Ball takes pay cut.

[Con Gorozidis]

Exactly, I hope we did not go into trade week with an attitude of let's 100% trade Luke for anything.

Given what RL says the offer on the table was, people would be complaining either way. If we'd taken pick 25 and drafted Mitch Duncan rather than getting Will Johnson at 77, would anybody really be that much happier with our list?

cool. lets just get late picks from now on then.

[perfectionist]

...Malthouse ...saying Ball knew he wasn't wanted....

He knew he wasn't wanted for $500k at St Kilda anyway.

Sheahan has been shown to be liar. Quelle Surprise!

Luke Ball decided that, whilst he could drop from $600k to $500k, he would not drop to $333k, and who could blame him, end of story.

The only odd thing that happened after that is that no club, other than Collingwood, thought he was worth $500k either.

I don't wish him ill and always loved him playing for us. The great tragedy for him, alas like so many who have donned the Red, White and Black, is that injury robbed him of his best years, and his best was the equal of the other two prized recruits from his initial draft year.

I like Nick getting involved. The club has needed a spruiker for about many years and whilst a captain may not always be the ideal choice, this one is. There is no chance that it will affect the way he plays, such is his level of focus. The sooner the other clubs realise that we will no longer roll over and be lap dogs, the better.

[The Craw]

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.

When did we know 100% he was leaving, all the reports at the time were that he was going to reconcile with the club after a suitable trade was not reached.

It wasn't until he sent the SMS to Ross after trade week to say he wasn't staying, that it was then 100% fact.

What are you talking about. He was going 100% if we traded him to the Pies.

However he wasn't traded to the pies, and your point is?

My point is you should read what Gora wrote. He is saying we should have traded Ball once we knew he was 100% wanting to go to the Pies.

I don't agree, you cannot 100% guarantee anything walking into trade week, especially if you only nominate one club.

That is not what he saying. His point is we lost Ball for nothing. Once we knew he wanted out we should have taken pick 30. Well i am speaking for him but I gather that is is his point from what he has posted before.

Like Sydney did with O'Keefe ? ...... the view was that there was a chance they would be able to convince him to stay. Unfortunatley this did not happen.

Ball got his chosen destination, St Kilda got nothing. Thats the way it goes.

[vacuous space]

Exactly, I hope we did not go into trade week with an attitude of let's 100% trade Luke for anything.

Given what RL says the offer on the table was, people would be complaining either way. If we'd taken pick 25 and drafted Mitch Duncan rather than getting Will Johnson at 77, would anybody really be that much happier with our list?

cool. lets just get late picks from now on then.

Fine. Be sarcastic.

Ryan O'Keefe is still in Sydney. Bret Thornton is still at Carlton. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of cases of trades that fell through and the player stayed where they were. If Collingwood had offered us something decent, I'm sure they'd have got Ball without having to pay him among the top 5% of the AFL with GC and GWS on the horizon.

I'm fine with the way the club handled itself in trade week. It didn't work out as we'd hoped, but taking what was on offer wouldn't have satisfied anyone either.

[Sainter_Dad]

Ball is looking VERY good this pre-season - makes you wonder whether his heart was ever in playing for St Kilda. I have never seen him this ripped or ready to play. Seems that the change has been good for Ball - lets hope its better for St Kilda

What are you on about. I am sure that even the people pissed off with Bally wouldnt even slightly wonder if Ball had his heart in playing for us. He gave it 100% a 100% of the time.

Not what I meant - there is preparing and there is preparing - maybe the question at to his heart was mis-stated - I know he gave 110% for us - but he seems to be absolutely pumped to be playing for the Pies.

[plugger66]

Ball is looking VERY good this pre-season - makes you wonder whether his heart was ever in playing for St Kilda. I have never seen him this ripped or ready to play. Seems that the change has been good for Ball - lets hope its better for St Kilda

What are you on about. I am sure that even the people pissed off with Bally wouldnt even slightly wonder if Ball had his heart in playing for us. He gave it 100% a 100% of the time.

Not what I meant - there is preparing and there is preparing - maybe the question at to his heart was mis-stated - I know he gave 110% for us - but he seems to be absolutely pumped to be playing for the Pies.

Yes totally giving it 100% for the Pies. Never met anyone who can give 110% but I will keep trying. If you could explain preparing compared to preparing that would be great or should that be great.

[Teflon]

Ball is looking VERY good this pre-season - makes you wonder whether his heart was ever in playing for St Kilda. I have never seen him this ripped or ready to play. Seems that the change has been good for Ball - lets hope its better for St Kilda

What are you on about. I am sure that even the people pissed off with Bally wouldnt even slightly wonder if Ball had his heart in playing for us. He gave it 100% a 100% of the time.

Not what I meant - there is preparing and there is preparing - maybe the question at to his heart was mis-stated - I know he gave 110% for us - but he seems to be absolutely pumped to be playing for the Pies.

I dont think Ive seen a pre season where Ball doesnt look ripped......its when he tries to run/kick during a game is when the problems start...

[vacuous space]

Another exclusive interview with Mick Malthouse in today's Herald Sun.

Cynicism level rising...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/t ... 5827274228

[The OtherThommo]

The man who cops no flaws and the slippery coating have it in hand - i.e. Lukey of Das Publico Schoolinck (my tacky adaptation) had an auspicious beginning at our joint, but since has slid well and truly down de pole de totem.

To consolidate that line of thought, I don't give a rat's clacker where Mr and Mrs Ball's little fella goes - he was no longer in our best 16 (note, not 22, but 16). He didn't want to stay, for whatever reason, so bye.

He was paid $600K+, he was our second highest paid player, and in the top 10 in the AFL. The "Stinger"? - He was paid more than $150K above the Lendog. Lyon's comment the other day about payments lining up with Roo and Lenny at 1 and 2 and then everyone else falls in behind was not only prescient, but right.

The Pies are on record as saying they went after Ball because they need a midfield general to replace Sideshow Bob, who's coming to the end. If they reckon recruiting a replacement for Shane O'Bree is a priority, then Lord help 'em - they are further back than they must like to admit.

Truth is Ross the Boss gave Ball a chance - change your game and become relevant for bits other than ball contested by multitudes, and you have a future here. Ball's response? But, that's what I do, that's all I know how to do.

To which the Boss did reply, "And so it may be Luke, Son of more senoir Balls, but it don't make you worth 6 (K.p.a.)"

And, therein lay the problem. And I agree with the Boss.

[bozza1980]

At the end of the day, I don't begrudge Luke Ball the chance to play for the football club of his choice for the amount of money of his choice.

What I don't like is this hokem about him wanting to leave because he was unwanted at St Kilda.

Unwanted players don't get offered 3 year deals, unwanted players don't play in the Grand Final when the majority of the list is available.

He wanted to go because he wasn't happy about his standing at the club, fair enough, but it bs to state that he was unwanted.

I also find it funny that Collingwood are paying him less than we offered is a point used to support a believe that

a) show that Luke Ball wasn't a mercenary
b) that he was unwanted by St Kilda

if this is the case how could you possibly state with a straight face that he was unwanted??

Ball wanted out and we don't want players that don't want to play for us, so go off an enjoy Collingwood Bally. I hope the "extra game time" is worth it when you watch Rooey and the boys hold aloft the premiership cup this year and you remember that you most likely would have been one of the 22 had you not been a sook.

[Leo.J]

At the end of the day, I don't begrudge Luke Ball the chance to play for the football club of his choice for the amount of money of his choice.

What I don't like is this hokem about him wanting to leave because he was unwanted at St Kilda.

Unwanted players don't get offered 3 year deals, unwanted players don't play in the Grand Final when the majority of the list is available.

He wanted to go because he wasn't happy about his standing at the club, fair enough, but it bs to state that he was unwanted.

I also find it funny that Collingwood are paying him less than we offered is a point used to support a believe that

a) show that Luke Ball wasn't a mercenary
b) that he was unwanted by St Kilda

if this is the case how could you possibly state with a straight face that he was unwanted??

Ball wanted out and we don't want players that don't want to play for us, so go off an enjoy Collingwood Bally. I hope the "extra game time" is worth it when you watch Rooey and the boys hold aloft the premiership cup this year and you remember that you most likely would have been one of the 22 had you not been a sook.

Agreed.

[meher baba]

At the end of the day, I don't begrudge Luke Ball the chance to play for the football club of his choice for the amount of money of his choice.

What I don't like is this hokem about him wanting to leave because he was unwanted at St Kilda.

Unwanted players don't get offered 3 year deals, unwanted players don't play in the Grand Final when the majority of the list is available.

He wanted to go because he wasn't happy about his standing at the club, fair enough, but it bs to state that he was unwanted.

I also find it funny that Collingwood are paying him less than we offered is a point used to support a believe that

a) show that Luke Ball wasn't a mercenary
b) that he was unwanted by St Kilda

if this is the case how could you possibly state with a straight face that he was unwanted??

He was offered a contract in July. He presumably asked for more than he was offered. Shortly after this, he was dropped to the reserves, publicly criticised by the coach for not delivering as much as was needed from a player in his role, and then (if Stinger is to be believed, and he has good sources) informally put on the market for a trade. He was then not given the opportunity to deliver his all in the GF, despite the closeness of the score and despite playing well when he was on the field.

And, throughout this time, it does not seem that anybody at the club saw fit to talk to him about meeting some of his additional demands in relation to the original contract he was offered.

Maybe he was desperately wanted at the club, but they had a rather funny way of showing it. If I'd been him, I'd have formed the conclusion that they probably wanted me to remain on their list, but not all that much and probably not as an automatic choice for the AFL side.

All of the above is more or less what the Mike Sheahan story said. It seems like an extremely credible narrative to me. All that surprises me is that anyone - no matter how biased they are towards the RW&B - finds the story so difficult to believe.

And, as for what Nick Riewoldt and Ross Lyon said about it.........

All Riewoldt said was that there was a contract on the table. I'm sure that's right. He specifically didn't say that Ball left the club for more money.

What Lyon said was something convoluted about players being looked after by the club and paid according to some sort of hierarchy that had Riewoldt and Lenny at the top, and that players who wanted something outside that paradigm would need to move on.

If Lyon knew that Ball had left for a better contract at the Pies than he was offered at the Saints, why didn't he just say that purely and simply, rather than utter a complex web of weasel words.

I know most on here "support the club" and therefore believe that Ball left for more money. The part I don't get is that I have not heard anyone associated with the club utter anything like that simple statement "Ball left for more money". When I hear it, I'll be more inclined to believe it.

[SainterK]

He was valued, he was looked after, even when he was not at his best....

He held his position in the leadership group until the very end, as he had qualities that are certainly to be applauded. He was used in the marketing campaign, his face being synonymous with his courage.

Does that put him above criticism, I don't think so. Does that mean he was an automatic walk up into the best 22, again I don't think so.

I hope it continues to be the case in 2010, the same measuring stick used irrespective of position or years at the club.

[samoht]

He was valued, he was looked after, even when he was not at his best....

He held his position in the leadership group until the very end, as he had qualities that are certainly to be applauded. He was used in the marketing campaign, his face being synonymous with his courage.

Does that put him above criticism, I don't think so. Does that mean he was an automatic walk up into the best 22, again I don't think so.

I hope it continues to be the case in 2010, the same measuring stick used irrespective of position or years at the club.

Quality and balanced post !

[Mr Magic]

At the end of the day, I don't begrudge Luke Ball the chance to play for the football club of his choice for the amount of money of his choice.

What I don't like is this hokem about him wanting to leave because he was unwanted at St Kilda.

Unwanted players don't get offered 3 year deals, unwanted players don't play in the Grand Final when the majority of the list is available.

He wanted to go because he wasn't happy about his standing at the club, fair enough, but it bs to state that he was unwanted.

I also find it funny that Collingwood are paying him less than we offered is a point used to support a believe that

a) show that Luke Ball wasn't a mercenary
b) that he was unwanted by St Kilda

if this is the case how could you possibly state with a straight face that he was unwanted??

He was offered a contract in July. He presumably asked for more than he was offered. Shortly after this, he was dropped to the reserves, publicly criticised by the coach for not delivering as much as was needed from a player in his role, and then (if Stinger is to be believed, and he has good sources) informally put on the market for a trade. He was then not given the opportunity to deliver his all in the GF, despite the closeness of the score and despite playing well when he was on the field.

And, throughout this time, it does not seem that anybody at the club saw fit to talk to him about meeting some of his additional demands in relation to the original contract he was offered.

Maybe he was desperately wanted at the club, but they had a rather funny way of showing it. If I'd been him, I'd have formed the conclusion that they probably wanted me to remain on their list, but not all that much and probably not as an automatic choice for the AFL side.

All of the above is more or less what the Mike Sheahan story said. It seems like an extremely credible narrative to me. All that surprises me is that anyone - no matter how biased they are towards the RW&B - finds the story so difficult to believe.

And, as for what Nick Riewoldt and Ross Lyon said about it.........

All Riewoldt said was that there was a contract on the table. I'm sure that's right. He specifically didn't say that Ball left the club for more money.

What Lyon said was something convoluted about players being looked after by the club and paid according to some sort of hierarchy that had Riewoldt and Lenny at the top, and that players who wanted something outside that paradigm would need to move on.

If Lyon knew that Ball had left for a better contract at the Pies than he was offered at the Saints, why didn't he just say that purely and simply, rather than utter a complex web of weasel words.

I know most on here "support the club" and therefore believe that Ball left for more money. The part I don't get is that I have not heard anyone associated with the club utter anything like that simple statement "Ball left for more money". When I hear it, I'll be more inclined to believe it.

Reiwoldt was answering a statement made by Collingwood President Eddie Maguire that was a connotation that Ball left because his contract was withdrawn and therefore he was not wanted.
Plain and simple.
You can try and dress it up any way you like, but that is the truth.

From that we have an orchestrated campaign by Collingwood, using whatever media contacts they can, to try and paint the picture that Luke Ball left St Kilda becasue he wasn't wanted.

Some who would like to believe that scenario have jumped on the Reiwoldt comments, Sheahan hatchet job and Malthouse's diatribe as vindication of the 'poor dealing' St kilda (read Lyon) did over Ball.

If that's what you want to believe, then nothing anybody says will disuade you from that perspective.

Luke Ball signed a contract at Collingwood that pays him 500k pa for 2 years.
The third year of his contract is to be negotiated later.
He was offered 1 million over 3 years by St Kilda.

Please explain to me how the Collingwood deal is less money than the St Kilda one?
and please don't discredit the intelligence of all on here with that 'John Ralph nonsense' that 500k is less than the 600k he was on in the last year of his contract.

[bigred]

Luke who?


yawn.

[Devilhead]

And please please can people stop saying that we got nothing for Luke Ball

We did get something - we got salary cap relief

[plugger66]

And please please can people stop saying that we got nothing for Luke Ball

We did get something - we got salary cap relief

Lets get rid of Rooy then. We got nothing for him.

[markp]

I also think us not taking pick 30 for Ball is more proof we 'wanted' him... as we thought it was better to take the chance and try convince him to stay, even at the risk losing him for nothing.

"Didn't want him"... give me a freakin break.

[barks4eva]

Mr Magic, don't waste your time, mebabble is an absolute goofball!

dodgy, mebabble, gary guevara, IQ43, shagless and stinger should all get a room together and give their inflatables a well earned rest!

FAIR DINKUM

[PJ]

It's simple really

Luke saw the writing on the wall -

1/up and coming mids Armo, Steven

2/ body buggered by OP

3/ lyon's game plan (running, running and more running)

He chose to go elsewhere. No one else signed the contract Luke did, no matter what St.Kilda and Collingwood were doing - Luke signed the contract.

[Devilhead]

And please please can people stop saying that we got nothing for Luke Ball

We did get something - we got salary cap relief

Lets get rid of Rooy then. We got nothing for him.

What you conveniently seem to forget is that with Ball's situation we have a ready made replacement in Armitage whereas we have no one who could replace Roo

We will have to wait and see but it seems in losing Ball we have not really lost out except in the way of a little midfield depth which we virtually solved by drafting Lovett and Peake

Your Roo example fails

[The Craw]

He was offered a contract in July....... He presumably asked for more than he was offered. and then (if Stinger is to be believed, and he has good sources) informally put on the market for a trade...........And, throughout this time, it does not seem that anybody at the club saw fit to talk to him about meeting some of his additional demands in relation to the original contract he was offered.

So the club comes to Ball with a contract for the next 3 year at a value that they deem as fair and reasonable and Ball say no, I want more.

From where I come from in business it would be remiss of me not put my feelers out to see what a person’s / role value is in the market place, informally, to get a true indication of that persons / role is worth.

In fact, to me, the club has been vindicated, as no other club wanted to touch Ball at the price he put on his head and if you believe the dribble on here that Ball is getting paid less than the declared price by the Fagpies proves that Sheehan has written an ill informed piece of Sh!te.

[Thinline]

Any chance of a bit of a hiatus with the old Ball threads?

Is there anything left to say about it?