Why did we not take Wellingham?

[perfectionist]

Luke Ball went for the money, $500,000 pa rather than $333,000 pa, and who can blame him. There are still some, who are totally deluded, who suggest that he was offered the same by the Saints and the Pies because he will play for nothing in year three of his contract. Despite this being contrary to the APLPA/AFL agreement, and the Fair Work Australia Act, it doesn't seem to phase the great ignoramus.

The only criticism of Luke Ball that I have is that unlike (say) Tony Lockett, who went to Sydney for money, he did nothing to see that the Saints got at least something in return. In effect, he (or his manager) said I'll take the money (fair enough) and up yours (not fair enough). He can console himself with a medal, if not the extra money. In a bizarre way, his loss didn't deprive us of a flag, but it did deliver the Pies with one. A fourth stringer, as the highest paid member of the group, delivered.

[plugger66]

Luke Ball went for the money, $500,000 pa rather than $333,000pa, and who can blame him. There are still some, who are totally deluded, who suggest that he was offered the same by the Saints and the Pies because he will play for nothing in year three of his contract. Despite this being contrary to the APLPA/AFL agreement, and the Fair Work Australia Act, it doesn't seem to phase the great ignoramus.

The only criticism of Luke Ball that I have is that unlike (say) Tony Lockett who went to Sydney for money, he did nothing to see that the Saints got at least something in return. In effect, he (or his manager) said I'll take the money (fair enough) and up yours (not fair enough). He can console himself with a medal, if not the extra money. In a bizarre way, his loss didn't deprive us of a flag, but it did deliver the Pies with one. A fourth stringer as the highest paid member of the group, delivered.

Luke Ball went for the opportunity to play in the ones. Money had about 10% to do with it. I think it was obvious to him and many others that he was struggling to play as RL wanted him to. If it was money I dont think an extra 100K over 3 years would mean chucking loyalty away.

[perfectionist]

..Luke Ball went for the opportunity to play in the ones. Money had about 10% to do with it. I think it was obvious to him and many others that he was struggling to play as RL wanted him to. If it was money I dont think an extra 100K over 3 years would mean chucking loyalty away.

Bull! Just how many people do you know who will give up $167,000 pa (you must have failed maths)?

Rationalisation is the very human away of justifying a decision which, has at its base, money. Loyalty is one thing, but stupidity is another. He was right to go for then money.

[SaintPav]

Luke Ball went for the money, $500,000 pa rather than $333,000pa, and who can blame him. There are still some, who are totally deluded, who suggest that he was offered the same by the Saints and the Pies because he will play for nothing in year three of his contract. Despite this being contrary to the APLPA/AFL agreement, and the Fair Work Australia Act, it doesn't seem to phase the great ignoramus.

The only criticism of Luke Ball that I have is that unlike (say) Tony Lockett who went to Sydney for money, he did nothing to see that the Saints got at least something in return. In effect, he (or his manager) said I'll take the money (fair enough) and up yours (not fair enough). He can console himself with a medal, if not the extra money. In a bizarre way, his loss didn't deprive us of a flag, but it did deliver the Pies with one. A fourth stringer as the highest paid member of the group, delivered.

Luke Ball went for the opportunity to play in the ones. Money had about 10% to do with it. I think it was obvious to him and many others that he was struggling to play as RL wanted him to. If it was money I dont think an extra 100K over 3 years would mean chucking loyalty away.

and also because he probably felt unappreciated and that we would also struggle to get a game ahead of Armitage and Lovett. He hasn't been able to really articulate it when asked.

[saintspremiers]

..Luke Ball went for the opportunity to play in the ones. Money had about 10% to do with it. I think it was obvious to him and many others that he was struggling to play as RL wanted him to. If it was money I dont think an extra 100K over 3 years would mean chucking loyalty away.

Bull! Just how many people do you know who will give up $167,000 pa (you must have failed maths)?

Rationalisation is the very human away of justifying a decision which, has at its base, money. Loyalty is one thing, but stupidity is another. He was right to go for then money.

The late great Barks gave up that much (in adjusted dollars) prob over a ten year period!!!!

[plugger66]

..Luke Ball went for the opportunity to play in the ones. Money had about 10% to do with it. I think it was obvious to him and many others that he was struggling to play as RL wanted him to. If it was money I dont think an extra 100K over 3 years would mean chucking loyalty away.

Bull! Just how many people do you know who will give up $167,000 pa (you must have failed maths)?

Rationalisation is the very human away of justifying a decision which, has at its base, money. Loyalty is one thing, but stupidity is another. He was right to go for then money.

Did you read what I said or just guess. I said over 3 years as it was reported he will be on the minimum next year. I know you are going to say why believe that but also why believe he is actually getting 500k. It can be written into the Salary cap but not actually paid. Of course you know that but it wont suit your leaving for money argument.

[plugger66]

..Luke Ball went for the opportunity to play in the ones. Money had about 10% to do with it. I think it was obvious to him and many others that he was struggling to play as RL wanted him to. If it was money I dont think an extra 100K over 3 years would mean chucking loyalty away.

Bull! Just how many people do you know who will give up $167,000 pa (you must have failed maths)?

Rationalisation is the very human away of justifying a decision which, has at its base, money. Loyalty is one thing, but stupidity is another. He was right to go for then money.

Did you read what I said or just guess. I said over 3 years as it was reported he will be on the minimum next year. I know you are going to say why believe that but also why believe he is actually getting 500k. It can be written into the Salary cap but not actually paid. Of course you know that but it wont suit your leaving for money argument.

[perfectionist]

...Did you read what I said or just guess. I said over 3 years as it was reported he will be on the minimum next year. I know you are going to say why believe that but also why believe he is actually getting 500k. It can be written into the Salary cap but not actually paid. Of course you know that but it wont suit your leaving for money argument.

I'll get the cryptologists onto it and get back to you.

[plugger66]

...Did you read what I said or just guess. I said over 3 years as it was reported he will be on the minimum next year. I know you are going to say why believe that but also why believe he is actually getting 500k. It can be written into the Salary cap but not actually paid. Of course you know that but it wont suit your leaving for money argument.

I'll get the cryptologists onto it and get back to you.

Thanks.

[SainterK]

Luke Ball went for the opportunity to play in the ones. Money had about 10% to do with it. I think it was obvious to him and many others that he was struggling to play as RL wanted him to. If it was money I dont think an extra 100K over 3 years would mean chucking loyalty away.

So why can he play like that now?

He was asked to be more offensive, in 2009 he only kicked 3 goals.

This year already he has kicked 8, so perhaps the dropping was justified, it just hurt his pride.

[plugger66]

Luke Ball went for the opportunity to play in the ones. Money had about 10% to do with it. I think it was obvious to him and many others that he was struggling to play as RL wanted him to. If it was money I dont think an extra 100K over 3 years would mean chucking loyalty away.

So why can he play like that now?

He was asked to be more offensive, in 2009 he only kicked 3 goals.

This year already he has kicked 8, so perhaps the dropping was justified, it just hurt his pride.

Pretty sure we cant compare how the pies play now and how we played in 2009. Footy has changed that much. Also kicking goals wasnt the issue back then.

[BigMart]

I am confused???

Wellingham was not offered to us.....but

He was to Nth for pick 25 which they were going to give to us....but

Nth did not rate him, so .....no deal

Did I get that ridiculous story straight.... Did we really make a scenario that difficult, no wonder we f***ed it up so much...


Why not cut out the middle man, and offer wellingham directly to us....and cut out north......I am sure this would have been floated initially, we baulked at wellingham, and asked for a pick, nth baulked at giving a pick for him......both clubs erred...collingwood were the big winners, nth will wait and see what p25 turns out like, we gained a net loss

The swings and roundaboates argument almost creates a smokescreen for those who are trying to convince themselves that this wasnt mis-management.......it was a blunder of the highest order, and that trading peripd cost two people jobs, just to hammer home the point.

[SainterK]

Pick 25 was on the table bigmart, that was what St Kilda refused.

[SainterK]

and just now in the Herald Sun...

"But this day was all about Wellingham, which begs the question, what was St Kilda thinking?

It's been largely accepted that during the 2009 trade period when Collingwood was trying to get Ball from the Saints, Wellingham and a draft pick were at one stage on the table as a straight swap.

Mmmmm. That hurts"

What does 'it's been largely accepted' actually mean, is that what you say when you are unsure of your facts?

He either was, or he wasn't.

His paper in the article below, and many other times since, state very clearly what was offered and I have never read otherwise until recently, and it's never based on anything factual.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/l ... 5784579357

I wish someone would have the guts to clear it up once and for all.

[BigMart]

Why could we NOT take wellingham??

If we did not want 25......we must not have rated him, because he was basically shopped by collingwood to get ball....surely he was shopped to us first....in a straight swap

[gringo]

Collingwood didn't mind stuffing around well into the last minutes because as Paul Connors and the Pies made it clear they were prepared to let it slip through and take him for nothing. We were never offered Wellingham, I heard North asked for him for 25 and didn't get the trade through in time. we wanted Everitt and asked collingwood to manufacture a trade that was beneficial for both the rest is history.

[SainterK]

Why could we NOT take wellingham??

If we did not want 25......we must not have rated him, because he was basically shopped by collingwood to get ball....surely he was shopped to us first....in a straight swap

We wanted pick 25 to give to the Dogs for Everitt.

Why Surely?

Why are you so confident Mick would of wanted to give St Kilda pace?

[thejiggingsaint]

I don't know...and two years after the event don't CARE!!!!!

[vacuous space]

Why did we not take the picks 25 and 62 that Ross said we left on the table? It was a reasonable return for a one-dimensional stoppage player who couldn't run and spread like the coach wanted. What was so attractive about Andreas freaking Everitt? As if we don't have enough B- and C-grade defenders.

Wellingham's a reasonable player. He's a better player there than he would be here. I would have preferred the picks. I'm not going to roll through the list of players we could have had, but there were a number of handy players. The weakness of that draft was greatly overstated. Even if we thought it was weak, I can't believe we rolled up with one pick in the top fifty when RL would later say we felt all the quality was in the top fifty. We could have had four picks in the top fifty. Instead we opted for short sighted moves that turned a premiership contender into a premiership contender. Brilliant!

[MCG-Unit]

Why did we not take the picks 25 and 62 that Ross said we left on the table?.......

This is the only trade I will ever believe - because I heard Lyon state that straight after the draft....

''In the end it was 25 and 62 on the table. We were unlikely to use 62 and, in our view, 25 was not going to get Luke Ball done,'' Lyon said. ''We didn't think it was an equitable trade so we stood our ground."

Every other Coll player mentioned as a possible trade is just media and supporter speculation. People can come up with whoever they like and call it fact, but using the media as the source, will never make it certain.

All we know is that Coll didn't have 25, NM did, (after trading it for Josh Gibson) so Coll must have offered something acceptable to NM - for it to be 'on the table'.

Speculation is that Coll offered Wellingham + 30 for 25, off course Malthouse denied JW was ever on the trade table

[Dr Spaceman]

Why did we not take the picks 25 and 62 that Ross said we left on the table?.......

This is the only trade I will ever believe - because I heard Lyon state that straight after the draft....

''In the end it was 25 and 62 on the table. We were unlikely to use 62 and, in our view, 25 was not going to get Luke Ball done,'' Lyon said. ''We didn't think it was an equitable trade so we stood our ground."

Every other Coll player mentioned as a possible trade is just media and supporter speculation. People can come with whoever they like and call it fact, but using the media as the source,  will never make it certain.

All we know is that Coll didn't have 25, NM did, (after trading it for Josh Gibson) so Coll must have offered something acceptable to NM - for it to be 'on the table'.

Speculation is that Coll offered Wellingham + 30 for 25, off course Malthouse denied JW was ever on the trade table

And after using their first pick on Jolly, Collingwood were never going to get serious with us re Ball.

As I said earlier, it's easy to say something is better than nothing but the Saints, unhappy with what was on offer, took a stand with an eye on the future. 

If the Pies were to go after a Goddard for example they now know that they have to get serious with the Saints or there'll be no deal.

Because a Goddard, unlike Ball, won't last in the Draft until the Pies get a pick.

[MCG-Unit]

Why did we not take the picks 25 and 62 that Ross said we left on the table?.......

This is the only trade I will ever believe - because I heard Lyon state that straight after the draft....

''In the end it was 25 and 62 on the table. We were unlikely to use 62 and, in our view, 25 was not going to get Luke Ball done,'' Lyon said. ''We didn't think it was an equitable trade so we stood our ground."

Every other Coll player mentioned as a possible trade is just media and supporter speculation. People can come with whoever they like and call it fact, but using the media as the source,  will never make it certain.

All we know is that Coll didn't have 25, NM did, (after trading it for Josh Gibson) so Coll must have offered something acceptable to NM - for it to be 'on the table'.

Speculation is that Coll offered Wellingham + 30 for 25, off course Malthouse denied JW was ever on the trade table

And after using their first pick on Jolly, Collingwood were never going to get serious with us re Ball.

As I said earlier, it's easy to say something is better than nothing but the Saints, unhappy with what was on offer, took a stand with an eye on the future. 

If the Pies were to go after a Goddard for example they now know that they have to get serious with the Saints or there'll be no deal.

Because a Goddard, unlike Ball, won't last in the Draft until the Pies get a pick.

Yes, I reckon once the Saints knew Ball was leaving for sure - they would have asked for that pick 14, but Coll used it to get Jolly.

So while they wanted Ball they were never going to make a reasonable offer - like say one of Beams or Sidebottom..........

Not just Coll, any club know they need to get serious with any trades with the Saints, otherwise forget it

[Armoooo]

For the people who are saying that we must have been offered wellingham keep in mind that would have been later in the week after we had recruited lovvett and peake. Also at that stage he was a nothing player who we probably didn't think was close to the player he has become.

[vacuous space]

As I said earlier, it's easy to say something is better than nothing but the Saints, unhappy with what was on offer, took a stand with an eye on the future. 

But why were we unhappy with the offer? Could we not envisage any of the prospective draftees becoming more than the incredibly pedestrian player Ball had become? Did we think that at the end of all those games he'd just come back and be happy like ROK?

With the stuff that came out later in Misson's book, it's a wonder we thought he was worth a second round pick at all. He couldn't run, he couldn't spread, he was a liability after six minutes on the field. He had no penetration in his kicking. All he could do was win hard balls and tackle in close. That's nice, but hardly rare to find.

Maybe we thought he could improve, but to what end? It's not like he's lived up to his early hype at the Pies. He's still a very limited player. A second round pick (and we would have ended up using the fourth) strikes me as very fair value for that sort of player. It's once you factor in emotion, the fact he was a former captain and all the other stuff that adds up to nothing that you feel he's worth more than that. Put it this way - if he decided to come back, I'd be hesitant to give up a second round pick.

Jolly's a gun ruckman. He's not Cox or Sandilands, but he's definately in the next best two or three. As far as in and under mids go, how many better ones are there going around than Ball? The list would go for quite a length.

[satchmo]

Luke Ball went for the opportunity to play in the ones.

So what was the last game he played for us?

Obviously it wasn't an afl grand final then?

Must have been with Sandy was it? OH the missed opportunity, poor sad little f***, had to make do with playing in an AFL grand final, and apparently it's the best competition in the country according to the afl sycophant's sycophant. How did the weak liitle mummy's c*** survive the temerity of being played in the best competition in the countrys grand final? Poor f****** sausage lets all give luke a big f****** hug!

Hope you end up sleeping with dane swan you weak f****** pussy!!!!