Are some other clubs bringing the game into disrepute?

We have an independent body set up to assess the merits of clubs being awarded PP's.

Several clubs have written letters to the AFL and gone public in the media, with their opposition to the MFC gaining a PP.

These actions are clearly designed to put pressure on the appointed body and to influence it, in it's deliberations.

This IMO, is bringing the game into disrepute.

I think it's time for a long and thorough investigation of this cartel of clubs and for appropriate penalties to be handed down if there are guilty findings.

Certainly contempt of court.

Players and coaches get warned/fined if they discuss tribunal cases and this isn't much different.

  On 12/09/2013 at 02:09, the master said:

Certainly contempt of court.

Players and coaches get warned/fined if they discuss tribunal cases and this isn't much different.

It's not quite contempt of Court, but you are correct it has a similarity.

It is clearly inappropriate behaviour though.

I think the AFL do enough gagging.

The clubs are entitled to their opinion, you can't go dropping a charge on anyone who expresses one.

Usually on the money money Redleg but have to differ with you here.

Its contempt of Vlad's court !!! lol

I would think the biggest aspect of bringing the game into disrepute would be the club's who are saying things like "they just got fined for tanking and note they want more handouts" when we clearly were found not guilty of any tanking offences and the AFL stated what we did with list management was no different to what freo have done repeatably in Final rounds.

I believe there was a difference, as Freo weren't aiming to lose, but I see your point.

That we aimed to lose is merely an opinion, and based on perception due to our place on the ladder.

Redleg, your case is supported by the AFL disallowing public criticism of the umpires.

Can someone inform me exactly why it is important that all 17 clubs oppose Melbourne gaining a priority pick? Why should they have a say? What is their "mutiny" going to involve - boycotting the Grand Final? Of course they oppose the extra pick, it pushes them all down a spot.

  On 12/09/2013 at 02:06, Redleg said:

Several clubs have written letters to the AFL and gone public in the media, with their opposition to the MFC gaining a PP.

I think it's time for a long and thorough investigation of this cartel of clubs and for appropriate penalties to be handed down if there are guilty findings.

I believe in freedom of <redacted>.

  On 12/09/2013 at 02:06, Redleg said:

Are some other clubs bringing the game into disrepute?

We have an independent body set up to assess the merits of clubs being awarded PP's.

Several clubs have written letters to the AFL and gone public in the media, with their opposition to the MFC gaining a PP.

These actions are clearly designed to put pressure on the appointed body and to influence it, in it's deliberations.

This IMO, is bringing the game into disrepute.

I think it's time for a long and thorough investigation of this cartel of clubs and for appropriate penalties to be handed down if there are guilty findings.

I have to think you're tongue in cheek here Redleg!

Anyway I'm surprised that the clubs are trying to stop us getting pick 1. If pick 1 is Boyd and he is as good as everyone says why would the other clubs want that pick to go to GWS? They have a list of future stars whereas we have a list of below average AFL players. In the event we keep Boyd then we will be less threat to them than if GWS get him. But even more compelling is that Roos has a history of trading pick, unlike GWS. And we have very specific needs, unlike GWS. So if we were to get Boyd then other clubs rich in players like Sydney, Hawthorn, Geelong and Freo have a great opportunity to package something and get Boyd.

I'm surprised the top clubs care. When you get to pick 14 or so you usually get your man and one pick isn't going to change that much. My feel is that a lot of this is pandering to their supporter bases. I mean if I was a Geelong supporter I wouldn't give a stuff that Melbourne got something - we're no threat and they know that the sooner we get better the better off the whole competition will be.

As BB points out above, it'd be in 16 of the other 17 clubs' interest for US to get pick 1 as opposed to GWS.

Obviously the other clubs aren't that smart.

OR

As someone (GNF..?) posted in the last couple of weeks a lot of the clubs will make a bit of noise about the priority pick to appease fans, but behind the scenes won't really care.

Either way, I think it's definitely in the best interests of the AFL for us to get a priority pick, and I expect them to realise that and afford us 1.

2 would be better.

  On 12/09/2013 at 04:46, Baghdad Bob said:

I have to think you're tongue in cheek here Redleg!

Anyway I'm surprised that the clubs are trying to stop us getting pick 1. If pick 1 is Boyd and he is as good as everyone says why would the other clubs want that pick to go to GWS? They have a list of future stars whereas we have a list of below average AFL players. In the event we keep Boyd then we will be less threat to them than if GWS get him. But even more compelling is that Roos has a history of trading pick, unlike GWS. And we have very specific needs, unlike GWS. So if we were to get Boyd then other clubs rich in players like Sydney, Hawthorn, Geelong and Freo have a great opportunity to package something and get Boyd.

I'm surprised the top clubs care. When you get to pick 14 or so you usually get your man and one pick isn't going to change that much. My feel is that a lot of this is pandering to their supporter bases. I mean if I was a Geelong supporter I wouldn't give a stuff that Melbourne got something - we're no threat and they know that the sooner we get better the better off the whole competition will be.

That's a strong argument BB. As you say, us getting Boyd probably allows everyone else to have a chance for him whereas GWS probably won't trade him. Only proviso is that if all 16 other clubs know Buddy is going to GWS, they may think GWS will trade him too. In any case, I'd be surprised if all 17 came to the same conclusion given the uncertainties (as far as we know them). But was it all 17 clubs?

I believe the objection from the other clubs falls under the "don't give a sucker an even break" clause.

  On 12/09/2013 at 04:46, Baghdad Bob said:

I have to think you're tongue in cheek here Redleg!

Yep.

  On 12/09/2013 at 04:46, Baghdad Bob said:

Anyway I'm surprised that the clubs are trying to stop us getting pick 1. If pick 1 is Boyd and he is as good as everyone says why would the other clubs want that pick to go to GWS? They have a list of future stars whereas we have a list of below average AFL players. In the event we keep Boyd then we will be less threat to them than if GWS get him. But even more compelling is that Roos has a history of trading pick, unlike GWS. And we have very specific needs, unlike GWS. So if we were to get Boyd then other clubs rich in players like Sydney, Hawthorn, Geelong and Freo have a great opportunity to package something and get Boyd.

I'm surprised the top clubs care. When you get to pick 14 or so you usually get your man and one pick isn't going to change that much. My feel is that a lot of this is pandering to their supporter bases. I mean if I was a Geelong supporter I wouldn't give a stuff that Melbourne got something - we're no threat and they know that the sooner we get better the better off the whole competition will be.

Agree.

For what it is worth, I think we will get a PP, because if we don't, that is the end of them.

The PP assessment group may as well be disbanded.

However I can't see any way we will get PP1, but rather, the Essendon pick and if we were really lucky, pick 3, the one after ours.

.

  On 12/09/2013 at 05:12, nutbean said:

I believe the objection from the other clubs falls under the "don't give a sucker an even break" clause.

You mean the W. C. Fields maxim.

  On 12/09/2013 at 04:46, Baghdad Bob said:

the sooner we get better the better off the whole competition will be.

While I agree with this, the aspect I find interesting here is that Demetriou seems to be putting the club reactions out there as a reason as to why we won't be getting a pick, or as indicator that we won't. I thought that the purpose of the independent Commission was to get away from decisions made purely in the parochial interests of the individual clubs, and to ensure decisions are made for the wider benefit of the competition.

  On 12/09/2013 at 05:38, Tim said:

While I agree with this, the aspect I find interesting here is that Demetriou seems to be putting the club reactions out there as a reason as to why we won't be getting a pick, or as indicator that we won't. I thought that the purpose of the independent Commission was to get away from decisions made purely in the parochial interests of the individual clubs, and to ensure decisions are made for the wider benefit of the competition.

Or that we will get a PP but it won't be PP1, which has always been the one for really poor performance. We of course are worse than that.

The AFL must take all the emotion out of deciding. Forgot who the team is, and decide on performance throughout the entire season. They get it right it sets a path for future struggling teams. They just cant go willy nilly, some sort of protocol must be adhered too. It might be us this year then someone else in the following years.

Of course all the other clubs are jumping up and down. They all get dropped down a peg and likely to miss on a draft pick they had in their sights. But these same clubs whinge about how crap we are, cant draw crowds to games when playing us.

We just got a handout, a proven coach. What more do we want? We want to be competitive.

Well all of above doesnt fix a list that needs an influx of talent. The above is setting a path to make us better as a club.

The AFL should stick to the results for this season and ignore the outside noise when deciding PP picks.

Priority -

Priority items combine the twin elements of both urgency (time) and importance (value). The opposite, therefore, would be both non-time sensitive and unimportant or of insignificance.

If the AFL are seriously concerned and committed to helping Melbournefc, they should make it a priority. Anything half-arsed or watered down in terms of priority, may leave some concern, and may lead to a re-visit with egg on their face as well as the stricken club.

  On 12/09/2013 at 05:17, Redleg said:

However I can't see any way we will get PP1, but rather, the Essendon pick and if we were really lucky, pick 3, the one after ours.

.

I have no idea if we will get a pick or not but I favour the Essendon/Adelaide option and not pick 1. Pick 1 is emotive whereas if we got pick 8 or 10 and one in the twenties it's not so "in your face" to the opposition, leaves them in the same position as if Adelaide or Essendon still had their picks and IMO is better for us because it's much easier to trade those picks than pick 1.

I mean, if we got pick 1 it would be very very hard to pass on Boyd. Trading pick 8/10 and one later is much easier to achieve.

It's a really interesting issue from an AFL POV. Having Roos also gives the AFL some confidence that those picks will be traded for established players and that will hasten our improvement.

Some would say that the AFL giving us a PP is irony and other hypocrisy. Demonlanders would just say it's proper!

There is precedent I believe for a PP after our normal 1st rounder. This also takes away the 31 moniker and also the likely hood of our having to choose Boyd , to keep etc etc ..

I still feel in me ol guts a verbal exists between Vlad and Roos.

We'll see soon enough I guess

  On 12/09/2013 at 07:20, Baghdad Bob said:

I have no idea if we will get a pick or not but I favour the Essendon/Adelaide option and not pick 1. Pick 1 is emotive whereas if we got pick 8 or 10 and one in the twenties it's not so "in your face" to the opposition, leaves them in the same position as if Adelaide or Essendon still had their picks and IMO is better for us because it's much easier to trade those picks than pick 1.

I mean, if we got pick 1 it would be very very hard to pass on Boyd. Trading pick 8/10 and one later is much easier to achieve.

It's a really interesting issue from an AFL POV. Having Roos also gives the AFL some confidence that those picks will be traded for established players and that will hasten our improvement.

Some would say that the AFL giving us a PP is irony and other hypocrisy. Demonlanders would just say it's proper!

Could you see us getting pick 10 and say 25, as a softener to pick 1? The AFL could argue that 10 was Essendon's anyway, so no biggie and 25 is way off pick 1.

I have no doubt Roos would then trade our first 2 picks if he could get the right players.

  On 12/09/2013 at 07:45, Redleg said:

Could you see us getting pick 10 and say 25, as a softener to pick 1? The AFL could argue that 10 was Essendon's anyway, so no biggie and 25 is way off pick 1.

I have no doubt Roos would then trade our first 2 picks if he could get the right players.

I'm of the view that it would be hypocritical of the AFL to sanction us for bringing the game into disrepute in the way we did and then give us draft picks. For that reason I find it hard to see us getting them. If you're not of that view it's much easier to see us getting them.

Justice must seen to be done, therefore I doubt we'll get one. But it's just a stab in the dark really.