On 13/09/2013 at 02:43, Paul_man said:

i know you held tight to "we never tanked", but you can't seriously believe that punishments were handed out because of a misinterpreted joke. The whole thing was smoke and mirrors to cover the AFL's arse for creating such a flawed system, and ours for munching on the poisoned carrot.

I'm not sure why you would defend the fools that have driven this club into the dirt. They don't deserve it.

We didn't tank - and before you roll your eyes - my argument does not reject reality: we tried to manipulate a few games to secure a better draft position.

The reason why I said we didn't tank is because I have a narrow interpretation that stops at the water's edge of players being told to lose.

And the amount of internet I spent explaining this would make Al Gore roll over in his grave so I will give the clift notes:

If playing someone in a foreign position is a part of tanking, that will create a problem.

If sending players for early surgeries to prepare for next season is tanking, that will create a problem.

If playing young players and ignoring others is tanking, that will create a problem.

And if only some of these are tanking, or is tanking only at particular times of the season, then where does it stop?

When we removed all our older players at the end of 2007 and sent our fortunes through kids - we were intent on bottoming out. That is in the spirit of tanking.

But is it?

I am of the view that if you cannot legislate coherent and stable rules ito govern a practice then you shouldn't bother.

The NBA has a lottery draft, but it still has tanking and it does not care. It overlooks it because it is impossible to prove motive with these moves that define tanking.

The AFL knew this but wanted to win the PR week, hence our fortunate use of CC's remarks as a pressure valve to get us out of a mess that cost Adrian Anderson any future at the AFL.

  On 13/09/2013 at 03:07, Webber said:

Essentially rpfc your last sentence is the logical pivot of the argument.

* Our recent on field history makes us the most compelling recipient of a PP in its history.

* By finding us NOT guilty of tanking, and leaving our draft status as unpenalised, our slate is clean when it comes to equalisation compensation, i.e. priority pick.

From every conceivable logical standpoint of governance, the AFL simply must give us a PP. To NOT do so is equivalent to a punitive measure for a crime that certain people in the media and from other clubs are claiming we have committed.

Remember it is in the primary interests of all clubs to see their opposition diminished. The health of the competition comes a distant second as regards their personal responsibility.

It is a strong argument - to take away draft assistance that would normally be awarded - we mean we would be punished. Therefore, the Not Guilty verdict officially becomes farcical.

  On 13/09/2013 at 02:43, Paul_man said:

I'm not sure why you would defend the fools that have driven this club into the dirt. They don't deserve it.

I wanted to deal with this seperately because it is not really relevant to my own vision of what tanking is.

McLardy, CC, Schwab, Ridley, Gutnick, Szondy, Gardner, Harris, and every other Demon that comes and goes as the latest scapegoat for our plight as my sympathy.

I have personal experience with grudges held for a great number of years at this club and while I called for McLardy to leave in Rd 2 this year, and put forward the idea of moving past Schwab before he received his latest and infamous extension, I don't hold the contempt for them that others do.

They are not evil, they are Demons that on occassion, have done a laughably bad job of running the club. But once they have moved on they should not continue to recieve scorn, nor we waste our energy.

If we are a club that is to consolidate and hopefully grow, we cannot continue to hold the hate we hold - there are some that (and I bring this up to derision every year) still hold grudges against players in the near-merge of 1996.

You don't forgive people because they deserve it, you forgive them because they need it. And in the end, so does the club.

  On 13/09/2013 at 04:04, rpfc said:

It is a strong argument - to take away draft assistance that would normally be awarded - we mean we would be punished. Therefore, the Not Guilty verdict officially becomes farcical.

It's essentially double jeopardy.

We've received punishment for a "crime."

To be denied what would otherwise be owed to us based on that "crime", would be to suffer a further penalty.

Either way, I believe the decision has already been made, but it will be realised as close as possible to the trade period, so neither party has long to stew on it, and the GF will detract from the focus upon the decision.

i.e. I believe we'll get a decent early PP, but the AFL want everyone to be able to quickly move on from that.

Rpfc - you've explained your position well, as you often do. I don't disagree with alot of what you've said. I do think it becomes a slippery slope once you start restricting the definition of tanking to telling players to lose. Pre-match planning and decisions in the coaches box must, potentially, fall under the banner as well. The motive too should receive some consideration, but as you point out, it can be near impossible to prove without sufficient evidence. It would appear that the degree of our ineptitude allowed such evidence to be uncovered.

In the end I think as crazy as the outcome appeared on the surface, it was fair. We did not deserve to be stripped of draft picks for something that several clubs had put into practice before us. The investigation itself was the hit that we took, and it did its share of damage to the fabric of the club. That's not to cast aside the extreme sensitivities around the awarding of a PP that BB points out, which I think the AFL will be very conscious of.

As for treating ex-officials with scorn, I agree there is no point in that, I just wouldn't go out of my way to defend them, or the decisions they made. I personally believe tanking was orchestrated by those whose vision for success was shown to be short sighted and misguided.

  On 13/09/2013 at 03:07, Webber said:

Remember it is in the primary interests of all clubs to see their opposition diminished. The health of the competition comes a distant second as regards their personal responsibility.

In post 11 I've argued that it's in most other clubs interest that we be given pick 1.

  On 12/09/2013 at 02:55, Belzebubsy said:

Its contempt of Vlad's court !!! lol

What is wrong with contempt of the contemptible??

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

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.

.......

Is that because of our club's poor history of the use of pick #1 ?

Webber you present a very good argument for a PP. It's logical and I hope it prevails, but will this type of argument convince the AFL? Jackson is good!

RPFC to a large degree I agree with what you've said about past servants of this club. But when those like Hazy and myself were raising the alarm bells years before our situation was dealt with we were attacked and you were in the first row of those denying our arguments and questioning our motives. It's very easy to be wise after the event which so many here are. Whispering Jack has a "like" against your post, but he continually reminds us that to ignore history is to repeat mistakes. And it's very hard to have a forgiving attitude to Schwab and McLardy after Connolly was awarded a contract extension after the investigation which has now to be paid out.

Anyway it's a very good discussion with points well made and has provided food for thought. FWIW I agree with you if you define tanking as narrowly as you have, I think everyone does. But I just don't agree with your definition of tanking because I think it goes to motive, not just actions. But that's past history.

  On 13/09/2013 at 04:53, monoccular said:

Is that because of our club's poor history of the use of pick #1 ?

No, because as far as overall talent goes, GWS has far more than we do.

Pick 1 would just bring MFC back closer to the pack, whereas it would push GWS even further ahead of the rest.

That talent may not be experienced or physically mature, but it is there nonetheless.

  On 13/09/2013 at 05:01, Baghdad Bob said:

Webber you present a very good argument for a PP. It's logical and I hope it prevails, but will this type of argument convince the AFL? Jackson is good!

RPFC to a large degree I agree with what you've said about past servants of this club. But when those like Hazy and myself were raising the alarm bells years before our situation was dealt with we were attacked and you were in the first row of those denying our arguments and questioning our motives. It's very easy to be wise after the event which so many here are. Whispering Jack has a "like" against your post, but he continually reminds us that to ignore history is to repeat mistakes. And it's very hard to have a forgiving attitude to Schwab and McLardy after Connolly was awarded a contract extension after the investigation which has now to be paid out.

Anyway it's a very good discussion with points well made and has provided food for thought. FWIW I agree with you if you define tanking as narrowly as you have, I think everyone does. But I just don't agree with your definition of tanking because I think it goes to motive, not just actions. But that's past history.

You have given a good reason to hold a grudge against me, not past servants.

My issue with hazy, and there was a point of detente when he and I saw eye-to-eye was with an abject refusal to give any credit for any positive.

We can dig up old threads and hash out old arguments in which we all point to the nuances of what we said - but who are we to settle the scores of past administrations of the MFC?

And as for the motive of tanking - if you can prove action had a causal reaction to a particular motive then yes, you can prosecute.

You and I may disagree, but a joke about aggressive Zulus (the guise of MFC fans) advancing toward the club if wins continue, does not constitute motive. Now if they had an Assitant Coach admitting to the desire to lose - that would be different...(and I bring that up only to point out a better example of motive, not as a 'they did it aswell' defence)

And tanking occurs all the time, I hope that people are not so naive that they think the removal of a PP will end what they think is 'tanking.' Teams will still lose and minimise their chances of winning in bad seasons. It's life in draft regulated sports. Fans/journos/execs of the NBA look at ways of removing the allure of tanking, their equals in the AFL attempt to 'capture smoke with their bare hands' looking for motive and punishment.

I know what is the better use of time...

I posted this elsewhere on the subject of draft assistance but I think it's appropriate here:-

  Quote

I can just imagine Eddie McGuire and Mick Malthouse sitting down at the end of the 2005 season when their team had strangely lost their last eight games to just fall into a position where they won five games (percentage in the high 70s) which was exactly enough to score them a priority pick.

Eddie: Mick, I know we're entitled to a priority pick but I'm conflicted. By taking advantage of the rule, I think we're doing something that's immoral and unethical. I feel bad about it. We don't really deserve the extra pick and anyway, it won't do anything to help improve the team.

Mick: Eddie, Confucius said that the ox moves slow but the world turns even more slowly. I've sent blokes off to hospital early, played Sav Rocca in the midfield and given games to some spuds who never in a million years deserved to put on the black and white jersey. We've got the chance to pick up two 18 year olds called Thomas and Pendlebury who are going to play in our next premiership team and you want me to give one of them away to Hawthorn? Get outta here.

Eddie: I was only jokin'

I wonder what it is about us as a club that I have yet to hear a single supporter from another club that would reject the prospect of getting a priority pick or that there would be any handwringing about the subject at all.

I'm not sure but I often wonder if our weak kneed attitude and the fact that we've become so insured to victimhood and failure makes us a soft target for people like Denham, Barrett, Wilson and co.

  On 13/09/2013 at 05:18, rpfc said:

You have given a good reason to hold a grudge against me, not past servants.

I always argued for a dignified exit and argued that we "could do better". I don't hold a grudge against them, I just saw that they were less than effective in their jobs and wanted better.

I didn't convince many here.

  On 13/09/2013 at 05:18, rpfc said:

Now if they had an Assitant Coach admitting to the desire to lose - that would be different...(and I bring that up only to point out a better example of motive, not as a 'they did it aswell' defence)

WJ has suggested that a past employee "ratted" on the club to the AFL. I'd be surprised if it was only one.

The AFL would have got a good insight into what was going on. Just because it isn't public doesn't mean it didn't happen.

  On 13/09/2013 at 05:21, Whispering_Jack said:

I posted this elsewhere on the subject of draft assistance but I think it's appropriate here:-

I wonder what it is about us as a club that I have yet to hear a single supporter from another club that would reject the prospect of getting a priority pick or that there would be any handwringing about the subject at all.

I'm not sure but I often wonder if our weak kneed attitude and the fact that we've become so insured to victimhood and failure makes us a soft target for people like Denham, Barrett, Wilson and co.

Yes, it is intriguing that some of those who oppose a PP are amongst those who are often keenest for us to toughen up/take no prisoners etc.

  On 13/09/2013 at 05:29, Baghdad Bob said:

I always argued for a dignified exit and argued that we "could do better". I don't hold a grudge against them, I just saw that they were less than effective in their jobs and wanted better.

I didn't convince many here.

And why would you?

We are predisposed to want the best for the club, just like those servants that fail to live up their promise.

All you, or anyone can do, is argue what they believe and attempt to convince people and watch in horror as it all falls to pieces (one can shove it in people's faces if they wish).

It's like my infamous belief in the word of a 20 year old simpleton - 'I believe in Tom'.

I claim to this day that I was not wrong to believe him.

You claimed the incompetence of those at the club, Land rejected the opinion/evidence/proof wrought, and the horrors were proved correct and you were right.

But it doesn't make us wrong that we believed in them.

And that goes for every administration, even the one that tried to 'vote us out of existence' or 'eat Hawthorn whole' depending on what you believe.

I would be happy to take the PP and if next season we shoot up the ladder I would still be smiling. Even when opposition say "you only are high up on the ladder because the AFL gave you a handout" I would smile and say " Jealous Much!" As they say " winners are grinners " and the attitude of other clubs about whether we deserve anything or not is irrelevant to me. Quite frankly they can GAGF. I might even pull out the old "What's this?" "The smallest violin in the world and its playing just for you!" Gag.

When we are winning and improving up the ladder these debates will just be a distant memory. I don't mind if the other clubs hate us as long as we are winning!

  On 13/09/2013 at 05:39, sue said:

Yes, it is intriguing that some of those who oppose a PP are amongst those who are often keenest for us to toughen up/take no prisoners etc.

You really can't see a connect between a desire to toughen up and become a strong club with a strong culture, and an opposition to further draft handouts?

  On 13/09/2013 at 05:21, Whispering_Jack said:

I wonder what it is about us as a club that I have yet to hear a single supporter from another club that would reject the prospect of getting a priority pick or that there would be any handwringing about the subject at all.

I'm not sure but I often wonder if our weak kneed attitude and the fact that we've become so insured to victimhood and failure makes us a soft target for people like Denham, Barrett, Wilson and co.

I have reservations about it, which I choose to share amongst my fellow supporters, and I don't appreciate being labelled weak because of it. No Melbourne supporter that has survived this far is weak. Frankly I think mine and others' reservations about another quick fix have some pretty good foundation. I don't see a PP as a priority for this club, or anything close to.

I have however been resolute in my defending the club to put forward the application based on performance, because the case is there for all to see.

I simply acknowledge there are issues that cloud the debate, and some of those have merit.

  On 13/09/2013 at 06:05, Paul_man said:

I have reservations about it, which I choose to share amongst my fellow supporters, and I don't appreciate being labelled weak because of it. No Melbourne supporter that has survived this far is weak. Frankly I think mine and others' reservations about another quick fix have some pretty good foundation. I don't see a PP as a priority for this club, or anything close to.

You don't like being referred to as weak, well no-one is calling the PP a 'quick fix' either.

It's a priority for Jackson because he knows what Roos can do with that pick. He can bring in a Swallow type talent with that pick. And that is a priority for Roos.

We need to improve as a club, and a part of that is getting better onfield, and a part of that is getting 'whats coming to us' and using that to find suitable talent.

  On 13/09/2013 at 06:26, rpfc said:

You don't like being referred to as weak, well no-one is calling the PP a 'quick fix' either.

It's a priority for Jackson because he knows what Roos can do with that pick. He can bring in a Swallow type talent with that pick. And that is a priority for Roos.

We need to improve as a club, and a part of that is getting better onfield, and a part of that is getting 'whats coming to us' and using that to find suitable talent.

Jesus christ mate, you have a go at me for semantics but you love picking apart every single word.

Your problem seems to be your insistence on towing the company line. Defending Schwab. We didn't tank. I believe in Tom. etc etc. Any questioning of what happens seems to attract your ire. Not quite on Satyr's level I'll grant you.

Compared to fixing the fundamentals of a football club, it is a quick fix. An easy get. What this club is now synonymous with.

We have two picks in the first round. Over the past 2 drafts we'll have 4 Top 5 draft picks (including JV). Let's develop our own Andrew Swallow. We're getting the people on board who are capable of it. So let's do it. Ourselves.

Unless being on a welfare drip is desirable. If that is the starting point, there's no argument entered into.

  On 13/09/2013 at 05:43, rpfc said:

And why would you?

We are predisposed to want the best for the club, just like those servants that fail to live up their promise.

All you, or anyone can do, is argue what they believe and attempt to convince people and watch in horror as it all falls to pieces (one can shove it in people's faces if they wish).

It's like my infamous belief in the word of a 20 year old simpleton - 'I believe in Tom'.

I claim to this day that I was not wrong to believe him.

You claimed the incompetence of those at the club, Land rejected the opinion/evidence/proof wrought, and the horrors were proved correct and you were right.

But it doesn't make us wrong that we believed in them.

And that goes for every administration, even the one that tried to 'vote us out of existence' or 'eat Hawthorn whole' depending on what you believe.

your right. we (should) want what is best for the club

we want priority pick(s)

QED

I will accept anything that is legal and within the rules, that helps our club.

I am weak. I am not proud. I am sick of watching my team lose.

  On 13/09/2013 at 06:48, Redleg said:

I will accept anything that is legal and within the rules, that helps our club.

I've heard of this stuff called AOD something.

Don't think it's legal but I don't think it's illegal.

  On 13/09/2013 at 06:47, daisycutter said:

your right. we (should) want what is best for the club

we want priority pick(s)

QED

Those that wanted better than Schwab and Neeld did want the best for the club. Those that argued against those changes were just blind to the very obvious damage that was being done.

I do want priority picks but if I was in the AFL's position I'd need persuading. There are some good arguments here and Jackson is good.

  On 13/09/2013 at 04:01, rpfc said:

We didn't tank - and before you roll your eyes - my argument does not reject reality: we tried to manipulate a few games to secure a better draft position.

The reason why I said we didn't tank is because I have a narrow interpretation that stops at the water's edge of players being told to lose.

And the amount of internet I spent explaining this would make Al Gore roll over in his grave so I will give the clift notes:

If playing someone in a foreign position is a part of tanking, that will create a problem.

If sending players for early surgeries to prepare for next season is tanking, that will create a problem.

If playing young players and ignoring others is tanking, that will create a problem.

And if only some of these are tanking, or is tanking only at particular times of the season, then where does it stop?

When we removed all our older players at the end of 2007 and sent our fortunes through kids - we were intent on bottoming out. That is in the spirit of tanking.

But is it?

I am of the view that if you cannot legislate coherent and stable rules ito govern a practice then you shouldn't bother.

The NBA has a lottery draft, but it still has tanking and it does not care. It overlooks it because it is impossible to prove motive with these moves that define tanking.

The AFL knew this but wanted to win the PR week, hence our fortunate use of CC's remarks as a pressure valve to get us out of a mess that cost Adrian Anderson any future at the AFL.

well put

  On 13/09/2013 at 06:05, Paul_man said:

You really can't see a connect between a desire to toughen up and become a strong club with a strong culture, and an opposition to further draft handouts?

Sorry I should have made it clear that I was writing in the context of the posters who feel embarrassed about MFC asking for whatever it can, and seem to cringe in fear of what supporters of other clubs say.

Of course I do see the connection you refer to. Just happen to disagree with you as to what's most important.

I see no need to cut our noses off to show how tough we are. Be tough by doing what is best for the club regardless of what others think. Take a PP if we can. Just don't rely on PP's as messiahs, fix the culture at the same time.

Do you really think Roos can't fix the culture in the presence of a PP?