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.

Sorry I have been away and haven't read all the posts but has anyone noted that AD said all 17 other clubs said no to a pp for us? That means GWS and Suns protested!!! I mean does the word HYPOCRITES come to mind. They have already gone past us and continue to pick up extra priority picks, bloated salary caps and exclusive zones. I mean really!

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.

By the way has that 800 page MFC "tanking" investigation of hearsay evidence from disgruntled former employees ever

seen the light of day outside AD and Gilligan's offices?

Sorry I have been away and haven't read all the posts but has anyone noted that AD said all 17 other clubs said no to a pp for us? That means GWS and Suns protested!!! I mean does the word HYPOCRITES come to mind. They have already gone past us and continue to pick up extra priority picks, bloated salary caps and exclusive zones. I mean really!

Actually AD said that of the other 17 clubs who are not Melbourne who have written to the AFL they were against it.

He is not saying all 17 clubs complained. I am pretty sure for starters that GC and GWS wouldn't .

Actually AD said that of the other 17 clubs who are not Melbourne who have written to the AFL they were against it.

He is not saying all 17 clubs complained. I am pretty sure for starters that GC and GWS wouldn't .

Redleg I am confused 17 said no, doesn't that include the Hypocrites?

I still don't understand the basis of the argument against us getting a Priority pick,

1. the other clubs are losing money every time they play us, a PP will get us back up asap

2. we were found not guilty of tanking officially, that can't be used against us in any way.

3. 34 wins in 7 years, 1 against a top 8 team, the numbers back up our case.

4. if Roos gets some good form out of Trengove, Blease, Watts and Tapscott we haven't wasted all of these picks, we moved Gysberts on, and Scully left because of the AFL monster in western Sydney and it's huge pay rise.

5. we have stated we would trade pick 1 if we get it, it would be going straight back into the mix, if GWS get it it's not certain that it would.

i don't understand why North Melbourne people in particular are sooking so much about this, us being a better side sooner rather than later is ultimately in the best interests of the entire comp.

this media circus they are causing to try and cloud the fact that on the points above we should absolutely get one with enough negativity towards the idea is absolutely bringing the game into disrepute imo.

My biggest gripe at the moment is "journalists" using "Melbourne have had x number of picks on the top 10 (or 15 or 26 or whatever suits them) in the past y years" as justification for us not receiving a PP.

All clubs have received the same number of first round picks, with the exception of those who got 1st round PPs (Melbourne, Carlton, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Bulldogs) and those who were given extra picks (GC and GWS). That's 7 of 18 teams to have extra first round picks.

The other additional picks we've had have been either compensation picks (i.e. Scully) no different that what Adelaide, Geelong, Brisbane etc got, or picks we've traded for i.e. Brock and Travis.

Every time a "journalist" tries this argument, they a) fail to mention any of the above to balance the argument, and b) fit stats to show their point i.e. "Melbourne has had more picks inside the top 14 than any other club" instead of stats that are a fair comparison. Top 14 fits us because we traded players for pick 14 and we're always finishing low enough during the compromised draft seasons to have a top 14 pick. They are also keen to say "we traded first round picks for Hogan or Mitch Clark, so bad luck, but they count the picks we got from trading out players as opportunities.

Compare the number of priority picks per club and we aren't leading the list.

Compare "first round picks" minus number of players lost (either traded, or free agent, or compensation) so that you can see that we have had virtually the same chances as any other club. Maybe our picks are on average a few places higher, but number of picks can only be 1 more, because we've only had 1 first round PP.

We have done a terrible job at drafting and developing in the last 12 or so years, but there are many reasons for that. Lack of of field financial success is the main driver and that is the AFLs fault regarding equalisation.

I still don't understand the basis of the argument against us getting a Priority pick,

1. the other clubs are losing money every time they play us, a PP will get us back up asap

2. we were found not guilty of tanking officially, that can't be used against us in any way.

3. 34 wins in 7 years, 1 against a top 8 team, the numbers back up our case.

4. if Roos gets some good form out of Trengove, Blease, Watts and Tapscott we haven't wasted all of these picks, we moved Gysberts on, and Scully left because of the AFL monster in western Sydney and it's huge pay rise.

5. we have stated we would trade pick 1 if we get it, it would be going straight back into the mix, if GWS get it it's not certain that it would.

i don't understand why North Melbourne people in particular are sooking so much about this, us being a better side sooner rather than later is ultimately in the best interests of the entire comp.

this media circus they are causing to try and cloud the fact that on the points above we should absolutely get one with enough negativity towards the idea is absolutely bringing the game into disrepute imo.

Baghdad Bob has articulated the argument against the PP well. Do a search of his posts.

In regard to your 5 points:

1. Is arguable and the receipt of the PP is subject to point 2.

2. The "official" contrived outcome of the tanking enquiry is at odds with what everyone in the football world believes...MFC tanked. Furthermore, MFC had got itself into such a parlours financial and operating state that to apply the appropriate penalties would have permanently crippled us. In a nutshell...we cheated, did not get duly punished and are now seeking to be rewarded for incompetence.

3. See 2 and we acted against the rules of the game.

4. Strawman of no relevance

5. Another strawman. What we do with the pick is irrelevant.

North are in a similar financial belt to us. They have watched us systematically destroyed ourselves on and off the field, breached the rules and the AFL:

1. Arranges Peter Jackson to take over MFC.

2. Paid millions in personnel restructuring costs.

3. Bankrolled the highest paid coach in the comp.

And now we want a PP......

Get their drift?......

I want a PP (any benefit that gets us out of the hole we are in). But I understand the incredulous reaction of other clubs in the competition. And I think their negativity to a proposed PP has some merit. It's with the AFL now.

We have done a terrible job at drafting and developing in the last 12 or so years, but there are many reasons for that. Lack of of field financial success is the main driver and that is the AFLs fault regarding equalisation.

Victim cop out of the highest order.

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.

Victim cop out of the highest order.

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.

I'll cop that whack Rhino, it was the last paragraph of a long post and it was poorly articulated.

What I was trying to illustrate was that despite our incompetence in drafting and development, there are differentials between us and other clubs. Not all clubs have the advantage of Collingwood cash to pay for recruiters and coaches and developers, but we have also not had much luck with father sons, we have struggled financially for a number of reasons many of which relate to the AFLs money making plans, we have had sub standard facilities for longer than many other clubs, and others.

I think these reasons should be taken into consideration when other clubs say "Melbourne have had the same chances of every other club", because although we have had the same number of picks, we have been disadvantaged in the football department side of things for a long time.

No disagreement with the rest of my post?

Baghdad Bob has articulated the argument against the PP well. Do a search of his posts.

In regard to your 5 points:

1. Is arguable and the receipt of the PP is subject to point 2.

2. The "official" contrived outcome of the tanking enquiry is at odds with what everyone in the football world believes...MFC tanked. Furthermore, MFC had got itself into such a parlours financial and operating state that to apply the appropriate penalties would have permanently crippled us. In a nutshell...we cheated, did not get duly punished and are now seeking to be rewarded for incompetence.

3. See 2 and we acted against the rules of the game.

4. Strawman of no relevance

5. Another strawman. What we do with the pick is irrelevant.

North are in a similar financial belt to us. They have watched us systematically destroyed ourselves on and off the field, breached the rules and the AFL:

1. Arranges Peter Jackson to take over MFC.

2. Paid millions in personnel restructuring costs.

3. Bankrolled the highest paid coach in the comp.

And now we want a PP......

Get their drift?......

I want a PP (any benefit that gets us out of the hole we are in). But I understand the incredulous reaction of other clubs in the competition. And I think their negativity to a proposed PP has some merit. It's with the AFL now.

Essentially all your points RR are based on issues tangential to the ultimate criteria as to the awarding of a priority pick. I could agree as to the culpability of the MFC in regard to issues of organisational incompetence, except for the peculiar singularity with which we were targeted for 'tanking'. There is a reason the AFL has abandoned the numerical formula for awarding a PP, and that is because clubs had positioned themselves to take advantage of it. We weren't the only ones, but we were meaninglessly scapegoated. It was a flawed equalisation measure, and the AFL chose not to take responsibility for that.

The absolute issue is one of on-field equalisation. Game day equality. If the AFL DON'T give us a PP, despite our league leading poor performance over seven years, then they are playing a game hypocritical to their core ethos. They are choosing to keep us at a disadvantage on field, where it matters most. This is to disregard the parlous off-field state of disrepair we'd got ourselves into, but it must BE disregarded (particularly now that it seems to be on the mend) when addressing the fundament of equalisation.

....

North are in a similar financial belt to us. They have watched us systematically destroyed ourselves on and off the field, breached the rules and the AFL:

1. Arranges Peter Jackson to take over MFC.

2. Paid millions in personnel restructuring costs.

3. Bankrolled the highest paid coach in the comp.

And now we want a PP......

Get their drift?......

I want a PP (any benefit that gets us out of the hole we are in). But I understand the incredulous reaction of other clubs in the competition. And I think their negativity to a proposed PP has some merit. It's with the AFL now.

Just because North may feel miffed, even if justifiably, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get a PP.

The situation is a bit like the way people on low incomes are the most p!ssed off when groups slightly worse off than themselves get some sort of welfare. It doesn't make the welfare wrong.

(Please don't turn this into an argument of whether welfare is good for people or not. That is not relevant to my point about North.)

I'll cop that whack Rhino, it was the last paragraph of a long post and it was poorly articulated.

What I was trying to illustrate was that despite our incompetence in drafting and development, there are differentials between us and other clubs. Not all clubs have the advantage of Collingwood cash to pay for recruiters and coaches and developers, but we have also not had much luck with father sons, we have struggled financially for a number of reasons many of which relate to the AFLs money making plans, we have had sub standard facilities for longer than many other clubs, and others.

I think these reasons should be taken into consideration when other clubs say "Melbourne have had the same chances of every other club", because although we have had the same number of picks, we have been disadvantaged in the football department side of things for a long time.

No disagreement with the rest of my post?

We are in the same boat as struggling minnows like Western Bulldogs and North. I can understand why they are uncomfortable with MFC getting a PP leg up in addition to the $$$$$ bailout and benefits the AFL has given us. In addition our lack of integrity that was exposed through tanking does not help. We would do the same if either of them were showered with such benefits.

Essentially all your points RR are based on issues tangential to the ultimate criteria as to the awarding of a priority pick. I could agree as to the culpability of the MFC in regard to issues of organisational incompetence, except for the peculiar singularity with which we were targeted for 'tanking'. There is a reason the AFL has abandoned the numerical formula for awarding a PP, and that is because clubs had positioned themselves to take advantage of it. We weren't the only ones, but we were meaninglessly scapegoated. It was a flawed equalisation measure, and the AFL chose not to take responsibility for that.

The absolute issue is one of on-field equalisation. Game day equality. If the AFL DON'T give us a PP, despite our league leading poor performance over seven years, then they are playing a game hypocritical to their core ethos. They are choosing to keep us at a disadvantage on field, where it matters most. This is to disregard the parlous off-field state of disrepair we'd got ourselves into, but it must BE disregarded (particularly now that it seems to be on the mend) when addressing the fundament of equalisation.

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 as far as on-field equalisation, a PP does not solve the issue but it is a nice rallying point as part of the pro PP proposal.

Baghdad Bob has articulated the argument against the PP well. Do a search of his posts.

In regard to your 5 points:

1. Is arguable and the receipt of the PP is subject to point 2.

2. The "official" contrived outcome of the tanking enquiry is at odds with what everyone in the football world believes...MFC tanked. Furthermore, MFC had got itself into such a parlours financial and operating state that to apply the appropriate penalties would have permanently crippled us. In a nutshell...we cheated, did not get duly punished and are now seeking to be rewarded for incompetence.

3. See 2 and we acted against the rules of the game.

4. Strawman of no relevance

5. Another strawman. What we do with the pick is irrelevant.

North are in a similar financial belt to us. They have watched us systematically destroyed ourselves on and off the field, breached the rules and the AFL:

1. Arranges Peter Jackson to take over MFC.

2. Paid millions in personnel restructuring costs.

3. Bankrolled the highest paid coach in the comp.

And now we want a PP......

Get their drift?......

I want a PP (any benefit that gets us out of the hole we are in). But I understand the incredulous reaction of other clubs in the competition. And I think their negativity to a proposed PP has some merit. It's with the AFL now.

I understand the point you're making mate and i agree

but the coach, the bail out package ( reportedly ) only allows us to use 400k on the head coach if we choose, so best case scenario we are paying him 1 mil a year out of our own pockets anyway, he said no to brisbane and he wanted to coach us for reasons other than the money, pats on the back to MFC for landing their man, i don't think the other clubs should be too upset with that.

the bail out package, i can more understand this frustration, North nearly left for the Gold coast because of debt yet we get a bail out package, however, if we become a powerful club again sooner rather than later, a home game of Melbourne vs North Melbourne could draw a crowd of 60k rather than 20k and make them alot more money anyway.

i also think alot of it is the other clubs know we were guilty, and know because we were publicly named not guilty they can't use that arguement which is why they just come across as sooking a little bit in my opinion.

but as you said if we get offered a priority pick that would be great for us, i don't think the other clubs should factor into this decision at all, as long as they sit down consider our record, consider our position, consider the benifits of a strong MFC and consider the only real opposition to this is the other clubs not being happy about us getting handouts, i think the right decision will be made.

Just because North may feel miffed, even if justifiably, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get a PP.

The situation is a bit like the way people on low incomes are the most p!ssed off when groups slightly worse off than themselves get some sort of welfare. It doesn't make the welfare wrong.

(Please don't turn this into an argument of whether welfare is good for people or not. That is not relevant to my point about North.)

Ugh. I was mot saying that at all. Re read the whole post especially point 2. My comments on North were in response to D26 not understanding why North are so upset. I note he understands it.

And it's quite understandable that they are. MFC and Demonland would be seething if we were middle of the ladder and maximised our opportunities to succeed and North had performed and conducted itself like we have over the past five years and wanted a PP.

I understand the point you're making mate and i agree

but the coach, the bail out package ( reportedly ) only allows us to use 400k on the head coach if we choose, so best case scenario we are paying him 1 mil a year out of our own pockets anyway, he said no to brisbane and he wanted to coach us for reasons other than the money, pats on the back to MFC for landing their man, i don't think the other clubs should be too upset with that.

the bail out package, i can more understand this frustration, North nearly left for the Gold coast because of debt yet we get a bail out package, however, if we become a powerful club again sooner rather than later, a home game of Melbourne vs North Melbourne could draw a crowd of 60k rather than 20k and make them alot more money anyway.

i also think alot of it is the other clubs know we were guilty, and know because we were publicly named not guilty they can't use that arguement which is why they just come across as sooking a little bit in my opinion.

but as you said if we get offered a priority pick that would be great for us, i don't think the other clubs should factor into this decision at all, as long as they sit down consider our record, consider our position, consider the benifits of a strong MFC and consider the only real opposition to this is the other clubs not being happy about us getting handouts, i think the right decision will be made.

Fair comment. I think most clubs accept that the AFL had to throw us a Jackson, Roos, bailout lifeline. I think the reward of a PP when 12 months ago we were let off without penalty due to our parlours financial position for tanking is a bit rich. But the AFL needs to manage all those tensions to make decisions for the betterment of the game. I hope we get the PP but I would not see it out of the realm of possibility that we don't for the reasons given.

We are in the same boat as struggling minnows like Western Bulldogs and North. I can understand why they are uncomfortable with MFC getting a PP leg up in addition to the $$$$$ bailout and benefits the AFL has given us. In addition our lack of integrity that was exposed through tanking does not help. We would do the same if either of them were showered with such benefits.

I would be disappointed, disturbed and mystified if ANY club didn't get a PP as a means of equalisation for an uncompetitive 7 years such as we've had. That's what the AFL is there for, and it goes beyond partiality, regardless of the 'shower of benefits' as you call them.

Webber=tangential

first prize in the weekly word contest

Had we not been let off for what other clubs believe was a transgression of the rules, then I would agree with you Webber. MFC have a very good case to put for a PP. But as I said there is significant resistance from the other clubs that will pressure the AFL.

I would be disappointed, disturbed and mystified if ANY club didn't get a PP as a means of equalisation for an uncompetitive 7 years such as we've had. That's what the AFL is there for, and it goes beyond partiality, regardless of the 'shower of benefits' as you call them.

I really like your Point about the PP not being a gift mate on another comment mate,

this is the point in think the other AFL clubs and alot of the public are missing is that it's not a gift, it's a tool of equalization, is the comp even at the moment? no, the club named after the capitol city of Victoria ( the home of AFL football )is not AFL standard, that's a disaster for everyone involved, every team we play loses money, every game we play loses interest from supporters, members, the general public, we have become a joke. It was only earlier this year we were being seriously compared to Fitzroy, to me the obvious solution would be to

install a stronger government for the club to get things on track ( check )

sign a premiership coach to give the supporters and members some hope/ show the football world we are serious about improving ( check )

in the event we are granted a priority pick we have declared we will trade it, giving all 17 clubs an equal opportunity to get their hands on a gun key forward they otherwise may not have had the opportunity to even consider, i think this is the sticking point that might well get us over the line, Boyd is going straight back into the mix.

The other clubs could say but they were investigated for tanking for 7 months in the last year or so, i'd hope the AFL hold firm and say they were found not guilty, that's not a factor in this decision, the best interests of the competition are however.

Had we not been let off for what other clubs believe was a transgression of the rules, then I would agree with you Webber. MFC have a very good case to put for a PP. But as I said there is significant resistance from the other clubs that will pressure the AFL.

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

you are being disingenuous rhino and having your cake and eating it too

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

you are being disingenuous rhino and having your cake and eating it too

WJ deals with the straw man argument in GREED AND ALTRUISM RULES THE AFL OVER DRAFT ASSISTANCE

Ugh. I was mot saying that at all. Re read the whole post especially point 2. My comments on North were in response to D26 not understanding why North are so upset. I note he understands it.

And it's quite understandable that they are. MFC and Demonland would be seething if we were middle of the ladder and maximised our opportunities to succeed and North had performed and conducted itself like we have over the past five years and wanted a PP.

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 which some think is more significant).

Had we not been let off for what other clubs believe was a transgression of the rules, then I would agree with you Webber. MFC have a very good case to put for a PP. But as I said there is significant resistance from the other clubs that will pressure the AFL.

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.

Redleg I am confused 17 said no, doesn't that include the Hypocrites?

Read my response to you.

AD never said all 17 responded. He said there was a group of 17 who weren't Melbourne and of those that responded, in other words some responded, they were against us getting a PP.