If we didn’t get one when we needed it then no other club should but hey it’s the AFL and they do what they want and change as they see fit. 

15 minutes ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

As some have already mentioned in this thread I think offering the required financial incentives to get the right back of house staff in the door would be of far greater benefit to them long term. Whatever happened to their famed war chest ?  

$3M afl covid enforced cut on footy dept wouldn't help get back of house staff

As others have said were beyond putrid for years but didn’t get it, I think a lot of that was to do with the whole tanking saga and it looking bad from an AFL PR point of view. But the AFL are known for making things up as they go. I could picture the AFL being very ruthless here and seeing the opportunity to shift them to Tassie, they make any additional picks based on relocating them. 

I’ve heard a lot of Tasmanian people say they don’t want them though!

Adding another young player to an already callow list doesn’t really help. North need some senior battle hardened players to stiffen them up while the youngsters develop. Hard to do as what senior player wants to go to an uncompetitive club. Perhaps chip in some of their salary to entice them??

Other than that the AFL should ensure that the coaching group is top notch supported by a competent FD and board.

They stripped their list last year after doing the same about 4 years ago

Deal with it Nought. 

I am still waiting for James Brayshaw’s “White Knights” to appear. 
 

The were told to go to The Gold Coast 10 years ago and didn’t…..

North Melbourne [censored] the bed getting rid of BBB and Majak. They can lie in it for a bit longer.

To be fair, the Kangaroos don't have many top end draft picks coming through... oh, wait... that's because so far they've only completed one truly bad season.

Remember that in 9 years of horror featuring six years with 5 wins or less, Melbourne's grand total of priority picks was 1 (Watts) and 17 (Blease).

As a timeline reference point, North just hit 2008.

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

No issues if they get one. 

They look like a 1-21 side. 

It would take a calamity of a performance for a team to lose to them this year.

GC have been rubbish for 10 years and they've received a couple of late.

A priority pick at the end of first round wouldnt be a huge deal. The Swans bank too 5 priority picks every year through their academy and noone seems to really care. The Dogs got the number 1 pick last year after playing finals. The draft is completely compromised l don't have a problem with a team like North getting a PP.

I don't mind them getting one on face value, i just would like to see more transperancy around the process of deciding who does. so if we put in place a threshold based on win-loss and % in an individual season, they should get some form of priority pick. 

My opinion is that pick should be pick 10, not pick 1 though. so for example North Melbourne would then have picks 1, 10 and 19 in the Draft as it stands, and with some smart trading they could get 4-5 picks in the top 25 and the rebuild is well underway 

if the same team is in bottom 4 for the following 3 seasons, at the conclusion of the third season they should be awarded another pick 10. 

 

I know from our experience that journos love bringing this up to cause outrage when the club hasn't asked for anything yet, but it's a bit early to be discussing it. Who knows if their kids will improve and they'll win 4 or 5 games.

I'm not against priority picks if they're no better than end of the first round, but they've also got to take some responsibility for dumping senior players and concentrating on kids.

6 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Why not also give one to Hawthorn and Collingwood?

Don't worry they will be sniffing around for one the both of them.

Hawthorn claiming they have 80k members is also laughable, when the can attract 14k to a home game in perfect weather.

I'm not against them getting some kind of draft concession but we need to see more transparency and consistency with the way this issue is dealt with.

North don't have much going for them list-wise and it's difficult to see where their wins are going to come from. If we were in their position, I would hope we'd be supported in some way to dig our way out of the hole.

I’ll never understand the absolute hysterical reaction to this.

5 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The were told to go to The Gold Coast 10 years ago and didn’t…..

To be fair I was on the Gold Coast a few weeks ago and it seems like a place where jet skis and tight perms go to die. I’d take Tassie any day.

4 hours ago, Supermercado said:

I know from our experience that journos love bringing this up to cause outrage when the club hasn't asked for anything yet, but it's a bit early to be discussing it. Who knows if their kids will improve and they'll win 4 or 5 games.

I'm not against priority picks if they're no better than end of the first round, but they've also got to take some responsibility for dumping senior players and concentrating on kids.

They played with a good system against us the other week, they'll get a scalp or 2/3 somewhere. Remember everyone said Adelaide would go the season winless last year and look at them now. 

Kanga's just need to work their way through the mud, like we did.

I'd be in favour of the AFL awarding North Melbourne Nick Daicos. Gives North a supposed gun...and annoys Collingwood supporters at the same time. Win-win for everybody else.

13 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

To be fair I was on the Gold Coast a few weeks ago and it seems like a place where jet skis and tight perms go to die. I’d take Tassie any day.

Too true, don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I’m not enraged about it.

I believe they should get a priority pick with the caveat that they also move permanently to Tasmania.