Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
SaintPav wrote: ↑Thu 29 Aug 2024 10:54pm
Ratten and Boofhead are up to their necks in this.
Maybe, but I think there is ‘creativity’ within the Hawks offer to Battle
There’s something extra that’s not included in the published offer from them that makes it more exciting than our apparently greater offer.
Mr Magic wrote: ↑Thu 29 Aug 2024 7:27pm
Something smells here.
Battle has said he’s looking after the future of his family.
If it’s true we offered more than the apparent deal he’s accepting from Hawthorn then how does that ‘look after the future of his family’?
There can only be 2 reasons why you would accept less to leave:-
1. You don’t want to stay
2. The reported deal you’re accepting is actually not the deal - there’s a side-deal component not being made public
Not everyone is on the same page as Lyon, and apparently there was a sour taste in some mouths at Ratten being sacked in that manner
I think your desire to denigrate the appointment of Lyon is colouring your view of everything going on at StKilda
There’s no way what you’re implying could have been kept quiet from the hundreds of journos looking for stories.
Losing Battle is a blow if we don’t get Band 1 and a win if we do get Band 1
Some reputations on the line at the club betting we get Band 1 and trying to game the system
I’ve never known St Kilda to successfully game the system. Let’s see how this plays out.
We’ve never been that smart - and the AFL likes to keep us in our place in the bottom half of the ladder. I will be pleasantly surprised if we get Band 1. I’m expecting end of first round compo.
We are useful to the AFL for tv rights dollars, but not one of the big clubs that brings in the big crowds and big dollars that fills AFL coffers. We are the equivalent of the Washington Wizards for the Harlem Globetrotters- a necessary component but ultimately not the main attraction that brings in the dollars. At the end of the day, its not in the AFL’s interest to give us a leg up. That’s why I expect them to change the formula and we wont get Band 1.
“If you want the rainbow you gotta put up with rain” Dolly Parton
I'm going to guess anywhere from pick 15 to pick 30.
In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in, they're eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.
Mr Magic wrote: ↑Thu 29 Aug 2024 7:27pm
Something smells here.
Battle has said he’s looking after the future of his family.
If it’s true we offered more than the apparent deal he’s accepting from Hawthorn then how does that ‘look after the future of his family’?
There can only be 2 reasons why you would accept less to leave:-
1. You don’t want to stay
2. The reported deal you’re accepting is actually not the deal - there’s a side-deal component not being made public
Not everyone is on the same page as Lyon, and apparently there was a sour taste in some mouths at Ratten being sacked in that manner
I think your desire to denigrate the appointment of Lyon is colouring your view of everything going on at StKilda
There’s no way what you’re implying could have been kept quiet from the hundreds of journos looking for stories.
I don't think what spert is suggesting is denigrating Lyon. It's denigrating the St Kilda president and the board isn't?
Perhaps Battle wasn't initially offered a 5 or 6 year deal and that's what he was chasing. We definitely lowballed him imo, so that's where he may have decided to consider leaving.
We're talking about a complicated situation for Battle and he may have committed to Hawthorn 2 months ago. That's when our team wasn't playing very good footy.
If anyone is wondering... I'm not related and I don't personally know Josh. I'm just a fan
In the light of this decision I would not place any trust in anything Battle has said relating to St Kilda FC
In regards successful Clubs, you have players accepting less than market value to ensure the side sticks together and that it can recruit to compete
Commitment is to your Club and your fellow players and this builds bonding including thru your future life
Measure Battle against that criteria and St Kilda is best advised to invest the capital into a player committed to the cause
The brutality of the AFL is that a level of performance is required to remain on a List
This is because the AFL, seeking 24/7 publicity 365 days a year decrees you have to sack a certain number of players ahead of the compromised Draft they laud over
magnifisaint wrote: ↑Thu 29 Aug 2024 11:24pm
I'm going to guess anywhere from pick 15 to pick 30.
Band 2 world be end of first round so around 20 (I don't believe there is a lot of father/son or academy hijinks this year), and band 3 would be after our second pick which would be around pick 25.
Without knowing what the Hawks offered it is difficult to predict what we might get, but this article from last year about Ben McKay provides a little extra context around why we might not be as lucky this year. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-tr ... 996293d0da
The problem is how this year’s (referring to 2023 and Ben McKays deal) free agents are being paid based on 2024’s salary cap, but being valued by the AFL based on 2023’s salary cap.
Players can only be compared to existing contracts, naturally. But this trade period’s deals are being compared to 2023 salaries - before a near 15 per cent jump in the salary cap.
That is why Ben McKay, earning just under $800,000 a year guaranteed, qualifies in the top five per cent of players (which is the bar for band 1, band 2 is top 15%) this year (also thanks to being the youngest possible restricted free agent at 25).
If he was a free agent in 2024, he would have needed to be paid over $900,000 a year to sit in the top five per cent of contracts.
There might be a small chance the Hawks ended up increasing their offer. But I expect we probably land chose to the top of band 2. It sucks but thankfully this draft is expected to be pretty even over the first 25-30 picks (unless anyone has any more up to date info)
Kudos to our recruitment/retention mob. They set a value and played their cards pretty well. Not overpaying, will get ok compo, salary cap flexibility. Tested Josh's resolve.
Josh is very good but so are plenty of other players.
It's a constant player churn industry for various reasons. He now has to build up relationships at Hawthorn which has its own court issues unresolved and construct a new life. Has to tell them its what he always wanted, telling the Saints he was conflicted was just a negotiation tactic to manage his desertion.
Saints caravan moves on, no hard feelings. It's also now known Saints are not pushovers.
Devilhead wrote: ↑Fri 30 Aug 2024 1:18am
Battle will be all but forgotten after we are given Pick 8
I hope you are right.
In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in, they're eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.
Mr Magic wrote: ↑Thu 29 Aug 2024 7:27pm
Something smells here.
Battle has said he’s looking after the future of his family.
If it’s true we offered more than the apparent deal he’s accepting from Hawthorn then how does that ‘look after the future of his family’?
There can only be 2 reasons why you would accept less to leave:-
1. You don’t want to stay
2. The reported deal you’re accepting is actually not the deal - there’s a side-deal component not being made public
Well I heard that he supported Hawthorn when he was young and that his best friend plays for Hawthorn, although I don't know who that is.
Mr Magic wrote: ↑Thu 29 Aug 2024 7:27pm
Something smells here.
Battle has said he’s looking after the future of his family.
If it’s true we offered more than the apparent deal he’s accepting from Hawthorn then how does that ‘look after the future of his family’?
There can only be 2 reasons why you would accept less to leave:-
1. You don’t want to stay
2. The reported deal you’re accepting is actually not the deal - there’s a side-deal component not being made public
Well I heard that he supported Hawthorn when he was young and that his best friend plays for Hawthorn, although I don't know who that is.
Imagine being a fully grown man and using that as an excuse to change clubs? I used to barrack for the Hawks. Spare me.
My best mate plays there. Like he doesn’t have mates at StKilda. Every BS excuse trotted out is worse than the one before. I’ve heard from a good mate who has lots of connections at Halebury that he’s not very bright, but this is beyond stupid.
He wants to play in a flag and he obviously doesn’t see that happening with st Kilda. He can get f***ed as far as I’m concerned
It all started with low ball offer.
Then the saints insulted him by chasing Weitering on double what they were prepared to offer him.
Yes it is about family.
It is about future.
The saints are run by muppets.
There was no surprise when the Hawks came knocking he accepted the call. A long successful team. A coach that valued him highly. More money. A bigger chance of ultimate success. Hawks are a very very successful team in the last 40 years (are they the most successful? If not they would be close) and on the rise again.
Premerierships pay their way for years after the boots are hung up.
Saints would want to learn from the mistakes with Battle. With the young crop coming through they need to keep their mouth shut, reward the future stars and plan for tomorrow.
Odds on there are a couple of under the table parts to the deal. His wife gets a two day a week job she can do from home for a couple of hundred grand a year maybe. I am very suspicious of people saying they are going for less money rarely happens. Even Geelong who everyone said they took less to keep the team together had the famed Costa-living-allowance.
Mr Magic wrote: ↑Thu 29 Aug 2024 7:27pm
Something smells here.
Battle has said he’s looking after the future of his family.
If it’s true we offered more than the apparent deal he’s accepting from Hawthorn then how does that ‘look after the future of his family’?
There can only be 2 reasons why you would accept less to leave:-
1. You don’t want to stay
2. The reported deal you’re accepting is actually not the deal - there’s a side-deal component not being made public
Well I heard that he supported Hawthorn when he was young and that his best friend plays for Hawthorn, although I don't know who that is.
Imagine being a fully grown man and using that as an excuse to change clubs? I used to barrack for the Hawks. Spare me.
My best mate plays there. Like he doesn’t have mates at StKilda. Every BS excuse trotted out is worse than the one before. I’ve heard from a good mate who has lots of connections at Halebury that he’s not very bright, but this is beyond stupid.
He wants to play in a flag and he obviously doesn’t see that happening with st Kilda. He can get f***ed as far as I’m concerned
I think you're right. Mitchell probably said how many flags have St Kilda won and how many have Hawthorn won. Where are you most likely to win one?
In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in, they're eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.
repta wrote: ↑Fri 30 Aug 2024 9:57am
It all started with low ball offer.
Then the saints insulted him by chasing Weitering on double what they were prepared to offer him.
Yes it is about family.
It is about future.
The saints are run by muppets.
There was no surprise when the Hawks came knocking he accepted the call. A long successful team. A coach that valued him highly. More money. A bigger chance of ultimate success. Hawks are a very very successful team in the last 40 years (are they the most successful? If not they would be close) and on the rise again.
Premerierships pay their way for years after the boots are hung up.
Saints would want to learn from the mistakes with Battle. With the young crop coming through they need to keep their mouth shut, reward the future stars and plan for tomorrow.
Who actually said we offered Weitering that? Also Weitering is an elite defender and Battle third wheel in a strong defensive unit.