Ball takes pay cut.

[plugger66]

What about the $500k he put on his head in the draft. Are Collingwood not paying that then?

very good point. I'd be interested to hear an AFL interpretation of this.

You dont have to. You have to put it in the salary cap though. Been going on for years.

So plugger, collingwood have capped him at $500gs but are paying him less....

maybe you do not have to but i'm sure room in the cap means more to them than actually paying it....

Your reaction is to contradict not think

Just maybe they would rather put 500k in the salary cap but pay him a fair amount compared to the other players so everyone is happy. Makes more sense than paying him, an average player, probably more than any other pies player and upsetting the lot of them. So maybe your reaction is not to think.

[BallBanger]

Shane Woewodin.... anybody...anybody.....

The same feelin', ball will live to regret the boos of low class environment.

[The Craw]

What about the $500k he put on his head in the draft. Are Collingwood not paying that then?

very good point. I'd be interested to hear an AFL interpretation of this.

You dont have to. You have to put it in the salary cap though. Been going on for years.

So plugger, collingwood have capped him at $500gs but are paying him less....

maybe you do not have to but i'm sure room in the cap means more to them than actually paying it....

Your reaction is to contradict not think

Just maybe they would rather put 500k in the salary cap but pay him a fair amount compared to the other players so everyone is happy. Makes more sense than paying him, an average player, probably more than any other pies player and upsetting the lot of them. So maybe your reaction is not to think.

Yep great analogy that clog up your salary cap but pay someone less so every one will get less but will make them happy

Maybe you shouldn't think either

[bigred]

That article was quite smooth on my bottom.

[plugger66]

What about the $500k he put on his head in the draft. Are Collingwood not paying that then?

very good point. I'd be interested to hear an AFL interpretation of this.

You dont have to. You have to put it in the salary cap though. Been going on for years.

So plugger, collingwood have capped him at $500gs but are paying him less....

maybe you do not have to but i'm sure room in the cap means more to them than actually paying it....

Your reaction is to contradict not think

Just maybe they would rather put 500k in the salary cap but pay him a fair amount compared to the other players so everyone is happy. Makes more sense than paying him, an average player, probably more than any other pies player and upsetting the lot of them. So maybe your reaction is not to think.

Yep great analogy that clog up your salary cap but pay someone less so every one will get less but will make them happy

Maybe you shouldn't think either

They obviously had the space beforehand. No one took a pay cut so it makes no difference. They already had their contracts before he got there. Please think about it before posting or do you honestly think the pies players would be happier with an average player getting 500k.

[satchmo]

That article was quite smooth on my bottom.

Should have saved it for Saturday morning, and had a big Friday night IMHBUCO!

[SainterK]

What about the $500k he put on his head in the draft. Are Collingwood not paying that then?

very good point. I'd be interested to hear an AFL interpretation of this.

You dont have to. You have to put it in the salary cap though. Been going on for years.

So plugger, collingwood have capped him at $500gs but are paying him less....

maybe you do not have to but i'm sure room in the cap means more to them than actually paying it....

Your reaction is to contradict not think

Just maybe they would rather put 500k in the salary cap but pay him a fair amount compared to the other players so everyone is happy. Makes more sense than paying him, an average player, probably more than any other pies player and upsetting the lot of them. So maybe your reaction is not to think.

Yep great analogy that clog up your salary cap but pay someone less so every one will get less but will make them happy

Maybe you shouldn't think either

They obviously had the space beforehand. No one took a pay cut so it makes no difference. They already had their contracts before he got there. Please think about it before posting or do you honestly think the pies players would be happier with an average player getting 500k.

I just found this article that was written at the time, because I distinctly remember it being reported through a number of media outlets that Collingwood players are taking less to accomodate Ball...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/r ... -julg.html

Ball and his manager Paul Connors set themselves the ambitious task of getting to Collingwood in the days following the trading period, when the Saints held out for a better offer than pick 25. Connors, with Collingwood's encouragement, placed a price on his client's head of about $1 million over two years, in the knowledge that few clubs would be in a position to meet that demand.

A few key Collingwood players helped Ball's cause by agreeing to sacrifice money in the short-term to get Ball on board. Connors and Collingwood decided that Ball would receive a very modest contract in his third year - protecting the club against any player fall-out from his huge wage.

[joffaboy]

What about the $500k he put on his head in the draft. Are Collingwood not paying that then?

very good point. I'd be interested to hear an AFL interpretation of this.

You dont have to. You have to put it in the salary cap though. Been going on for years.

So plugger, collingwood have capped him at $500gs but are paying him less....

maybe you do not have to but i'm sure room in the cap means more to them than actually paying it....

Your reaction is to contradict not think

Just maybe they would rather put 500k in the salary cap but pay him a fair amount compared to the other players so everyone is happy. Makes more sense than paying him, an average player, probably more than any other pies player and upsetting the lot of them. So maybe your reaction is not to think.

Yep great analogy that clog up your salary cap but pay someone less so every one will get less but will make them happy

Maybe you shouldn't think either

They obviously had the space beforehand. No one took a pay cut so it makes no difference. They already had their contracts before he got there. Please think about it before posting or do you honestly think the pies players would be happier with an average player getting 500k.

Cash is not an issue to Collingwood. SC is though.

And it was reported in the print media that Collingwood players had taken a cut to accommodate Ball in the SC.

[joffaboy]

What about the $500k he put on his head in the draft. Are Collingwood not paying that then?

very good point. I'd be interested to hear an AFL interpretation of this.

You dont have to. You have to put it in the salary cap though. Been going on for years.

So plugger, collingwood have capped him at $500gs but are paying him less....

maybe you do not have to but i'm sure room in the cap means more to them than actually paying it....

Your reaction is to contradict not think

Just maybe they would rather put 500k in the salary cap but pay him a fair amount compared to the other players so everyone is happy. Makes more sense than paying him, an average player, probably more than any other pies player and upsetting the lot of them. So maybe your reaction is not to think.

Yep great analogy that clog up your salary cap but pay someone less so every one will get less but will make them happy

Maybe you shouldn't think either

They obviously had the space beforehand. No one took a pay cut so it makes no difference. They already had their contracts before he got there. Please think about it before posting or do you honestly think the pies players would be happier with an average player getting 500k.

I just found this article that was written at the time, because I distinctly remember it being reported through a number of media outlets that Collingwood players are taking less to accomodate Ball...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/r ... -julg.html

Ball and his manager Paul Connors set themselves the ambitious task of getting to Collingwood in the days following the trading period, when the Saints held out for a better offer than pick 25. Connors, with Collingwood's encouragement, placed a price on his client's head of about $1 million over two years, in the knowledge that few clubs would be in a position to meet that demand.

A few key Collingwood players helped Ball's cause by agreeing to sacrifice money in the short-term to get Ball on board. Connors and Collingwood decided that Ball would receive a very modest contract in his third year - protecting the club against any player fall-out from his huge wage.

Well done Sainterk.

P66 - bad luck - you have been shown to be WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[plugger66]

So that proves it isnt money then JB or do you only beleive the first part of the article. That proves you are wrong.

[SainterK]

The article shows that yet another club has had players reduce their contracts to accomodate LB, that was all I was highlighting.

[SydneySainter]

Sheanan has never been a fan of St Kilda. Always the first to write us off, always the last to jump on the bandwagon and then writes us off again in a heart-beat.

I don't blame the media for adopting St Kilda as the ogre. Lyon dropped Ball back to the VFL twice so that makes him a bad guy, Lyon restricted Ball to 46 minutes in the Grand Final when he was playing some great footy so that makes him a bad guy, St Kilda said no to the Pies offer so that makes them the bad guys, Lyon wouldn't give Ball what he wanted and let him walk and that makes him the bad guys, Lovett turned out to be a fail and that makes St Kilda the bad guys.

It makes much better reading to have an ogre and St Kilda are certainly easy targets during this whole affair.

Personally, I'm sick of hearing about Ball. While I respect him as a player, I simply don't rate him highly enough to warrant all this media attention.

[joffaboy]

So that proves it isnt money then JB or do you only beleive the first part of the article. That proves you are wrong.

They obviously had the space beforehand. No one took a pay cut so it makes no difference.

Your quote.

Obviously not the space.

So Collingwood has cut the pay of players AND not paying Luke Ball what is in the SC.

lol - yeah P66 you have got a handle on it.

Eddie is a genius ripping off his players

[joffaboy]

The article shows that yet another club has had players reduce their contracts to accomodate LB, that was all I was highlighting.

I understood that. Some others may not have.

[plugger66]

So that proves it isnt money then JB or do you only beleive the first part of the article. That proves you are wrong.

They obviously had the space beforehand. No one took a pay cut so it makes no difference.

Your quote.

Obviously not the space.

So Collingwood has cut the pay of players AND not paying Luke Ball what is in the SC.

lol - yeah P66 you have got a handle on it.

Eddie is a genius ripping off his players

Havent been around footy for long JB. Never heard of backended contracts so they still get same amount. No one is getting ripped off. i may have been wrong with what I said but that article proves you wrong as well. Luckily I dont write a comment everytime you are wrong. We would be completely out of bandwidth.

[desertsaint]

How I've always read it, is that Luke is on anywhere from $350k to $400k a year. Why do people think $500k for the first two years only, equates to $500k a year contract?
the article above, if accurate, confirms it is less. And potentially sheahan is correct in stating he is on less than the saints offered contract - although it would mean $500k + $500k + $49,999.99.

Personally I think Luke left for reasons other than money, but has upset many fans as he was so respected here and we get some people jumping to
conclusions that simply justify their anger.

He's gone, good luck to him, now lets get on with winning a flag.

[bob__71]

Ah its OK Luke gave up when given the challenge. And he was sore about the players who were getting a full game before him....My god Mcqualter and Dawson were more valued....his response was to go to people who were better at feeding his Ego.

It would seem Luke has an ego to match GT and RB

[Thinline]

Sheahan hates our club. He wants us out of the AFL. He is a poor writer. How would he even know what is happening. Most on here definitely seem to know more.

How could he know? Was he there? Did he say he was in the room? For god's sake the guy even admits in the text - quite brazen really - everything he's yakking about is based on hearsay scuttlebutt...

So you don't believe there's a game within the game within the game for football journalists?

You just reckon it's ALL some sort of childish reactivity borne out of Saintly bias?

Come on.

You're kidding aren't you?

A dollar for every HS story written out of blind vindictiveness because journo X didn't get access on his/her terms, or to invoke response, or to force a comment from someone who won't cough up, or to stir a pot, or to rattle a cage and I reckon I'd be bathing in Veuve Clicquot twice daily until my 120th birthday...

[Beej]

FOR the record, Luke Ball is at Collingwood because he reluctantly, and sadly, came to the conclusion he wasn't wanted by St Kilda.

Despite what you hear out of St Kilda, most recently - and pointedly - from skipper Nick Riewoldt, Ball left because he realised he had lost the faith of coach Ross Lyon.

This is all I've ever believed regarding the whole Luke Ball situation.

The only reason why we offered him a new contract was to ensure he wouldn't be able to leave for nothing.

[meher baba]

How I've always read it, is that Luke is on anywhere from $350k to $400k a year. Why do people think $500k for the first two years only, equates to $500k a year contract?
the article above, if accurate, confirms it is less. And potentially sheahan is correct in stating he is on less than the saints offered contract - although it would mean $500k + $500k + $49,999.99.

Personally I think Luke left for reasons other than money, but has upset many fans as he was so respected here and we get some people jumping to
conclusions that simply justify their anger.

He's gone, good luck to him, now lets get on with winning a flag.

Nice summation and surely close to the truth.

From the day he left, many on here have chosen to pour scorn on Ball, portrayed him as a mercenary and/or a dud footballer and/or (if they are also GT-haters) as the last vestige of the evil empire of GT (B4E has gone even further than this, but I won't repeat his comments).

Some of the stuff written on here has made me feel sick. I was aLeo a bit disappointed at Riewoldt's comments: a clumsy attempt at a joke, no doubt, but pretty poor taste when you consider all the massive and sometimes illegal hits Ball took when busting his guts for his team mates.

Anyway, once the season starts, it will soon pass. Personally, I can't get past the feeling that we lost Ball for nothing in return when we didn't have to. While I don't think he was a required player, he was a damn useful one.

But what's done is done.

can understand

[Teflon]

FOR the record, Luke Ball is at Collingwood because he reluctantly, and sadly, came to the conclusion he wasn't wanted by St Kilda.

Despite what you hear out of St Kilda, most recently - and pointedly - from skipper Nick Riewoldt, Ball left because he realised he had lost the faith of coach Ross Lyon.

This is all I've ever believed regarding the whole Luke Ball situation.

The only reason why we offered him a new contract was to ensure he wouldn't be able to leave for nothing.

I dont believe that for 1 minute.

IMHO its very simple:

1. Luke Ball WAS being informed that from a financial and playing persepective he no longer commanded the same as the elite at the club.....no shock there...

2. Luke Ball was being asked to add addtional dimensions to his game...he was being challenged......but that doesnt mean "not wanted"

3. Luke Ball decided he either couldnt meet those demands or that whilst he held enough capital in the open market for his own current abilities that he would cash in now.

I do not believe the club go making offers just to ensure "we get something for him...." contracts are binding and a little more thought through than that.

[plugger66]

FOR the record, Luke Ball is at Collingwood because he reluctantly, and sadly, came to the conclusion he wasn't wanted by St Kilda.

Despite what you hear out of St Kilda, most recently - and pointedly - from skipper Nick Riewoldt, Ball left because he realised he had lost the faith of coach Ross Lyon.

This is all I've ever believed regarding the whole Luke Ball situation.

The only reason why we offered him a new contract was to ensure he wouldn't be able to leave for nothing.

I dont believe that for 1 minute.

IMHO its very simple:

1. Luke Ball WAS being informed that from a financial and playing persepective he no longer commanded the same as the elite at the club.....no shock there...

2. Luke Ball was being asked to add addtional dimensions to his game...he was being challenged......but that doesnt mean "not wanted"

3. Luke Ball decided he either couldnt meet those demands or that whilst he held enough capital in the open market for his own current abilities that he would cash in now.

I do not believe the club go making offers just to ensure "we get something for him...." contracts are binding and a little more thought through than that.

That sounds pretty much on the mark to me.

[Mr Magic]

And me also, which is why I was so disappointed in the public pronouncements coming from the Ball 'camp' during trade week.

There was absolutely no need (IMO) for them to say the things they did and paint the Saints in the way they did.

My total concern in this whole fiasco has been the impression deliberately created (again IMO) by Ball's 'people' that we have somehow acted dishonestly/unfairly/reprehensively/insert any adjective of choice in our dealings in this matter.

From the time Ball was 'dropped' to Sandringham (with full consultation I believe) there has been a division between what the Club wanted from him and what his 'people' wanted from the Club.

Good luck to him if he was able to secure a better contract from Collingwood and his 'people' were able to scheme and plot their way to getting there.

BUT why the need to keep on with the charade?

[SydneySainter]

And me also, which is why I was so disappointed in the public pronouncements coming from the Ball 'camp' during trade week.

There was absolutely no need (IMO) for them to say the things they did and paint the Saints in the way they did.

My total concern in this whole fiasco has been the impression deliberately created (again IMO) by Ball's 'people' that we have somehow acted dishonestly/unfairly/reprehensively/insert any adjective of choice in our dealings in this matter.

From the time Ball was 'dropped' to Sandringham (with full consultation I believe) there has been a division between what the Club wanted from him and what his 'people' wanted from the Club.

Good luck to him if he was able to secure a better contract from Collingwood and his 'people' were able to scheme and plot their way to getting there.

BUT why the need to keep on with the charade?

Agreed.

The notion that Ball wasn't wanted at St Kilda and that he was essentially pushed out is a media driven lie as far as I'm concerned. It's almost reading like Lyon should be ashamed of himself for dropping Ball twice - irrespective of the fact that he was recalled twice, including the entire finals campaign. If Lyon had lost faith in him, he would have dropped him to the VFL and let him rot.

From what I read, Ball had a three year contract on the table and was told that he was a required player but that he had areas to work on. He didn't see eye-to-eye with the club and decided to walk. Fair enough. But now, Ball is apparently 'Mr. Perfect' and because there were parts of his game that Lyon wanted improved, he's suddenly this big ogre who deliberately engineered his leaving.

They're are two sides to every story and they're is probably a lot more to it than what has currently been published. But while I respect Ball as a hard-working player, the sun doesn't shine out of him and no one is immune from being told that they're performance is currently below par and that improvements are required. It's a business, not a boy's club.

[vantheman]

My apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in this thread, but I have only skiimmed over the previous postings

i have a vague recollection that Mike is a long standing friend of the Ball family.
If this is the case, surely in the interest of balanced/fair reporting (oxymoron?) Sheahan should have stated as much in the article?