I'm disappointed at the club's silence over this.

We are being attacked from eft, right and centre as a club and being denied what, on the criteria laid down, woiuld be an absolute certainty to any other club if it had such a poor record over the years. Even if you accepted we tanked (and we were never more guity than 7 or 8 other hypocrites clubs for that) for one or two games back in 2009, it doesn't alter the pathetic level to which we have fallen on the field since round 1, 2007.

Instead of standing up for our club, we get nothing from our off field leadership.

I know its all diplomacy but it hardly inspires me to think that our leaders are going to be brave and bold in the future if they allow themselves to succumb to their AFL masters.

It's time to make a stand.

Thank you for that but, while I do like many of the Age's sporting journalists, I don't think I'd be popular with its chief football writer.The latest brouhaha involving Richard Colless' attack on Paul Roos highlights exactly what I mean about the necessity for an independent AFL Commission as against the individual clubs making or influencing decisions on issues where they place undue and heavy influence by seeking to apply criteria that are not of great relevance. The Swans are upset at Melbourne so how do we expect them to behave at the AFL Commission on Monday?There's every possibility that if the Commission gives undue weight to extraneous factors in deciding on Melbourne's application for draft assistance then it will not only be the beginning of the end for Demetriou but of the Commission itself. Once the precedent is set, then more partisan results can be expected. I can see Eddie starting the ball rolling by attacking Sydney's $900 salary cap advantage.Interesting times.

There's a tipping point coming I think WJ. The AFL has stated it's support for greater equalisation, but if current trends continue, the future looks considerably more biased toward protecting the status of the rich/powerful and keeping the others vaguely in touch or not at all. There are some very good operators amidst the struggling clubs, such as Peter Gordon at the Doggies, and with the appropriate mobilisation of supporter sentiment against the status quo, a revolution may occur that would change the shape of the AFL. One of the extraordinary and excellent aspects of footy, in comparison to other codes in this country and others is its egalitarian culture. Nobody excluded, crossing social, economic and racial differences. A governing body that ignores or diminishes this essence will do so at its peril.

I believe the reason the rest of the competition is so united on this issue is that they recognise the merits of Melbourne's argument to receive a PP and are determined to at least make it at the end of the first round. If they succeed in there not being one awarded at all even better.

I reckon we will receive one, but that the clubs will get their wish and it will be at the end of the first round.

I believe the reason the rest of the competition is so united on this issue is that they recognise the merits of Melbourne's argument to receive a PP and are determined to at least make it at the end of the first round. If they succeed in there not being one awarded at all even better. I reckon we will receive one, but that the clubs will get their wish and it will be at the end of the first round.

I reckon you're right BH. It sits perfectly with the 'cake and eat it too' policy of AD. He has neither the guts nor the wisdom to do the right thing for the right reasons, and prefers a short termist politics-like approach.

I believe the reason the rest of the competition is so united on this issue is that they recognise the merits of Melbourne's argument to receive a PP and are determined to at least make it at the end of the first round. If they succeed in there not being one awarded at all even better.

I reckon we will receive one, but that the clubs will get their wish and it will be at the end of the first round.

That sounds likely. Or perhaps they slot in a PP where Messendon's first pick would have been, about 12.

Every article in the media on this subject had been completely one-sided. There hasn't been a single statement in our favour as to why we should receive a top ten pick and the consensus appears to be that we will get an end of first round selection. Our own silence suggests to me that the result will be a contrived one - a deal done a while ago. At least we can hope that pick 18 or 19 or whatever becomes a champion for our club.

Such a result will definitely be a blow to the independence of the AFL Commission. A precedent will have been set and it can only strengthen the already strong clubs and cause instability in the organisation.

I pity Essendon if the final ASADA report leads to a dozen two year suspensions as has been mooted in some reports. If you're consistent then why give assistance to a club in need that's recently been found to be involved in the use of banned substances?

Every article in the media on this subject had been completely one-sided. There hasn't been a single statement in our favour as to why we should receive a top ten pick and the consensus appears to be that we will get an end of first round selection. Our own silence suggests to me that the result will be a contrived one - a deal done a while ago. At least we can hope that pick 18 or 19 or whatever becomes a champion for our club.

Such a result will definitely be a blow to the independence of the AFL Commission. A precedent will have been set and it can only strengthen the already strong clubs and cause instability in the organisation.

I pity Essendon if the final ASADA report leads to a dozen two year suspensions as has been mooted in some reports. If you're consistent then why give assistance to a club in need that's recently been found to be involved in the use of banned substances?

I'd think they will help Essendon in some way if that were to occur. They have to field a side in 2014 to fulfil AFL broadcasting obligations and with a dozen missing, that may prove difficult. And, of course, there's been the article in the Oz that claims life bans are in motion. Perhaps they could take on board a bunch of aged discards, such as Chappy, Corey, Cross, to fill the places. Or they pick the eyes out of their non contract VFL players. Whatever happens, it will be a very interesting 2014 for the Bombers.

If the AFL punishes us a second time for whatever did or did not happen at the club in 2009 by awarding us anything less than a # 1 draft selection then it will have set a precedent and should not be permitted to reward a club that was a drug cheat in 2012. They should either play short or be allowed to take only players from state leagues and within the usual salary cap restraints. I note Essendon has joined the other clubs in opposing our request for assistance. They should not receive our support or that of anyone else and I would not expect it of others if we are found to be involved.

Talent, injuries may leave Dees' priority pick in doubt

What a joke of an article.

Youth and key injuries is their argument (Clarke - played 4 and .... Dawes played 12)

7th youngest list?

Apparently 2 wins does not truly reflect the quality of our list. So are we really a 4 wins team?

I would like to know how exactly you get a priority pick under this new system.

Talent, injuries may leave Dees' priority pick in doubt

What a joke of an article.

Youth and key injuries (Clarke and .... Dawes)

7th youngest list?

Geez, this type of cheap article from the official AFL website gets on my goat. Sounds just like the usual AFL method of easing the general public into what is likely to happen. Next thing, Wilson will come out with an article in the minuscule Age tomorrow saying "sources close to the AFL" have indicated that we will get pick 20 as a PP, instead of for pick 1 as requested. Since when have any of the points raised in the AFL article been part of the witch doctor formula that now determines a PP? Either they have a set of guidelines or they do not. The examples raised when they re-jigged the PP all apply to us, regardless of the AFL commission's discretionary veto. As I've said before, I'm guessing that the commish will use their dislike for the particular shade of red on our jumper as a reason, such is their appalling lack of due process and transparency.

GREED AND ALTRUISM RULES THE AFL OVER DRAFT ASSISTANCE by Whispering Jack

That was a quality piece that could easily sit in any sports page in any paper in the country

Hey WJ.

As I said earlier, I think this is a quality piece of writing which should be in the public press.

I suppose there's stuff going on behind the scenes that we don't know about, but from what I read, there seems to be a propaganda war going on to deny us a PP.

jeez, these buggers have got a nerve. Didn't Hawthorn get at least 2 of hodge, franklin and Roughie from PP? Pies get Swan and Pendles. Etc etc ... The hypocrisy rolls on

Somebody needs to get our view out there (although I suppose it's already too late)

Doesn't matter what Caro thinks - she's not the editor. I've written a few articles for The Age over the years- have found they're usually quite happy to consider them. Why not just submit it? I think Alex Lavelle is Sports Editor at present - presumably his email would be something like [email protected]

(I'd have a go, but am busy with sick child right now, and you've already done a great job)

Good luck, mate

The AFL is becoming more and more a transparently conflicted governing body. As some of you have pointed out, AD's open regrets at the loss of money associated with last weekend's teams show just how driven by profit they are. Of course they are, and must be at some level. He is equally happy to report that the other clubs oppose our PP. Of course they will, they have an interest in keeping other clubs down.

What is lacking from Demetriou's tenure though, is equally transparent governance commentary. Where was the the follow up to his comment about gate receipts, talking about the AFL's enthusiasm for growing supporter bases, employing equalisation policy so that Port and Sydney being playing on the weekend wouldn't damage profits? Why haven't they addressed the plight of North Melbourne and Western Bulldog's Etihad deal, which virtually assures their minnow status? Where was his follow up commentary to the PP disgruntlement outlining the logical reasons for draft equalisation, regardless of club self interest?

Andrew Demetriou might want to have it both ways, but if the AFL are truly interested in the utopian ideal of 18 clubs of equivalent strength and drawing power, then he should stop moaning about a weekend's receipts, and tell the other clubs that their self interest doesn't reflect the independence and clear focus of the AFL's governance toward true equality.

If lost money from gate receipts and TV rights is the AFL's main driver, we must be a shoo-in to get a Priority Pick. Our performance has been a drag on those particular metrics for years.

On a slightly different tack, who was the genius that scrapped the previous formula for awarding priority picks and replaced it with "at the Commission's discretion"? Such a dumb idea that dooms the AFL to this type of politicking. And so easily avoided.

Talent, injuries may leave Dees' priority pick in doubt

What a joke of an article.

Youth and key injuries is their argument (Clarke - played 4 and .... Dawes played 12)

7th youngest list?

Apparently 2 wins does not truly reflect the quality of our list. So are we really a 4 wins team?

I would like to know how exactly you get a priority pick under this new system.

What beggars belief about the article is not only that it's complete horsesh1t concocted to justify a contrived result to suit the other 17 clubs that have been bleating about the club's application for assistance but that the AFL leaks information like a sieve.

This is just one of the many sagas that abound that indicate something rotten about governance at the AFL.

May I suggest that the existence of this article shows that someone at the AFL has read WJ's editorial and realised that his argument about setting a precedent is 100% per cent spot on. The result is we are going to end up with a decision that is every bit as ludicrous as some of the AFL's other recent pronouncements on the MFC tanking saga and the EFC governance and banned supplements situation.

By way of footnote to this whole affair, I wonder what changed his mind:-

Andrew Newbold is a rank hypocrite

"No one wants to see games like the one on Sunday where the game itself is devoid of atmosphere."

Hat tip: Supermercado

By way of footnote to this whole affair, I wonder what changed his mind:-Andrew Newbold is a rank hypocrite"No one wants to see games like the one on Sunday where the game itself is devoid of atmosphere."Hat tip: Supermercado

Obviously Mr. Newbold spoke too soon, forgetting his obligation to undermine any other club when given the chance. There's a power club status quo developing, and we can all watch them use any means at their disposal to protect it. "Whatever it takes".

There is too much conflict of interest at the AFL, fitzpatrick, is loyal to carlton, hence no real investergation into carlton tanking, evens is loyal to hawks newbolt says no pp for dees, what happens you guess it former employees of hawks says no, no conflict of interest there, funny thing is if ot there was never pp, then hawks would never of won 2008, also when they were at the bottom they had the best pp rules, they got pp three years in a row, we only had one.

By way of footnote to this whole affair, I wonder what changed his mind:-

Andrew Newbold is a rank hypocrite

"No one wants to see games like the one on Sunday where the game itself is devoid of atmosphere."

Hat tip: Supermercado

that article is outright hilarious, in a paper-cut sort of way:

"Newbold's comments followed McGuire's suggestion last week that Melbourne and the Bulldogs potentially receive a salary cap next season of 110 per cent"

rat-cunning really, given that neither team are likely to be capable of reaching the regular salary-cap ceiling. in reality it would roughly amount to an extra 10% of equalisation pretense (which is the best kind of equalisation, apparently) and a good hard belly-laugh for Newbold, McGuire and Co..

What fascinates me is the decision being based on a recommendation from Evans, when the AFL had previously announced the new priority pick system was to be based on a "secret formula."

Secrecy because it doesn't exist...