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.

Why hypocritical? Don't see any hypocrisy at all. If the AFL felt we 'deserved' a draft pick penalty when they fined us and rubbed out CC etc, then that was the time to do it. Not to add new penalties now.

Adding extra penalties now is just a surrender to pressure from other clubs. Not giving us a PP (when clearly our performance over the last x years calls for one) would be an admission that they got the penalty wrong for bringing the game into disrepute earlier in the year. Sadly, maybe this will be the first time the AFL (implicitly) admits a mistake.....

say no to priority picks

the time for embarassment and shame is over

say no to priority picks

the time for embarassment and shame is over

Should we also say no to pick 2 on the same grounds?

Should we also say no to pick 2 on the same grounds?

I think you'll find they're different Sue.

I think you'll find they're different Sue.

No, they are the same in principle. Poor ladder performance in 1 year at second last gives you pick 2. Poor performance over many years gives you a PP. The common theme is 'rewarding' poor performance in an attempt to equalise the comp.

So if you are going to be hairy-chested and say we can be strong and succeed without a PP, you can be even more hairy-chested and say the same for the pick that comes from a low position on the ladder.

Anyway, I'm just arguing against being hairy-chested. Take what we can get AND fix the culture. As long as we don't avoid fixing the culture just because we get a PP, then a PP can only help.

No, they are the same in principle. Poor ladder performance in 1 year at second last gives you pick 2. Poor performance over many years gives you a PP. The common theme is 'rewarding' poor performance in an attempt to equalise the comp.

So if you are going to be hairy-chested and say we can be strong and succeed without a PP, you can be even more hairy-chested and say the same for the pick that comes from a low position on the ladder.

Anyway, I'm just arguing against being hairy-chested. Take what we can get AND fix the culture. As long as we don't avoid fixing the culture just because we get a PP, then a PP can only help.

No. They are obviously different. One is just the logical procedural outcome after a season of footy and the other is a big sign saying LOSERS... and for us in particular, with our history of ineptitude and ridicule you can go ahead and double the size of the sign and spell out the word in neon lights.

No. They are obviously different. One is just the logical procedural outcome after a season of footy and the other is a big sign saying LOSERS... and for us in particular, with our history of ineptitude and ridicule you can go ahead and double the size of the sign and spell out the word in neon lights.

So finishing near the bottom of the ladder for many years on end doesn't spell LOSERS until the AFL gives us a PP?

No. They are obviously different. One is just the logical procedural outcome after a season of footy and the other is a big sign saying LOSERS... and for us in particular, with our history of ineptitude and ridicule you can go ahead and double the size of the sign and spell out the word in neon lights.

That particular sign has been in place for some time, a PP may actually help remove it a little sooner than otherwise.

No. They are obviously different. One is just the logical procedural outcome after a season of footy and the other is a big sign saying LOSERS... and for us in particular, with our history of ineptitude and ridicule you can go ahead and double the size of the sign and spell out the word in neon lights.

I'd have to agree with Sue here, CB. As she said, both the reverse-order draft system and the priority pick rule are implicitly designed to "reward" poor performance. The fact that one is always enforced and the other is rarer does not mean they are different in principle.

That particular sign has been in place for some time, a PP may actually help remove it a little sooner than otherwise.

One pick? ONE pick is going to do that?

It will remove the last skerrick of dignity this club has. We'll be hated alright, but there'll be absolutely no respect attached to it.

Whatever floats your boat.

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

Or it reflects the same attitude many people have to the long term unemployed; they are lazy, incompetent and want to be unemployed so we should not be rewarding their indolence with higher benefits. I think the MFC being on AFL welfare is viewed with similar contempt, we don't deserve help because it is all our own fault.

It's about outcomes, not who deserves what, we need help on the field and off it if the competition is going to start to equalise. The level of our ineptitude on the field has never been seen before at AFL level.

Good heavens GWS and the Suns have gone past us but continue to get multiple first round picks via the earlier mini drafts as well continuing exclusive zones. Hypocritically 2 of the clubs complaining are GWS and the Suns.

That said listening to Andrew D this week, I think we will get jackshyte draft assistance this year.

One pick? ONE pick is going to do that?

It will remove the last skerrick of dignity this club has. We'll be hated alright, but there'll be absolutely no respect attached to it.

Whatever floats your boat.

can you imagine if Roos just came out said that we won't be pursuing draft assistance as we want to work hard to improve on field and earn back some respect?

the absolute disdain and pity that we are looked upon with would have a big chunk taken out of it, and I'll bet you the playing group would walk a little taller for it

Think how much taller we'd walk if we announced we didn't want pick 2 as well.

OK, there may be some positive mental effect on the players of taking your hairy-chested approach, but it would be hard to measure. Landing some decent trades with a PP or whatever is more likely to help more now that we have a new admin and Roos to clean out the old bad culture.

I don't give a hoot about what other clubs and supporters think. They can be disdainful of us as they like. They will only stop that when we start winning.

pft they will only give it to us harder because we had to be propped up so much to get any success

why can't you understand there are degrees of things.. a priority pick+pick 2 is not the same as pick 2. By your logic there is no difference between pick 2 and getting the entire first round. silly.

Think how much taller we'd walk if we announced we didn't want pick 2 as well.

OK, there may be some positive mental effect on the players of taking your hairy-chested approach, but it would be hard to measure. Landing some decent trades with a PP or whatever is more likely to help more now that we have a new admin and Roos to clean out the old bad culture.

I don't give a hoot about what other clubs and supporters think. They can be disdainful of us as they like. They will only stop that when we start winning.

It's very easy to say that. The fact of the matter is that this club is on a path to earning respect, from everyone, including its own supporter base. We have to sacrifice alot of it to undergo this transformation from mickey mouse laughing stock to professional football club, but at some point accountability and rolling up the sleeves has to take place. It has to START.

The concept of pride gets laughed at on this site. I don't think it's laughable, personally.

I see the argument for based on performance, but the craving for it saddens me a little bit, to be honest.

can you imagine if Roos just came out said that we won't be pursuing draft assistance as we want to work hard to improve on field and earn back some respect?

the absolute disdain and pity that we are looked upon with would have a big chunk taken out of it, and I'll bet you the playing group would walk a little taller for it

And yet, he's not coming out and saying that, even though improving on the field is clearly the intent.

It's very easy to say that. The fact of the matter is that this club is on a path to earning respect, from everyone, including its own supporter base. We have to sacrifice alot of it to undergo this transformation from mickey mouse laughing stock to professional football club, but at some point accountability and rolling up the sleeves has to take place. It has to START.

The concept of pride gets laughed at on this site. I don't think it's laughable, personally.

I see the argument for based on performance, but the craving for it saddens me a little bit, to be honest.

I have seen no craving for it, just opinions which differ to those which you hold.

I don't care if we get one or not, however I do believe a PP under the new footy department would aid the recovery.

My opinion not yours so no need for a pissweak attempt ay belittling those who don't line up to agree with yours.

Remember opinions are like [censored] everyone has one, and should be respected whether they are the same as yours or not.

Perhaps the culture being displayed by some posters could receive a Roos like tune up on D'land.

I have seen no craving for it, just opinions which differ to those which you hold.

I don't care if we get one or not, however I do believe a PP under the new footy department would aid the recovery.

My opinion not yours so no need for a pissweak attempt ay belittling those who don't line up to agree with yours.

Remember opinions are like [censored] everyone has one, and should be respected whether they are the same as yours or not.

Perhaps the culture being displayed by some posters could receive a Roos like tune up on D'land.

I'm just being honest, and I respect everyone is entitled to a opinion. I actually try not to belittle others so if I have it wasn't intentional.

If we're "propped up" now, it may mean that in fifty years we'll still be here instead of being constrained to the annals of history. Do you think anyone will give two tosses about a priority pick given half a century ago?

This is our last shot to make it work. If we can make it work now, then whatever assistance we're given (and the lack of respect that goes along with it) will pale in significance to the surety we'll gain from whatever "unearned" success we parlay the AFL's assistance into.

I can't believe so many of you have apparently learned nothing from history. Remember mid season 2009 - the discussion here was centred on the importance of winning as few as possible so we could 1+2. Our knockers said we were breeding a loser's culture which would come back to haunt us - guess what, those knockers were DEAD RIGHT. So much of this game is about having the heart to be better than the other mob, the culture of the place is completely heartless and has been since Daniher left. By getting another PP all we do is keep ourselves on the same rubbish track we are on now, we need to tell the players that they are NOT a pack of pitiful losers. I bet you Jack Viney would not want a bar of a PP if it were up to him, it is nothing but a badge of shame.

i wonder if Hodge and Roughead will be wearing their "badges of shame" to the grand final this year?

I can't believe so many of you have apparently learned nothing from history. Remember mid season 2009 - the discussion here was centred on the importance of winning as few as possible so we could 1+2. Our knockers said we were breeding a loser's culture which would come back to haunt us - guess what, those knockers were DEAD RIGHT. So much of this game is about having the heart to be better than the other mob, the culture of the place is completely heartless and has been since Daniher left. By getting another PP all we do is keep ourselves on the same rubbish track we are on now, we need to tell the players that they are NOT a pack of pitiful losers. I bet you Jack Viney would not want a bar of a PP if it were up to him, it is nothing but a badge of shame.

This is different. What's done is done. We've already lost the games, and we lost them (despite what people would have you believe) because of lack of onfield talent. Getting a priority pick will enable us to trade for what we're lacking. Not getting one means we will continue to languish at the bottom of the ladder, never able to remove the stench of losing from our players...until sure enough it latches onto the next generation of young talent and we end up out of the competition forever.

Nobody wants to lose games; but since we've already lost them, why lose again? All we can do is bring new people into the club to replace the old, and getting a priority pick will enable us to do that. Nobody's saying it's a desirable position to be in, but we're in it all the same.

...

The concept of pride gets laughed at on this site. I don't think it's laughable, personally.

I see the argument for based on performance, but the craving for it saddens me a little bit, to be honest.

The concept of "cutting off your nose just to spite your face" is what's getting laughed at. To hurt ourselves because we want "respect" so bad.

We'd get no respect from other clubs if we just backed down on this. It would just be seen as caving in. If it's decided that we're not entitled to it, that's fine; we just walk away. But every other club in our position would at least go through with asking the question, which is all we've done. And we'd be crazy not to.

But if the answer is "no", we just shrug our shoulders & get on with it.

Why hypocritical? Don't see any hypocrisy at all. If the AFL felt we 'deserved' a draft pick penalty when they fined us and rubbed out CC etc, then that was the time to do it. Not to add new penalties now.

Adding extra penalties now is just a surrender to pressure from other clubs. Not giving us a PP (when clearly our performance over the last x years calls for one) would be an admission that they got the penalty wrong for bringing the game into disrepute earlier in the year. Sadly, maybe this will be the first time the AFL (implicitly) admits a mistake.....

Spot on and I might add that if the result of that inquisition is then allowed to be used to punish us a second time by depriving us of the right to draft assistance that we eminently qualify for, then it would demonstrate how corrupt the AFL has been in selectively singling out Melbourne for a detailed investigation into tanking when the world knows that at least half a dozen others should also have been looked at. That being the case, we would be looking at something far more serious than the AFL bringing the game into disrepute.

Spot on and I might add that if the result of that inquisition is then allowed to be used to punish us a second time by depriving us of the right to draft assistance that we eminently qualify for, then it would demonstrate how corrupt the AFL has been in selectively singling out Melbourne for a detailed investigation into tanking when the world knows that at least half a dozen others should also have been looked at. That being the case, we would be looking at something far more serious than the AFL bringing the game into disrepute.

it is an interesting point.

If we are denied a PP because of a reference to the Tanking Investigation, when the whole football world acknowledges our performances over 7 years as about the worst in AFL history, then the matter should not rest there.

If we are denied a PP because our performances have been too good to qualify, we can bury the PP forever and disband the PP board.

Again today we can see how the AFL rules as they once were and now are, have benefited several clubs. In the HS there was a stat on father son selections and games played. Guess which side is second bottom ignoring GC and GWS and Fitzroy, yes it's us.

We have 5 sons to have played for 62 total games an average of 12 per player. Other clubs have had 8-10 sons averaging around 100 games per player. Geelong has 850 games and growing to our 62 and with JV growing.

That is not the AFL's fault of course but most of those players were taken at very low picks allowing the clubs to use their high picks on other players. Now of course the rules have changed.

I am just saying that the AFL rules have helped some clubs more than others and this is just another example.

Again, those clubs should stop attempting to influence the AFL board on giving us a PP, as they have had plenty of other advantages.