. It might be ok to say we would be getting robbed for that but losing Ball for nothing doesnt help anyone apart from melbourne. Did anyone think Port Adelaide did the right thing with Stevens a few years ago? I doubt it back then but a bet a few will say they did now that we have also done it.

It comes down to principle and setting a precedent... you don't give into the demands of hijackers for the same reason.

Yes principles are good but a player like bernie Vince is better. A player like Phil Raymond isnt. We will never know what we missed out on so we will never know what we really should have done unless of course Bally stayed but that isnt happening. Again i say 99% on here would have laughed at Port 2004 but in hindsight it didnt hurt them that year. Later on perhaps but not that year.

[markp]

Forgetting the Henderson one as that was part of the Fev deal I would suggest Bally is worth about pick 20-30 based on those other deals. I think we sould have taken pick 30 even if we sell light as it still would have been our highest pick in the draft this year. It might be ok to say we would be getting robbed for that but losing Ball for nothing doesnt help anyone apart from melbourne. Did anyone think Port Adelaide did the right thing with Stevens a few years ago? I doubt it back then but a bet a few will say they did now that we have also done it.

It comes down to principle and setting a precedent... you don't give into the demands of hijackers for the same reason.

Yes principles are good but a player like bernie Vince is better. A player like Phil Raymond isnt. We will never know what we missed out on so we will never know what we really should have done unless of course Bally stayed but that isnt happening. Again i say 99% on here would have laughed at Port 2004 but in hindsight it didnt hurt them that year. Later on perhaps but not that year.

My point is that this action may prevent something similar happening in the future... but that is something else we will never know.

[Mr Magic]

If I'm understanding this correctly, the Saints were prepared to trade ball for less than the 'value' they put on him provided they got either a player they wanted from Collingwood or a draft pick that would safisfy Western Bulldogs so that we could obtain Everitt.

Collingwood said no to anybody on their list we were interested in adn only offered players we weren't interested in.

Then it went to draft picks
It didn't matter to us what the number was, only that it would be sufficient to satisfy Western Bulldogs.

I'm genuinely struggling to understand how we can be painted as the 'villain in all of this?

What were we supposed to do - be Santa Claus to everybody for our own detriment?

[Milton66]

If I'm understanding this correctly, the Saints were prepared to trade ball for less than the 'value' they put on him provided they got either a player they wanted from Collingwood or a draft pick that would safisfy Western Bulldogs so that we could obtain Everitt.

Collingwood said no to anybody on their list we were interested in adn only offered players we weren't interested in.

Then it went to draft picks
It didn't matter to us what the number was, only that it would be sufficient to satisfy Western Bulldogs.

I'm genuinely struggling to understand how we can be painted as the 'villain in all of this?

What were we supposed to do - be Santa Claus to everybody for our own detriment?

Ho ho ho...

[Milan Faletic]

We could have had Josh Fraser

[Milton66]

We could have had Josh Fraser

No no no!

[mbogo]

I would like to hear that the club did all it could to convince Luke that he should stay and that the new contract would reflect his on-field performance ... and that opportunities would be available.

[Mr Magic]

I would like to hear that the club did all it could to convince Luke that he should stay and that the new contract would reflect his on-field performance ... and that opportunities would be available.

Why?
Maybe the Club are happy for him to go?


Afterall, I believe everything that the journos are reporting:-

he's not going for more money,
he wants more game time,
and
his position with Ross Lyon is untenable,
and anyway,
the Saints threw him out.

He's gone. I keep reading everywhere that he's a 'former saint'.

I'd prefer the Club worry about the players we have who want to play for us and the new players we're going to get in the drafts.