Remove this Banner Ad

Can Ball say no to Melbourne?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just hope that free agency is introduced as soon as possible so that clubs such as St.Kilda will not do this type of thing again.

You do make me laugh Steph. :D

I don't know about in your parallel universe, but in mine, free agency encourages rather discourages teams treating players like commodities.

Carry on though, I'm going to enjoy your meltdown when you hear the news. :D
 
I don't know about in your parallel universe, but in mine, free agency encourages rather than discourages teams treating players like commodities.

This :thumbsu:
 
Collingwood didn't get Luke Ball in trade week when St.Kilda decided to stuff the trade up instead of sticking to their original request

St Kilda decided to stuff up the trade :confused:

Sorry but in which imaginary rule book does it say that we had to stick to our original request????

Sounds like you have a ginormous case of sour grapes there Steph

Ball is staying at the Saints end of story and this time next year he will have a premiership medallion hanging aorund his neck ..... stick that in your rule book
 
Fair enough... I'm someone who likes to indulge in the odd bit of piss-taking at times though, that's just my nature ;)
A bit of banter is fine, but too many people do not know where the line is drawn. It's just simple common sense, but a number of people do lack that.
It kinda seems like you're more or less repeating what you originally stated as your opinion long previously on this topic though... fact is we disagree. I will be quite surprised if Ball somehow did end up at Collingwood.
I absolutely disagree. I believe that if he wants to get to Collingwood badly enough, and it seems that the club wants that to happen as well, then he will. If he enters the National Draft, then I don't believe another club will select him unless he agrees beforehand, and he can also request terms to put other clubs off, and then re-negotiate those terms if he chooses once he has been selected by the club of his choice. Ball is on the Executive Committee of the AFLPA, so I'm sure he knows it's quite possible.
Denham was completely wrong, spectacularly so, regarding Davey, and I think he is just as wrong in this case. Moreover, he has no evidence.
Firstly, I have heard people say that he was wrong regarding Aaron Davey, but I have not seen anything that proves that. I believe that Essendon were definitely keen on him at the very least. Secondly, I don't believe that he is wrong regarding Luke Ball. I felt confident from what I heard that he does not want to play for Melbourne, and that was before Greg Denham said the same thing. Of course there is no evidence regarding that as well, but I definitely trust the person that I spoke to about it.
In the end, Collingwood didn't get him during the trade round, and they didn't show much sign of needing or wanting him that much, going on what they offered.
This is laughable! :D Most media commentators suggested that Luke Ball was worth a second round draft pick because of his injury concerns, his lack of pace and his lack of kicking penetration. Collingwood reluctantly agreed to St.Kilda's request of Tyson Goldsack and pick #30, which just happens to be a second round draft pick. Collingwood were also prepared to trade Sharrod Wellingham along with pick #30 to North Melbourne to receive pick #25 in return, even though it was a bad deal, but St.Kilda rejected that offer as well.

They wanted Andrejs Everitt and a pick in between 30-40, but the Western Bulldogs did not want to trade him, and were only going to do so for pick #21 from North Melbourne, but they weren't interested in trading that pick. St.Kilda should have accepted Goldsack and pick #30 because not only was it their original request, but a head-to-head comparison between the two players shows that there is nothing between them! St.Kilda simply did not want to deal with Collingwood, and they treated Ball like shit, which forced him to head to Etihad Stadium to confront the coach. I believe that made matters worse, and I don't believe that he will stay at St.Kilda for a number of reasons.
Now, as it stands, as an outside observer of goings-on at that club, they can't really afford him.
Who can't afford whom? :confused: Surely you don't mean Collingwood. There is enough room in their salary cap to fit both Luke Ball and Andrew Welsh, and they are also trying to backload other contracts so that Ball can request terms above his worth to put other clubs off. Those terms would then be re-negotiated within draft rules as I have previously explained, once he is selected by Collingwood.
We can afford him and match any likely bids from anyone else, and we want him.
Firstly, I believe that Luke Ball will nominate for the National Draft, and Dean Bailey has already confirmed that they will not use any National Draft picks on him. Secondly, I strongly believe that Ball does not want to play for Melbourne, and Dean Bailey also confirmed that they will not be selecting a player in the National Draft that does not want to play for them beforehand. Thirdly, while Melbourne does have the salary cap space, they do not have the money to simply throw away on a player that requests above his worth in an effort to get to his desired club. I don't believe that any club will do that unless he has agreed to play for them beforehand so that his contract can be re-negotiated afterwards.

Finally, how on earth can you criticise Collingwood's decision to agree to St.Kilda's request in trade week when Melbourne didn't even make any offer at all for Luke Ball? That sounds quite hypocritical to me. Melbourne did not show any interest in him following the Grand Final. Melbourne didn't make any effort to talk to him, and they didn't make any trade offers to St.Kilda. Melbourne has showed that they didn't want him, unless they can get him for nothing in the Pre-Season Draft. You say they want him, but actions speak louder than words, and Melbourne made no effort until there was a possibility to get him for nothing.
You do make me laugh Steph.
It's easy to say that without elaborating, but in what way?
I don't know about in your parallel universe, but in mine, free agency encourages rather discourages teams treating players like commodities.
I disagree. I believe that restricted free agency will discourage clubs from treating players as commodities.
Carry on though, I'm going to enjoy your meltdown when you hear the news.
I'm not going to meltdown over anything of course because I have never said that I know where Luke Ball is going to play next season, and I have never stated that I am certain of anything. I do believe that he does not want to play for Melbourne though, and I feel strongly about that. I believe that Collingwood is still his preferred destination, and I also feel strongly about that.

I also believe that he does not want to remain at St.Kilda, because not only will his contract be less, but St.Kilda does not have the role for him that he desires, and there is clear bad blood with the coach. Whether he decides to take the risk remains to be seen, but I do believe that he will get to Collingwood if he wants to badly enough.

So instead of being so cryptic, what is this "news" that you speak of?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I can't believe KS is still obsessed by this topic.

Move on.

Surely living in NY you have something better to do that sit on BigFooty & cry about St Kilda & Luke Ball.

No matter how many times you post your 'theories', you are simply guessing like everyone who is outside the inner sanctum of Luke Ball, his management, St Kilda and Melbourne.

You are also incorrect that Ball can enter the ND & name a price to put off other teams. You are also living in fairy land if you think that because a player says he doesn't want to play for a certain club that club will ignore him. Ball may not want to play for Melbourne but that doesn't stop them drafting him if he enters either draft.

Your understanding of the system is very limited & you keep making a dill of yourself with your continual boring repetitive posts.

Give it a rest & find something else to do FFS.
 
what did we do wrong?

Don't feed the lying troll FFS. She is under the impression a request is an agreement, despite common sense telling her otherwise. Collingwood and St Kilda never reached agreement on a trade for Luke Ball. As such, it is impossible for either of them to renege, because a deal was not struck.

Such a concept is beyond Steph by her plethora of posts claiming otherwise.
 
Like I said, you make me laugh.
So what's the "news" that you mentioned earlier? That you're a dill? If so, then that's not news.
I dislike not getting a reply to my post KS.
Have a lolly. Mum used to give me one to make me feel better when I didn't like something.
Yet again post ignored, disappointing.
I didn't ignore it. I didn't notice it, but it's nearly 6 AM here, so I'm not going to respond to it all now though.
Brisbane are also interested in him and have a selection in the National Draft before Collingwood, while his preference during trade week was Collingwood if Brisbane decided to take him he wouldn't say no and retire he would suck it up and go play for Brisbane.
I don't believe that Brisbane will select him if he does not agree to move interstate beforehand. I also believe that it would be easy to nominate terms that Brisbane won't be able to fit in their salary cap, and I have no idea how they could possibly fit him in anyway. They do not have very much room at all with their many highly paid players, and a lower salary cap compared to when they won three successive premierships. As I've mentioned before, I don't think that Brisbane will select him.
Nick Stevens wanted to go to Collingwood in the Pre-season Draft but did he?
No, he knew that he would not be going to Collingwood in the Pre-Season Draft. He wanted to join Collingwood in trade week, but when Port Adelaide wouldn't deal, he then agreed to join Carlton. I don't believe that Luke Ball will agree to join Melbourne though.
No Carlton got him despite him nominating Collingwood as his club of choice and did he retire because he didn't get there? No he didn't.
I don't know why you are bringing this up when it has nothing to do with the Luke Ball situation. Firstly, Nick Stevens was in Adelaide, and his main priority was to move back to Melbourne. That is not the case with Ball. Secondly, Stevens nominated for the Pre-Season Draft, but I believe that Ball will nominate for the National Draft in an effort to prevent the teams with an early pick from selecting him because they need to use those picks on young players.

Thirdly, Stevens didn't enter the Pre-Season Draft in an attempt to be selected by Collingwood because he knew that wasn't going to happen, so he agreed to join Carlton beforehand because he simply wanted to get back to Melbourne. I don't believe that Ball will settle for Melbourne as Stevens settled for Carlton because the two scenarios are quite different. Back in 2003, Stevens couldn't nominate for that National Draft either as Ball can do now, and that makes quite a difference as well.
At the end of the day, he'll play football for whatever team drafts him.
I think he will do what he can to get to the club of his choice. He may refuse a medical screening, and he may demand terms that will put other clubs off before re-negotiating those terms once selected. I heard Liam Pickering and Hutchy on SEN online earlier state they think it's very unlikely that he will stay at St.Kilda, and that Collingwood still seems his most likely destination even though it's going to be tricky to get there. It seems that most people have heard that he doesn't want to play for Melbourne now.
 
Poor Caro, so ill informed. She should really read KS' posts before writing anything.

http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2009/10/31/1256835193359.html

the inescapable conclusion from this column's standpoint is that Ball should remain a Saint.

All Connors would confirm was that Ball had met Lyon since coming home. Only Ball and Lyon know what was said at that meeting.
Funny, I thought that relationship was over.

the Magpies have a history of offering too little for too much and were once again unable to provide what St Kilda demanded.
she forget to say flip flop.

As it is, it seems near impossible that Collingwood can get him now
 
I can't believe KS is still obsessed by this topic.

Move on.

Surely living in NY you have something better to do that sit on BigFooty & cry about St Kilda & Luke Ball.

No matter how many times you post your 'theories', you are simply guessing like everyone who is outside the inner sanctum of Luke Ball, his management, St Kilda and Melbourne.

You are also incorrect that Ball can enter the ND & name a price to put off other teams. You are also living in fairy land if you think that because a player says he doesn't want to play for a certain club that club will ignore him. Ball may not want to play for Melbourne but that doesn't stop them drafting him if he enters either draft.

Your understanding of the system is very limited & you keep making a dill of yourself with your continual boring repetitive posts.

Give it a rest & find something else to do FFS.
true but why waste a pic on someone who doesnt want to be at your club

Bailey said as much
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Poor Caro, so ill informed. She should really read KS' posts before writing anything.
I actually sent her an e-mail and corrected her on a few things in her article. It seems that she is unaware that Collingwood agreed to St.Kilda's request of Tyson Goldsack and pick #30, and I also showed her that there is no difference between him and Andrejs Everitt which is the player they wanted along with a pick between 30-40. I also mentioned that it forced Ball to confront Ross Lying at Etihad Stadium regarding the hold-up. The only thing that appears accurate is the Ball doesn't want to play for Melbourne which I mentioned before anybody else.
the inescapable conclusion from this column's standpoint is that Ball should remain a Saint.
It's clearly just an opinion, but it's coming from someone that has shown to be unfamiliar regarding what had occurred during trade week. Her opinion is based solely on the fact that St.Kilda are predicted to be a premiership contender next season. It appears that she has taken little else into account. Most radio commentators on 3AW and SEN have stated that Ball could not possibly return to St.Kilda after the way they shafted him, but the law of average says that there has to be one person that thinks he should stay, and that person has shown to be ignorant on the details.
All Connors would confirm was that Ball had met Lyon since coming home. Only Ball and Lyon know what was said at that meeting.
This doesn't come as any surprise, and I had no doubt that it could occur. I also wouldn't be surprised if he told him where he can go and that his desire is to move on.
Funny, I thought that relationship was over.
I agree with you for once. I believe that the working relationship is over. St.Kilda did not show faith in him during the season. They treated him like shit in trade week by refusing the offer they actually requested. There is even more competition for a spot in St.Kilda's midfield now, and any new contract offer will be heavily cut. Ross Lyon also lied about moving players on that were not up to the challenge of staying with St.Kilda.
the Magpies have a history of offering too little for too much and were once again unable to provide what St Kilda demanded.
That's an unfounded wives tale. In recent seasons Collingwood has completed timely trades involving Chris Tarrant, Paul Medhurst, Darren Jolly, Cameron Wood, Rhyce Shaw, and a number of others going even further back. When deals fail, it is often because other clubs do not want to trade with Collingwood such as in this case.

Collingwood offered what St.Kilda had requested, and it appears that Caro is unaware of that. St.Kilda's request of Andrejs Everitt and a pick in between 20 and 40 is no different to Tyson Goldsack and pick #30 as I showed earlier. They clearly did not want to trade Ball to Collingwood to strengthen a top-4 team.
As it is, it seems near impossible that Collingwood can get him now
Well firstly she needs to look at the teams that are ahead of Collingwood in the National Draft. She has to look at their needs and their salary cap space, and whether these clubs are prepared to pick a player that has not agreed to play for them beforehand or has refused a medical screening.

Then she must understand that a player can nominate high terms to put other clubs off, and then re-negotiate that contract within draft rules once selected. I can't make her do that though, but if she is prepared to learn about that, then she would realise that if Luke Ball wants to get to Collingwood badly enough then he is more likely to get there than to any other club.
true but why waste a pic on someone who doesnt want to be at your club Bailey said as much
No wonder I put that NeilElvis on my ignore list. I read his first sentence because it appeared in your post. Patronising me for having a strong opinion about something is weak, and not once have I cried about it all. That said, I do not believe that any club will select Luke Ball unless he agrees to play for them beforehand.
 
Its all a vicious conspiracy because KS believe Collingwood need to be handed over quality players for tuppence.

THE WORLD IS AGAINST COLLINGWOOD.

oh by the way nice soft draw for the pies :rolleyes:

who knew that would happen?
 
KS - untill you come up with the corroborated proof there was an agreement between St.Kilda and Collingwood for #30 and Goldsack AS you stated as FACT in one of you plethora of increasingly bizarre and delusional posts - you have no credibility.

You steted that there was an AGREEMENT and have based all of your hatefilled vitriol on that premis.

THis is known as building a straw man to base your argument on.

The fact is that this premis is a FALSEHOOD.

This means youe whole basis of argument is a false and based on a mistruth.

This renders ANYTHING you post as false on this issue.

Despite numerous requests from myself and St.DAC you hae refused to provide the corroborated proof of an AGREEMENT during trade week.

For agreement there was no offer and acceptance of the time of offer. My understanding is that the offer was made and it was REJECTED (i.e it was not accepted on the Monday by Collingwood who were looking to screw the Saints)

With an hour to go and Collingwood panicking because they had promised Luke Ball the world only to shit on him - they tried to rekindle the refused offer but by that time the Saints circumstances had changed because they had been able to trade equitably and fairly with Essendon for Lovett and Freo for Peake and had given a fair trade so X Clarke could continue his career.

Saints said too late no deal. That is the facts of the matter. THEIR WAS NO AGREEMENT.
As for you arrogance in stating Goldsack id as good as Everitt by stating a couple of meaningless stats.

1) How would you know. It cant be a corroborated fact proven - ir is an opinion
2) You opinion was obviously not shared by people at the Saints that are PAID to do a job in football - not sit on a computer in NY making up fantasies and mythical and alternate realities.

So come up with the proof of the agreement of just stop Lying.
 
A player manager during the week said that Collingwood was negotiating to back-end current players contracts to load up Ball's contract in the first year so he will be out of reach for quite a few unless Melbourne want to use pick 18 on him.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

KS - untill you come up with the corroborated proof there was an agreement between St.Kilda and Collingwood for #30 and Goldsack AS you stated as FACT in one of you plethora of increasingly bizarre and delusional posts - you have no credibility.

You steted that there was an AGREEMENT and have based all of your hatefilled vitriol on that premis.

THis is known as building a straw man to base your argument on.

The fact is that this premis is a FALSEHOOD.

This means youe whole basis of argument is a false and based on a mistruth.

This renders ANYTHING you post as false on this issue.

Despite numerous requests from myself and St.DAC you hae refused to provide the corroborated proof of an AGREEMENT during trade week.

For agreement there was no offer and acceptance of the time of offer. My understanding is that the offer was made and it was REJECTED (i.e it was not accepted on the Monday by Collingwood who were looking to screw the Saints)

With an hour to go and Collingwood panicking because they had promised Luke Ball the world only to shit on him - they tried to rekindle the refused offer but by that time the Saints circumstances had changed because they had been able to trade equitably and fairly with Essendon for Lovett and Freo for Peake and had given a fair trade so X Clarke could continue his career.

Saints said too late no deal. That is the facts of the matter. THEIR WAS NO AGREEMENT.
As for you arrogance in stating Goldsack id as good as Everitt by stating a couple of meaningless stats.

1) How would you know. It cant be a corroborated fact proven - ir is an opinion
2) You opinion was obviously not shared by people at the Saints that are PAID to do a job in football - not sit on a computer in NY making up fantasies and mythical and alternate realities.

So come up with the proof of the agreement of just stop Lying.

Your requirement for FACTS is a two way street.
If you cannot bring any contrary facts to the table and prove an agreement was not made then you should take your own advice and keep your opinions off the boards.

Or is this entire thread fro start to finish all just opinion from people who have no idea of the facts? Like you.
 
I actually sent her an e-mail and corrected her on a few things in her article. It seems that she is unaware that Collingwood agreed to St.Kilda's request of Tyson Goldsack and pick #30, and I also showed her that there is no difference between him and Andrejs Everitt which is the player they wanted along with a pick between 30-40.

Do you want to read that back to yourself? You told Caroline Wilson what happened in discussions between Collingwood and St. Kilda in trade week.

And how did you show her that there is no difference between Goldsack and Everitt? They look pretty different for starters...
 
Do you want to read that back to yourself? You told Caroline Wilson what happened in discussions between Collingwood and St. Kilda in trade week.

And how did you show her that there is no difference between Goldsack and Everitt? They look pretty different for starters...

File under "emails from nutters - non threatening".
:D
 
Your requirement for FACTS is a two way street.
If you cannot bring any contrary facts to the table and prove an agreement was not made then you should take your own advice and keep your opinions off the boards.

Or is this entire thread fro start to finish all just opinion from people who have no idea of the facts? Like you.

A couple of important differences between my position and KS's ...


I'm not claiming anything at all. I'm not saying anything against Collingwood for failing to come to agreement with St Kilda. I'm not denigrating Collingwood personnel, coaches, or players. I don't know whether an agreement was reached. I doubt it, as no trade took place, and I've not seen or heard anything in either print or radio media confirming a deal was made, but I've no way of knowing. But our recent trade history suggests once agreement has been reached the trade happens very soon after it's announced.

KS has consistently stated that St Kilda reneged (flip-flopped in her words) on a deal for Luke Ball, and has publicly ridiculed and defamed our coach. Reneging is dependant on a deal being agreed. I've called on her to provide evidence of her claim, that a deal was actually agreed then reneged. She has failed to do so, and so I've called her on that several times.

I've no problem with her stating an opinion; or anyone else for that matter. But I've a major problem with her (or anyone else) publicly defaming our coach without being able to back it up.

If you have a problem with that then too bad. I'll call her out every time she lies.
 
I really hope that was an attempt at humour.

She is serious, and don't call her Shirley.

leslie-neilson-300x225.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top