Barrett...again...really?

[sue 8,444]

What a crock, it is this mentality as to why the MFC has been a rabble so long.

"If it is to be, it is up to me!"

There's no reason why we can't challenge for top 4 within 5 years if we get our footy department and recruiting sorted. We don't need the PP for that, one 18 year old kid won't make or break this club.

For a club whose stereotype is of being from the establishment/top end of town it truly surprises me how many on here seem to think welfare is the only way to survive.

A far stronger argument is that one trade of a super mid-fielder or so in return for handing over a top PP may well be significant. Nothing wrong with welfare if you need it, and if you look at our recent record, we need it in addition to sorting out our other problems. A PP is not a sufficient condition for success, but it can sure help. Your view is a bit hairy-chested in my personal opinion. To be really tough, we could forgo all draft picks up to round 3.

[sue 8,444]

You could just as easily say that the argument that a culture that has been eroded by the pursuit of Priority Picks can be improved by the provision of another Priority Pick is ridiculous.

Possibly, but no one is saying a PP will improve our culture.

We need culture improvement etc. As long as we don't think PP's will solve all our problems, having a PP can only help.

[Tony Tea 2,790]

Matt Murnane:

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has revealed every club has been in contact with the league to express its disapproval of the Demons’ bid to secure another prized selection in this year’s national draft.

But:

"Of the 17 clubs that are not Melbourne that have spoken or written to me, it’s fair to say there is a fairly consistent view ... They all say ‘no thanks’," he said on SEN on Tuesday

"Of the 17 clubs" is not "every club".

Nevertheless, it would be fair to assume most clubs would be raising robust protests.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

Possibly, but no one is saying a PP will improve our culture.

We need culture improvement etc. As long as we don't think PP's will solve all our problems, having a PP can only help.

Exactly. Particularly if Paul Roos uses said PP the way he has suggested he would to bring in two solid, strong bodied midfielders who could contribute to a hard working, head over the footy team ethos. We will improve without a PP but the PP might speed things up. After the last seven years is it selfish to hope for a more rapid ascent up the ladder?

[titan_uranus 22,444]

There are a few arguments in this thread that aren't great, tbh.

The argument that we've had PPs before, and therefore don't deserve one again, misses the point. The allocation of a PP is not about 'deserving'. It's about need. If we're talking about 'deserving', you could argue Hawthorn deserves it, given they've worked hard to become a strong club, and thus they 'deserve' a reward. I'm not interested in what Melbourne deserves, I'm interested in what Melbourne needs. In order to maintain our competitiveness, we need a PP, else we risk damaging the competition at large.

The argument that our culture of taking high picks and relying on them to improve is, again, not really directed at the true issue. Do we need a PP to be competitive? Our culture in 2008-2010 is, given Bailey, Schwab, Connolly and Prendergast are all gone, irrelevant to a substantial degree.

The other clubs arguing that it's unfair is nonsense, as I addressed earlier. For one, these are the same clubs that don't want to host home games against Melbourne because the crowds are so low and the standard of football is so pathetic that no one watches on TV.

Now, in saying all of this, I won't be furious if we don't get one. I can understand the reservation from the AFL, and whilst I don't agree with it, I'll live with it.

Latest from the Age.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-clubs-united-in-opposition-to-melbourne-priority-pick-20130910-2th5k.html#poll

'Melbourne, which finished 17th with only two wins, has lodged an application for a priority pick, and a decision by the AFL Commission will be made on September 23, the day of the Brownlow Medal count.

Advertisement

When asked what the feedback from clubs had been about the possibility of the embattled Demons receiving another free pick, Demetriou (who is also a Commission member) said the clubs had made their position clear.

"Of the 17 clubs that are not Melbourne that have spoken or written to me, it’s fair to say there is a fairly consistent view ... They all say ‘no thanks’," he said on SEN on Tuesday.

It has been revealed that a priority pick does not have to be among the first handful of selections, as has been the case in the past. The pick can be slotted into the end of the first round of the draft, for instance.

Former AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said on Sunday Melbourne did not deserve a priority pick and doubted that its request to the league would be successful.

Demetriou said installing the "four pillars" common at most highly successful clubs – a "strong and capable" chairman, chief executive, coach and captain – would make a far greater difference at Melbourne than any priority draft pick could.

"If you get those four things aligned and you get everyone on the same page, normally you are on the road to success," he said.

I would say we probably won't get one and if we do, it will almost certainly not be number 1.

Agreed.

Reading between the lines of Demetriou's statement, at best any pick we'll get will be end of first round.

Matt Murnane:

But:

"Of the 17 clubs" is not "every club".

Nevertheless, it would be fair to assume most clubs would be raising robust protests.

Those statements aren't inconsistent with each other, I'm not sure what you're on about.

Edited September 10, 2013 by titan_uranus

[Giles 179]

Of course it's relevant. We're talking about effectively fraudulently acquiring a PP that year, and the debate is about the merits of awarding another one. Anyone who isn't completely blinkered on this issue would acknowledge its relevance. Again, it's a matter of how much weight is given to it, not whether it is relevant or not.

MFC did not fraudulently acquire a PP in that year. A 7 month investigation found that. Notwithstanding that, there was no draft sanction placed on MFC for for the future application or granting of PPs.

This is a ridiculous debate. This is competitive professional team sport. This club is entitled to apply for a PP within the framework. It would be negligent for our club's administrators to not apply for it. The AFL will either grant it or not within its framework. The question of whether to apply for it or not has nothing to do with what other clubs may think and has nothing to do with what the AFL finding might be.

It is also a ridiculous thing to believe that if we apply for and are granted a PP that we can't also "roll up the sleeves", work hard and improve on field performance.

[rpfc 27,498]

So who else sees Roos as assistance in-lieu of draft assistance?

We can discuss it - the AFL are allowing $400k our 'Firing Squad' money to be spent on it.

Now we haven't said that we will spend the $400k, only that we can spend it.

The issue I have with seeing Roos as assistance as it is a coach-hire and is coincidental to the issue of having to pay out all these contracts; if we had all these people out of contract, we would still spend $1.5m on Roos. It is a no-brainer that may bring in more than he costs.

The second reason is that coaching installations (and exits) should be independent to the decision to give draft assistance. As great as Roos is, our list requires some assets as we have a dearth of talent.

A good coach may even hide those deficiencies.

The points of reference for the assistance of the MFC should stick to what the AFL Commission agreed to; wins, finals, injuries, et al.

Nowhere in those points was coaching upgrades.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,486]

A far stronger argument is that one trade of a super mid-fielder or so in return for handing over a top PP may well be significant. Nothing wrong with welfare if you need it, and if you look at our recent record, we need it in addition to sorting out our other problems. A PP is not a sufficient condition for success, but it can sure help. Your view is a bit hairy-chested in my personal opinion. To be really tough, we could forgo all draft picks up to round 3.

I said previously its ok to put the request in, it's ok to make the case and if we get the PP take it as you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. But if we don't get it we move on and do the hard work to get where we need to be.

Tell me, which super midfielder do you think you'll get in a trade for pick 1? No club is going to give away a gun player for a draft pick to draft a kid who may become a gun player. I haven't seen any realistic trades yet. Our best bet would be to throw money at a free agent like Dale Thomas for instance.

Welfare is ok if you need it but becoming reliant on it is doomed to failure.

[Ted Lasso 16,821]

Hard to understand the problem the other teams have,

1. our record is more than enough to deserve a Priority pick

2. we were found not guilty after a seven month tanking investigation, so even if a deal was made they can't use that as the reason.

3. we are going to trade these picks back into circulation anyway

4. our club has undergone a total overhaul of personal, they won't stuff it up again

if the tanking issue is not a sticking point, there is no reason we should be denied a PP

the other teams will just have to accept it would be for the better of the company and move down one spot in the draft.

[wattsup 470]

If we don't get a PP well they might aswell scrap it for good no one will ever deserve 1

[Jack Jack 415]

I'm not really sure that the argument of Melbourne wasting picks really holds up. With the likes of Cook and Gysberts for example, taken as high picks and basically discarded for nothing, doesn't that in retrospect actually improve every other teams subsequent picks? ie every other team has benefited from our inept drafting? If they think we're likely to make a poor decision, how in fact would that disadvantage the other teams?

And with regards to the monetary assistance, how is that any different from the likes of the North, Bulldogs et al who received grants for the upgrade of their facilities. One would assume that the upgrades were to make the teams more competitive. How does that substantially differ from spending the money elsewhere to make a team more competitive?

The only thing I can think that may muddy the waters is the number 1 pick we received previously as a priority pick. In a roundabout way it's ended up being Hogan, who is yet to debut 4 seasons after receiving the original priority pick. Will that be taken into consideration and will it work against us?

[Binmans PA 26,223]

I am not sure of the timing but I leave that to PJ, but I would get in the media about having a truly fair competition.

All the inequities of the competition need to be pointed out and that we will be seeking those remedied, if there is no early PP for us, given the AFL having the provision to award one.

I have raised the matters before but they all contribute to the inequality and unfairness of the competition.

Things like fixturing ( friday night games ) MCG games, skilled stadium games, interstate games etc, 3rd party deals.etc, etc, tanking investigations on other clubs that got PP's, funds to North, cats, Bombers , Pies for devlopment grants for stadiums and training centres.

All of these things and more, affect our ability to compete equally.

If the other clubs want to [censored] and moan about a PP, lets get it all out there in the open and see if that opens up a few cans of worms.

Spot on, Red. I hope PJ is thinking this and I hope someone from the club is reading this thread.

[rpfc 27,498]

I'm not really sure that the argument of Melbourne wasting picks really holds up. With the likes of Cook and Gysberts for example, taken as high picks and basically discarded for nothing, doesn't that in retrospect actually improve every other teams subsequent picks? ie every other team has benefited from our inept drafting? If they think we're likely to make a poor decision, how in fact would that disadvantage the other teams?

And with regards to the monetary assistance, how is that any different from the likes of the North, Bulldogs et al who received grants for the upgrade of their facilities. One would assume that the upgrades were to make the teams more competitive. How does that substantially differ from spending the money elsewhere to make a team more competitive?

The only thing I can think that may muddy the waters is the number 1 pick we received previously as a priority pick. In a roundabout way it's ended up being Hogan, who is yet to debut 4 seasons after receiving the original priority pick. Will that be taken into consideration and will it work against us?

Frankly, they should just stick to the defined points of reference they thought up when they made it all secret...

They could tell us what they are though...

[What 18,810]

wonder what Barretts thoughts are on the mighty MFC poaching the highly respected gun assistant Brett Allison from his beloved Norf

eat [censored] Barrett you absolute germ

[champagne football 27]

Anybody else listen to 'rumour files' on 3AW breakfast?

Ross's rumour, this morning, was that we weren't going to get a PP. Hate to say it, but he's usually on the money.

As the rest of you have said, it's outrageous. Their argument just doesn't make sense. You're a basket case, so you don't

deserve a priority pick. That's exactly when you do deserve one.

Jeez, two wins all year...

Hawks get Roughy and Buddy (and are about to get a premiership) Pies get Pendlebury and Swan.

We get zip.

Ross did also say that we were going to have Rodney Eade as our coach...

[Chook 14,559]

Ross did also say that we were going to have Rodney Eade as our coach...

Then all is not lost...

[Jara 1,149]

Ross did also say that we were going to have Rodney Eade as our coach...

Thanks Champagne (andRobbie F). Hope you're right (and that he's wrong again)

Cheers

[Eittocs12 32]

Sorry I had to vent somewhere after reading this article.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dees-fall-short-of-priority-pick-20130912-2tnkf.html

We can add Josh Elliot from the age with Barrett taking up the fight for the other teams against Melbourne to get a Priority pick.

It would be nice if the information they used to support their case was actually factual.

"Blease showed promise in his first two years, but was poor in 2013, playing just 10 games and averaging only 31 fantasy points a game."

As most people know Blease broke his leg and didn't play a game until Round 15 of his 3rd season on our list.

He goes on to mention T$ jumping ship with no mention of the fact he mainly went as they made him the highest paid play in the league.(Mind you it worked out well for us...Hogan & Barry).

Carlon's priority picks are mentioned but he fails to take note that carlton's priority picks were picks 2, pick 1, pick 1 and Pick 17. but does mention our priorty pick history with picks 3, pick 17 and pick 1. Of course he only mentions names and not where these picks were.

He finishes the aritcle by saying the standard of these players doesn't support melbournes case for a priorty pick.

It's not hard to understand that it is not the standard of the players but the overall standard of the TEAM that should be the determination weather Melbourne should receive a priority pick.

It would be nice if there was some balanced reporting on the topic.

[Ted Lasso 16,821]

Sorry I had to vent somewhere after reading this article.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dees-fall-short-of-priority-pick-20130912-2tnkf.html

We can add Josh Elliot from the age with Barrett taking up the fight for the other teams against Melbourne to get a Priority pick.

It would be nice if the information they used to support their case was actually factual.

"Blease showed promise in his first two years, but was poor in 2013, playing just 10 games and averaging only 31 fantasy points a game."

As most people know Blease broke his leg and didn't play a game until Round 15 of his 3rd season on our list.

He goes on to mention T$ jumping ship with no mention of the fact he mainly went as they made him the highest paid play in the league.(Mind you it worked out well for us...Hogan & Barry).

Carlon's priority picks are mentioned but he fails to take note that carlton's priority picks were picks 2, pick 1, pick 1 and Pick 17. but does mention our priorty pick history with picks 3, pick 17 and pick 1. Of course he only mentions names and not where these picks were.

He finishes the aritcle by saying the standard of these players doesn't support melbournes case for a priorty pick.

It's not hard to understand that it is not the standard of the players but the overall standard of the TEAM that should be the determination weather Melbourne should receive a priority pick.

It would be nice if there was some balanced reporting on the topic.

Last line of that article

" the numbers simply don't support the demons case for a priority pick"

34 wins in 7 years....

1 win in 7 years against a top 8 team...

we were found not guilty of tanking so that reasoning is off the table

players didn't develop under a previous administration but we now have a totally new team in charge ( all AFL approved )

to suggest we don't have a strong case is just stupid.

the only reason we won't get one at all is the other clubs don't like the idea.

[pantaloons 2,019]

I stopped reading after seeing that apparently Blease showed promise in his first two years. Perhaps he demonstrated some killer skills on NBA 2K9 or Leisure Suit Larry III while his foot lay next to him.

[rpfc 27,498]

It is frustratingly specious reasoning: to simply say that because we have not picked well, we don't deserve to pick anymore?

Just ignorant.

[sue 8,444]

Against my better judgement I just read that article. The logic and argument was worse than I imagined from reading this thread. How the writer got past 6th grade is beyond me.

I presume the only reason the MFC hasn't publicly refuted such rubbish is because they are wisely arguing our case in private. But I'd hope the Schwarz's and Lyon's etc of the world might say something. Are they?

[loges 6,094]

It is frustratingly specious reasoning: to simply say that because we have not picked well, we don't deserve to pick anymore?

Just ignorant.

Yes if a club finishes last 5 years in a row do you take the no.1 pick off them using the logic " well they're just wasting their picks" think not. Plenty of clubs have got picks wrong

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

. But I'd hope the Schwarz's and Lyon's etc of the world might say something. Are they?

Why should they? They are hardly MFC club agents. In fact on the basis of past contributions it better they keep out. I agree with you that the logic behind the anti PP argument is flawed.

[rpfc 27,498]

Why should they? They are hardly MFC club agents. In fact on the basis of past contributions it better they keep out. I agree with you that the logic behind the anti PP argument is flawed.

I sympathise with the 'we should not look for picks to save us' argument but I would argue that that argument is not an argument against a PP or draft assistance but our reliance on simply taking these boys and then waiting for them to save us. Which I agree with - there was nothing worse than listening to MFC officials reel off names as though through osmosis they would become consistent players, stars, and leaders.

The rest of the arguments are deeply flawed.