Bringing the Game into Disrepute

[Redleg 37,578]

We have a done a terrible job of drafting and developing players due to MFC incompetence.

No other club has managed to make a complete balls up of bottoming out like we have.

Absolutely agreed.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

OK. I don't doubt North are seething either.

But with respect to your point 2, you neglect the fact that most supporters know that several clubs 'cheated' the PP as well as us. So I'm not so sure that people think we didn't get punished enough. (If you believe the penalty of $500K was soft only because of our parlous financial state, what do you think of Esendon's $2M for a far more serious sin in a far richer club.) Sure everyone falls about laughing about the "they didn't tank but we are fining them anyway" decision, but at the time I didn't see much feeling that we weren't punished enough.

In any case, as several of us have pointed out, the AFL should have the guts to stick to its equalization ideals despite the moaning of others. Of course other clubs are annoyed/seething when another club gets a leg up. We are annoyed with C'wood's draw etc etc. But the AFL has other interests and ignores us. Let's hope they ignore North on this one (since I think we are agreed a PP is a net positive for us despite the cultural downside some think is more significant).

Whether others did it is neither here nor there as none of the others have their hand up for a PP.

And the fine was hard for a club found "not guilty". Imagine what the penalties would have been if we were found "guilty".... Larger fine, Draft picks, no bailout assistance etc etc.

And FWIW in the past six months I think we have done well out of the AFL. They haven't ignored us over the past couple of years as this club has normally been at the forefront of some issue for the game (substances and tanking)

[Redleg 37,578]

The bottom line is that the other 17 clubs don't agree with us getting a PP and I explained why and you quoted me. I think people need to realise as persuasive an argument as Jackson can put to the AFL supporting a PP, there is a genuine concern amongst the other clubs as to the fact of what they believe we have done and escaped penalty for.

And that concern among those clubs, include the clubs who did exactly the same as us, weren't investigated or punished and therefore allows them to act as true hypocrites.

I would also think that not all 17 clubs disagree with us getting the PP. GC and GWS among them.

[Redleg 37,578]

this is poppycock

all the other clubs know that at least 6 other clubs were let off (entirely what's more) for the same transgression of the rules

And it seems, these hypocritical clubs, are the leaders in the anti PP pick for Melbourne push.

[Redleg 37,578]

Maybe the answer to all of this, is to come out and say, we don't want the PP, but what we want is a TRULY FAIR competition.

Friday nights shared equally among the teams, all teams to go to Skilled stadium, all Melbourne teams to travel the same amount, clash jumpers to be worn by all teams, sunday 4.40 to be shared by all teams, mothers day at 4.40 to be shared by all teams etc.

The effect of this is an equal opportunity at getting exposure, therefore more chance of sponsorship, more money, stronger football departments, more desire of players to come to the club as then seen as on the big stage etc.

Chance of this happening, NIL. WHY, because the game is about money and not fairness.

So those advantaged clubs can not have their cake and eat it. If they get advantages one way, other clubs get advantages in other ways.

So to the agitating clubs I say STFU and let the AFL govern without your hypocritical interference, which only brings the game into disrepute, when it appears that a cartel of clubs control the AFL.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Maybe the answer to all of this, is to come out and say, we don't want the PP, but what we want is a TRULY FAIR competition..

You'd have a better chance of getting 2 PPs than progressing that log of small club centric claims.

[Webber 10,040]

I also think the AFL may believe we are not as bad as we appear. Bailey coached us to a 37% winning rate in his last 38 odd games and we now arguably have a much better list with Clark, Dawes, Hogan, Viney and Toumpas on the list.

Roos himself has said that we just need a midfield to be competitive.

It might be the AFL will defer a decision for a year and see what a competent administration and FD can provide. Remember they don't want us to succeed, just not fail.

Webber I don't think anyone faults the logic of your position, I think what some think is that it ignores some realities and politics of our situation. PP or not, I'm now quite optimistic about our future.

I'm optimistic too BB, but whether our list 'seems' better, whether our off-field rescue package 'possibly' improves on field results, it's all perception based on guessing the vibe of the mood of the waffle of some vague notion of undeservedness. It's piffle.

The suggestion by some other posters that the other clubs will respond to the idea of us getting a PP with anything OTHER than primary self interest is fanciful. They're interested in winning games and ladder position a whole lot more than gate receipts from games against us. They will oppose it because it is more likely to keep us down.

RR, of course the PP forms a SMALL part of any potential improvement. Maybe none if we were to waste it. Again. Either way, it's there for a reason.

I'm fully aware of the coercive negative sentiment of the other clubs, and I think we'll either get no PP, or a watered down version (second round, or only for trade). Too bad. It would however damage the equalisation agenda, and I don't think that's arguable.

I don't actually believe it should be all about us. IMO, the growing gap between the ladder leaders and cellar dwellers should be addressed more aggressively via the draft. Ask yourselves this.....would the competition be more even 5 years from now if the entire first round of picks this year were given to the bottom 9 clubs?

[Webber 10,040]

Maybe the answer to all of this, is to come out and say, we don't want the PP, but what we want is a TRULY FAIR competition.

Friday nights shared equally among the teams, all teams to go to Skilled stadium, all Melbourne teams to travel the same amount, clash jumpers to be worn by all teams, sunday 4.40 to be shared by all teams, mothers day at 4.40 to be shared by all teams etc.

The effect of this is an equal opportunity at getting exposure, therefore more chance of sponsorship, more money, stronger football departments, more desire of players to come to the club as then seen as on the big stage etc.

Chance of this happening, NIL. WHY, because the game is about money and not fairness.

So those advantaged clubs can not have their cake and eat it. If they get advantages one way, other clubs get advantages in other ways.

So to the agitating clubs I say STFU and let the AFL govern without your hypocritical interference, which only brings the game into disrepute, when it appears that a cartel of clubs control the AFL.

Too much reality in that argument, Redleg.

[Redleg 37,578]

You'd have a better chance of getting 2 PPs than progressing that log of small club centric claims.

You did notice where I said chances NIL.

[deanox 8,582]

I also think the AFL may believe we are not as bad as we appear. Bailey coached us to a 37% winning rate in his last 38 odd games and we now arguably have a much better list with Clark, Dawes, Hogan, Viney and Toumpas on the list.

Roos himself has said that we just need a midfield to be competitive.

It might be the AFL will defer a decision for a year and see what a competent administration and FD can provide. Remember they don't want us to succeed, just not fail.

Webber I don't think anyone faults the logic of your position, I think what some think is that it ignores some realities and politics of our situation. PP or not, I'm now quite optimistic about our future.

RE your first paragraph, I think this may be the case too, but if after years 7 years of sucking, the AFL doesn't give a PP but after 8 years they do, I'd be amazed.

The decision on PP has to be made on on field performance, not on anything else. Off field Staff, money, etc. should not be factored in. Our terrible performances over 7 years covers 3 head coaches, and 3 care taker coaches. 3 distinct football departments.

Will one more make a difference? Maybe. Especially long term we hope. But the list problems are well documented. We don't have PAs midfield or WCEs veterans to help us bounce back up the ladder. We have had 7 years of shizen. The list is crap.

Footy dept ball outs don't fix the list.

[old dee 22,852]

RE your first paragraph, I think this may be the case too, but if after years 7 years of sucking, the AFL doesn't give a PP but after 8 years they do, I'd be amazed.

The decision on PP has to be made on on field performance, not on anything else. Off field Staff, money, etc. should not be factored in. Our terrible performances over 7 years covers 3 head coaches, and 3 care taker coaches. 3 distinct football departments.

Will one more make a difference? Maybe. Especially long term we hope. But the list problems are well documented. We don't have PAs midfield or WCEs veterans to help us bounce back up the ladder. We have had 7 years of shizen. The list is crap.

Footy dept ball outs don't fix the list.

Spot on deanox

However there are plenty on here that will give you an argument

[deanox 8,582]

Spot on deanox

However there are plenty on here that will give you an argument

Cheers.

I'm happy to hear anyone's arguments, I just haven't heard one with good logic yet. All arguments I've heard against the PP are easily rebutted and are met with a quiet scoff and a tsk tsk.

"But you already tanked once" - we may have but the AFL found us not guilty, it can't be used as a reason. Plus it was under a different regime.

"You've had enough picks" - no more than most, less than Carlton.

"AFL has bailed out Melbourne with cash off field, that is enough" - this doesn't improve our list. But it was a decision made by the AFL to put an immediate halt to downward spiral we were on.

"Is your own fault you are crap; poor drafting, poor development." - which club is not at fault for their crapness? When would a PP be granted of not for 7 years of tripe?

"PA and WCE bounced back quick, so can Melbourne" - we don't have their midfield or their veterans to assist this, it won't happen.

"WB and Saints are nearly as bad as Melbourne" - have a look back over the past 3 years, 5 years and 7 years and tell me that again. 13 years since we were genuinely any good, and even then we were never a genuine contender.

All other arguments seen to centre on pride or on improving our culture by not getting handouts, which I don't think are real reasons being used by anyone in the know. Regardless, we have already asked for it, it can't be retracted, therefore these arguments are now invalid.

If anyone has another argument against the PP let me know, I'm interested to know if there is a valid one.

[Jara 1,149]

Excellent summary, Deanox

There's no compelling argument against our getting a PP, and it p's me off to see our fellow supporters arguing against our getting one.

[Machsy 2,856]

This thread has now done a couple of full circles, to my reckoning.

The argument for a PP is logically sound, but when the AFL is involved we can't rely on logic.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

pride or on improving our culture by not getting handouts

you've recognised the only one that matters

Bailey sent us on a course where losing was not only acceptable but encouraged. It sullied our reputation and turned the passion of the group to water. That's what has led to the disgraceful position we are in now.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"

[deanox 8,582]

you've recognised the only one that matters

Bailey sent us on a course where losing was not only acceptable but encouraged. It sullied our reputation and turned the passion of the group to water. That's what has led to the disgraceful position we are in now.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"

It is probably the only reason that is semi logical, but it is also the only reason that the AFL can't actually adjudicate.

Unfortunately it is also the only one that has already come to pass. We have already put an application in. It is public knowledge. Therefore the reason is now invalid.

The interesting thing is that PJ and Roos, both highly respected outsiders, brought in to repair our club and Our culture are both pro priority pick.

I think it is important to note that a priority pick had nothing to do with pride or club culture. Deliberately losing, or giving the players the feeling that we are deliberately losing, is what sets the poor culture, not the pick.

Regardless, we didn't deliberately lose this year or last and we were still crap. We didn't deliberately lose any time in the last 7 years officially, and even the strongest believers in tanking would only suggest it was limited to one or two games. The playing group and the public are aware that under the current regime this will no longer happen.

There is no stain that will associate with it except for media heavy weights wanting to throw mid to make a story and other clubs supporters whinging because they want one. I'd whinge too if it was them getting one, because they want to win flags and the best way to do that is have us remain crap.

[Webber 10,040]

It is probably the only reason that is semi logical, but it is also the only reason that the AFL can't actually adjudicate.Unfortunately it is also the only one that has already come to pass. We have already put an application in. It is public knowledge. Therefore the reason is now invalid.The interesting thing is that PJ and Roos, both highly respected outsiders, brought in to repair our club and Our culture are both pro priority pick.I think it is important to note that a priority pick had nothing to do with pride or club culture. Deliberately losing, or giving the players the feeling that we are deliberately losing, is what sets the poor culture, not the pick.Regardless, we didn't deliberately lose this year or last and we were still crap. We didn't deliberately lose any time in the last 7 years officially, and even the strongest believers in tanking would only suggest it was limited to one or two games. The playing group and the public are aware that under the current regime this will no longer happen.There is no stain that will associate with it except for media heavy weights wanting to throw mid to make a story and other clubs supporters whinging because they want one. I'd whinge too if it was them getting one, because they want to win flags and the best way to do that is have us remain crap.

Well said Deanox. Just not sure I'd grant most of the journo gutter dwellers out there the status of 'heavyweight'!

[deanox 8,582]

Well said Deanox. Just not sure I'd grant most of the journo gutter dwellers out there the status of 'heavyweight'!

How about the heavy weights of media influence?

It doesn't matter if they are right, it is the issues they give air time to that become the public issues.

[sue 8,430]

you've recognised the only one that matters

Bailey sent us on a course where losing was not only acceptable but encouraged. It sullied our reputation and turned the passion of the group to water. That's what has led to the disgraceful position we are in now.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"

There is also a quote (can't recall details) which counters this by pointing out that circumstances change and if you blindly rely on the past repeating itself then you are in for a surprise. I kinda suspect we have changed circumstances.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

you've recognised the only one that matters

Bailey sent us on a course where losing was not only acceptable but encouraged. It sullied our reputation and turned the passion of the group to water. That's what has led to the disgraceful position we are in now.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"

How about those that re write the past?

How about getting it right that the then Board undertook this course of action of the tanking. And it was only part of the reason we are in the dreadful position we have been in.

[Mister Ed 269]

How about those that re write the past?

How about getting it right that the then Board undertook this course of action of the tanking. And it was only part of the reason we are in the dreadful position we have been in.

You have the minutes of the meeting when the Board undertook exactly what course of action?

[Webber 10,040]

How about those that re write the past?

How about getting it right that the then Board undertook this course of action of the tanking. And it was only part of the reason we are in the dreadful position we have been in.

Regardless of any 'course of action' in 2009 you PRESUME to know about, and which lead to a finding that the MFC was 'not guilty of tanking', it was 4 years ago, all those apparently associated and others as well are no longer at the club.

So this incompetence and mismanagement that existed (whether it did or not), the reason we shouldn't expect a PP, serves precisely what purpose should we not get one?

[Dwight Schrute 16,751]

The thing that is sticking in my mind is the fact that this idea was already raised with the AFL when PJ met with them, they were aware we were asking for a priority pick, they could have said look i think it's not the best idea if you apply for it as the other clubs will be upset, if that was going to be a factor that's considered, the fact we have raised this with the AFL already and still put in the application for one can only be a good sign

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

You have the minutes of the meeting when the Board undertook exactly what course of action?

Do you expect that they would document such a decision in a Board minute?

Regardless of any 'course of action' in 2009 you PRESUME to know about, and which lead to a finding that the MFC was 'not guilty of tanking', it was 4 years ago, all those apparently associated and others as well are no longer at the club.

So this incompetence and mismanagement that existed (whether it did or not), the reason we shouldn't expect a PP, serves precisely what purpose should we not get one?

The response you quoted was in response to another poster's disingenuous effort to solely blame Bailey for the tanking.

I've already documented the reason why I think the PP is not a lay down certainty for MFC and your effort to misrepresent that does you no favours. Go and do some research.

[Elwood 3184 1,265]

Do you expect that they would document such a decision in a Board minute?

I don't know what they did and neither do you.