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 sideGeorgeYoung27 wrote: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.
Disappointed in the club
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
![Image](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/littlemiter/66sig.jpg)
THE BUBBLE HAS BURST
2011 player sponsor
- SydneySainter
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2422
- Joined: Sat 26 May 2007 6:59pm
- Has thanked: 54 times
- Been thanked: 155 times
Re: Disappointed in the club
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.Thompson4 wrote: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.
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?
Bad management is bad management
- ausfatcat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6530
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:36pm
- Has thanked: 19 times
- Been thanked: 97 times
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.
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
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3521
- Joined: Tue 19 May 2009 9:53pm
- Location: None of your goddam business
Re: Disappointed in the club
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.SydneySainter wrote: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.Thompson4 wrote: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.
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?
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10423
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 187 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Disappointed in the club
luke ball tried to walk - and the club said 'not that way!'Milton66 wrote: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.SydneySainter wrote: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.Thompson4 wrote: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.
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?
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
- bobmurray
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7828
- Joined: Mon 03 Oct 2005 11:08pm
- Location: In the stand at RSEA Park.
- Has thanked: 515 times
- Been thanked: 234 times
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...![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
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...
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
The list changes for 2025 have begun, always an interesting time for an avid supporter.
- Milton66
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3521
- Joined: Tue 19 May 2009 9:53pm
- Location: None of your goddam business
Re: Disappointed in the club
Sorry, not sure if you're agreeing to being funny... but you don't just let someone walk without getting a reasonable return.desertsaint wrote:luke ball tried to walk - and the club said 'not that way!'Milton66 wrote: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.SydneySainter wrote: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.Thompson4 wrote: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.
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?
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.
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23218
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 735 times
- Been thanked: 1778 times
Yep.SainterK wrote: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...
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.
“Yeah….nah””
- GeorgeYoung27
- Club Player
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Mon 19 Apr 2004 2:54pm
- Location: on a tight angle at the South Rd end
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.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.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 32,00.htmlDuring 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.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3152
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 2:44am
- Location: Next to what's next to me.
- Has thanked: 71 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
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?ausfatcat wrote:Thompson4 wrote: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.
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.
Last edited by AnythingsPossibleSaints on Sun 11 Oct 2009 12:04pm, edited 1 time in total.
YOU GET WHAT YOU SETTLE FOR.
You are kidding right? Do you honestly believe that Melbourne will pass him up in the draft?AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote: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"?ausfatcat wrote:Thompson4 wrote: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.
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.)
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?
Fortius Quo Fidelius
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10423
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 187 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Disappointed in the club
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.Milton66 wrote: Luke is basically an asset that the club has invested in. Like a house...
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." kant.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
- AlpineStars
- Club Player
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006 7:44pm
- Location: Aspendale
- Contact:
- busso mick
- Club Player
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2004 8:57pm
- Been thanked: 10 times
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.Teflon wrote:Yep.SainterK wrote: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...
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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4914
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 335 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
Re: Disappointed in the club
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 wrote: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.Milton66 wrote: Luke is basically an asset that the club has invested in. Like a house...
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." kant.
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10423
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 187 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Disappointed in the club
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.Moods wrote: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 wrote: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.Milton66 wrote: Luke is basically an asset that the club has invested in. Like a house...
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." kant.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
- Milton66
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3521
- Joined: Tue 19 May 2009 9:53pm
- Location: None of your goddam business
Re: Disappointed in the club
You have no idea how I view employees.desertsaint wrote: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.Milton66 wrote: Luke is basically an asset that the club has invested in. Like a house...
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." kant.
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.
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
Re: Disappointed in the club
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.Milton66 wrote: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?
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.
Last edited by Motown on Sun 11 Oct 2009 8:14pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4914
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 335 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
Re: Disappointed in the club
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.desertsaint wrote: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.Moods wrote: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 wrote: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.Milton66 wrote: Luke is basically an asset that the club has invested in. Like a house...
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." kant.
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
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3521
- Joined: Tue 19 May 2009 9:53pm
- Location: None of your goddam business
Re: Disappointed in the club
I'm sorry, who are you??Motown wrote: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.Milton66 wrote: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?
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.
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.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5410
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
no quote from lyon or the saints, obviously.Thompson4 wrote:Thank you professor but that is not so.GeorgeYoung27 wrote: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.
And I read it online following an interview with Lyon on SEN.
who knows if it was true or not
Re: Disappointed in the club
Nah. Profit for you and/or shareholders. Your version's more sensitive, though.Milton66 wrote:I'm sorry, who are you??Motown wrote: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.Milton66 wrote: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?
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.
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?
At which point your old employer did what was in their power to prevent you going where you wanted, right?Milton66 wrote:[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.
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.
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 onMilton66 wrote: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...
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6656
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:24pm
- Location: Hotel Bastardos
- Has thanked: 198 times
- Been thanked: 166 times
- Contact:
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!![Cool 8-)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
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!
![Cool 8-)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
*Allegedly.
Bring back Lucky Burgers, and nobody gets hurt.
You can't un-fry things.
Last Post
Bring back Lucky Burgers, and nobody gets hurt.
You can't un-fry things.
Last Post
- Milton66
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3521
- Joined: Tue 19 May 2009 9:53pm
- Location: None of your goddam business
Re: Disappointed in the club
Where did I state that my views are the only views???Motown wrote:Nah. Profit for you and/or shareholders. Your version's more sensitive, though.Milton66 wrote:I'm sorry, who are you??Motown wrote: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.Milton66 wrote: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?
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.
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?At which point your old employer did what was in their power to prevent you going where you wanted, right?Milton66 wrote:[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.
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.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 onMilton66 wrote: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...
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.
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?