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.

Guess what?

I don't want to be like Carlton either. However, every club in the competition should be treated the same so I do think the AFL should treat Melbourne like Carlton which means if we get investigated for tanking they should. If they get 8 or 9 favourable fixtures a year like Friday and Thursdays on top of their usual blockbuster v Richmond, I'd like us to get a few so that we can improve our bottom line, attract sponsors and supporters etc.

For the sake of clarity, my article has nothing to do with the way the current football should be funded, managed or how it should operate. Nor was I suggesting that we should be asking the AFL for charity.

What I was doing was supporting the application the club already has in place to support the football department in its efforts to improve our list after a decade of neglect, poor recruiting and player development compounded by exceptional circumstances which have caused us to lose some very good players who can be replaced with help that's available within the laws of the game if the AFL decides to interpret those laws in a responsible manner.

The player losses I mentioned were among the causes of our wretched record which is ten wins in the past three seasons. That should be criteria enough for any club to get special assistance in my view. One additional early pick alone is not going to make a great difference but it will help us in the months ahead and yet there are people who claim to support the club whose wish it is that our coach and recruiting staff should be made to operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Jackson and Roos made the application because of exceptional circumstances. The AFL should help them do their jobs and not continue to punish the club for what they perceive to have occurred in the past.

But Jack the AFL assisted us last year, parachuting in Jackson (who landed Roos) and Bartlett (jury still out with me). We are effectively AFL run at the moment.

Then they also gave us extra funding (just shy of $2m from memory) to reshape get out of various long terms commitments.

Naturally, Jackson will ask for further assistance but with a full book of sponsors now, continuing FH support and solid memberships (considering) we have less grounds. Sure the Clark/Frawley situations are bad and we'd like to pay full cap and have full FD spending, but at what point should we just suck it up and dig ourselves out of the hole?

But Jack the AFL assisted us last year, parachuting in Jackson (who landed Roos) and Bartlett (jury still out with me). We are effectively AFL run at the moment.

Then they also gave us extra funding (just shy of $2m from memory) to reshape get out of various long terms commitments.

Naturally, Jackson will ask for further assistance but with a full book of sponsors now, continuing FH support and solid memberships (considering) we have less grounds. Sure the Clark/Frawley situations are bad and we'd like to pay full cap and have full FD spending, but at what point should we just suck it up and dig ourselves out of the hole?

The AFL assists every club with funding of different sorts. Whatever you want to call it, the sort of assistance you're referring to is necessary because some clubs don't get the benefit of the better fixtures which I referred to in my post (vis a vis Carlton).

This application is quite different. It's an application made by the club not for money but for draft assistance under exceptional circumstances. If you really have a problem with it, why not telephone the club and ask for Peter Jackson or Paul Roos.

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

Special assistance is now ultimately a matter for the commission's discretion and will be awarded only in exceptional circumstances," AFL general manager of football operations Adrian Anderson said.

Hard to reconcile the two statements, the one you've quoted and the one further down in the article. I'll go with "discretion" because if we didn't qualify last year I can't see how anyone can as our performance over 7 or 8 years is as poor as any in the AFL's history from the time the draft and salary cap were introduced.

It also accords with conversations I've had with senior footy people.

Thanks for the article.

Hard to reconcile the two statements, the one you've quoted and the one further down in the article. I'll go with "discretion" because if we didn't qualify last year I can't see how anyone can as our performance over 7 or 8 years is as poor as any in the AFL's history from the time the draft and salary cap were introduced.

It also accords with conversations I've had with senior footy people.

Thanks for the article.

I think the article is at one with what I've been saying about exceptional circumstances and the applicant club having to prove a poor record over a number of years and not just one year.

Before we applied last year, I asked Peter Jackson the question at a meeting of club supporters at AAMI Stadium whether we were going to apply and if we did, what he thought of our chances of success.

He said we would apply but he wasn't confident.

We applied and were knocked back. One of the reasons we were given was that we had Jesse Hogan in the wings who was the equivalent of an early firs round pick and also MItch Clark was due to come back - another first round pick. Neither played a game and we won only four games. That gives us an extra year's sub standard performances, some additional exceptional circumstances to add to the loss of players like Jurrah and Wonaemirri in previous years, none of which can be sheeted home to poor culture at the club or tanking. And while we were abysmal at times late in the season, is anyone alleging we tanked this year?

Fact is, PJ has applied again and he impresses me as the sort of person who works hard to get what he wants. He got Roos against all odds last year, didn't he?

Bob, if the senior people who are talking to you are involved in making the decision, it's pretty poor of them to tell people about it before the decision is made (although it wouldn't surprise me going by other things that have been revealed about the AFL of late).

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

bmd, i didn't know evans was an economics professor

For those of us who adopt and follow the 'KISS Principle', surely the clearest/simplest way for the AFL to look at this issue is to recognise and acknowledge that we have lost, (or are about to lose), in one fell swoop, our Full Forward and our Full Back - 2 of the 4 key positions that every club (and their Coach) structure their teams around.

Clearly that is a profound and potentially devastating result for any club, let alone one that has finished 17th in an 18 team competition in 2014 on the back of 7 years' worth of similarly dismal results.

If Free Agency compensation for Frawley results in Pick 3, then surely the unusual circumstances relating to Clark are "exceptional" and therefore deserving of compensation in the form of a replacement pick (whether it must be compulsorily on-traded or not).

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?

I think it's more of a squishy and ponderous concept BB

Bob, if the senior people who are talking to you are involved in making the decision, it's pretty poor of them to tell people about it before the decision is made (although it wouldn't surprise me going by other things that have been revealed about the AFL of late).

I haven't spoken to anyone for about 12 months so I've no idea what the thinking is this year. You should know me well enough that if I did know anything it wouldn't be posted here or anywhere. My comments are based on a general conversation, nothing specific.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

I haven't spoken to anyone for about 12 months so I've no idea what the thinking is this year. You should know me well enough that if I did know anything it wouldn't be posted here or anywhere. My comments are based on a general conversation, nothing specific.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

From your experience in the area, do you think if we asked the Saints who they will take at 1 they would tell us? I know that the recruiters are not enemies.

From your experience in the area, do you think if we asked the Saints who they will take at 1 they would tell us? I know that the recruiters are not enemies.

I doubt it. But speaking to someone who is involved in junior footy he seemed to think Petracca was a clear no 1. If he knows that we know that and will plan around it.

With our history if the Saints take Petracca and we take Brayshaw, then Petracca will end up a star and Brayshaw a dud.

If the Saints take anyone else, whoever we take will still be a dud.

I think the priority pick system was deeply flawed and an inadequate approach to equalisation before, and it is now an even more deeply flawed and inadequate system.

It is fundamentally a cop out to avoid having to face structural injustices. Patronising and dependency-creating.

It's the 'sponsor a child... and buy child-slave made t-shirts' option.

All that said, if Melbourne is not eligible for a priority pick now, then it is simply a phantom and will never be enacted.

Adding to the pretty decisive notes above (are we the first club ever to get no rising star nominees AND no All-Australian nominees?)

Lowest goals scored by a non-debut team in the 22-game era.

Lowest top goalscorer in the 22-game era.

Only team with average of less than 5 wins / season in last 8 years. Next worst is Brisbane with 8.9.

Only team with average ladder position in bottom 4 over last 8 years. (discounting expansions, of course, though give it a year and it wont matter)

What will really [censored] me off is if St Kilda, who have clearly embraced a total bottom-out, get any assistance in the next few years.

On a side note, maybe we should just straight up ask for Isaac Heeney...

Of course the PP system is flawed, but why should we be the poor schmucks chosen to fix it !!

Hard to reconcile the two statements, the one you've quoted and the one further down in the article. I'll go with "discretion" because if we didn't qualify last year I can't see how anyone can as our performance over 7 or 8 years is as poor as any in the AFL's history from the time the draft and salary cap were introduced.

It also accords with conversations I've had with senior footy people.

Thanks for the article.

"You'll go with that statement"?

Isn't that the problem?

They have a formula. That is secret. Devised by an economics professor. But the AFL Commission use their discretion to enforce that formula to give any assistance through the draft.

What is the point of having a formula if you don't apply it in the event of having an habitually bad team - the reason for having the assistance in the first place.

As you said - if any team qualified for assistance - we have over the last few years - which tells me that the rules in Aussie Rules are a mere suggestion.

I don't for a minute believe that we have not qualified for assistance under their secret formula.

Public Relations is their guiding star and, on that front, we are as poor as we have been on field for the last 8 years.

I haven't spoken to anyone for about 12 months so I've no idea what the thinking is this year. You should know me well enough that if I did know anything it wouldn't be posted here or anywhere. My comments are based on a general conversation, nothing specific.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Let's not forget that Port Adelaide were given a 9 million dollar "grant" to cover the 2011, 2012 & 2013 seasons. This grant was given to them to supplement their "lost" income from having to play their home games at footy park. Diddums.

Of course, we're given 6-7 home games on a consistent basis against interstate teams where it's difficult to turn a dollar. No such "supplement" is forthcoming in our direction when we're disadvantaged in a similar way.

GWS & the GCS are continuing to receive obscene amounts of money so the AFL can have a "presence" in the Northern states whilst we continue to get diddly squat. The average punter screams like a banshee when we received our measly 1.3 million last season yet hardly a word about these interstate clubs getting helped out in a large way.

You won't read about it in the mainstream media but the Suns are years away from standing on their own 2 feet. They have a membership of about 13,000 only - about 21,000 less than us. And then there's GWS. Watch for the Lions to get a leg up sooner or later - apparently they're 12 million in the red.

I agree Macca but the AFL line will be that the northern teams represent a long term investment in growing the game and growing revenue.

They seem to want four main things:

1. An 18 team comp to maximise TV rights revenue
2. A true national footprint which protects the game in a sense from those that do not have a true national presence. i.e. all other codes
3. A live game every week in each major capital city
4. A local derby twice/year in each city to drive up cross town rivalry and drive up attendances.

Melbourne will get a better draw when they consider that we won't kill their TV ratings (especially in prime time) with our terrible performances. I guess when our competitiveness returns, we will probably also warrant more games against the bigger drawing clubs.

Honestly, if they want to throw cash and draft picks at us then OK, I'd probably take them. But my concern is a reliance on handouts versus developing ourselves from within. I'd prefer the latter (even if its slower) because it will build a truly viable club.

But I seem to be on my own in that view.

Unlikely to get a PP but this article puts up a strong case.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/the-buzz-afl-says-unlikely-melbourne-will-get-priority-pick-but-its-rules-suggest-otherwise/story-e6frf3e3-1227060650594?from=public_rss&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed&nk=68977953102550160ae4e602041c3081

Unlikely to get a PP but this article puts up a strong case.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/the-buzz-afl-says-unlikely-melbourne-will-get-priority-pick-but-its-rules-suggest-otherwise/story-e6frf3e3-1227060650594?from=public_rss&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed&nk=68977953102550160ae4e602041c3081

Wonder where the author got his material from?

Handouts?

What is happening right now is that we're doing the handing out (in a roundabout way)

1) Other clubs make a lot more money (tens of millions over the years) because they continually get excellent fixturing at the expense of our poor fixturing. In turn, we're forced into selling off at least a couple of our 8 or 9 non profitable home games. I'm not expecting things to change so we can expect more of the same. That puts us at a big disadvantage.

2) We're losing our free agents to other clubs - which they get for nothing ... more handouts. We can't even bring in free agents for fear of damaging our compensation ... another disadvantage.

3) Priority picks which were previously handed out to poorly performed teams has not happened for our team. Under the post 2005 revamped system where a club needed to have 2 poor years in a row (4 wins or less to qualify for a PP) we, in theory, should have received a PP last year and another one this year. As it stands, we've now had 3 poor years in a row and the likelihood of receiving a PP is virtually zero ... another disadvantage.

Many other clubs got their PP's after only having one poor season ... again, we've had 3 poor years (10 wins in total) and we will probably receive no draft assistance.

As far as I'm concerned, any advantage we can get helps us but we're getting next to no help at all. Many of the other clubs do have those advantages so therefore, it's not a fair competition.

I don't know what's worse - the biased fixturing or the lack of compensation (draft assistance) for being a poorly performed team. On top of that we're losing free agents every year. All 3 areas are hurting the club.

The AFL needs to give us an opportunity to have a fair crack at it.

Unlikely to get a PP but this article puts up a strong case.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/the-buzz-afl-says-unlikely-melbourne-will-get-priority-pick-but-its-rules-suggest-otherwise/story-e6frf3e3-1227060650594?from=public_rss&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed&nk=68977953102550160ae4e602041c3081

Was waiting for a priority pick article from Ralphy after he retweeted Demonblog's tale of woe a few days ago...

Jon Ralph @RalphyHeraldSun · Sep 10

Mark Evans please read this trail of destruction & sorrow from a Melbourne supporter. Them hand them a priority pick http://mfcdemonblog.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/lolmfc-fistedforever-files.html …

Was waiting for a priority pick article from Ralphy after he retweeted Demonblog's tale of woe a few days ago...

Jon Ralph @RalphyHeraldSun · Sep 10

Mark Evans please read this trail of destruction & sorrow from a Melbourne supporter. Them hand them a priority pick http://mfcdemonblog.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/lolmfc-fistedforever-files.html …

There has to be some concern when a Marl Evans who was previously employed by Melbourne and then Hawthorn is the one charged with the task of deciding whether to recommend on the MFC application. Did something happen during his time at either club that might cause bias? Why has he discussed the possible outcome publicly? Can we get a fair hearing?

So the secret rules about draft assistance were devised by an economics professor and the exceptional circumstances were designed to help clubs that were in a situation like Fitzroy and we have a worse record than that club had at the time it folded.

Well, I suppose the outcome will certainly tell us a lot about the AFL Commission and the way it runs the competition.