St Kilda In Damage Control.... Today's Crikey

[Mr Magic]

So we believe certain reporters but not others. I suppose like anything people believe those who write things that suit what they want to hear.

No I actually believe reporters who report accurately.
Denham wrote that:-
Collingwood was interested in Ball
Collingwood had offered him 500k per season.

Where is Ball? - Collingwood
And what price did he put on his services for the Draft? - 500k pa

Now I might be wrong, but isn't that exactly what Denham wrote?
Isn't that accurate?

Now compare it with some of the other articles written on the subject.
How does their accuracy stack up against Denham on this?

'Ball is earning less at Collingwood than at St Kilda' - Mike Sheahan in the Herald Sun

'It's true because Ball was on 600k at St kilda and 500k is less than that' - John Ralph on SEN.

When did he write that? Was it in June or after everyone else knew he was wanting to go to the Pies. By the way is this the same Denham who said Fev isnt going to Brisbane and we are getting McMahon.

He wrote it in late July/early August, well before trade week.

He was obviously wrong on Fev and McMahon.

BTW, please explain to me how Ball is on less at Collingwood than at St Kilda.
I'd like to see if you are prepared to use the same nonsense as John Ralph?

I'm absolutely fascinated how those with the view that the anti -St Kilda slant about the Ball issue seem to refuse point-blank to want to take on this small challenge.

I must have asked this same question at least half a dozen times and yet nobody on here wants to answer.
Maybe you'd like to?

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Yep they hate us more than the other clubs. Makes sense really.

Lets face it, its a big story and EVERY other club would be treated the same. Why do people honestly believe we would be treated differently.

Not sure that it's the St Kilda paranoid chip on shoulder at work here Plugger... I think it's a pure reaction to being criticised.

Most would get that most other clubs (a couple of clubs have media machines to play the game and come out better than we are - Adelaide in Adelaide, Brisbane, Collingwood and Essendon are all much more capable of taking the front foot under tough circumstance) would be treated the same way. I work with a guy who would have been filthy if the rumours had turned out and we'd picked up Everitt in a 4/5 way trade that returns to them only pick 22.

I think it's a pretty pure case of people just sticking up for their club (other than those who refuse to see the logic that led to either of the offseasons disasters).

Sports reporting tends to be glib at the best of times - from the amount of threads that show up here at non-saints related articles, it's hardly a surprise that a quick run of what the common supporter is thinking (rather than the much hammered out safe ground of a team forum) doesn't go over well.

[plugger66]

So we believe certain reporters but not others. I suppose like anything people believe those who write things that suit what they want to hear.

No I actually believe reporters who report accurately.
Denham wrote that:-
Collingwood was interested in Ball
Collingwood had offered him 500k per season.

Where is Ball? - Collingwood
And what price did he put on his services for the Draft? - 500k pa

Now I might be wrong, but isn't that exactly what Denham wrote?
Isn't that accurate?

Now compare it with some of the other articles written on the subject.
How does their accuracy stack up against Denham on this?

'Ball is earning less at Collingwood than at St Kilda' - Mike Sheahan in the Herald Sun

'It's true because Ball was on 600k at St kilda and 500k is less than that' - John Ralph on SEN.

When did he write that? Was it in June or after everyone else knew he was wanting to go to the Pies. By the way is this the same Denham who said Fev isnt going to Brisbane and we are getting McMahon.

He wrote it in late July/early August, well before trade week.

He was obviously wrong on Fev and McMahon.

BTW, please explain to me how Ball is on less at Collingwood than at St Kilda.
I'd like to see if you are prepared to use the same nonsense as John Ralph?

I'm absolutely fascinated how those with the view that the anti -St Kilda slant about the Ball issue seem to refuse point-blank to want to take on this small challenge.

I must have asked this same question at least half a dozen times and yet nobody on here wants to answer.
Maybe you'd like to?

I have never been anti Saints on the Ball issue. Been very consistant that he left because he doubted his ability to get a game at our club. I dont have a clue what Ball is on but I will guess over 3 years he may at the most be getting 100K more than we offered him. Sounds a lot to us but i doube he would wreck some friendships over that amount.

I have always believed we offered Ball a contract but once he didnt take it up we went and got AL. I am also pretty sure once we got AL we didnt have the money to keep Ball but the clubs couldnt get the trade done. Once the trade period was over we were never going to keep Ball because we would have had very little in the salary cap.

[degruch]

(rather than the much hammered out safe ground of a team forum)

I've been here long enough to know that no POV is safe on this forum.

[MCG-Unit]

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 - Nathan 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?

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..............

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..........

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).........

I wasn't trying to change any facts of what the Saints wanted for Ball -
I was saying that Coll must have had access to 25 and offered it to the Saints, because Lyon said it (in response to you saying Coll didn't have 25)

What did I say that indicates I made my mind up about anything because of crapola written by journalists - related to the above

Yes I heard that the deal may have been pick 14 --> Ball, until the Jolly deal came along...

[BAM! (shhhh)]

...

how would 40 make us a laughing stock anyway? like 40 is just so terrible compared to nothing.

herald sun arent anti saints - they are just pro pies. its the collingwood daily. they will probably have a 4 page spread on sean rusling tomorrow.

Question Con: Do you really want to know, or have you made your mind up?

In a negotiation, you make a demand/offer, and you'll get a counter demand/offer.

You can flex, or you can hold the line. You also try and judge what your opponent is going to do.

The argument that we let Ball go for nothing suggest that:
-at the last minute, we should have taken whatever was on the table, even if it was a low pick.
- there is no value to being known as a hard negotiator.
- We were the only ones in the room.
- We definatively know what happened.

What we actually know is that when Eade pulled out, the best pick the Bulldogs were offered was 25. By North Melbourne. In exchange for ???

We didn't get anything (a massive stuff up) but we didn't blink either. Neither did Collingwood. They had to go to the draft to get Ball at pick 30.

At a guess, the final positions would have been:
"We've found a way to get pick 25, give Luke Ball to su for pick 25, or there's not going to be a deal."

"There's no way Luke Ball will be around at Pick 30. Either give us players x,y, or z... or go find pick 22 or higher."

Neither side blinked, and we lost.

If we'd given him up for pick 40, you can bet that teams are going to start chasing anyone not in the St Kilda top 5, anyone slightly dissafected, or the like. If it's known you can trade and get a player for peanuts, it's hunting season.

[Sainternist]

All credit to the Saints if they can put all this behind them and win that elusive second flag. But for now, we suggest this has been a major distraction.

Lovett effectively hasn't been on the playing list or even around the club since xmas. Surely this gave the team and officials enough time to make the right adjustments and put it behind them. All that was left to do was for the club to do was choose the ideal time to use the guillotine. I'm not saying it wasn't a set-back, but if anything you think the club would be relieved in that it can now move on and focus at what is ahead.

Also agree with saintau66. Crikey need to give the AFL coverage a miss.

[Mr Magic]

So we believe certain reporters but not others. I suppose like anything people believe those who write things that suit what they want to hear.

No I actually believe reporters who report accurately.
Denham wrote that:-
Collingwood was interested in Ball
Collingwood had offered him 500k per season.

Where is Ball? - Collingwood
And what price did he put on his services for the Draft? - 500k pa

Now I might be wrong, but isn't that exactly what Denham wrote?
Isn't that accurate?

Now compare it with some of the other articles written on the subject.
How does their accuracy stack up against Denham on this?

'Ball is earning less at Collingwood than at St Kilda' - Mike Sheahan in the Herald Sun

'It's true because Ball was on 600k at St kilda and 500k is less than that' - John Ralph on SEN.

When did he write that? Was it in June or after everyone else knew he was wanting to go to the Pies. By the way is this the same Denham who said Fev isnt going to Brisbane and we are getting McMahon.

He wrote it in late July/early August, well before trade week.

He was obviously wrong on Fev and McMahon.

BTW, please explain to me how Ball is on less at Collingwood than at St Kilda.
I'd like to see if you are prepared to use the same nonsense as John Ralph?

I'm absolutely fascinated how those with the view that the anti -St Kilda slant about the Ball issue seem to refuse point-blank to want to take on this small challenge.

I must have asked this same question at least half a dozen times and yet nobody on here wants to answer.
Maybe you'd like to?

I have never been anti Saints on the Ball issue. Been very consistant that he left because he doubted his ability to get a game at our club. I dont have a clue what Ball is on but I will guess over 3 years he may at the most be getting 100K more than we offered him. Sounds a lot to us but i doube he would wreck some friendships over that amount.

I have always believed we offered Ball a contract but once he didnt take it up we went and got AL. I am also pretty sure once we got AL we didnt have the money to keep Ball but the clubs couldnt get the trade done. Once the trade period was over we were never going to keep Ball because we would have had very little in the salary cap.

Mostly all sounds plausible.

So who's feeding the journalists with the line that we 'pushed Ball out' and that he's playing at Collingwood for less?

And what's the possible motive for feeding the information?

[bergholt]

are crikey sydney based now since stephen mayne sold up?

nope.