Gerard Healey on 3AW tonight said that his inside source "Whispers" believes the the MFC are prepared to take Luke Ball at pick 11. Is this just Smoke and mirrors or would we be that stupid.

If we waste Pick 11 on Luke Ball I'll be livid. There is no justification for taking Ball that high. Absolutely none.

If we waste Pick 11 on Luke Ball I'll be livid. There is no justification for taking Ball that high. Absolutely none.

He's a better player than Brock Mclean so it is a win/win situation either way. I just don't want this club to ever be intimidated by players using stand over tacticts,

Stuff that. If a Player nominates for the ND & the MFC deem him to be the best player at that number. He shalt F'n play for us.

Next week if the club choose somebody else then we think that younger player is a better option.

But the MFC hold the cards and that is final.

But the MFC hold the cards and that is final.

Thank God you're not playing them.

If you going to recruit him then do so for the right and thought through reasons so some ignoramus "let make a stand on this" statements.

I trust the MFC are alot more sage than some of the wisdom flying around here.

Thank God you're not playing them.

If you going to recruit him then do so for the right and thought through reasons so some ignoramus "let make a stand on this" statements.

I trust the MFC are alot more sage than some of the wisdom flying around here.

I didn't say we should recruit him, i just don't like players Holding certain clubs to Ransom which seems to be what is going on.

This club has been kicked around by others long enough.

If the FD deem Luke Ball to be the best pick then we should pick him. If not pick someone else.

Edited November 17, 200915 yr by why you little

He's a better player than Brock Mclean so it is a win/win situation either way. I just don't want this club to ever be intimidated by players using stand over tacticts,

Stuff that. If a Player nominates for the ND & the MFC deem him to be the best player at that number. He shalt F'n play for us.

Next week if the club choose somebody else then we think that younger player is a better option.

But the MFC hold the cards and that is final.

So we waste pick 11 because we want to make a point?

He will not be the best option at 11. Taking him at 11 will be only to ensure he isn't taken by someone else before 18. Waste of a pick.

So we waste pick 11 because we want to make a point?

He will not be the best option at 11. Taking him at 11 will be only to ensure he isn't taken by someone else before 18. Waste of a pick.

If the club see him as the Best option, whether it be 11 or 18 it is not a waste at all. that will be determined by who is picked up between 3-10 and then 12-17.we have 4 picks in the top 20. 3 kids & some experience is well worth considering.

Edited November 17, 200915 yr by why you little

Taking Ball at 11 would undo to good deal we got with Brock, I might be able to handle taking him at 18 but i'd prefer not to.

Taking Ball at 11 would undo to good deal we got with Brock, I might be able to handle taking him at 18 but i'd prefer not to.

I would way prefer 18 as well but i am not going to get worried. I have full faith in BP and his team to get it right.

The point i don't like is when players in the ND start playing favourites, which is the original reason this draft system was first bought in.

If you going to recruit him then do so for the right and thought-through reasons, so some ignoramus "let make a stand on this" statements.

I trust the MFC are alot more sage than some of the wisdom flying around here.

Agree 100%.

If we're talking about pick 18, I think we win whatever we do. The only BAD decision would be to take him at pick 1 or 2, and that's not going to happen.

TS & JT are maybe 80% of the future benefit we're going to get from this draft, because they're almost certain future stars. After that, there are another 10 or 15 prospects who may or may not be very good for us to have in future, and whether we pick Ball-plus-one "prospect" or two "prospects", it matters a lot less than getting picks 1 & 2.

My main question about Ball at MFC is similar to the question St Kilda asked themselves about him - is he right for the sort of team that we are looking to develop over the next 2-5 years? If the FD think he is, then we get him; if they don't, we don't.

Agree 100%.

If we're talking about pick 18, I think we win whatever we do. The only BAD decision would be to take him at pick 1 or 2, and that's not going to happen.

TS & JT are maybe 80% of the future benefit we're going to get from this draft, because they're almost certain future stars. After that, there are another 10 or 15 prospects who may or may not be very good for us to have in future, and whether we pick Ball-plus-one "prospect" or two "prospects", it matters a lot less than getting picks 1 & 2.

My main question about Ball at MFC is similar to the question St Kilda asked themselves about him - is he right for the sort of team that we are looking to develop over the next 2-5 years? If the FD think he is, then we get him; if they don't, we don't.

Totally agree with that.

What damage will he bring if we go after him. If it,s true he does not want to be at MFC will he start a cancer with the young champions at our club.

I didn't say we should recruit him, i just don't like players Holding certain clubs to Ransom which seems to be what is going on.

This club has been kicked around by others long enough.

If the FD deem Luke Ball to be the best pick then we should pick him. If not pick someone else.

What this club has had enough of is players wasting our money and resources, taking up space on our list and then jumping ship the second they have the chance. This is exactly what we can expect from Ball should we draft him. He would no doubt play a season for us, but you can bet that when trad week 2010 comes around he'll be asking for a trade. Would we get pick 11 for him? Hell no.

Dean Bailey said it and I hope he sticks to it. We don't want players who don't want to play for the MFC.

What this club has had enough of is players wasting our money and resources, taking up space on our list and then jumping ship the second they have the chance. This is exactly what we can expect from Ball should we draft him. He would no doubt play a season for us, but you can bet that when trad week 2010 comes around he'll be asking for a trade. Would we get pick 11 for him? Hell no.

Dean Bailey said it and I hope he sticks to it. We don't want players who don't want to play for the MFC.

Fair point & part of me agrees, but i see our midfield as being very young next year, along with the forward line.

We need to also recruit some experience to compliment the young talent that is coming IMO, so if it aint Ball who should we target?

This Talk of Ball wanting to go to essendon is a joke really. With the exodus that has left there since seasons end, they are only marginally better off than us on paper as i see it.

9 Days to go....Thank God!

Fair point & part of me agrees, but i see our midfield as being very young next year, along with the forward line.

We need to also recruit some experience to compliment the young talent that is coming IMO, so if it aint Ball who should we target?

This Talk of Ball wanting to go to essendon is a joke really. With the exodus that has left there since seasons end, they are only marginally better off than us on paper as i see it.

9 Days to go....Thank God!

I can't disagree with that statement enough.

Why the hell do we need to recruit experience?

We have good coaches.

We already have some good experienced players for the kids to learn from.

What damage will he bring if we go after him. If it,s true he does not want to be at MFC will he start a cancer with the young champions at our club.

It's all bluster from a bloke who is trying to get to Pick 30.

He is a professional, and a good bloke, who is acting like a d!ck so he can get to Pick 30.

He will not be a cancer.

The only cancer I can see is if we bring in these kids and immediately call them Champions.

They have done nothing yet, absolutley eff-all.

Whoever picks Ball be it Essendon, Port, North, Brisbane or Melbourne. He will be at training, training his heart out for that club.

At the end of the day he has no say on where he will play, and yes he is being a massive V@gin@ by not speaking to any clubs.

I just hope Brisbane pick him with their pick in the 20's, and I can also see Port picking him up seeing as Shaun Burgoyne left to the Hawks.

It's all bluster from a bloke who is trying to get to Pick 30.

He is a professional, and a good bloke, who is acting like a d!ck so he can get to Pick 30.

He will not be a cancer.

Exactly I can't believe people are getting sucked into his BS. He won't be wanting to ruin his career just because he didn't go to his preferred destination.

The funny thing is the pies midfield is slow and he is not the answer to there problems. He might free up pendlebry a bit but realistically they need pace

Massive Bump.

Old55 was talking about our recruitment policies, in particular Luke Ball.

I would also point out that there is a certain amount of hindsight in play here...

I think the club got the decision wrong, however.

PS. Difficult to read with quotations screwed up.

Massive Bump.

Old55 was talking about our recruitment policies, in particular Luke Ball.

I would also point out that there is a certain amount of hindsight in play here...

I think the club got the decision wrong, however.

PS. Difficult to read with quotations screwed up.

WAs it us or him?

I thought it was reported that he was heavily against going anywhere bare Collingwood.... yaddayadda bad times if happens?

Aah what joy if Luke Ball had been recruited 2 years ago. I know it was a long shot but it would have also been a massive statement. Luke Ball is a class act, that will haunt the aints for many years.

I can dream...

WAs it us or him?

I thought it was reported that he was heavily against going anywhere bare Collingwood.... yaddayadda bad times if happens?

I still don't get this sentiment: he was a ggod player available to us and because he preferred to help Collingwood win flags we passed?

You can pass on him if you think Tapscott is more value, but you can't let a bloke dictate your recruitment philosophy.

We would have a captain and Collingwood wouldn't have a flag.

I still don't get this sentiment: he was a ggod player available to us and because he preferred to help Collingwood win flags we passed?

You can pass on him if you think Tapscott is more value, but you can't let a bloke dictate your recruitment philosophy.

We would have a captain and Collingwood wouldn't have a flag.

How can a guy who openly states he doesnt want to join a club be considered for captain 2 years later? thats it. forcing players to be somewhere would be degenerative to a situation imo.

How can a guy who openly states he doesnt want to join a club be considered for captain 2 years later? thats it. forcing players to be somewhere would be degenerative to a situation imo.

Mitch Clark was going home to Fremantle until the MFC changed his mind. I wish we had used the same attitude on Luke Ball. He would have been a great asset. The Filth never owned him, they flexed their muscle and everybody else sat down meekly.

How can a guy who openly states he doesnt want to join a club be considered for captain 2 years later? thats it. forcing players to be somewhere would be degenerative to a situation imo.

Well, let's get rid of the draft...

That may seem blase, but it's ostensibly the same issue - the only difference is the age of the players that usually make up the draft.

It's not an issue anymore as Ball would have been a RFA and would have gone to Collingwood or stayed at St Kilda but if you are in the draft, you have put yourself in the position to be picked up by anyone.

And the club has the prerogative to pick best available.

It should have led to us picking him.