MCG-Unit wrote:No Collingwood didn't have 25 - but they offered the Kangas 30 plus Wellingham for 25 - to which the Kangas must have said yes.............
How else could Lyon say at the close of trading - Pick 25 and 62 were on the table, but it wouldn't get the deal done
I heard him live on SEN, and it was in the print media next day
Shivers, this has been posted several times already
Doesn't change the fact that St Kilda told Collingwood from the get-go they were interested in only 2 options
A draft pick that would be enough for WB to trade Everitt
Or a player from Collingwood in the Everitt mould - Nathn Brown was nominated by us.
And apparently until Hawthorn refused to take Connors' other client Jolley (apparently they felt an obligation to continue trying to deal for Burgoyne), Collingwood were happy to give us their pick #14 for Ball, which would have solved everybody's problems.
Are you another one who's made up his mind becasue of crap written by journalists trying to curry favour with Collingwood or looking for a sensational story?
Maybe you should have listened to Greg Denham on SEN this morning?
Afterall he was the original recipient of Connors' 'leaks' on Luke Ball.
You know the journalist who wrote the Ball to Collingwood for 500k per season stories months before trade week.
Well before St Kilda tried to trade him to another CLub (according to Stinger's source).
See that's the problem in the logic of all those trying to run the 'Ball was pushed' argument.
Connors was negotiating with Collingwood well before any of this transpired.
IMO, Ball did not suddenly wake up on the Monday morning of trade week and decide - I'm leaving.
He had a deal in place already weeks/months before.
I mean how would he know that Collingwood wanted him if he hadn't already arranged a deal with them (including salary)?
Nothing wrong with that either. Just don't BS about it on the way out. Tell the truth.
He got a better deal elsewhere.
End of story.
But no,
Luke and his management/family/camp don't like the idea of him being thought of as someone who left for a better deal.
Hence all this nonsense being 'fed' to journalists.
Say anything exceot that the deal at Collingwood is better.
Does anybody herre honestly believe that Ball is earning less at Collingwood than the 1 million over 3 years he was offered by the Saints?
Truly believe that?
I had a friend of mine try to tell me last night that he heard it from someone on the Collingwood Board that Ball is only on 250k at Collingwood. He truly believes that.
When I tried to explain to him that Collingwood are using 500k of their salary cap on Ball his response was, 'but he's only on 250k so that has to be wrong'.
Collingwood don't want their supporter base thinking that Ball is on 500k in case he doesn't become the player for them that they are hoping for. Their memories of Woewodin are still fresh.
Luke Ball is a proud young man. I hope for his sake that he can get back to playing good footy asap (not against us) because I would hate to see the feral filth turn on him like I know they can.