Thanks Robbo & Co

[Machsy 2,858]

Pretty happy with the media reaction to this so far.

It'd be too obvious if they were supportive, but Jon Ralph has been mildly critical without going too hard, and the HS have not put up any polls to push a negative supporter reaction.

I get the feeling old Ralphy has been promised a few exclusive interviews if he goes easy on us.

He has had a few early inside conversations with Roos in the last month or so, if you believe him.

And yes, I am calling into question his integrity.

The Age haven't even acknowledged it, to my eyes.

Result.

[Demon Head 271]

Tweet

@3AWisfootball: Jon Anderson tells 3AW Breakfast the #AFL is looking favourably towards giving Melbourne a priority pick. @RossAndJohn are staggered.

I believe that both Ross and John have legal backgrounds which makes their reaction all the more extraordinary.

Melbourne was investigated for tanking and was eventually charged with bringing the game into disrepute and a harsh sanction involving a large monetary fine and suspension of officials imposed. It has been punished for past indiscretions so why on earth should the club receive further punishment for something that happened in 2009 by being barred from receiving assistance for being a poor club in 2013?

The concept of double jeopardy surely applies to this situation.

[rpfc 28,267]

I believe that both Ross and John have legal backgrounds which makes their reaction all the more extraordinary.

Melbourne was investigated for tanking and was eventually charged with bringing the game into disrepute and a harsh sanction involving a large monetary fine and suspension of officials imposed. It has been punished for past indiscretions so why on earth should the club receive further punishment for something that happened in 2009 by being barred from receiving assistance for being a poor club in 2013?

The concept of double jeopardy surely applies to this situation.

People against us having a priority pick are not engaging their brains so it doesn't surprise me at all.

It's like an emotional reflex with people I talk to.

Mate: You guys shouldn't get one?

rpfc: Why? You always say that we are shizen. We are shizen. Shizen teams get a PP.

Mate: Yeah, but you guys just tanked to get one.

rpfc: Well, we were cleared of that but who cares, fine, we tanked in 2009. That was 4 seasons and 64 losses ago.

Mate: Was it that long ago...but you got like 3 of them. You picked wrong - too bad!

rpfc: We had one predraft PP and one after the first round in 09 and 08 respectively. We got Scully, which the AFL took back, and we got Blease with 19. That's it.

Mate: Oh, you only have one PP from after the first round left on your list after GWS stole Scully? And that guy was from 5 years ago? Wow, I was wrong, you guys should get a PP.

Ok, well that last line doesn't happen - instead it is silence because they have no idea what the facts, only what the facts feel like (props to Stephen Colbert).

But the silence says everything.

I want Jackson out to all these stupid shows on the front foot with this message. If they want to give out handouts, we should get one and we should fight for everything that is coming to us, you know, act like a club that knows what it's doing...

[binman 42,691]

I believe that both Ross and John have legal backgrounds which makes their reaction all the more extraordinary.

Melbourne was investigated for tanking and was eventually charged with bringing the game into disrepute and a harsh sanction involving a large monetary fine and suspension of officials imposed. It has been punished for past indiscretions so why on earth should the club receive further punishment for something that happened in 2009 by being barred from receiving assistance for being a poor club in 2013?

The concept of double jeopardy surely applies to this situation.

Excellent point. We were punished for not tanking. So it makes no sense to not get a PP because we found guilty of not tanking. Thats to say not getting a PP would be another punishment fór not tanking (assuming that was the logic for not being given a PP).

What would have happened if we were punished for tanking by the way?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Excellent point. We were punished for not tanking. So it makes no sense to not get a PP because we found guilty of not tanking. Thats to say not getting a PP would be another punishment fór not tanking (assuming that was the logic for not being given a PP).

What would have happened if we were punished for tanking by the way?

I think the tanking "crime" and "punishment" were contrived to suit AFL purposes. It's not a basis to justify a situation that we both agree should apply....that MFC get the PP.

Whether we were found guilty or not of tanking is neither here nor there? Those who oversaw the debacle at MFC are no longer at the Club and the AFL has issue going forward regarding the perpetual competitiveness (or lack thereof) of MFC. The provision of a PP is one tool at its disposal to assist the club.

[P-man 13,366]

People against us having a priority pick are not engaging their brains so it doesn't surprise me at all.

It's like an emotional reflex with people I talk to.

Mate: You guys shouldn't get one?

rpfc: Why? You always say that we are shizen. We are shizen. Shizen teams get a PP.

Mate: Yeah, but you guys just tanked to get one.

rpfc: Well, we were cleared of that but who cares, fine, we tanked in 2009. That was 4 seasons and 64 losses ago.

Mate: Was it that long ago...but you got like 3 of them. You picked wrong - too bad!

rpfc: We had one predraft PP and one after the first round in 09 and 08 respectively. We got Scully, which the AFL took back, and we got Blease with 19. That's it.

Mate: Oh, you only have one PP from after the first round left on your list after GWS stole Scully? And that guy was from 5 years ago? Wow, I was wrong, you guys should get a PP.

Ok, well that last line doesn't happen - instead it is silence because they have no idea what the facts, only what the facts feel like (props to Stephen Colbert).

But the silence says everything.

I want Jackson out to all these stupid shows on the front foot with this message. If they want to give out handouts, we should get one and we should fight for everything that is coming to us, you know, act like a club that knows what it's doing...

That's all very well, but you conveniently leave out the compensation for Scully. We've done quite well in the end out of that entire fiasco.

I take exception to anyone who expresses any reservations about receiving a PP deemed to be "not engaging their brains". Who the hell are you to judge that? The arrogance expressed in your posts sometimes defies belief.

Maybe people don't feel comfortable with being considered a welfare club. A third expansion team. Maybe they think that with a rumoured $1-2 million dollar coach as part of yet another bailout provided by the AFL, the club might actually be able to actually get itself out of the hole without draft assistance this time, instead of always returning to the AFL with cap in hand. Maybe people just don't like the concept of a PP.

I acknowledge that the club needs to become competitive and we are suffering at the hands of fools who have since left. The argument for a discretionary PP as it stands is there and it is sound. But this issue is not nearly as black and white as you present it as. I would suggest in fact it is you who is not engaging his brain for failing to recognise that.

[rpfc 28,267]

I thought about adding Hogan and Dawes for Scully but didn't deem it necessary to the point. That 'help' was on a 4 year delay anyway, 5 in the case of Hogan.

It didn't help to lose the little simpleton. That was the point. Here we are flailing and failing and our PP gets taken 2 years in.

Culture is a terribly easy thing to overlook. I don't. I know how important it is.

However, the rules of our game allow for assistance to the worst teams and am I talking about those struggling with the notion of culture in relation to a PP? Or am I talking about what I said I was talking about - the half thinking football masses that don't know the details, don't care about Melbourne, and don't want to think about it.

Frankly, I think there is only one answer but I only disrespect the unthinking amongst those that don't agree because they don't think about it.

That's not too many on here.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

I thought about adding Hogan and Dawes for Scully but didn't deem it necessary to the point. That 'help' was on a 4 year delay anyway, 5 in the case of Hogan.

It didn't help to lose the little simpleton. That was the point. Here we are flailing and failing and our PP gets taken 2 years in.

Culture is a terribly easy thing to overlook. I don't. I know how important it is.

However, the rules of our game allow for assistance to the worst teams and am I talking about those struggling with the notion of culture in relation to a PP? Or am I talking about what I said I was talking about - the half thinking football masses that don't know the details, don't care about Melbourne, and don't want to think about it.

Frankly, I think there is only one answer but I only disrespect the unthinking amongst those that don't agree because they don't think about it.

That's not too many on here.

Yeah, but we don't deserve it.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

As I stated somewhere else, those who claim we don't "deserve a priority pick" live in a world where the AFL is an organization that has running a fair and equal competition as it's core organizing principle. As most know, that's a load of crap. Priorities one, two three and probably four through to four hundred and four involve money. We're not competitive. We need to become competitive. A PP will help us become competitive. End of AFL thought process. Unless of course, there was more thought. And it will help us get Roos to Melbourne. Two birds, one stone.

[rumpole 515]

Yeah, but we don't deserve it.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

As I stated somewhere else, those who claim we don't "deserve a priority pick" live in a world where the AFL is an organization that has running a fair and equal competition as it's core organizing principle. As most know, that's a load of crap. Priorities one, two three and probably four through to four hundred and four involve money. We're not competitive. We need to become competitive. A PP will help us become competitive. End of AFL thought process. Unless of course, there was more thought. And it will help us get Roos to Melbourne. Two birds, one stone.

Too right.

And those shy about accepting these items of assistance from the AFL need to bear in mind the enormous benefits which the big ticket clubs like Collingwood and Hawthorn receive from the AFL's fixturing and other policies that bring money into their coffers and make them more attractive propositions in a number of areas such as recruiting.

Both Hawthorn and Collingwood stand to lose high profile players in Buddy Franklin and Daisy Thomas respectively to free agency this year. Both players were recruited in drafts where they had priority picks given to them less than a decade ago when they were struggling.

I wonder if their respective club presidents would be prepared to forgo the compensation available to their clubs (almost certainly first round picks) if those players went elsewhere?

Hypocrites!

[Machsy 2,858]

In all the Paul Roos madness, this seems to have been lost...

Listening to the SEN podcast last night while driving, I almost went off the road as Greg Denham of all people, on Kevin Bartlett's program, said of MFC, that his opinion is that we DESERVE and WILL GET a priority pick.

If I didn't hear it with my own ears, I wouldn't believe it.

He repeated it a couple of times to.

Has the world gone mad?

I don't know what to believe now...