sue

Quite likely young'un. I'm even older than you. But I bet you could find several such cases at every club. If I'm right (memory too faint to be sure) then clearly something different was happening at MFC.

I often find myself in disagreement with C&B, but here he is spot on. I can't recall many selections we made which at the time were controversial. (Hindsight not permitted.) Maybe a bit of arguing around the edges but nothing jaw dropping. Clearly development is a big part of the picture, maybe mixed with a bit of bad luck in taking players who were also popular with other clubs but who turned out to be duds.

I hope he is also talking to his minder.

OK. I don't doubt North are seething either. But with respect to your point 2, you neglect the fact that most supporters know that several clubs 'cheated' the PP as well as us. So I'm not so sure that people think we didn't get punished enough. (If you believe the penalty of $500K was soft only because of our parlous financial state, what do you think of Esendon's $2M for a far more serious sin in a far richer club?) Sure everyone falls about laughing about the "they didn't tank but we are fining them anyway" decision, but at the time I didn't see much feeling that we weren't punished enough. In any case, as several of us have pointed out, the AFL should have the guts to stick to its equalization ideals despite the moaning of others. Of course other clubs are annoyed/seething when another club gets a leg up. We are annoyed with C'wood's draw etc etc. But the AFL has other interests and ignores us. Let's hope they ignore North on this one (since I think we are agreed a PP is a net positive for us despite the cultural downside which some think is more significant).

Just because North may feel miffed, even if justifiably, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get a PP. The situation is a bit like the way people on low incomes are the most p!ssed off when groups slightly worse off than themselves get some sort of welfare. It doesn't make the welfare wrong. (Please don't turn this into an argument of whether welfare is good for people or not. That is not relevant to my point about North.)

The killer line which has me rolling around on the floor was "I was hiding from my football team". Wonderful.

If all journos did was reflect what people wanted to hear without providing all the facts, and when they do opinion pieces, without reasoned analysis, then they should drop below politicians and real estate agents on the ladder of despised occupations. Whoops, they may already have done so. I think it is perfectly legitimate to moan about the standard of journalism. I don't expect it to do any good, but it makes me feels better and I hope that somewhere it may have a small positive effect that may lead to better journalism. After all, they are not going to improve if no one criticises them. While I understand where you are coming from, I just say we should push for what is best for the club regardless of what other supporters think. So the only question in my mind is: ' Is a PP bad for us?'. While I can see some small negative cultural effect of asking for/getting a PP, I think you over-estimate it, possibly (just guessing) because of years of frustration with our performance and culture and the jibes from supporters of other clubs. I do not see how Roos' attempts to fix our culture etc will be significantly affected by him having to deal with the extra 'burden' of a PP. He obviously wants one and I trust he will deal with any negative effects it has on the players and the club. I've posted this as a question before and no one has responded to explain how Roos will be significantly hampered by having to deal with the 'burden' of a PP. If he doesn't get one he will presumably soldier on with a weaker list than he would have had with a PP to trade/use. The extra pride that comes from doing so without a PP will IMO have minimal effect on how we perform. And that is all that matters, not the jibes of ignorant journos and supporters

Yep. It is troubling that those whose feel that the MFC wasn't punished enough for tanking somehow lose sight of that simple concept and conflate the issues. It is of course logically possible to argue we weren't punished enough, but those who say so should then get stuck into the AFL for their decision earlier in the year, not us. They should state what the penalty should have been and for how long the possibility of extra ad hoc penalties should hover over our heads. They should argue why it is appropriate to add extra penalties now in a case which was closed in February. There is probably something in the Magna Carta about not doing that. :>)

Plus they know such an article will go down well with the supporters of 17 other clubs. And that most of the readers haven't followed the tanking issue closely, nor the requirements for a PP.

I can see where you are coming from Paul_man. I understand the gut feeling but don't think what you prefer is in the best interests of the club. If you have faith in Roos, why not assume that Roos can fix the culture in the presence of a PP? Roos seems to want one. I presume he doesn't think having a PP will send the wrong message etc. Does anyone really think that having a PP will really prevent Roos from fixing the culture? He can only do better with one up his sleeve.

Sorry I should have made it clear that I was writing in the context of the posters who feel embarrassed about MFC asking for whatever it can, and seem to cringe in fear of what supporters of other clubs say. Of course I do see the connection you refer to. Just happen to disagree with you as to what's most important. I see no need to cut our noses off to show how tough we are. Be tough by doing what is best for the club regardless of what others think. Take a PP if we can. Just don't rely on PP's as messiahs, fix the culture at the same time. Do you really think Roos can't fix the culture in the presence of a PP?

Yes, it is intriguing that some of those who oppose a PP are amongst those who are often keenest for us to toughen up/take no prisoners etc.

While I disagree with BB, there is some merit in his argument in post #60. But surely the AFL would have predicted that we were very likely to end the year having an excellent case for a PP (leaving aside tanking issues - if performance was the only issue). So if they didn't want us to get a PP at year's end for all the reasons BB lists, then they should have included a 'no PP' or some other draft pick penalty at the time. They didn't, so I think they will have trouble making an argument why they should now. That sad, I don't underestimate their ability to come out with odd justifications for whatever they just want to do.

You may well be right that those guys haven't always done us much good. But leaving that aside I'd have thought it is pretty obvious why it would be good if supporters in the public eye would counter some of the rubbish that is being touted about PP's.

Against my better judgement I just read that article. The logic and argument was worse than I imagined from reading this thread. How the writer got past 6th grade is beyond me. I presume the only reason the MFC hasn't publicly refuted such rubbish is because they are wisely arguing our case in private. But I'd hope the Schwarz's and Lyon's etc of the world might say something. Are they?

Think how much taller we'd walk if we announced we didn't want pick 2 as well. OK, there may be some positive mental effect on the players of taking your hairy-chested approach, but it would be hard to measure. Landing some decent trades with a PP or whatever is more likely to help more now that we have a new admin and Roos to clean out the old bad culture. I don't give a hoot about what other clubs and supporters think. They can be disdainful of us as they like. They will only stop that when we start winning.

So finishing near the bottom of the ladder for many years on end doesn't spell LOSERS until the AFL gives us a PP?

No, they are the same in principle. Poor ladder performance in 1 year at second last gives you pick 2. Poor performance over many years gives you a PP. The common theme is 'rewarding' poor performance in an attempt to equalise the comp. So if you are going to be hairy-chested and say we can be strong and succeed without a PP, you can be even more hairy-chested and say the same for the pick that comes from a low position on the ladder. Anyway, I'm just arguing against being hairy-chested. Take what we can get AND fix the culture. As long as we don't avoid fixing the culture just because we get a PP, then a PP can only help.

Should we also say no to pick 2 on the same grounds?

Why hypocritical? Don't see any hypocrisy at all. If the AFL felt we 'deserved' a draft pick penalty when they fined us and rubbed out CC etc, then that was the time to do it. Not to add new penalties now. Adding extra penalties now is just a surrender to pressure from other clubs. Not giving us a PP (when clearly our performance over the last x years calls for one) would be an admission that they got the penalty wrong for bringing the game into disrepute earlier in the year. Sadly, maybe this will be the first time the AFL (implicitly) admits a mistake.....

That's a strong argument BB. As you say, us getting Boyd probably allows everyone else to have a chance for him whereas GWS probably won't trade him. Only proviso is that if all 16 other clubs know Buddy is going to GWS, they may think GWS will trade him too. In any case, I'd be surprised if all 17 came to the same conclusion given the uncertainties (as far as we know them). But was it all 17 clubs?

What are you disagreeing entirely about? WJ didn't say he hopes guilty MFC players get off. You read too much into the sentence you bolded.

The argument has no real merit. Under your reasoning the only club which would ever 'deserve' a PP is one where half the players were killed in a airplane accident. (Even then someone would argue the club's at fault - they should have gone by bus.) In all other cases, if you are crap, it is because you had some form of bad management. Therefore it would be argued they don't deserve a PP. There is a whiff of the Victorian-era attitude about only helping what they saw as the deserving poor.

Possibly, but no one is saying a PP will improve our culture. We need culture improvement etc. As long as we don't think PP's will solve all our problems, having a PP can only help.

A far stronger argument is that one trade of a super mid-fielder or so in return for handing over a top PP may well be significant. Nothing wrong with welfare if you need it, and if you look at our recent record, we need it in addition to sorting out our other problems. A PP is not a sufficient condition for success, but it can sure help. Your view is a bit hairy-chested in my personal opinion. To be really tough, we could forgo all draft picks up to round 3.