Ball takes pay cut.

[meher baba]

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?

Under the journalistic code of ethics, the concept of "friendship" is considered a bit too vague to require disclosure.

It's usually more your classic sort of "conflict of interest" situations as would apply in a commercial tender: you are related to someone by blood or marriage, you are in a business arrangement with them, or you hold shares in a particular company or whatever.

[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

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.

Thanks for the advice.....thought about it again...and.....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

[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.

Thanks for the advice.....thought about it again...and.....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

I take it you have eyes. Well if you do read this. The pies players would have all had their contracts in place before Ball was recruited so what ever the pies added to the salary cap does not effect the rest of their players.

[suss]

I don't think Noddy has it in for the Saints but it's clear he's engaging in speculation.

We know that LB was offered a $1,000,000+ deal for 3 years. That'a a fact because Ross said so.

We know that LB went to Collingwood on a two year deal for $500,000 per year. That's a fact because he had to name a price in order to be drafted.

Unless I'm completely crap at maths, it looks to me like he's being paid a bucket load more at Collingwood than with us.

If Banana-brain Noddy wants to speculate about a verbal side-deal for LB to get paid peanuts in the third or fourth year of a contract then it's up to him. But as far as the FACTS are concerned, he's getting paid vastly more at Collingwood than with us.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to suggest that money therefore, was a big part of his decision to bail.

[Hurricane]

Whos ass is Mike trying to kiss here?

Ball's? Collingwood's?

Most of the article seems like an opinion piece that was written simply to have a thinly vailed attack at St Kilda and Ross Lyon

Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that if a player is underpreforming and is strugling from a mental standpoint plus other players are in better form and better headspace they should not be in the side, Mike Sheehan obviously doesnt agree with this statement.

Again ill venture out onto my precarious limb and say that if a player is in a Grand Final and tendered a million dollar multi year contract that the player in question is not required and will be forced out of the club at all costs.

Mr Sheehan and his fellow media muck rakers seem to want the public at large to belive that Luke Ball is a hard done by star at the top of his game who was misused and mistreated by a bully and forced against his will to walk away from his club.

I am of the same opinion as our captain, Luke Ball was a required player that left the club. He simply didnt want to play for St Kilda anymore, for Sheehan to write rubbish like this is lazy and inflamatory but dross like this is his calling card so what should we expect.

BANG BANG

[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

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.

Thanks for the advice.....thought about it again...and.....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

I take it you have eyes. Well if you do read this. The pies players would have all had their contracts in place before Ball was recruited so what ever the pies added to the salary cap does not effect the rest of their players.

Yes I do have eys, thanks for asking. Actually used them to read this article
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/r ... -julg.html

so I could extract this quote for you.

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.

so for one last itime....

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

[SydneySainter]

Whos ass is Mike trying to kiss here?

Ball's? Collingwood's?

Most of the article seems like an opinion piece that was written simply to have a thinly vailed attack at St Kilda and Ross Lyon

Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that if a player is underpreforming and is strugling from a mental standpoint plus other players are in better form and better headspace they should not be in the side, Mike Sheehan obviously doesnt agree with this statement.

Again ill venture out onto my precarious limb and say that if a player is in a Grand Final and tendered a million dollar multi year contract that the player in question is not required and will be forced out of the club at all costs.

Mr Sheehan and his fellow media muck rakers seem to want the public at large to belive that Luke Ball is a hard done by star at the top of his game who was misused and mistreated by a bully and forced against his will to walk away from his club.

I am of the same opinion as our captain, Luke Ball was a required player that left the club. He simply didnt want to play for St Kilda anymore, for Sheehan to write rubbish like this is lazy and inflamatory but dross like this is his calling card so what should we expect.

BANG BANG

Spot on.

[Con Gorozidis]

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.

thats only for 2010 + 2011. pies might pay him 5k in year 3 making it 1m over 3 years. same as what saints offered but loaded in a way to get him past other clubs in the draft.

i think sheehan is not far off. riewoldt is just pushing the saints PR line cos lyon ballsed up (pun unintended).

the fact is we got nothing for ball when 25 was on the table; and
we blew pick 17.


say what u like. but these 2 things are fact and wont change because of using emotional words like "desertion" "loyalty" and "mercenary" and getting all hot under the collar.

[markinUSA]

Ball is not being paid less. He is simply being paid a certain amount for every kick that goes over 40 metres. Oh, hold on.... on second thoughts...

[evertonfc]

My information is that Ball is being paid significantly less than what he was earning at St Kilda, but while this is indeed true, one must remember that he was being paid well-above his market rate. That's because he was signed to a deal on the dual factors of performance and potential, which were once both very high.

- I've got no problems with Sheahan writing the article. That's his job. His facts check out with mine.

- I've got no problem with Riewoldt's comments either. There's room in this game for players to speak their mind.

- I've got no problem with Ball, who has, at least publicly, never bad-mouthed this football club despite falling out of favour with Ross Lyon.

- I still think we should have got something for him. That's the bigger issue at play.

[suss]

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.

thats only for 2010 + 2011. pies might pay him 5k in year 3 making it 1m over 3 years. same as what saints offered but loaded in a way to get him past other clubs in the draft.

i think sheehan is not far off. riewoldt is just pushing the saints PR line cos lyon ballsed up (pun unintended).

the fact is we got nothing for ball when 25 was on the table; and
we blew pick 17.


say what u like. but these 2 things are fact and wont change because of using emotional words like "desertion" "loyalty" and "mercenary" and getting all hot under the collar.

Firstly, the two 'facts' you mention are purely speculation. The only people that truly know what was offered and rejected are those intimately associated with the deal. Anyone else that dares to proffer an opinion (journalists included) is merely guessing.

Secondly, the quality of the deal (so to speak) doesn’t mitigate or alter the fact that LB a $1,000,000+ on the table for three months prior to being traded. How does the handling or quality of the trade (or lack thereof) change the fact that he rejected the deal and chose to go to another club?

LB left because he wanted more game time or money or both. If anyone wants to base on opinion on those facts, then I think they’re free to do so.

I personally feel that the word 'mercenary' isn't appropriate. But there's no doubt that other players have remained 'loyal' even after they’re been dropped to the VFL and rejected better deals with other clubs.

[meher baba]

Whos ass is Mike trying to kiss here?

Ball's? Collingwood's?

Most of the article seems like an opinion piece that was written simply to have a thinly vailed attack at St Kilda and Ross Lyon

Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that if a player is underpreforming and is strugling from a mental standpoint plus other players are in better form and better headspace they should not be in the side, Mike Sheehan obviously doesnt agree with this statement.

Again ill venture out onto my precarious limb and say that if a player is in a Grand Final and tendered a million dollar multi year contract that the player in question is not required and will be forced out of the club at all costs.

Mr Sheehan and his fellow media muck rakers seem to want the public at large to belive that Luke Ball is a hard done by star at the top of his game who was misused and mistreated by a bully and forced against his will to walk away from his club.

I am of the same opinion as our captain, Luke Ball was a required player that left the club. He simply didnt want to play for St Kilda anymore, for Sheehan to write rubbish like this is lazy and inflamatory but dross like this is his calling card so what should we expect.

I think Sheehan was trying to put forward Ball's own perspective on this: if that constitutes "ass kissing", then so be it.

Riewoldt and Lyon had already put out the St Kilda spin, which was more or less that the club would have welcomed Ball with open arms if he'd wanted to stay, but he chose to reject the Saints offer and take a more lucrative one at the Pies (although re-read what Lyon said carefully: I realize I've been criticised on here for suggesting that his words were ambiguous and complex, but I stand by that).

I think Ball is feeling a bit hurt by all this: a bit like one does when your partner cheats on you and then tries to blame you for busting up the relationship. He feels, rightly or wrongly, that the club more or less pushed him out.

As Sheahan said, he was simultaneously being offered less money and also being given the strong impression that he was only going to be a fringe or backup player in future. I'm sure he would have accepted this if he had didn't have a better option, but he did.

If he really was such a required player - as you and others on here suggest - then why was he treated in a rather dismissive way by the club (including being humiliated by being publicly criticised by the coach after he was dropped: something that pointedly wasn't done to either Gram or Raph earlier in the season)?

On the other hand, if he really was a fringe player who we didn't need, then why was he initially offered quite a lucrative 3 year contract and, more importantly, why don't Lyon, Riewoldt and others seem entirely to come to terms with him leaving?

The fact that a glamour club like the Pies suddenly popped up and were prepared to treat Ball like a star player and offer him good money (certainly more up front that we'd offered him) seems to have come as a complete and utter shock to Nettlefold, Drain, Lyon et al.

My personal view is that they had as a low an opinion of Ball as many do on here, and that they saw him as cannon fodder: either to be retained as a good ordinary sort of grunt player who might not even play AFL if Armitage and Steve step up, or else to be traded to the club's advantage (a la Stinger's rumour). Or, if they put enough pressure on him, he might somehow transform himself into the sort of player he once was and/or that Lyon wants him to be.

Pride comes before a fall, as they say.

[Mr Magic]

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.

thats only for 2010 + 2011. pies might pay him 5k in year 3 making it 1m over 3 years. same as what saints offered but loaded in a way to get him past other clubs in the draft.

i think sheehan is not far off. riewoldt is just pushing the saints PR line cos lyon ballsed up (pun unintended).

the fact is we got nothing for ball when 25 was on the table; and
we blew pick 17.


say what u like. but these 2 things are fact and wont change because of using emotional words like "desertion" "loyalty" and "mercenary" and getting all hot under the collar.

Sorry, there is a minimum payment any player must receive under AFL rules and it is considerably more than 5k (closer to 100k I believe?).
ANd if you think that Ball is going to play for the minimum in year 3, then you also probably believe in the tooth fairy.

How do you know that Reiwoldt is 'just pushing the Saints pr line'?
Who's to say he doesn't actually believe what he's saying?
Why is it so hard to accept that maybe the Club and players feel let down by Ball's decisions and are angry at the continual picturing of them, by Ball, his camp, Collingwood, and the media in general of being 'hard-hearted/obtuse/dishonest/insert any adjective you like?

The fact is that Ball was offered a new contact and decided not to take it.

Therefore he left the Saints. - fact
The Saints didn't delist him - fact
The Saints didn't trade him - fact
The Saints didn't tell him to look elsewhere - fact
The Saints told him he was required - fact
He nominated 500k pa for 2 years as his salary - fact

Any other facts you'd care to overlook in your rant against the Club, Coach and Captain?

[stinger]

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?

Under the journalistic code of ethics, the concept of "friendship" is considered a bit too vague to require disclosure.

It's usually more your classic sort of "conflict of interest" situations as would apply in a commercial tender: you are related to someone by blood or marriage, you are in a business arrangement with them, or you hold shares in a particular company or whatever.

what...because someone has a "vague recollection"...mike has to put a disclaimer in his article...which was spot on the money as far as i'm concerned anyway....and i don't usually cut mike much slack....your comments mb...as usual are also on the money.....

[meher baba]

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.

thats only for 2010 + 2011. pies might pay him 5k in year 3 making it 1m over 3 years. same as what saints offered but loaded in a way to get him past other clubs in the draft.

i think sheehan is not far off. riewoldt is just pushing the saints PR line cos lyon ballsed up (pun unintended).

the fact is we got nothing for ball when 25 was on the table; and
we blew pick 17.


say what u like. but these 2 things are fact and wont change because of using emotional words like "desertion" "loyalty" and "mercenary" and getting all hot under the collar.

Sorry, there is a minimum payment any player must receive under AFL rules and it is considerably more than 5k (closer to 100k I believe?).
ANd if you think that Ball is going to play for the minimum in year 3, then you also probably believe in the tooth fairy.

How do you know that Reiwoldt is 'just pushing the Saints pr line'?
Who's to say he doesn't actually believe what he's saying?
Why is it so hard to accept that maybe the Club and players feel let down by Ball's decisions and are angry at the continual picturing of them, by Ball, his camp, Collingwood, and the media in general of being 'hard-hearted/obtuse/dishonest/insert any adjective you like?

The fact is that Ball was offered a new contact and decided not to take it.

Therefore he left the Saints. - fact
The Saints didn't delist him - fact
The Saints didn't trade him - fact
The Saints didn't tell him to look elsewhere - fact
The Saints told him he was required - fact
He nominated 500k pa for 2 years as his salary - fact

Any other facts you'd care to overlook in your rant against the Club, Coach and Captain?

Ball was offered a new contract and didn't like it: perhaps he requested $500kpa for two years as you have suggested. Did he ever receive another offer? Did he get a response to his request for $500k pa for two years? Was he meant to sign the first contract he was offered? Is this normally what happens in contract negotations with senior players (I wouldn't have thought so)?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Do you?

Not long after he refused to sign the contract he was dropped, publicly criticised by the coach and (according to a rumour which is credible to me) was clandestinely offered up for trade to other clubs. Then he was left on the bench through most the second half of the GF, even though the game was in the balance and even though he had played out of his skin in the first half.

Clearly he interpreted this series of actions as indicating that his future at the club as a senior player rather than an also ran was going to be tenuous at best. Remember, he had the exemplary case of Max Hudghton to consider: there was absolutely no reason to believe that his seniority and what he had given to the club would mean that would ever get to play another AFL game.

I might go along with the argument that it was egotistical and somewhat childish for Ball to react in this way, that he should have "sucked it up" and looked to how he could lift his own game, etc. But the fact is that he didn't. And, at that point, a football club that had really wanted him to stay and which had its act together in terms of player management would have gone to work on him, tried to woo him a bit.

Did the club do anything like this? Or did the club stick to its "take it or leave it" attitude? If the latter, then what signal was that sending to Ball?

And then along came Eddie with (metaphorically speaking) flowers, chocolates, dinner for two at Romano's, front row seats at the Julio Iglesias concert, etc.

Is it surprising that he chose to leave, even if "as Sheahan suggests) the total remuneration wasn't actually any better at the Pies?

[Hurricane]

Whos ass is Mike trying to kiss here?

Ball's? Collingwood's?

Most of the article seems like an opinion piece that was written simply to have a thinly vailed attack at St Kilda and Ross Lyon

Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that if a player is underpreforming and is strugling from a mental standpoint plus other players are in better form and better headspace they should not be in the side, Mike Sheehan obviously doesnt agree with this statement.

Again ill venture out onto my precarious limb and say that if a player is in a Grand Final and tendered a million dollar multi year contract that the player in question is not required and will be forced out of the club at all costs.

Mr Sheehan and his fellow media muck rakers seem to want the public at large to belive that Luke Ball is a hard done by star at the top of his game who was misused and mistreated by a bully and forced against his will to walk away from his club.

I am of the same opinion as our captain, Luke Ball was a required player that left the club. He simply didnt want to play for St Kilda anymore, for Sheehan to write rubbish like this is lazy and inflamatory but dross like this is his calling card so what should we expect.

I think Sheehan was trying to put forward Ball's own perspective on this: if that constitutes "ass kissing", then so be it.

Riewoldt and Lyon had already put out the St Kilda spin, which was more or less that the club would have welcomed Ball with open arms if he'd wanted to stay, but he chose to reject the Saints offer and take a more lucrative one at the Pies (although re-read what Lyon said carefully: I realize I've been criticised on here for suggesting that his words were ambiguous and complex, but I stand by that).

I think Ball is feeling a bit hurt by all this: a bit like one does when your partner cheats on you and then tries to blame you for busting up the relationship. He feels, rightly or wrongly, that the club more or less pushed him out.

As Sheahan said, he was simultaneously being offered less money and also being given the strong impression that he was only going to be a fringe or backup player in future. I'm sure he would have accepted this if he had didn't have a better option, but he did.

If he really was such a required player - as you and others on here suggest - then why was he treated in a rather dismissive way by the club (including being humiliated by being publicly criticised by the coach after he was dropped: something that pointedly wasn't done to either Gram or Raph earlier in the season)?

On the other hand, if he really was a fringe player who we didn't need, then why was he initially offered quite a lucrative 3 year contract and, more importantly, why don't Lyon, Riewoldt and others seem entirely to come to terms with him leaving?

The fact that a glamour club like the Pies suddenly popped up and were prepared to treat Ball like a star player and offer him good money (certainly more up front that we'd offered him) seems to have come as a complete and utter shock to Nettlefold, Drain, Lyon et al.

My personal view is that they had as a low an opinion of Ball as many do on here, and that they saw him as cannon fodder: either to be retained as a good ordinary sort of grunt player who might not even play AFL if Armitage and Steve step up, or else to be traded to the club's advantage (a la Stinger's rumour). Or, if they put enough pressure on him, he might somehow transform himself into the sort of player he once was and/or that Lyon wants him to be.

Pride comes before a fall, as they say.

Mabey (I cant be certain obviously) that the coaching staff may have thaught that Luke ball needed a fire set under his ass. Mabey by dropping him and as you say publicly humiliating him, like Milne and Dal Santo the year before (from memory) they hoped to light that fire.

Luke Ball played in a Grand Final if he was dismissed by the club and written off why bother? Let him rot at Sandy and trade him or delist him. He played in the Grand Final because he was good enough to and a contract was on the table, again, why bother if your just going to get rid of him?

I can only speculate and guess but at the end of the day Luke Ball plays for Collingwood and as a St Kilda fan my feeling are kinda hurt by that. Mike Sheehan is a jurno writing a fairly critical article about St Kilda that also kinda hurts my feelings.

I used to hold Luke Ball in the highest of opinions but it seems to me he has decided to take the easy way out and leave the club rather than fight for his spot and fight for respect.

But what does my opinion count for at the end of the day? Nothing. What does Mike Sheehan's opinion count for again nothing. Its just he has a newspaper colum and I dont

BANG BANG

[barks4eva]

..mike has to put a disclaimer in his article...which was spot on the money as far as i'm concerned anyway....and i don't usually cut mike much slack....your comments mb...as usual are also on the money.....

Are you serious?

That article by Sheahan would have to be the biggest load of codswallop I've read anywhere , anytime, by any footy journo!

As for mb, surely you jest!

[stinger]

Ball was offered a new contract and didn't like it: perhaps he requested $500kpa for two years as you have suggested. Did he ever receive another offer? Did he get a response to his request for $500k pa for two years? Was he meant to sign the first contract he was offered? Is this normally what happens in contract negotations with senior players (I wouldn't have thought so)?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Do you?

Not long after he refused to sign the contract he was dropped, publicly criticised by the coach and (according to a rumour which is credible to me) was clandestinely offered up for trade to other clubs. Then he was left on the bench through most the second half of the GF, even though the game was in the balance and even though he had played out of his skin in the first half.

Clearly he interpreted this series of actions as indicating that his future at the club as a senior player rather than an also ran was going to be tenuous at best. Remember, he had the exemplary case of Max Hudghton to consider: there was absolutely no reason to believe that his seniority and what he had given to the club would mean that would ever get to play another AFL game.

I might go along with the argument that it was egotistical and somewhat childish for Ball to react in this way, that he should have "sucked it up" and looked to how he could lift his own game, etc. But the fact is that he didn't. And, at that point, a football club that had really wanted him to stay and which had its act together in terms of player management would have gone to work on him, tried to woo him a bit.

Did the club do anything like this? Or did the club stick to its "take it or leave it" attitude? If the latter, then what signal was that sending to Ball?

And then along came Eddie with (metaphorically speaking) flowers, chocolates, dinner for two at Romano's, front row seats at the Julio Iglesias concert, etc.

Is it surprising that he chose to leave, even if "as Sheahan suggests) the total remuneration wasn't actually any better at the Pies?

that about sums it up for me....that and sheahan's article...

ps....i can also relate to the thoughts and feelings expressed by hurricane..and this quote from your earlier post...


"I think Ball is feeling a bit hurt by all this: a bit like one does when your partner cheats on you and then tries to blame you for busting up the relationship. He feels, rightly or wrongly, that the club more or less pushed him out."


...felt that way myself at times.....

[vacuous space]

Mike all but admits he has no idea what's going on inside our club in the article. This isn't much of a surprise to anyone who has ever seen him interact with RL, Roo or anyone else from the club.

If there's any kind of editorial bias against us from the HS, I would suggest it's at least partially our fault. It's all well and good to put up a cone of silence and keep the media out, but the media outlets generally favour the clubs that give them access. Damien Barrett criticised us for our handling of the Ball trade and the very next day got an exclusive interview with Mick Malthouse. Pretty much every St Kilda exclusive goes to The Age. If one club is getting favoured, it's not hard to figure out why.

Our club has been so quiet on the Ball front that the Collingwood version of events has just become accepted as fact. Ball playing for less makes no sense. Even if he plays for the minimum in his third year, Collingwood's cap hit is still going to be more than what we were supposedly offering.

As I've said before, I don't know how you come out of trade week thinking Collingwood are the good guys. That is, unless you're only listening to Collingwood.

[meher baba]

As I've said before, I don't know how you come out of trade week thinking Collingwood are the good guys. That is, unless you're only listening to Collingwood.

Don't get me wrong, I've nothing but contempt for the way in which the Pies firstly refused to offer us a reasonable trade for Ball and then manipulated the draft.

But this doesn't have any bearing on the issue of whether Ball was simply lured away for more $$$$ or whether he felt he was pushed out.

[Con Gorozidis]

i dont give a flying flog about luke ball leaving. his contract situation or what hes being paid at the pies. they can have him.

but once we 100% knew he was going we should have got something for it and moved on quick smart.

and blowing pick 17 aint speculation. its cold hard fact.

[barks4eva]

Ok,


St kilda v Carlton 12th June 2009

Ball's second interchange breach ( only St kilda player to break this rule and did it twice ), 8 seconds before 3/4 time with St Kilda players in control of the ball and running down the clock,

The football is reversed and Carlton awarded a free kick and goal on the 3/4 time siren.

Lyon absolutely rips into Ball and gives him a fair dinkum massive spray,

up until this time Ball had enjoyed almost the same amount of game time as Lenny Hayes,

this changed

Ball IMHO probably sulked like a prima donna private schoolboy having been mollycoddled and paid way over the odds at $600,000 a year and treated like royalty and took exception to having the riot act read out to him,

Lyon would not have liked the way Ball handled the dressing down,

a contract was offered to Ball about one month later which reflected his worth, $350,000 a year for 3 years,

Ball chose not to sign and teammates like Goddard for example during the season, tried to convince Ball to stay,

it would appear his mind was made up, he didn't like the way Lyon spoke to him,

Lyon didn't like the way Ball responded to criticism,

Ball's gametime suddenly was reduced and he was eventually dropped from the team and he continued to sulk back at Sandringham in the VFL,


previously, McQualter had received a massive spray from Lyon and was even delisted at the end of that particular year,

he is now in the leadership group, through sheer guts and determination to prove that he really does have what it takes,

his career could have ended then and there on the scrap heap, but he dug deep and it's a real credit to him,

as for Ball, he walked

[Saints43]

Did the club do anything like this? Or did the club stick to its "take it or leave it" attitude? If the latter, then what signal was that sending to Ball?

And then along came Eddie with (metaphorically speaking) flowers, chocolates, dinner for two at Romano's, front row seats at the Julio Iglesias concert, etc.

This is why I wish Riewoldt would leave commenting on other players contract negotiations and relationship with the club to those responsible for them.

There will come a time when his knees don't allow him to sprint a half marathon every weekend six months of the year. Someone will sidle up with his last contract and compare him with the man who signed that.

He wants to be sure that he will be able to ignore any calls from another contender who will value him more and sign up again on the clubs terms.

[plugger66]

Ok,


St kilda v Carlton 12th June 2009

Ball's second interchange breach ( only St kilda player to break this rule and did it twice ), 8 seconds before 3/4 time with St Kilda players in control of the ball and running down the clock,

The football is reversed and Carlton awarded a free kick and goal on the 3/4 time siren.

Lyon absolutely rips into Ball and gives him a fair dinkum massive spray,

up until this time Ball had enjoyed almost the same amount of game time as Lenny Hayes,

this changed

Ball IMHO probably sulked like a prima donna private schoolboy having been mollycoddled and paid way over the odds at $600,000 a year and treated like royalty and took exception to having the riot act read out to him,

Lyon would not have liked the way Ball handled the dressing down,

a contract was offered to Ball about one month later which reflected his worth, $350,000 a year for 3 years,

Ball chose not to sign and teammates like Goddard for example during the season, tried to convince Ball to stay,

it would appear his mind was made up, he didn't like the way Lyon spoke to him,

Lyon didn't like the way Ball responded to criticism,

Ball's gametime suddenly was reduced and he was eventually dropped from the team and he continued to sulk back at Sandringham in the VFL,


previously, McQualter had received a massive spray from Lyon and was even delisted at the end of that particular year,

he is now in the leadership group, through sheer guts and determination to prove that he really does have what it takes,

his career could have ended then and there on the scrap heap, but he dug deep and it's a real credit to him,

as for Ball, he walked

That is nearly as realistic as the Harry Potter novels.

[joffaboy]

Did the club do anything like this? Or did the club stick to its "take it or leave it" attitude? If the latter, then what signal was that sending to Ball?

And then along came Eddie with (metaphorically speaking) flowers, chocolates, dinner for two at Romano's, front row seats at the Julio Iglesias concert, etc.

This is why I wish Riewoldt would leave commenting on other players contract negotiations and relationship with the club to those responsible for them.

There will come a time when his knees don't allow him to sprint a half marathon every weekend six months of the year. Someone will sidle up with his last contract and compare him with the man who signed that.

He wants to be sure that he will be able to ignore any calls from another contender who will value him more and sign up again on the clubs terms.

But weren't his comments in direct response from the Collingwood President oops I mean MMM presenter who tried to make out that the contract had been withdrawn and thats why Ball walked?

So our captain cant answer a question with what he sees to be the truth?

Sounds like we have another who wants to tear into our captain. Hope that isn't the case.

oh and BTW Roo signed to past 2012 to avoid the Gold Coast talk.

Roo is a loyal Sainter, the other bloke walked.

I perfer to back my captain over some Collingwood player.