Do you expect that they would document such a decision in a Board minute?The response you quoted was in response to another poster's disingenuous effort to solely blame Bailey for the tanking.I've already documented the reason why I think the PP is not a lay down certainty for MFC and your effort to misrepresent that does you no favours. Go and do some research.

Research RR? It does you no favours when you see every opposition to your posts as an outright rejection of your argument or a personal attack. It isn't, and despite the vigour with which you like to challenge what you see as hubristic sentiment and self righteousness in some on here, it's really just a discussion. I'm actually aware of the fact you think we're unlikely to get a PP. I agree. You have however stated that YOU see some merit in the other clubs opposition to a PP. Please feel obliged to correct me if I misunderstand you, but you see this merit as based on recent dysfunctional management and tanking claims? If so, where does that merit reside when the offenders are gone, the wrongdoing past, and the performance criteria for the PP are currently glaring and historically unparalleled? What is the merit to the AFL, who have done so much to help us become competitive again, to leave out the sole on-field remedy at their disposal, draft assistance?

Post #157 and 163. It's clearly set out.

Post #157 and 163. It's clearly set out.

Those posts are only clear insofar as they establish a complete straw man in view of the criteria the AFL Commission are supposed to be considering but I'm sure you'll bat on and on pushing irrelevant arguments as you are prone to do.

I think you were on the money when you started the other post with "I don't know". There is no need to re confirm it.

Thanks. I was also right on the money when I said you don't know and you've confirmed that as well.

Cheers

I must say I'm rather bemused by much of the banter here but I think I did cover this in my editorial elsewhere.

I'd like to add one further thought and that is to do with the fact that Demetriou and Newbold travelled together on that so-called equalisation junket.

Does anyone think that Newbold is acting as a mouthpiece here for Demetriou to justify the way in which the commission ultimately deals with Melbourne's application?

After all, there is no logical way in which the AFL could interpret its draft assistance rules without giving Melbourne something. This is a club that lost its first three games this season by an aggregate of 350 points.

The clubs don't want us to get pick #1. So the controversy is set up in such a way as to make the AFL look good to everybody by giving the MFC a mid first rounder, possibly the one which got away from Essendon a few weeks ago.

End result - very few complaints and we get on with all of the inequalities of football life again.

I must say I'm rather bemused by much of the banter here but I think I did cover this in my editorial elsewhere.

I'd like to add one further thought and that is to do with the fact that Demetriou and Newbold travelled together on that so-called equalisation junket.

Does anyone think that Newbold is acting as a mouthpiece here for Demetriou to justify the way in which the commission ultimately deals with Melbourne's application?

After all, there is no logical way in which the AFL could interpret its draft assistance rules without giving Melbourne something. This is a club that lost its first three games this season by an aggregate of 350 points.

The clubs don't want us to get pick #1. So the controversy is set up in such a way as to make the AFL look good to everybody by giving the MFC a mid first rounder, possibly the one which got away from Essendon a few weeks ago.

End result - very few complaints and we get on with all of the inequalities of football life again.

Agree, Pick 1 and Boyd will stay with GWS, who will add to their list with Buddy, maybe Martin and who knows who else under their billion dollar salary cap

We will get a PP IMO, either at Essendon's or end of first round, which as you said, will quieten the agitators.

A pick at around 12 would be very handy for us in trading for a couple of mids. Surely if Adams and Miles wanted to come to us, pick 12 would get the deal done, with maybe even a pick back to us as well.

I must say I'm rather bemused by much of the banter here but I think I did cover this in my editorial elsewhere. I'd like to add one further thought and that is to do with the fact that Demetriou and Newbold travelled together on that so-called equalisation junket. Does anyone think that Newbold is acting as a mouthpiece here for Demetriou to justify the way in which the commission ultimately deals with Melbourne's application? After all, there is no logical way in which the AFL could interpret its draft assistance rules without giving Melbourne something. This is a club that lost its first three games this season by an aggregate of 350 points. The clubs don't want us to get pick #1. So the controversy is set up in such a way as to make the AFL look good to everybody by giving the MFC a mid first rounder, possibly the one which got away from Essendon a few weeks ago. End result - very few complaints and we get on with all of the inequalities of football life again.

Your last sentence WJ perfectly summarises the half-arsed compromise policy toward equalisation of the AFL that frustrates us so much. Nicely put.

Post #157 and 163. It's clearly set out.

They don't answer my question. I was asking what you thought the merit was for the AFL of leaving out the ONLY on-field measure in its equalisation policy armoury which helps drive the club (any club in the lower reaches in fact) toward being profitably competitive. Admittedly an extra draft pick may range from nil to substantial in end effect, but I fail to see in your explanation any reason not to award a PP other than appeasement to the other clubs.

Firstly, my post did answer the issue that the AFL may be swayed by pressure from all other clubs. I note they garnered other clubs view prior to moving on Essendon. I wonder if there is still some residue leverage. We will have to wait and see.

And all this issue about logical assessments is fine but the AFL has shown repeatedly in dealing with issues that its adopted its own form of pragmatism in designing outcomes which many find difficult to understand or comprehend. This could well be one.

And I find it rather odd you think of the PP as the only on field measure to assist MFC. I would have thought the appointment of Roos is a critical on field improvement given the coach is primarily responsible for what happens on field.

Firstly, my post did answer the issue that the AFL may be swayed by pressure from all other clubs. I note they garnered other clubs view prior to moving on Essendon. I wonder if there is still some residue leverage. We will have to wait and see.And all this issue about logical assessments is fine but the AFL has shown repeatedly in dealing with issues that its adopted its own form of pragmatism in designing outcomes which many find difficult to understand or comprehend. This could well be one.And I find it rather odd you think of the PP as the only on field measure to assist MFC. I would have thought the appointment of Roos is a critical on field improvement given the coach is primarily responsible for what happens on field.

Totally agree with your first two paragraph's, but misses my question. Doesn't matter, semantics really. I was being literal about on-field measures, meaning list improvement.

And I find it rather odd you think of the PP as the only on field measure to assist MFC. I would have thought the appointment of Roos is a critical on field improvement given the coach is primarily responsible for what happens on field.

We really don't know how much of a hand, if any, the AFL had in us getting Roos. Even the money question is in a fog.

We really don't know how much of a hand, if any, the AFL had in us getting Roos. Even the money question is in a fog.

I know the AFL was instrumental in us getting Jackson and that Jackson was instrumental in us getting Roos. But of course you are free to believe that or not.

WJ's last sentence astounds me and it's what I hate most about being a MFC supporter.

"End result - very few complaints and we get on with all of the inequalities of football life again."

That comment depicts us as the downtrodden, only in the position we are in because of others and the inequities we face. It's rot. There are others in our position like Footscray, PA, NM and Saints who are in a similarly "disadvantaged" position.

I reckon until we stop looking for and making excuses and start being independent and thinking independently we're stuffed. Schwab, Connolly and McLardy went to the welfare bin and it failed miserably.

Jackson and Roos won't. It's time the supporters stopped doing it.

I know the AFL was instrumental in us getting Jackson and that Jackson was instrumental in us getting Roos. But of course you are free to believe that or not. WJ's last sentence astounds me and it's what I hate most about being a MFC supporter. That comment depicts us as the downtrodden, only in the position we are in because of others and the inequities we face. It's rot. There are others in our position like Footscray, PA, NM and Saints who are in a similarly "disadvantaged" position. I reckon until we stop looking for and making excuses and start being independent and thinking independently we're stuffed. Schwab, Connolly and McLardy went to the welfare bin and it failed miserably. Jackson and Roos won't. It's time the supporters stopped doing it.

I didn't read WJ's comment like that at all BB. I'm sure he meant it as a generality, not in respect to the MFC. And in that sense, it's true. It's not a level playing field, and the Bulldogs, Saints and Kangas are absolutely testament to that. Sustained equality is essential to the health of the national competition, not just the MFC, and it just plainly could be better. Hence AD's equalisation junket, and the admission of the growing gap.

I reckon until we stop looking for and making excuses and start being independent and thinking independently we're stuffed.

Makes sense. I think that old favourite "ruthless" also has its place.

I know the AFL was instrumental in us getting Jackson and that Jackson was instrumental in us getting Roos. But of course you are free to believe that or not.

WJ's last sentence astounds me and it's what I hate most about being a MFC supporter.

That comment depicts us as the downtrodden, only in the position we are in because of others and the inequities we face. It's rot. There are others in our position like Footscray, PA, NM and Saints who are in a similarly "disadvantaged" position.

I reckon until we stop looking for and making excuses and start being independent and thinking independently we're stuffed. Schwab, Connolly and McLardy went to the welfare bin and it failed miserably.

Jackson and Roos won't. It's time the supporters stopped doing it.

What astounds me is your unlimited capacity to misinterpret what I say in order that you can get on your soapbox and spout bullsh1t.

Welfare bin?

Jeez...

What astounds me is your unlimited capacity to misinterpret what I say in order that you can get on your soapbox and spout bullsh1t.

Yes WJ, there seems to be an unlimited capacity by some on this site to make it up as they go along. Post a well written, tightly argued case on here, particularly on controversial issues, and you can guarantee to get back some truly bizarre partisan responses, as I have found out over the last couple of months..

Sometimes I wonder whether some of these posters actually read, or if they do, understand, what is being written half the time.

Keep up the good work, WJ, you inform and entertain many of us on here, and bring a civilizing and sophisticated perspective to the complicated and difficult issues the AFL in general, and the MFC, in particular, face.

We are entering exciting times, and having a voice of reason will help us all along.

If today's Herald Sun report is accurate the game has been brought into disrepute.

It says that due to the war waged by the clubs in opposition to our request for a PP, they have succeeded in getting the AFL to deny us a pre draft pick and at best we will get an end of round 1 pick if anything at all.

Forget about what the criteria is or the fact that there is an independent board to decide the issue, lobbying has bypassed this if the report is accurate and the AFL has abandoned its own rules once again and catered to the vocal majority or minority.

Therefore should we now lobby with other disadvantaged clubs for equal fixturing and salary caps etc due to our outrage at what is going on?

The AFL if it has acted on the pressure of a lobby group has allowed itself and them to bring the game into disrepute.

They'll never admit it was pressure.

If today's Herald Sun report is accurate the game has been brought into disrepute.

It says that due to the war waged by the clubs in opposition to our request for a PP, they have succeeded in getting the AFL to deny us a pre draft pick and at best we will get an end of round 1 pick if anything at all.

Forget about what the criteria is or the fact that there is an independent board to decide the issue, lobbying has bypassed this if the report is accurate and the AFL has abandoned its own rules once again and catered to the vocal majority or minority.

Therefore should we now lobby with other disadvantaged clubs for equal fixturing and salary caps etc due to our outrage at what is going on?

The AFL if it has acted on the pressure of a lobby group has allowed itself and them to bring the game into disrepute.

Hey Redleg it was you who pointed out to me about AD's exact words in his claim that of the 17 clubs that are not Melbourne, those that have contacted the AFL have said no thanks. I assumed that meant 17 clubs you said no and pointed out that it was only those clubs that had contacted the AFL. So do we have a 17 club mutiny or don't we? How many clubs contacted the AFL I wonder, no one has asked Andrew. The media originally interpreted AD comment as 17 clubs were against the PP and then Damian Barrett reported that there was a mutiny brewing and we have just moved on from there. This morning in the Hun it was 17 clubs would be livid if we got draft assistance. This whole idea is running off AD original comments, I believe. But it is working against our cause.

. I think the whole thing is a beat up started by AD and the media have since just run with it. However this is exactly what AD wants so as to influence the Commision members who Also read the newspapers but hopefully for our sake do not believe there is a mutiny brewing. Why the hell would there be? All17 clubs have taken it in turns to give us an absolute belting and were happy to take the points and percentage but now are incensed should we get some help. Give me a break.

And if GWS has complained all 17 clubs who are not GWS should be absolutely staggered.

Hey Redleg it was you who pointed out to me about AD's exact words in his claim that of the 17 clubs that are not Melbourne, those that have contacted the AFL have said no thanks. I assumed that meant 17 clubs you said no and pointed out that it was only those clubs that had contacted the AFL. So do we have a 17 club mutiny or don't we? How many clubs contacted the AFL I wonder, no one has asked Andrew. The media originally interpreted AD comment as 17 clubs were against the PP and then Damian Barrett reported that there was a mutiny brewing and we have just moved on from there. This morning in the Hun it was 17 clubs would be livid if we got draft assistance. This whole idea is running off AD original comments, I believe. But it is working against our cause.

. I think the whole thing is a beat up started by AD and the media have since just run with it. However this is exactly what AD wants so as to influence the Commision members who Also read the newspapers but hopefully for our sake do not believe there is a mutiny brewing. Why the hell would there be? All17 clubs have taken it in turns to give us an absolute belting and were happy to take the points and percentage but now are incensed should we get some help. Give me a break.

And if GWS has complained all 17 clubs who are not GWS should be absolutely staggered.

And a year before GWS it was GC. Couldn't see either of those clubs complaining.

The AFL can't use other clubs complaining as a reason for denying us the PP1. It would be a joke if they admitted that. This seems to be more, some journos and a few Presidents working together.

They'll never admit it was pressure.

Which is why I think the reports are BS.

The league would never admit to it being because of pressure.

They'd leak other reasons.

The latest article in The Age leads me to believe that outlet has no idea, at the very least.

Paraphrasing...

"All 17 clubs are opposed, so we won't get one... Except if we do, they'll push for it to be the end of the 1st round"

This reeks of currying favour to all supporters bar those of the MFC.

But it bodes well for us, IMO.