Given that if we received the 6 picks you floated above, and have clearly filled 5 of those spots with potential kids from this year's draft (by using a comparison with other recent 1st year players to make an immediate impact), I'm pretty sure I know which method you favour currently.

Your over analyzing my example. Which part of me saying I favor neither didn't you get?

Your over analyzing my example. Which part of me saying I favor neither didn't you get?

Probably the example where you named 5 young draftee-types that you would like to add to our list. The 5 that are "ready to go".

Don't shoot the messenger Olisik, just posting how you write it. Your history shows that you are obsessed with draft picks, and the only trades you propose involve a minimum of 4 clubs and 13 players being changed. Then at the end of trade period when nothing of the like happens, you sulk and criticise the club.

That said, I do find your posts amusing, so I should be thanking you I guess.

In the past I organised a squash competition.

My equalisation system was to take a quality player from the top side and swap them for a struggling player in the bottom side. It worked. Something like that could work in the AFL

Amazing.... nearly very other club, particularly the top 8, look to the draft to 'top up' their list, and often the young guys don't play afl for the first 12 mths. We look to draft picks, compensation draft picks and PPs as saving the club!

id give pick 1 for fyfe, freo might settle for just the pick as there are good tall forward options in the draft. then again they may not

Depressing we are on to this after round 3.

Lets try and get Dawes, Hogan and Gawn in the side plus Colin Garland and I suspect the structure will provide for an improved outcome and in the second half of the year maybe one of last years kids might be knocking on the door.

id give pick 1 for fyfe, freo might settle for just the pick as there are good tall forward options in the draft. then again they may not

Why would they want to draft a KPF when they will have a ready-made one in under 2 years from us...

(Nb. Just kidding)

(Nb. I hope I'm kidding)

Why would they want to draft a KPF when they will have a ready-made one in under 2 years from us...

(Nb. Just kidding)

(Nb. I hope I'm kidding)

I get the hype on Hogan, it's justified, if i got offered the trade today, Jesse Hogan for Nat Fyfe i'd take it, Nat is a proven superstar of the Game, Jesse Hogan has not played a serious game of AFL yet

Probably the example where you named 5 young draftee-types that you would like to add to our list. The 5 that are "ready to go".

Don't shoot the messenger Olisik, just posting how you write it. Your history shows that you are obsessed with draft picks, and the only trades you propose involve a minimum of 4 clubs and 13 players being changed. Then at the end of trade period when nothing of the like happens, you sulk and criticise the club.

That said, I do find your posts amusing, so I should be thanking you I guess.

Yes I like draft picks as I have already said it is currency to get talent on our list.

You just contradicted yourself by bringing up my suggested trades while saying I favor drafting at the same time.

But yeah good on you for trying to twist my posts and examples. I will say it for a 3rd time as it seems it hasn't registered for you yet.

I like draft picks to trade/draft with/get talent on our list. Anyway is fine as long as we have the currency.

Saying that we shouldn't receive assistance because we have 'brought this on ourselves' is a terrible argument.

Everyone 'brings it on themselves.' We have drafted poorly and developed sub-optimally. That is not being disputed.

But equalisation isn't a 'we tried, it didn't work, move on' scenario. The draft gives the best players to the worst teams every year.

Simply because we have been consistently bad at picking kids out of the Teenage Lottery that is the AFL Draft doesn't mean we have less claims for more access to equalisation - it should mean enhance our claims.

And the chosen vehicle for equalisation by the AFL is the draft, and more to the point - priority picks.

Follow the god-damn rules.

I can't see why some, especially MFC supporters, don't understand this.

Think it was the other clubs that pedalled the argument to the AFL who accepted it. Don't think you can pedal it forever though.

Do we deserve a priority pick? Some would argue that we've had our chance already with the draft and our performances are a product of our own mismanagement. Do we need a priority pick? Absolutely we do. Let's forget for the moment that our management, scouting/drafting personnel and coaches (those presumably involved in our mismanagement and poor drafting) have been completely moved on since our last PP was awarded (2009, that's right, 5years ago).

Claims that we have mismanaged our players and/or drafted poorly may give an insight into why we are so poor. but in no way should that exclude us from access to a PP. I'd like to see what exactly a deserving team would look like, one that has managed their players well and drafted adequately. Somehow I don't see them churning out 8 years of solid crud.

The new special assistance rule has a "formula" (not made public) for eligibility which would be awarded at the commission's discretion in exceptional circumstances. This would take into account the teams recent on field performances and other matters deemed "relevant." It was argued last year that we have sufficient talent on our list to not require a PP. It would be interesting to see what their analysis of our list looked like how that compares to the list changes made at the end of the season as well as B&F performances of our alleged talented players.

Now, you would not find a single AFL fan that would say we have been anything better than exceptionally poor in recent times. 34 games won 2 draws and 121 losses since 2007 attests to that. No other team comes close to the record. We have been compared by journalists numerous times to Fitzroy before their demise. The mere mention of our name is usually accompanied with derision or a joke.

Here is a comparison of our recent win loss record to the fledgling teams, it makes for depressing reading.

Since the Gold Coast entered the competition in 2011

GC 16 won 53 lost

Melb 14 won 1 draw 54 lost

Since GWS entered the competition in 2012

GWS 5 won 42 Lost

Melb 6 won (3vs GWS) 41 lost

We aren't competitive, we are an embarrassment to the AFL and a joke of the entire league. We need to avail ourselves of any means to improve our list and on field fortunes (Essendon supplement style regime excluded). We need a PP. To not explore this option would be to exhibit negligence to the interests of the MFC.

P.S. I hope we win 8+ games for the year and removed the need to have this dreary debate.

Edited April 10, 201411 yr by Nascent

I get the hype on Hogan, it's justified, if i got offered the trade today, Jesse Hogan for Nat Fyfe i'd take it, Nat is a proven superstar of the Game, Jesse Hogan has not played a serious game of AFL yet

We could trade a high pick for Patton who GWS can on trade for Fyfe.

Then trade for Danger if Adelaide get iffy. Patton and Danger would be great gets.

We could trade a high pick for Patton who GWS can on trade for Fyfe.

Then trade for Danger if Adelaide get iffy. Patton and Danger would be great gets.

Dangers under contract, i reckon he'd have to basically say either let me go now or i'll go next year for nothing,

Fyfe i seriously doubt will leave freo and Patton is very young, we almost get the same value drafting Wright, little bit extra experience but patton is also injury prone

but wait and see what picks we have, we might yet come good

Edited April 10, 201411 yr by Sassy

Yes I like draft picks as I have already said it is currency to get talent on our list.

You just contradicted yourself by bringing up my suggested trades while saying I favor drafting at the same time.

But yeah good on you for trying to twist my posts and examples. I will say it for a 3rd time as it seems it hasn't registered for you yet.

I like draft picks to trade/draft with/get talent on our list. Anyway is fine as long as we have the currency.

I've changed my mind about you - I don't think you are Schwab or Cuddles, I think you are Mark Robinson. Am I right? You throw that much shlt around at the hope that some of it sticks.

Yeah, let's use our first 5 draft picks on recruiting kids (as you have posted previously). Then you think we use our first 5 draft picks to trade a heap of players in. I would normally say you will eventually get it right, but given your track record, I don't think you've had a hit yet have you?

Your article over the weekend about Mitch was a beauty. Started off saying that "Mitch and his management were meeting with the MFC this week, where he could retire, he could ask for more time off, he could return to the club straight away, or he could head overseas for specilist treatment." If he didn't do any of those, what else was he likely to do? Pure genius, Robbo.

Go and annoy someone else, please.

All the AFL care about are GWS and GC, this is because Vlad is all about himself and his legacy lunacy.

.

Lol, so much delusion.

Do we deserve a priority pick? Some would argue that we've had our chance already with the draft and our performances are a product of our own mismanagement.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here but this is the basis of of the argument not to award us a pick last year (and I assume this year) - there was also the tanking stuff last year which was also ridiculous.

I just can't understand the logic in this argument - "you had a chance to rebuild, it didn't work and you are now arguably poorer than you were then - bad luck!" It just doesn't make any logical sense. "Melbourne is only in this position because of their own mismanagement and incompetence" well duh if we were managed competently we wouldn't be in the position to need further PP's.

I've changed my mind about you - I don't think you are Schwab or Cuddles, I think you are Mark Robinson. Am I right? You throw that much shlt around at the hope that some of it sticks.

Yeah, let's use our first 5 draft picks on recruiting kids (as you have posted previously). Then you think we use our first 5 draft picks to trade a heap of players in. I would normally say you will eventually get it right, but given your track record, I don't think you've had a hit yet have you?

Your article over the weekend about Mitch was a beauty. Started off saying that "Mitch and his management were meeting with the MFC this week, where he could retire, he could ask for more time off, he could return to the club straight away, or he could head overseas for specilist treatment." If he didn't do any of those, what else was he likely to do? Pure genius, Robbo.

Go and annoy someone else, please.

I dont think you know what an example is or your just trolling now.

I don't want to get bogged down with PP talk the same as many others but let me just say this:

It is a rule of the AFL that consistently poorly performing clubs can be given draft assistance. That rule doesn't disqualify a club because of previous drafting failures, obviously.

It was an AFL rule that we would have got a PP due to our results, which the AFL dropped to our detriment.

It was an AFL rule that created 2 new clubs and gave them all of the top end of the draft, at a time when we were crap and were trying to recover.

It was an AFL rule that allowed our number 1 pick to run off to GWS in the first 2 years of his drafting by us and funded by AFL money.

It is an AFL rule that has brought in FA, which is not doing what it was intended to do, but has seen us lose Sylvia, Moloney, Rivers and probably Frawley, more than any other club and at a time when we are on the bottom of the ladder.

It is also an AFL rule that allows the AFL to have a fixture not based on fairness, but revenue, which has compromised our financial position for years.

We follow the bloody rules, let the bloody AFL do the same.

very good post.

Who is using this in their argument about receiving assistance or not?

This is brought up by commentators, fans, and even some Landers - if I had time I would do some quote pulling - they are using the argument that because we are incompetent we shouldn't receive the compensatory devices that incompetent teams receive.

It is a ridiculous closed cycle of an argument and it should be explored and dismissed by Jackson to whomever if (or when) the time comes to make our case for the rules of the game to be properly applied.

I dont think you know what an example is or your just trolling now.

You're an example of someone who is all over the shop with they way they think, and has NFI about a list management/recruitment strategy.

But go ahead and keep throwing your darts at the board. As I said, I find it amusing.

You're an example of someone who is all over the shop with they way they think, and has NFI about a list management/recruitment strategy.

But go ahead and keep throwing your darts at the board. As I said, I find it amusing.

Now your throwing personal attacks because I added some examples of what picks could get us?

Grow up mate.

It is not a matter of if we deserve a priority pick its a matter whether the rules allow us to be given one and if the AFL want to exercise that right. They had a chance to exercise that right last year but chose not to because a few of the top teams complained we did not deserve it. The issue will be the same we are still crap we are still likely to be eligible for a pick, its a matter of the AFL and the pressure from other clubs as to whether we get one or not. I suspect they will say no, self interest is always a major motivator.

That talk will stop after we beat the Blues this week.