Good point. Part of me doesn't like the salary cap idea because it is hard to organise I.e does it offset over year? Two years? What happens if a team has a sudden rise up the ladder and the contracts are still running? Perhaps there could be an additional "marketing allowance" for free agents or marquee players for clubs in the bottom 6 as well? I.e.an additional $200k signing bonus or something?

Also I think any clubs finishing in the top 4 should be prohibited from signing any free agents in that season unless they lose a free agent in the same free agency period.

And despite the talk against free agency compensation, I think it needs to stay or be increased, otherwise it will compromise the draft etc as teams won't be able to replace talent as it is picked off.

Would love it but it completely undermines the whole reason the AFLPA lobbied for free agency in the first place.

The AFL has also stated that it is happy with free agency compo as it is. They don't want to increase it because they don't want clubs manipulating situations to get ridiculous levels of compo.

What a crap article. Sorry, Glenn, send a letter to yourself with a picture of a haemorrhoid and consider it a self portrait.

We were never found guilty of tanking.

We are in dire straits

How many other draft picks have not made it at other clubs? It ain't just us.

Who cares that 2 other teams were pantsed on the weekend. What does that have to do with anything?

What is your real point? You are a flat track bully picking on the weak kid. Try writing something constructive.

The AFL have to tolerate us for 4 years or mess up their broadcast rights. A weak Melbourne makes attendances for our host clubs drop too. It is in the AFL's interest to have us viable, if not competitive, ASAP. So, cash + priority picks + any other help to get us out of the toilet.

Thanks for nothing Mr Haemorrhoid.

Would love it but it completely undermines the whole reason the AFLPA lobbied for free agency in the first place.

The AFL has also stated that it is happy with free agency compo as it is. They don't want to increase it because they don't want clubs manipulating situations to get ridiculous levels of compo.

Fair call. We are yet to see how the system works, and I think it nasty play putt different this year.

We should have taken Byrnes through the draft for compensation purposes, I think we'll see more of that this year from all clubs, although other clubs may play hard ball and refuse to trade for low picks so that they get the FA compo.

The AFLPA wants all players to have equal chance of success. If that is the case then something needs to give somewhere regarding improving bottom teams. I don't think think making trans pay more of the cap helps either, it just means average players get paid more.

Maybe instead of increasing the salary cap for lower places teams there could be a sliding scale of cap minimum % payments?

I think gradient scales across the board are a good way of avoiding tanking as there is no specific cut off point, but if your cap changes year to year it will be very hard to manage.

That is one of the most stupid football articles I have ever read. The logic is moronic. Another argument he should have, would be that, as we have played many games and lost most, we don't deserve a PP because we had the chance to win games and failed to do so.

Of course other sides will complain, their supporters will complain and club boards will complain.

But, all they have in common is the self interest of their own club, it's pointless listening to a Craig Kelly rave on about abolishing compo picks

or opposition sides worrying about what MFC receive in terms of picks.

It's pointless because these people only see things from their own point of view and what is best for their own club.

The AFL on the other hand, they see things from a broader perspective in terms of - what is best for the League.

What is best for the league is to give every side in the competition a chance to win the flag, the AFL owes this to clubs fans.

And.. The AFL knows this, it's a very well run business and the AFL operates in fairness to everyone.

We will receive a priority pick or compensation of some sort, because if we don't, the AFL brand is worse off.

We don't deserve a pick, we tank and were stupid enough to have meetings about it and jokes and got caught.

We are the outcome of a lo of dumb decisions over a long time.

The shorter Glenn McFarlane: Melbourne has not won enough games to deserve a priority pick.

Glen McFarlanes writing is about as relevant and good as one of Greg Champions 50 or so shite Footy ditties to 'The Lion Sleeps Tonight'.

We don't deserve a pick, we tank and were stupid enough to have meetings about it and jokes and got caught.

We are the outcome of a lo of dumb decisions over a long time.

I think you're gonna find that ANY side that gets a compo pick is going to have made a lot of dumb decisions over a long time. Thats why its there ......to help rescue sides that go swimming outside the flags and caught in the rip.

Sure it will bring ridicule but who cares ...we're getting it 24/7 anyway. Once we start winning IF we ever do again, someone else will be in the spotlight.

Isn't Bailey at the crows, not Port.

Were Roy's fans hurting when they won 3 in a row with Brisbane, probably not as much.

See where he's coming from but "it is what it is"!

The shorter Glenn McFarlane: Melbourne has not won enough games to deserve a priority pick.

Agree, see my post 29.

Just a stupid notion that if you got them down off their high horse, they would realise it.

Bad teams deserve PPs but MFC has been bad because of the decisions they have made (as opposed to any other team that deserves a PP...), therefore they shouldn't get one.

It is ridiculous. If we finish on 2 or 3 wins after a 4 win season last year then the Commission will have to make a decision and the decision they make will set a precedent for the foreseable future when it comes to ensuring a more even competition.

It's all well and good to say we don't deserve a priority pick because of our own incompetence. But when would there ever be a situation where a club has been perfectly competent, and yet still needs a PP? By definition, their competency will put them in a position where they won't be begging for handouts!

So to adopt McFarlane's underlying premise would be to say that under no scenario would ANY TEAM be deserving of a PP.

It's no secret that GW$ and Gold Coast have been hogging all the priority picks the last few years due to being expansion clubs.

I think the Gold Coast have done us a huge favour by being midtable so we will get the priority pick this time.

Whoever coaches us next year be it Neeld or someone else, hopefully it gives them something to work with.

Hope we don't get one to be honest , would prefer to have say the same as gws and gc the 2 picks for 17 year olds ( like hogan ) and we have to trade them , but not for picks only for players

Hope we don't get one to be honest , would prefer to have say the same as gws and gc the 2 picks for 17 year olds ( like hogan ) and we have to trade them , but not for picks only for players

Did you see my suggestion earlier in the thread? I think this would be a good AFL solution instead of pp. No bottom side ever needs an extra 18 year old, they need a player who will help them straight away.

FWIW I think we'll trade our first round picks regardless. We have done good young talent. Viney and Toumpas are guns. Trengove should come on. Matt Jones los great. Nate Jones isn't old. Add two key good mids to that and we're on track.

I was thinking this morning about the equalisation debate. So what if the bottom 2 clubs had the opportunity to take a mature age player out of any comp in Australia outside of the normal draft/rookie/pre-season drafts. This would occur before the normal draft and they could take one player from the VFL/WAFL/SANFL etc. This would give them first dibs to the best mature aged players in the country not yet on an AFL list. It would also mean they can keep their current draft picks to continue drafting kids to bolster their sides for the future. It may also be possible to offer this for the bottom 4 and they all choose in order from last to 4th last.

Thoughts?

I was thinking this morning about the equalisation debate. So what if the bottom 2 clubs had the opportunity to take a mature age player out of any comp in Australia outside of the normal draft/rookie/pre-season drafts. This would occur before the normal draft and they could take one player from the VFL/WAFL/SANFL etc. This would give them first dibs to the best mature aged players in the country not yet on an AFL list. It would also mean they can keep their current draft picks to continue drafting kids to bolster their sides for the future. It may also be possible to offer this for the bottom 4 and they all choose in order from last to 4th last.

Thoughts?

Interesting.

It avoids the normal 'tanking' problem since no one is going to torpedo an entire season for a 25 year old 'could-be'. It's even hard to imagine a bottom of the ladder 'race to the bottom' style last game of the season based on that incentive, but I suppose it could happen. It would happen anyway in a uncompromised draft for a better position.

Should also allow that player to be traded for a pick or another player if the club wants to do that.

I like it

Hope we don't get one to be honest , would prefer to have say the same as gws and gc the 2 picks for 17 year olds ( like hogan ) and we have to trade them , but not for picks only for players

That is actually a good idea IMO. But, what if we were offered say Cross, Higgins and a 2nd round pick from the bulldogs. Packages like that would be acceptable, surely?

The above was an example, of a player+player+pick.

I understand when our development and strategy is questioned but talk about drafting always annoys me.

Surely, there is a general level of consensus about the draft order across the league.

For example, if we didn't take Watts, one of the next couple of teams would have and perhaps they would have done a better job developing him, who knows, but the focus on drafting just seems ridiculous to me.

And I thought there was only one man who could conclude we were too crap for a PP.

Sydney had enough money to be paying Plough. When gws came in how was it that two struggling sides lost potential top notch players rather than the big end of town.

I doubt a priority pick will save us but with tanking we took one for many.

Isn't Bailey at the crows, not Port.

Were Roy's fans hurting when they won 3 in a row with Brisbane, probably not as much.

See where he's coming from but "it is what it is"!

Yep, as soon as I read that the article lost all credibility. Basic facts. Get them right or don't bother putting them to print. What a clown.

i have now and I agree as per my post

Did you see my suggestion earlier in the thread? I think this would be a good AFL solution instead of pp. No bottom side ever needs an extra 18 year old, they need a player who will help them straight away.

FWIW I think we'll trade our first round picks regardless. We have done good young talent. Viney and Toumpas are guns. Trengove should come on. Matt Jones los great. Nate Jones isn't old. Add two key good mids to that and we're on track.

That is actually a good idea IMO. But, what if we were offered say Cross, Higgins and a 2nd round pick from the bulldogs. Packages like that would be acceptable, surely?

The above was an example, of a player+player+pick.

I think there would have to be a option of something like this yes but have to be say at most a 2nd or 4rd round pick so you would also have to offer a decent player

so really the AFl would have to approve the trade