Disappointed in the club

[saint66au]

There is no proof that Goldsack was in fact offered at all, but for a reporter saying it (no quotes from either side). Reporters said a lot of fanciful stuff in the last week. What Lyon said straight sfter the deadline was that all dealings were amicable EXCEPT those with Luke's manager and Collingwood. Add that to the fact that Roos almost walked away from the Jolly deal in frustration because Collingwood were only going to trade 14 and nothing more.

I keep hearing that Malthouse is a great coach, especially with the list he's got. Well the list he's got is because of situations like these and because he burns out all his youngsters before they turn 23.

Lets not also forget that 2 years ago Collingwood gave up their first round pick to get Cameron Wood....whos been such a ramapaging success theyve had to use another 1st rounder 2 years later to get an established ruckman cos Wood cant hold his place in the side

[SydneySainter]

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.

And Lyon and co. did try to move him on, but if all Collingwood were going to offer for an ex-captain, 05 All Australian and Best and Fairest winner for chicken feed, why should we bend over backwards and take it up the arse.

The club made the statement that they'll move on anyone who doesn't want it be there, but that doesn't mean becoming anyone's bitch either. In thus, we now risk Ball going into the PSD and we get nothing but that was the risk they were willing to take.

The club tried, Ball wanted to be a Pie but Collingwood wanted to snag him as if they were picking him up at the $2 shop. What more could they have done?

[ausfatcat]

hmmm is it possible




that My Conners being Jolly's manager and Ball's had a personal arangement with Collingwood prior to trade week? Strange that the swans were only dealing with Collingwood for a ruckman who only said he wanted to return to victoria and the fact Collingwood were being difficult.. Makes one think a little.

[Milton66]

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.

And Lyon and co. did try to move him on, but if all Collingwood were going to offer for an ex-captain, 05 All Australian and Best and Fairest winner for chicken feed, why should we bend over backwards and take it up the arse.

The club made the statement that they'll move on anyone who doesn't want it be there, but that doesn't mean becoming anyone's bitch either. In thus, we now risk Ball going into the PSD and we get nothing but that was the risk they were willing to take.

The club tried, Ball wanted to be a Pie but Collingwood wanted to snag him as if they were picking him up at the $2 shop. What more could they have done?

I think what Ross was saying is that if players were notcommited to going one step further, then they should walk. Pretty reasonable request, one would think.

[desertsaint]

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.

And Lyon and co. did try to move him on, but if all Collingwood were going to offer for an ex-captain, 05 All Australian and Best and Fairest winner for chicken feed, why should we bend over backwards and take it up the arse.

The club made the statement that they'll move on anyone who doesn't want it be there, but that doesn't mean becoming anyone's bitch either. In thus, we now risk Ball going into the PSD and we get nothing but that was the risk they were willing to take.

The club tried, Ball wanted to be a Pie but Collingwood wanted to snag him as if they were picking him up at the $2 shop. What more could they have done?

I think what Ross was saying is that if players were notcommited to going one step further, then they should walk. Pretty reasonable request, one would think.

luke ball tried to walk - and the club said 'not that way!'

[bobmurray]

Collingwood were only prepared to take Ball on their terms....

It appears they were operating on the theory...a Gop for a Gop....

the saints were operating on the theory..a No.2 draft pick for something quite decent,definitely not a Gop....

hence....no trade was done....

I hope Ball gets drafted,rather than re signs....The Saints don't need players who cant kick over a jam tin or who can't run or have become bench warmers....

If he goes...it's no loss

never would have thought that when he was first drafted but it's like he stood still and the game passed him...

[Milton66]

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.

And Lyon and co. did try to move him on, but if all Collingwood were going to offer for an ex-captain, 05 All Australian and Best and Fairest winner for chicken feed, why should we bend over backwards and take it up the arse.

The club made the statement that they'll move on anyone who doesn't want it be there, but that doesn't mean becoming anyone's bitch either. In thus, we now risk Ball going into the PSD and we get nothing but that was the risk they were willing to take.

The club tried, Ball wanted to be a Pie but Collingwood wanted to snag him as if they were picking him up at the $2 shop. What more could they have done?

I think what Ross was saying is that if players were notcommited to going one step further, then they should walk. Pretty reasonable request, one would think.

luke ball tried to walk - and the club said 'not that way!'

Sorry, not sure if you're agreeing to being funny... but you don't just let someone walk without getting a reasonable return.

Luke is basically an asset that the club has invested in. Like a house, you don't sell it for any price.. you at least want market value. Assuming that you're not desperate to sell, and we ain't.

[SainterK]

All this would have been a lot easier if Luke said, I want to be traded....no strings, no requests, no nominated club.

He may have run the risk of going to a club that is not his ideal...but now he runs the risk of going to a club that is not his ideal...

[Teflon]

All this would have been a lot easier if Luke said, I want to be traded....no strings, no requests, no nominated club.

He may have run the risk of going to a club that is not his ideal...but now he runs the risk of going to a club that is not his ideal...

Yep.

We talk about restraint of trade....yet the moment Ball said "Im only interested in Collingwood" the only party restricted were the St Kilda FC.

You wanna pin point it down to a club - then know the risks that things can go pear shaped.

[GeorgeYoung27]

Prior to the pick 25 arrangement Collingwood had pitched other scenarios to St Kilda. The last of these yesterday morning involved an offer the Saints had raised earlier in the week - Tyson Goldsack and pick 30 - but were turned down.

Like I said earlier this is one account (one that sounds a little hard to believe). This is what Greg Denham says in The Australian today.

During the two-club negotiations, the Saints wanted one or two of either Nathan Brown, Brad Dick, John Anthony or Jarrad Blight.

St Kilda then requested pick 30 and Brown, which was also rejected by the Magpies, who then said the only player they were willing to trade was Chris Dawes, who was not of interest to the Saints.

Following another breakdown in talks, the Saints yesterday told Ball's agent Paul Connors they would trade Ball provided the Magpies could deliver Andrejs Everitt from the Western Bulldogs and a selection between 30

and 40.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 32,00.html

[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"? Especially when that guy, as great a bloke as he is and as good as he WAS, has huge question marks over his body?
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 just 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.)
It's a bit of a joke. Ross and co rate him so lowly he only gets half a game- and he obviously wasn't told he'd get more next year, or he wouldn't have left his mates and the club he loved- yet at the trade table he's suddenly this gun we're not going to trade for anything less than a gun kid and a draft pick. No wonder Malthouse and co were apparently furious with Ross.

[saint75]

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?

[desertsaint]

Luke is basically an asset that the club has invested in. Like a house...

quite simply - wrong. simplistic, and apathetic. You view employees as commodities when they are people first and foremost. Fidelity, the sister of justice, flows in a circle.

"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." kant.

[AlpineStars]

I would much rather Luke Ball go to Melbourne for nothing than go to Collingwood for pick 25(or whatever) I don't want to play against Collingwood in next years pre lim with L.Ball in their side. Melbourne are still 3 years from a realistic finals prospect.

[busso mick]

All this would have been a lot easier if Luke said, I want to be traded....no strings, no requests, no nominated club.

He may have run the risk of going to a club that is not his ideal...but now he runs the risk of going to a club that is not his ideal...

Yep.

We talk about restraint of trade....yet the moment Ball said "Im only interested in Collingwood" the only party restricted were the St Kilda FC.

You wanna pin point it down to a club - then know the risks that things can go pear shaped.

When Ball was drafted by the Saints he had no say where he would go, nothing has really changed except he has got a manager that has got dollar signs in his eyes. The fact that we drafted Lovett and Peake and offloaded Clarke with a minimum of fuss shows how it should be done, without all of the fanfare and chest beating that accompanied the Ball fiasco. You've made your bed Luke/Connors, now you have to lie in it.

[Moods]

Luke is basically an asset that the club has invested in. Like a house...

quite simply - wrong. simplistic, and apathetic. You view employees as commodities when they are people first and foremost. Fidelity, the sister of justice, flows in a circle.

"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." kant.

Quite simply you are wrong. Luke Ball is a 600 k asset to our club. You don't trade him away for peanuts regardless of his demands or the club he wishes to go to. So Luke gets to to demand which club he goes to? No he deosn't. The club will deal with that club first as a courtesy, but if they offer s*** we give them toilet paper. If he goes to PSD that's the risk he runs. End of story. Or should the St kilda FC bend over and take it for the rest of their history? No they shouldn't. Sorry Luke, but that's the risk you ran, and it didn't pay off.

[desertsaint]

Luke is basically an asset that the club has invested in. Like a house...

quite simply - wrong. simplistic, and apathetic. You view employees as commodities when they are people first and foremost. Fidelity, the sister of justice, flows in a circle.

"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." kant.

Quite simply you are wrong. Luke Ball is a 600 k asset to our club. You don't trade him away for peanuts regardless of his demands or the club he wishes to go to. So Luke gets to to demand which club he goes to? No he deosn't. The club will deal with that club first as a courtesy, but if they offer s*** we give them toilet paper. If he goes to PSD that's the risk he runs. End of story. Or should the St kilda FC bend over and take it for the rest of their history? No they shouldn't. Sorry Luke, but that's the risk you ran, and it didn't pay off.

i think you need to read in context and not simply bring in what you would like to post as a rebuttle. but if you really believe the club should treat players as akin to an inanimate object -which was what my argument was related to, then say so. it appears you didn't reflect on my post at all - you were too concerned with what you wanted to say.

[Milton66]

Luke is basically an asset that the club has invested in. Like a house...

quite simply - wrong. simplistic, and apathetic. You view employees as commodities when they are people first and foremost. Fidelity, the sister of justice, flows in a circle.

"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." kant.

You have no idea how I view employees.

As a business owner, it's my balls on the line in the end, and if my busieness goes south, then there are others to think about. why jeapordise it for one person?

Luke is an asset. Simple. He has currency on the AFL market. If no player did, then everyone would swap clubs every few years. H eis also happy to take comepensation based on what he believes he's worth as a player. So it's a 2 way street here.

No one's been using Luke.. if anything, he's been paid way above what his value has been IMO.

He made a decision to walk, so the club should now do what it can to accomodate him, yet also seek an outcome that fairly compensates it for its loss.

I stand by the club. And my comments.

What I will add is that Luke has every right to seek greener pastures. But the club also has every right to protect it's interests.

I think it was Elliott who said that if you have to trade players, do it to clubs that can't threaten you. Sadly, we did th eopposite with Rice, Trott, Perovic, Greene, the Elliott brothers.. just to name a few.

Not only does an emplyee ask to leave, but he is also wants to go to a major competitor.

what other workplace will accomodate such a move?

The club has a duty of care to it's other players and members to act wihting the club's best interest.

If a player get's caught in the middle, then sadly that's AFL footy.

I don't recall anyone admonishing the club when it cut Fiora.

[Motown]

Not only does an emplyee ask to leave, but he is also wants to go to a major competitor.

what other workplace will accomodate such a move?

Err, pretty much every one I know of. Some particularly sensitive work might get non-compete clauses, but I'm not sure how they fly in this country. It's not like solicitors become HR consultants if they decide to change workplaces.

I'm not going to buy into the Ball argument, but I think you're backing the wrong horse if you're going to seek supporting arguments from other non-sporting, RL situations.

[Moods]

Luke is basically an asset that the club has invested in. Like a house...

quite simply - wrong. simplistic, and apathetic. You view employees as commodities when they are people first and foremost. Fidelity, the sister of justice, flows in a circle.

"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." kant.

Quite simply you are wrong. Luke Ball is a 600 k asset to our club. You don't trade him away for peanuts regardless of his demands or the club he wishes to go to. So Luke gets to to demand which club he goes to? No he deosn't. The club will deal with that club first as a courtesy, but if they offer s*** we give them toilet paper. If he goes to PSD that's the risk he runs. End of story. Or should the St kilda FC bend over and take it for the rest of their history? No they shouldn't. Sorry Luke, but that's the risk you ran, and it didn't pay off.

i think you need to read in context and not simply bring in what you would like to post as a rebuttle. but if you really believe the club should treat players as akin to an inanimate object -which was what my argument was related to, then say so. it appears you didn't reflect on my post at all - you were too concerned with what you wanted to say.

May be so - I've been at a golf day all day and I admit haven't read every single post. However, Milton 66 above seems to have summed up what I have said. Basically, footy is a business, I used to love Luke Ball, but the moment he walked out I was thinking what can we get for him, not how can we accommodate him. If the saints are to move fwd that's how I reckon we should be thinking, and that's what I love about this current admin.

And to be honest, the current admin aren't that cold that they couldn't see fit to buy a former players' brownlow medal, or to see X Clarke off to a club that would give him better opportunities.

[Milton66]

Not only does an emplyee ask to leave, but he is also wants to go to a major competitor.

what other workplace will accomodate such a move?

Err, pretty much every one I know of. Some particularly sensitive work might get non-compete clauses, but I'm not sure how they fly in this country. It's not like solicitors become HR consultants if they decide to change workplaces.

I'm not going to buy into the Ball argument, but I think you're backing the wrong horse if you're going to seek supporting arguments from other non-sporting, RL situations.

I'm sorry, who are you??

Couldn't give a stuff what you think... and don't care who agrees with me.

As an employer, it is my responsibility to create wealth within my communtiy by creating jobs and security for my workers, is it not?

I don't know where you've been involved, but in my years as an employee, the moment I said I was leaving... that was it. I was persona non grata, especially if I was taking my skill set to a competitor.

Like I said, and please stop the selective quoting... Ball has every right to seek a transfer. That's his call.

But by doing so, he has left a club which has supported him, and compensated him accordingly. And the club has every right... and by the sounds of it, they tried within reason to get the trade done... to look after it's interests.

Now I don't know which corporate world you belong to, but if you honestly think that the same rules of self interest do not apply in sport as they do in a commercial environment, then you are living in fantasy land.

And if people want to slag off at RL, then they should get a clue...

At least we tried. We didn't ring Luke up and say, sorry Luke but you're going to Collingwood... like another team just did with Campbell Brown.

[saintly]

Hasn't anyone realised that "Mr Thompson4" is a Collingwood troll. He/she comes around every time we play them and when something happens between our clubs. His/her usual ploy is to pretend he/she is a Saints fan and question the club. I get frustrated that every here is taking him/her at face value. Don't take "Mr Thompson4" so seriously.

Thank you professor but that is not so.

And I read it online following an interview with Lyon on SEN.

no quote from lyon or the saints, obviously.

who knows if it was true or not

[Motown]

Not only does an emplyee ask to leave, but he is also wants to go to a major competitor.

what other workplace will accomodate such a move?

Err, pretty much every one I know of. Some particularly sensitive work might get non-compete clauses, but I'm not sure how they fly in this country. It's not like solicitors become HR consultants if they decide to change workplaces.

I'm not going to buy into the Ball argument, but I think you're backing the wrong horse if you're going to seek supporting arguments from other non-sporting, RL situations.

I'm sorry, who are you??

Couldn't give a stuff what you think... and don't care who agrees with me.

As an employer, it is my responsibility to create wealth within my communtiy by creating jobs and security for my workers, is it not?

Nah. Profit for you and/or shareholders. Your version's more sensitive, though.

[I don't know where you've been involved, but in my years as an employee, the moment I said I was leaving... that was it. I was persona non grata, especially if I was taking my skill set to a competitor.

At which point your old employer did what was in their power to prevent you going where you wanted, right?

Apologies if I've misinterpreted your post, but we appear to be operating under a different interpretations of "facilitate". I don't mean to suggest that employers rolled out the carpet for outgoing staff, but by and large they don't obstruct proceedings either.

I understand what the Saints have done with Ball, it makes sense in the context of what's best for the club. Personally, I think the system's at fault and vets of Ball's stature should have access to a form of free agency.

Now I don't know which corporate world you belong to, but if you honestly think that the same rules of self interest do not apply in sport as they do in a commercial environment, then you are living in fantasy land.

And if people want to slag off at RL, then they should get a clue...

Settle down, I'm just suggesting that your rather hard-nosed view of employee movement is not necessarily the the only view. I'm thankful, though, to have facilitated and lived in a lot of fantasylands that you appear to have missed out on

[satchmo]

I remember back inthe 80s...employees one by one resigning and heading off to the competitor...at about no.6 or 7, the guy resigns, the general manager storms downstairs and physically kicks his arse all the way down the corridor and actually throws him out the front door!

I'd just got back from a pub lunch and nearly vomited from laughing so hard!

But back to Luke, if he wants to go then f*** him!

[Milton66]

Not only does an emplyee ask to leave, but he is also wants to go to a major competitor.

what other workplace will accomodate such a move?

Err, pretty much every one I know of. Some particularly sensitive work might get non-compete clauses, but I'm not sure how they fly in this country. It's not like solicitors become HR consultants if they decide to change workplaces.

I'm not going to buy into the Ball argument, but I think you're backing the wrong horse if you're going to seek supporting arguments from other non-sporting, RL situations.

I'm sorry, who are you??

Couldn't give a stuff what you think... and don't care who agrees with me.

As an employer, it is my responsibility to create wealth within my communtiy by creating jobs and security for my workers, is it not?

Nah. Profit for you and/or shareholders. Your version's more sensitive, though.

[I don't know where you've been involved, but in my years as an employee, the moment I said I was leaving... that was it. I was persona non grata, especially if I was taking my skill set to a competitor.

At which point your old employer did what was in their power to prevent you going where you wanted, right?

Apologies if I've misinterpreted your post, but we appear to be operating under a different interpretations of "facilitate". I don't mean to suggest that employers rolled out the carpet for outgoing staff, but by and large they don't obstruct proceedings either.

I understand what the Saints have done with Ball, it makes sense in the context of what's best for the club. Personally, I think the system's at fault and vets of Ball's stature should have access to a form of free agency.

Now I don't know which corporate world you belong to, but if you honestly think that the same rules of self interest do not apply in sport as they do in a commercial environment, then you are living in fantasy land.

And if people want to slag off at RL, then they should get a clue...

Settle down, I'm just suggesting that your rather hard-nosed view of employee movement is not necessarily the the only view. I'm thankful, though, to have facilitated and lived in a lot of fantasylands that you appear to have missed out on

Where did I state that my views are the only views???

My stance as an entrepreneur is that you also have asocial obligation to your workers and community.

You goal is to create prosperity and opportunity for others, and your personal gain is a by-product of that effort.

But that's just my view.

maybe that's the problem with corporate greed and pro sports... everyone puts money ahead of values.