Luke Bloody Ball

[Grantaire]

I know I'm only new to this site, but what is this love affair people seem to have with Luke Ball?

Honestly, he is a filth player. Has been for a year and a half now.

We should forget about him and worry about our own players!

Rant Over.

I totally agree, he's gone, he sold his soul and there will be a day hwhen he pays for it..

In the meantime, has anyone else noticed how mnay times a week he pops up in the Herald Sun sports section especiall nany photographic representation of CFC players? Over the past few monhts it's been at least once, twice a week.

Considering he's only been there for 12 months, it is my hope that the other players of the CFC start to get a little jealous and start sniping behind his back.

Also raises question as to the role of Mike Sheahan in convincing him to sign up with the CFC. eg "Luke sign with them and I promise that if you turn up to the opening of an envelope and I'll guarantee your photo will appear in our quality newspaper, no matter how bad your haircut is...."

I don't think you understood the post you quoted.

[stinger]

I don't think Lyon would ever want Ball back, even as a free trade for $100k per annum.

ross didn't want him when we had him......that was the problem actually.....

[plugger66]

Rate this thread highly.

[satchmo]

Rate this thread highly.

Sure, if you insist.

9 out of 10

[Dr Spaceman]

Rate this thread highly.

Sure, if you insist.

9 out of 10

[St Ick]

They took the offer off the table......from there they made the decision before the trade offers.....that he had to go, so we needed to find compensation.....but also lost bargaining power, because we had signalled we did not want his services...

Luke did knock back the 50% pay cut, as many would.......he left for the reasons any player leaves a club...More money, more opportunity, lost faith of the coaches....

I lost count the number of times RL mentioned the words, 'required player' during that week. They took THAT offer off the table which had been there since June or whenever due to him saying he wanted out, didn't mean he wasn't getting an offer.

I shouldn't take the bait, but FFS mate, you call yourself a saints supporter but your perception of the club, players and everything in between makes me wonder why you really bother?!

[SainterK]

Rate this thread highly.

Sure, if you insist.

9 out of 10

[Teflon]

can only speculate as to why he left - although money offered from the pies obviously wasn't a factor.

This HAS to be sarcasm....surely.

no -basically on the same pay over the 3 years as we offered. anyone not blind with rage or sadness could see the front loaded contract was purely to get him through the draft.

money offered from us was a factor - as we offered close to a 50% paycut - and with that came the associated loss in standing in the team. i would've done the same - sought a fresh start elsewhere.

Whose blinded with rage? Im just enjoying those who clearly arent blinded with facts.

I do not for a moment accept Ball just accepted the same dollars as Saints offered. Anyone who does is completely naive. But lets assume you KNOW that (and you dont) - so Ball left cause he felt he had "diminished team standing"....even after being wooed by Saints Captain and a myriad of other team mates and coaches that he was required?

IF your scenario is correct what your really saying is Luke Ball left cause it got to hard to fight his way back into the "superior standing"...I think thats even worse if so.

I dont buy it. Luke left cause:

a - Lyon was demanding more and Luke felt he wasnt getting the chance/able to produce it (especially as opponents were running off him)

b - Luke saw $$ and said "hell yeah".

Ive also never been wrapt in Lukes "Hong Kong text" when the club was still trying to convince him to stay.

No doubt in hindsight Lyon and co couldve handled this better - what Im saying (apparemt Rage aside) is that so could Luke Ball.

I dont buy the "poor innocent Luke" theory for 1 bit.

[Teflon]

They took the offer off the table......from there they made the decision before the trade offers.....that he had to go, so we needed to find compensation.....but also lost bargaining power, because we had signalled we did not want his services...

Luke did knock back the 50% pay cut, as many would.......he left for the reasons any player leaves a club...More money, more opportunity, lost faith of the coaches....

Lets deal in facts.

1. Luke Ball was a required player - stated by N Riewoldt publicly as well as Lyon.

2. Luke Ball had a contract of offer from St Kilda FC ON THE TABLE - source N Riewoldt.

Im going with their version cause I reckon they might have a clue.

But I realise in your world its all Lyons stuff up...and poor Luke was just an innocent victim who landed a wad of cash in yr 1....poor fella...

[Johnny Member]

They took the offer off the table......from there they made the decision before the trade offers.....that he had to go, so we needed to find compensation.....but also lost bargaining power, because we had signalled we did not want his services...

Luke did knock back the 50% pay cut, as many would.......he left for the reasons any player leaves a club...More money, more opportunity, lost faith of the coaches....

Lets deal in facts.

1. Luke Ball was a required player - stated by N Riewoldt publicly as well as Lyon.

2. Luke Ball had a contract of offer from St Kilda FC ON THE TABLE - source N Riewoldt.

Im going with their version cause I reckon they might have a clue.

But I realise in your world its all Lyons stuff up...and poor Luke was just an innocent victim who landed a wad of cash in yr 1....poor fella...

I'm over the Luke Ball thing.

The whole thing makes me sick - regardless of who's at fault.


But, the 'required player' thing doesn't make sense, or certainly doesn't hold a lot of weight.

The only way to show someone they're required, is surely in their contract. Telling them they're required doesn't really mean anything.

I mean to put some perspective on it, imagine if Westaway went to Ross Lyon and told him the club really wants him and he's a required person - but we're cutting his pay in half. How would he react?

If you're cutting someone's pay severely and reducing their role in the organisation, then surely it's questionable as to how much you really require them.

[markp]

We offered him $1 million over 3 years (because that's what you do to players we don't really want), but he put a $500k price on his head and screwed us by saying he'd only go to the filth, they offered us jack shyte, so we said get stuffed... the end.

[Johnny Member]

We offered him $1 million over 3 years (because that's what you do to players we don't really want), but he put a $500k price on his head and screwed us by saying he'd only go to the filth, they offered us jack shyte, so we said get stuffed... the end.

To be honest, I haven't seen any figures.

I've heard lots thrown around, but never seen any real figures so I can't comment.

[satchmo]

We offered him $1 million over 3 years (because that's what you do to players we don't really want), but he put a $500k price on his head and screwed us by saying he'd only go to the filth, they offered us jack shyte, so we said get stuffed... the end.

That's it.

The combination of cash and bruised ego.

[SainterK]

So he was dropped and asked to work harder, because the club thought he could give more than he was giving.

You tell me now, if that appears justified or not?

[Johnny Member]

We offered him $1 million over 3 years (because that's what you do to players we don't really want), but he put a $500k price on his head and screwed us by saying he'd only go to the filth, they offered us jack shyte, so we said get stuffed... the end.

That's it.

The combination of cash and bruised ego.

Do they publish players' pays anywhere?

[desertsaint]

We offered him $1 million over 3 years (because that's what you do to players we don't really want), but he put a $500k price on his head and screwed us by saying he'd only go to the filth, they offered us jack shyte, so we said get stuffed... the end.

and what did he get at collingwood over the three years? $1 million and 80 thousand. hmmm.
So he left the flag favourites and his friends for $26,000 extra a year? Or close to half that after tax.
No, money offered by the pies wasn't the reason he left.

[meher baba]

We offered him $1 million over 3 years (because that's what you do to players we don't really want), but he put a $500k price on his head and screwed us by saying he'd only go to the filth, they offered us jack shyte, so we said get stuffed... the end.

To be honest, I haven't seen any figures.

I've heard lots thrown around, but never seen any real figures so I can't comment.

FWIW, My mail is that we offered $1m over 3 years, and the Pies offered him $1m over 2 years, with the third year left blank. As it turns out, the third year is allegedly close to the minimum of $100k: but, of course, there are endorsements and speaking opportunities and what have you which will mean that he will be at no risk of needing to pawn his silverware.

The offer from the Pies could be described in one sense as "the same money", but it was clearly a significantly better one for him, given that he has had a chequered career in terms of injury and probably wasn't 100% sure he'd get through another 3 years of playing AFL at the top level.

On top of this, he was given some sort of assurances from the Pies about how he would be used on the field, and these added to the attractiveness of going there.

Is he a traitor as some on here so vehemently argue? Not IMO. His contract was up, he'd been offered 50% less money for his next one, and the coach had demonstrated publicly on a number of occasions that he didn't really rate him. Perhaps he had made some sort of pact with some of the other players to stay at the club, but this was presumably modelled on the Brisbane Lions pact of the early 2000s. I suspect in both cases it was a case of the "stars" at the club all getting together and agreeing to avoid dissipating a potentially premiership-winning combination. But, under Ross Lyon, Ball was no longer considered a "star" at the Saints, so I don't see how anyone could argue that the "pact" still applied.

[markp]

We offered him $1 million over 3 years (because that's what you do to players we don't really want), but he put a $500k price on his head and screwed us by saying he'd only go to the filth, they offered us jack shyte, so we said get stuffed... the end.

and what did he get at collingwood over the three years? $1 million and 80 thousand. hmmm.
So he left the flag favourites and his friends for $26,000 extra a year? Or close to half that after tax.
No, money offered by the pies wasn't the reason he left.

Well let's assume MB's mail is right, then he went for $1.1 million, plus inducements, and (the not insignificant) increased marketability during and after his playing career... not just an extra $26k over 3 years (although I'd consider changing jobs for and extra 10%).

And MB, if I personally had any feelings of his behaviour being a betrayal (which I really couldn't be bothered with), it would only be due to him being payed well over his worth for some time, then walking for a better deal when it looked like he may have to accept closer to his actual worth, and perhaps put his head down into the bargain.

But all's fair in love, war, and contract negotiations.

[dragit]

One thing's for sure - we are never going to let this go…
Move along people, nothing to see here.

[StSteven]

Can't argue that the move raised his football career quite a lot. Can't blame him for that.

[Rosco]

I think you may have all missed the point of my original post. Can I take you back to a stones classic- " Mothers Little Helper "

surely you're not suggesting he's on the juice? he's not playing that well...

[Dr Spaceman]

One thing's for sure - we are never going to let this go…
Move along people, nothing to see here.

To borrow from Seinfeld:

Jerry: I thought you stopped talking about Luke Ball??

Kramer: ...All right ..Starting now......

[Teflon]

They took the offer off the table......from there they made the decision before the trade offers.....that he had to go, so we needed to find compensation.....but also lost bargaining power, because we had signalled we did not want his services...

Luke did knock back the 50% pay cut, as many would.......he left for the reasons any player leaves a club...More money, more opportunity, lost faith of the coaches....

Lets deal in facts.

1. Luke Ball was a required player - stated by N Riewoldt publicly as well as Lyon.

2. Luke Ball had a contract of offer from St Kilda FC ON THE TABLE - source N Riewoldt.

Im going with their version cause I reckon they might have a clue.

But I realise in your world its all Lyons stuff up...and poor Luke was just an innocent victim who landed a wad of cash in yr 1....poor fella...

I'm over the Luke Ball thing.

The whole thing makes me sick - regardless of who's at fault.


But, the 'required player' thing doesn't make sense, or certainly doesn't hold a lot of weight.

The only way to show someone they're required, is surely in their contract. Telling them they're required doesn't really mean anything.

I mean to put some perspective on it, imagine if Westaway went to Ross Lyon and told him the club really wants him and he's a required person - but we're cutting his pay in half. How would he react?

If you're cutting someone's pay severely and reducing their role in the organisation, then surely it's questionable as to how much you really require them.

This post doesnt make sense.

Im "rerquired" by my company. Doesnt mean they are paying 2.5m a year????

Being "required" doesnt mean you have to be the best paid player on the list and nor does it mean your conditions (if you havent lived up to performances - and many would denote Luke Balls own form ......wasn't great) wont change. So they should - who would be happy with Luke Ball on current output being one of our highest paid players??...not me. The guys a grunt mid - plenty of them around....he aint no Judd.

Luke Ball was offered reduced terms commensurate with output. He decided the Pies terms were better - that INCLUDES cash and anyone who says it don't and he left cause he felt "jaded" are delusional.

That and a bruised ego was the end for Lukey boy. Good luck to him - to me he's just another despised filth player and thats how I'll remember him. He (rightly so) has said he's moved on from Saints...so why the f@rk do we have a multi page thread on the main board aboyut a filth player?

Turf it.

[tony74]

Gee I'm really glad I began this post!!! I promise no more. I'll just comment on training news.

[joffaboy]

And just think, we were offered Swan, Pendlebury and Thomas plus Eddie as president but Lyon, because he is stubborn and the worst coach since Timmy Waton said no.

Lyons should be sacked.....