You know the definition of a loophole right? It's something not originally obvious that allows a shortcut. As said.Well then you didn't pay attention at the time. That was the deal.
First article i could find, from 2010:
http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2010-04-06/roos-welcomes-new-academy
- First call on their services
- Bidding system
Both of those processes will remain. It's just the matching of the bid which should change from a pick 10+ picks later at the top of the draft to something fairer. And if we change the father son as well then it will still be a bidding system similar to father son.
Sydney at various times over the years have either complained about or gladly accepted advantages for:Bingo. There is our difference. Hence, I'm looking forward to Melb, Coll or Hawthorn to setup a frontier academy, spend big dollars to develop kids from 12 years old and not get any advantage in securing them. In your eyes, it damn branding exercise. If you believe that's the incentive, I've got a bridge to sell you. Staggering.
- Cost of living and retention of players
- Small percentage of local based players on their list
- Inability to convince compete with Leagues ability to sign local players and offer them a pathway
- Poor standard of the state league
- Inability to bottom out and rebuild due to importance
- GWS stepping on their turf
All of those things can be corrected or alleviated with the academy system. If that's just a branding issue then you're the one looking for the bridge.
And we aren't hearing any proposal from the AFL and it's not coming from me that we change anything but the way high draft pick bids are matched fairly. So all the player related incentives are still there. So you can draft Brandon Jacks and Abe Lincolns or whatever his name is all day long. Just when you get a Heeney you pay up. That's all most of us are asking.