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.

You can believe about me what you will. I don't feel the need to defend my views over the last few years. Suffice it to say if you think all I do is kowtow to the status quo then you will look for the points that follow that reasoning.

And 'welfare drip' - would you like me to pick on that as well? Or would that be an unfair semantic attack?

Why stop with draft assistance? Reject the AFLs money for The Firing Squad, tell the AFL parachute Jackson he is not required, and hire a coach we can afford.

While we talk about welfare; what about the fixture? Do we stop asking for a fairer draw? It's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps in an industry of 18. We should have had pick 6 in the two years we had pick 12 because of the expansion clubs. Conca and Wingard would be handy.

We would have to be the most affected club from the expansion clubs concessions. Does that matter?

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.

That makes a lot of sense rpfc but my definition is a little simpler. All of the practices you've outlined are common and tolerated. What we did in the Richmond game took things to a whole new level. If your average footy fan can see that your footy department are making game day moves in a deliberate attempt to lose then you've crossed a line. When we were in danger of winning the moves came. Our coaching panel deliberately orchestrated a loss. The closer we came to winning the crazier the moves became. Wallace admitted to doing nothing for most of the last quarter of a game. Ratten refused to tag TJ and it helped them win the Kruzer Cup. Hawthorn and Collingwood managed their team line-ups to the point they had little chance of winning games but at no point did it become obvious on the field. The Carlton example above is the most obvious example next to our after the siren great come from in front loss to Richmond. I challenge anyone here to re-watch the Melbourne Richmond game and not walk away feeling sick in the stomach. Others have tanked but we took to a completely new and sadly transparent level that day. I said the same at the time and it was unpopular. I expect the view is still unpopular today. We tanked. We got caught. And we deserved to be penalized. If it costs us a PP (and I want one!) then I can understand given the events of late 2009.

Everyone knew what was happening in 2007. Lappin retired a week early as to avoid any desire to send him off with a win in a game they could win.

Fevola was taken off the ground for the rest of one game as he was dominating and getting the Blues to close to a win. They had to lose 11 in a row to finish that season.

Collingwood inexplicably lost their eighth straight game to NM in 2005 by a goal after being up by 6 goals with 20 mins to go.

I know we love to make what the MFC do SO much worse than the rest but playing Johnson on Brown and Warnock forward is small time stuff.

And again, my definition avoids this mess altogether. Trying to tie motive to the positional changes in a game? The players we sent out were in front at the siren and that is all it should be about.

I know we love to make what the MFC do SO much worse than the rest but playing Johnson on Brown and Warnock forward is small time stuff.

I think you might need to see the game again. that was the tip of the iceberg.

Everything you said about Carlton is correct. It was the second greatest tank of all time. They too should have been punished.

I quite like your tanking definition and I'm sure I'll borrow from it (with your permission of course) when debating with opposition supporters but (without wanting to sound like BH) my eyes tell me that the football departments of Melbourne and Carlton made gameday moves designed to lose rather than win. That's tanking.

You can believe about me what you will. I don't feel the need to defend my views over the last few years. Suffice it to say if you think all I do is kowtow to the status quo then you will look for the points that follow that reasoning.

And 'welfare drip' - would you like me to pick on that as well? Or would that be an unfair semantic attack?

Why stop with draft assistance? Reject the AFLs money for The Firing Squad, tell the AFL parachute Jackson he is not required, and hire a coach we can afford.

While we talk about welfare; what about the fixture? Do we stop asking for a fairer draw? It's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps in an industry of 18. We should have had pick 6 in the two years we had pick 12 because of the expansion clubs. Conca and Wingard would be handy.

We would have to be the most affected club from the expansion clubs concessions. Does that matter?

In my view, the financial assistance and remedying the off field debacle is a necessity, and the AFL rightly recognises that. I appreciate you see draft assistance as a necessity. Maybe you're correct, and maybe I'm placing far to much faith in the Roos appointment. I'm coming from a position where if there's two scenarios: one where we become a great club without further compromising the draft, and one where we don't, I'd choose the latter. I don't expect everyone to align themselves with that position, or even understand it. It's just how I feel about it.

Of course I understand the arguments that we're arguably the most affected club in our timing of beng the worst side in the competition, with the two expansion clubs raiding the talent pool. I've used that in arguing FOR our application. I'm not blind to the reasoning behind it, or naive enough to think that the culture can't be fixed with a PP as well. I'm just sick of following a weak club with a recent history of reliance on the AFL to sustain itself. I see an opportunity to make a stand and say we're gonna knuckle down and do this ourselves and it appeals to me, innately.

Hopefully you get where I'm coming from, even a little. If you don't, I can't explain it any better than that.

Edited September 13, 201311 yr by Paul_man

I can see where you are coming from Paul_man. I understand the gut feeling but don't think what you prefer is in the best interests of the club.

If you have faith in Roos, why not assume that Roos can fix the culture in the presence of a PP? Roos seems to want one. I presume he doesn't think having a PP will send the wrong message etc.

Does anyone really think that having a PP will really prevent Roos from fixing the culture? He can only do better with one up his sleeve.

Edited September 13, 201311 yr by sue

I think you might need to see the game again. that was the tip of the iceberg.

Everything you said about Carlton is correct. It was the second greatest tank of all time. They too should have been punished.

I quite like your tanking definition and I'm sure I'll borrow from it (with your permission of course) when debating with opposition supporters but (without wanting to sound like BH) my eyes tell me that the football departments of Melbourne and Carlton made gameday moves designed to lose rather than win. That's tanking.

No-one should be punished. We should take the carrot of losing away entirely, I have an idea that if you want to read further you can here:

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/32809-cure-tanking-the-competitive-percentage-determinator/?hl=determinator

The PP will not save the MFC, but it will help to remedy our weak midfield.

I can't believe some of the garbage being written about the PP, by people who don't want it.

AFL clubs will kill each other for a better pick.

We have had 7 of the worst seasons ever in the game's history.

We might get a PP under the AFL rules, which provide for the awarding of them, for poorly performed teams. Yet some on here say we don't need it and they don't want it. My answer to them, is thank God you are not running this club.

To knock back some help, for pride, is just insane.

You know what will make me proud, following a team that can win a game once in a while.

The AFL are not interested in us being successful, they just don't want us to fail.

So in isolation we should get a pick but I reckon given everything that's happened it's hypocritical of the AFL to give more. "You broke the rules, now have a PP".

Good summary of the Realpolitik of the situation.

Good summary of the Realpolitik of the situation.

But if we did indeed break the rules, we would have done so in 2009 and have already been sanctioned for doing so.

If we don't get draft assistance in 2013 then CC will have told those jokes in vain and a great Zulu curse will be visited on the AFL and every club which voiced a negative view on the subject.

Some of you are talking about the PP like it's a 'gift', to be bestowed as befits a 'gift'. It isn't. It's a policy measure employed by the AFL to create greater competitive equality on game day. Their utopian ideal is 9 games a weekend where the odds are even for all of them.

This season, we have become arguably the least competitive team in post war history.

With it, we are more likely to be competitive.

It would be hypocritical and irrational of the AFL for us NOT to get a PP.

Some of you are talking about the PP like it's a 'gift', to be bestowed as befits a 'gift'. It isn't. It's a policy measure employed by the AFL to create greater competitive equality on game day. Their utopian ideal is 9 games a weekend where the odds are even for all of them.

This season, we have become arguably the least competitive team in post war history.

With it, we are more likely to be competitive.

It would be hypocritical and irrational of the AFL for us NOT to get a PP.

Agree and as I have said before if we don't get a decent one, end of the PP. Over. Finished.

Agree and as I have said before if we don't get a decent one, end of the PP. Over. Finished.

Yep.

Which is going to be difficult because of the desperate need both of St Kilda and Brisbane might have for one, in a couple of years.

Surely the reason the decision is being revealed on brownlow Monday, is because we are receiving a PP.

Otherwise they'd just announce it now, and let Barrett roll around in his gleeful schadenfreude.

By releasing it then, it'll be wrapped up in a media smokescreen of the brownlow, then the GF, which is shortly followed by the trade period & we'll quickly move it on before anyone has too much of a chance to create too much fuss.

It's hard to generate real outcry if we don't even have the pick in possession anymore.

It's too clunky & counterintuitive.

Surely the reason the decision is being revealed on brownlow Monday, is because we are receiving a PP.

Otherwise they'd just announce it now, and let Barrett roll around in his gleeful schadenfreude.

By releasing it then, it'll be wrapped up in a media smokescreen of the brownlow, then the GF, which is shortly followed by the trade period & we'll quickly move it on before anyone has too much of a chance to create too much fuss.

It's hard to generate real outcry if we don't even have the pick in possession anymore.

It's too clunky & counterintuitive.

roos seems to be the AFL golden boy atm

I can see them falling for his charms and pushing for him to take the dee job

after much wheeling and dealing vlad realises more carrots are needed for him to take job

paul,sitting on couch counting his dollars then spends 10 weeks utilising windows of opportunities,to plot player movement

PP, game over the chosen one reigns supreme and lifts lifeless dees to finals glory

after 2 years hands over to assistant who then struggles and makes the chosen one look even .GODLIKE

Edited September 14, 201311 yr by jazza

But if we did indeed break the rules, we would have done so in 2009 and have already been sanctioned for doing so.

If we don't get draft assistance in 2013 then CC will have told those jokes in vain and a great Zulu curse will be visited on the AFL and every club which voiced a negative view on the subject.

Jack, I wasn't referring to the actual merits of the matter. I was agreeing with BB's summary of what the AFL's thinking is, and what the actual outcome will be, regardless of what the principles of transparency in decision-making would show.

RL - thank God not everyone feels they should be bullied into submission by the majority voices on D'Land, as nice as that would be.

If we get it, fine, let's use it wisely. If we don't, I won't be crying into my pillow at the lack of that one player, messiah figure #87, to come to the club. I'll be focussing on what the club is doing to develop the talent it already has.

RL - thank God not everyone feels they should be bullied into submission by the majority voices on D'Land, as nice as that would be.

If we get it, fine, let's use it wisely. If we don't, I won't be crying into my pillow at the lack of that one player, messiah figure #87, to come to the club. I'll be focussing on what the club is doing to develop the talent it already has.

Is that what you think we would do? Cry into our pillow? Look at Pick 1 or Pick 3 as the messiah?

I am struggling to find the differences in your position to the Gestapo-land you describe; you would like draft assistance, you would push for it, and you would move on should we not get it.

Because I don't think there is much difference to what I think, many on here think, and what Jackson will do.

Webber I'd like you to accompany PJ and PR when they present to the AFL. You're presentation of our position is persuasive and logical. I hope it prevails because IMO it's nonsensical to agrue we don't want one - sorry Paul_man, i enjoy your posts.

But the suggestion that we could go lower with the receipt of a PP doesn't rub with me. We are/were rock bottom this year. If we can get one just say "thank you so much" and move on quickly.

Agree with BB re: webber.

I should add one thing - the vociferous manner in which I have argued is more because of the terrible arguments from Barrett, Ryan, et al than my own belief in some diabolical need for draft assistance.

I am more than happy to fight on without assistance, AFL money, Jackson, Roos, and every other thing that we have managed with the help of others.

But thankfully we don't have to.

RL - thank God not everyone feels they should be bullied into submission by the majority voices on D'Land, as nice as that would be.

If we get it, fine, let's use it wisely. If we don't, I won't be crying into my pillow at the lack of that one player, messiah figure #87, to come to the club. I'll be focussing on what the club is doing to develop the talent it already has.

I haven't been following this thread but it seems you have changed your opinion again on the pick. Don't forget how poorly we played this season and your turnaround on the pick by the end of the season. It's all good now we are not getting beaten up every week and Roos has come on board, it's the good old Melbourne pre season Pollyanna time but think back to those loses.

I have understood your opinions on the pick but even you recognised towards the end of the season that we needed all the help we could get. This hasn't changed, don't let Barrett and co swing you back the other way. The pick is not a panacea but it will help us be more competitive with the current FD in charge and I couldn't stand another year like 2013.

Agree with BB re: webber.

I should add one thing - the vociferous manner in which I have argued is more because of the terrible arguments from Barrett, Ryan, et al than my own belief in some diabolical need for draft assistance.

I am more than happy to fight on without assistance, AFL money, Jackson, Roos, and every other thing that we have managed with the help of others.

But thankfully we don't have to.

I'm with you rpfc, and BB. It's not about getting sooky or disgruntled at any lack of assistance we FEEL we deserve, it's about the logical application of the AFL's policies regarding equalisation.

The media clowns you mention are employing an emotional argument, AND with bias, and as such are irrelevant.

Damn you rjay. I knew you would pick me up on that.

The midfield is in urgent need, but as you can see by the temp name change, I have faith in the bloke we've appointed to address that and I think he can do so quickly, with or without the PP.

Jackson is doing his job by applying for it. I do wonder if his professional opinion is the same as his personal one, but anyone in his position would be applying for it.

I'm wary because this is the path we have travelled in recent times, and look where it has led us. But I'm hardly going to turn it down if we get it. I might be a bit nuts, but I'm not bat [censored]. Not yet.

I am more than happy to fight on without assistance, AFL money, Jackson, Roos, and every other thing that we have managed with the help of others.

At its most basic, this is my position. Perhaps I've elaborated too much but at least we share some common ground.

BB - cheers mate. Ditto.

I find it laughable, when journos like in that article in the HS yesterday, say, because we stuffed up our previous PP's we shouldn't get another.

Do these people ever try and do their job properly? Clearly this person is totally unaware of the criteria for getting a PP?