Brisbane gets priority pick

[Blistering 493]

23 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

More likely they manipulated the "formula" to make sure we got pick 3 instead of pick 18 after they found they couldn't give us a PP for "not tanking".  Then they decided they better amend and publish the formula to cover future dealings.

The whole thrust of this thread is that MFC has been stiffed- we haven't, we've had our share of benefits of AFL manipulation.

You might have convinced me of the deviousness of the AFL but you haven't made out a case that we weren't stiffed. While the AFL has never outlined the precise criteria for "special assistance" it has been clear that remuneration was not the only criteria. Even if you accept the figures being bandied about, you also have to take into account other circumstances including age, player's past achievements, injury history etc. Frawley had just turned 26 when taken by the Hawks, Mayne is 2 years older and Wells 5 years older. Moreover, the whole world accepted that Melbourne was entitled to Band 1 compensation at the time. We therefore received proper compensation under the rules at the time for Frawley. We received no special assistance from the AFL when we had a worse record than Brisbane.

There's no doubt in my mind, we were stiffed by the AFL.

[Lucifers Hero 37,207]

13 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

FMD, a 31yo for 3 years on $600k per year! Surely that's got to be a joke.

 

1 hour ago, P-man said:

I find the idea of Mayne on a four year deal worth more than $2m to be a lot less believable. Someone needs to put Buckley in a straitjacket if that's even mildly true.

Maybe Buckley is trying to boost the AFL compensation picks for North and Freo!

Looks like the AFL will be giving out a lot of comp picks this year. 

That with, Academy picks, priority picks, Father/son picks makes a mockery of the 'Draft Order based on final ladder position'.  Thankfully, we have already stockpiled our high end draft talent.

[Redleg 37,891]

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Is it too late for us to apply for special assistance? 

After all, I'm pretty sure you'll find that, despite our improvement this year, we have won less games in the last five years than Brisbane and on that criteria we deserve a priority pick as well. I'm prepared to take an end of first round selection like the hypocrites Lions (and trade it for Tom Rockliff if the AFL insists).

PS: For the benefit of the nannies out there, the above is tongue in cheek apart from the fact that the AFL is so conflicted and lacking in integrity that if it's love child GCS applied with that story, it would probably get one.

Also the Gold Coast Suns have never won a GF, let alone played finals, in their long history in the VFL/AFL.

[Bring Back Barassi 532]

3 hours ago, Blistering said:

You might have convinced me of the deviousness of the AFL but you haven't made out a case that we weren't stiffed. While the AFL has never outlined the precise criteria for "special assistance" it has been clear that remuneration was not the only criteria. Even if you accept the figures being bandied about, you also have to take into account other circumstances including age, player's past achievements, injury history etc. Frawley had just turned 26 when taken by the Hawks, Mayne is 2 years older and Wells 5 years older. Moreover, the whole world accepted that Melbourne was entitled to Band 1 compensation at the time. We therefore received proper compensation under the rules at the time for Frawley. We received no special assistance from the AFL when we had a worse record than Brisbane.

There's no doubt in my mind, we were stiffed by the AFL.

Us, stiffed by the AFL ?? Good god, they helped us so much it almost seems unfair. They installed Peter Jackson who was working for the AFL at the time, AND they gave us the money to pay Roosy !! They basically forced us into rehab which will be paying off in spades for the next 10 years.

What more could you ask for ?? Sheesh, the ingratitude is remarkable.

[Blistering 493]

3 minutes ago, Bring Back Barassi said:

Us, stiffed by the AFL ?? Good god, they helped us so much it almost seems unfair. They installed Peter Jackson who was working for the AFL at the time, AND they gave us the money to pay Roosy !! They basically forced us into rehab which will be paying off in spades for the next 10 years.

What more could you ask for ?? Sheesh, the ingratitude is remarkable.

Two different kettles of fish BBB. I was discussing being shafted over the issue of draft  assistance but now that you bring it up it should be stated that despite its largesse in the installation of PJ and supposedly giving us the money to pay Roosy (something that's never been established or shown on the books), a number of other clubs including the Brisbane Lions, the Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne (not to mention the two new love child franchises) receive more money than we do.

Moreover, the AFL might have installed PJ but he happened to be the man who applied twice for special assistance for the club that was twice denied by the AFL.

We were shafted.

[old55 21,399]

4 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

PS: For the benefit of the nannies out there.

Nannies and cry-babies

[Bring Back Barassi 532]

Getting PJ on its own was an incredible gift. The guy had an unbelievable track record at Essendon and was instrumental in getting us Roos and Bartlett. His talents and skill have been the key element in putting us back on track. The AFL gave up a lot in letting him go to us, and that can't be underestimated.

[Redleg 37,891]

1 hour ago, Bring Back Barassi said:

Getting PJ on its own was an incredible gift. The guy had an unbelievable track record at Essendon and was instrumental in getting us Roos and Bartlett. His talents and skill have been the key element in putting us back on track. The AFL gave up a lot in letting him go to us, and that can't be underestimated.

Thanks, I now finally understand the criteria for getting a PP.

If you deserve one under the AFL stated criteria, you fail to get one, if in any way the AFL has assisted with you, in hiring a new CEO or Footy Manager.

Simple really, how silly of me and so many other bewildered supporters.

PS. Oh but hang on, Greg Swann was helped by the AFL to get to the Lions and also David Noble from the Crows.

PPS. Don't forget the overriding rule, no rule applies to the new clubs into the AFL.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Redleg

[daisycutter 28,630]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Thanks, I now finally understand the criteria for getting a PP.

If you deserve one under the AFL stated criteria, you fail to get one, if in any way the AFL has assisted with you, in hiring a new CEO or Footy Manager.

Simple really, how silly of me and so many other bewildered supporters.

PS. Oh but hang on, Greg Swann was helped by the AFL to get to the Lions and also David Noble from the Crows.

PPS. Don't forget the overriding rule, no rule applies to the new clubs into the AFL.

when do the bears stop being a new club, red?

[Redleg 37,891]

14 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

when do the bears stop being a new club, red?

When all clubs are treated honestly.

[daisycutter 28,630]

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

When all clubs are treated honestly.

[Redleg 37,891]

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

No need to cook those flying pigs, they are already turning to bacon.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,493]

It seems apparent to me that the AFL's decisions with the application of the priority pick rule actually might follow some logic. The lack of transparency, though, means we don't really know. I would suggest that the AFL determined not to provide Melbourne with a priority pick because the evidence showed that it would not have helped. Instead, the AFL chose to help the club in a different way by assisting us to fix the real problem - that is, the back of house. Hence, they effectively recruited and funded Roos and Jackson and (apparently) paid out the various staff members and coaches who were surplus to needs. Brisbane, on the other hand, need help with both the back of house and on-field. Hence, the AFL has likely been instrumental in organising the moves to Brisbane of David Noble and Chris Fagan as well as providing that club with a priority pick.

Of course, the moment the AFL determined that priority picks would be decided by a an opaque, nonspecific and highly subjective assessment, it was always going to end up with criticism for any decision that it made.

Edited October 9, 2016 by La Dee-vina Comedia
typo

[daisycutter 28,630]

22 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

..., the AFL has likely been instrumental in organising the moves to Brisbane of David Noble and Chris Fagan as ...............

what is your source for that. seems to me the bears sacked their coach, advertised for a new one, vetted the applicants and then chose a rooky coach who jumped at the opportunity thinking at his age he had probably missed the bus.  hard to see how "instrumental" the afl was.  seems just like bau to me

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,493]

21 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

what is your source for that. seems to me the bears sacked their coach, advertised for a new one, vetted the applicants and then chose a rooky coach who jumped at the opportunity thinking at his age he had probably missed the bus.  hard to see how "instrumental" the afl was.  seems just like bau to me

I hope I didn't make that bit up. I'm sure I heard someone somewhere say that the AFL was behind Noble's transfer from Adelaide to Brisbane. If I'm wrong, don't worry. Some journo somewhere will read Demonland, believe it to be true and convert unsubstantiated gossip into fact for their readers or listeners.

 

[rumpole 480]

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It seems apparent to me that the AFL's decisions with the application of the priority pick rule actually might follow some logic. The lack of transparency, though, means we don't really know. I would suggest that the AFL determined not to provide Melbourne with a priority pick because the evidence showed that it would not have helped.

If that was the case then the AFL would have said so. Instead, it came out with a cockamamie story about our list not being that bad, yadda, yadda, yadda which was of course a load of BS. So was the business that some suggested about punishing the club because of the tanking brouhaha because the applications for special assistance were made in 2013 and 2014, long after the alleged tanking took place in 2009.

The whole thing has a bad look about it for the AFL. It looks even worse when you consider that Chris Fagan as the newly announced coach of Brisbane gains a nice kickstart to his career from the AFL's Mark Evans who worked with him previously at two other clubs. I'm not suggesting any impropriety here in any way, shape or form, only that it simply doesn't look good and compounds an already problematic issue for the AFL.

Edited October 9, 2016 by rumpole

[TRIGON 4,719]

3 minutes ago, rumpole said:

If that was the case then the AFL would have said so. Instead, it came out with a cockamamie story about our list not being that bad, yadda, yadda, yadda which was of course a load of BS. So was the business that some suggested about punishing the club because of the tanking brouhaha because the applications for special assistance were made in 2013 and 2014, long after the alleged tanking took place in 2009.

The whole thing has a bad look about it for the AFL. It looks even worse when you consider that Chris Fagan as the newly announced coach of Brisbane gains a nice kickstart to his career from the AFL's Mark Evans who worked with him previously at two other clubs. I'm not suggesting any impropriety here in any way, shape or form, only that it simply doesn't look good and compounds an already problematic issue for the AFL.

Only becomes a problem for the AFL if they're held accountable for their actions. This doesn't appear to be happening at the club level and so the AFL acts with impunity. Some of the fan base grumbles, but then the siren sounds, the ball's bounced and all's forgotten. Or as the Arab's say "the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on".

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,318]

Who cares.

All it means is that the second round pick we give to Essendon will be 1 pick worse down the draft, which is a good thing right?

Edited October 9, 2016 by Bring-Back-Powell

[SaberFang 7,141]

5 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Who cares.

All it means is that the second round pick we give to Essendon will be 1 pick worse down the draft, which is a good thing right?

Just wait until all the compensation picks are handed out! It will be even lower.

Band 3 compo likely for Fremantle and Richmond if they lose Mayne & Vickery at the rumoured price.

[Lucifers Hero 37,207]

40 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Just wait until all the compensation picks are handed out! It will be even lower.

Band 3 compo likely for Fremantle and Richmond if they lose Mayne & Vickery at the rumoured price.

If its band 3 for those guys it means Freo get pick 23 and Rich 26.  It seems that Wells going to Coll might also net North a band 2 or 3 ie pick 20 or 31.  In what is said to be a very even draft deep into the 3rd round they are really valuable picks.They are fairly ridiculous comp picks for 'veteran' players and one who isn't in best 22. 

The AFL should amend their formula to take account of what the player would get in a 'live' trade.  While not easy to do mathematically they have the discretion to do this by looking at trades for similar type players

With these (potential) 'distortions' of the draft it signals a case to broaden the band ranges and all comp picks to be at the end of a round, not ladder position eg:

FIVE BANDS

Band                      Current:                                                Proposal

• 1.                            1st Round                                 End of 1st Round
• 2.                            End of 1st Round                       End of 2nd Round
• 3.                            2nd Round                                End of 3rd Round
• 4.                            End of 2nd Round                       No comp picks
• 5.                            3rd Round

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[daisycutter 28,630]

45 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

If its band 3 for those guys it means Freo get pick 23 and Rich 26.  It seems that Wells going to Coll might also net North a band 2 or 3 ie pick 20 or 31.  In what is said to be a very even draft deep into the 3rd round they are really valuable picks.They are fairly ridiculous comp picks for 'veteran' players and one who isn't in best 22. 

The AFL should amend their formula to take account of what the player would get in a 'live' trade.  While not easy to do mathematically they have the discretion to do this by looking at trades for similar type players

With these (potential) 'distortions' of the draft it signals a case to broaden the band ranges and all comp picks to be at the end of a round, not ladder position eg:

FIVE BANDS

Band                      Current:                                                Proposal

• 1.                            1st Round                                 End of 1st Round
• 2.                            End of 1st Round                       End of 2nd Round
• 3.                            2nd Round                                End of 3rd Round
• 4.                            End of 2nd Round                       No comp picks
• 5.                            3rd Round

 

then there is no equalisation-factor in the proposed vs current

[old55 21,399]

57 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

If its band 3 for those guys it means Freo get pick 23 and Rich 26.  It seems that Wells going to Coll might also net North a band 2 or 3 ie pick 20 or 31.  In what is said to be a very even draft deep into the 3rd round they are really valuable picks.They are fairly ridiculous comp picks for 'veteran' players and one who isn't in best 22. 

The AFL should amend their formula to take account of what the player would get in a 'live' trade.  While not easy to do mathematically they have the discretion to do this by looking at trades for similar type players

With these (potential) 'distortions' of the draft it signals a case to broaden the band ranges and all comp picks to be at the end of a round, not ladder position eg:

FIVE BANDS

Band                      Current:                                                Proposal

• 1.                            1st Round                                 End of 1st Round
• 2.                            End of 1st Round                       End of 2nd Round
• 3.                            2nd Round                                End of 3rd Round
• 4.                            End of 2nd Round                       No comp picks
• 5.                            3rd Round

 

Let's see what the compo given is.

• Mayne 4 * $450k - band 3 pick 23 very fair IMO, band 2 at a stretch
• Wells 3 * $600k - band 3 pick 31 again very fair IMO, band 2 at a stretch
• Vickery 2 * $500k - band 4 pick 38ish very fair IMO, band 3 at a stretch

[old dee 22,944]

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Who cares.

All it means is that the second round pick we give to Essendon will be 1 pick worse down the draft, which is a good thing right?

I share a similar view BBP.

Our improvement next year will come from the two X druggies and improvement in our young brigade.

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,493]

8 minutes ago, old dee said:

I share a similar view BBP.

Our improvement next year will come from the two X druggies and improvement in our young brigade.

 

For a moment there I thought you had some info that Dane Swan was going to play for us.

 

[old dee 22,944]

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

For a moment there I thought you had some info that Dane Swan was going to play for us.

 

What a joke that story is, he must think no one knew.