North are no more financial or higher profile than us and they are in the top 4 and will get benefits next year. I well remember Brad Scott saying MFC should not be getting all the attention when both were cellar dwellers.

Rather than throw the drowning man a brick to toughen them up I'd teach them how to swim.

I'm surprised so many think Jack's piece is "balanced". I think it presents very well one side of the argument. I just don't agree with the argument and wanted to present the other view that many MFC supporters know support.

Much more important than a PP is the ability to fund a well resourced FD. It's why we stuffed it up so badly, we just couldn't afford or attract quality people. I think those days are behind us and we should act like a club that is confident it can achieve success without special assistance.

Very good summation Bob but it's going to be missed where it needs to be understood most.

And I was under the impression that this 'special assistance' was for more $$$ to properly fund the FD, not another early pick??

I'm not suggesting for a moment that we have to be like Carlton or that we should be asking for draft assistance only to flush draft picks down the toilet as we have done in the past. Nor is the request for draft assistance meant to be an alternative to the aim of having a well resourced FD as Bob infers.

I wouldn't be advocating for draft assistance if that was the case. However, I have a lot more faith in Paul Roos and our current recruiting team than their predecessor, about who the less said the better. The last thing you would want to be doing to the club is punish these guys or make their job more difficult because the last bloke was totally incompetent.

I think any club administration that fails to take advantage of the competition's rules is not properly carrying out its mandate and since the AFL has a rule in place for draft assistance and we appear to qualify, I believe it would be sheer madness not to take advantage of the law.

Imagine Jesse Hogan playing at full forward in the 2017 grand final. He goes for a mark and Zac Dawson pushes him in the back. The siren goes with the Dockers two points in front. The umpire awards Hogan a free kick but Jesse says, "no thanks. I know the free kick was there and in the rules but I'm sick of getting charity so I'll pass".

Fat chance.

Breath of life or CPR?

Breath of life or CPR?

Jaws of Life are what is needed to cut us out of the Freakin train wreck.

North are no more financial or higher profile than us and they are in the top 4 and will get benefits next year. I well remember Brad Scott saying MFC should not be getting all the attention when both were cellar dwellers.

Rather than throw the drowning man a brick to toughen them up I'd teach them how to swim.

I'm surprised so many think Jack's piece is "balanced". I think it presents very well one side of the argument. I just don't agree with the argument and wanted to present the other view that many MFC supporters know support.

Much more important than a PP is the ability to fund a well resourced FD. It's why we stuffed it up so badly, we just couldn't afford or attract quality people. I think those days are behind us and we should act like a club that is confident it can achieve success without special assistance.

`

It looks like the we now have the people who can teach players to swim. But I bet they'd like a few more players who at least know how to float to be added to the group attending swimming classes.

Everyone agrees that just relying on special assistance is no formula for success. But take what you can get as long as it doesn't breed endless reliance on assistance. It is clear to me we are not currently in danger of that.

Has North dwelt as much in the cellar as we have over the last 8 years? I may have missed that.

`

It looks like the we now have the people who can teach players to swim. But I bet they'd like a few more players who at least know how to float to be added to the group attending swimming classes.

The draft assistance rule isn't the only one on the AFL's books that have the effect of giving some assistance or advantages to clubs which are adding to the participants in their very own swimming classes.

We're already seeing the effect of the rules that are giving the new franchise clubs a leg up but did you know that both GWS and GC Suns will benefit this year with compensatory draft picks in the top 20 in the November National Draft?

Sydney is set to pick up Isaac Heeney, a NSW scholarship squad member, with their pick which will be a late first round selection. Heeney is considered a probable top five pick but for the special rule in place for the Swans (and it's not even clear why the rule's there). Next year, the rule will most likely give them another top five midfield prospect even if they finish near the top again. Is there any chance they might abdicate their entitlement to take advantage of the rule?

On Saturday, I saw Darcy Moore plying his trade for the Oakleigh Chargers in the TAC Cup Preliminary Final. Like Heeney, he would almost certainly be picked in the top 5 in the draft. The Magpies will take him with pick number 8. Thanks to the father/son rule they will get an advantage over clubs like St. Kilda and Melbourne which finished bottom two but thanks to an AFL rule they can't take him.

I don't hear GWS, GC Suns, Sydney and Collingwood knocking back the benefit of those rules any time soon.

There is so much charity being thrown around by the AFL to franchise clubs, to the academy clubs, to all the top clubs picking off the FA players I find it quite ludicrous to read all this hairy chested rubbish about us not asking for hand outs yet again!

Good heavens we are being screwed every year through the FIXture. As I have said before the AFL can live with our gross lack of competitiveness because we are buried away in the twilight matches where our performances have minimal impact. If we were on our fair share of Friday nights against the best, the AFL would feel compelled to step in to stop us trashing the brand. This is the basis of PJ's case, that we are an impediment to the brand, we are so far off the mark that we need assistance. It is in everyone's interests to give us some assistance. I would nominate multiple priority picks in the second and third rounds myself as the draft is a lottery and the more shots you have at it the better the likely outcome for us. But yes it won't happen the AFL exec will probably throw up the Mitch Clark, Jesse Hogan PowerPoint again and the Commission of Drones will nod in agreement and move onto the next agenda item, Gil's application for an overseas study tour to look at equalisation measures in soccer in southern France.

The "no" case is a nice philosophical argument but in the real world it doesn't really work.

Imagine if we were negotiating to get Dangerfield and missed out because our application failed and we didn't get the necessary draft pick that could have gotten the deal done?

At the end of 2012, Port Adelaide were at a lower point than us - both on and off the field. They were broke, uncompetitive, sacked their coach not so long before and lost some playing talent that would probably still near their best team today. Two years later, they are back to back finalists, this year are top 4 and playing a great balanced style of football. I'm not sure they can beat Hawthorn but I'm reasonably sure they will score better than 90 points which gives them some chance.

They have rebuilt from hard work and astute appointments and recruiting.

I reckon MFC has to get rid of the welfare mentailty. That said, I wouldn't knock back a concesssion pick.

No they weren't. They finished higher on the ladder than us, beat us comfortably , had a better list and realised there admin was rubbish before us.

No they weren't. They finished higher on the ladder than us, beat us comfortably , had a better list and realised there admin was rubbish before us.

And hadn't they played off in a grand final in 2007. We have been on or near the bottom since then. No comparison, sorry.

Carlton tanked so it was ok for us to.

Carlton got PP's so it's ok for us to.

I don't want to be like Carlton.

Forget the tanking plenty did it. We were the only ones to get punished, though not for tanking and then have the stigma. Don't recall the other clubs who tanked, defending us.

Now we have been losing players right left and centre, to new AFL FA rules. Again, don't hear other clubs defending us, rather they are acting like piranhas.

We have a chance to get a bit of help, unlike the COLA Sydney gets, or the Academy they have, or the unbalanced fixture, which doesn't allow us to grow financially and many other inequities in the AFL system and you would prefer not to get that help. I don't understand why you have that view, I respect your view, but disagree with it entirely.

BTW, I don't think a PP will save us, but it might help. WE NEED HELP.

No they weren't. They finished higher on the ladder than us, beat us comfortably , had a better list and realised there admin was rubbish before us.

To set goals and assess overall organizational health, I have always used the Balanced Scorecard approach. Without the mumbo-jumbo, it is just a way of ensuring that strategy and performance are not measured against a single dimension (for businesses this is financial performance; for footy I'd suggest this is win/loss).

As EH points out subsequently, they had played in a GF as recently as 2007, and actually won the comp a few years earlier. They should have gotten a new wave of supporters and members from their prior 10 years performance*. But their memberships and attendances had dropped off a cliff and their financial performance suffered badly. They had a carp stadium deal and were routinely getting 20,000 people to their matches including opposition supporters (heartland of Port BTW - probably would have impacted the Crows worse on balance). They were also struggling for sponsors and lost multi-millions in the previous season. So basically they were a train wreck.

Overall, were they slightly better than us or slightly worse? Does it really matter.

Right now they are much better off than we are. That was/is my main point.

* not having won a flag for 50 years, losing new supporters to successful teams, is probably the single biggest reason why Melbourne is a small club.

Rather than rattle on I'll try and just dot point a few things:

• If the argument is that we deserve a PP under the rules then I think that is erroneous because nobody has ever satisfied the new rules to get one. Quite simply we don't know what they are. Therefore whilst Jack has eloquently established how poor we have been over the years that doesn't establish entitlement to a PP. Jack's Hogan comparison is therefore misplaced.
• If the argument is that a PP will significantly help us and we NEED it to be successful then I think that is misplaced. One pick is not the answer, something I think we've learned over the journey.
• If a PP is awarded I'll be happy. I'm not about knocking back what help is offered. I just won't be in the slightest bit upset if we don't get it and I'm not sure we need it or deserve it.
• I'm keen for our Club to regain some respect and dignity and I don't think getting a PP helps that.
• I recognize the inequities in the competition. But others have succeeded from our position so I don't see why we are special as to need what they didn't get.
• What is perhaps a completely separate discussion but has been raised is inequity in the competition. But Collingwood and Hawthorn (amongst others) have made a lot of their own success. If it didn't matter how successful you are at promoting your club because of equalization then I think the game would suffer because a major incentive would be removed.

All good discussion points and it's a discussion worth having.

Whispering makes a good point. There are dodgy high picks awarded to the Interstate and new franchise clubs which were initially to support them, but which seem now to be out-dated and unwarranted. Yet they still go on and on and on (You also and also need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to work them all out.)

The AFL, has at its discretion, the ability to utilise the PP as support and its a little difficult to imagine someone being more worthy candidates to receive same, than ourselves. ( Sadly)

I don't believe its out of the question that we should pursue .

The PP concept was wrong and that's why they changed it. I've been told the PP is there for "extraordinary" circumstances. .

When was this changed?

At an AGM? In a press release?

All they changed was the formula for clubs to 'qualify' for one and they decided to keep that new formula secret giving the AFL Commission with the final decision.

This Mark Evans nonsense about it being there for 'tragic and extraordinary circumstances' is patronising and sad. When Troy Broadbridge was taken from us, PPs were given to Hawthorn a month before and Collingwood 11 months later, and we were allowed to select Shannon Motlop in a Pre-Season supplementary draft.

Or much more recently - did Port Adelaide get a PP when tragedy befell John McCarthy 2 years ago?

They did not get any assistance.

It is a utter disgrace that he has tug at the heartstrings of AFL fans to try and make us look like heartless flogs to ask for PP.

Draft Assistance is there for the betterment of the competition when teams are so terrible that they need help.

All Jackson is asking is for the rules, that we all agreed to, and that we must play by, to be enforced appropriately.

Good article.

Logically we think well if we cannot get a priority after many poor seasons then the PP system must be dead and buried and there will never be another PP given. I think wrong!!!! The AFL will do what wants and sees is the best for the game.

The Saints must be dumb. Their coach opposes a PP for the Dees. If we do not get one then how can they?? Ok I can see they would not want us to get a before round 1 pick. But a later pick.

Money and supporter base is so important the AFL cannot allow the top teams to lanquish for to long. You can bet when the Hawks, maggies etc cycle is done they will get PP's thrown at them. TV wants teams that attract viewers. AFL wants to make money.

The worst thing that can happen is that the top 4 each year hardly changes. But we could be heading that way

All they changed was the formula for clubs to 'qualify' for one and they decided to keep that new formula secret giving the AFL Commission with the final decision.

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules - there is no new formula as I understand it.

I think it is at the discretion of the AFL taking into account all the circumstances.

Can you show me where there is a hard and fast rule?

Yes the St Kilda position is somewhat unusual, but the way the AFL control player movements through rubbery adjudication and assessment, doesn't provide for a fair system. The AFL mechanisms for allocation in some instances are vague ( PP and Free Agency Compo to some degree ). Said before I reckon it needs review and happy to stand by that.

I just don't get sometimes, why the AFL does try to even up the financial side of things for all, yet is misses the boat on some clear regulation around player movement which leaves the whole thing open to manipulation ( often by them).

Rather than rattle on I'll try and just dot point a few things:

• If the argument is that we deserve a PP under the rules then I think that is erroneous because nobody has ever satisfied the new rules to get one. Quite simply we don't know what they are. Therefore whilst Jack has eloquently established how poor we have been over the years that doesn't establish entitlement to a PP. Jack's Hogan comparison is therefore misplaced.
• If the argument is that a PP will significantly help us and we NEED it to be successful then I think that is misplaced. One pick is not the answer, something I think we've learned over the journey.
• If a PP is awarded I'll be happy. I'm not about knocking back what help is offered. I just won't be in the slightest bit upset if we don't get it and I'm not sure we need it or deserve it.
• I'm keen for our Club to regain some respect and dignity and I don't think getting a PP helps that.
• I recognize the inequities in the competition. But others have succeeded from our position so I don't see why we are special as to need what they didn't get.
• What is perhaps a completely separate discussion but has been raised is inequity in the competition. But Collingwood and Hawthorn (amongst others) have made a lot of their own success. If it didn't matter how successful you are at promoting your club because of equalization then I think the game would suffer because a major incentive would be removed.

All good discussion points and it's a discussion worth having.

Agree with most points however we will struggle to drag ourselves out of the hole while we only get 1 pick in front of the premiers.

We will get pick 2 then our selections are on parity with who ever wins the flag ( pick 18 for them pick 20 for us ) we are further behind the pack than that.

When coupled with free agency we have little chance of ever getting anywhere near parity with the clubs like Hawthorn or Sydney.

This added to the inequities of the fixture, prime playing times and the draft incentives received by the new clubs all combine to make it more difficult than ever to climb the ladder.

Yes Port have but the base they launched from was nowhere as deep as ours, nor was it endured for as long.

That said I would welcome what a PP may bring but acknowledge that those clubs who can exert pressure on the AFL to deny this request will do so and it will not happen, so we just need to carry on and hope the planets align.

A great discussion point though as no one is really wrong just coming from alternative directions.

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules - there is no new formula as I understand it.

I think it is at the discretion of the AFL taking into account all the circumstances.

Can you show me where there is a hard and fast rule?

THE AFL will use a confidential formula devised by an economics professor to decide whether clubs deserve a priority draft pick.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-overhaul-its-draft-system-in-wake-of-tanking-controversies/story-fnca0u4y-1226450436364

2012 they had a crack, coming up 2015 after what's gone on, in an overall sense, time for a follow up.

And when it comes to the AFL - there are no hard and fast rules, even when they have hard and fast rules.

So maybe I am being ambitious and unfair asking a league to make independent decisions based on rules it devised to help it survive as a healthy, competitive league...

All those clubs that don't want us to get help - they have nothing but their own selfish interests at heart - they could not care less about the health of the league.

I can actually see a PP not being awarded to us, but rather special assistance in the form of a draft pick being given on the basis of the Mitch Clark situation.

A club has bent over backwards for a player, who became ill, after it invested pick 12 and about $1.5m-$2m in him, for a 15 game return.

Said player will now return to the game, after being allowed out of his contract on the basis of his illness and will probably go to another club, forcing his club to clear him for a player not wanted by others, who has a value probably somewhere in the 3rd-4th round of the draft.

The club has acted honourably and been commended by many in the wider community for its actions. The club will now suffer for acting honourably and in the best interests of the player.

Be nice Red, as a special case, but the macro doesn't work now, if it ever did.