Luke names Essendon or COllingwood

[vacuous space]

After that I turned the radio off.

Good move.

I'm glad our club has been on the whole Ball saga. The stuff that came out post-trade week was so one-sided that it was blatantly leaked by either Collingwood or Connors. Good to know our guys aren't overly concerned with winning a media war.

Ralph seems to have steamrolled since trade week. IIRC, he didn't rip into us in his post trade week wrap. What's changed since then? It does appear that somebody has been whispering in his ear.

[Spinner]

who does Jon Ralph barrack for???????

pheww does he have it on for the Saints........ give me Robbo- he atleast admitted the Ball saga is getting boring....

I threw something at the car radio whilst listening to it!

He's just rewritten history in his synopsis of what happened.
Between him and Matt Thompson they've just spent 10 minutes bagging the Saints and Ross Lyon over this Luke Ball saga.
It might have been warranted if they'd actually did it on the back of some facts and not some'wishful thinking' or 'spoon fed bs' from Connors.

Fair Dinkum (to borrow a 'barksism'),
Ralph stated that
'Ball was called into Lyon's office at the end and told to leave becasue he wasn't in our best 22'.
'The Saints sacked Ball'.

We're all watching revisionist history as it's being written.

Then he started on the Club losing sight of it's 'core values' by getting rid of great guys like Ball and Goose and getting in Lovett.

After that I turned the radio off.

Yep, ever since I started listening to Ralph over the last year, its become clearer and clearer how much of a tosser he is.

100% journalist 0% football head.

Pissed me off since the time he got stuck into russell robertson to his face on his last game....

[Spinner]

Luke Ball and his manager have already effectively tampered with the draft by

1) $500k price on his head for two years: then

2) refusing to talk to other clubs except Collingwood.

This is not my view but Mark Fine.

Now Mark Fine is a Saints man, but as anyone who has listened to his radio show, he is not emotional and biased when it comes to football discussion.

When a bloke like Mark Fine (and Robert Shaw) accuse Ball and Connors of draft tampering, you know this is getting very ugly and dirty.

Ball has all but destroyed his character with this tawdry episode.

The more comes out about Ball's character, the more it seems RL has made a very very good call.

I would suggest everything you have mentioned means he hasnt draft tampered. Has he refused to play with a club. I dont think so. he can put any price on his head and it is up to any club to pay. When he is drafted by another club except the pies will it still be draft tampering.

Agreed plugger, unfortunately everything is within the rules....

I'm happy though that the AFL has taken the initiative to re-inform clubs that Ball would be out for 23 months for not honoring a contract, relieving fears that he might opt out for a year.....He may have for one - he definitely wont for two.

[saintbob]

who does Jon Ralph barrack for???????

pheww does he have it on for the Saints........ give me Robbo- he atleast admitted the Ball saga is getting boring....

I threw something at the car radio whilst listening to it!

He's just rewritten history in his synopsis of what happened.
Between him and Matt Thompson they've just spent 10 minutes bagging the Saints and Ross Lyon over this Luke Ball saga.
It might have been warranted if they'd actually did it on the back of some facts and not some'wishful thinking' or 'spoon fed bs' from Connors.

Fair Dinkum (to borrow a 'barksism'),
Ralph stated that
'Ball was called into Lyon's office at the end and told to leave becasue he wasn't in our best 22'.
'The Saints sacked Ball'.

We're all watching revisionist history as it's being written.

Then he started on the Club losing sight of it's 'core values' by getting rid of great guys like Ball and Goose and getting in Lovett.

After that I turned the radio off.

When will you believe this is what happened, its been on TV,radio and in the newspaper but you still want to "live under a rock " as you put it in an earlier post and make Bally out to be the villian in all this.

The only reason a contract was offereed IMO was so the club could sure up a draft pick when he was offered up during trade week, hence why the offer was withdrawn straight after a deal couldn't be done.

[Mr Magic]

who does Jon Ralph barrack for???????

pheww does he have it on for the Saints........ give me Robbo- he atleast admitted the Ball saga is getting boring....

I threw something at the car radio whilst listening to it!

He's just rewritten history in his synopsis of what happened.
Between him and Matt Thompson they've just spent 10 minutes bagging the Saints and Ross Lyon over this Luke Ball saga.
It might have been warranted if they'd actually did it on the back of some facts and not some'wishful thinking' or 'spoon fed bs' from Connors.

Fair Dinkum (to borrow a 'barksism'),
Ralph stated that
'Ball was called into Lyon's office at the end and told to leave becasue he wasn't in our best 22'.
'The Saints sacked Ball'.

We're all watching revisionist history as it's being written.

Then he started on the Club losing sight of it's 'core values' by getting rid of great guys like Ball and Goose and getting in Lovett.

After that I turned the radio off.

When will you believe this is what happened, its been on TV,radio and in the newspaper but you still want to "live under a rock " as you put it in an earlier post and make Bally out to be the villian in all this.

The only reason a contract was offereed IMO was so the club could sure up a draft pick when he was offered up during trade week, hence why the offer was withdrawn straight after a deal couldn't be done.

When you get your facts straight, then I'll listen.
I never made any such suggestion to you. It might help the debate if you actually remember who posted what.
Your allegation is an outright falsehood. I never said or intimated any such thing.

Now to the substance of your post.

The only person in the media who is trotting out this nonsense is Jon Ralph.
Nobody else but him.

You can choose to believe what you want to believe, but please don't present it on here as fact when it is at best 'wishful thinking' by some with an agenda to push and at worst mischievous, deception on their part.


There have been many reports on radio, tv and in the newspapers and I stand to be corrected but they all agree on one thing.
BALL WAS A REQUIRED PLAYER AT ST KILDA

You can make up whatever you want to try and justify the crap you are trying to peddle on this, but it won't make it true.
Nobody on here, and there have been many posters from all around the country following this story intently, has posted that they've heard/seen anything of the sort.
Not a single one of them, other than you, has heard/seen what you are alleging to have seen reported from anybody opther than Jon Ralph.

Your logic is totally flawed in so many ways.
Ball could have signed the contract at any point prior to it being withdrawn.
The Saints did not try to 'shop' him around.
The Monday of trade week was spent with all Clubs meeting each other and finding out who was 'available'.
Do you honestly beieve that if Ball's name had been mentioned by St Kilda that it wouldn't have leaked out?
But yet not one other Club was aware that he was on teh table.

And even more damning, not one other Club approached St Kilda during Trade Week to ascertain if they could do a deal for Ball.

They all knew 2 things - Ball wanted to go to Collingwood and that St Kilda still wanted Ball.

But hey, go ahead and believe what you want to believe.
Don't worry about the facts if they get in the way of your 'neat little story'.
Maybe you'll sleep better at night if you think your hero didn't walk out on us and that the Club is just a nasty disloyal monster'.

[Eastern]

Jon Ralph even went one step further by suggesting that the Ch 10 crew "accidentally" stumbled across Luke Ball training by himself in the Botanical Gardens, complete with weights etc. Gale & Hardwick even stumbled across this "private" training session.

Mr Ralph made no mention of the fact that FoxSports also stumbled across the session. I would bet plenty that "The Ball Camp" alerted BOTH to the training session as a way of getting some public sympathy, a comodity that has been on the wain recently !!

[Mr Magic]

When will you believe this is what happened, its been on TV,radio and in the newspaper but you still want to "live under a rock " as you put it in an earlier post and make Bally out to be the villian in all this.

And to make it perfectly clear to anybody who may erroneously believe the allegation made by saintbob against me, here is the original quote he refers to:-

[
It is amazing - really just amazing. Some people must actually live under a rock and come out every now and then!!!

Quite clearly any reference to 'living under a rock' was not made by me.

I'm more than happy to take the 'credit' for things that I post, but I draw the line at being accused of posting things that I haven't.

saintbob probably won't withdraw the false allegation, which is why I felt the need to set the record straight.

Unfortunately too many on here have a strange compulsion not to apologize when they get something wrong.
Maybe if they were less reticent to admit to mistakes then we would get more healthy debates and less personal flame wars?

[Mr Magic]

Jon Ralph even went one step further by suggesting that the Ch 10 crew "accidentally" stumbled across Luke Ball training by himself in the Botanical Gardens, complete with weights etc. Gale & Hardwick even stumbled across this "private" training session.

Mr Ralph made no mention of the fact that FoxSports also stumbled across the session. I would bet plenty that "The Ball Camp" alerted BOTH to the training session as a way of getting some public sympathy, a comodity that has been on the wain recently !!

You're kidding!
It wasn't a complete accident?

I'm completely and utterly shocked by that revelation.

[fingers]

On the topic of Draft Tampering....if Luke is refusing to speak to clubs surely that hinders the process. Deliberately not talking to a club is an action that is prejudicial to the draft process.

I really don't care whether he has or hasn't but anything that does not make it a level playing field has to hinder the process - therefore the draft is tampered with.

[Mr Magic]

On the topic of Draft Tampering....if Luke is refusing to speak to clubs surely that hinders the process. Deliberately not talking to a club is an action that is prejudicial to the draft process.

I really don't care whether he has or hasn't but anything that does not make it a level playing field has to hinder the process - therefore the draft is tampered with.

But probably not stricly an infraction of the current rules, so therefore everybody on all sides of this argument is correct.

Technically it's not 'tampering' becasue the rules don;t state that a prospective draftee must talk to any/all Clubs. My guess is that those who framed the rules never envisaged that prospective draftees would try to manipulate teh draft by not talking to some Clubs. It's like most AFL rules, they change when somebody exploits a 'loophole'.

But on the other hand, nobody is fooled by what Ball/Connors are attempting to do which on the face of it is at least seemingly against the 'spirit' of the anti-tampering rules.

The AFL are probably counting down the minutes to when this will all be over because in the end, it is their rules that are being made a mockery of.

It was interesting to hear Matt Fiddis (CEO of the AFLPA) be at pains to state that they (AFLPA) don't hold a grudge against St kilda over rthe Ball issue as it is, in their opinion, the AFL rules that are the problem and not St Kilda operating under those rules.

[ace]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/video/0 ... 63,00.html

Ball training...

Just because it's not draft tampering doesn't mean it's not dog's act.

At times like this I wish I had a dog I could take "training" in the gardens.
Might leave a few surprises for Ball to step in when he returns again.

[plugger66]

On the topic of Draft Tampering....if Luke is refusing to speak to clubs surely that hinders the process. Deliberately not talking to a club is an action that is prejudicial to the draft process.

I really don't care whether he has or hasn't but anything that does not make it a level playing field has to hinder the process - therefore the draft is tampered with.

But probably not stricly an infraction of the current rules, so therefore everybody on all sides of this argument is correct.

Technically it's not 'tampering' becasue the rules don;t state that a prospective draftee must talk to any/all Clubs. My guess is that those who framed the rules never envisaged that prospective draftees would try to manipulate teh draft by not talking to some Clubs. It's like most AFL rules, they change when somebody exploits a 'loophole'.

But on the other hand, nobody is fooled by what Ball/Connors are attempting to do which on the face of it is at least seemingly against the 'spirit' of the anti-tampering rules.

The AFL are probably counting down the minutes to when this will all be over because in the end, it is their rules that are being made a mockery of.

It was interesting to hear Matt Fiddis (CEO of the AFLPA) be at pains to state that they (AFLPA) don't hold a grudge against St kilda over rthe Ball issue as it is, in their opinion, the AFL rules that are the problem and not St Kilda operating under those rules.

They will never bring in a rule to say a player must speak to clubs who want to speak to him and why should they. A player should have the right to speak to whoever he likes. A mockery would be forcing a player to speak to all clubs. Players are very well paid but at the moment when they want to leave a club they have little rights. the sooner free agency is brought in the better and most of this rubbish will stop.

[Mr Magic]

On the topic of Draft Tampering....if Luke is refusing to speak to clubs surely that hinders the process. Deliberately not talking to a club is an action that is prejudicial to the draft process.

I really don't care whether he has or hasn't but anything that does not make it a level playing field has to hinder the process - therefore the draft is tampered with.

But probably not stricly an infraction of the current rules, so therefore everybody on all sides of this argument is correct.

Technically it's not 'tampering' becasue the rules don;t state that a prospective draftee must talk to any/all Clubs. My guess is that those who framed the rules never envisaged that prospective draftees would try to manipulate teh draft by not talking to some Clubs. It's like most AFL rules, they change when somebody exploits a 'loophole'.

But on the other hand, nobody is fooled by what Ball/Connors are attempting to do which on the face of it is at least seemingly against the 'spirit' of the anti-tampering rules.

The AFL are probably counting down the minutes to when this will all be over because in the end, it is their rules that are being made a mockery of.

It was interesting to hear Matt Fiddis (CEO of the AFLPA) be at pains to state that they (AFLPA) don't hold a grudge against St kilda over rthe Ball issue as it is, in their opinion, the AFL rules that are the problem and not St Kilda operating under those rules.

They will never bring in a rule to say a player must speak to clubs who want to speak to him and why should they. A player should have the right to speak to whoever he likes. A mockery would be forcing a player to speak to all clubs. Players are very well paid but at the moment when they want to leave a club they have little rights. the sooner free agency is brought in the better and most of this rubbish will stop.

But that's a separate argument plugger.

Can you imagine the public outcry if Scully or Trengrove refused to attend Draft Camp or speak to any Club other than Collingwood because that's where they want to play?

[Eastern]

Jon Ralph even went one step further by suggesting that the Ch 10 crew "accidentally" stumbled across Luke Ball training by himself in the Botanical Gardens, complete with weights etc. Gale & Hardwick even stumbled across this "private" training session.

Mr Ralph made no mention of the fact that FoxSports also stumbled across the session. I would bet plenty that "The Ball Camp" alerted BOTH to the training session as a way of getting some public sympathy, a comodity that has been on the wain recently !!

You're kidding!
It wasn't a complete accident?

I'm completely and utterly shocked by that revelation.

The tooth fairy left 5c here for you. What shall I do with it !!

[plugger66]

On the topic of Draft Tampering....if Luke is refusing to speak to clubs surely that hinders the process. Deliberately not talking to a club is an action that is prejudicial to the draft process.

I really don't care whether he has or hasn't but anything that does not make it a level playing field has to hinder the process - therefore the draft is tampered with.

But probably not stricly an infraction of the current rules, so therefore everybody on all sides of this argument is correct.

Technically it's not 'tampering' becasue the rules don;t state that a prospective draftee must talk to any/all Clubs. My guess is that those who framed the rules never envisaged that prospective draftees would try to manipulate teh draft by not talking to some Clubs. It's like most AFL rules, they change when somebody exploits a 'loophole'.

But on the other hand, nobody is fooled by what Ball/Connors are attempting to do which on the face of it is at least seemingly against the 'spirit' of the anti-tampering rules.

The AFL are probably counting down the minutes to when this will all be over because in the end, it is their rules that are being made a mockery of.

It was interesting to hear Matt Fiddis (CEO of the AFLPA) be at pains to state that they (AFLPA) don't hold a grudge against St kilda over rthe Ball issue as it is, in their opinion, the AFL rules that are the problem and not St Kilda operating under those rules.

They will never bring in a rule to say a player must speak to clubs who want to speak to him and why should they. A player should have the right to speak to whoever he likes. A mockery would be forcing a player to speak to all clubs. Players are very well paid but at the moment when they want to leave a club they have little rights. the sooner free agency is brought in the better and most of this rubbish will stop.

But that's a separate argument plugger.

Can you imagine the public outcry if Scully or Trengrove refused to attend Draft Camp or speak to any Club other than Collingwood because that's where they want to play?

That is completely different and you know it. they do have to speak to every club that whats to speak to them and so they should. This is about a player who has been in the system 8 years and now doesnt think he may get a game at a club that he played for.

[Mr Magic]

Jon Ralph even went one step further by suggesting that the Ch 10 crew "accidentally" stumbled across Luke Ball training by himself in the Botanical Gardens, complete with weights etc. Gale & Hardwick even stumbled across this "private" training session.

Mr Ralph made no mention of the fact that FoxSports also stumbled across the session. I would bet plenty that "The Ball Camp" alerted BOTH to the training session as a way of getting some public sympathy, a comodity that has been on the wain recently !!

You're kidding!
It wasn't a complete accident?

I'm completely and utterly shocked by that revelation.

The tooth fairy left 5c here for you. What shall I do with it !!

We should donate it to the CLub - they obviously need it otherwise we'd have been able to offer Luke Ball the value he, his family, Connors and Jon Ralph think he's worth.

If there is a lesson to be learned in all of this, it's that our list management people obviously have no idea on the relative worth of players.

If they had we wouldn't have 'lost' Luke Ball.
Oops!
That's right, we didn't 'lose' him, we 'turfed' him according to Ralph and those who choose to believe his pronouncements.

[suss]

Can you imagine the public outcry if Scully or Trengrove refused to attend Draft Camp or speak to any Club other than Collingwood because that's where they want to play?

Excellent point.

[Mr Magic]

On the topic of Draft Tampering....if Luke is refusing to speak to clubs surely that hinders the process. Deliberately not talking to a club is an action that is prejudicial to the draft process.

I really don't care whether he has or hasn't but anything that does not make it a level playing field has to hinder the process - therefore the draft is tampered with.

But probably not stricly an infraction of the current rules, so therefore everybody on all sides of this argument is correct.

Technically it's not 'tampering' becasue the rules don;t state that a prospective draftee must talk to any/all Clubs. My guess is that those who framed the rules never envisaged that prospective draftees would try to manipulate teh draft by not talking to some Clubs. It's like most AFL rules, they change when somebody exploits a 'loophole'.

But on the other hand, nobody is fooled by what Ball/Connors are attempting to do which on the face of it is at least seemingly against the 'spirit' of the anti-tampering rules.

The AFL are probably counting down the minutes to when this will all be over because in the end, it is their rules that are being made a mockery of.

It was interesting to hear Matt Fiddis (CEO of the AFLPA) be at pains to state that they (AFLPA) don't hold a grudge against St kilda over rthe Ball issue as it is, in their opinion, the AFL rules that are the problem and not St Kilda operating under those rules.

They will never bring in a rule to say a player must speak to clubs who want to speak to him and why should they. A player should have the right to speak to whoever he likes. A mockery would be forcing a player to speak to all clubs. Players are very well paid but at the moment when they want to leave a club they have little rights. the sooner free agency is brought in the better and most of this rubbish will stop.

But that's a separate argument plugger.

Can you imagine the public outcry if Scully or Trengrove refused to attend Draft Camp or speak to any Club other than Collingwood because that's where they want to play?

That is completely different and you know it. they do have to speak to every club that whats to speak to them and so they should. This is about a player who has been in the system 8 years and now doesnt think he may get a game at a club that he played for.

So you're advocating differnet sets of 'draft rules' for different players?

And why shouldn't Ball talk to whichever Club wants to talk with him?
Maybe some of these other Clubs will offer him a better deal thatn teh one Connors arranged at Collingwood weeks ago?

How does Ball know what the other CLubs are prepared to offer him re:-
money
game time
responsiblilty
leadership potential
2010 gameplan
fitness staff/facilities
training facilities
promotional opportunities
and a myriad of other things that could/would be essential in making a determination as to where he would/should continue his career at?

He has no idea because he won't speak with them which makes me believe he's either not as clever as everybody thinks he is,
or
there's something more to the Collingwood deal that Connors hasn't leaked out to his 'inner leak receivers' as yet.
I wonder what that could be?

[markp]

Connors is working feverishly to discourage other clubs taking his client and has refused to discuss or meet several clubs in his path.

Historically, the powerful player agent has got his way.

Industry sources say some clubs have been left with the perception Ball might take 12 months off and travel overseas if taken by them.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/spor ... 12,00.html

“conduct prejudicial to the Draftâ€

[plugger66]

On the topic of Draft Tampering....if Luke is refusing to speak to clubs surely that hinders the process. Deliberately not talking to a club is an action that is prejudicial to the draft process.

I really don't care whether he has or hasn't but anything that does not make it a level playing field has to hinder the process - therefore the draft is tampered with.

But probably not stricly an infraction of the current rules, so therefore everybody on all sides of this argument is correct.

Technically it's not 'tampering' becasue the rules don;t state that a prospective draftee must talk to any/all Clubs. My guess is that those who framed the rules never envisaged that prospective draftees would try to manipulate teh draft by not talking to some Clubs. It's like most AFL rules, they change when somebody exploits a 'loophole'.

But on the other hand, nobody is fooled by what Ball/Connors are attempting to do which on the face of it is at least seemingly against the 'spirit' of the anti-tampering rules.

The AFL are probably counting down the minutes to when this will all be over because in the end, it is their rules that are being made a mockery of.

It was interesting to hear Matt Fiddis (CEO of the AFLPA) be at pains to state that they (AFLPA) don't hold a grudge against St kilda over rthe Ball issue as it is, in their opinion, the AFL rules that are the problem and not St Kilda operating under those rules.

They will never bring in a rule to say a player must speak to clubs who want to speak to him and why should they. A player should have the right to speak to whoever he likes. A mockery would be forcing a player to speak to all clubs. Players are very well paid but at the moment when they want to leave a club they have little rights. the sooner free agency is brought in the better and most of this rubbish will stop.

But that's a separate argument plugger.

Can you imagine the public outcry if Scully or Trengrove refused to attend Draft Camp or speak to any Club other than Collingwood because that's where they want to play?

That is completely different and you know it. they do have to speak to every club that whats to speak to them and so they should. This is about a player who has been in the system 8 years and now doesnt think he may get a game at a club that he played for.

So you're advocating differnet sets of 'draft rules' for different players?

And why shouldn't Ball talk to whichever Club wants to talk with him?
Maybe some of these other Clubs will offer him a better deal thatn teh one Connors arranged at Collingwood weeks ago?

How does Ball know what the other CLubs are prepared to offer him re:-
money
game time
responsiblilty
leadership potential
2010 gameplan
fitness staff/facilities
training facilities
promotional opportunities
and a myriad of other things that could/would be essential in making a determination as to where he would/should continue his career at?

He has no idea because he won't speak with them which makes me believe he's either not as clever as everybody thinks he is,
or
there's something more to the Collingwood deal that Connors hasn't leaked out to his 'inner leak receivers' as yet.
I wonder what that could be?

Of course there are 2 sets of rules. The players who have never played before go to a draft camp and must speak to whoever requests them. The other guy is on holidays or whatever so he has no reason to speak to anyone bar who he wants to. maybe Bally is just happy with the Pies offer and doesnt want more. Anyway it will not matter as he will be drafted by Melbourne. by the way how is the neck. Must be hurting more now with Robbo, Ralph, Connors, Bally, the media in general and the Queen all thinking that the Saints are the bad guys.

[fingers]

On the topic of Draft Tampering....if Luke is refusing to speak to clubs surely that hinders the process. Deliberately not talking to a club is an action that is prejudicial to the draft process.

I really don't care whether he has or hasn't but anything that does not make it a level playing field has to hinder the process - therefore the draft is tampered with.

But probably not stricly an infraction of the current rules, so therefore everybody on all sides of this argument is correct.

Technically it's not 'tampering' becasue the rules don;t state that a prospective draftee must talk to any/all Clubs. My guess is that those who framed the rules never envisaged that prospective draftees would try to manipulate teh draft by not talking to some Clubs. It's like most AFL rules, they change when somebody exploits a 'loophole'.

But on the other hand, nobody is fooled by what Ball/Connors are attempting to do which on the face of it is at least seemingly against the 'spirit' of the anti-tampering rules.

The AFL are probably counting down the minutes to when this will all be over because in the end, it is their rules that are being made a mockery of.

It was interesting to hear Matt Fiddis (CEO of the AFLPA) be at pains to state that they (AFLPA) don't hold a grudge against St kilda over rthe Ball issue as it is, in their opinion, the AFL rules that are the problem and not St Kilda operating under those rules.

They will never bring in a rule to say a player must speak to clubs who want to speak to him and why should they. A player should have the right to speak to whoever he likes. A mockery would be forcing a player to speak to all clubs. Players are very well paid but at the moment when they want to leave a club they have little rights. the sooner free agency is brought in the better and most of this rubbish will stop.

But that's a separate argument plugger.

Can you imagine the public outcry if Scully or Trengrove refused to attend Draft Camp or speak to any Club other than Collingwood because that's where they want to play?

That is completely different and you know it. they do have to speak to every club that whats to speak to them and so they should. This is about a player who has been in the system 8 years and now doesnt think he may get a game at a club that he played for.

New player old player I think is irrelevant. If you submit yourself to the draft you are governed by its rules. If you make it harder for a club to draft you by not talking to them then I think you are hindering the process.

[Mr Magic]

Plugger, my neck is just fine thanks now that you've assured me that you're always behind me and I don't need to keep checking if you're still there.

Back on topic.

If it's a draft and the rules are supposed to apply to all who nominated for it, why are you aying that some players are exempt from rules that others are not?

Doesn't the AFL have Ball's situation covered in their PSD rules?

Surely Ball, by nominating for the ND, has to come under the same rules as everybody else given that he's elected to go into teh ND?

[plugger66]

Plugger, my neck is just fine thanks now that you've assured me that you're always behind me and I don't need to keep checking if you're still there.

Back on topic.

If it's a draft and the rules are supposed to apply to all who nominated for it, why are you aying that some players are exempt from rules that others are not?

Doesn't the AFL have Ball's situation covered in their PSD rules?

Surely Ball, by nominating for the ND, has to come under the same rules as everybody else given that he's elected to go into teh ND?

The younger players have to speak at the draft camp. Nothing to do with the draft. Some even go to the camp who cant be drafted due to age but still must speak to the clubs.

[Mr Magic]

Plugger, my neck is just fine thanks now that you've assured me that you're always behind me and I don't need to keep checking if you're still there.

Back on topic.

If it's a draft and the rules are supposed to apply to all who nominated for it, why are you aying that some players are exempt from rules that others are not?

Doesn't the AFL have Ball's situation covered in their PSD rules?

Surely Ball, by nominating for the ND, has to come under the same rules as everybody else given that he's elected to go into teh ND?

The younger players have to speak at the draft camp. Nothing to do with the draft. Some even go to the camp who cant be drafted due to age but still must speak to the clubs.

So under that scenario,
Hypothetically, if Scully does a deal with Collingwood before the draft camp and:-

just doesn't turn up
and
refuses to speak to any other CLub either before or after the camp all teh way to the draft,

is that 'breaking' the draft rules?

[saintbrat]

so where does this sort of action fit?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/spor ... 69,00.html
COLLINGWOOD has again enticed a junior star away from the Gold Coast side, with its focus a troubled teenager who this year spent four months in a correctional facility. Just a year after convincing Southport's Dayne Beams not to sign for the Gold Coast, the Magpies have won a similar battle with indigenous forward Troy Taylor.

>>>>
But the Pies have spearheaded a multi-club charge for the 18-year-old, convincing him to nominate for Thursday week's draft.