The elephant in the room is the fact that it's about time we just rolled up our sleeves and got on with it instead of whinging all the time - it's starting to sound like Shinbonerland around here not Demonland. Sure ask for a pick, make your case and argue for it and take the pick if they give it to you but if not it's not the end of the world. We can turn this ship around with or without the PP, it's not essential it's a luxury.

Pick 1 this year is a massive bargaining chip, and we actually need it to help trade in midfield help.

Roll up your sleeves all you want, the list isn't up to it. We need the PP and I don't care how we got here, we just are.

Or we can just let GWS have it and watch them get stronger. Whatever.

And this isn't a defeatist tanking attitude. It's real, we are crap and PP's are there to help make lists better

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.

Here we go again with semantics.

I said it is relevant only to the perception of a pick awarded to us, it is not relevant to the rules that we were acquitted of ranking earlier this year per behaviour 4 years ago.

And the whingeing is being done by the clubs who gladly lose 8 (Coll) or 11 (Carl) straight to finish a season to get a PP or get back-to-back PPs after 5 years of 10+ wins a season.

The rule is designed to amend hopelessness, this noble desire to stand on our own two feet, and say no to 'help' or 'handouts' would be more noble if it weren't so foolhardy.

Ruthless clubs would not be bullied about a opportunity like this, no the ruthless clubs are the ones saying one thing and did another, and they are standing on our necks.

That is why Jackson 'embarrassed himself' according to Peter Ryan and Damian Barrett. He knows that Essendon would do the same, and so would every other club that was a woeful as us (not that they would get as woeful as us).

At least there are a few above who recognize the issue. If it was Carlton getting assistance in this manner there would be outrage here.

But the facts are clear. The AFL's job is to maximise the competition and while we are performing the way we are we are hurting it. And our incompetence in selecting players in the past has provided other clubs with much better picks, a fact they ignore.

Our performance warrants assistance on that there can be no argument, but I can see "the elephant in the room". It's a real issue. Those that can't are just blind.

You would think the elephants have left the room by now. We've been punished already for past indiscretions. This is a decision for the here and now and for the future.

It's irrelevant what club's involved; be it us, Carlton or Hawthorn. There's no need for the club to be punished for bad recruiting in 2003, 2006 or 2009. The AFL has laws about assistance and our application's dated 2013.

We are the extraordinary situation.

I agree, I think we are. I also think the mechanism is not right, it invites criticism.

If media pressure is so good at affecting decisions made by clubs and the AFL we need to write more articles regarding the sacking of Damian Barrett.

We've lodged an application and are making our case but if the AFL say no what are we going to do about it?

Getting the right people in place off-field such as Roos, Jackson & hopefully Bartlett and developing our players, setting up structures and developing the right culture is far more important for us than a PP. With these things sorted we will be able to nurture a kid picked in the teens or 20's into the player we want. We have Toumpas, Viney, Hogan, pick 2 & 18 already next year, we haven't got the best out of Trengove, Blease or Grimes and Clark & Dawes are yet to play in the same side together; there's still plenty there to work with.

Here we go again with semantics.

I said it is relevant only to the perception of a pick awarded to us, it is not relevant to the rules that we were acquitted of ranking earlier this year per behaviour 4 years ago.

And the whingeing is being done by the clubs who gladly lose 8 (Coll) or 11 (Carl) straight to finish a season to get a PP or get back-to-back PPs after 5 years of 10+ wins a season.

The rule is designed to amend hopelessness, this noble desire to stand on our own two feet, and say no to 'help' or 'handouts' would be more noble if it weren't so foolhardy.

Ruthless clubs would not be bullied about a opportunity like this, no the ruthless clubs are the ones saying one thing and did another, and they are standing on our necks.

That is why Jackson 'embarrassed himself' according to Peter Ryan and Damian Barrett. He knows that Essendon would do the same, and so would every other club that was a woeful as us (not that they would get as woeful as us).

I think Jackson embarrassed a few jounos at the press conference by hinting that they might like to do their homework. Also giving them a history lesson as to why we have a commission.

I have a lot of issue with the bolded sentence.

It's the sort of ignorant bullsh*t I'd expect from an opposition supporter that knows nothing about the club.

Since 2003 we've had a total of 2 priority picks. 2. Picks 1 & 17.

Hawthorn had picks 2 & 3 as priorities, as a comparison.

High draft picks are not some extra "reward" for finishing lower.

They are our draft position for having to put up with a rubbish bottom 4 team year after year.

We get 1st round draft picks just like every other team in the competition, who by your logic must have been stockpiling them too.

Compensation picks are fair compensation in return for losing assets.

They haven't come in without us losing something valuable in return.

It's inflammatory language to make a redundant and ill-considered point.

Since 2007 we have had picks 1, 1 (PP), 2, 3, 4, 4 (CP), 11, 12, 12, 13 (CP), 14, 17 (PP) & 18 inside the 1^st round.

Since 2007 we have finished 14, 16, 16, 12, 13, 16 & 17.

Which part of the statement that we have been stockpiling high draft picks, Priority Picks and compensation picks for years and we have gotten worse is ignorant [censored]?

Clearly, whether by default or otherwise, we have stockpiled high draft picks. Clearly, we have gotten worse. They are the facts.

I do not understand the Hawthorn comparisons. Hawthorn utilised Priority Picks to their advantage. Melbourne have not, on the contrary, the club’s belief that high draft picks were the magic solution to on-field success crippled the club.

I do not doubt that on form alone, if anyone deserves a Priority Pick, we do. I am simply opening it up to consideration that pursuing another Priority Pick may be counter-productive to MFC’s pursuit of a winning culture, as that has certainly been our experience in the last 6 years.

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.

er no we got Trengove and $cully. And when $cully left we got Hogan, Toumpas and Viney and Barry.

er no we got Trengove and $cully. And when $cully left we got Hogan, Toumpas and Viney and Barry.

And Sylvia & Blease. Like it or not, those players came to our club due to PP's.

We've lodged an application and are making our case but if the AFL say no what are we going to do about it?

Getting the right people in place off-field such as Roos, Jackson & hopefully Bartlett and developing our players, setting up structures and developing the right culture is far more important for us than a PP. With these things sorted we will be able to nurture a kid picked in the teens or 20's into the player we want. We have Toumpas, Viney, Hogan, pick 2 & 18 already next year, we haven't got the best out of Trengove, Blease or Grimes and Clark & Dawes are yet to play in the same side together; there's still plenty there to work with.

I agree with all of that, and if the 'AFL say no there is nothing we can do about it, but you can not deny the power of pick 1 this year. It's going to turn this hypothetical ship you talked of in your first post around a lot faster.

Didn't Barrett write this same article last week??

Watch his analysis of the MFC on the AFL.com sight "The Wash Up"

He certainly doesn't want the MFC to improve.

Personally i do not like the PP because of what it has done for this club.

But i will back PJ in a fight against Barrett any day of the week.

The Whorethorn President can STFU as well.

There is no elephant in the room.

He left along with our CEO, President, Coach and Cuddles.

P.S.- the AFL let GWS steal our #1 pick away. They owe us.

Now that the Essendrug scandal has died down a little the media need something else to sink their teeth into. Who would have thought it would be us lol.

Bring Back Wada.

Since 2007 we have had picks 1, 1 (PP), 2, 3, 4, 4 (CP), 11, 12, 12, 13 (CP), 14, 17 (PP) & 18 inside the 1^st round.

Since 2007 we have finished 14, 16, 16, 12, 13, 16 & 17.

Which part of the statement that we have been stockpiling high draft picks, Priority Picks and compensation picks for years and we have gotten worse is ignorant [censored]?

Clearly, whether by default or otherwise, we have stockpiled high draft picks. Clearly, we have gotten worse. They are the facts.

I do not understand the Hawthorn comparisons. Hawthorn utilised Priority Picks to their advantage. Melbourne have not, on the contrary, the club’s belief that high draft picks were the magic solution to on-field success crippled the club.

I do not doubt that on form alone, if anyone deserves a Priority Pick, we do. I am simply opening it up to consideration that pursuing another Priority Pick may be counter-productive to MFC’s pursuit of a winning culture, as that has certainly been our experience in the last 6 years.

Picking poorly was counter-productive too...

A counting Scully's Pick 1 AND the comp picks we got for him as you did and Ryan has done is misleading.

We have had 1 pre draft comp pick since 2007 when we fell of a cliff into oblivion. And because we were investigated (and exonerated) people think we shouldn't get help?

We all want to move up the ladder and stop having these conversations, but as a fan, I have put up with enough nonsense from this club without rejecting the draft assistance that a club in our lowly position should be given.

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.

er no we got Trengove and $cully. And when $cully left we got Hogan, Toumpas and Viney and Barry.

Not quite Junior, Trengove was our normal first round pick in the draft, not a compensation pick.

We got two first round picks for Scully and traded one of them for Hogan, Toumpas and Viney had nothing to do with that.

Why are other clubs involved in this process? Ask them of course they are going to say no. Geez Louise!

Here we go again with semantics.

I said it is relevant only to the perception of a pick awarded to us, it is not relevant to the rules that we were acquitted of ranking earlier this year per behaviour 4 years ago.

And the whingeing is being done by the clubs who gladly lose 8 (Coll) or 11 (Carl) straight to finish a season to get a PP or get back-to-back PPs after 5 years of 10+ wins a season.

The rule is designed to amend hopelessness, this noble desire to stand on our own two feet, and say no to 'help' or 'handouts' would be more noble if it weren't so foolhardy.

Ruthless clubs would not be bullied about a opportunity like this, no the ruthless clubs are the ones saying one thing and did another, and they are standing on our necks.

That is why Jackson 'embarrassed himself' according to Peter Ryan and Damian Barrett. He knows that Essendon would do the same, and so would every other club that was a woeful as us (not that they would get as woeful as us).

So, you think that being successful in a plea for further assistance will be a show of strength...

Okay, let me ask you this: has the appointment of Paul Roos influenced your thinking on this at all?

I just like the look on his face when he walks out on the footy show and hears the boos coming from the audience. I would love it if it got progressively louder every week.

Don't complain about getting Scully taken off us, we netted Hogan out of it.

Let's face it, Hogan smash Scully.

The Coke-Bottle Kid strikes again.

I like this bit:

[He could make an equally powerful decision before the next AFL commission meeting: withdraw his request for the priority pick.

And attach to that withdrawal a statement along these lines: "We at Melbourne no longer want nor need any more AFL assistance. We are sick of people looking at us with disdain and embarrassment. We hereby commit to fighting our way out of trouble, all on our own."]

Well thanks Damo for the suggestion and the extra condescending tone. Love how you went to the effort of wording it for us too. Who dafuq do you think you are?

It's a competition you tool, the AFL implemented these PP systems not MFC. Every team works that extra 1% within the rules to be competitive and if an established club with 2 wins and 50% isn't entitled to inquire then who is?

And Sylvia & Blease. Like it or not, those players came to our club due to PP's.

Let's keep it to the years after we fell off a cliff - 2007 to 2013.

Blease and Scully (or Hogan and Dawes so we actually got our pre-draft priority from 2009 - half in 2013 with Dawes and half in 2014 with Hogan)

4 seasons since we have bothered the AFL for one after having what would normally be two top 6 picks turned into Pick 12 thanks to the expansion allowances.

22 wins from 88 games.

Frankly, having a go at us for picking the wrong teenagers has always smacked me of an acute level of triteness; Morton is soft, Watts has struggled to come on, Blease spends his time injured in his first few years, Gysberts does not develop the body for the AFL, Maric has the tank of an 8 year old, Scully decides that $2m can buy you happiness et al.

"Oh, we are so sorry for picking the wrong effing players, other-AFL-clubs-that-benefit-from-our-misfortune! We are so sorry!! Please take our draft assistance from us!! You're right, it's much easier on the ground with your foot on our neck - thankyou sir!"

Picking poorly was counter-productive too...

A counting Scully's Pick 1 AND the comp picks we got for him as you did and Ryan has done is misleading.

We have had 1 pre draft comp pick since 2007 when we fell of a cliff into oblivion. And because we were investigated (and exonerated) people think we shouldn't get help?

We all want to move up the ladder and stop having these conversations, but as a fan, I have put up with enough nonsense from this club without rejecting the draft assistance that a club in our lowly position should be given.

Did we pick poorly or did we destroy them with our blind faith in high draft picks?

And no, listing the picks we got without acknowledging whether or not any were compensation picks would be misleading. I simply listed the draft picks we have received each year, specifically acknowledging any PPs or CPs.

Don't complain about getting Scully taken off us, we netted Hogan out of it.

Let's face it, Hogan smash Scully.

No we didn't we got Toumpas at pick 4 (T$ compensation pick #1). Hogan was traded using pick 3 (obtained by ladder ranking) along with pick 13 (T$ compensation pick #2) to get Barry and Dawes.