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.

What, you have dumped me from the Presentation Group?

What, you have dumped me from the Presentation Group?

Looks like you will have to lift your game 'Redleg'.

What, you have dumped me from the Presentation Group?

LOL - at $800/hour redleg you will have to learn to be not so long winded

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.

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.

The memory's not totally shot 'Paul_Man', but can be a bit selective at times.

I'm not so sure the path led us the wrong way just the bloke with the compass and his accomplices. They're gone now thankfully.

The PP would help us in securing a good kid, probably Aish and one or both of Taylor/Swallow. This would assist us to be more than competitive next year. I think the Roos factor will also give us a bump. Like all of us I don't want to see another year like 2013 and with the new group moving into the club a PP will be a help and not an impediment. I was confident we would get one but there are dark forces mounting against us.

LOL - at $800/hour redleg you will have to learn to be not so long winded

Yikes!

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.

The bottom line is surely that in the Richmond game we lead at the final siren - the Tigers won only with a very good pressure kick after that siren, and that mark was a pretty lucky one too. To call that tanking requires belief that our inept coaching team could so fine tune a game that they could construe that outcome. Frankly I don't think that they were that clever.

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?

They probably don't care - they are just given a directive by their editor to write a quick anti-PP article to fill space.

They probably don't care - they are just given a directive by their editor to write a quick anti-PP article to fill space.

Plus they know such an article will go down well with the supporters of 17 other clubs. And that most of the readers haven't followed the tanking issue closely, nor the requirements for a PP.

Plus they know such an article will go down well with the supporters of 17 other clubs. And that most of the readers haven't followed the tanking issue closely, nor the requirements for a PP.

Well I suppose if they write for the ignorant, being ignorant helps.

Well I suppose if they write for the ignorant, being ignorant helps.

Journalism has always had rubbish alongside the good stuff, but we're in a whole new era of scandal mongering, ignorant garbage. I blame the declining revenues of print media, or Murdoch press, or declining education standards, or sex and violence on tv, or sugar. Actually it's probably Lynden Dunn's fault.

Journalism has always had rubbish alongside the good stuff, but we're in a whole new era of scandal mongering, ignorant garbage. I blame the declining revenues of print media, or Murdoch press, or declining education standards, or sex and violence on tv, or sugar. Actually it's probably Lynden Dunn's fault.

Seriously though, it's not too hard to research your topic and have a little understanding about it.

The ignorance of many journalists on this topic, is just plain embarrassing for them.

Pretty simple concept really, stuffing up previous selections is not a ground for refusing a PP, it is actually a factor in why one is needed/awarded.

Seriously though, it's not too hard to research your topic and have a little understanding about it.

The ignorance of many journalists on this topic, is just plain embarrassing for them.

Pretty simple concept really, stuffing up previous selections is not a ground for refusing a PP, it is actually a factor in why one is needed/awarded.

Get no argument from me 'Redleg'.

Seriously though, it's not too hard to research your topic and have a little understanding about it.

The ignorance of many journalists on this topic, is just plain embarrassing for them.

Pretty simple concept really, stuffing up previous selections is not a ground for refusing a PP, it is actually a factor in why one is needed/awarded.

Turning up at my place tonight at ½ time and refusing to watch the game because you were taping it at home is what I call "bringing the game into disrepute". I hope you enjoyed chatting with the wives and gossiping over a cup of tea while the real men had the pleasure of watching Carlton getting pantsed.

Turning up at my place tonight at ½ time and refusing to watch the game because you were taping it at home is what I call "bringing the game into disrepute". I hope you enjoyed chatting with the wives and gossiping over a cup of tea while the real men had the pleasure of watching Carlton getting pantsed.

Yes I did, as they knew more about football than the so called "real men".

Fantastic effort by the undermanned Swans. I wish we had their courage.

Yes I did, as they knew more about football than the so called "real men".

Fantastic effort by the undermanned Swans. I wish we had their courage.

Not what I heard. The only part of the conversation that remotely related to football was the discussion about whether Ed Lower was going to be evicted from Big Brother.

Watching the Swans tonight made me realise how fundamental the Roos succession plan is to his tenure at our club.

Last year's premiership team was coached by a Roos disciple in Longmire and with the Swans playing Freo (Ross Lyon) in the preliminary final next week, there's sure to be one Roos disciple coaching a team in this year's grand final.

I don't even care about the so called negative style Roos was supposed to have brought to the game back then which caused criticism from Vlad. I always admired it and back then Daniher struggled with the Swans' game plan. Bring it on.

Get no argument from me 'Redleg'.

Nor I ...

Pretty simple concept really, stuffing up previous selections is not a ground for refusing a PP, it is actually a factor in why one is needed/awarded.

Yep. It is troubling that those whose feel that the MFC wasn't punished enough for tanking somehow lose sight of that simple concept and conflate the issues.

It is of course logically possible to argue we weren't punished enough, but those who say so should then get stuck into the AFL for their decision earlier in the year, not us. They should state what the penalty should have been and for how long the possibility of extra ad hoc penalties should hover over our heads.

They should argue why it is appropriate to add extra penalties now in a case which was closed in February. There is probably something in the Magna Carta about not doing that. :>)

Yep. It is troubling that those whose feel that the MFC wasn't punished enough for tanking somehow lose sight of that simple concept and conflate the issues.

It is of course logically possible to argue we weren't punished enough, but those who say so should then get stuck into the AFL for their decision earlier in the year, not us. They should state what the penalty should have been and for how long the possibility of extra ad hoc penalties should hover over our heads.

They should argue why it is appropriate to add extra penalties now in a case which was closed in February. There is probably something in the Magna Carta about not doing that. :>)

Perhaps we can also whip a few more draft picks off the Bombers, in the next few years, considering how disgraceful their conduct was in endangering the lives of their players and how lightly they got off.

I think that moaning about journalism and their level of understanding of the situation misses the point. What they are doing is showing us how the rest of the footy world is thinking. They have not spent the hours, days and weeks thinking about our issues and how it fits together and they are not doing it from a obsessive MFC perspective.

Their reaction, whether you agree or not, is how we are viewed and how the footy world see our entitlement.

I fail to understand why people took so strongly the comments of CW during the tanking enquiry and Barrett now because mostly what they say is either opinion, which they are entitled to, or mostly right. We were a complete rabble, we lost the respect of everyone, we had a CEO who lost the respect of journo's, we behaved badly and we've been nothing but a drain on the competition for 7 years. If it had been Footscray or North or PA who had done what we'd done over the journey I'd be saying "they don't deserve to be in the competition" and I'd be questioning how much help they should get.

Thankfully we have a benevolent dictator in Vlad who is doing what he can to help us. He's given us millions,he's given us Jackson who got us Roos who in turn will give us plenty. Thank heavens for Vlad I say, without him I think there is a fair chance we'd be gone.

I understand Webbers logic and I understand Paul_man's attitude. Most of all I want to stop thinking like a victim and start acting like someone who can make something of their situation and gain some self respect. It's why I struggle so much with the "but others did it, it's not fair" attitude and the passionate demands for additional welfare (PP's). That attitude will keep us on the bottom forever because it's an excuse, it won't be what Jackson and Roos are thinking.

Roos and Jackson will apply for a PP but if we don't get one it will be dismissed with a one liner and never mentioned again.

Roos and Jackson will apply for a PP but if we don't get one it will be dismissed with a one liner and never mentioned again.

Except on Demonland.

I think that moaning about journalism and their level of understanding of the situation misses the point. What they are doing is showing us how the rest of the footy world is thinking. They have not spent the hours, days and weeks thinking about our issues and how it fits together and they are not doing it from a obsessive MFC perspective.

If all journos did was reflect what people wanted to hear without providing all the facts, and when they do opinion pieces, without reasoned analysis, then they should drop below politicians and real estate agents on the ladder of despised occupations. Whoops, they may already have done so.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to moan about the standard of journalism. I don't expect it to do any good, but it makes me feels better and I hope that somewhere it may have a small positive effect that may lead to better journalism. After all, they are not going to improve if no one criticises them.

While I understand where you are coming from, I just say we should push for what is best for the club regardless of what other supporters think. So the only question in my mind is: ' Is a PP bad for us?'.

While I can see some small negative cultural effect of asking for/getting a PP, I think you over-estimate it, possibly (just guessing) because of years of frustration with our performance and culture and the jibes from supporters of other clubs.

I do not see how Roos' attempts to fix our culture etc will be significantly affected by him having to deal with the extra 'burden' of a PP. He obviously wants one and I trust he will deal with any negative effects it has on the players and the club. I've posted this as a question before and no one has responded to explain how Roos will be significantly hampered by having to deal with the 'burden' of a PP.

If he doesn't get one he will presumably soldier on with a weaker list than he would have had with a PP to trade/use. The extra pride that comes from doing so without a PP will IMO have minimal effect on how we perform. And that is all that matters, not the jibes of ignorant journos and supporters

Perhaps we didn't like CW's version of the "facts" because what she was doing was giving credence to one version - that of three disgruntled and vindictive ex-employees of the exotically named "Vault" story - and gave no credence whatsoever to the other version put forward by the majority in place at the time? Perhaps, because the story she told of an "ashen-faced" Cameron Schwab after the Port Adelaide win was a fabrication which she accepted and published as truth? Perhaps because only a complete f***wit would interpret as fact what Chris Connolly joked about when he said "Jimmy fell out of his hospital bed"? Perhaps it's because everything about the issue of tanking/list management was about perception and, as Goebells taught the world many years ago, that a lie told often enough will be believed by the mugs.

The truth is we are the worst performed AFL club for a multitude of reasons and should be given draft assistance while, for altruistic reasons, there are people who are fighting us.

The whole priority pick system was an ill-conceived disaster which brought the game into disrepute.

And that should be Melbourne's argument - in fact, they should come out and say it explicitly.

"The rules are extremely clear that in our circumstances we are entitled to a priority pick, given performance this year and in the previous six, and the fact that to date we have received only Pick 1 and Pick 18 as priority picks in a seven year period. Should we not receive a pick, it becomes clear that the system will be administered on a political and non-transparent basis and should be entirely scrapped."

The most important factor here is to make clear that we are not trying to mainuplate the system or gain an unfair advantage.

I should note, that my perspective is coloured by the fact that I think the priority pick is simply not a factor in the future success or otherwise of the Melbourne Football Club. Receiving it comes with cultural baggage of the exact kind that we must eliminate.

I think that moaning about journalism and their level of understanding of the situation misses the point. What they are doing is showing us how the rest of the footy world is thinking. They have not spent the hours, days and weeks thinking about our issues and how it fits together and they are not doing it from a obsessive MFC perspective. Their reaction, whether you agree or not, is how we are viewed and how the footy world see our entitlement. I fail to understand why people took so strongly the comments of CW during the tanking enquiry and Barrett now because mostly what they say is either opinion, which they are entitled to, or mostly right. We were a complete rabble, we lost the respect of everyone, we had a CEO who lost the respect of journo's, we behaved badly and we've been nothing but a drain on the competition for 7 years. If it had been Footscray or North or PA who had done what we'd done over the journey I'd be saying "they don't deserve to be in the competition" and I'd be questioning how much help they should get. Thankfully we have a benevolent dictator in Vlad who is doing what he can to help us. He's given us millions,he's given us Jackson who got us Roos who in turn will give us plenty. Thank heavens for Vlad I say, without him I think there is a fair chance we'd be gone. I understand Webbers logic and I understand Paul_man's attitude. Most of all I want to stop thinking like a victim and start acting like someone who can make something of their situation and gain some self respect. It's why I struggle so much with the "but others did it, it's not fair" attitude and the passionate demands for additional welfare (PP's). That attitude will keep us on the bottom forever because it's an excuse, it won't be what Jackson and Roos are thinking. Roos and Jackson will apply for a PP but if we don't get one it will be dismissed with a one liner and never mentioned again.

'Moaning' about poor journalism, and thinking 'like a victim' as you put it BB, have no bearing on the legitimacy of a PP, which should be a simple matter of performance analysis.

There is little doubt however that poor mainstream media commentary is in a symbiotic relationship with the greater population. It both feeds and reflects public opinion. The standard of that journalism in mainstream media, whether footy, sport, politics, world events, arts, you name it, has been in speedy decline in the last decade. Great journalism exists, and it's easy to find, but it's certainly no longer a mainstream occurrence.

I don't believe the MFC are victims of anything other than our own incompetence. The application of a PP should be immune to anything as pathetic as the emotionality of a 'victim mentality'. It also has nothing to do with 'need' or being 'deserving'. It is about policy, and policy dictates we will get one. If we don't, TOUGH, but it will continue to make the governance of the AFL a confusing thing. That, to me, is frustrating, and I think it goes far beyond being a Melbourne supporter.

I started this thread about the attempt by other clubs to influence the AFL on granting us a PP.

Having read the last 6 pages I have not changed my mind.

I feel that by engaging in this public pressure and according to AD, private as well, those clubs are bringing the game into disrepute.

They should let the AFL decision Board do its job.

The effect of this will be, if we are refused a PP or given a poor one, the public may well suspect that the AFL has cowtowed to a bunch of clubs acting as vigilantes and thereby they have brought the game into disrepute.

My point is not about whether or not we get a PP, but rather the unseemly attempt by some clubs to pervert the decision making process.

If that gets a result for those clubs and is accepted as proepr behaviour in the AFL, then I would urge us to go public if Buddy and/or Thomas leave, to stop any compensation to those clubs, which will affect the purity of the draft.