Port have never qualified for an early priority pick, under any of the systems. {Pre-06 one <5 wins = PP; 06-09 two years of <5 wins = PP}.
Perhaps that has a bit to do with it?
Read the rules, and stop your whinging.
There's only one embarrassing person here, and they're very, very embarrassing - they're coming across as a pathetic beggar with tears running down their cheeks.
Can you guess who that is?
3 wins last year would have qualified us under the old system. the same system that has pendlebury,griffen and franklin running around for their sides. it should be obvious i understand the rules. im not even asking for these rules to be extended to us now. i said very clearly no number 1 pp should ever be given out again. ive said that about ten times already.
how is pointing out clear facts whinging?
point out where i have been factually wrong??
i have never asked for port to even be given half of the concessions with pp's other teams have been given in the past. its clear, and this is the funny bit because you are all in agreement with me, that they should never have been given out in the first place.
so posters with players like griffen running around in their side are jumping around screaming that it would be wrong to hand a team priority picks for being shit. lol, the irony.
ill repeat, again.
my suggestion is that priority picks, when they are given be picks after non-finalists have had their picks. making it pick 11 at the earliest but likely later after compo etc. this does not strip other non-finalists of a top pick nor does it strip a top ten draft pick away. it doesnt gift a team an get out of jail free card but does give a struggling team a chance to add what could be a good player. what the hell is wrong with that? its surely better than the old system, and likely to be better than the new one when we eventually find out what it is.
so, when i suggest that the afl is a bunch of morons for ever giving out pick#1's ( which strangely enough most of you seem to agree as long as you still have yours running around for you now),
and they were stupider in the way they removed them where am i wrong?
funny slatts that you would call me embarrassing. your normally a better poster than that.
when i have posted logical suggestions and pointed out facts people have attacked me rather than address my logic. i dont think ive seen a fact disputed. some might disagree with my insinuations of the afl being pro-vic but they are going to cop that when all evidence points to that, even if some of it is just basic timing of it they still leave themselves open to it with alot of poor decisions. the fact dogs r barking attacks my grammar after ive revealed his post to be incorrect in every-way is hilarious.