Luke Ball "Officially" Walks..

[fernando T]

Couldnt your boys make it GF day - let me guess BBQ to attend at Micks after we flogged you?

And nobody beats the GF sobbing put on by your rabble - including your coach after the Lions rolled you sad sacks....

gees it must be a shit feeling to know that you plundered the draft year after year earlier this decade due to multiple years of total ineptness (is that a word? - if not i like it anyway) and you are still going to have no flag to show for it

 

[Zahki]

Are you tell me that there isn't anyone in football that ever says one thing and does another?

Ross "If you don't want to be here I'll move you on" Lyon being candidate number one.

 

[Deefolt]

lol its starting to look like he is gonnna go before pick 18, or mebourne would be announcing that one. By the way, bailey cant choose if prendergast thinks its a better idea to get ball at 11 or whatever, i think bailey wanted to think he had more power that he has lol

Guessing maybe balls management perhaps has contacted melbourne earlier, and said he will go to the national draft, if melbourne would still be interested then both sides of the coin will then talk.

 

[Invigoration]

I will laugh so hard if Melbourne use pick 11 and spend 500k a year on him.

 

[Deefolt]

we have to spend it on something invigoration, why not ball?

 

[Byron_Clanger]

awesome news

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Yeah sure... there's more chance of me becoming a pr0n star tomorrow than there is of us finishing that low next year!

Keep dreaming though- it'll just make it all the more enjoyable for us in 2010

 

[Bartram_Class]

I will laugh so hard if Melbourne use pick 11 and spend 500k a year on him.

Not going to happen.

Will be 18 or not at all.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

You're at least 12 months behind the times here...

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Our rebuilding phase - if you mark from when our first clearout happened - has been going on in earnest for over 12 months. As a Demons supporter who watches the club week in & week out, I'd say we'll have completed building the squad we need after this draft.

I'm guessing you wouldn't know that - assuming you prob wouldn't know much about our season this year beyond the superficial.

And since I'd reckon Ball has about 4/5 good years left at least, I don't see how he wouldn't figure in our future. Since the club have also been chasing him, they obviously agree about that.

 

[evo]

Goldsack had value to us before we acquired Lovett and Peake, that pushed Goldsack two players further behind on our list, therefore greatly diminshed his value. So whilst the offer was the same, the value was far lower on our end.

If Goldsack can get pushed down the pecking order by a borderline dud like Peake it doesn't speak very highly of his 'value'.

 

[Demonheart]

Ball is definitely worth $500k and pick 18, my guess is that if the kids that we've got our eye on are taken then we'll take him. add Thorpe in the psd and it's a pretty good result for us.

 

[KissStephanie]

I'm disappointed that St Kilda will lose Luke Ball.

It was obvious that it was going to happen. I've been saying as much for over a month now. Ross Lyon showed little faith in Luke Ball, and St.Kilda treated him like shit instead of sticking to the very same trade deal that they actually requested.

I hope he doesn't end up at Collingwood simply because they failed him once already by not offering up a suitable trade. Instead it seems they plotted for a way to get him cheaply (in terms of what they had to give up, not the money).

Ball is obviously quite aware that Collingwood were not at all responsible for the failed trade. Collingwood agreed to St.Kilda's request of Tyson Goldsack and pick #30, but St.Kilda reneged. It forced Ball to head to Etihad Stadium to confront the coach on the final day of trade regarding the hold-up. St.Kilda screwed Ball, and if he gets to Collingwood, which is more likely than any other club, then that is simply justice because it should have happened about a month ago.

85% of all AFL fans would probably agree that if Collingwood end up drafting Luke Ball through the National Draft then this represents an unacceptable manipulation of the draft rules.

Do you have a source to support this outrageous suggestion? St.Kilda simply did not want to deal with Collingwood regarding Ball, so Collingwood have been forced by St.Kilda to take other steps to try to acquire him.

It is much akin to what happened with Nick Stevens (which was thwarted by Port to Carlton's benefit). Why can't they simply pay a fair price for trades like every other club does?

Come off it. Port Adelaide wanted Alan Didak, and he did not want to go there. Time has shown that keeping Didak was a much better choice than trading him for Stevens of course. Not only has he been a better player in that time, but his career is not over yet. Most commentators felt that because Ball has had a number of injury concerns that has effected his kicking and his pace, then he was worth a second round draft pick.

Collingwood agreed to St.Kilda's draft request of that second round draft pick (#30) and a player they wanted, but they changed their mind and flip-flopped. St.Kilda did not want Ball to go to a top-4 team, despite Ross Lyon's lie following the Grand Final of moving players on that did not want to be there. They treated him like shit and without any respect, and as far as St.Kilda is concerned, he could rot at Melbourne instead of going to Collingwood.

Goldsack had value to us before we acquired Lovett and Peake, that pushed Goldsack two players further behind on our list, therefore greatly diminshed his value. So whilst the offer was the same, the value was far lower on our end.

What a load of rubbish! If that was the case, then why were St.Kilda so keen on Andrejs Everitt on the final day of trade? Both Goldsack and Everitt play in the same position, they are both 193 cm tall, and Goldsack is 1 kg heavier. According to Champion Data, Goldsack had a better season this year as well. St.Kilda simply did not want to trade Ball to Collingwood.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If Goldsack can get pushed down the pecking order by a borderline dud like Peake it doesn't speak very highly of his 'value'.

Goldsack >>>>>>>>>>> Peake.

Peake is lucky to still be on an AFL list.

 

[evo]

Goldsack >>>>>>>>>>> Peake.

Peake is lucky to still be on an AFL list.

It sounds like Goldy is lucky to be on a list too. Collingwood obviously don't rate him as highly as you do. He was being tossed in as an afterthought deal sweetner like the kid picked last in the school yard.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It sounds like Goldy is lucky to be on a list too. Collingwood obviously don't rate him as highly as you do. He was being tossed in as an afterthought deal sweetner like the kid picked last in the school yard.

So was Paul Medhurst. Just because you offer players up for trade doesnt make them duds. He was in our best 22 deep into September so obviously he's good enough to get a game in a quality side. Not sure what Brett Peake has ever achieved in his career.

Goldsack is a quality young player and was a good value offering to the Saints. The upside to the Ball trade falling through is that we get to keep Goldsack.

 

[JeffDunne]

Ross "If you don't want to be here I'll move you on" Lyon being candidate number one.

Exactly


Can I ask any mod reading this, why on earth was my post deleted?

Seriously, I'd like an explanation because what Zahki posted was pretty much the entire post. Given some of the other blatant trolling in this thread that hasn't been removed I'm stunned someone would think that post was against the TOS. I'd love to hear the explaination.

 

[KissStephanie]

It sounds like Goldy is lucky to be on a list too.

How do you come to that conclusion? Collingwood did not want to trade Goldsack, and he didn't want to leave Collingwood unless there was no other alternative. He isn't at all lucky to be on a list, because he was always going to be on either Collingwood or St.Kilda's list.

Collingwood obviously don't rate him as highly as you do.

I think Goldsack is quite a good player, and along with pick #30, then it would have made a very fair trade indeed, particularly as it was the very same deal that St.Kilda requested! I would prefer Ball because he fills a need more, but hopefully Collingwood will get him anyway, which I believe is what will happen.

He was being tossed in as an afterthought deal sweetner like the kid picked last in the school yard.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever Evo. The last player picked in the school yard is not a good player. The last player offered as a trade is not at all the same because Collingwood didn't really want to lose him, and Goldsack didn't really want to leave Collingwood.

 

[JeffDunne]

Not accepting Goldsack and pick 30 was worth the risk in trying to keep Luke.

Most St Kilda supporters seem to feel this way so why do other people care?

Why give up an additional list spot that we didn't want to give up?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Not accepting Goldsack and pick 30 was worth the risk in trying to keep Luke.

Thats the first time I've read it said this way and if its true (that StKilda genuinely tried to keep him and passed on a trade in the vain hope he'd stay) then what you've said has merit.

However didnt the Saints at one stage withdraw Ball's contract offer? (I've been o/s so I might be mistaken).

If so is that the best way to try and keep a player? Did the Saints do all they could to retain him?

 

[Football God]

does anyone think he actually will go to collingwood? i'm confident he might.

i was listening to SEN (i think it was) the other night and they were talking bout him eith er goin to collingwood or essendon. anyone else here about it?

hope he does come to pie land, great asset to our midfield and with his experience will make our midfield more dominant than this year.

 

[Falchoon]

gees it must be a shit feeling to know that you plundered the draft year after year earlier this decade due to multiple years of total ineptness (is that a word? - if not i like it anyway) and you are still going to have no flag to show for it

says a supporter of a club that has cracked single figures on the ladder 7 times since 1994 including 5 times in the bottom 4.

it must be

 

[krusden]

Thats the first time I've read it said this way and if its true (that StKilda genuinely tried to keep him and passed on a trade in the vain hope he'd stay) then what you've said has merit.

However didnt the Saints at one stage withdraw Ball's contract offer? (I've been o/s so I might be mistaken).

If so is that the best way to try and keep a player? Did the Saints do all they could to retain him?

In my view, yep.

It's pretty obvious Luke didn't like the cut of our jib whether this was due to: pay amount/contract rate/game time or whatever.

and that he believes he can do better in terms of: pay amount/contract length/game time or whatever elsewhere.

 

[Football God]

says a supporter of a club that has cracked single figures on the ladder 7 times since 1994 including 5 times in the bottom 4.

it must be

single = similar too 1. does that number come to mind for you

bottom 4 also well known to your knowledge

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

In my view, yep.

It's pretty obvious Luke didn't like the cut of our jib whether this was due to: pay amount/contract rate/game time or whatever.

and that he believes he can do better in terms of: pay amount/contract length/game time or whatever elsewhere.

Surely if it was that obvious (that he was going to leave the Saints) then the club should have done a deal at trade time rather than lose him for nothing? Or did it only become obvious some time after trade week ended? Was the club being unrealistic in its aim to encourage him to re-sign?