Interesting line in their findings:

And if we can't/don't??

It is completely idiotic, amy club could gain picks through trades or FA compo - what about the fact we will get unders for Clark? What about the fact we will lose two of our senior players/leaders and have to replace them with more rookies? What about the fact we are losing two of our key position players both of whom have been AA in the past?

If the NFL season ran parallel to the AFL season I seriously doubt I would even bother with the native game anymore, the administration of the competition stinks and is so corrupt it makes the major political parties look like they have integrity.

equalisation is passe and only to be talked of in the politically correct sense

Equalisation doesn't exist anymore, there are token efforts but at the end of the day the league is now completely manipulated to generate desired outcomes. We are irrelevant in this league now, it is all about the big Vic clubs and those north of the Murray as that is where the dollars are. Just look at the AFL's comments last year after Port knocked the Pies out of the finals, they were upset because it was going to "cost" them a million bucks. Disgraceful.

Edit - sorry for multiple posts, on my phone.

Edited September 23, 201410 yr by Dr. Gonzo

Gotta love the line about how much great young talent we have, including JKH and Salem. Yep, they're SO fantastic that we didn't get a single rising star nomination for the whole year.

Oh, and even if we did, Gysberts looked pretty good in his first year too, didn't he?

The AFL is absolutely corrupt.

Thank christ the AFL knocked us back - sick of us surviving on handouts and being labelled as beggars.

Perhaps the club can be proactive and put something back into the NT community and set up an academy similar to what they do on NSW and Qld.

That way we could actually ask to be on a similar draft scheme to NSW and Qld clubs, whereby we get first access to players from NT whom we have been developing.

It's far better to be rewarded for hard work, than incompetence.

Heard it on the radio... F*** the AFL.

Considering we didn't qualify they may as well scrap the possibility of a PP altogether.

that was over 10 years ago and both clubs didnt bugger there picks up like we did. they chose the right players who helped there club win premierships.

Hawthorn had so many top picks they had to get a few right, along with the likes of dud high picks in Dowler, Thorp and Ellis.

Edited September 23, 201410 yr by TheoX

- The AFL concluded that while Melbourne has a poor on field record in recent times, this does not of itself constitute “exceptional circumstances”

Yep, the AFL thinks it is "normal circumstances" for us and that they are happy if it should stay that way forever.

that was over 10 years ago and both clubs didnt bugger there picks up like we did. they chose the right players who helped there club win premierships.

They were also lucky that their PP's in a strong draft. It does make a difference.

We were never getting one.

There really is no real formula...its just the whim of the AFL. No real surprise. Much more honest to give Essendon a heads up about ASADA but that backfired on Vlad bigtime.

The reality is they are full of shlt. Make it up on monday spin it tuesday deny it Wednesday change it Thursday and jet off on friday to some junket.

Its a joke really and we're often the butt of it.

Same ol same ol

The AFL have moved away from equalisation and are working on something much more important. It's called match day experience, real cutting edge stuff to get the fan involved in footy.

This is the type of stuff that's top of mind with Dill and DH Evo along with conflicted Mike. Dill's also working hard on the price of pies and chips.

About time we got over being the victims of our past, grow up and develop some attitude...

Try a dose of this ... http://youtu.be/zV2aYno9xGc?t=1m49s

Edited September 23, 201410 yr by PaulRB

The AFL have moved away from equalisation and are working on something much more important. It's called match day experience, real cutting edge stuff to get the fan involved in footy.

This is the type of stuff that's top of mind with Dill and DH Evo along with conflicted Mike. Dill's also working hard on the price of pies and chips.

Maybe I am just a simple old fool, but a match day experience used to be called going to the game ... Give me pie, a drink and somewhere to sit, and that is all I need!

Although I'm not overly surprised we weren't given a priority pick, "the club is in a better position than last year"? Really? That's the best they could come up with? Considering this, I'm stunned we weren't given one last year.

About time we got over being the victims of our past, grow up and develop some attitude...

Try a dose of this ... http://youtu.be/zV2aYno9xGc?t=1m49s

Yeah, how dare we ask for the rules to be enforced.

You want attitude?

Fight to equalise the league.

If we are 'on our own' then let's get everyone else 'on their own' - no academies, no COLA, and a fair fixture.

When the big clubs benefitted from the draft assistance rules, it was enforced.

Now that the don't benefit from it, they are fighting it, they have won, and now we wander out into the future with a list so scarred the AFL hasn't seen it before.

Roos has to get Dangerfield, Viney and Taylor have to hit every pick out of the park, and we need a Stretch or a Lovett to give us a leg up.

Because the league that we are a part of won't.

Maybe I am just a simple old fool, but a match day experience used to be called going to the game ... Give me pie, a drink and somewhere to sit, and that is all I need!

Just give me a good game 'Bluebeard'.

Gotta love the line about how much great young talent we have, including JKH and Salem. Yep, they're SO fantastic that we didn't get a single rising star nomination for the whole year.

Oh, and even if we did, Gysberts looked pretty good in his first year too, didn't he?

The AFL is absolutely corrupt.

The justification detailed on the MFC website is actually infuriating for how much spin/BS/propaganda it contains. I didn't think we would receive a pick (as the AFL are a bunch of compromised wankers) but I am staggered at the reasons supplied and the fact they would put something like that in writing to us;

The AFL formally notified Melbourne of its decision today, detailing a number of reasons, including:

- While Melbourne had a poor year in 2014, it was an improvement on 2013 (four wins v two wins, a percentage of 68.4% v 54.1%).

Their first point directly contradicts the supposed criteria they referred to when changing the policy. Initially they stated the decision would be based on on-field performance over a number of years not a single or consecutive years. We have been poor by any definition for 8 years now and although this season was an "improvement" on last season it is only due to the fact that our 2013 season was one of the worst seasons on record. Our performance over the last 8 years is worse than Fitzroy's last 8 years and one of the all-time worst periods for any club. Under the old criteria we would have qualified for a before first round PP last year AND this year.

- After Round 15 in 2014, Melbourne was 15th on the ladder with four wins and a percentage of 78.1%, before a poor ending to the season.

Before we had played Fremantle, Hawthorn or Geelong, 3 of the top 4 teams.

- Melbourne’s wins included wins against two finalists (Essendon and Richmond) and it lost three games by less than nine points and a further four games by less than four goals.

So we fell over the line against Essendon and beat Richmond, both games in which the opposition had more scoring shots and dominated the inside 50's. Even in their worst seasons poor teams have upset wins, that doesn't mean they are necessarily "better" than the teams they beat otherwise we could say we beat Richmond, Richmond beat Sydney therefore we should be grand finalists. We were close in several other games, and lost. Only wins matter, getting close is irrelevant. And the win/loss column shows we have won 38 games in 8 seasons and 10 games in the last 3 seasons.

- Melbourne suffered significant injuries and lost playing time to a number of key personnel.

I have no idea who they're referring to here? Trengove? Had a very poor year in 2013, no evidence he will return to regular senior football. Hogan has never played a game. Clark "retired" and we will soon lose him for peanuts. Impossible to argue they are "key" personnel.

- Melbourne has a high level of young talent including Jesse Hogan, Jimmy Toumpas, Jack Viney (father/son selection at 2012 draft), Jay Kennedy-Harris, Christian Salem and Dom Tyson.

A couple of years ago we had Watts, Blease, Strauss, Morton, Gysberts, Tapscott how did that turn out? No guarantee any of these kids will make it and it is unfair in the extreme to lump the clubs hopes and future on them and actually NAME them in their justification. I was astonished they actually did this, amateur in the extreme by the AFL.

- Melbourne was able to attract a number of experienced players during the 2013 Exchange period including Dom Tyson (2nd best and fairest), Bernie Vince (3rd best and fairest), Daniel Cross (5th best and fairest), Viv Michie (from Fremantle) and Aidan Riley (from Adelaide);

Michie and Riley are unproven and irrelevant to the conversation, just because we traded in some mature players who were on the fringe at other clubs doesn't mean anything in regards to the argument for a PP which is based on on-field performance. Similarly the fact we traded in 3 guys who were all top 5 in our B&F shows just how putrid our list is. Not to mention Cross is on his last legs and Vince is closing in on 30 and we had to give up pick 2 for Tyson - so basically we can bring in senior players other clubs are willing to lose and lose our best prime aged players to FA i.e. become a feeder club. The only real long-term "win" of that lot is Tyson and we need currency to get more players like him which is the reaosn for the request in the first place. Even with all these guys coming into the team we could still only win 4 games and finish 17th.

- Melbourne may be able to trade Mitch Clark for another player or a draft pick and will receive a compensation pick if they lose any players to free agency

Again what an idiotic argument, any club can trade players or gain a compo pick through FA, this is a zero-sum game, it does not improve our list and due to the fact we will likely receive extreme unders for Clark and will lose an AA full back for a speculative pick we will more than likely be worse off not better.

The AFL said it had noted in Melbourne’s application, “the Club has made significant improvement in 2014 in many aspects of its business. We have put in place a capable management team and board, and the governance and decision making processes have improved markedly. We have also employed a renowned senior coach in Paul Roos and put around him a coaching panel and resources in the Football Department that should have enabled improved on-field performance in 2014”.

Again this is all irrlevant to the on-field performance of the club which is what the criteria should be specifically assessing.

- "The appointment of Simon Goodwin was also noted as bringing a potential for further improvement along with the potential benefits of the introduction of the AFL Football Department Soft Cap and Luxury Tax.

This doesn't even mean anything - so because we have appointed an untried assistance coach to be mentored by Roos and take over in two years we will magically improve? This more than any of their reasonings is pure spin/BS. Not to mention the "potential benefits" of the FD cap and luxury tax and not even identified let alone quantified.

- The AFL concluded that while Melbourne has a poor on field record in recent times, this does not of itself constitute “exceptional circumstances” or a justification for awarding priority draft selections

Again ridiculous considering they are meant to be working by some "secret" yet "objective" criteria which specifically refers to poor on field performance over a number of years not to mention the fact that the AFL RULE BOOK ITSELF SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO ON-FIELD PERFORMANCE as the only factor specifically referred to in the rules. If this does not constitute "exceptional circumstances" then I fail to say what could.

Again I did not expect a pick so I am not surprised I am however infuriated at the BS and specious reasoning provided by the AFL.

Yeah, how dare we ask for the rules to be enforced.

You want attitude?

Fight to equalise the league.

If we are 'on our own' then let's get everyone else 'on their own' - no academies, no COLA, and a fair fixture.

When the big clubs benefitted from the draft assistance rules, it was enforced.

Now that the don't benefit from it, they are fighting it, they have won, and now we wander out into the future with a list so scarred the AFL hasn't seen it before.

Roos has to get Dangerfield, Viney and Taylor have to hit every pick out of the park, and we need a Stretch or a Lovett to give us a leg up.

Because the league that we are a part of won't.

We've responsible for the hole we're in, and the sooner we accept full responsibility for it, the sooner we'll get ourselves out of it.

Not denying the lopsided aspects in the AFL comp, or our tragic run, etc

Though I do think we tend to overstate the issues with our list to try to engage more charity...

Only way forward is to run our club better, draft well, win games, market well... then we'll rise, get better slots draw more FAs etc...

Moaning and hoping for it to be delivered on a platter is the delusions of losers, and part of the reason we're in this hole.

Wouldn't it be nice to see the formula , requirements and see how we didn't qualify. But I suppose that would be a bit much to ask.

Docket it would be good to see the formula but it is irrelevant I think. Dont equations or formulas require actual data for input to then spit out an answer? I just read the Huns report on the AFL decision and the AFL's Andrew Dillon's rantings for the case for no help to M F C. it is based on a crystal ball, there is no hard data to put into a magic formula. Draft assistance was once based on the past, on prior performance but now apparently it is based on the unknown future!

We were knocked back because we could get top compensation for Frawley ~ different issue we are losing a known player for a speculative pick and we have form there!

We could get something for Clark ~ again another issue and we won't get pick 12 and we have lost 3 years of play.

We have a HIGH level of young talent ~ well zero AFL system Rising Star nomination but suddenly all our kids are gifted and zero in the AFL under 22 year olds.

We lost Jurrah and Wonna through no fault of our own but no mention but sorry that is the known past.

We have been raped through FA every year since it came in but this is somehow a positive because we will be compensated.

The AFL Commission now deals with the unknown future but presumes to know the future! I just ask as a career engineer/scientist is there an ounce of logical, rational thinking to be found amongst the whole lot of them? It is just astounding that this bunch of idiots is in charge of a billion dollar industry.

Edited September 23, 201410 yr by Earl Hood

Just give me a good game 'Bluebeard'.

Hear, hear -- the point is the game is what matters, not all the so-called entertainment.

Only way forward is to run our club better, draft well, win games, market well... then we'll rise, get better slots draw more FAs etc...

Only way forward is to become rich - unfortunately due to the inherent inequities in the "competition" this is impossible unless youb have "exceptional circumstances" like a club like Geelong. Us, North, Dogs and Saints will be forever on the fringe and lucky if we even survive in the long-term.

Edited September 23, 201410 yr by Dr. Gonzo

We've responsible for the hole we're in, and the sooner we accept full responsibility for it, the sooner we'll get ourselves out of it.

Not denying the lopsided aspects in the AFL comp, or our tragic run, etc

Though I do think we tend to overstate the issues with our list to try to engage more charity...

Only way forward is to run our club better, draft well, win games, market well... then we'll rise, get better slots draw more FAs etc...

Moaning and hoping for it to be delivered on a platter is the delusions of losers, and part of the reason we're in this hole.

Yep, all our fault. No doubt about that. All our fault.

But your solutions: genius! Win games. My god, why didn't anybody else think of that? Quick, tell Roosy. Draft well. Wow, somebody FF this to Todd Viney, priority paid. Draft well. So cunning, so original, a simple but effective solution to our problems.

Only way forward is to become rich - unfortunately due to the inherent inequities in the "competition" this is impossible unless youb have "exceptional circumstances" like a club like Geelong. Us, North, Dogs and Saints will be forever on the fringe and lucky if we even survive in the long-term.

We need to create "exceptional circumstances" at the MFC instead of begging for scraps. If we have finally realised that we (the MFC) are the only ones who will deliver a turn around, then this will be a win.

The justification detailed on the MFC website is actually infuriating for how much spin/BS/propaganda it contains. I didn't think we would receive a pick (as the AFL are a bunch of compromised wankers) but I am staggered at the reasons supplied and the fact they would put something like that in writing to us;

Their first point directly contradicts the supposed criteria they referred to when changing the policy. Initially they stated the decision would be based on on-field performance over a number of years not a single or consecutive years. We have been poor by any definition for 8 years now and although this season was an "improvement" on last season it is only due to the fact that our 2013 season was one of the worst seasons on record. Our performance over the last 8 years is worse than Fitzroy's last 8 years and one of the all-time worst periods for any club. Under the old criteria we would have qualified for a before first round PP last year AND this year.

Before we had played Fremantle, Hawthorn or Geelong, 3 of the top 4 teams.

So we fell over the line against Essendon and beat Richmond, both games in which the opposition had more scoring shots and dominated the inside 50's. Even in their worst seasons poor teams have upset wins, that doesn't mean they are necessarily "better" than the teams they beat otherwise we could say we beat Richmond, Richmond beat Sydney therefore we should be grand finalists. We were close in several other games, and lost. Only wins matter, getting close is irrelevant. And the win/loss column shows we have won 38 games in 8 seasons and 10 games in the last 3 seasons.

I have no idea who they're referring to here? Trengove? Had a very poor year in 2013, no evidence he will return to regular senior football. Hogan has never played a game. Clark "retired" and we will soon lose him for peanuts. Impossible to argue they are "key" personnel.

A couple of years ago we had Watts, Blease, Strauss, Morton, Gysberts, Tapscott how did that turn out? No guarantee any of these kids will make it and it is unfair in the extreme to lump the clubs hopes and future on them and actually NAME them in their justification. I was astonished they actually did this, amateur in the extreme by the AFL.

Michie and Riley are unproven and irrelevant to the conversation, just because we traded in some mature players who were on the fringe at other clubs doesn't mean anything in regards to the argument for a PP which is based on on-field performance. Similarly the fact we traded in 3 guys who were all top 5 in our B&F shows just how putrid our list is. Not to mention Cross is on his last legs and Vince is closing in on 30 and we had to give up pick 2 for Tyson - so basically we can bring in senior players other clubs are willing to lose and lose our best prime aged players to FA i.e. become a feeder club. The only real long-term "win" of that lot is Tyson and we need currency to get more players like him which is the reaosn for the request in the first place. Even with all these guys coming into the team we could still only win 4 games and finish 17th.

Again what an idiotic argument, any club can trade players or gain a compo pick through FA, this is a zero-sum game, it does not improve our list and due to the fact we will likely receive extreme unders for Clark and will lose an AA full back for a speculative pick we will more than likely be worse off not better.

Again this is all irrlevant to the on-field performance of the club which is what the criteria should be specifically assessing.

This doesn't even mean anything - so because we have appointed an untried assistance coach to be mentored by Roos and take over in two years we will magically improve? This more than any of their reasonings is pure spin/BS. Not to mention the "potential benefits" of the FD cap and luxury tax and not even identified let alone quantified.

Again ridiculous considering they are meant to be working by some "secret" yet "objective" criteria which specifically refers to poor on field performance over a number of years not to mention the fact that the AFL RULE BOOK ITSELF SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO ON-FIELD PERFORMANCE as the only factor specifically referred to in the rules. If this does not constitute "exceptional circumstances" then I fail to say what could.

Again I did not expect a pick so I am not surprised I am however infuriated at the BS and specious reasoning provided by the AFL.

Post of the year?

The justification detailed on the MFC website is actually infuriating for how much spin/BS/propaganda it contains. I didn't think we would receive a pick (as the AFL are a bunch of compromised wankers) but I am staggered at the reasons supplied and the fact they would put something like that in writing to us;

Their first point directly contradicts the supposed criteria they referred to when changing the policy. Initially they stated the decision would be based on on-field performance over a number of years not a single or consecutive years. We have been poor by any definition for 8 years now and although this season was an "improvement" on last season it is only due to the fact that our 2013 season was one of the worst seasons on record. Our performance over the last 8 years is worse than Fitzroy's last 8 years and one of the all-time worst periods for any club. Under the old criteria we would have qualified for a before first round PP last year AND this year.

Before we had played Fremantle, Hawthorn or Geelong, 3 of the top 4 teams.

So we fell over the line against Essendon and beat Richmond, both games in which the opposition had more scoring shots and dominated the inside 50's. Even in their worst seasons poor teams have upset wins, that doesn't mean they are necessarily "better" than the teams they beat otherwise we could say we beat Richmond, Richmond beat Sydney therefore we should be grand finalists. We were close in several other games, and lost. Only wins matter, getting close is irrelevant. And the win/loss column shows we have won 38 games in 8 seasons and 10 games in the last 3 seasons.

I have no idea who they're referring to here? Trengove? Had a very poor year in 2013, no evidence he will return to regular senior football. Hogan has never played a game. Clark "retired" and we will soon lose him for peanuts. Impossible to argue they are "key" personnel.

A couple of years ago we had Watts, Blease, Strauss, Morton, Gysberts, Tapscott how did that turn out? No guarantee any of these kids will make it and it is unfair in the extreme to lump the clubs hopes and future on them and actually NAME them in their justification. I was astonished they actually did this, amateur in the extreme by the AFL.

Michie and Riley are unproven and irrelevant to the conversation, just because we traded in some mature players who were on the fringe at other clubs doesn't mean anything in regards to the argument for a PP which is based on on-field performance. Similarly the fact we traded in 3 guys who were all top 5 in our B&F shows just how putrid our list is. Not to mention Cross is on his last legs and Vince is closing in on 30 and we had to give up pick 2 for Tyson - so basically we can bring in senior players other clubs are willing to lose and lose our best prime aged players to FA i.e. become a feeder club. The only real long-term "win" of that lot is Tyson and we need currency to get more players like him which is the reaosn for the request in the first place. Even with all these guys coming into the team we could still only win 4 games and finish 17th.

Again what an idiotic argument, any club can trade players or gain a compo pick through FA, this is a zero-sum game, it does not improve our list and due to the fact we will likely receive extreme unders for Clark and will lose an AA full back for a speculative pick we will more than likely be worse off not better.

Again this is all irrlevant to the on-field performance of the club which is what the criteria should be specifically assessing.

This doesn't even mean anything - so because we have appointed an untried assistance coach to be mentored by Roos and take over in two years we will magically improve? This more than any of their reasonings is pure spin/BS. Not to mention the "potential benefits" of the FD cap and luxury tax and not even identified let alone quantified.

Again ridiculous considering they are meant to be working by some "secret" yet "objective" criteria which specifically refers to poor on field performance over a number of years not to mention the fact that the AFL RULE BOOK ITSELF SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO ON-FIELD PERFORMANCE as the only factor specifically referred to in the rules. If this does not constitute "exceptional circumstances" then I fail to say what could.

Again I did not expect a pick so I am not surprised I am however infuriated at the BS and specious reasoning provided by the AFL.

Agree. Well done, a good post.

Yep, all our fault. No doubt about that. All our fault.

But your solutions: genius! Win games. My god, why didn't anybody else think of that? Quick, tell Roosy. Draft well. Wow, somebody FF this to Todd Viney, priority paid. Draft well. So cunning, so original, a simple but effective solution to our problems.

You're not getting it. Great teams take FULL responsibility to doing the best in EVERY area of their practice that they can control, AND not getting sucked into becoming victims of things that they CANNOT control.

It's been a long time since we could say we, the MFC, were taking FULL responsibility for EVERY area that we control that determines our success as a football club. But we continually moan and blame and feel victims to things we CANNOT control.

When we draft, develop, manage, coach our club WELL, then we can ask questions about the broader issues we face, UNTIL then we should start taking FULL responsibility for what we can, and stop bitching.

Edited September 23, 201410 yr by PaulRB

Earl another poster said something along the lines

"Whilst the PP has been ruled out, other forms of assistance were still possible"

Perhaps in their minds that may mean something like 3 for Frawley and second rounder for Clark but you end up in therapy trying to figure it out.

IMO the flimsy motherhood attempt at justification ( at face value) simply doesn't stack up. Could it indicate the AFL's immediate preference for the quartile it likes to see the MFC operating in? Slowly suffocating until its ultimate demise and the ultimate objective of further freeing up the MCG for them.

Makes you wonder how they go about things and the real agendas.

Could be so easily avoided by disclosing how the real decision was arrived at.