| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mr Smith Goes To C'Wood
Joined: 06 Oct 2008
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^
Terrific post, and says it all. Thanks. |
|
|
|
 |
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Also the fact the wanted to come to us says a lot positive about our player culture now...I wonder if there is a way to get him still? I'm not a huge rap for him but he could contribute something positive for us by helping to bring on our younger group of mids.
And the withdrawal of the three year offer is just bloody minded - its almost like he's being punished for wanting to leave them - both in terms of the deal being withdrawn and the trading obstructions also.
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The teapot man tried to put his spout up our bum, but got shafted and now will lose Ball for nothing.
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I hear you. |
|
|
|
|
London Dave 
Ješte jedna pivo prosím
Joined: 16 Dec 1998
Location: Iceland on Thames
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BingFa wrote: | | Na its about the principle of it all. I dont give a flying &%%& about Ball and where he plays but the draft and all this barganing is subject to a club wanting to actually do a deal as in this case which has left a player out in the cold and now they punish him by taking away the 3 year offer of a contract. Go in the draft and play with a cr@p team like Melb or stay under our terms, is nothing short of work place bullying!!! |
Agree. Bring on free agency. |
|
|
|
|
tomoleary
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Rosanna
|
| Post subject: | |
|
In 2006 the Saints got Michael Gardiner and pick 59 from West Coast for pick 34.
In 2007 St.Kilda got Steven King with draft pick 90 and Charlie Gardener...whoever he was?
They also used pick 26 to gain Sean Dempster and Adam Schneider in a trade with Sydney.
Last year the Saints got Farren Ray and draft pick 48 in exchange for pick 31.
................and they can't let Luke Ball go for a pick? It we got a fair "St.Kilda like" deal we should've asked them for Luke Ball and one of their draft picks for pick 30"
Now they lose Luke Ball for nothing because they say they couldn't get a fair deal. What a bunch of petulant children.
After the way their supporters were during the season and especially during the finals I hate St.Kilda the most now. They're basically a bunch of c*nts!!!
This karma can't be any good for St.Kilda. |
|
|
|
|
sq3
Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Location: Gold Coast/Tampa
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I am with BingFa on this one - the Pies may test the Restraint of Trade laws as Ball was being blocked by his employer from continuing his trade with another employer.
His original offer has now been withdrawn and that makes it even more damning of the Saints.
I would like to see this case tested via the courts - very good chance as reasonable compensation was offered that would have allowed Ball to continue his trade.
Where is Mr Galbally this morning - maybe breakfast with Eddie. 
_________________
Coaches give you direction but skills win you matches. |
|
|
|
|
1eyedpie 
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne
|
|
|
|
|
Captain_MyCaptain 
Joined: 25 May 2006
Location: home
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | | St Kilda has played an aggressive high-risk game given it now fully expects to lose Ball for nothing through one of the drafts. It would rather do that than accept what it considered unsatisfactory compensation. |
Stubborn, arrogant prick.
_________________
The window is open my friend! |
|
|
|
|
DT
Joined: 06 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BingFa wrote: | Yeah they are pr1cks but they did the right thing? Why would you improve your oppositions squad with a quality player like Ball? They would prefer he go to a cr@p team like Melbourne who will not hurt them, will they?
If I were Ball I would take legal action as this is all a restraint of trade. All he would have to show is that Collingwood made a reasonable offer, and in comparison to other deals done it is very clear that this is the case. The fact that Lyon said after the trade period that the 3 year deal has now been recinded for Ball is evidant that they have sabotaged his attempt to be traded to the Magpies which would go in his favor. Go forth Mr. Ball and test the waters in the courts and you shall prevail without a doubt!!! |
It's not a restraint of trade. But the Saints are pricks for dealing with their own like this. Compare this to the Pies - Williams, Shaw etc being traded to clubs of their choice.
_________________
Daicos, impossible angle ... Goal! |
|
|
|
|
John Wren
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Starcevich Coterie wrote: | St Kilda's trade week 'stance' has been very interesting. I think the week revealed the contradictions in Ross Lyon's coaching personality and St Kilda in general. Let's recap.
Ross Lyon treats Luke Ball appallingly throughout the year; plays him in the reserves, questions his commitment, and then plays him sparingly in the grand final just when the team needs a wet weather player the most.
After the Grand Final Ross Lyon says he will move on any player who is not interested in playing for the Saints. Luke Ball nominates to leave.
Then Lyon states that St Kilda want an 'equitable trade for a player of Luke's calibre, leadership, playing honours and experience'. In other words, a high draft pick or a decent player, or both. This despite the fact that Lyon has not rated Ball highly throughout the year.
Saints ask Collingwood for an inequitable trade - the most bizarre request we hear being Ball in exchange for N Brown, Dick and Blair - which Collingwood politely refuse (thankfully) and then provide a counter offer.
The Saints block the move at every turn and then, when the deal is dead, St Kilda rip up the offer to Ball. And after all this brinkmanship and bloody mindedness, Ball is just going to walk out the door.
Confusingly, Ross Lyon and St Kilda refused a trade deal which most of the football world agrees is a good offer for a 25 year old with dodgy legs, and decides that rather than something, they would rather end up with nothing...
A few years ago Mark Williams and Port Adelaides' trade stubborness seriously tarnished the reputation of both. Their stance revealed weaknesses in both the individual coach and the club's culture which are still being played out today. They were unwilling to be pragmatic, and had a holier than thou approach when dealing with other clubs as manifest in an unwillingness to cut a deal of reasonable value in a situation where Stevens was going to leave the club regardless.
This has been repeated by St Kilda and Lyon in 2009.
I hope the Collingwood coaching staff take note. This attitude reveals Ross Lyon's vulnerabilities. Stubborness, inflexibility, bloody mindedness, and a lack of respect for senior players. The latter will be well noted by the rest of the St Kilda playing group who held Luke Ball in such high regard. Many would say that these traits are what bought Lyon undone in the Grand Final when he refused to react to Geelong's growing momentum in the final quarter.
Well done the Pies to hold the line. The attitude Lyon has shown this week could very well be his undoing and limit the returns from what should be a golden era for the Saints. |
i've been trying to find the truth about this 'non trade'. the st kilda supporter perspective seems to be that collingwood had a responsibility to get the trade done because it made the play for ball.
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^If we're going to look at it in those terms - it's clear for me, the Saints had much more responsibility than we did. Luke Ball is a B&F winner, former captain, a well respected clubman, and has wrecked his body for that club. Having decided that he wanted to revitalise his career elsewhere, they should have been reasonable and accommodated that move, whilst of course ensuring they received decent compensation. Instead, if we're to believe the reports, they put up fantastical demands (N.Brown), went back on an offer (Goldsack and pick 30) and refused to accept a reasonable deal (pick 30 and Wellingham, or picks 25 and 62).
Collingwood, after telling Ball that they wanted to acquire him, had a responsibility to work towards making that happen. People will differ on whether the effort they made was strong enough, but I believe it was. We have a list that we are very happy with and are not about to compromise it's future by giving up players, like Brown, that have been groomed for years to take on a key position. I feel we negotiated in good faith. Not so sure I can say they same about the Saints.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Double post.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
sandy
Joined: 13 Sep 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| mandy wrote: | | Oh FFS. What happened? They valued their own player and wanted more than we offered? How dare they.... |
Wrong, they don't value Ball, in fact they are happy to get rid of him for nothing!
_________________
pies4ever |
|
|
|
|
TheGaffer
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Lyon and Eade were not going to give us Ball...end of story.
Why make another top 4 team stronger by giving them a player that they desperately need without even making a small dint in their current list?
If it had been any other club, apart from Collingwood, Ball would be their player even with pick 30, let alone a player thrown in.
I seriously think the Bulldogs attributed to the failed trade too. If they were willing to give up Everitt for pick 25 then it might have gone through. They allegedly changed their mind and then wanted pick 21....FFS like it was going to make alot of difference of four bloody positions in the draft. They too didn't want to see us get Ball either. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
It really showed how much respect you had for him yesterday!