Saints players LIVID with Luke Ball

[joffaboy]

Is there a prize for the thread that meanders furthest from it's subject?

This one's looking pretty good for the gong if there is!

Well there is a correlation. if the players are LIVID then they are very emotional about LB walking out on them.

One may even say they are passionate about their team and teammate (or ex).

Maybe they need to get a life

[Milton66]

Is there a prize for the thread that meanders furthest from it's subject?

This one's looking pretty good for the gong if there is!

Not a patch on Milton's thread about GT commenting on other Coaches - 50+ pages!

Is GT livid with Luke Ball, and given he played for 3 clubs... doea he have the right to be livid?

[saintbrat]

Is there a prize for the thread that meanders furthest from it's subject?

This one's looking pretty good for the gong if there is!

Not a patch on Milton's thread about GT commenting on other Coaches - 50+ pages!

Is GT livid with Luke Ball, and given he played for 3 clubs... doea he have the right to be livid?

rfer to Footy Classified in August for comments relating to the above

[Milton66]

Is there a prize for the thread that meanders furthest from it's subject?

This one's looking pretty good for the gong if there is!

Not a patch on Milton's thread about GT commenting on other Coaches - 50+ pages!

Is GT livid with Luke Ball, and given he played for 3 clubs... doea he have the right to be livid?

rfer to Footy Classified in August for comments relating to the above

link??

[satchmo]

Is there a prize for the thread that meanders furthest from it's subject?

This one's looking pretty good for the gong if there is!

Not a patch on Milton's thread about GT commenting on other Coaches - 50+ pages!

Is GT livid with Luke Ball, and given he played for 3 clubs... doea he have the right to be livid?

Maybe he'll catch up with the players at the Livid Festival?

[ace]

The only thing I categorically think he needs to be held accountable for, is the directive to 'bomb it long' in the final quarter. This was a huge, huge mistake and a significant moment in our history.

I still can't believe he did it.

The long bomb directive and the fact Luke Ball could have played two more bursts of 6 minutes, both errors were owned by Ross immediately after the game. I am sure he didn't put them into the public forum just for the sake of it, I am sure he intends to learn and grow from this experience.

Management is not the same as childish bossing.
Just because a manager claims responsibility for something does not mean the manager issued the instructions.
It is part of a manager's role to publicly take the flack for his subordinates stuff ups.

It is then the responsibility of the manager to reprimand his subordinates in private and only in measured way commensurate with the stuff up.
This ensures that the subordinates only receive the correct amount of criticism.
Often their will be no need for a reprimand because the subordinate will own up to the manager for his mistake, is sufficiently remorseful and grateful to his manager for taking the heat off him.
This improves loyalty from the subordinate to the manager and improves subsequent performance.

Ross Lyon is not a boss, he is an excellent manager, if the player's initiated the "kick long" against team orders, Lyon would still claim responsibility to the media.
The player's will be more loyal and more likely to follow instruction next time.

We are no wiser as to how kick long came about.
Was it the players or the coach?

[rodgerfox]

The only thing I categorically think he needs to be held accountable for, is the directive to 'bomb it long' in the final quarter. This was a huge, huge mistake and a significant moment in our history.

I still can't believe he did it.

The long bomb directive and the fact Luke Ball could have played two more bursts of 6 minutes, both errors were owned by Ross immediately after the game. I am sure he didn't put them into the public forum just for the sake of it, I am sure he intends to learn and grow from this experience.

Management is not the same as childish bossing.
Just because a manager claims responsibility for something does not mean the manager issued the instructions.
It is part of a manager's role to publicly take the flack for his subordinates stuff ups.

It is then the responsibility of the manager to reprimand his subordinates in private and only in measured way commensurate with the stuff up.
This ensures that the subordinates only receive the correct amount of criticism.
Often their will be no need for a reprimand because the subordinate will own up to the manager for his mistake, is sufficiently remorseful and grateful to his manager for taking the heat off him.
This improves loyalty from the subordinate to the manager and improves subsequent performance.

Ross Lyon is not a boss, he is an excellent manager, if the player's initiated the "kick long" against team orders, Lyon would still claim responsibility to the media.
The player's will be more loyal and more likely to follow instruction next time.

We are no wiser as to how kick long came about.
Was it the players or the coach?

Wow. Now they are intense Ross Coloured Glasses you're wearing!!


If the players suddenly decide to bomb it long with 20 minutes left in a GF, and Lyon doesn't or can't do anything about it - then he is a poor coach with no control over his team.

I highly, highly doubt this is the case.

[ace]

You can't polish a carlton supporter.

If Poland were to invade Italy and then annexe Italy wouldn't that turn Carlton supporters into Polish.

[satchmo]

You can't polish a carlton supporter.

If Poland were to invade Italy and then annexe Italy wouldn't that turn Carlton supporters into Polish.

Are you trying to polarise this thread?

[Winmar7Fan]

This kid has given 100% for the club since he started to the point of being so smashed up his body can't perform to the level it could.

Now the Coaching Staff don't value him the same and are treating him accordingly.

So he's trying to make the most of his last couple of years he probably has left to get what he can for himself, retire and be forgotten to live out the rest of his life managing a lot of permanent aches and pains.

Unless I'm missing some big factor here whats wrong with that?

[plugger66]

This kid has given 100% for the club since he started to the point of being so smashed up his body can't perform to the level it could.

Now the Coaching Staff don't value him the same and are treating him accordingly.

So he's trying to make the most of his last couple of years he probably has left to get what he can for himself, retire and be forgotten to live out the rest of his life managing a lot of permanent aches and pains.

Unless I'm missing some big factor here whats wrong with that?

That i think is 100% correct but once you say you are leaving our club all logic goes out the door.

[Milton66]

This kid has given 100% for the club since he started to the point of being so smashed up his body can't perform to the level it could.

Now the Coaching Staff don't value him the same and are treating him accordingly.

So he's trying to make the most of his last couple of years he probably has left to get what he can for himself, retire and be forgotten to live out the rest of his life managing a lot of permanent aches and pains.

Unless I'm missing some big factor here whats wrong with that?

That i think is 100% correct but once you say you are leaving our club all logic goes out the door.

Lucky we have Plugger "Mr Spock from Vulcan" 66 to keep us on track when it comes to logic.

[Teflon]

This kid has given 100% for the club since he started to the point of being so smashed up his body can't perform to the level it could.

Now the Coaching Staff don't value him the same and are treating him accordingly.

So he's trying to make the most of his last couple of years he probably has left to get what he can for himself, retire and be forgotten to live out the rest of his life managing a lot of permanent aches and pains.

Unless I'm missing some big factor here whats wrong with that?

Im not sure thats right at all.

The coaching staff dont value Ball the same or just want Ball to step up and improve aspects of his game??....whats wrong with that?...they arent the same thing...what Ive consistently heard from Lyon is that Balls ALWAYS been required.....never a question of his value....

They wanted Dal Santo to do same - he did.

Ball - for all intents and purposes - indicates he'll do whats necessary to get back in the side as a team man and praises the coaching staff for being communicative and supportive the whole time then.....Ball up and wants to leave - supposedly for game time. Fair enough, then nominates 1 club for the Saints to deal with...even the most naive Plugger66 can see theres some work gone into Ball behind the scenes in that one.......

We go from that to "untenable".....via manager ofcourse.......theres clealry plenty wrong with that....

[Winmar7Fan]

This kid has given 100% for the club since he started to the point of being so smashed up his body can't perform to the level it could.

Now the Coaching Staff don't value him the same and are treating him accordingly.

So he's trying to make the most of his last couple of years he probably has left to get what he can for himself, retire and be forgotten to live out the rest of his life managing a lot of permanent aches and pains.

Unless I'm missing some big factor here whats wrong with that?

Im not sure thats right at all.

The coaching staff dont value Ball the same or just want Ball to step up and improve aspects of his game??....whats wrong with that?...they arent the same thing...what Ive consistently heard from Lyon is that Balls ALWAYS been required.....never a question of his value....

They wanted Dal Santo to do same - he did.

Ball - for all intents and purposes - indicates he'll do whats necessary to get back in the side as a team man and praises the coaching staff for being communicative and supportive the whole time then.....Ball up and wants to leave - supposedly for game time. Fair enough, then nominates 1 club for the Saints to deal with...even the most naive Plugger66 can see theres some work gone into Ball behind the scenes in that one.......

We go from that to "untenable".....via manager ofcourse.......theres clealry plenty wrong with that....

Maybe Ball can't step up like Dal Santo. Injuries may have effected his ability.

So he wanted to choose to go to Collingwood because they were giving him a deal he was happy with. Did X want to go to Brisbane?

At the end of the day it's all one sided on the clubs terms. Did the club care about and do the right thing by Max's best interest on Grand Final day for all the years of loyalty and commitment?

No they did what was in the best interest for the club as they should.

The club can make ruthless decisions and axe whoever/whenever they like regardless of what the player has given but the player has a moral obligation to the club until the club decides they are no longer of use and chop there heads off?

It's become business on both sides which I think is fair enough.

[Milan Faletic]

Unfortunately RL can't be responsible for the shocking treatment that LB got from GT and his "fitness" staff.

I don't think it's just about his osteitis pubis. The severe hamstring injury has, IMHO, restricted his ability to kick and that injury alone has put him on notice with RL.

RL has to work with the cattle he has inherited. Unfortunately, LB has been screwed and has suffered the consequences. We now have other players who can do what he does in and under, but have the ability to kick goals as well. It's a real shame.

[Teflon]

This kid has given 100% for the club since he started to the point of being so smashed up his body can't perform to the level it could.

Now the Coaching Staff don't value him the same and are treating him accordingly.

So he's trying to make the most of his last couple of years he probably has left to get what he can for himself, retire and be forgotten to live out the rest of his life managing a lot of permanent aches and pains.

Unless I'm missing some big factor here whats wrong with that?

Im not sure thats right at all.

The coaching staff dont value Ball the same or just want Ball to step up and improve aspects of his game??....whats wrong with that?...they arent the same thing...what Ive consistently heard from Lyon is that Balls ALWAYS been required.....never a question of his value....

They wanted Dal Santo to do same - he did.

Ball - for all intents and purposes - indicates he'll do whats necessary to get back in the side as a team man and praises the coaching staff for being communicative and supportive the whole time then.....Ball up and wants to leave - supposedly for game time. Fair enough, then nominates 1 club for the Saints to deal with...even the most naive Plugger66 can see theres some work gone into Ball behind the scenes in that one.......

We go from that to "untenable".....via manager ofcourse.......theres clealry plenty wrong with that....

Maybe Ball can't step up like Dal Santo. Injuries may have effected his ability.

So he wanted to choose to go to Collingwood because they were giving him a deal he was happy with. Did X want to go to Brisbane?

At the end of the day it's all one sided on the clubs terms. Did the club care about and do the right thing by Max's best interest on Grand Final day for all the years of loyalty and commitment?

No they did what was in the best interest for the club as they should.

The club can make ruthless decisions and axe whoever/whenever they like regardless of what the player has given but the player has a moral obligation to the club until the club decides they are no longer of use and chop there heads off?

It's become business on both sides which I think is fair enough.

Not sure of your point to be honest - we all know its a commercial arrangement after all.....are you suggesting the clubs done the wrong thing by Luke Ball for effectively not accepting pick 25 in a weak draft which probably equates to pick 40 nromally?

Lets be clear - apart from the violins for what Luke Balls done for the club this club has also no doubt made Luke Ball a very wealthy young man whose probably been paid above his performances on field for quite some time.

Ofcourse loyalty in every players case wont flow both ways - it cant. Clubs are bigger than the individual....but lets look at what we are striving for and understand that unless you get loyalty from your better players (of which Ive no doubt the club think Ball is) then you wont get success.

Want proof? - see Geelong for loyalty....

As for anything being club sided at present......I dont think weve heard squat from Ball........unlike Xavier Clarke...

[plugger66]

Mumford?

[Winmar7Fan]

This kid has given 100% for the club since he started to the point of being so smashed up his body can't perform to the level it could.

Now the Coaching Staff don't value him the same and are treating him accordingly.

So he's trying to make the most of his last couple of years he probably has left to get what he can for himself, retire and be forgotten to live out the rest of his life managing a lot of permanent aches and pains.

Unless I'm missing some big factor here whats wrong with that?

Im not sure thats right at all.

The coaching staff dont value Ball the same or just want Ball to step up and improve aspects of his game??....whats wrong with that?...they arent the same thing...what Ive consistently heard from Lyon is that Balls ALWAYS been required.....never a question of his value....

They wanted Dal Santo to do same - he did.

Ball - for all intents and purposes - indicates he'll do whats necessary to get back in the side as a team man and praises the coaching staff for being communicative and supportive the whole time then.....Ball up and wants to leave - supposedly for game time. Fair enough, then nominates 1 club for the Saints to deal with...even the most naive Plugger66 can see theres some work gone into Ball behind the scenes in that one.......

We go from that to "untenable".....via manager ofcourse.......theres clealry plenty wrong with that....

Maybe Ball can't step up like Dal Santo. Injuries may have effected his ability.

So he wanted to choose to go to Collingwood because they were giving him a deal he was happy with. Did X want to go to Brisbane?

At the end of the day it's all one sided on the clubs terms. Did the club care about and do the right thing by Max's best interest on Grand Final day for all the years of loyalty and commitment?

No they did what was in the best interest for the club as they should.

The club can make ruthless decisions and axe whoever/whenever they like regardless of what the player has given but the player has a moral obligation to the club until the club decides they are no longer of use and chop there heads off?

It's become business on both sides which I think is fair enough.

Not sure of your point to be honest - we all know its a commercial arrangement after all.....are you suggesting the clubs done the wrong thing by Luke Ball for effectively not accepting pick 25 in a weak draft which probably equates to pick 40 nromally?

Lets be clear - apart from the violins for what Luke Balls done for the club this club has also no doubt made Luke Ball a very wealthy young man whose probably been paid above his performances on field for quite some time.

Ofcourse loyalty in every players case wont flow both ways - it cant. Clubs are bigger than the individual....but lets look at what we are striving for and understand that unless you get loyalty from your better players (of which Ive no doubt the club think Ball is) then you wont get success.

Want proof? - see Geelong for loyalty....

As for anything being club sided at present......I dont think weve heard squat from Ball........unlike Xavier Clarke...

Yes I see what your saying my point is that at the end of the day Luke Ball has been as good for the club as they have to him and when it gets to that time in their career Ball is looking at his best interest near the end the same as the club would.

The only reason he has been paid above his performance is not because of the goodness of the Club It's because of contracts, expectations on his recovery etc.

Once the Club believe he's not going to get any better and back to what he was things change very quickly.

All I'm trying to say here is for all the people looking at the small picture and canning Ball for wanting to defect to Collingwood ( which looks even worse ).

If he struggles next year and the Club think It's time they wont have a problem trading him to Collingwood, Freo or wherever and these people aren't going to jump up and down like they are now when It's the other way around.

And yes your right about the importance of player loyalty but it becomes very difficult when at this stage of your career.

It's easy to be loyal when your playing at your best with so much to offer the Club and both sides are so willing to give like our other top players but he aint that any more and is maybe being a bit more selfish than he has been in the past feeling the end is coming.

It's amazing how fast people can throw ten years of great players contribution out the window so easily.

Good luck to him I say.

[Mr Magic]

IN my mnd there are 2 issues here.
1. the fact Luke Ball has decided he wants out
2. the reasons he (or those associated with him) have given for him wanting out.

I have absolutetly no problem with issue #1.

What I do object to is issue#2.

THere have been a succession of reasons 'floated' to try and point Ball's decision as anything other than a commercial one. Each one of those is a ramping up of the perception that he was 'forced out'.
Each one designed not to paint the decision as being due to a better contract.

IMHO, Ball is going because of a simple commercial decision and his management don't wnat it to be seen as that.
They obviously feel his 'brand' may be tarnished if he is perceived as being mercenary.
To do that they have deliberately attempted to tarnish the Saints in this.
St Kilda to their credit have not 'returned fire' in any way despite the provocation. Unfortunately that just leaves the accusations undefended out there in the public forum.

I am still staggered that some have 'swallowed' the emotive crap being spun by Ball's management that he has no option to leave because of his 'untenable' position at the Saints.

If the Saints had offered Ball 500k in the new 3 year deal does anybody actually believe we would have seen what has occured over the last 10 days?

Clubs have become ruthless when it comes to deciding which players stay or go.
BUT
Player Managers make Clubs look like 'World Vision' when it comes to being ruthless and underhanded in their negotiations.

What we have witnessed here, IMO, is Connors negotiating Ball out of St Kilda into a better deal at Collingwood. Unfortunately for Ball, Connors stuffed it up at the last hurdle (through his own conflict of interest) and we now have this farce being played out.

[markp]

Are there still people who think this isn't mostly about money?

Gaga land.

[St. Luke]

I still can't believe this is happening. Imagine playing for Melbourne??? Or worse...the Tigers for god sakes! ................ Surely things can't have been that bad???

[markp]

I still can't believe this is happening. Imagine playing for Melbourne??? Or worse...the Tigers for god sakes! ................ Surely things can't have been that bad???

When you try to do a deal with the devil (the filth), you shouldn't be surprised if you end up in hell (richmond).

[spert]

It looks to me like the club has told him prior to the finals, that he will be offered a contract on less money, and LB has obviously sat on it until after the GF which is good sportsmanship, but really, a player's contract will reflect his worth to a club, and LB has a history of OP which has affected his ability to perform at elite level, although still a good player, he is no champion and his pay packet would reflect that. We have a team with many leaders, so LB may well be perfect for teams which have a minimum leadership core.

[joffaboy]

Are there still people who think this isn't mostly about money?

Gaga land.

yes.

[Thinline]

I reckon if you plotted the course of this thread on a chart it would resemble the olymipic rings. Round and round and round and round and round again.

Here's what the past however many pages have taught us:

It may/may not be about money/injury/allocated role.

It may/may not be about personality clashes.

It may/may not be about interest-conflicted management.

It may/may not be about Collingwood being flaky.

It may/may not be about St K being unrealistic about the relative value of LB vs draft picks.

It may/may not be reflective of the ruthlessness of modern day football.

Now we can all speculate as much as we like. Hell, speculation is fun.

But fact is no one on here really knows a goddam thing.

If there is anyone out there who actually has some new factual material about what the deal really is I'd be pleased to hear it.