Not the same but he left a place he had been for at least 5 years to go to another Victorian club for more money. I would say Bally has as much reason to want to leave the Saints as Sammy did for wanting to leave Carlton. At least Sammy was definately going to get a game each week.Mr Magic wrote:Are you suggesting that the Hammill scenario was the same as the Ball scenario?plugger66 wrote:Must not have had a great opinion of Sammy Hamill when he came to the saints.st_Trav_ofWA wrote:O'keefe aslo wanted to leave to return to Vic .. Luke wants to stay in Vic but play for a diff team ... i dunno i look at Luke in a differant light after all of thissaintbrat wrote:O'Keefe from Sydney requested trade - didn't get it, worked through it and Did fairly well in their Best and Fairest.Moods wrote: However Andrew Lovett was in a similar position last year, and managed to play his best footy yet this year, so it can still work. My guess is that it will be a 2 year contract, but conditional for parties in the seecond year.
Will we allow ball to.....
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12775
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 785 times
- Been thanked: 425 times
I may be wrong, but I don't think Westaway (or any other Saints official) has publicly lambasted Luke Ball?plugger66 wrote:Not the same but he left a place he had been for at least 5 years to go to another Victorian club for more money. I would say Bally has as much reason to want to leave the Saints as Sammy did for wanting to leave Carlton. At least Sammy was definately going to get a game each week.Mr Magic wrote:Are you suggesting that the Hammill scenario was the same as the Ball scenario?plugger66 wrote:Must not have had a great opinion of Sammy Hamill when he came to the saints.st_Trav_ofWA wrote:O'keefe aslo wanted to leave to return to Vic .. Luke wants to stay in Vic but play for a diff team ... i dunno i look at Luke in a differant light after all of thissaintbrat wrote:O'Keefe from Sydney requested trade - didn't get it, worked through it and Did fairly well in their Best and Fairest.Moods wrote: However Andrew Lovett was in a similar position last year, and managed to play his best footy yet this year, so it can still work. My guess is that it will be a 2 year contract, but conditional for parties in the seecond year.
ALso, I believe that Carlton offered to pay Hammill the same as St Kilda (less than Sydney), but couldn't afford to show the total salary 'on their books'?
Hammill wasn't shy in asking for more money from other Clubs. Ball's management has (amongst many other claims) seemingly wanted to distance him from any assertion that money is playing a part in his desire to leave.
Are you suggesting that it is?
And I reckon that Ball would definitely get a game each week at Melbourne, who are in a similar position to what we were back then.
Also I don't think Hammill declared he would only go to a particular CLub?
No, there seems far too many differences to use the Hammill case as an analogy for the Ball one.
My main point was that the poster basically said he couldnt look at Bally in the same light anymore. I dont see why you would think that but ytou could also respect Hammill for coming to us. IMO whether Bally leaves or not I will still think of him exactly the same way as I did 6 weeks ago.Mr Magic wrote:I may be wrong, but I don't think Westaway (or any other Saints official) has publicly lambasted Luke Ball?plugger66 wrote:Not the same but he left a place he had been for at least 5 years to go to another Victorian club for more money. I would say Bally has as much reason to want to leave the Saints as Sammy did for wanting to leave Carlton. At least Sammy was definately going to get a game each week.Mr Magic wrote:Are you suggesting that the Hammill scenario was the same as the Ball scenario?plugger66 wrote:Must not have had a great opinion of Sammy Hamill when he came to the saints.st_Trav_ofWA wrote:O'keefe aslo wanted to leave to return to Vic .. Luke wants to stay in Vic but play for a diff team ... i dunno i look at Luke in a differant light after all of thissaintbrat wrote:O'Keefe from Sydney requested trade - didn't get it, worked through it and Did fairly well in their Best and Fairest.Moods wrote: However Andrew Lovett was in a similar position last year, and managed to play his best footy yet this year, so it can still work. My guess is that it will be a 2 year contract, but conditional for parties in the seecond year.
ALso, I believe that Carlton offered to pay Hammill the same as St Kilda (less than Sydney), but couldn't afford to show the total salary 'on their books'?
Hammill wasn't shy in asking for more money from other Clubs. Ball's management has (amongst many other claims) seemingly wanted to distance him from any assertion that money is playing a part in his desire to leave.
Are you suggesting that it is?
And I reckon that Ball would definitely get a game each week at Melbourne, who are in a similar position to what we were back then.
Also I don't think Hammill declared he would only go to a particular CLub?
No, there seems far too many differences to use the Hammill case as an analogy for the Ball one.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12775
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 785 times
- Been thanked: 425 times
Whilst I prefer him to stay, I won't ahve a problem if he goes.plugger66 wrote:My main point was that the poster basically said he couldnt look at Bally in the same light anymore. I dont see why you would think that but ytou could also respect Hammill for coming to us. IMO whether Bally leaves or not I will still think of him exactly the same way as I did 6 weeks ago.Mr Magic wrote:I may be wrong, but I don't think Westaway (or any other Saints official) has publicly lambasted Luke Ball?plugger66 wrote:Not the same but he left a place he had been for at least 5 years to go to another Victorian club for more money. I would say Bally has as much reason to want to leave the Saints as Sammy did for wanting to leave Carlton. At least Sammy was definately going to get a game each week.Mr Magic wrote:Are you suggesting that the Hammill scenario was the same as the Ball scenario?plugger66 wrote:Must not have had a great opinion of Sammy Hamill when he came to the saints.st_Trav_ofWA wrote:O'keefe aslo wanted to leave to return to Vic .. Luke wants to stay in Vic but play for a diff team ... i dunno i look at Luke in a differant light after all of thissaintbrat wrote:O'Keefe from Sydney requested trade - didn't get it, worked through it and Did fairly well in their Best and Fairest.Moods wrote: However Andrew Lovett was in a similar position last year, and managed to play his best footy yet this year, so it can still work. My guess is that it will be a 2 year contract, but conditional for parties in the seecond year.
ALso, I believe that Carlton offered to pay Hammill the same as St Kilda (less than Sydney), but couldn't afford to show the total salary 'on their books'?
Hammill wasn't shy in asking for more money from other Clubs. Ball's management has (amongst many other claims) seemingly wanted to distance him from any assertion that money is playing a part in his desire to leave.
Are you suggesting that it is?
And I reckon that Ball would definitely get a game each week at Melbourne, who are in a similar position to what we were back then.
Also I don't think Hammill declared he would only go to a particular CLub?
No, there seems far too many differences to use the Hammill case as an analogy for the Ball one.
We've had worse players than him leave.
We've had better players than him leave.
We haven't had many who before/on leaving have given our CLub a 'bake' like Connors has.
The 'untenable' comment, IMHO, was extremely disgraceful and disrespectful to our Coach and Club. And it has not been publicly withdrawn either.
Oh and we traded #4 for Hamill. What did those pr!cks from the filth offer us for Ball again?
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
- Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
plugger66 wrote:I dont think that changes how you feel about a player.joffaboy wrote:Oh and we traded #4 for Hamill. What did those pr!cks from the filth offer us for Ball again?
Hammil left cos he thought john elliot was world class prick. he was also lured by the blight factor... I think Hammil has been proven right.
Whats Ball's gripe again? 3x330 k is not enough?
Ball is dreaming. reality check. Only team that will pay anyywhere near he thinks hes worth are melbourne.
did we hear the dogs, cats or hawks enquire about him?
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1676
- Joined: Fri 28 May 2004 8:47pm
Totally agree. Didn't buy into the lip service either - I'm not sure why he bothered - maybe he just gave the media what they wanted to hear.Milan Faletic wrote:Good insight, SainterK. He is a smart guy and I think he will be struggling with the lack of suitors. We are the team to be with for 2010, there is no doubt about that. So I reckon Luke and/or his "manager" have erred big time.SainterK wrote:My take....
Luke often talks about how this year was the kick up the bum he needed, whilst I think that alot of what he said was lip service at the time, I am beginning to suspect that the real kick up the bum (should he realise it) was perhaps the lack of suitors during trade, and seeing just how highly Collingwood rated his services with their "offer" to the club....
One year or two, I don't really care, I just want the decision to be a real one, and not feel like he is just settling for the Saints....
As far as analogy goes, what about the Heath Black trade?
Black played just as well for us in his extra year of service I felt. While its not the romantic image we want of a player 'bleeding for the club', - he is a professional and will perform accordingly (I think).
The simple "run and spread" criteria that stops his getting game time - doesn't sit well with me either. More to it than that I would assume.
If ever a player has been haunted by his draft pick, it was Ball.
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10744
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 822 times
Correct.Spinner wrote:Exactly - All clubs come to the trade table. Except Collingwood.joffaboy wrote:Oh and we traded #4 for Hamill. What did those pr!cks from the filth offer us for Ball again?
I believe they also got Sam Cranage, dunno if that was part of the same tade.....
We got pick 4 from Port Adelaide for Darryl Wakelin plus pick 48.
So the total trade from St Kilda's persepctive was
In: Hamill
Out: Darryl Wakelin + Sam Cranage + Pick 48
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
How do you know the money he was offerred by us or by any other club. I would say that one reason Bally may leave will not be the money and to back this up it looks like he has rejected the Demons offer.Con Gorozidis wrote:plugger66 wrote:I dont think that changes how you feel about a player.joffaboy wrote:Oh and we traded #4 for Hamill. What did those pr!cks from the filth offer us for Ball again?
Hammil left cos he thought john elliot was world class prick. he was also lured by the blight factor... I think Hammil has been proven right.
Whats Ball's gripe again? 3x330 k is not enough?
Ball is dreaming. reality check. Only team that will pay anyywhere near he thinks hes worth are melbourne.
did we hear the dogs, cats or hawks enquire about him?
8 weeks ago Bally was a favourite player who was a very required player, now with some on this site he is a very ordinary player who should actually pay us to play. Hope no one on this site has left a business to try and improve himself either for money or opportunity.
If Bally stays that is great, if he goes I hope he does great but the club will survive.
I never said he was an ordinary player, however if you think that you are above improving and growing, then that is pretty ordinary...plugger66 wrote:How do you know the money he was offerred by us or by any other club. I would say that one reason Bally may leave will not be the money and to back this up it looks like he has rejected the Demons offer.Con Gorozidis wrote:plugger66 wrote:I dont think that changes how you feel about a player.joffaboy wrote:Oh and we traded #4 for Hamill. What did those pr!cks from the filth offer us for Ball again?
Hammil left cos he thought john elliot was world class prick. he was also lured by the blight factor... I think Hammil has been proven right.
Whats Ball's gripe again? 3x330 k is not enough?
Ball is dreaming. reality check. Only team that will pay anyywhere near he thinks hes worth are melbourne.
did we hear the dogs, cats or hawks enquire about him?
8 weeks ago Bally was a favourite player who was a very required player, now with some on this site he is a very ordinary player who should actually pay us to play. Hope no one on this site has left a business to try and improve himself either for money or opportunity.
If Bally stays that is great, if he goes I hope he does great but the club will survive.
- Saints43
- Club Player
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:01pm
- Location: L2 A38
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
Spot on. Especially regarding this site discussing contract/s LB has been offered from the club. We have absolutely no idea of the figures, the terms or the pitch that accompanied it/them.plugger66 wrote:How do you know the money he was offerred by us or by any other club. I would say that one reason Bally may leave will not be the money and to back this up it looks like he has rejected the Demons offer.
8 weeks ago Bally was a favourite player who was a very required player, now with some on this site he is a very ordinary player who should actually pay us to play. Hope no one on this site has left a business to try and improve himself either for money or opportunity.
If Bally stays that is great, if he goes I hope he does great but the club will survive.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12775
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 785 times
- Been thanked: 425 times
Apparently it's only ok if the speculation puts the Club (generally) in a bad light.markp wrote:No shyte sherlocks...![]()
But is it ok if some people speculate on a fan site about what is being reported... please?
One wonders if the strident criticism of the CLub we're seeing on here would have occured if the Coach in charge was the predecessor and not the incumbent? (that should liven up this thread!)
- markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15567
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 63 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
You're implying someone pulled it out of their alimentary??Saints43 wrote:Where was it reported that the 3 year contract was for $330K per year as stated in this thread, Watson?markp wrote:No shyte sherlocks...![]()
But is it ok if some people speculate on a fan site about what is being reported... please?
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
The Australian...
The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.
Last edited by markp on Fri 06 Nov 2009 1:47pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12775
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 785 times
- Been thanked: 425 times
If you're a 'non-believer' than no 'proof' is going to count, is it?markp wrote:Your implying someone pulled it out of their alimentary??Saints43 wrote:Where was it reported that the 3 year contract was for $330K per year as stated in this thread, Watson?markp wrote:No shyte sherlocks...![]()
But is it ok if some people speculate on a fan site about what is being reported... please?![]()
The Australian...
The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.
Denham reported many weeks ago that Cololingwood had offered Ball around 500k per year, much more than the current Saints offer.
Connors was reported on teh Tuesday of Trade Week as stating that teh Saints offer was better than Collingwoods, implying that Ball wasn't going to Collingwood for more money.
Both reports cannot be true.
I have no doubt that if the Saints offer was greater than Collingwood's, Luke Ball would have signed on the dotted line.
- Saints43
- Club Player
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:01pm
- Location: L2 A38
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
I was suggesting that. Was...markp wrote:You're implying someone pulled it out of their alimentary??Saints43 wrote:Where was it reported that the 3 year contract was for $330K per year as stated in this thread, Watson?markp wrote:No shyte sherlocks...![]()
But is it ok if some people speculate on a fan site about what is being reported... please?![]()
The Australian...
The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.