Thanks Luke....

[desertsaint]

Okay last post on the issue by me as we're going in circles

"Please show me a single post of mine that criticizes anything other then the 'statements' made on behalf of Luke Ball by his management/camp/family. "

"disgraceful accusations he made about our Club"

not on his behalf -"he made" - now if you know anything about the media, agents, friends, and relatives you'll understand that luke may not have endorsed these at all, and may not have known they were being made - so they were certainly not made by him, and quite possibly not endorsed by him.

the defensive claim was made because you have responded to posts which weren't directed at you, believing they were. and hence you responded by defending your previous posts.

as i've said before we don't know if luke left because of money, ego, playing time, or other.

his management has said it's not about money - our club has not said otherwise - so why are we sure enough to denounce him?
based on a guess?

as i've said we're all just pissing in the wind - which is what we do on forums, i piss as much as the next - but that'll do - i'm dry!

best of luck to him and to us.

[Mr Magic]

best of luck to him and to us.

Agreed except when he plays against us.

[joffaboy]

or anyone else who keeps inferring that Ball was not played other than for football/fitness reasons?

If you have the other reasons STATE THEM OR stfu.

This hero worship and supposed "bad treatment" of a player who walked FOR MONEY imho, is really quite poor form and doesn't equate to the known facts that have been stated.

Ball walked because he believes he is worth more than offered. St.Kilda think he was worth less than he wanted.

Thats it - build a bridge.

ooh Joffaboy pick me pick me
there ARE stories from game day...but maybe for another day
when tempers have eased a bit

As I said state them of STFU.

Tempers

Fair Dinkum you people.

Oh and corroborated proof not that you heard it from your girlfriends hairdresser or from a "source".

Put up (with corroborated proof) or STFU.

[Milton66]

Yeah. You tell'em JollyBoy. Take no cr@p from these RodgerFox wannabees.

[asiu]

i luv the desert ... must be the blackfella in me ... night all xx

[BigMart]

People bagging Luke are serious F***wits

140 games (half under injury) in the jumper......if anyone can seriously say he did not bleed for the jumper they need to revisit some old tapes...

My respect for Luke Ball will remain, his courage was inspirational IMO

Loyalty.........F*** off

He was hardly given a game (whilst Eddy was), was sitting on the pine in the second half of the GF when the game was slipping.....he was asked to take a 50% pay cut, whilst another team offered him

More money
More game time
More respect

Why would he stay????????

I hope he, Goose and X tear it up next year and finish their careers on a high.....

[samoht]

bigmart we all respect Ball for giving his all.

He had a great 2004 season when the opposition also respected him.
Occasionaly that year he may have got a tag that would have freed up Hayes or Dal Santo.
He was important for that reason too.

But forward to 2009 - untagged midfielders like Ball should not only gather plenty of possessions they should also be able to run, carry and kick the ball long too and hurt the opposition.
He doesn't do that and there are other players snapping at his heels that can't continue to be overlooked - and they won't be demanding $500k plus.

We all feel sorry for Ball if his running and kicking ability was reduced by injury - but all the same he can't demand $500k/year and a guarantee of a spot and stop someone else from developing, no matter how much we love him..

Ball, Maguire and X would always be small fish in a big pond of talent at St Kilda - maybe the best thing we could do for them to help them succeed and to carve out a career is to set them free.

By the same token the club has an overriding responsibilty to keep improving , moving ahead and to look after its own success and viabilty and we need to trust it - especially after this year's effort without bagging it.
The club doesn't deserve it - it's trying to give us the best chance of success and we should be right behind it, even when it has to make some tough and unpopular decisions.

[joffaboy]

People bagging Luke are serious F***wits

140 games (half under injury) in the jumper......if anyone can seriously say he did not bleed for the jumper they need to revisit some old tapes...

My respect for Luke Ball will remain, his courage was inspirational IMO

Loyalty.........F*** off

He was hardly given a game (whilst Eddy was), was sitting on the pine in the second half of the GF when the game was slipping.....he was asked to take a 50% pay cut, whilst another team offered him

More money
More game time
More respect

Why would he stay????????

I hope he, Goose and X tear it up next year and finish their careers on a high.....

yeah thats right - a Saints hero, while Raph and Zac aren't

Who is still in club colours and who walked on his mates?

Nobody blames Ball for walking - try reading Mr Magics critic of the situation bgefore going off half cocked

I also hope X and Goose have great careers going forward. X got a better opportunity and the club helped him get to Brisbane.

Unfortunately sounds like Goose may be gone because of that injury, if it wasn't for that he would still be a Saints.

As for more respect - pffrt Who at the club has disrespected him? Starting him in the square on GF day disreaspecting him?

At least you acknowledge one fact that his camp has said isn't true - he is leaving for MORE MONEY.

Again fair enough but why try to pretend it wasn't for that?

So off your high horse and how about you start supporting the players still there - like Raph and Zac????

Might make for a nice change.

[Shaggy]

Shaggy,
You're making the assumption that Ball was physically capable of playing more than the 50% of game time in the GF.

And you know you cannot just extrapolate his stats for 50% and assume they would double if he played 100%.

I'll point out again that Geelong obviously weren't worried about his stats as they didn't bother trying to shut him down whereas they acted quickly to try and curb the influence of our other midfielders:-
Hayes
Dal
Monty
BJ

The facts are pretty simple in my mind.
The Coaches felt he needed to improve various aspects of his game. They obviously had faith that he could achieve that improvement because he was offered a new 3 year contract (at significantly reduced rates to reflect their opinion of his current worth and our salary cap position).
They sat down and old him what they felt he needed to do to improve, in their eyes.

He chose not to sign the new contract.
He chose not to take them up on the challenge to improve.
He chose to walk out.
St Kilda didn't delist him


What did you want St Kilda to do?

Guarantee him a set amount of game time?
Pay him the money he was on previously?
Allow him special dispensation to not adhere to the team plan?
Allow him, and not the fitness staff, to assess when he was capable of performing at an acceptable level?

I keep reading all this stuff about how badly Ball was treated but nobody actually is prepared to state that the Coaches deliberately didn't play him for any reason other than fitness.

Not even Lyon's staunchest critics are making that allegation.

So why exactly was Ball treated 'badly'?
Because the fitness staff assesed him as not being fit enough to return to the field?
Seriously?

Luke Ball had 22 possessions and 7 tackles in half a game in the GF.

RL is on record that we could have played him for 2 more 6 min stints.

The fitness guys pre - planned his game time.

Who to accept:

1. the fitness guys?

2. RL who thought LB could have had longer?

3. LB who has subsequently upped and left for the same money saints reportedly offered him to stay (i.e 1.075 mil over 3 years) ?

LB has never been played just 50 % of game time despite his OP before this year.

In time LB with law could make 1 mil per year like Richard Loveridge lol.

Money is not the issue IMHO. Not playing one of our best in the last quarter may have cost us a premiership so I am a bit pissy and I suspect LB is as well. Go figure.

[Moccha]

Really who gives a f***!

[Mr Magic]

Shaggy,
You're making the assumption that Ball was physically capable of playing more than the 50% of game time in the GF.

And you know you cannot just extrapolate his stats for 50% and assume they would double if he played 100%.

I'll point out again that Geelong obviously weren't worried about his stats as they didn't bother trying to shut him down whereas they acted quickly to try and curb the influence of our other midfielders:-
Hayes
Dal
Monty
BJ

The facts are pretty simple in my mind.
The Coaches felt he needed to improve various aspects of his game. They obviously had faith that he could achieve that improvement because he was offered a new 3 year contract (at significantly reduced rates to reflect their opinion of his current worth and our salary cap position).
They sat down and old him what they felt he needed to do to improve, in their eyes.

He chose not to sign the new contract.
He chose not to take them up on the challenge to improve.
He chose to walk out.
St Kilda didn't delist him


What did you want St Kilda to do?

Guarantee him a set amount of game time?
Pay him the money he was on previously?
Allow him special dispensation to not adhere to the team plan?
Allow him, and not the fitness staff, to assess when he was capable of performing at an acceptable level?

I keep reading all this stuff about how badly Ball was treated but nobody actually is prepared to state that the Coaches deliberately didn't play him for any reason other than fitness.

Not even Lyon's staunchest critics are making that allegation.

So why exactly was Ball treated 'badly'?
Because the fitness staff assesed him as not being fit enough to return to the field?
Seriously?

Luke Ball had 22 possessions and 7 tackles in half a game in the GF.

RL is on record that we could have played him for 2 more 6 min stints.

The fitness guys pre - planned his game time.

Who to accept:

1. the fitness guys?

2. RL who thought LB could have had longer?

3. LB who has subsequently upped and left for the same money saints reportedly offered him to stay (i.e 1.075 mil over 3 years) ?

LB has never been played just 50 % of game time despite his OP before this year.

In time LB with law could make 1 mil per year like Richard Loveridge lol.

Money is not the issue IMHO. Not playing one of our best in the last quarter may have cost us a premiership so I am a bit pissy and I suspect LB is as well. Go figure.

So are you saying that you think it was an honest mistake or a deliberate 'non-playing' of Luke Ball for reasons other than fitness?

Because that seems to be the connotation from some.

If it is the latter I will repeat what I have stated - I don't believe any AFL Coach would deliberately not play a player on the ground for any reason other than that player not being physically capable. (and I'm not talking about stitting a player down for disciplinary reasons).

If it's the former, then do you think it is reasonable for a player to leave over an 'honest mistake'.

I don't think for one second that his playing time in the GF had much to do with Ball's decisoin.
I think he had already decided that this was his last year at the Saints and that he had a deal 'wrapped up' at Collingwood.

And he hasn't left for the same money that we reportedly offered.
He was apparently offered 1 million for 3 years at the Saints.
He has nominated 1 million OVER 2 YEARS plus a negotiated third year which may be anywhere from zero to who knows what?
So at the end of year 2 he will be (if picked up) better off by at least 300k than if he had stayed at the Saints. A significant monetary difference.

I actually believe plugger's take on this - Ball came to the realization in his own mind that he couldn't do what the Saints coaches wanted him to do adn he's decided to go to another CLub that he feels will allow him to play more within his physical limitations.
But he wants his money as well.
And he wants, like all AFL players, ultimate success.

What I don't understand is why he chose not go to the Saints and 'lay it all out on the table'?
By doing it the way he and his management have they only made it more difficult to get to where he wanted to go.

[SainterK]

I think if he was happy to go to either, he should have named Collingwood and Essendon during trade week

[joffaboy]

Just one thing about this.

Although he nominated Collingwood as his preferred club at tradeweek, does this preclude us from attempting trades with other clubs at that time?

Seem to remember Jade Rawlins and the Veale Deal where he wanted to go to North but ended up at the bulldogs.

Did the rules change after that???

[Milton66]

Just one thing about this.

Although he nominated Collingwood as his preferred club at tradeweek, does this preclude us from attempting trades with other clubs at that time?

Seem to remember Jade Rawlins and the Veale Deal where he wanted to go to North but ended up at the bulldogs.

Did the rules change after that???

Idon't think it stops the club doing anything really. Just look at the Bradshaw case.

It appears that the nasty old club actually tried to help Luke go to Collingwood for what appears to be a fair compensation. Which involved a 3 way trade with Everitt.

I'm sure had another club offered a trade which we wanted, the deal would have been done.

Th einescapable fact is that Collingwood did not deal because they wanted Jolly ahead of Ball, and you had a manager with a massive conflict of ineterest.

[ace]

Th einescapable fact is that Collingwood did not deal because they wanted Jolly ahead of Ball, and you had a manager with a massive conflict of ineterest.

Collingwood LIKED to have Ball but they WANTED Jolly.

[BigMart]

We got nothing for Ball.........simple as that

that is mis-management

[Milton66]

We got nothing for Ball.........simple as that

that is mis-management

And had we taken a hack and dud pick... what wouldl you have called that?

Once again, hindsight is a very strong reason.

At the time, you can only make decisions based on what's in front of you.

So who knows, we may be better off in the long run by losing him for nothing, in that it frees au cap sapce. Why trade for a player who won't get a game?

And what's wrong with negotiating a trade where we actually do get a required player in Everitt?

So Collingwood are allowed to stand firm with the Ball trade, but we're not?

It's not as black and white as some people make out.

The club made a stand. Had it come off, we'd all be praising them. It didn't so now it's bad management?

What a fickle world we line in.

[sainterjo]

We got nothing for Ball.........simple as that that is mis-management

People bagging Luke are serious F***wits

You really s*** me, BigMart.

[joffaboy]

We got nothing for Ball.........simple as that

that is mis-management

pfft

Yup mis management.

thats right we got nothing for the St.Kilda "hero" as you called him.

A "hero" who walks on his mates.

A"hero" who leaves specifically for more money.

A"hero" who gets his camp to try and blame everything on the club.

Got nothing. Fair dinkum - we got plenty.

1) Principles
2) Self respect
3) Rid of a suspect character

We also didn't get shafted by Collingwood which i agree totally with.

However it is obvious some would take any old crap dished up and bnd over and take it.

Fair enough if you like to live on your knees

[BAM! (shhhh)]

We got nothing for Ball.........simple as that

that is mis-management

I think the jury's out on that at this stage. I have no issue with the Saints turning down Collingwood.

The reality of trade week is that all 3 parties need to agree, player, and 2 clubs.

Given where we and Collingwood are in tilting for a flag, I'd much rather see Luke Ball wind up at Melbourne - or even Essendon or Brisbane - than be drafting with pick 30.

At pick 30 in a shallow draft, we're likely to either draft a mature player below Ball's calibre or wind up with a kid who has a balace of upside and flaws to be ironed out. There would be a very strong chance that Luke Ball would contribute far more to Collingwood than the prospective pick would for us.

At Melbourne, he's a couple of years from finals. At Essendon or Brisbane, he's more likely to make an immediate finals splash - but either of those sides plus Ball would (on paper anyway) seem to still be behind us; we should be able to get through them should we meet them in a final.

IMO, for the same reason he left the Saints, if I'm Ball, I'd be looking at Essendon/WCE/Adelaide/Sydney as destinations of choice. The resources to help with the injuries... and they didn't pass on the opportunity to obtain already.

[yipper]

If Collingwood really wanted Luke Ball badly enough - then they would have got him from us!! They wanted Jolly more than Luke - so we did not deal with them. We actually wanted to keep Luke, so it is easy to understand why they did not accept the collingwood offer of a packet of chips and a mars bar!!! However, Luke decided life would be better and more lucrative at another team. It was to hard to get a game and do the things the coach wanted him to do with St Kilda - better if some other club just lets him do what he wants and pay him heaps more!! simple really!!!

[joffaboy]

If Collingwood really wanted Luke Ball badly enough - then they would have got him from us!! They wanted Jolly more than Luke - so we did not deal with them. We actually wanted to keep Luke, so it is easy to understand why they did not accept the collingwood offer of a packet of chips and a mars bar!!! However, Luke decided life would be better and more lucrative at another team. It was to hard to get a game and do the things the coach wanted him to do with St Kilda - better if some other club just lets him do what he wants and pay him heaps more!! simple really!!!

Nice juxtaposition of the above post and his sig.

[saintnick12]

Given where we and Collingwood are in tilting for a flag, I'd much rather see Luke Ball wind up at Melbourne - or even Essendon or Brisbane - than be drafting with pick 30.

At pick 30 in a shallow draft, we're likely to either draft a mature player below Ball's calibre or wind up with a kid who has a balace of upside and flaws to be ironed out. There would be a very strong chance that Luke Ball would contribute far more to Collingwood than the prospective pick would for us.

At Melbourne, he's a couple of years from finals. At Essendon or Brisbane, he's more likely to make an immediate finals splash - but either of those sides plus Ball would (on paper anyway) seem to still be behind us; we should be able to get through them should we meet them in a final.

IMO, for the same reason he left the Saints, if I'm Ball, I'd be looking at Essendon/WCE/Adelaide/Sydney as destinations of choice. The resources to help with the injuries... and they didn't pass on the opportunity to obtain already.

I agree with you. I think this is why the Saints played such hard ball so to speak. Why would they want to hand one of their main rivals a player to help them out, when the player we were likely to draft with pick thirty is not likely to see any game time in the next few years. It hurts us less if he goes to a lesser club for free than if he goes to Collingwood who obviously feel they have a need for a player of Ball's type. Yes, it would have been preferable to have got something in return, but we have to look at the bigger picture for the club. If he ends up getting to Collingwood anyway then so be it, at least we haven't handed it to them on a platter. I agree he's less likely to hurt us at any of the other teams who seem to be interested other than Collingwood. You can bet if there is a next time a big name player tries to leave St Kilda, they will be more realistic with their requests. Simply - Trade me to Collingwood and take whatever they offer...won't cut it. Everyone knows that now.

[ace]

We got nothing for Ball.........simple as that

that is mis-management

Britain got nothing from the second world war, but lost hundreds of thousands of lives, an empire and the nations economy.

But they took a stand and didn't surrender to the nazi bullies.

Collingwood is the most powerful club in Victoria maybe Australia but St Kilda didn't surrender.

[Spinner]

We got nothing for Ball.........simple as that

that is mis-management

I don't agree with any of that post.