Of course it is relevant, but it would have to be some heavy improvement to outweigh the previous six years and our lack of a midfield.

We lack a midfield now, but we have the makings of one if you take the young players we currently have on the list and combine them with some astute drafting at the end of the year, without the need for a PP.

IF we finish above St Kilda and the Dogs, and put in credible performances against top sides, we are not going to the AFL with the same case as Jackson has previously. That's all I'm saying.

We lack a midfield now, but we have the makings of one if you take the young players we currently have on the list and combine them with some astute drafting at the end of the year, without the need for a PP.

IF we finish above St Kilda and the Dogs, and put in credible performances against top sides, we are not going to the AFL with the same case as Jackson has previously. That's all I'm saying.

We've already put our case and it's not contingent on how the rest of the season pans out it's based on the last 6 years.

What is quick about drafting a good teenager?

And can posters stop equating 'tanking' to asking for draft assistance?

No-one is advocating losing, I hope we win the 7 games that some poor Dees fans think we can get to. But it is irrelevant and I fear we will see how far away we are from Sydney and Geelong in the next two weeks.

But we are nowhere near the middling teams - as Jackson has oft-repeated - we are a drain on the AFL right now.

We need some assets to move for good midfielders. Give us some low picks to trade for some young midfielders.

Draft Assistance is an equalisation measure and that policy should kick in for the MFC after our record over the past 6 years - 35-2-109.

JAckson has asked for it - frankly I am amazed people on here can't see why he has asked for it.

What I was trying to say rpfc is that we spent 4 years with a get low picks at all cost attitude.

The result

where we are today.

They are not the be all and end all of getting improvement.

We've already put our case and it's not contingent on how the rest of the season pans out it's based on the last 6 years.

That makes very little sense, if true. It's just basic common sense to make a full assessment at the END of the year, with performances under Craig being given proper consideration.

That makes very little sense, if true. It's just basic common sense to make a full assessment at the END of the year, with performances under Craig being given proper consideration.

The submission to the AFL included the request for draft assistance, it obviously (there's that word again) contained nothing about the rest of the season and in truth it shouldn't.

The submission to the AFL included the request for draft assistance, it obviously (there's that word again) contained nothing about the rest of the season and in truth it shouldn't.

I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't. Even rpfc has conceded that it is of relevance.

There are two facets to this:

a) a period of sustained failure (and btw, we were travelling okay in 2011 before the wheels fell off again);

b) the state of the team NOW. No-one is in a position to make a proper judgement on this until the end of the year. So essentially if there is no consideration given to performances for the rest of the year, b becomes irrelevant.

The submission to the AFL included the request for draft assistance, it obviously (there's that word again) contained nothing about the rest of the season and in truth it shouldn't.

As I see it there are two elements to this.

1) the giving ...or not of draft assistance

and

2) the nature and priority of it.

without a yes to 1 , 2 is moot, but even with a yes there are a myriad of options the league has. Like just about all of this it will be the EOS before any findings/announcements imho

I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't. Even rpfc has conceded that it is of relevance.

There are two facets to this:

a) a period of sustained failure (and btw, we were travelling okay in 2011 before the wheels fell off again);

b) the state of the team NOW. No-one is in a position to make a proper judgement on this until the end of the year. So essentially if there is no consideration given to performances for the rest of the year, b becomes irrelevant.

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't I'm just saying a request has been put in and obviously that request is not based on the rest of the season because it hasn't happened. The request has been made by the club along with the financial assistance package and the AFL said we would receive an answer in 3 to 4 weeks of the request being made.

If they want to give us extra picks I reckon you don't look a gift horse in the mouth...it's not about tanking or trying to lose games, in footy speak "it is what it is"..

Edited July 3, 201312 yr by rjay

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't I'm just saying a request has been put in and obviously that request is not based on the rest of the season because it hasn't happened. The request has been made by the club along with the financial assistance package and the AFL said we would receive an answer in 3 to 4 weeks of the request being made.

Ah, fair enough. I was not aware the AFL was responding with an answer that soon. Seems very strange to me.

Ah, fair enough. I was not aware the AFL was responding with an answer that soon. Seems very strange to me.

To me also. I would have thought it likely we'd receive an 'indication" as to the open-ness to this request but delay any actual gifting til seasons over and they can re-evaluate the lay of the footy political world.

But thats only my view...lol

To be honest I don't think the afl would entertain talking about it if it wasn't a high probability.

They have had opportunities to put it to bed. We even floated it publicly. To me that indicates they are trying to get the debate going and get everyone used to the idea that it will happen, rather than shocking everyone with it later on.

I doubt it is locked in but I think it is probably high on the list. Maybe a wink nudge see how we go scenario.

I just wish someone in the media would write a balanced article on it. Pointing out that the dogs have had recent success, that although we made bad decisions with drafting and are to blame for our own situation so are the Lions with their trading. A balanced view, not one that promotes our claim but one that critiques all scenarios evenly, would be refreshing. Everyone was quick to write articles about how we'd been crap for years when we were being kicked for tanking or when Neeld was getting kicked for our results, but no one is wheeling out those stats now.

Wouldn't be so bad if we got a PP directly after our second pick, considering Adelaide and Essendon will be out of the draft.

Wouldn't be so bad if we got a PP directly after our second pick, considering Adelaide and Essendon will be out of the draft.

I actually think the first pick in the draft might be a bit better. What you are suggesting would be of minor help only. You are talking about getting pick 21-23.

an extra top 5 pick would be nice, sheed and dunstan then zac jones 2nd round

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/port-adelaide-and-crows-disapprove-of-possible-priority-pick-for-dismal-demons/story-fni5f4l8-1226673955378#

Pretty obvious all the 17 other clubs have called each other up and said 'lets make sure we tell the media that the Demons should not get a PP, if we all show how we much disapprove of it then theres no way they will get it."

But i agree with them totally. No more compromised drafts please.

The AFL virtually thrown Port a priority pick when the AFL were generous with their compo last year - when they lost Pearce and Chaplin.

Getting sick of sides whinging about us receiving a pick.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/port-adelaide-and-crows-disapprove-of-possible-priority-pick-for-dismal-demons/story-fni5f4l8-1226673955378#

Pretty obvious all the 17 other clubs have called each other up and said 'lets make sure we tell the media that the Demons should not get a PP, if we all show how we much disapprove of it then theres no way they will get it."

But i agree with them totally. No more compromised drafts please.

Well besides a mini draft scenario, I have another solution, which only GWS could complain about, but given their AFL help, who would care.

The solution: Melbourne gets the first pick in the draft no matter where they finish and then the draft follows in normal order, with no pick for Melbourne until the next round.

That way all we are given is an elevation of our first pick by one or two spots.

the other clubs can stop sooking

I'll be comfortable if the AFL says no to the request of a draft "leg-up", I can understand the viewpoints of other AFL clubs.

That said its entirely at the AFL's discretion and the other 17 AFL clubs know this despite the uncertain criteria.

So if we do get assistance in the draft, our club should make the most of it and use it wisely.

Well besides a mini draft scenario, I have another solution, which only GWS could complain about, but given their AFL help, who would care.

The solution: Melbourne gets the first pick in the draft no matter where they finish and then the draft follows in normal order, with no pick for Melbourne until the next round.

That way all we are given is an elevation of our first pick by one or two spots.

I like it ....I doubt it

The objections of some of the clubs to the priority pick is understandable but the fundamental fact remains that the club needs assistance and the AFL has a policy of giving assistance to clubs in our position. We've been uncompetitive for too long and its affecting not only ours but the AFL's bottom line. That's what matters these days at AFL HQ and what, no doubt, makes a mini draft concession all the more compelling.

A mini draft is a far lesser compromise than a priority pick and the clubs that are whining will still keep their draft selection positions if they decide not to participate.

I'd say we get an end of first round pick, so depending on the Crows and Essendon, pick 17/18/19.

I'd also think it would be inactive, and would have to be involved in a trade.

No way we will get another top 5 pick, especially when we will finish above the dogs and possibly the saints.

Wouldn't be so bad if we got a PP directly after our second pick, considering Adelaide and Essendon will be out of the draft.

I think there'll be some other extra picks in the 1st round - GC is sitting on at least one.

I like the idea of The AFL granting a PP at pick no 4 or 5 that must be traded on for an experienced player. What we need is an experienced quality mid to go with Sheed, or Dunstan, or Aish, etc.

I think there'll be some other extra picks in the 1st round - GC is sitting on at least one.

I think GWS have one too.