On 23/09/2014 at 00:42, Fat Tony said:

It looks like the AFL may want to wait and see what happens with Clark and Frawley before making a call.

On one hand I see how that would work but given its fair for any club to know what chips ( npi) they have BEFORE going into trade week I cant see how they ( AFL) can wait til then . Surely they need to announce prior to the week ?

Possible they may defer a decision until their next meeting. Anyone know how often they meet?

Surely if there was to be no compensation that would come out as a simple statement from the AFL, and everyone moves on.

Something is about to happen you would think,... perhaps the Commission has sought some clarification on our request before announcing details? Seeking some information in regards to Frawley and Clark from the club... interesting that nothing has come out though.

  On 23/09/2014 at 01:31, Ouch! said:

Surely if there was to be no compensation that would come out as a simple statement from the AFL, and everyone moves on.

Something is about to happen you would think,... perhaps the Commission has sought some clarification on our request before announcing details? Seeking some information in regards to Frawley and Clark from the club... interesting that nothing has come out though.

I feel good about this. To release a statement saying no pp would have been easy last night.

But as other clubs don't want us to get a pp perhaps the AFL put off the announcement so as not to spoil Brownlow night.

  On 23/09/2014 at 00:41, beelzebub said:

Yes, but it would have been discussed then. with all else happening NOW is the time to let it slip out. Even if clubs wanted to grizzle the #1 focus in town is the Bombers.

Timing wont get better

Perhaps not, but they can announce it pretty much any time this week and it will get buried. After that, it will be harder to hide.

  On 23/09/2014 at 01:36, ManDee said:

I feel good about this. To release a statement saying no pp would have been easy last night.

But as other clubs don't want us to get a pp perhaps the AFL put off the announcement so as not to spoil Brownlow night.

What is starting to be clear is that PJ has been at pains to clarify that we have asked for special assistance and not a PP. Whilst that is in part due to the fact that you can't ask for a PP, it makes me wonder what the MFC have actually requested from the Commission. I think someone (on here I think?) mentioned that it was assistance to enable the club to pay 100% of the cap, but I wouldn't have thought that we would do that through the commission as a special assistance request but through the equalisation process that is there for all clubs.

It is actually intriguing to me as to what might come from this request. PJ is at pains to reinforce the message that the AFL needs MFC to be strong, we had a request last year knocked back, and I suggest that our application this year will be all the stronger as a result of the feedback we would have received from the commission. On field our list is no better (in fact it can be argued that the list has been weakened since our last request)... so yes... very interesting.

  On 23/09/2014 at 01:36, ManDee said:

I feel good about this. To release a statement saying no pp would have been easy last night.

But as other clubs don't want us to get a pp perhaps the AFL put off the announcement so as not to spoil Brownlow night.

I agree, but Mitch Clark's potential return has muddied the waters.

I haven't a clue which way this is going, but at least it wasn't a quick outright dismissal after a token review of our submission.

  On 22/09/2014 at 08:52, CBDees said:

Maybe swap Mitch Clark for Mitch Robinson?

You mean....a Mitch Switch?

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night.

And why wait to find out about what happens with Frawley and Clark?

If we lose Frawley we get compensated - this balances out.

If we get a trade for Clark, it won't be what he's worth due to his health and mental concerns (definitely not our pick 12 back).

All in all, what we get back will not fundamentally change our list for the better.

  On 23/09/2014 at 02:10, Territory said:

And why wait to find out about what happens with Frawley and Clark?

If we lose Frawley we get compensated - this balances out.

If we get a trade for Clark, it won't be what he's worth due to his health and mental concerns (definitely not our pick 12 back).

All in all, what we get back will not fundamentally change our list for the better.

The issue shouldn't be so complex.

Ten wins in three seasons and all of those unusual setbacks in such a short period of time should be enough to satisfy the criteria.

They could have asked the club to clarify what we're likely to do about Clark. We may have two strategies that affect the outcome.

1. We trade Clark to Colonwood but we're predictably bent over a barrel and only receive a 4th rounder. Seeing this outcome as unfair to us given we went out of our way to look after Mitch, they might award a second round PP.

2. We refuse to trade him for unders (4th rounder or similar), are forced to delist him, and receive an end of first round PP that way.

Given our application occurred before the Clark mess, it's likely the AFL need us to clarify what we're doing with Clark, given the submission likely said we lost our best player (and the main reason we were last year denied the PP) to retirement.

  On 23/09/2014 at 02:43, Whispering_Jack said:

The issue shouldn't be so complex.

Ten wins in three seasons and all of those unusual setbacks in such a short period of time should be enough to satisfy the criteria.

But its about the whining of other clubs and not appearing to gift us another handout.

  On 23/09/2014 at 01:31, Ouch! said:

Surely if there was to be no compensation that would come out as a simple statement from the AFL, and everyone moves on.

Something is about to happen you would think,... perhaps the Commission has sought some clarification on our request before announcing details? Seeking some information in regards to Frawley and Clark from the club... interesting that nothing has come out though.

The Frawley part of the equation should not come into this decision. The Mitch question maybe but we are still a loser as we have lost 2 him for two seasons so far and now he wants to go so again should not come into the calculations (devised by the mysterious Economics Professor).

Maybe half way through Mark Evan's powerpoint presentation with Kelty and some of the other rusted on Commissioners dozing off after a heavy lunch the new bloke Kim Williams (ex News Corp) asked a dumb but obvious question that threw Gil and Evans into a tail spin and off to seek further data? Williams wouldnt know what shape an Aussie Rules football is but if he did some homework and looked at the competition without carrying any club baggage he would realise MFC is a blight on the game at present. He is new, tends to be a bit of a maverick and is not yet groomed to be a Drone. Just a thought!

  On 23/09/2014 at 02:49, jnrmac said:

But its about the whining of other clubs and not appearing to gift us another handout.

The whining other clubs are much more concerned about the EFC than us.

I don't even know why other clubs would whine about it, if they pulled their heads out of their ass and thought more than a week ahead. Melbourne improving is the best outcome for everyone involved in the league.

A stronger team means more wins. More wins means stronger membership numbers, which means more supporters. More supporters means higher attendances. More attendances means MORE MONEY FOR ALL CLUBS. With attendance down across the board, their focus seems to be on "improving the game day experience". Well here's one for y'all, geniuses, nobody wants to come to the footy and watch the same teams win and the same teams lose.

For the long-term prosperity of the league, all clubs need to be strong and deserve a fighting chance at winning, no matter the opposition. That's how you improve the game day experience. Nobody wants to go watch St Kilda get flogged by 100 points every week. No one wants to see Melbourne fold as a club.

The other clubs will say we got ourselves into this mess and are reaping what we sow. Fair enough. Well don't come whinging when, as a result of endless neglect for our club's plight, we end up folding, relocated to Tasmania as a new team, and offered the same league crippling draft concessions given to GWS and GCS. Bet giving us a single PP won't seem so bad in hindsight then!!!!

  On 23/09/2014 at 03:04, Lamashtu said:

I don't even know why other clubs would whine about it, if they pulled their heads out of their ass and thought more than a week ahead. Melbourne improving is the best outcome for everyone involved in the league.

A stronger team means more wins. More wins means stronger membership numbers, which means more supporters. More supporters means higher attendances. More attendances means MORE MONEY FOR ALL CLUBS. With attendance down across the board, their focus seems to be on "improving the game day experience". Well here's one for y'all, geniuses, nobody wants to come to the footy and watch the same teams win and the same teams lose.

For the long-term prosperity of the league, all clubs need to be strong and deserve a fighting chance at winning, no matter the opposition. That's how you improve the game day experience. Nobody wants to go watch St Kilda get flogged by 100 points every week. No one wants to see Melbourne fold as a club.

The other clubs will say we got ourselves into this mess and are reaping what we sow. Fair enough. Well don't come whinging when, as a result of endless neglect for our club's plight, we end up folding, relocated to Tasmania as a new team, and offered the same league crippling draft concessions given to GWS and GCS. Bet giving us a single PP won't seem so bad in hindsight then!!!!

Asking an AFL team official to take a long term view is like asking the same of a politician.

Three years is long term for both.

Also step outside your role as a MFC supporter and reverse the positions of us and the Hawks.

What would we be saying then?

I suspect not very different from what the hawks say now.

  On 23/09/2014 at 02:52, Earl Hood said:

Williams wouldnt know what shape an Aussie Rules football is but if he did some homework and looked at the competition without carrying any club baggage he would realise MFC is a blight on the game at present.

Dont judge a book by its cover. Kim Williams knows a lot about sport and would give Bruce McAvaney a run for his money.

I agree OD. As far other clubs are concerned (and probably the reality of any sporting competition), there will always be a club, or perhaps several clubs that are well off the standard. As long as its not them, they're happy and see no reason to give the strugglers a hand out. Other clubs will see the necessity of an 18 team competition, but to consider that the existence of the MFC depends on the granting of a PP is to be grossly overstating the situation.

  On 23/09/2014 at 02:49, jnrmac said:

But its about the whining of other clubs and not appearing to gift us another handout.

That's why we have an independent commission. A commission supposed to make decisions in the best interest of the game and not be influenced by clubs pushing their own agenda's.

  On 23/09/2014 at 03:34, rjay said:

That's why we have an independent commission. A commission supposed to make decisions in the best interest of the game and not be influenced by clubs pushing their own agenda's.

That word covers it rjay

Melbourne's bid for a priority pick rejected @superfooty soon

  On 23/09/2014 at 06:47, Greeny said:

Melbourne's bid for a priority pick rejected @superfooty soon

Anything on other forms of assistance?

Thanks AFL. Wonder what the excuse is this year? Change Clark's name to Hogan?

As expected

We got our help.

The 2 blokes running the show

AFL has told Dees the club is in better shape today than last year ...