Jump to content

Ball no longer a Saint, confirmed.

Featured Replies

I confess ..didnt hear all of it.. just ..snippetts.. and more later.. Yes he said they were keen...said they had been from 2.00 pm on the 9th... but that despite all the communication toward Connors ( and hence Ball) that nothing has been returned. Yes Melbourne has interest...and Ball has none ;)

I listened to the whole interview, not much of interest. Except the question put to Bailey about whether or not we would pick up Ball if he said he had no interest playing for Melbourne.

Bailey said something along the lines of: "it would be a very short meeting", as expected I suppose. But part of me has a bit of a problem with this. Assuming for a second that Ball talks to every club that has a PSD pick before Collingwood and says the same thing to them, and assuming that every club holds the same philosophy of avoiding players who say they don't want to play for the club. Then Ball essentially is a free agent.

Obviously the reality is different, but I still find it an interesting situation for club and player.

 

It keeps coming back really to the idea of....Do you want someone on your list that you dragged there kicking and screaming ? Bails wont. We know he isnt all that keen at all on players who dont want play for the jumper...or that do things in a clandestine manner.

If it was intimated in a meet up with Ball that he has no desire then Bails suggested we would back off completely. I agree.

Later on Hungry..with Denham ..Greg also wondered ( like I do ) why a simple communication hasnt been conveyed to the club saying just that...."that he has no interest in playing in Red and Blue" . They concurred that its all a bit strange.

Bails thought Ball a good fit...and was keen...but only if he ( Ball ) was...otherwise not interested.

 
There is no such thing. Soon you will tell us that Santa is real.

Yes there is. Read DaVe86's stuff and you'll see.

He's nothing like OX, or any other Collingwood supporter I know.


  • Author
Nothing new really, perhaps a re-hashed grab just off SEN: -

Demons throw all at Luke Ball

It's becoming a bit comical. We have "spoken to Connors and others to help us get to speak to Ball" without success. I presume that means he doesn't want to talk to us. Surely that means he doesn't want to play for us. Isn't that the end of the story?

It's becoming a bit comical. We have "spoken to Connors and others to help us get to speak to Ball" without success. I presume that means he doesn't want to talk to us. Surely that means he doesn't want to play for us. Isn't that the end of the story?

I dont know about everyone else but I concur 100% with you Red, you would think that was exactly the case. No talking means no interest ( and no courtesy or decency either for mine ). Hes not THAT good to be bending over backwards etc for.

The guy's obviously got not cohunas !! How hard to say... "sorry ,thanks but not interested"

You know what .. if this is the nature of the bloke then he doesnt deserve to get a Red and Blue guernsey.

Am very disappointed in Ball....I thought he had some ;)

as an afterthought.. The club I think is doing itself no favours by fawning , they should just call it a day...announce that to the world/media and categorically state. We are better than this, we expect our players and club delegates to behave in honour and respect for the club. we need to control this...not be at the beck and call of divas.

My guess is Luke is trying to get a deal done with St Kilda. He doesn't want to speak to anybody until he's either signed for the aints or negotiations break down. He would no doubt be using the threat of coming to us as leverage for the deal he wants.

The question is, how long do we twiddle our thumbs and wait? I think he could nominate for the psd after the national draft. If Luke is still in hiding a week or two before the national draft we should give him a deadline. Talk to us or go to Richmond, I'd rather get young Grimey at 34 anyway.

 
My guess is Luke is trying to get a deal done with St Kilda. He doesn't want to speak to anybody until he's either signed for the aints or negotiations break down. He would no doubt be using the threat of coming to us as leverage for the deal he wants.

The question is, how long do we twiddle our thumbs and wait? I think he could nominate for the psd after the national draft. If Luke is still in hiding a week or two before the national draft we should give him a deadline. Talk to us or go to Richmond, I'd rather get young Grimey at 34 anyway.

Correct..Saints are number 1 problem to deal with, We the MFC are number 2.

Draft day has not happened yet, there is still time. People are just impatient these days....

so the best we can hope for at present is he eventually gets off his pedestal and joins...but unable to put in a full pre season...My...thats professionalism and dedication for you :huh:


so the best we can hope for at present is he eventually gets off his pedestal and joins...but unable to put in a full pre season...My...thats professionalism and dedication for you :huh:

Don't worry BB if Ball comes to melbourne he will have to train his ass off or those young kiddies will burn him right up.

He would be aware of that....

It's becoming a bit comical. We have "spoken to Connors and others to help us get to speak to Ball" without success. I presume that means he doesn't want to talk to us. Surely that means he doesn't want to play for us. Isn't that the end of the story?

I'm not sure about the AFL's rules regarding draft tampering but is it possible that Ball's reluctance to tell Bailey to his face that he doesn't want to play for the club due to the fact that it might put him in some sort of jeopardy with the AFL?

That's really the only way I can make any sense of Bailey's comments. After all, it's been three weeks since the end of trade week. Ball's been to the Big Apple and back, attended the Cup, spoken to Lyon and now he's pizzed off to Honkers without deigning to speak to Bailey. I reckon actions speak louder than words and that he might just be telling the club something by doing that.

That's really the only way I can make any sense of Bailey's comments. After all, it's been three weeks since the end of trade week. Ball's been to the Big Apple and back, attended the Cup, spoken to Lyon and now he's pizzed off to Honkers without deigning to speak to Bailey. I reckon actions speak louder than words and that he might just be telling the club something by doing that.

I think him not speaking to us isn't that big of an issue... I don't think we were ever going to pick him in the ND... If he was going to come to us, it would be via the PSD, which he has plenty of time to nominate for... National draft nominations are due next week I believe, if he doesn't nominate, he'll end up either with us or the Saints.The fact that he's overseas again, suggests to me that he's not going to nominate for the National Draft, unless of course he's already made that decision and his manager is yet to submit the paperwork.


  • Author
I'm not sure about the AFL's rules regarding draft tampering but is it possible that Ball's reluctance to tell Bailey to his face that he doesn't want to play for the club due to the fact that it might put him in some sort of jeopardy with the AFL?

Someone else also raised this point WJ. There is no problem in saying " I don't want to play for you". The breach is "refusing to do so" if you have nominated for the draft and are selected.

Someone else also raised this point WJ. There is no problem in saying " I don't want to play for you". The breach is "refusing to do so" if you have nominated for the draft and are selected.

That's odd. I would have thought that once you select a player and he refuses to play then he's pretty subjected himself to a self-imposed penalty in that he won't be playing at all or collecting any pay for a certain period of time. I know it was a while ago but what happened in the Chalmers case?

  • Author
That's odd. I would have thought that once you select a player and he refuses to play then he's pretty subjected himself to a self-imposed penalty in that he won't be playing at all or collecting any pay for a certain period of time. I know it was a while ago but what happened in the Chalmers case?

Read my post again WJ, I said penalty only applies if he is "selected" and refuses to play with that club. There is no penalty if a player says to a club before selection that he would prefer not to play with them.

Read my post again WJ, I said penalty only applies if he is "selected" and refuses to play with that club. There is no penalty if a player says to a club before selection that he would prefer not to play with them.

Are you saying that there's no sanction where a player indicates before a draft that he won't play for a particular club or clubs?

That wasn't the case previously so the AFL must have changed it's rules. I can't imagine the AFL allowing someone like Tom Scully for e.g to say that he won't play for a particular club.

  • Author
Are you saying that there's no sanction where a player indicates before a draft that he won't play for a particular club or clubs?

That wasn't the case previously so the AFL must have changed it's rules. I can't imagine the AFL allowing someone like Tom Scully for e.g to say that he won't play for a particular club.

The key word you have used is "wont". I was referring to players stating their preference. To tell a club you "wont' play for them if selected would have to be a form of draft tampering and would carry a sanction of some kind. What if that was said and then the player was selected by that club and agreed to play. There are different forms of this problem ranging from " I would not like to play with your club" to " if you select me I won't come" and ultimately " refusing to play for the club that selected you".


I'm Officially over the whole Ball saga

it won't happen Move along nothing to see here

x 2

I listened to the whole interview, not much of interest. Except the question put to Bailey about whether or not we would pick up Ball if he said he had no interest playing for Melbourne.

Bailey said something along the lines of: "it would be a very short meeting", as expected I suppose. But part of me has a bit of a problem with this. Assuming for a second that Ball talks to every club that has a PSD pick before Collingwood and says the same thing to them, and assuming that every club holds the same philosophy of avoiding players who say they don't want to play for the club. Then Ball essentially is a free agent.

Obviously the reality is different, but I still find it an interesting situation for club and player.

Absolute disgraceful comment by Bailey as usual. If Scully and Trengove had a choice they wouldn't choose us they would choose a top team but they don't. Why give Ball the choice? If anyone thinks that players are desperate to come to us they have rocks in their head we have to sell, sell, sell. I can't believe they would give Ball an easy get out option.

 
Absolute disgraceful comment by Bailey as usual. If Scully and Trengove had a choice they wouldn't choose us they would choose a top team but they don't. Why give Ball the choice? If anyone thinks that players are desperate to come to us they have rocks in their head we have to sell, sell, sell. I can't believe they would give Ball an easy get out option.

honestly... what are you on? Theres a vast difference between Scully?trengove situation as draftess and Ball as a mature ( doubtful ) senior player. bal canself determine... the draftess dont expect to... dont let those little things cloud your comments:rolleyes:

Absolute disgraceful comment by Bailey as usual. If Scully and Trengove had a choice they wouldn't choose us they would choose a top team but they don't. Why give Ball the choice? If anyone thinks that players are desperate to come to us they have rocks in their head we have to sell, sell, sell. I can't believe they would give Ball an easy get out option.

Ugh.


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Featured Content

  • REPORT: Fremantle

    For this year’s Easter Saturday game at the MCG, Simon Goodwin and his Demons wound the clock back a few years to wipe out the horrible memories of last season’s twin thrashings at the hands of the Dockers. And it was about time! Melbourne’s indomitable skipper Max Gawn put in a mammoth performance in shutting out his immediate opponent Sean Darcy in the ruck and around the ground and was a colossus at the end when the game was there to be won or lost. It was won by 16.11.107 to 14.13.97. There was the battery-charged Easter Bunny in Kysaiah Pickett running anyone wearing purple ragged, whether at midfield stoppages or around the big sticks. He finish with a five goal haul.

      • Love
      • Thanks
    • 0 replies
    Demonland
  • CASEY: UWS Giants

    The Casey Demons took on an undefeated UWS Giants outfit at their own home ground on a beautiful autumn day but found themselves completely out of their depth going down by 53 points against a well-drilled and fair superior combination. Despite having 15 AFL listed players at their disposal - far more than in their earlier matches this season - the Demons were never really in the game and suffered their second defeat in a row after their bright start to the season when they drew with the Kangaroos, beat the Suns and matched the Cats for most of the day on their own dung heap at Corio Bay. The Giants were a different proposition altogether. They had a very slight wind advantage in the opening quarter but were too quick off the mark for the Demons, tearing the game apart by the half way mark of the term when they kicked the first five goals with clean and direct football.

      • Thanks
    • 0 replies
    Demonland
  • PREGAME: Richmond

    The Dees are back at the MCG on Thursday for the annual blockbuster ANZAC Eve game against the Tigers. Can the Demons win back to back games for the first time since Rounds 17 & 18 last season? Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 145 replies
    Demonland
  • PODCAST: Fremantle

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on TUESDAY, 22nd April @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we analyse the Demons first win for the year against the Dockers. Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.

      • Thanks
    • 41 replies
    Demonland
  • POSTGAME: Fremantle

    A undermanned Dees showed some heart and desperation to put the Fremantle Dockers to the sword as they claimed their first victory for the season winning by 10 points at the MCG.

      • Clap
      • Haha
      • Love
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 447 replies
    Demonland
  • VOTES: Fremantle

    Max Gawn is leading the Demonland Player of the Year award from Christian Petracca followed by Ed Langdon, Jake Bowey & Clayton Oliver. Your votes for our first victory for the season. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

      • Thanks
    • 57 replies
    Demonland