Mr Magic

It might be a little early to get too excited yet. According to Francis Leach on SEN, the betting plunge consisted of 4 bets for a total of #130

With all due respect, how do you categorize it as poor list management when you don't know what deliberations and decisions were made? When Ball told St Kilda that he wanted a trade to Collingwood, they attempted to do that trade. Are you suggesting that they should have taken the rubbish that Collingwood was trying to 'bully' them into taking, on the basis that something is better than nothing? St Kilda told Collingwood from the outset that they were only interested in 2 scenarios:- a draft pick that Western Bulldogs would accept for Everitt (In the first 22) a player similar to Everitt - Nathan Brown was enquired about. Collingwood offered either Wellingham or DP 30 - neither of which was of any use to St Kilda. So what sould they have done? I might also argue that they in fact gained by not 'enriching' Collingwood for no real benefit to themselves. Also, between Ball telling St Kilda he wanted to go to Collingwood and the end of Trade Week they managed to obtain 2 players Lovett and Peake. The combined salary of them would have used up most (if not all) of the money they had offered Ball. (not debating whether those 2 players are any good or not) And sometimes Clubs need to make a stand at Trade Week so that in the future other Clubs deal 'fairly' with them. It is no secret amongst the AFL Cubs that Hawthorn and Collingwood are the 2 worst Clubs to deal with - their attitude is that they want the very best but are prepared to only give up the very worst. St Kilda hasn't seemed to have had a problem dealing with most other Clubs. Good luck for whoever you mange to pick up - I hpoe Luke Ball gets taken by you - prefer to see him at Melbourne than anywhere else.

St Kilda has released a public statement today stating that Luke Ball has informed them he is leaving.

Unless of course you view it in the following light:- What if St Kilda says to Connors we cannot pay Ball more then the 300k we've offered him. Connors says in reply - we need another 100k. St Kilda says the only way we can do that is to delist Maguire who is uncontracted. We have offered him a 1 year deal on 100k, which we'll need to withdraw. Connors says Ball needs 400k. How would you view the conflict in that 'hypothetical' circumstance? I actually don't believe that is what happened, but should Ball stay at St Kilda on an increased salary to the original offer, then the money can only have come from the selisting of Maguire. The money they've saved on Hudghton and X Clarke is gone to pay Lovett and Peake. Maybe the money they offered Ball originally isn't there any more either? They seem reluctant to put any players on the Veterans List which would point to them utilizing the Rookie List to its maximum.

This is a joke yes? Surely nobody, even an educated Collingwood supporter would believe this Brothers Grimm Fairy Tale that the deal of Ball to Collingwood only arose on teh Monday of Trade Week. That's the problem, The average Feral Filth Fan actually believes the BS manure put out by Collingwood as fact, rather than the errant nonsense that it is. Tell em you seriously don't believe that Ball didn't have a deal with Collingwood before Trade Week? As for Jolly, I'll let you in on a little secret that your good mate, the other old Xaverian, has neglected to tell you. He offered Jolly to Hawthorn well before COllingwood and only spoke to Collingwood after Hawthorn decided to concentrate on Burgoyne. I realize that kind of throws your whole neat story out with teh garbage where it belongs, but that's the problem when Connors is acting for both Jolly and Ball and COllingwood only has 1 first round pick to trade.

Old Xaverian, Do you actually believe that the mooted move of Ball to Collingwood occured on the Monday of Trade Week? Are you really that naive? Denham had been writing stories for weeks about the Ball/Collingwood connection. The deal, including how much he was going to get paid had been ironed out well before trade week - just like the Judd to Carlton deal had been worked outr by (guess which manager?) well before the 'charade' of him 'interviewing' prospective clubs. Collingwood knew before trade week even started what they needed to do to get Ball. They needed to satisfy Western Bulldogs who were prepared to trade Everitt to St Kilda for a draft pick in the first 22. St Kilda were prepared to let Ball go to whomever would provide what WB wanted. Collingwood kept negotiating in bad faith (as they seem to do so often) hoping that St Kilda would buckle under the pressure of getting nothing for Ball. Well St Kilda didn't 'buckle' and now we have the situation we have where you are suggesting that Collingwood is prepared to 'rort' the salary cap and draft rules. Connors was 'a party to these negotiations and knew exactly what was going on. Don't let the fact that Connors is a fellow 'Xaverian' cloud your perspective. Connors earns his money, like all managers, from a commission of his clients paycheck. The bigger the paycheck, the bigger the commission. For Connors it's a 'no-brainer' - 5% of 500k is a lot more than 5% of 300k. And Hannibal, do you really think a player manager, in the midst of crucial negotiations is going to 'blurt out' the whole truth about those negotiations to a guy who is the parent of his children's friends? He'll tell you what he wants you to know and most probably pass on. Some of it may be true, some not. But you can almost guarantee that it won't be the whole truth. (not having a go here - just a cautionary note) RPFC You can believe what you want to. I'm not trying to convince anybody to my way of thinking. Just pointing out some salient facts which I believe have been overlooked in your debate so far. Quite frankly I really don't care where Ball plays next year. If he stays at St Kilda and plays under the Coaches instructions - fine If he goes to Melbourne - fine If he goes to Collingwood - fine I just want the truth to come out - not the complete and utter BS being pushed by Ball's camp/manager/family to try and 'blame' St Kilda for this mess. A mess that that is entirley their own fault. They chose to go down the path they did and must now live with the consequences, whatever they are.

Denham has written a number of articles about the Ball situationover the last couple of months. Firstly it was an article that Collingwood was interested in Ball Then an article that Collingwood were prepared to offer him 500k per season. Denham can only have been getting his information from either Ball or Connors. Connors has shown in the past his proclivity to negotiate salaries through the media so I have no doubt that Connors is the 'source' of Denham's knowledge. And I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but Some on here need to get some perspective. Luke Ball is a fabulous guy and was an elite player. Anybody who actually believes that St Kilda, trying to win the premiership, would deliberately not play any player because the 'coach doesn't rate him' has very little understanding of the way Clubs are run. So if you accept that his reduced 'gametime' was not due to a deliberate 'not play him' scenario, then what is left to ewxplain it? That the fitness staff at St Kilda made a determination that he couldn't perform at the required level for longer. Now some may feel that St Kilda's fitness staff have no clue, but I would point to the fact that this past season they had the least number of 'soft-tissue injuries' they've had in the last dacade so they must be doing something right. There has been so much public posturing by Ball's camp/family/manager about all of thiis. Firstly he wanted to go to Collingwood Then it was leaked that Collingwood was offering him less? (I always though 500k was more than 300k?0 Then it was for more 'gametime' Then it was because his position was 'untenable'. It smacked of hystrionic pr from a desperate manager who failed to get the deal done becasue of his own conflict of interest. (Ball would be at Collingwood if Connors didn't bring his other client Jolly to their attention. Collingwood subsequently used the only currency they held, pick#14, on Jolly. This was the pick they were supposed to use for Ball) The truth is that St Kilda (coaches, fitness match committee) had 'so little regard' for Ball that they selected him to play in each of their finals teams and he started the Grand Final on the ground, at the centre bounce. IMO, his 'gametime' issue at St Kilda has never been anything other than a 'ftiness issue'. St Kilda offered him a new 3 year contract in June (apparently 1 million over 3 years). He was on a heavily back-ended contract of 600k for this last season. He and his manager chose not to sign it. The 'gametime' issue didn't arise for at least a month after the contract was delivered to Ball. Connors has obviously told him not to sign it because he could get more. What we have seen is his normal m.o. in trying to either 'extort' more from the player's existing Club or get him a better offer from another. Obviously St Kilda didn't budge on their offer (for whatever reasons) and we have subsequently seen what has transpired. As an aside I believe Connors manages only 2 players at St Kilda - Ball and Maguire. If it proves that Maguire was delisted by St Kilda to gain salary cap money for Ball, than it will indeed be an interesting coversation to see how Connors explains it to Maguire? It might be even more interesting at Family dinners at the Ball household when Luke sits down with his sister and her boyfriend - Matt Maguire?

I'm bitterly disappointed in Luke, his manager and his family. I have no issue with a player wanting to leave his CLub. I have no doubt that Connors told Ball in June, when St Kilda offered him the new contract, that he could get more, either form another CLub or by forcing up the offer from St Kilda. I believe Connors shopped around and got interest from Collingwood. About 8 weeks ago Greg Denham wrote an article that Collingwood were interested in Luke Ball About 6 weeks ago Denham wrote another article stating that Collingwood were prepared to offer Ball $500,000 per season, well above the St Kilda offer. Both of these articles claimed 'sources close to Ball' and can only have been Connors or Ball's family. Neither of these articles seemed to impress st Kilda enough to improve their offer to Ball. Fine, no problem he can choose to go. Then during trade week we had, on successive days, the following reasons for Ball's request for a trade:- St Kilda offered more money than Collingwood - patently untrue I want more game time - doesn't seem to make sense? It's untenable at St Kilda with Lyon - only 2 weeks after he publicly was extoliing the great input, assistance and work all teh coaches had given him? I personally don't believe any of them. I think the driving force is the contract value from Collingwood which now has zero value becasue Collingwood chose not to make the deal with St Kilda. They offered nothing that St Kilda would accept as a trade. Pick #25 was useless and they knew it. St Kilda needed a pick below 21 to on-trade to the Bulldogs for Everitt. Connor's kyboshed the Ball deal when Hawthorn declined Jolly and he subsequently took Jolly to Collingwood. How much was he thinking of Ball then? I'm personally annoyed at Ball's reluctance to 'admit the truth'', much as Melbourne supporters are about McLean's bullshyte reasons as to why he defected to Carlton. Frankly I would have expected more honesty from him, but maybe he is under the influence of his manager and family? But all of the above is only my perspective from piecing together the various reports and leaks and looking at them logically. I'm certainly not in the majority over at Saintsational. But then again I wasn't on Ben Cousins either, as you may well remember!

Hey QueenC, we've missed you this season over at Saintsational.com. I realize that many of you won't be interested in my perspective on Luke Ball and his worth to MFC but I offer it for the few who might. Luke Ball may be very good for you if you can get him. He is quite possibly the best tackler in the AFL - a tackling machine. He is a brilliant clearance player - in the top 5 of the AFL. He is astute. He is a great leader by both word and deed. BUT He is not the player he was in 2005 when he was Captain, B&F winner and AA. Tragically he has been cruelled by OP. When he was drafted by St Kilda he was deceptively quick and a beautiful kick (either side) over reasonable distance. Maybe his OP problems are behind him? Maybe not? St Kilda obviously felt he had a role to play by offering him a new 3 year contract - at half of what he earned this year as a result of a back-ended deal signed when he was AA etc. The contract he was offered reflected the value St Kilda felt he had. He had his best ore-season for years. BUT he struggled to recover from games, taking up to 3 days before he was ok. This effected his ability to train and maintain his fitness base. The result of that was his inability to get to contests, a no-no under the current game-plan at St Kilda. Hence his game time started to drop. If Melbourne are going to adopt a similar game style (or variant) and his OP hasn't been fixed, then he will again struggle from about mid-season. The Grand Final showed both the best and worst of him. At the start of the game he was brillaint. As the game wore on he tired. I hope everything works out for him (except when you play the Saints) but I also hope that he doesn't become your 'whipping boy' on here becasue your expectations were raised far too high as to what he can provide. And another cautionary note. I've seen a number of posters mentioning that Paul Connors would assist MFC in some way. Be in no doubt that Connors thinks only of Connors' interests. His clients come second and the Club doesn't enbter into the equasion. Luke Ball is not at Collingwood because of Connors. Collingwood had pick 14 earmarked for the deal until Connors turned up with another client of his, Darren Jolly, and Collingwood used the pick for him. How much value was Connors to MFC when the 'Judd circus' was travelling around? The charade that passed as an 'interview process' was a complete sham. Engineered by Connors. He is a player manager first, second and last. Whether he went to Xavier, Brighton Tech or didn't go to school at all has nothing to do with the way he operates. God help you if Carlton or Collingwood need a full-forward wehn Jack Watts' contract comes up for negotiation. Watch the leaks through the media about other Clubs throwing bucketlaods of maoney at him to leave. It's his m.o. Thanks for your time and I apologise for interupting your discussion.

'Juicy picks' on their own won't be enough. Saints got Kosi and X Clarke from Priority picks (if no PP's then neither of those 2 would be at Saints) They got Goddard because Carlton got caught cheating. If that hadn't happened they would have had Salopek instead. Dal Santo was taken with a mid teens pick Montagna with a late pick Fisher with a pick in the 50's What many are conveniently forgetting are the players in the current Saints team traded from other teams or drafted off the Rookie list from other Clubs in the last 3 years when they had no early picks:- Gardiner King Schneider Gram Dempster Ray Dawson

Never let the facts get in the way of a good debate? I believe that the Saints have had 2 priority picks and with those 2 picks mangaed to get Koschitske and X Clarke. Even though they took Reiwoldt and Ball with the 2 priority picks, they would have taken those 2 players if there had not been any PPs with their first ordinary DPs. As for wooden spoons, they have had 1 this century - to enable their first pick for Reiwoldt. The following year Freo was bottom and the year after that it was Carlton. Since then they have not been near the bottom of the ladder. How many PP's have Freo, Melbourne, WB Richmond and Carltank had?

Guys, I'm a Saints fan just visiting. It's an interesting discussion/debate you are having re Sponsorship. At St Kilda they seem to have lost/unloaded their 'shorts sponsor' X-Box but have announced a new sponsor today - Bet-eezy. I have no idea how large/small the sponsorship deal is but it is significant enough for their media dept to announce it. Looking from the outside it would appear that the MFC are looking for a sponsor that is significantly more than what they had previously. If they eventually attract one then the wait will have been worth it. If they don't then they may, in hindsight, rue the lost opportunities they may have 'knocked back'. It would be really interesting to know what happened to Primus? Were they looking to cut back their involvement to a 'shared' major sponsorship arrangement, much like St Kilda had with their previous arrangement? If so, it may have been prudent to accept that and find a 'co=sponsor' with the view of turning that co-sponsor' into the next major sponsor? Then the Club would only be looking for half the amount they are now currently searching for, knowing that they at least had some funds coming in. Not really knowing anyting about it, it sounds like they've thrown out what they had in the thought they were going to get something better?

Hi guys, just visiting from SaintSational. Good win by you guys last weekend against us! Grazman, whilst I accept the premise of your thread about getting injuries to your good players, I've got a feeling that there would not be many who would agree that the Saints went into the game with a near 'full strength team' today. 7 of the players have never played a senior game. 5 more have played a total of 10 senior games between them. 12 of hte best 22 did not play today. I thought I would just set the record straight. Good luck for the season (except against the Saints)