System failed Ball, says players union

[SainterK]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews ... 12838.html

Some quotes in this article make me uncomfortable...certainly making the saints out to be the bad guys

'Players such as Luke Ball, who have given eight years quality service to his club and feels he is out of favour and wants a move … deserves better than the current system provides,'' Finnis said.

''The fact that a player of his standing has his ability to further his career determined by forces outside his control and is dealt with in such a way undermines the integrity of the whole labour-market system.

''This was not a decision about money or about going home; it is a case of a player that considers his prospects of advancing his career are elsewhere.''

Finnis said he was troubled by the Saints withdrawing a three-year contract offer for Ball after they could not do a deal to trade him.

''I think the fact that the club has refused to guarantee his future at that club or the currency of their previous offer indicates the limited bargaining power and position that the player has because of the current rules,'' he said.

[Milan Faletic]

They are just pushing free agency which I am fundamentally against in principle.

If it was introduced in a limited fashion, it could work.

The reason that we have made the GF twice in the last twenty years is because of the draft and equalisation. It is a great system and will ensure the 16 or even 18 team competition succeeds.

[The OtherThommo]

Finnis is no more than a self serving barnacle on the hull of a fragile ship.

His interest in the health of the clubs, or the competition, and, ergo, his subjects long term viabilty? Ziltch.

[saint75]

Free Agency has been shelved for the moment I believe due to the success of tinkering to trade week (which allowed the complicated Burgoyne deal to go through). Was in one of the myriad of articles today (Herald Sun I think??).

I am only in favour if it is introduced in a very limited capacity also.

[SydneySainter]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews ... 12838.html

Some quotes in this article make me uncomfortable...certainly making the saints out to be the bad guys

'Players such as Luke Ball, who have given eight years quality service to his club and feels he is out of favour and wants a move … deserves better than the current system provides,'' Finnis said.

''The fact that a player of his standing has his ability to further his career determined by forces outside his control and is dealt with in such a way undermines the integrity of the whole labour-market system.

''This was not a decision about money or about going home; it is a case of a player that considers his prospects of advancing his career are elsewhere.''

Finnis said he was troubled by the Saints withdrawing a three-year contract offer for Ball after they could not do a deal to trade him.

''I think the fact that the club has refused to guarantee his future at that club or the currency of their previous offer indicates the limited bargaining power and position that the player has because of the current rules,'' he said.

Why are we the bad guys, because we didn't want to give an ex-captain, 05 All-Australrian and best and fairest winner away, practically for free?

Despite how much of a shadow Ball may be percieved to be compaired to his 04/05 days, pick 30 and 62 was peanuts. If even a player like Goldsack was unavailable on the trade table, then honestly the Pies didn't rate him that highly. So maybe it was Collingwood who have let him down? Or maybe the Dees for awaiting to see if they could swoop on the PSD? Or maybe Ball for nominating the Pies?

Total BS. No one is the bad guy, it's just the system.

[Milan Faletic]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews ... 12838.html

Some quotes in this article make me uncomfortable...certainly making the saints out to be the bad guys

'Players such as Luke Ball, who have given eight years quality service to his club and feels he is out of favour and wants a move … deserves better than the current system provides,'' Finnis said.

''The fact that a player of his standing has his ability to further his career determined by forces outside his control and is dealt with in such a way undermines the integrity of the whole labour-market system.

''This was not a decision about money or about going home; it is a case of a player that considers his prospects of advancing his career are elsewhere.''

Finnis said he was troubled by the Saints withdrawing a three-year contract offer for Ball after they could not do a deal to trade him.

''I think the fact that the club has refused to guarantee his future at that club or the currency of their previous offer indicates the limited bargaining power and position that the player has because of the current rules,'' he said.

Why are we the bad guys, because we didn't want to give an ex-captain, 05 All-Australrian and best and fairest winner away, practically for free?

Despite how much of a shadow Ball may be percieved to be compaired to his 04/05 days, pick 30 and 62 was peanuts. If even a player like Goldsack was unavailable on the trade table, then honestly the Pies didn't rate him that highly. So maybe it was Collingwood who have let him down? Or maybe the Dees for awaiting to see if they could swoop on the PSD? Or maybe Ball for nominating the Pies?

Total BS. No one is the bad guy, it's just the system.

Agree with everything except that the system is not the bad guy. It has done it's best to eliminate the brown paper bag recruiting and I thinh it has given all teams a chance of winning the flag.

[SydneySainter]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews ... 12838.html

Some quotes in this article make me uncomfortable...certainly making the saints out to be the bad guys

'Players such as Luke Ball, who have given eight years quality service to his club and feels he is out of favour and wants a move … deserves better than the current system provides,'' Finnis said.

''The fact that a player of his standing has his ability to further his career determined by forces outside his control and is dealt with in such a way undermines the integrity of the whole labour-market system.

''This was not a decision about money or about going home; it is a case of a player that considers his prospects of advancing his career are elsewhere.''

Finnis said he was troubled by the Saints withdrawing a three-year contract offer for Ball after they could not do a deal to trade him.

''I think the fact that the club has refused to guarantee his future at that club or the currency of their previous offer indicates the limited bargaining power and position that the player has because of the current rules,'' he said.

Why are we the bad guys, because we didn't want to give an ex-captain, 05 All-Australrian and best and fairest winner away, practically for free?

Despite how much of a shadow Ball may be percieved to be compaired to his 04/05 days, pick 30 and 62 was peanuts. If even a player like Goldsack was unavailable on the trade table, then honestly the Pies didn't rate him that highly. So maybe it was Collingwood who have let him down? Or maybe the Dees for awaiting to see if they could swoop on the PSD? Or maybe Ball for nominating the Pies?

Total BS. No one is the bad guy, it's just the system.

Agree with everything except that the system is not the bad guy. It has done it's best to eliminate the brown paper bag recruiting and I thinh it has given all teams a chance of winning the flag.

Totally agree. I wasn't saying the system was the bad guy (though it does sound it from the way I wording it ), more that the system is just the system and no matter how effective a system may work, there will always be the 'hard luck' scenario, as no system is perfect.

[saintrod]

And Luke Ball didn't help the system by saying he only wanted to be traded to the pies which meant we couldn't get market value for him.

[Eastern]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews ... 12838.html

Some quotes in this article make me uncomfortable...certainly making the saints out to be the bad guys

'Players such as Luke Ball, who have given eight years quality service to his club and feels he is out of favour and wants a move … deserves better than the current system provides,'' Finnis said.

''The fact that a player of his standing has his ability to further his career determined by forces outside his control and is dealt with in such a way undermines the integrity of the whole labour-market system.

''This was not a decision about money or about going home; it is a case of a player that considers his prospects of advancing his career are elsewhere.''

Finnis said he was troubled by the Saints withdrawing a three-year contract offer for Ball after they could not do a deal to trade him.

''I think the fact that the club has refused to guarantee his future at that club or the currency of their previous offer indicates the limited bargaining power and position that the player has because of the current rules,'' he said.

So, the players union boss believes we should continue to offer a very lucrative contract to a bloke who wants out? That contract was on the table in June. Luke has had more than enough time to accept it. I see this as no more than "SPIN DOCTORING" to suit another agenda !!

[Mr Magic]

Isn't Luke Ball the St Kilda delegate to the AFLPA?
He may even have been (still is) on the Executive?

IF so is this just more pr bs coming from his side of the argument?

[Eastern]

Isn't Luke Ball the St Kilda delegate to the AFLPA?
He may even have been (still is) on the Executive?

IF so is this just more pr bs coming from his side of the argument?

1. YES, he was until yesterday

2. YES, he is

3. YES, it is

!!

[ace]

The system did not fail, Mick Malthouse failed the system.


Mick Malthouse said:

"People told us we had to trade Alan Didak for Nick Stevens. We didn't.

"Didak has won a best-and-fairest and Stevens, unfortunately, won't be playing again.

"We might get some right, we might get some wrong, but everything we do, everything, is based on what is best for the club - not what people tell us we should do.

"And certainly not if a decision requires us to give up a player who we believe is a replacement for a senior player down the track.

Malthouse thinks he is a hero because he blocked the trade of Didak.

He expected St Kilda to only take a players that Malthouse did NOT "believe is a replacement for a senior player down the track"

Malthouse thinks St Kilda should clog their list with a player that Malthouse believes wont play senior football, all for the benefit of Collingwood.

He can not understand why St Kilda would not accept that.
Don't all the other clubs exist to help Collingwood?

Sadly Mick Malthouse is too old to send to business school to learn the meaning and benefits of trade.

[bigcarl]

Collingwood are the villains, not us. they obviously let bally think they would move heaven and earth to get him to their club, then let him down.

it reflects badly on them.

[Eastern]

I noticed in BOTH papers today that the jouronos are TOO GUTLESS to have a real go at either Collingwood or the AFL system, choosing instead to stick the boots into St Kilda.

I was a bit surprised that NONE of them picked up on the behaviour of Paul Connors. Connors is the manager of both Luke Ball & Darren Jolly. Collingwood have stated that "After the Jolly deal was done, there wasn't much room to move on the Ball deal". To me, Connors STUFFED UP BIG TIME, not to mention his CONFLICT OF INTEREST !!

[Solar]

also easter it's interesting to note that some clubs used the new mediation process to get the trade through and others refused guess which trades got done

[Eastern]

also easter it's interesting to note that some clubs used the new mediation process to get the trade through and others refused guess which trades got done

Are you saying that Collingwood didn't ask for mediation because they knew that their offer wasn't good enough? !!

[Solar]

also easter it's interesting to note that some clubs used the new mediation process to get the trade through and others refused guess which trades got done

Are you saying that Collingwood didn't ask for mediation because they knew that their offer wasn't good enough? !!

not suggesting why but we can all guess why..... just an interesting point not picked up by the union, the system can be better but some choose not to use the system

[ausfatcat]

If free agency was introduced with the current salary cap it would ruin the comp.


Changes needs to be made to stop teams having "visy ambassadors" and property deals (which is pretty standard now days) before free trade happens otherwise all the work done by the AFL to equalise the comp will be thrown out the door.

We only have an half arsed salary cap now days and it works ok because you can't get a player for free currently, but if you can then the system falls over.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

The funny thing is that Luke can now nominate for the National Draft and Collingwood may be able to pick him up for a worse pick than the 25 they offered! If they were prepared to offer picks 25 and 62 yesterday, you'd think they'd be willing to select him with their pick 30, as it's unlikely no-one else will pick him up before then. Hilarious. What a f*** up we made of this trade.

[ausfatcat]

The funny thing is that Luke can now nominate for the National Draft and Collingwood may be able to pick him up for a worse pick than the 25 they offered! If they were prepared to offer picks 25 and 62 yesterday, you'd think they'd be willing to select him with their pick 30, as it's unlikely no-one else will pick him up before then. Hilarious. What a f*** up we made of this trade.

Thats a maybe and a maybe only, would Ball want a Maybe, and it wouldn't surprise me if he went earlier than that, remeber we picked up cain ackland for pick 33, and he was no luke ball.

If anther club apart from Collingwood pick him up (which you presume will have a pay agreement in place) Ball will be playing for minimal wage for two years as well. But if he goes to the PSD can set his wage.


Because of this I think Ball if he goes will go into the pre-season draft, where he has a little more control but wont end up at Collingwood.

I want Ball to stay.

But if he leaves which seems likely I prefer not getting bent over backwards by Collingwood. Much prefer not getting anything for him and making a firm stance for the long term betterment of the saints.

[danners]

i am so sick of hearing things like ''stkilda should have done everything possible to get the deal done for luke ball''

NO. we should have gone with a deal that gave us something we thought was fair and what the filth offered was far from it.

our game is turning into american sports in that the player is becoming bigger than the club!

free agency is bad

[vacuous space]

The system worked. Ball chose one specific club, and the system isn't geared that way, nor should it be. Players disproportionately choose clubs with money, a high profile or better facilities. It's not in the spirit of an even competition.

Collingwood was being unreasonable and had taken any players of interest off the table. If they'd opened up their list to us in a resonable way, Ball would be a Magpie right now. He can still get a fresh start if he wants. Nothing wrong with the system at all. There's a problem with the people doing the trades at Collingwood.

[Moccha]

Ball failed the system

[plugger66]

Ball failed the system

Not sure about that. He never said no to going to a club, just no deal could be done by the clubs. Thats life. He moves on we move on.

[bigred]

So over all this shyt.