Dees are desperate to win Ball

Moccha · Post: # 848322Post **Moccha** » Tue 13 Oct 2009 1:28am

MELBOURNE may use a first-round draft pick to snare St Kilda's Luke Ball in the national draft, so desperate are the Demons to lure the former Saints captain to the club.

Coach Dean Bailey said yesterday it was more likely Melbourne would gamble on Ball being available later in the draft, but it is believed the Demons would be happy to use pick 18, or even pick 11 to get him.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews ... 43356.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why didn't they trade with the Saints during the player exchange????

And they talk about Ball being left in no man's land!

What an absolute crock!

kosifantutti23 · Tue 13 Oct 2009 5:05am

Moccha wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why didn't they trade with the Saints during the player exchange????

!

Because he wanted to go to Collingwood.

There's no way they will use a first round pick on Luke Ball.

plugger66 · Post: # 848334Post **plugger66** » Tue 13 Oct 2009 7:32am

kosifantutti23 wrote:
Moccha wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why didn't they trade with the Saints during the player exchange????

!
Because he wanted to go to Collingwood.

There's no way they will use a first round pick on Luke Ball.

Exactly. How can they go after a player who at that stage had no interest in going there.

undecided · Post: # 848347Post **undecided** » Tue 13 Oct 2009 8:37am

Wasn't it just yesterday that they said they were not going to use any of their first four picks to get him.

saintbrat · Post: # 848349Post **saintbrat** » Tue 13 Oct 2009 8:42am

this morning Bailey said they would fly to new york to speak to him if he showed any indication at all he was interested and if he did express desire they May But otherwise would see if he was stlll there at later pick...

BUT connors had asked them to give him a few days..........

smilk · Post: # 848351Post **smilk** » Tue 13 Oct 2009 8:47am

undecided wrote:Wasn't it just yesterday that they said they were not going to use any of their first four picks to get him.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

Mr Magic · Post: # 848355Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 13 Oct 2009 8:56am

Just a small question.

I note in some articels they refer to Luke Ball as the 'former' Saints player.

Isn't he still contracted to us until October 31?
DOesn't that make him still a 'contracted' Saints player until then?

SainterK · Post: # 848373Post **SainterK** » Tue 13 Oct 2009 11:14am

Going away for a couple of weeks is probably the best thing he could have done....

Eastern · Post: # 848397Post **Eastern** » Tue 13 Oct 2009 12:55pm

Mr Magic wrote:Just a small question.

I note in some articels they refer to Luke Ball as the 'former' Saints player.

Isn't he still contracted to us until October 31?
DOesn't that make him still a 'contracted' Saints player until then?

I would have thought so. Is there anything in the player rules/contracts that forbids a player from negotiating with another club when contracted? I know the manager can negotiate on behalf of the player, but face to face with the player without permission from his current club ........? !!

borderbarry · Tue 13 Oct 2009 1:06pm

If Melbourne are so desperate for him, why did'nt they offer apick during trade week?

ausfatcat · Post: # 848405Post **ausfatcat** » Tue 13 Oct 2009 1:08pm

borderbarry wrote:If Melbourne are so desperate for him, why did'nt they offer apick during trade week?

Because Luke didn't want to entertain a move any where but Collingwood. And because he was out of contract the club couldn't trade him without his permission. That's why everyone was upset...

SainterK · Post: # 848416Post **SainterK** » Tue 13 Oct 2009 1:42pm

ausfatcat wrote:
borderbarry wrote:If Melbourne are so desperate for him, why did'nt they offer apick during trade week?

Because Luke didn't want to entertain a move any where but Collingwood. And because he was out of contract the club couldn't trade him without his permission. That's why everyone was upset...

Silly move, shouldn't have only nominated one club...

Moccha · Post: # 848456Post **Moccha** » Tue 13 Oct 2009 3:49pm

SainterK wrote:
ausfatcat wrote:
borderbarry wrote:If Melbourne are so desperate for him, why did'nt they offer apick during trade week?

Because Luke didn't want to entertain a move any where but Collingwood. And because he was out of contract the club couldn't trade him without his permission. That's why everyone was upset...
Silly move, shouldn't have only nominated one club...

Should have nominated 15 clubs

Milan Faletic · Tue 13 Oct 2009 5:41pm

This whole thing is a schmozzle.

I agree, why didn't Melbourne make an offer even though he nominated Collingwood. Fev nominated us and ended up at Brisbane.

I can't believe Luke would be excited at Melbourne, if he is unhappy with us.

Is game time more important than the team goals? Not accusing Luke, just asking.

Someone needs to speak up here and end the speculation.

Moccha · Post: # 848673Post **Moccha** » Wed 14 Oct 2009 12:42am

Milan Faletic wrote:This whole thing is a schmozzle.

I agree, why didn't Melbourne make an offer even though he nominated Collingwood. Fev nominated us and ended up at Brisbane.

I can't believe Luke would be excited at Melbourne, if he is unhappy with us.

Is game time more important than the team goals? Not accusing Luke, just asking.

Someone needs to speak up here and end the speculation.

Yes you make a good point, why didn't Melbourne make an offer? just about every team did for Fevola. I just can't see Ball going to Melbourne.

saintbrat · Post: # 848675Post **saintbrat** » Wed 14 Oct 2009 12:46am

maybe he can hone his old skills and play cricket for a year..

Dan Warna · Post: # 848689Post **Dan Warna** » Wed 14 Oct 2009 8:05am

Dees should be desperate to win games instead of players and draft picks...

how long have they been rebuilding since? 1998 now?

SainterK · Post: # 848738Post **SainterK** » Wed 14 Oct 2009 10:38am

The more I think about it, the more I think Luke will be a good fit at Melbourne.

He wants more game time, he wants to feel valued and appreciated, he wants to feel like a leader.

These are all things that he will have in abundance at Melbourne.

Thinline · Post: # 848760Post **Thinline** » Wed 14 Oct 2009 11:46am

SainterK wrote:The more I think about it, the more I think Luke will be a good fit at Melbourne.

He wants more game time, he wants to feel valued and appreciated, he wants to feel like a leader.

These are all things that he will have in abundance at Melbourne.

And they do love a private school type in amongst all the polished teak and mudless Land Rovers and pressed moleskins and mirror-sheened RM Williams boots...

aussiejones · Wed 14 Oct 2009 12:05pm

Melb are not convinced St kilda has given up on Ball.

"However Bailey was not convinced the Saints had waved farewell to Ball just yet.

"I'm assuming he won't want to go back to St Kilda for a start, (but) I would think the St Kilda football club would be working pretty hard to try to maintain him as a player," Bailey said."

Will he stay ???? IMO its gone too far and both the Club AND Ball need to do some serious work .

samoht · Post: # 848776Post **samoht** » Wed 14 Oct 2009 1:34pm

Ball was being paid like an elite player whilst underperforming (to put it bluntly) and also encouraged to play an outside game under Lyon - which would be much less taxing on his body.

He was being played ahead of Armitage - who saw no finals.

So what is his beef - what's there to work out ?

aussiejones · Wed 14 Oct 2009 2:04pm

So whats Bailey going on about ? There will be no reconciliation between Ball and the Saints.

I still find it strange Ball was offered a 3 yr contract .....though we dont know the content (of course) . Irrelevant now anyway.

It seems the assessment of Ball ( by the Saints ) is that he will never get back to being the player we need for the future . So its bye bye BALL.

The sooner its over and done with the better.......

ace · Post: # 848891Post **ace** » Wed 14 Oct 2009 6:59pm

They weren't desperate to win ball last year, they tanked instead.

GeorgeYoung27 · Wed 14 Oct 2009 7:20pm

I still find it strange Ball was offered a 3 yr contract .....though we dont know the content (of course) . Irrelevant now anyway.

It seems the assessment of Ball ( by the Saints ) is that he will never get back to being the player we need for the future . So its bye bye BALL.

The sooner its over and done with the better.......

Greg Denham said on SEN this morning that RL made a new offer to LB in their meeting before the draft deadline, which Ball rejected. That would explain why Ross when he came out and was interviewed he said the contract was now off the table.

Moccha · Post: # 849030Post **Moccha** » Thu 15 Oct 2009 12:16am

GeorgeYoung27 wrote:
I still find it strange Ball was offered a 3 yr contract .....though we dont know the content (of course) . Irrelevant now anyway.

It seems the assessment of Ball ( by the Saints ) is that he will never get back to being the player we need for the future . So its bye bye BALL.

The sooner its over and done with the better.......
Greg Denham said on SEN this morning that RL made a new offer to LB in their meeting before the draft deadline, which Ball rejected. That would explain why Ross when he came out and was interviewed he said the contract was now off the table.

Well then F*** off!

Dees are desperate to win Ball

Dees are desperate to win Ball

Re: Dees are desperate to win Ball

Re: Dees are desperate to win Ball