It's been leaked out to the media that we wont get a pick - take it as decided.

I don't know why the Commission bothers to meet or exist. Vlad decides, leaks out of media so everyone is conditioned to the outcome and then Mike F makes the Commission statement - it's a joke.

Prime examples are Caro had the penalties in print for Dee's tanking, Adelaide salary cap and Essendon drugs scandal miraculously before the commission had even met. Priority pick no different. Gill tested the water a few months ago - read the waters and has now leaked the commissions outcome before the meeting.

Vlad really needs to the shown the door and some integrity needs to be returned to the AFL.

The AFL has already got their media to answer the question for us, it's died down now.

We won't be receiving a priority pick.

thanks for clearing that up finally.

The AFL has already got their media to answer the question for us, it's died down now.

We won't be receiving a priority pick.

Why not just announce it now then?

Why release the decision at a time strategically placed between the Brownlow and the GF?

When the media focus will want to be on anything but a priority pick?

When it's only a week until the trade period where we will quickly move it on in a trade, creating 1 extra club happy that we got it?

Who will be feeling sorry for GWS not getting another number 1 pick?

Bank it, baby.

We won't get a priority pick.

If we do it will be end of first round. 0% chance we will get Pick 1.

There is too much negative press about us getting a priority pick, and the AFL is already giving us millions of dollars due to our incompetence. We've already had more first round picks and priority picks than any other club except the expansion teams.

U might find carlton have. More no.1 picks then us three to our one, u can't include scully lost him before we got anything out of hlm

Perhaps there's been some confusion and the 17 other clubs have agreed we can take Dustin Martin as a priority pr1ck.

I don't get the argument that says because we haven't done well with past early picks we shouldn't get any help. It's not the fans fault that we've been a basket case, why punish us. We have changed administration and coach, surely the new management should not be disadvantaged by past incompetence. Based on performance over past 2 years we should get a PP. If not us this year why even have it as an option for the AFL.

based on the last 5 years, we should get the first ten picks!! lol

Not sure I can agree due to Andrew Dimwits public and very poorly worded response about 17 other clubs saying no, even though Redleg has pointed out that he actually said something less categoric. What is he up to? He is part of the Commission that will consider our application. Is he lobbying the rest of the Commission? He would know the secret formula and that we surely qualify but it is still a discretionary decision by the Commission and so the decision can be influenced.

I think I can answer my own question. I was trying to work out AD strange use of words as in "of the 17 clubs that are not Melbourne,"...,those that have contacted me have said no thanks! He has actually been very cunning here, I think. Everyone has jumped on the key words 17 other clubs and no thanks and assumed all clubs have written to the AFL vehemently opposed to the idea of a PP for us.It was initially reported this way and Damien Barrat jumped in with idea of a revolt by all clubs if the Commission finds in our favour. This a classic case of the CEO using his position to influence the Commissions thinking. How many clubs actually wrote to him, it may be only one but the media has run off looking for a revolution that is not brewing. AD can't tell the Commission what to do but he is trying to persuade them to his wish that we do not get a PP.

On the AFL website:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-22/dees-priority-pick-in-doubt

At least it is a rational argument related to need rather than past sins and stuff-ups.

Yeah, it's a fair argument that we looked worse than we are, due to Hogan's ineligibility and injuries.

But by how much?

If it would only mean another 3 wins for the season, should it make a difference?

Anyway, a pick at the end of the 1st round is probably fair, and I'd be content.

No pick at all would be incomprehensible.

Yeah, it's a fair argument that we looked worse than we are, due to Hogan's ineligibility and injuries.

But by how much?

If it would only mean another 3 wins for the season, should it make a difference?

Anyway, a pick at the end of the 1st round is probably fair, and I'd be content.

No pick at all would be incomprehensible.

Yes, I think it relies too much based on 'potential' and not enough on how bad we have been. Perhaps we should send the Commission the Demonland postings on the subject of potential. ::>)

Gosh I hate it when someone makes a rational argument against us rather than the usual crud about tanking etc.

Am I right to assume we don't get to present and argue our case at the Commission beyond what has been put in writing already? If so, hopefully that submission responded to the 'good potential/injury' line in advance.

Edit to add: Interesting I don't recall (may be wrong) any of the anti-PP posters here arguing we had too much good potential and were fouled by injury in 2013. That is far too positive for many of us. Nor do I recall the press excusing us because of injury during the year.

Edited September 22, 201312 yr by sue

Ironic we are a basket case during the season with every man and his dog bagging us and now because we have applied for a pp suddenly we have great players and plenty of upside.

Unbelievable.

Edited September 22, 201312 yr by DemonOX

On the AFL website:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-22/dees-priority-pick-in-doubt

At least it is a rational argument related to need rather than past sins and stuff-ups.

Not much in that article actually relates to the PP examples that the AFL used when announcing the new re-jigged guidelines. There is an appalling lack of due process, consistency and transparency in the AFL's decision making. They make it up as they go along according to who lobbies the hardest and what decision will be most easily digested by clubs.

Edited September 22, 201312 yr by Moonshadow

Reports out of AFL house say that we won't be receiving a PP.

Reports out of AFL house say that we won't be receiving a PP.

Disagree, lock in pick 19.

Disagree, lock in pick 19.

Sorry, I meant for pick 1, I should've clarified, it was something I read the other day.

IMO journo's have decent credibility at the moment because someone is leaking them privy information out of the AFL - as we seen throughout the drug saga.

If we were to land pick 19, it would be a tremendous result, I can't remember a year where the difference between pick 2 and pick 19 is so minimal.

It's a very even draft, evidenced by some experts having blokes like Crouch as low as 3 and as high as 20, same with Sheed.

Disagree, lock in pick 19.

Something you want to tell us Redleg?

Sorry, I meant for pick 1, I should've clarified, it was something I read the other day.

IMO journo's have decent credibility at the moment because someone is leaking them privy information out of the AFL - as we seen throughout the drug saga.

If we were to land pick 19, it would be a tremendous result, I can't remember a year where the difference between pick 2 and pick 19 is so minimal.

It's a very even draft, evidenced by some experts having blokes like Crouch as low as 3 and as high as 20, same with Sheed.

So. If we have pick 19 and 20, do we take Zak Jones with one of them?

Edited September 22, 201312 yr by Mickey 'O'

Stories like that raking out suggest the AFL is softening the blow, but I want Pick 9. Hell, I would go for 9 and 18.

We need assets.

people actually thought we would get pick 1 or 2?

lol, come on

if we are lucky we will get an end of first round PP

I will take pick 19 but gee is this equalisation? They have just come back from their intense study tour into equalisation to the USA and all I have heard from the fat cat Presidents who got the invite is that it should not include priority picks, draft assistance of any type or monetary help. So it is a very subtle and sophisticated formula for success that we are yet to hear of.i wonder what it includes? Maybe condolences that "we feel your pain but trust us things will get better, you have had injuries and you have some good recruits, stick with it and accept your position as a second tier side to be reamed each season as required. We will take the points, the percentage and any kids you have developed in the meantime.

WestCoast had an end of round 1 priority pick, which was pick 26 in the end, and got Jack Darling.

Can make a difference. Long term.

WestCoast had an end of round 1 priority pick, which was pick 26 in the end, and got Jack Darling.

Can make a difference. Long term.

Reckon you'd bundle that and our second round pick so 19 and 21 and offer it to Essendon or Adelaide and see how bad they want draft picks? might snag a couple of decent players

or go to the draft and look for hard working mids.

So. If we have pick 19 and 20, do we take Zak Jones with one of them?

It depends who slips I guess.. If we did have those picks, Jones would be a big show.

Due to his past fortnight, it now seems that Jones most likely won't be there at 30, so if we do want him we'd have to take him earlier.

I think we'd all be happy to take Zak Jones as our priority gift anyway.

It will be interesting though if a player the quality of Sheed, Crouch or Dunstan slip outside the first round.

WestCoast had an end of round 1 priority pick, which was pick 26 in the end, and got Jack Darling.

Can make a difference. Long term.

at least you wouldn't have massive expectations/pressure on the pick

WestCoast had an end of round 1 priority pick, which was pick 26 in the end, and got Jack Darling.

Can make a difference. Long term.

Definitely and if you look at this draft, it's fairly even across the board to 20, it's a good year to have pick 20.