Barrett HS article

[chook23]

As he has done in the past .....had a fair crack at saints

some justified but some appears to be his use of phrases etc to kick the saints as he has done in the past IMO.....

have not put a link

a lot of what appears assumptions and unsupported comment.

[Teflon]

Really another poor journo - and before the SS journo fleet get theior high horse out may I suggest read it without your career bias on?

Its a piece that ultimately says "would saints like their chance again?".........no shyte sherlock!! mindblowing how these guys come up with this stuff....

The sentaionalism gets me......how these decisions "could unravel years of good work".....blah blah....its just nonsense.

Barett has always been a B Grader to me .....he's probably, truth be told, closer to C and now hes one of these journos thats gonna try and be all "controversial" to make his name......who remembers when that dill from Chanel 9 Tony Jones all of a sudden tried to be a newsbreaker/tough guy?.....it didnt work and looked dreadful...

Shameful ego driven creatures....

[bigred]

He's been on here by the looks of it.

[kosifantutti23]

Meh.

The only line I would take umbrage with is:

In trade week, St Kilda refused to deal with Collingwood, which ultimately saw Ball become a Magpie (via the pre-season draft) for nothing in exchange.

There was no refusal to deal with Collingwood. We just couldn't reach an acceptable agreement.

He might have also mentioned that in an injury free season, Ball could only manage to finish equal 17th in the Saintsational Player of the year award.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/b ... 5820991611

[Moccha]

A sh!t article by a sh!t journalist who eats nothing but sh!t for breakfast.

The line that gets me is....."But those decisions - to recruit the troubled Andrew Lovett while providing ample reason for "Mr Perfect" Luke Ball to leave - are the type that can result in the unravelling of years of meaningful progress." WTF and if you were any smarter you'd be a better journalist!

[Con Gorozidis]

Meh.

The only line I would take umbrage with is:

In trade week, St Kilda refused to deal with Collingwood, which ultimately saw Ball become a Magpie (via the pre-season draft) for nothing in exchange.

There was no refusal to deal with Collingwood. We just couldn't reach an acceptable agreement.

He might have also mentioned that in an injury free season, Ball could only manage to finish equal 17th in the Saintsational Player of the year award.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/b ... 5820991611

so ball was 17th in saintsational player award.
was dropped in round 16 and the coach publicly discussed the weakneses he needed to work on.
was played mainly off the bench: BUT
the coach would not accept pick 25 for him cos he was too good and he wanted fair value.

[SuperSaint]

A sh!t article by a sh!t journalist who eats nothing but sh!t for breakfast.

The line that gets me is....."But those decisions - to recruit the troubled Andrew Lovett while providing ample reason for "Mr Perfect" Luke Ball to leave - are the type that can result in the unravelling of years of meaningful progress." WTF and if you were any smarter you'd be a better journalist!

The moron is a Pies supporter so I'm not surprised by his verbal diarrhoea. Only way to shut him up now is for the team to have another stellar year in 2010 and hopefully go one better.

[vacuous space]

My guess is that Barrett lacks a source inside St Kilda, since all his trade week reporting was pro-Ball/Collingwood. It was hardly a situation where any party was blame free:

• Ball had informed the club of his decision very late, and selected one team, making it hard for his former club to make a deal.
• Collingwood's offer was effectively the difference between Aaron Black and Will Johnson.
• We stubbornly chose not to accept the offer, even though it was better than the nothing we got.

I don't know how you come out of that situation thinking that only St Kilda, or worse, the AFL, was to blame for Ball's situation.

[Wigsy]

To be honest, it sounds reasonably spot on to me. Most articles are a tad negative about sides - it creates news stories. Articles tend to follow 'momentum' as well - Geelong escapes the negativity becasue of the premiership. Hawthorn are apparently on the way back and the Dogs and Crows on the way up, so they are too treated likewise. And then any of the bottom eight with the perception of improvement likewise (ie, Melbourne). The doubters are still there on the Saints and those articles will just be a reflection of that. Whether rightly or wrongly - generally the latter.

The summary was that we lost our first pick and lost Ball for nothing. Is that not what happened? I don't quite understand the complex about journos. It seems to have been a consistent theme here for a long time. They won't stop us winning a flag. Hopefully the players play so that no-one else can stop us winning a flag as well.

[Spinner]

Didnt see the need for that these ideas to be articulated again......


Seems like he must be a bit low on work atm....

[I Love Peter Kiel]

He's been on here by the looks of it.

Spot on....do any of you realise you will be called "sources close to the club"?


What about "Crash" Cr*ddock? I she still writing?

[I Love Peter Kiel]

I mean "is he", not "I she". Bl*^dy keyboards!

[meher baba]

Is this article the first to include speculation over the details of Lovett's contract?

1 million over 3 seasons.

That's the first time I've seen that figure (although I admit I haven't been paying close attention).

If true, it's fair enough for the journo to draw the connection between Lovett and Ball, no matter how much some of you fans on here hate reading it.

If it had all happened at Carlton or Collingwood there'd be a lot on here posting "ha bloody ha: you gave up Luke Ball and $1 million for Lovett and got nothing back".

It wasn't a great off-season and the journo is right to suggest that the club will want to move on as fast as possible.

If all goes well on the field again this year, Lovett and Ball will soon be forgotten by everyone.

[saintspremiers]

well talk about a d!ckhead Journo!

Lovett was brilliant for the bombers last year....Ball was shyte for us.

Get your facts right noob!

[Mr Magic]

Is this article the first to include speculation over the details of Lovett's contract?

1 million over 3 seasons.

No, I think the figure was mentioned pretty much when Lovett was signed by us.

That's the first time I've seen that figure (although I admit I haven't been paying close attention).

If true, it's fair enough for the journo to draw the connection between Lovett and Ball, no matter how much some of you fans on here hate reading it.

If it had all happened at Carlton or Collingwood there'd be a lot on here posting "ha bloody ha: you gave up Luke Ball and $1 million for Lovett and got nothing back".

It wasn't a great off-season and the journo is right to suggest that the club will want to move on as fast as possible.

If all goes well on the field again this year, Lovett and Ball will soon be forgotten by everyone.

For me it's the mis-reporting (deliberate fudging) of the facts to try and 'paint the picture' he is in the story he has written.

IMHO he has deliberately distorted the Ball trade to try and make it fit the piece he is writing.

The artlcle states (or at least tries to imply) that we flicked Ball, and then didn't negotiate properly with Collingwood.

I take exception with that notion because it is patently untrue.

We never delisted/flicked/sacked (insert any other term) Luke Ball.
Right up to the point when he 'walked out' on us we were offering him a new contract for 3 years (on less money than he wanted).
To state/infer the contrary is just plain mischievous or untrue.

At the initial discussions with Collingwood on the Tuesday of Trade Week, St Kilda made it perfectly clear that the only deal they would do with them for Ball was for a player we would take (Nathan Brown) or a draft pick that would be acceptable to Western Bulldogs (top 22) for Andrejs Everitt. St Kilda's position did not change the entire week.

Somehow those with an axe to grind have managed to portray us as the 'devil' in all of this.

Why?
Because we stood up for what we wanted?
Because we refused to be 'screwed over' by Collingwood, Ball and his management?

Yes, in the end the machinations of Collingwood, Ball and Connors seemed to pay dividends for them.
BUT all Clubs, players and managers have now seen that when they deal with us they need to deal fairly because we will not capitulate in the end just because they tell us to.

[plugger66]

well talk about a d!ckhead Journo!

Lovett was brilliant for the bombers last year....Ball was shyte for us.

Get your facts right noob!

Lovett was brilliant was he. Where did he come in their B&F in a side that lost more than they won?

The article is a good article but as it is negative to our club it is poor. Yes it is written in hindsight but anyone who at this moment thinks we have had a good off season must have the best one eye ever. Yes it was probably worth the gamble but as it didnt come off and it was risky the club probably should cop some negativity.

[stinger]

you can have a different opinion...but there isn't a word in that article that i wouldn't agree wth....


"Ball, seemingly everyone's favourite person at Moorabbin except for Lyon, is being viewed by Collingwood as a crucial part of the 2010 season.

Lyon dropped Ball from his Round 16 team. He returned, and was among the best players on the ground in the first half of the Grand Final.

He finished with 22 disposals, including 10 contested possessions, seven tackles, seven clearances and five inside-50s. Not bad given Lyon restricted him to 46 per cent of game time.

In trade week, St Kilda refused to deal with Collingwood, which ultimately saw Ball become a Magpie (via the pre-season draft) for nothing in exchange.

As it stands, the upshot of St Kilda's decisions in October is this: give up a first round pick (No. 16 overall) and former captain Ball, for nothing.

Then there is the down-the-track damage of wasting a first round draft pick and the fallout from whatever happens after the police finish their investigation.

How St Kilda supporters would love their club to be given its time over again."


.....i know the subject has been done to death ..but it was a pretty piss poor effort by the club all round....and i make no apologies for having that view....

[rodgerfox]

Lovett was brilliant for the bombers last year....Ball was shyte for us.

Miss the GF did ya?

[joffaboy]

well talk about a d!ckhead Journo!

Lovett was brilliant for the bombers last year....Ball was shyte for us.

Get your facts right noob!

Lovett was brilliant was he. Where did he come in their B&F in a side that lost more than they won?

The article is a good article but as it is negative to our club it is poor. Yes it is written in hindsight but anyone who at this moment thinks we have had a good off season must have the best one eye ever. Yes it was probably worth the gamble but as it didnt come off and it was risky the club probably should cop some negativity.

Pretty much spot on, apart from the usual tabloid devices of "controversy" - like "refused to deal with Collingwood" - "unravel years of good work" etc.

All in all, the club farked up in trade week. Got SFA for Luke Ball (yes I understand the reasons, and tend to agree, but the fact remains we got SFA), and have burnt #16, which in hindsight (very easy in hindsight) we could have used for Everitt.

Barrett is a poor journo. Grant Thomas tore him a new one on radio last year and showed him up for being a bit of a goose (or as GT put it - "well that would reflect youre intelligence levels).

This article however is pretty close to the truth.

[plugger66]

Is this article the first to include speculation over the details of Lovett's contract?

1 million over 3 seasons.

No, I think the figure was mentioned pretty much when Lovett was signed by us.

That's the first time I've seen that figure (although I admit I haven't been paying close attention).

If true, it's fair enough for the journo to draw the connection between Lovett and Ball, no matter how much some of you fans on here hate reading it.

If it had all happened at Carlton or Collingwood there'd be a lot on here posting "ha bloody ha: you gave up Luke Ball and $1 million for Lovett and got nothing back".

It wasn't a great off-season and the journo is right to suggest that the club will want to move on as fast as possible.

If all goes well on the field again this year, Lovett and Ball will soon be forgotten by everyone.

For me it's the mis-reporting (deliberate fudging) of the facts to try and 'paint the picture' he is in the story he has written.

IMHO he has deliberately distorted the Ball trade to try and make it fit the piece he is writing.

The artlcle states (or at least tries to imply) that we flicked Ball, and then didn't negotiate properly with Collingwood.

I take exception with that notion because it is patently untrue.

We never delisted/flicked/sacked (insert any other term) Luke Ball.
Right up to the point when he 'walked out' on us we were offering him a new contract for 3 years (on less money than he wanted).
To state/infer the contrary is just plain mischievous or untrue.

At the initial discussions with Collingwood on the Tuesday of Trade Week, St Kilda made it perfectly clear that the only deal they would do with them for Ball was for a player we would take (Nathan Brown) or a draft pick that would be acceptable to Western Bulldogs (top 22) for Andrejs Everitt. St Kilda's position did not change the entire week.

Somehow those with an axe to grind have managed to portray us as the 'devil' in all of this.

Why?
Because we stood up for what we wanted?
Because we refused to be 'screwed over' by Collingwood, Ball and his management?

Yes, in the end the machinations of Collingwood, Ball and Connors seemed to pay dividends for them.
BUT all Clubs, players and managers have now seen that when they deal with us they need to deal fairly because we will not capitulate in the end just because they tell us to.

Or they could wait and still get their player for nothing.

[joffaboy]

Lovett was brilliant for the bombers last year....Ball was shyte for us.

Miss the GF did ya?

Due to lack of running power Ball missed the second half. Probably cost us the game that he couldn't run.

Lyon should never have selected him because it effectively meant we had three on the bench after half time.

[plugger66]

Lovett was brilliant for the bombers last year....Ball was shyte for us.

Miss the GF did ya?

Due to lack of running power Ball missed the second half. Probably cost us the game that he couldn't run.

Lyon should never have selected him because it effectively meant we had three on the bench after half time.

Now that is very harsh and you know, wrong. Even RL has admitted he could have played more in the second half.

[degruch]

Meh, Lovett was worth a shot and, still, he might be brilliant for us this year (if he's not in jail), so a bit early to call that one. IMO, Ball was worth nothing and the club realised it...so, we've lost nothing. I'd be surprised if he adds as much to Collingwood as Lovett will to us...although pure speculation from me, I'm not about to print an article about it. That's the difference between me and a sports journalist (i.e. not much). Fingers crossed it all works out well for us!

[joffaboy]

Lovett was brilliant for the bombers last year....Ball was shyte for us.

Miss the GF did ya?

Due to lack of running power Ball missed the second half. Probably cost us the game that he couldn't run.

Lyon should never have selected him because it effectively meant we had three on the bench after half time.

Now that is very harsh and you know, wrong. Even RL has admitted he could have played more in the second half.

Are you sure P66?? From what I hear (and I could very well have been given incorrect info, but it was from an impecabble source) it was planned that Ball only play about the amount of the game he did, because, well, the boy cant run.

Still reckon, from what I heard that his selection cost us the game. We were shot in the last quarter and our bench was hamstrung because we couldn't rotate Ball. Only three on the bench meant we ran out of legs.

Lyon should never have selected Ball full knowing he hasn't the legs to run out a Lyon gameplan.

Of course if you definitively tell me this info is completely incorrect correct, I will change my view. But as i said, I have been told be an impeccable source that he got the game time they wanted to give him.

[plugger66]

Lovett was brilliant for the bombers last year....Ball was shyte for us.

Miss the GF did ya?

Due to lack of running power Ball missed the second half. Probably cost us the game that he couldn't run.

Lyon should never have selected him because it effectively meant we had three on the bench after half time.

Now that is very harsh and you know, wrong. Even RL has admitted he could have played more in the second half.

Are you sure P66?? From what I hear (and I could very well have been given incorrect info, but it was from an impecabble source) it was planned that Ball only play about the amount of the game he did, because, well, the boy cant run.

Still reckon, from what I heard that his selection cost us the game. We were shot in the last quarter and our bench was hamstrung because we couldn't rotate Ball. Only three on the bench meant we ran out of legs.

Lyon should never have selected Ball full knowing he hasn't the legs to run out a Lyon gameplan.

Of course if you definitively tell me this info is completely incorrect correct, I will change my view. But as i said, I have been told be an impeccable source that he got the game time they wanted to give him.

I'm not saying that wasnt the plan. I certainly dont know what they were going to do but after the game RL said he should have played more. Mayne RL didnt show enough initiative from the coaches box on the day