Luke names Essendon or COllingwood

[ace]

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' because 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 the 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?

It was the end of 1992, the guys name was Andrew McKay, he made it clear he would only leave South Australia to play for Carlton.
He should have gone top 3, but 12 times clubs picked other players.
McKay went to Carlton at pick 13.
He played his career at Carlton despite the the AFL finding him guilty of draft tampering.

Carlton of course would never have paid someone outside the rules would they.
It should be remembered that the AFL did NOT discover Carlton's massive breaches of the salary cap.
It was the new Collins administration at Carlton that confessed to John Elliot's cheating.

McKay is now the chairman of the match review panel.

In the same draft it was commonly believed that Brett Chalmers was in the pay of a Collingwood supporter group, he told several clubs that he would not play for them if he was drafted.
Chalmers was picked by Collingwood at pick 9 but was found to have broken draft rules.

Robert Pyman wrote to a number of clubs advising them that he would not play for them but North Melbourne took him at pick 6 anyhow.
He got to Colingwood by a trade in 1995.

Oh, did I forget the Buckley fiasco once again involving Collingwood.

[ace]

The AFL made it clear that a player can't tell or write to a club that he wont play for them, because that might persuade a club not to select the player.

So agents found a way of doing that without the player opening their mouth or using a pen.

The AFL would have us believe that a player who
refuses to meet with any other club,
whose agent sends him out of the country to avoid the media,
whose agent makes it clear to the media that the player only wants to play with one club because of their cultural significance,
whose agent refuses to take phone calls from any club except one, about the player,
is NOT trying to persuade a club not to select the player
and that the one club has had nothing to do with it.

AND those with no intelligence agree with the AFL.

[saintnick12]

The AFL made it clear that a player can't tell or write to a club that he wont play for them because that might persuade a club not to select the player.

So agents found a way of doing that without the player opening their mouth or using a pen.

The AFL would have us believe that a player who
refuses to meet with any other club,
whose agent sends him out of the country to avoid the media,
whose agent makes it clear to the media that the player only wants to play with one club because of their cultural significance,
whose agent refuses to take phone calls from any club except one, about the player,
is NOT trying to persuade a club not to select the player.

AND those with no intelligence agree with the AFL.

Agreed. And I can't believe they are getting away with it.

I really hope Melbourne takes the chance and drafts him with pick 18. I have always loved Luke Ball...my 2 year old even has his number on his jumper. But recent developments have certainly changed my opinion. I didn't have any real problems with him leaving. I could understand why he did. But I object to him walking in and telling them - only trade me to Collingwood and then expecting that trade to be done regardless. What has transpired has bordered on ridiculous. I've gone from loving the guy to hoping he gets drafted by the bottom of the ladder team. I couldn't stand to see him get his own way after carrying on like a spoilt child and Collingwood getting their own way yet again. Couldn't stand it. So lets hope one of the others drafts him before they get their chance. If nothing else, it will show others, that it really is true that you have to go wherever you are picked when you submit to the national draft. The smug attitude of Collingwood should they succeed in getting Ball would drive me crazy. The Collingwood/Saints game would certainly be a very interesting one this year.

[vacuous space]

So what if he talks to teams and tells them, honestly, that he doesn't want to play for them? Surely that would be draft tampering. If you penalise him for not talking to other teams, you're basically penalising him for wanting to play for Collingwood. I can understand why some around here might want that scenario, but I don't think it would ever hold up if challenged in court. If Collingwood were fined or stripped of draft picks, you can bet that's exactly where it would go.

Not every player is physically capable of undergoing a physcial anyway prior to the draft. There are always players with late-season injuries who can't do the workouts at draft camp. There are players who don't want to move interstate. Clubs know this and they still make selections knowing the risks. Somebody might deem Ball worthy of the risk before Collingwood's pick, they might not. I don't think there's been any rules broken though.

[plugger66]

The AFL made it clear that a player can't tell or write to a club that he wont play for them, because that might persuade a club not to select the player.

So agents found a way of doing that without the player opening their mouth or using a pen.

The AFL would have us believe that a player who
refuses to meet with any other club,
whose agent sends him out of the country to avoid the media,
whose agent makes it clear to the media that the player only wants to play with one club because of their cultural significance,
whose agent refuses to take phone calls from any club except one, about the player,
is NOT trying to persuade a club not to select the player
and that the one club has had nothing to do with it.

AND those with no intelligence agree with the AFL.

And those who continually criticise the best competition in Australia by far but still seem to know every little thing about the competition are very very strange indeed.

[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.

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?

That is a hypothetical that you know just wouldnt happen. Hypothetically is a player is forced to talk to a club and just swears at the people and threatens them is that ok because he did the right think and spoke to a club.

[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?

That is a hypothetical that you know just wouldnt happen. Hypothetically is a player is forced to talk to a club and just swears at the people and threatens them is that ok because he did the right think and spoke to a club.

plugger, I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to avoid a reasoned debate on the issue?

All the sarcastic red herrings don't change the situation.

Let's say for the sake of teh argument that you're 100% correct on his reasons for wanting to leave the Saints (game time etc) and that money had absolutely nothing to do with his decision.

Why can't a kid entering the draft have a legitiamate reason for wanting to go to North Melbourne (for example)?

Let's just say:-
His father played 75 games there so he doesn't qualify for Father/Son, and his father is now the President of NM.
He is a 'gun' full-forward and he has been told by them he'll play senior footy straight away.
He's been told by NM that they want to use him as their 'fresh new look' in their promotions/marketing and they will pay him 200k for it - even though he's only allowed to be paid whatever a first year draftee can be under AFL rules.

So he's got legitimate reasons for wanting to play there.

Why isn't it fair and reasonable for his manager Paul Connors to advise him to do 'The Luke Ball Tactic' from halfway through his U18 season and not go to draft camp or talk to any CLub that wants to talk to him?
'And what would the AFL do about it if that is what he did?

[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.

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?

That is a hypothetical that you know just wouldnt happen. Hypothetically is a player is forced to talk to a club and just swears at the people and threatens them is that ok because he did the right think and spoke to a club.

plugger, I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to avoid a reasoned debate on the issue?

All the sarcastic red herrings don't change the situation.

Let's say for the sake of teh argument that you're 100% correct on his reasons for wanting to leave the Saints (game time etc) and that money had absolutely nothing to do with his decision.

Why can't a kid entering the draft have a legitiamate reason for wanting to go to North Melbourne (for example)?

Let's just say:-
His father played 75 games there so he doesn't qualify for Father/Son, and his father is now the President of NM.
He is a 'gun' full-forward and he has been told by them he'll play senior footy straight away.
He's been told by NM that they want to use him as their 'fresh new look' in their promotions/marketing and they will pay him 200k for it - even though he's only allowed to be paid whatever a first year draftee can be under AFL rules.

So he's got legitimate reasons for wanting to play there.

Why isn't it fair and reasonable for his manager Paul Connors to advise him to do 'The Luke Ball Tactic' from halfway through his U18 season and not go to draft camp or talk to any CLub that wants to talk to him?
'And what would the AFL do about it if that is what he did?

You know why. It is because they are young players who just want to be drafted. these days a lot of star young players who are drafted dont even really follow a club. yes some do but plenty dont. it is stupid to compare a player who may not even play a game to one that has been in the system 8 years. I know plenty of young players who have been drafted and not one would change a thing. They just want to play AFL anywhere. You can bring up your scenario but it just doesnt happen to guys who havent played a game. Even the most confident or the best just want to play and will play anywhere.

And finally they just cannot choose to go to draft camp. they must go if they are picked by the clubs so that just cannot happen unless of course hypothetically they pretend to be in hospital.

[Mr Magic]

SO plugger, fianlly we're getting somewher.
Why do you think the AFL felt it was prudent to send out a 'warning' about tampering with teh draft this year?
What was so differnet this year that we didn't need a warning last year?

[plugger66]

SO plugger, fianlly we're getting somewher.
Why do you think the AFL felt it was prudent to send out a 'warning' about tampering with teh draft this year?
What was so differnet this year that we didn't need a warning last year?

Only guessing but probably because of what Essendon said but I have no real idea. Did they also mention that they think Luke Ball may have tampered with the draft?

[Mr Magic]

SO plugger, fianlly we're getting somewher.
Why do you think the AFL felt it was prudent to send out a 'warning' about tampering with teh draft this year?
What was so differnet this year that we didn't need a warning last year?

Only guessing but probably because of what Essendon said but I have no real idea. Did they also mention that they think Luke Ball may have tampered with the draft?

No it was a 'general warning'.
I wonder what would have given them cause to issue that?

[Spinner]

SO plugger, fianlly we're getting somewher.
Why do you think the AFL felt it was prudent to send out a 'warning' about tampering with teh draft this year?
What was so differnet this year that we didn't need a warning last year?

Only guessing but probably because of what Essendon said but I have no real idea. Did they also mention that they think Luke Ball may have tampered with the draft?

No it was a 'general warning'.
I wonder what would have given them cause to issue that?

I assume it was to ease the clubs concerns of playing opting out for a year, and not honoring contracts.

As i mentioned before, clubs may have been swayed by the thread of Ball pulling out for a year..... They wont anymore - because he most definitely wont for 23 months.

It sounds like just a friendly reminder of the rules to clubs!

[plugger66]

SO plugger, fianlly we're getting somewher.
Why do you think the AFL felt it was prudent to send out a 'warning' about tampering with teh draft this year?
What was so differnet this year that we didn't need a warning last year?

Only guessing but probably because of what Essendon said but I have no real idea. Did they also mention that they think Luke Ball may have tampered with the draft?

No it was a 'general warning'.
I wonder what would have given them cause to issue that?

Only guessing but probably because of what Essendon said but I have no real idea. Did they also mention that they think Luke Ball may have tampered with the draft? Why am I having to repeat myself?

[Mr Magic]

SO plugger, fianlly we're getting somewher.
Why do you think the AFL felt it was prudent to send out a 'warning' about tampering with teh draft this year?
What was so differnet this year that we didn't need a warning last year?

Only guessing but probably because of what Essendon said but I have no real idea. Did they also mention that they think Luke Ball may have tampered with the draft?

No it was a 'general warning'.
I wonder what would have given them cause to issue that?

Only guessing but probably because of what Essendon said but I have no real idea. Did they also mention that they think Luke Ball may have tampered with the draft? Why am I having to repeat myself?

No they didn't apparently mention any names.
That's why I'm asking your advice on it.
Maybe you know what they are worried about this year that they weren't last year?

[plugger66]

No dont have a clue. Probably mentioned it to comfort the Dons as I have now said 3 times. I will try to ring the AFL tomorrow to give you a definitive answer.

[Mr Magic]

No dont have a clue. Probably mentioned it to comfort the Dons as I have now said 3 times. I will try to ring the AFL tomorrow to give you a definitive answer.

Thanks,
I look forward to their answer.

[Spinner]

No dont have a clue. Probably mentioned it to comfort the Dons as I have now said 3 times. I will try to ring the AFL tomorrow to give you a definitive answer.

Tomorrow is Sunday, I would suggest business hours. First thing monday morning!


Good to see Im not the only one here...on saintsational....on a saturday night! haha

[bobmurray]

I cant believe that kids who are into football and end up playing in the under 18 comp don't actually barrack for an AFL team...

That to me is pure frog dung....

[plugger66]

I cant believe that kids who are into football and end up playing in the under 18 comp don't actually barrack for an AFL team...

That to me is pure frog dung....

Most have a slight interest but not many are that passionate and I think that is because they are worrying about their own career unlike us who probably never had a footy career.

[ace]

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?

That is a hypothetical that you know just wouldnt happen. Hypothetically is a player is forced to talk to a club and just swears at the people and threatens them is that ok because he did the right think and spoke to a club.

plugger, I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to avoid a reasoned debate on the issue?

All the sarcastic red herrings don't change the situation.

Let's say for the sake of teh argument that you're 100% correct on his reasons for wanting to leave the Saints (game time etc) and that money had absolutely nothing to do with his decision.

Why can't a kid entering the draft have a legitiamate reason for wanting to go to North Melbourne (for example)?

Let's just say:-
His father played 75 games there so he doesn't qualify for Father/Son, and his father is now the President of NM.
He is a 'gun' full-forward and he has been told by them he'll play senior footy straight away.
He's been told by NM that they want to use him as their 'fresh new look' in their promotions/marketing and they will pay him 200k for it - even though he's only allowed to be paid whatever a first year draftee can be under AFL rules.

So he's got legitimate reasons for wanting to play there.

Why isn't it fair and reasonable for his manager Paul Connors to advise him to do 'The Luke Ball Tactic' from halfway through his U18 season and not go to draft camp or talk to any CLub that wants to talk to him?
'And what would the AFL do about it if that is what he did?

You know why. It is because they are young players who just want to be drafted. these days a lot of star young players who are drafted dont even really follow a club. yes some do but plenty dont. it is stupid to compare a player who may not even play a game to one that has been in the system 8 years. I know plenty of young players who have been drafted and not one would change a thing. They just want to play AFL anywhere. You can bring up your scenario but it just doesnt happen to guys who havent played a game. Even the most confident or the best just want to play and will play anywhere.

And finally they just cannot choose to go to draft camp. they must go if they are picked by the clubs so that just cannot happen unless of course hypothetically they pretend to be in hospital.

Did you leave your brain in your beer mug.

There is absolutely no compulsion to go to the draft camp.
Kids are invited.
Most of the kids are on school holidays at the time but some may choose to study instead.
The kids don't even nominate for the draft until later.

[bigcarl]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/ba ... 10915.html

Ball likely to become a Demon - whether he likes it or not
Brent Diamond | November 22, 2009

MELBOURNE has declared that it would take former St Kilda midfielder Luke Ball with pick 11 or 18 in Thursday's AFL national draft whether he likes it or not.

The Demons hold the cards in the Ball saga with earlier selections before other likely destinations Essendon (pick 24), Brisbane Lions (27) and Ball's stated club of preference, Collingwood (30).

[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.

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?

That is a hypothetical that you know just wouldnt happen. Hypothetically is a player is forced to talk to a club and just swears at the people and threatens them is that ok because he did the right think and spoke to a club.

plugger, I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to avoid a reasoned debate on the issue?

All the sarcastic red herrings don't change the situation.

Let's say for the sake of teh argument that you're 100% correct on his reasons for wanting to leave the Saints (game time etc) and that money had absolutely nothing to do with his decision.

Why can't a kid entering the draft have a legitiamate reason for wanting to go to North Melbourne (for example)?

Let's just say:-
His father played 75 games there so he doesn't qualify for Father/Son, and his father is now the President of NM.
He is a 'gun' full-forward and he has been told by them he'll play senior footy straight away.
He's been told by NM that they want to use him as their 'fresh new look' in their promotions/marketing and they will pay him 200k for it - even though he's only allowed to be paid whatever a first year draftee can be under AFL rules.

So he's got legitimate reasons for wanting to play there.

Why isn't it fair and reasonable for his manager Paul Connors to advise him to do 'The Luke Ball Tactic' from halfway through his U18 season and not go to draft camp or talk to any CLub that wants to talk to him?
'And what would the AFL do about it if that is what he did?

You know why. It is because they are young players who just want to be drafted. these days a lot of star young players who are drafted dont even really follow a club. yes some do but plenty dont. it is stupid to compare a player who may not even play a game to one that has been in the system 8 years. I know plenty of young players who have been drafted and not one would change a thing. They just want to play AFL anywhere. You can bring up your scenario but it just doesnt happen to guys who havent played a game. Even the most confident or the best just want to play and will play anywhere.

And finally they just cannot choose to go to draft camp. they must go if they are picked by the clubs so that just cannot happen unless of course hypothetically they pretend to be in hospital.

Did you leave your brain in your beer mug.

There is absolutely no compulsion to go to the draft camp.
Kids are invited.
Most of the kids are on school holidays at the time but some may choose to study instead.
The kids don't even nominate for the draft until later.

Give me the names of all the players who havent gone to camp when invited. Actually just a couple will do. They even go when injured if invited. As for you comment about nominating for the draft later, yes so what. I even said words to that effect in a previous post. You stick to trying to impress us with the rules of drafting that anyone can cut and paste and i will stick to this topic.

[Eastern]

The only player that I know of who decided NOT to attend Draft Camp was Sam Power. IIRC he had a VCE exam for either a language or music during the Draft Camp and opted for the State Screening instead. I wouldn't call it refusing though !!

[saintbob]

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?

SORRY!!!

My mistake Mr Magic and I hope you will accept my apology for making that false allegation about you having made that post.

So I hope that sets the record straight!!!!

[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?

SORRY!!!

My mistake Mr Magic and I hope you will accept my apology for making that false allegation about you having made that post.

So I hope that sets the record straight!!!!

It does now.