Webber

Your last sentence WJ perfectly summarises the half-arsed compromise policy toward equalisation of the AFL that frustrates us so much. Nicely put.

Research RR? It does you no favours when you see every opposition to your posts as an outright rejection of your argument or a personal attack. It isn't, and despite the vigour with which you like to challenge what you see as hubristic sentiment and self righteousness in some on here, it's really just a discussion. I'm actually aware of the fact you think we're unlikely to get a PP. I agree. You have however stated that YOU see some merit in the other clubs opposition to a PP. Please feel obliged to correct me if I misunderstand you, but you see this merit as based on recent dysfunctional management and tanking claims? If so, where does that merit reside when the offenders are gone, the wrongdoing past, and the performance criteria for the PP are currently glaring and historically unparalleled? What is the merit to the AFL, who have done so much to help us become competitive again, to leave out the sole on-field remedy at their disposal, draft assistance?

Regardless of any 'course of action' in 2009 you PRESUME to know about, and which lead to a finding that the MFC was 'not guilty of tanking', it was 4 years ago, all those apparently associated and others as well are no longer at the club. So this incompetence and mismanagement that existed (whether it did or not), the reason we shouldn't expect a PP, serves precisely what purpose should we not get one?

Good article. Common sense and a clear purpose, but results are the most important thing to feed the momentum.

That would be great, but I think AD has stamped his dance card on this topic. Did he comment when GWS were given financial carte blanche to get Scully? No, because interests were singular......GWS above all.

Yep, these are the things he's more than happy to comment on! What he should have said is that all clubs have the same salary cap, a policy which promotes an even competition, and which they manage in their best interests. If they feel Dusty's not going to fit their money plan, it's up to them.

The AFL is becoming more and more a transparently conflicted governing body. As some of you have pointed out, AD's open regrets at the loss of money associated with last weekend's teams show just how driven by profit they are. Of course they are, and must be at some level. He is equally happy to report that the other clubs oppose our PP. Of course they will, they have an interest in keeping other clubs down. What is lacking from Demetriou's tenure though, is equally transparent governance commentary. Where was the the follow up to his comment about gate receipts, talking about the AFL's enthusiasm for growing supporter bases, employing equalisation policy so that Port and Sydney being playing on the weekend wouldn't damage profits? Why haven't they addressed the plight of North Melbourne and Western Bulldog's Etihad deal, which virtually assures their minnow status? Where was his follow up commentary to the PP disgruntlement outlining the logical reasons for draft equalisation, regardless of club self interest? Andrew Demetriou might want to have it both ways, but if the AFL are truly interested in the utopian ideal of 18 clubs of equivalent strength and drawing power, then he should stop moaning about a weekend's receipts, and tell the other clubs that their self interest doesn't reflect the independence and clear focus of the AFL's governance toward true equality.

Well said Deanox. Just not sure I'd grant most of the journo gutter dwellers out there the status of 'heavyweight'!

Too much reality in that argument, Redleg.

I'm optimistic too BB, but whether our list 'seems' better, whether our off-field rescue package 'possibly' improves on field results, it's all perception based on guessing the vibe of the mood of the waffle of some vague notion of undeservedness. It's piffle.The suggestion by some other posters that the other clubs will respond to the idea of us getting a PP with anything OTHER than primary self interest is fanciful. They're interested in winning games and ladder position a whole lot more than gate receipts from games against us. They will oppose it because it is more likely to keep us down. RR, of course the PP forms a SMALL part of any potential improvement. Maybe none if we were to waste it. Again. Either way, it's there for a reason. I'm fully aware of the coercive negative sentiment of the other clubs, and I think we'll either get no PP, or a watered down version (second round, or only for trade). Too bad. It would however damage the equalisation agenda, and I don't think that's arguable. I don't actually believe it should be all about us. IMO, the growing gap between the ladder leaders and cellar dwellers should be addressed more aggressively via the draft. Ask yourselves this.....would the competition be more even 5 years from now if the entire first round of picks this year were given to the bottom 9 clubs?

I would be disappointed, disturbed and mystified if ANY club didn't get a PP as a means of equalisation for an uncompetitive 7 years such as we've had. That's what the AFL is there for, and it goes beyond partiality, regardless of the 'shower of benefits' as you call them.

Essentially all your points RR are based on issues tangential to the ultimate criteria as to the awarding of a priority pick. I could agree as to the culpability of the MFC in regard to issues of organisational incompetence, except for the peculiar singularity with which we were targeted for 'tanking'. There is a reason the AFL has abandoned the numerical formula for awarding a PP, and that is because clubs had positioned themselves to take advantage of it. We weren't the only ones, but we were meaninglessly scapegoated. It was a flawed equalisation measure, and the AFL chose not to take responsibility for that. The absolute issue is one of on-field equalisation. Game day equality. If the AFL DON'T give us a PP, despite our league leading poor performance over seven years, then they are playing a game hypocritical to their core ethos. They are choosing to keep us at a disadvantage on field, where it matters most. This is to disregard the parlous off-field state of disrepair we'd got ourselves into, but it must BE disregarded (particularly now that it seems to be on the mend) when addressing the fundament of equalisation.

'Moaning' about poor journalism, and thinking 'like a victim' as you put it BB, have no bearing on the legitimacy of a PP, which should be a simple matter of performance analysis. There is little doubt however that poor mainstream media commentary is in a symbiotic relationship with the greater population. It both feeds and reflects public opinion. The standard of that journalism in mainstream media, whether footy, sport, politics, world events, arts, you name it, has been in speedy decline in the last decade. Great journalism exists, and it's easy to find, but it's certainly no longer a mainstream occurrence. I don't believe the MFC are victims of anything other than our own incompetence. The application of a PP should be immune to anything as pathetic as the emotionality of a 'victim mentality'. It also has nothing to do with 'need' or being 'deserving'. It is about policy, and policy dictates we will get one. If we don't, TOUGH, but it will continue to make the governance of the AFL a confusing thing. That, to me, is frustrating, and I think it goes far beyond being a Melbourne supporter.

Nor I ...

Journalism has always had rubbish alongside the good stuff, but we're in a whole new era of scandal mongering, ignorant garbage. I blame the declining revenues of print media, or Murdoch press, or declining education standards, or sex and violence on tv, or sugar. Actually it's probably Lynden Dunn's fault.

I'm with you rpfc, and BB. It's not about getting sooky or disgruntled at any lack of assistance we FEEL we deserve, it's about the logical application of the AFL's policies regarding equalisation. The media clowns you mention are employing an emotional argument, AND with bias, and as such are irrelevant.

Yep.

Some of you are talking about the PP like it's a 'gift', to be bestowed as befits a 'gift'. It isn't. It's a policy measure employed by the AFL to create greater competitive equality on game day. Their utopian ideal is 9 games a weekend where the odds are even for all of them. This season, we have become arguably the least competitive team in post war history. With it, we are more likely to be competitive. It would be hypocritical and irrational of the AFL for us NOT to get a PP.

Essentially rpfc your last sentence is the logical pivot of the argument. * Our recent on field history makes us the most compelling recipient of a PP in its history. * By finding us NOT guilty of tanking, and leaving our draft status as unpenalised, our slate is clean when it comes to equalisation compensation, i.e. priority pick. From every conceivable logical standpoint of governance, the AFL simply must give us a PP. To NOT do so is equivalent to a punitive measure for a crime that certain people in the media and from other clubs are claiming we have committed. Remember it is in the primary interests of all clubs to see their opposition diminished. The health of the competition comes a distant second as regards their personal responsibility.

Hmmmm........Boyd, Griffen, Dahlhaus, Libber jr, Cooney, Wallis. All the future of the rebuilding Doggies. Nat Jones, Jack Viney.............................................. it seems we need some solid, experienced midfield quality while WE establish a future midfield. Hence Daniel Cross. Cheap, and not inhibiting the progression of other young midfielders, but facilitating it, and making us less floggable at the stoppages. 'Moneyball' style, but this time done properly!

Read the bit again where I said 'don't ask'..... :-)

I don't know, but his role at the Swans has been greater than recruiting. He is largely respected for his player development and resurrection skills. Kennedy, McGlynn, Kennelly, etc. VERY highly rated. A BIG get.

On another new staff appointment, George Stone is definitely coming from Sydney. The source is the closest to GS possible, and I can't be more specific, so don't ask. Announcement won't be made til after Sydney's season wraps.

Since the invention of the priority pick, there has NEVER (by a couple of light years) been a poorer sustained on-field performance than which the MFC has dished up over the past 7 years, and worsening over the last 3! Based on this, there has NEVER been a clearer, more logical reason to award a PP than to the MFC this draft period. But it won't happen..........why? Because the AFL is as much directed in it's decision making by emotion, driven of course by the media, than anything else. The current administration tries to negotiate a passage between objective reasoning, and populist reaction, which takes little account of reason. Sometimes successfully (Bombers?), sometimes not (MFC non-tanking). They want to please as many of the people as much of the time as they can, whilst making as much money as possible. Not a bad goal I guess, but fairness will often be the victim.

Yes, seems odd she hasn't forwarded an opinion on Dusty's salute yet, haha!