Melbourne priority pick

[*PAF]

Oh please.

Please what?
Did you or did you not tank?

 

[Final Siren]

It's more like the AFL Demons than the Melbourne Demons now anyway. The AFL appointed the new CEO, the AFL is paying the bills, and the AFL wants a say in who the new coach will be.

Next the AFL will decide whether to award a bonus priority pick, and IMHO this will have a lot more to do with whether the Demons continue to surrender power to the AFL than with how much they need/deserve it.

 

[Hellgood]

Yes,when Richmond were going bad,the AFL did handstands on their desks while passing round fairy bread.

Now the violins come out for Melbourne.

Lol you are ridiculous. Why the **** would the AFL want to see Richmond on their knees? 90% of your posts are beating your chest saying how big a powerhouse Richmond are financially and members wise, which is correct, so why one earth would the AFL want them to die?

 

[LeverPuller]

Please what?
Did you or did you not tank?

Define 'tanking' then we'll talk.

If you throw in the Richmond game, then both the win percentage and the overall percentage go up ever so slightly - the percentage is nearly negligible, while the win percentage still stays under 25%.

If you're suggesting some sort of systemic plot to lose as many games as possible, you're pretty much an idiot.

As for Tigers supporters...I stand corrected. You've been pantsed a couple of times, it seems, mostly by Carlton being rewarded for its post-salary cap terribleness with PPs.

 

[Blue1980]

But melbourne don't need a PP, they got away with three of the best young talents in the last draft - Hogan, Viney and Toumpas. Of there own volition melbourne decided to sacrifice short-term gain by selecting a long-term prospect in Hogan. That's fair enough, but you have to live with the consequences of these decisions.

If north had access to the top end of the draft which their exposed form in 2009 and 2010, indicated they were entitled they would be a substantially bigger premiership threat today. North's talent is well aged in Harvey, Petrie and Wells; and they haven't been afforded the opportunity to top up. The national draft was meant to make success cyclical but one club tanked to get three number one draft picks in a row, providing a protype which melbourne then followed.

To be frank, I think melbourne are fortunate to have any picks in this national draft this year given the punishment Adelaide took last year and what was dealt out to carlton when they lost draft picks.

So we tanked 05 and 06 then sacked the coach r16 of 07 and were tanking the whole time.

You suggesting pagan forgot to tell the board of his grand master plan?

If we tanked that while time you a) live in a fairyland where Morrell, Ben Johnson, wiggins, Livingston, deluca, Bannister etc was somehow capable of greater things

b) that every club which has finished last since the draft era came into existence has tanked.

For the record we tanked late 07 under Ratts when we knew the Judd move was on.

I don't like PPs but thought we may as well take advantage of it while it was there, just like the Dogs, Tigers, hawks, pies, saints, Dees etc did.

We gave for rid of the system now and a side which has already received priority picks in 08,09 and 2003 wants more?!?!

The fact if you finish last gets you the highest pick is already enough advantage.

Also compared to what we had a decade ago, Melbourne has much more young talent.

 

[the harry]

Richmond 1987-1993 had four coaches and a higher avg losing margin, all while the AFL attempted to euthanase us. Crowds of 7K at the MCG weren't fun.

Perhaps a visit to Biffinator's Richmond Information Kiosk is in order. Much of it is regrettably true.

Pretty sure the AFL has come a long way in 20 years and aren't out to kill off clubs. It's bad for the game if teams are uncompetitive.

 

[Beasley]

Geelong - Get pick 13 for ablett
Hawks - Get pick 20 for Buddy (if he leaves)
Melbourne - Get Pick 13 for Scully and another priority pick now.

Something just doesn't seem fair.

Plus, the Bulldogs were completely dudded when we only got 1 compensation pick for losing Callan Ward ... but Melbourne got two picks for Scully.

Scully has provided nowhere near the value to GWS that Ward has. We could certainly do with Ward at our club at the moment because I think the AFL may have forgotten the Dogs are struggling big time too!

 

[Mogwai]

We could certainly do with Ward at our club at the moment because I think the AFL may have forgotten the Dogs are struggling big time too!

I think your bunch is/was pulling through better than Melbourne. Management looks okay and fanbase is still growing strong. Onfield, the Dogs have shown a quite a bit too. 2 picks would have been overkill for Ward at that moment in time, but now it would be arguably justified.

 

[*PAF]

Define 'tanking' then we'll talk.

If you throw in the Richmond game, then both the win percentage and the overall percentage go up ever so slightly - the percentage is nearly negligible, while the win percentage still stays under 25%.

If you're suggesting some sort of systemic plot to lose as many games as possible, you're pretty much an idiot.

As for Tigers supporters...I stand corrected. You've been pantsed a couple of times, it seems, mostly by Carlton being rewarded for its post-salary cap terribleness with PPs.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...runt-of-afl-tanking-probe-20130219-2eox1.html
Bailey was punished for decisions related to resting players and playing them out of position, but the AFL accepted he coached to the best of his ability on game day.
Connolly was found to have put pressure on Bailey to make those decisions during the infamous meeting revealed in the Age last year dubbed ‘the vault’.
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...runt-of-afl-tanking-probe-20130219-2eox1.html

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/confession-has-bailey-out-for-16-rounds-20130219-2epmi.html

 

[LouisCK]

p.s. I think the Demons will actually finish the season strongly enough that nobody even discusses a PP at years end.

 

[LeverPuller]

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...runt-of-afl-tanking-probe-20130219-2eox1.html
Bailey was punished for decisions related to resting players and playing them out of position, but the AFL accepted he coached to the best of his ability on game day.
Connolly was found to have put pressure on Bailey to make those decisions during the infamous meeting revealed in the Age last year dubbed ‘the vault’.
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...runt-of-afl-tanking-probe-20130219-2eox1.html

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/confession-has-bailey-out-for-16-rounds-20130219-2epmi.html

So tell me, apart from the Richmond game, what other games could be considered to be 'tanked'? I'm more than happy to adjust if you can show me that Melbourne would have won a game that it ended up losing. Funny that I can't find any.

 

[Blue1980]

Lol you are ridiculous. Why the **** would the AFL want to see Richmond on their knees? 90% of your posts are beating your chest saying how big a powerhouse Richmond are financially and members wise, which is correct, so why one earth would the AFL want them to die?

That era is the afl under Oakley is a million miles away from what it is now. There were $6 million dollar packages with any clubs who wanted to merge, Oakley and Graeme Samuel repeatedly talked non stop for about 5-6 years the Melbourne clubs had to merge to reduce the number of teams to at least 8 in Melbourne or 6, or 4 even got mooted.

In that period the only clubs which weren't rumoured to merge (Carlton had Elliot trying to organise takeovers), were Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton and Geelong.

The AFL were fapping over Hawthorn and Melbourne merging, other possible scenarios were the Melbourne Tigers, north Melbourne Lions etc.

It seems like about 3000 years ago, but that was the reality from the late 80s until 96 (when the hawthorn fans killed merger talk forever and a day, and amen to that).

 

[LouisCK]

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...runt-of-afl-tanking-probe-20130219-2eox1.html
Bailey was punished for decisions related to resting players and playing them out of position, but the AFL accepted he coached to the best of his ability on game day.
Connolly was found to have put pressure on Bailey to make those decisions during the infamous meeting revealed in the Age last year dubbed ‘the vault’.
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...runt-of-afl-tanking-probe-20130219-2eox1.html

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/confession-has-bailey-out-for-16-rounds-20130219-2epmi.html

The Bailey comment clearly absolves him of tanking.

And the tanking rule only applies to coaches and players, hence Connolly didn't tank.

But it was dodgy behaviour from both of them, and whilst not a textbook case of tanking, needed to be punished.

I think most people would agree with that.

 

[Blue1980]

So tell me, apart from the Richmond game, what other games could be considered to be 'tanked'? I'm more than happy to adjust if you can show me that Melbourne would have won a game that it ended up losing. Funny that I can't find any.

Heaps of changes against Sydney which had a gloating official talk about how they couldn't win.

 

[Blue1980]

The Bailey comment clearly absolves him of tanking.

And the tanking rule only applies to coaches and players, hence Connolly didn't tank.

But it was dodgy behaviour from both of them, and whilst not a textbook case of tanking, needed to be punished.

I think most people would agree with that.

One thing we can all agree in is Connolly was terrible at his job.

Connolly and Schwab's theory on football:

Hawthorn for priority picks 2 years in a row and won a flag, if we do the same we just sit back and watch the flags roll in!

 

[*PAF]

So tell me, apart from the Richmond game, what other games could be considered to be 'tanked'? I'm more than happy to adjust if you can show me that Melbourne would have won a game that it ended up losing. Funny that I can't find any.

You want me to prove you tanked? I cannot. You have former players on record saying things along those lines as well as an ex coach saying he did what was expected of him but to prove you tanked? Bit hard hey? According to the AFL tanking has never existed.
Now are you saying that the only game (or games) in question was after your loss to Port?

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/confession-has-bailey-out-for-16-rounds-20130219-2epmi.html#ixzz2X7pm4ACz
But he insisted to league investigators that he had only maintained the Demons' developmental ethos in a year when the club won only four matches and qualified for what it thought would be a prized priority pick. The Demons had even made it clear they were working on ''long-term interests'' in their 2008 annual report.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/confession-has-bailey-out-for-16-rounds-20130219-2epmi.html#ixzz2X7pm4ACz


I know, I can guess your reply: Where is the proof?
Did I guess it right?

My opinion? Tankers do not deserve priority picks.

 

[melbournemartin]

Geelong - Get pick 13 for ablett
Hawks - Get pick 20 for Buddy (if he leaves)
Melbourne - Get Pick 13 for Scully and another priority pick now.

Something just doesn't seem fair.

Two points here:

1) Whatever priority pick we may or may not be given now is completely independent to the Scully compensation
2) When Geelong and Hawthorn lost/may lose these players they gained significant salary cap room as they were already paying Ablett and Franklin a lot of money (of course less than GC/GWS though). Scully wouldn't have been on a lot at Melbourne before leaving. Some people would argue that salary cap space is more valuable than the compensation picks

 

[*PAF]

Two points here:

1) Whatever priority pick we may or may not be given now is completely independent to the Scully compensation
2) When Geelong and Hawthorn lost/may lose these players they gained significant salary cap room as they were already paying Ablett and Franklin a lot of money (of course less than GC/GWS though). Scully wouldn't have been on a lot at Melbourne before leaving. Some people would argue that salary cap space is more valuable than the compensation picks

Geesh, Geelong should have thanked GCS for taking Ablett off their hands hey?

 

[melbournemartin]

Geesh, Geelong should have thanked GCS for taking Ablett off their hands hey?

Well I don't mean to resort to the "they do this in America" argument but they do not have free agency compensation in basketball, I think not in football (but could be wrong) and only have it in hockey when the player is a restricted free agent. These sports realise that the freed salary cap space is a huge bonus.

Now that player movement has increased, Hawthorn will be well aware that if they lose Franklin they will have space to target a gun player, maybe in this years FA or the next (which is supposedly much stronger)

 

[Freomaniac]

Personally I dont think Melbourne or even Deserve a Priority pick and here is why...

-They have one of the youngest squads in the AFL, how many kids does melbourne actually need?

-They need to recruit the right experienced players in the Free Agency on the 26-30 year age bracket on a 2-3 year deals while the kids are developing.

-If Melbourne do get a Priority pick, then Port Adelaide Power fans have the right to complain after all the pain they went through.

-Port Adelaide did not have multiple Priority picks to revive itself, they got a new coach, new fitness coach, new CEO and new Football department.

 

[I am Jack]

Melbourne have applied for 2 priority picks after their first round pick.
Which would mean, they'll get picks 2,3 and 4.
They are waiting for this to be ticked off by the AFL.

Being rich in heritage, no doubt the AFL will want their founding club back strong.
So, I'd expect this will be ticked off reasonably soon.

 

[*PAF]

Well I don't mean to resort to the "they do this in America" argument but they do not have free agency compensation in basketball, I think not in football (but could be wrong) and only have it in hockey when the player is a restricted free agent. These sports realise that the freed salary cap space is a huge bonus.

Now that player movement has increased, Hawthorn will be well aware that if they lose Franklin they will have space to target a gun player, maybe in this years FA or the next (which is supposedly much stronger)

Yeah but that has nothing to do with it.
The debate was that Melbourne got better compensation for losing Scully than Geelong did for losing Ablett because Geelong got to free up some salary cap space. LMFAO

 

[*PAF]

Melbourne have applied for 2 priority picks after their first round pick.
Which would mean, they'll get picks 2,3 and 4.
They are waiting for this to be ticked off by the AFL.

Being rich in heritage, no doubt the AFL will want their founding club back strong.
So, I'd expect this will be ticked off reasonably soon.

In that case we can also expect many people to be ticked off as well.

 

[the harry]

Melbourne have applied for 2 priority picks after their first round pick.
Which would mean, they'll get picks 2,3 and 4.
They are waiting for this to be ticked off by the AFL.

Being rich in heritage, no doubt the AFL will want their founding club back strong.
So, I'd expect this will be ticked off reasonably soon.

Completely unprecedented and unbelievable.

 

[Blueyboy74]

Since the AFL has decided the CEO, President & Coach were all somewhat incompetent (and it's hard to argue otherwise), let's see what fruit the new regime bear in the next 18 months before giving them even more gilt-edged picks.

They will survive given the television rights - it will just take a little longer - and so it should since they brought it all upon themselves.

In an 18 team comp there will always be some non-competitive sides. I don't know why EVERY team has to be compeitive at the same time. In fact, I don't even know if it's possible. The Socialist AFL will try and engineer it nonetheless (unless you are Sydney or an expansion team where you get the 'better than competitive' AFL Package ..)