Melbourne priority pick

[Black Diamond]

I clearly stated it was the AFL's concern, but okay.

As a sidenote, I do think that having uncompetitive teams, and by that I mean uncompetitive over an extended period, is bad for the game. You don't?

I do think it's bad for the game, but I think it's worse to bail out a club who can't seem to do anything right. Even we had no money we still drafted well and fought to win on the field. Same with the Dogs, Saints and Port. You guys deliberately lost games, drafted spuds, delisted senior players, traded for poor replacements, and generally have done nothing right. I'd go as far to say* that Melbourne have deliberately acted in bad faith (or have been so incredibly stupid), and I think there has to be some type of moral hazard. For your club and some supporters to come out and say "We're so bad, we need assistance and the draft needs to be compromised to do so. We ****ed up the normal mechanisms which every other club has exploited to rebuild, and we need special assistance" is basically sickening.

 

[Monkey King]

Yes, that in-depth "investigation". We had one of those too that resulted in no case to answer, prior to the ACTUAL investigation that went beyond a shuffling of papers.

I don't think you understand how investigations work. They progress to a certain point where all the evidence uncovered either warrants further investigation or doesn't. In Melbourne's case, at the second dip, the evidence surely warranted further investigation. Carlton had two dips as well, but no evidence was uncovered to warrant further investigation. This is not an astounding concept.

Claiming that Carlton weren't investigated is just a flat out lie. I don't know why some posters want to believe their own lies, but don't get huffed when others don't join in. I see a lot of this, with some posters have written in stone a story of what happened and then get offended that other don't automatically accept their truth.

I love the Carlton tank deniers. Just face up to the fact that it was common practice for many years ...

For many years huh? And you ask if I'm serious

I love the way you say "face up to the fact" ... which actually means "please FFS just agree with my stupid story". Well sorry. I don't agree with your story. Perhaps in that final year - 2007 - Carlton may have not tried to win that last game. I can see that. Hell, as a supporter, I didn't want them to win that last game either.

But claiming Carlton tanked for years is one of the most stupid and concocted stories I've ever heard. That Carlton list was far far worse than yours is now and you're here crying for priority picks. Pagan had his reputation left in tatters and became a real estate agent, playing careers were ended ... and you think they did all this for some altruism for Carlton???

I get Dees fans are cut and want to drag other clubs into the same boat, but come off it!!!

 

[Sprout]

Monkey King - It doesn't really work playing the condescending card when you have misinterpreted my main points.

I understand how the investigation worked. Melbourne's initial "investigation" resulted in the same outcome as yours - bubkus. It is not what prompted the official investigation with the interviewing of everyone from the CEO to the cleaner, checking of all paper and electronic records etc. There was a guy called Brock McLean, you might know him, who started that bigger ball rolling. To claim that one investigation led to another is misrepresenting what happened.

Secondly, I did not state that Carlton had been doing it for years. I stated that the practice itself of teams bottoming out has been a practice for years. Whether it was one single game as you've alluded to, or a series of games, or an entire season, it's still tanking.

 

[Sprout]

I do think it's bad for the game, but I think it's worse to bail out a club who can't seem to do anything right. Even we had no money we still drafted well and fought to win on the field. Same with the Dogs, Saints and Port. You guys deliberately lost games, drafted spuds, delisted senior players, traded for poor replacements, and generally have done nothing right. I'd go as far to say* that Melbourne have deliberately acted in bad faith (or have been so incredibly stupid), and I think there has to be some type of moral hazard. For your club and some supporters to come out and say "We're so bad, we need assistance and the draft needs to be compromised to do so. We screwed up the normal mechanisms which every other club has exploited to rebuild, and we need special assistance" is basically sickening.

Jesus christ..

The rule is in place. I am merely assessing Melbourne's eligibility under the rule, and I think there's now a strong case that no other team can rival, at least not yet. I've stated this several times, I can't be any more clear. I don't take any pleasure in the club being in this situation.

The draft doesn't necessarily need to be compromised either. I'm sure they would be looking at options to appease the opposition masses.

 

[thebeedee]

Its not 0 but apart from that

Laurence Angwin (7) in 2000 and John Meesen (8)in 2004 - What stellar draft choices

 

[Monkey King]

To claim that one investigation led to another is misrepresenting what happened.

No. I can assure you that if the AFL had come back to Melbourne after McLean's comments and found nothing, there wouldn't have been any further investigation. But they did find something. They got statements from a few people and had leads to follow; hence the investigation grew and grew.

At Carlton, we were investigated after Libba's comments, but that's all they found; Libba's vibe. They spoke to the coach, players, admin, other assistant coaches; and unlike with McLean, notta one of them corroborated Libba's story - and Libba didn't even have a story, all he had was a vibe. Unlike at the Dees, there was simply nothing that warranted a deeper investigation.

So stop complaining that you were investigated and someone else wasn't. It's not even true.

Secondly, I did not state that Carlton had been doing it for years ...

It certainly read that way. But good. I'm glad you didn't. Plenty of nuffs do though.

Whether it was one single game as you've alluded to, or a series of games, or an entire season, it's still tanking.

I don't agree with this. It's like saying saying stealing a snickers from a milkbar, or stealing millions in a Ponzi scheme, it's still theft; ergo, the same thing. Nah, there's always degrees in life and the degree to which one bends is significant. For example, plenty of clubs cheated the salary cap ... we can simply say "it's all just cheating the cap", but when it comes to Carlton, who does that? I mean really?

Secondly, and most importantly for me, I think not trying to win a game is different to trying to lose a game. It's a big distinction. I have no doubt the motivation to win for Carlton was at an all-time low in that last game - as it was for supporters too - but that doesn't mean you're trying to lose. Have a talk to Gavin Crossica at some stage if you can about what happened down at Carlton.

 

[Sprout]

You are deadset delusional on the investigation front mate. There was an investigation into 2009 PRIOR TO McLean's comments, similar to the one Carlton went through - for appearances only. Carlton escaped without an investigation of any real merit.

But believe what you like. You got investigated fully and you didn't tank. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I really couldn't care less.

 

[Sprout]

I also never complained you weren't investigated, that was someone else.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Jesus christ..

The rule is in place. I am merely assessing Melbourne's eligibility under the rule, and I think there's now a strong case that no other team can rival, at least not yet. I've stated this several times, I can't be any more clear. I don't take any pleasure in the club being in this situation.

The draft doesn't necessarily need to be compromised either. I'm sure they would be looking at options to appease the opposition masses.

Your own CEO has already intimated that it would be wasted at this point in time.

 

[Sprout]

I have no interest in continuing a tanking debate, that bird has flown. The last thing I would say is If you believe not trying to win a game is different to trying to lose a game, why are you pointing a finger at Melbourne but not at yourselves? I doubt many would see a difference between the Kreuzer Cup and the Richmond game in 2009, and the only ones that would are people with an agenda to defend their own club's actions. I also appreciate there are degrees, of course there is, but defending it on the grounds it was just one game is still dodgy reasoning.

 

[*PAF]

Laurence Angwin (7) in 2000 and John Meesen (8)in 2004 - What stellar draft choices

Plus picks you traded that would have been in their prime today.

 

[Monkey King]

You are deadset delusional on the investigation front mate. There was an investigation into 2009 PRIOR TO McLean's comments, similar to the one Carlton went through - for appearances only.

No buddy. You're the delusional one here. Carlton were looked at twice. Neither time was there any evidence uncovered to warrant further investigation. Melbourne were looked at twice, the second time there was evidence found to warrant further investigation.

What you suggest, is that the AFL should go in as hard at Carlton as they did Melbourne, despite finding no preliminary evidence to warrant it. Well why not just raid everyone's offices like they did Adelaide for the **** of it then; just because they've got third party deals in place too?

You see, you need to find evidence of some wrongdoing before pursuing this kind of thing. At Carlton, all there is, is loose innuendo from Libba and his vibe. At Melbourne, people started to squeak about actual footy department meetings where tanking was discussed. If you can't see the difference in these two situations and why one investigation would escalate and the other not, that's your problem, but to call others delusional for having a better take on it than you is a bit rich.

 

[Monkey King]

The last thing I would say is If you believe not trying to win a game is different to trying to lose a game, why are you pointing a finger at Melbourne but not at yourselves?

Who pointed a finger? I came in here to talk about priority picks, as per the thread title, and in response, a band of nuff nuffs started talking about Carlton and tanking.

 

[Suma Magic]

I'd be ok with an end of fourth round PP.

 

[Beasley]

Every time Melbourne gets another priority pick means that my team, the Western Bulldogs, get pushed down the draft order and misses the next best player that they are entitled to get. Furthermore, the Demons supporters dont deserve any more AFL assistance than the Doggies as their club has enjoyed far more success that us. Melbourne has won many more premierships that the Bulldogs (12 to 1) and have appeared in four Grand Finals since the Bulldogs had their last appearance on GF Day in 1961!

No support from Bulldogs fans for Melbourne to get a leg up at our expense. We also want to see success!

 

[Forward Press]

As much as we love the tanking debate, I'd rather we focus on the topic at hand and lay off the abuse and trolling.

Thanks.

 

[yakka man]

It's disgraceful that the AFL is even considering handing Melbourne another priority pick. All clubs should threaten to walk if they get it.

Going into the 2014 season they could have picks 1,3 and Jesse Hogan who is basically a number 1 pick himself. At what point do we start calling the Demons an expansion club?

Pathetic club.

 

[_M_16_]

If the AFL hand Melbourne, all of those in charge at the AFL should resign. They way they have handled many affairs in recent years shows lack of leadership and intelligence.

Melbourne has been poorly managed for years, not just a couple of bad years like all clubs go through with draft picks etc. But many years, and they should not get rewarded for that. At this stage it looks like teams such as St.Kilda and the Western Bulldogs could struggle for years. Both teams desperately need a key forward and have some small chance of landing one in this draft, via a trade with GWS. If the AFL hand Melbourne a feebie at the top, it is essentially saying here, take Boyd, stuff the other clubs, lets reward you with the best young player for being poorly managed, yet some clubs are just struggling with the rebuilding phase and compromised drafts, not so much poor management, and get nothing. Doesn't seem right to me. Yes I am all for clubs being helped when down and out in a big hole, but not rewarded.

 

[Bring-Back-Powell]

Jon Ralph from the Herald Sun and SEN radio has just announced that Melbourne could very well receive a priority pick in the form of pick 1. They will also have picks 3, 19 and will have Jesse Hogan elevated to the senior list.

 

[Dazb86]

Get ****ed.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

As a sidenote, I do think that having uncompetitive teams, and by that I mean uncompetitive over an extended period, is bad for the game. You don't?

Certainly looks like many opposition supporters don't think that's bad for the game at all mate. .

In fact, some now think the concept of league equalisation should be reversed, and only clubs who pass a certain standard of competitiveness should receive a priority pick

The bit about how clubs other than the Bulldogs shouldn't be able to be assisted in such a way unless they hadn't won a Premiership for 60 years or more, or not made a Grand Final in more than 13 years, was also rollicking good fun.

You guys deliberately lost games

Been waiting for evidence on this claim for four years now.

It's disgraceful that the AFL is even considering handing Melbourne another priority pick. All clubs should threaten to walk if they get it.

Seriously pissed myself laughing when I read this

 

[I am Jack]

If Priority Picks still exist in the AFL, then MFC will get one.
There is no doubt about this, no doubt at all, that is what Priority Picks are designed to do.
Does the system work? Probably not, certainly doesn't appear to for Melbourne.
But, if MFC do not qualify for a PP, then the system simply does not exist.
Because, if it does, the Dee's more than qualify - they are rubbish.

 

[Dazb86]

If Priority Picks still exist in the AFL, then MFC will get one.
There is no doubt about this, no doubt at all, that is what Priority Picks are designed to do.
Does the system work? Probably not, certainly doesn't appear to for Melbourne.
But, if MFC do not qualify for a PP, then the system simply does not exist.
Because, if it does, the Dee's more than qualify - they are rubbish.

Pick 1 though? That's utter bullshit and potentially puts back the rebuild of other struggling clubs. Especially after GWS and GC r*ped the league for early draft talent the last few years.

I could care less if they get a pick at the end of the first round. Chances are they'll pick up a good player at that range given they'll get two cracks at it. It also gives them the chance to trade it to another club for a player.

Not having high draft picks has never been Melbournes problem. It's developing them that is the issue.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

^ As far as that last line, well, yeah, that's what I've been saying for years now.

If Priority Picks still exist in the AFL, then MFC will get one. There is no doubt about this, no doubt at all, that is what Priority Picks are designed to do.

Does the system work? Probably not, certainly doesn't appear to for Melbourne. But, if MFC do not qualify for a PP, then the system simply does not exist. Because, if it does, the Dee's more than qualify - they are rubbish.

That definitely sums things up more than well enough.

Utterly ludicrous for anyone to say we don't qualify for one.

I don't greatly care whether or not we do - it'd likely help us in trading for an established midfielder though.

And it'd certainly mean a lavish supply of lulz for us around here during off-season.

 

[RUNVS]

If Melbourne were to get a priority pick I would want that pick to be pick 7. That way none of the clubs that really need a high pick will be disadvantaged by the priority pick and Melbourne will still get the extra high draft pick they need.