Luke Ball "update"

[ace]

The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.

It is understood that the meeting between Lyon and Ball late last week did not revolve around contractual issues but whether he is prepared to return and what he must do to improve his game if he does.

Well there you go, if this part is true...

$300k per year for 3 years knocked back. Did Collingwood offer $500k? If so then Ball was leaving for the money.

The meeting was about what Ball had to do to improve his game. So was he leaving because he wasn't prepared to do what's required of him?

Yup, the club acted disgracefully.

interpretation based on your mindset?
it could well be interpreted as luke ball having an issue with his role - improve his game specifically to the requirements of the role the saints have in mind for him - hence an issue of game time and type - not a money issue! collingwood's offer is simply a secondary issue in this case.

as for apportioning blame - i don't know that there is anyone to blame - it is just a clash of ideals and goals- player and club.

Football is job, if you don't like your role, you do what any other employee would do.
Show the boss what you are capable of doing by demostrating that you are capable of a different role whilst doing the role assigned to you well.
Earn your promotion.

Or have a giant sook and quit or threaten to sod off elswhere.

I have through this entire saga said more than once that I belive Luke Ball has lost the right to be a St Kilda player and forfited the honor of wearing our jumper.

My stance is still the exact same. I personally have less than 0 desire to see Luke Ball in the team next year but my personal feelings obviously are less improtant than the team as a whole, if the players and staff want Luke Ball at St Kilda next year then I can accept that.

I hope the boy pulls his finger out and earns back the respect he has lost through this situation

BANG BANG

Was just about to reply that 'most' employees would run off to the competitor.

Most competitors don't want their opposition's dropouts, they want their oppositions best employees.
The one's who have earned promotion and not received it.

[Mr Magic]

The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.

It is understood that the meeting between Lyon and Ball late last week did not revolve around contractual issues but whether he is prepared to return and what he must do to improve his game if he does.

Well there you go, if this part is true...

$300k per year for 3 years knocked back. Did Collingwood offer $500k? If so then Ball was leaving for the money.

The meeting was about what Ball had to do to improve his game. So was he leaving because he wasn't prepared to do what's required of him?

Yup, the club acted disgracefully.

interpretation based on your mindset?
it could well be interpreted as luke ball having an issue with his role - improve his game specifically to the requirements of the role the saints have in mind for him - hence an issue of game time and type - not a money issue! collingwood's offer is simply a secondary issue in this case.

as for apportioning blame - i don't know that there is anyone to blame - it is just a clash of ideals and goals- player and club.

Football is a job, if you don't like your role, you do what any other employee would do.
Show the boss what you are capable of doing by demostrating that you are capable of a different role whilst doing the role assigned to you well.
Earn your promotion.

changing jobs is an option.
perhaps luke would simply prefer to play a different role - that's his choice surely. if you're not enjoying your footy, like any job, i would suggest you make a change. either a change in expectation or in employer. we are not slaves to the system - we are part of the system, and we can (and should) control the part we play - sometimes that will necessitate sacrifice. i have left jobs on principle in the past, and left jobs that were less than satisfying. took the risk and am a lot happier as a result.

re earlier reply - i didn't comment on your second hypothetical because i didn't disagree with it - my comment was that the supposition that if the pies offered more then ball's decision was based on money - i don't think it necessarily relevant (as long as the offer was reasonable) whether they offered more or less.

Except on the Tuesday of Trade Week, after he asked for a trade to Collingwood, Ball's management made the statement that 'Saints offered more' in an attempt to portary Luke's leaving as other than for money.
That would appear, on the face of it, to be patently false.

Therefore the very thing they appeared to be trying to obfuscate, the disparity in the pay between the 2 offers, could be reasonably brought into sharp focus.

So many on here are 'picking' various tidbits from this saga and making assumptions based on those individual things rather than the totality of what has gone on.

It is the totality of what has occured that leads me to the inescapable conclusion that initially the 'reduced contract' was found unacceptable by Ball/Connors and in their desire to 'drive up' the offer, they managed to get an offer (indication at least) from Collingwood that was greater.
St Kilda, despite being pressured by Connors, didn't increase their offer to Ball.

The rest, IMO, is just window dressing by Connors/Ball camp to try and paint Luke as a 'victim' of Ross Lyon and St Kilda.

Until I see proof of this, I'm going to side with the Club and I'm outraged at these tactics employed by Ball's management.
That some choose to castigate the Club for 'disloyalty' over this, in a complete vaccuum of evidence to support this charge, is just plain staggering to me.

Some players leave Clubs for more money. There's no right/wrong to it - it's a fact of football life.

Some Clubs get rid of players. There's no right/wrong to it - it's a fact of football life.

Luke Ball was offered a new contract months ago,
prior to getting less game time,
prior to getting 'dropped'
prior to playing in the finals.

His management were out looking for better offers,
prior to him getting less game time,
prior to him getting dropped,
prior to him playing in the finals.

Logic would tell you this was all about a bigger contract, at least initially.

[desertsaint]

Except on the Tuesday of Trade Week, after he asked for a trade to Collingwood, Ball's management made the statement that 'Saints offered more' in an attempt to portary Luke's leaving as other than for money.
That would appear, on the face of it, to be patently false.

Therefore the very thing they appeared to be trying to obfuscate, the disparity in the pay between the 2 offers, could be reasonably brought into sharp focus.

So many on here are 'picking' various tidbits from this saga and making assumptions based on those individual things rather than the totality of what has gone on.

It is the totality of what has occured that leads me to the inescapable conclusion that initially the 'reduced contract' was found unacceptable by Ball/Connors and in their desire to 'drive up' the offer, they managed to get an offer (indication at least) from Collingwood that was greater.
St Kilda, despite being pressured by Connors, didn't increase their offer to Ball.

The rest, IMO, is just window dressing by Connors/Ball camp to try and paint Luke as a 'victim' of Ross Lyon and St Kilda.

Until I see proof of this, I'm going to side with the Club and I'm outraged at these tactics employed by Ball's management.
...

Logic would tell you this was all about a bigger contract, at least initially.

we do not have the 'totality' of the situation - as you suggest, your 'totality' is simply snatches of tidbits.

[Milton66]

Based on the weight of the evidence (rumours etc), one can only winder how the club was disloyal.

Putting him up as trade bait is disloyal. Delisting him is disloyal.

Not budging on a trade after a player asked to be traded is not disloyal IMO.

All we can go by is what has been "put out there" and most if not all of it has come from the Ball camp.

And to be honest, as Magic said... based on that, there's only one conc;usion to be drawn until such time as the real facts come out.

If the club has through sheer stupidity made impossible for Ball to stay, then it has something to answer for.

[Mr Magic]

Except on the Tuesday of Trade Week, after he asked for a trade to Collingwood, Ball's management made the statement that 'Saints offered more' in an attempt to portary Luke's leaving as other than for money.
That would appear, on the face of it, to be patently false.

Therefore the very thing they appeared to be trying to obfuscate, the disparity in the pay between the 2 offers, could be reasonably brought into sharp focus.

So many on here are 'picking' various tidbits from this saga and making assumptions based on those individual things rather than the totality of what has gone on.

It is the totality of what has occured that leads me to the inescapable conclusion that initially the 'reduced contract' was found unacceptable by Ball/Connors and in their desire to 'drive up' the offer, they managed to get an offer (indication at least) from Collingwood that was greater.
St Kilda, despite being pressured by Connors, didn't increase their offer to Ball.

The rest, IMO, is just window dressing by Connors/Ball camp to try and paint Luke as a 'victim' of Ross Lyon and St Kilda.

Until I see proof of this, I'm going to side with the Club and I'm outraged at these tactics employed by Ball's management.
...

Logic would tell you this was all about a bigger contract, at least initially.

we do not have the 'totality' of the situation - as you suggest, your 'totality' is simply snatches of tidbits.

No, I beg to differ. We have everything that one side of the equation wants us to know.
They've been talking and 'leaking' for months.
Based on what they've been saying and leaking, I see no reason to discount the 'logic' to my interpretation of what has taken place.

Unfortunately you and others appear to come from the mindset that the Club 'must have acted 'disloyally/dishonestly/disrespectfully/or any other derogatory adjective you can use, because 'surely Luke Ball wouldn't leave if they hadn't'.
Therefore,It must be true!

I, and some others, obviously would like to see some 'proof' of the acts of 'disloyalty/dishonesty/disrespect' before I hang shyte on the CLub based on what a 'slimy player manager' has orchestrated.

Is that so difficult a concept to understand?

Too many in this debate are seeing what they want to see and not what is actually there.

And that is the portion of my post that you've neglected.

The fact that Ball was offered the contract (reduced dollars) well before his game time was lessened and well before he was 'dropped'.
His management were then checking around how much he could get from other Clubs, again before his game time was reduced.

Timing is everything and in this instance it would appear that the intial reaction from Ball/Connors when offered the new contract was to see what the rest of the market would offer. (and that's not a problem at all - it's prudent management on their behalf).

But what's the crime in being honest?
If the offer is no good and you can get better - just say so.

[desertsaint]

Unfortunately you and others appear to come from the mindset that the Club 'must have acted 'disloyally/dishonestly/disrespectfully/or any other derogatory adjective you can use, because 'surely Luke Ball wouldn't leave if they hadn't'.
Therefore,It must be true!

well that's news to me - if you can ever find evidence that i've come to any such conclusion i'll fall over.

i've come to no conclusion other than i don't believe any one should be making assumptions (as you just did) without full knowledge. otherwise they're just pissing in the wind.
i'm not taking sides on this issue, i don't believe anyone is necessarily right or wrong here - that's footy. i do think we could have traded ball, but accept why we didn't. we didn't look after luke's best interests, and perhaps we should have bent over a bit for him out of respect for his time here. but i'm not going to fault the club for what is a personal belief.

but am wondering why some are making assumptions, then criticising those who have made differing assumptions. no one really knows.
we can have fun playing the investigative role like craig hutchison, but it's all a pissing comp.

[desertsaint]

And to be honest, as Magic said... based on that, there's only one conc;usion to be drawn until such time as the real facts come out.

and that is that we cannot make a conclusion

[Mr Magic]

but am wondering why some are making assumptions, then criticising those who have made differing assumptions. no one really knows.
.

If that statement is directed at me, then I'd like to know specifically who I've criticized for making assumptions.

I've been critical of those who are categorically saying the CLub was 'disloyal (and other similar adjectives) when they would have no idea as to the veracity of those claims.

And I do know when I see a duck walking around, that it is a duck and not a chicken wearing a duck suit. I don't require a 'Town Crier' to walk in front of it telling me that it is a duck.

In this whole saga there are certain things that have not been disputed:-
Luke Ball was offered a new 3 year contract months ago before his game time was reduced and before he was dropped.
His management sounded out other Clubs(Collingwood at least).

Please tell me why no conclusions can be reached from those 2 undisputed facts?

And why do you continue to ignore them in this particular debate?

[asiu]

i've come to no conclusion other than i don't believe any one should be making assumptions (as you just did) without full knowledge. otherwise they're just pissing in the wind.

gets cold at night out here in the desert , but i wouldn't be anywhere else



piss with the wind .... i definately know that as a fact

[desertsaint]

but am wondering why some are making assumptions, then criticising those who have made differing assumptions. no one really knows.
.

If that statement is directed at me, then I'd like to know specifically who I've criticized for making assumptions.

I've been critical of those who are categorically saying the CLub was 'disloyal (and other similar adjectives) when they would have no idea as to the veracity of those claims.

And I do know when I see a duck walking around, that it is a duck and not a chicken wearing a duck suit. I don't require a 'Town Crier' to walk in front of it telling me that it is a duck.

In this whole saga there are certain things that have not been disputed:-
Luke Ball was offered a new 3 year contract months ago before his game time was reduced and before he was dropped.
His management sounded out other Clubs(Collingwood at least).

Please tell me why no conclusions can be reached from those 2 undisputed facts?

And why do you continue to ignore them in this particular debate?

you haven't actually seen the duck in this case - you've heard a few snatches from the media that seem indisputable - it waddled, and it had feathers. Aha - that's a duck you cry. meanwhile a lame emu continues to waddle the streets.

[desertsaint]

i've come to no conclusion other than i don't believe any one should be making assumptions (as you just did) without full knowledge. otherwise they're just pissing in the wind.

gets cold at night out here in the desert , but i wouldn't be anywhere else



piss with the wind .... i definately know that as a fact

pure gazrat


but the stain of metaphorical pissing in the wind doesn't seem to be smelt by those that engaged in such pursuits.

[stinger]

]

If that statement is directed at me, then I'd like to know specifically who I've criticized for making assumptions.

I've been critical of those who are categorically saying the CLub was 'disloyal (and other similar adjectives) when they would have no idea as to the veracity of those claims.

And I do know when I see a duck walking around, that it is a duck and not a chicken wearing a duck suit. I don't require a 'Town Crier' to walk in front of it telling me that it is a duck.

In this whole saga there are certain things that have not been disputed:-
Luke Ball was offered a new 3 year contract months ago before his game time was reduced and before he was dropped.
His management sounded out other Clubs(Collingwood at least).

Please tell me why no conclusions can be reached from those 2 undisputed facts?

And why do you continue to ignore them in this particular debate?

i think i would categorize the club more as being not even handed with certain players rather than disloyal......also no-one really knows if luke's management was hawking him around ..but i do know that the club was sending out feelers in the event that luke didn't re-sign with the club.....was that just being prudent..or disloyal.?..you make that call....

[Mr Magic]

]

If that statement is directed at me, then I'd like to know specifically who I've criticized for making assumptions.

I've been critical of those who are categorically saying the CLub was 'disloyal (and other similar adjectives) when they would have no idea as to the veracity of those claims.

And I do know when I see a duck walking around, that it is a duck and not a chicken wearing a duck suit. I don't require a 'Town Crier' to walk in front of it telling me that it is a duck.

In this whole saga there are certain things that have not been disputed:-
Luke Ball was offered a new 3 year contract months ago before his game time was reduced and before he was dropped.
His management sounded out other Clubs(Collingwood at least).

Please tell me why no conclusions can be reached from those 2 undisputed facts?

And why do you continue to ignore them in this particular debate?

i think i would categorize the club more as being not even handed with certain players rather than disloyal......also no-one really knows if luke's management was hawking him around ..but i do know that the club was sending out feelers in the event that luke didn't re-sign with the club.....was that just being prudent..or disloyal.?..you make that call....

As you well know Stinger, my concern is this 'character assasination' of the Club by some as being 'disloyal'.

Until someone gives me 'proof' I will argue against that depiction.

In your scenario of the Club 'sending out feelers', what would you have done in their position?
They've offered the player a new 3 year contract months earlier. They've seen the newspaper reports linking him to Collingwood for a reputed 150-200k per season more than they offered.
Should they just sit back and allow the player (and his management) to determine what the rest of their list looks like?
If Luke wasn't signing the contract and Trade Week was fast approaching, how were they supposed to conduct themselves with an unsigned contract sitting on a table?
What in your mind should they have done?
The value of that contract was 4-5% of their Salary Cap.
As it was, they probably did the prudent thing FOR THE CLUB because Luke ultimately declined to sign.
If they had done nothing (and I don't know that they did) they would have rightly, IMO, been castigated for not being better prepared to enter Trade Week.

And as for the characterization of 'not being even-handed with certain players', again how do you/we know. You/we only know the 'side' we've been told/heard, which may not necessarily be the whole truth from all perspectives.

And that again is the point I'm pushing to those characterizing the Club as 'disloyal' or 'heartless' etc.
They are quick to 'kick' the Club based on what?

Ultimately Luke Ball had the opportunity to sign the contract St Kilda had offered him. He chose not to, so I still cannot fathom how/why the Club is being painted as being disloyal/dishonest or anything else derogatory?

[stinger]

yeah...well. if you read my post again..you can take that as a reply to your post,,i don't feel the need to add anything....except to say that your timing is off...the club was doing that six weeks prior to the grand final ...long before the filth offer.....

[saintbrat]

His management sounded out other Clubs(Collingwood at least).

also no-one really knows if luke's management was hawking him around ..

try 4 minutes in of this interview

http://podsentral.com/sites/default/fil ... n%20MG.mp3
Garry Pert Monday Morning

what made me ??? an article I saw earlier was that Collingwood are more than ready to adjust others salaries to get one of the Essendon guys but despite them saying ( above link) that 'everyone" in the football world thought their offer to the saints was fair- the> Collingwood did not value Luke enough to make the offer that the Bulldogs needed to get the deal done for Everitt to get to the saints....

fact and fiction- it's all intertwined

[Mr Magic]

yeah...well. if you read my post again..you can take that as a reply to your post,,i don't feel the need to add anything....except to say that your timing is off...the club was doing that six weeks prior to the grand final ...long before the filth offer.....

Stinger, I think you're allowing your bitterness at the situation to cloud your logic.

The Saints offered Ball his new contract in June.
Connors started talking to others (at least Collingwood) nearly straight away. Initially I'm sure he was just trying to get interest to try adn 'wedge' teh Saints offer up.

But Denham was 'leaked' the 'Collingwood interest' early.
He also told of a Colingwood offer to Ball of 500K well before the finals.

IF the Saints started looking for options on Ball it would have been well after he was given the offer and obviously (to me anyway) after they gleaned that Ball and/or his manager were looking elsewhere.

I'm not suggesting that either party is completely to blame or even that either party has no blame.

All I'm repeatedly saying is that this continual painting the Club as a 'villain' in all of this seems illogical to me.

[Milton66]

yeah...well. if you read my post again..you can take that as a reply to your post,,i don't feel the need to add anything....except to say that your timing is off...the club was doing that six weeks prior to the grand final ...long before the filth offer.....

Stinger, I think you're allowing your bitterness at the situation to cloud your logic.

The Saints offered Ball his new contract in June.
Connors started talking to others (at least Collingwood) nearly straight away. Initially I'm sure he was just trying to get interest to try adn 'wedge' teh Saints offer up.

But Denham was 'leaked' the 'Collingwood interest' early.
He also told of a Colingwood offer to Ball of 500K well before the finals.

IF the Saints started looking for options on Ball it would have been well after he was given the offer and obviously (to me anyway) after they gleaned that Ball and/or his manager were looking elsewhere.

I'm not suggesting that either party is completely to blame or even that either party has no blame.

All I'm repeatedly saying is that this continual painting the Club as a 'villain' in all of this seems illogical to me.

Hmmm. GF was last week of Sept.. minus 6 weeks = mid August.

Yep, mid August - the day after they put the new contract to Luke in June.

Magic, your timing is waaaaaaaaaaaay off.

I know if I was coach and heard 3rd hand info that one of your players was being shopped around, I'd be lloking after my interests and that of the club... just as the player is.

[Con Gorozidis]

We know one thing for sure. Ball was offered 3x 300 - significantly less than he was on. But still a solid contract. He knocked it back.

The pies were the only ones interested in him in trade week. Their philsophy was pay what he wants but we sint giving anything up for him.

These 2 facts show Ball or his management were seeking more money as their number 1 priority.

[ace]

His management sounded out other Clubs(Collingwood at least).

also no-one really knows if luke's management was hawking him around ..

try 4 minutes in of this interview

http://podsentral.com/sites/default/fil ... n%20MG.mp3
Garry Pert Monday Morning

what made me ??? an article I saw earlier was that Collingwood are more than ready to adjust others salaries to get one of the Essendon guys but despite them saying ( above link) that 'everyone" in the football world thought their offer to the saints was fair- the> Collingwood did not value Luke enough to make the offer that the Bulldogs needed to get the deal done for Everitt to get to the saints....

fact and fiction- it's all intertwined

Collingwood would LIKE Luke Ball but Collingwood NEVER WANTED Luke Ball so they didn't deal fairly.

Collingwood did NOT LIKE Darren Jolly, Collingwood WANTED Darren Jolly so they did the deal.

Pert's dishonesty is impertinent.