Kangaroos Tasmanian Academy

[worthy]

"... Heeney reaffirmed his view he would most likely be playing rugby league if not for the opportunity presented to him by the academy.

Chris Smith, the operations manager of the Swans' Academy, has little interest in most of the criticism from elsewhere.

"A lot of the commentary, I don't give it too much consideration, because you start to realise they don't understand the circumstances," Smith said.

"It's a bit like me commenting on something that's happening in Adelaide or WA – I'm not totally up to speed.

"But a lot of the commentary gives no regard to the environment that we're in.

"I don't take it too seriously to be honest.

"We want our boys to be given opportunities across Australia because traditionally they haven't.

"And rightly so, they probably weren't up to scratch. But if we can get them up to scratch and other clubs want them, so be it."


see http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-06/academy-is-fair-swans

Smith feels the evidence is clear that the Academy is doing a good job developing talent – and not just for the Swans' benefit

Lol, who else is benefitting from the top end talent from the academy ?

Also, no-one, repeat no-one thinks the academies are a bad idea, they are fantastic, but they should be run by the AFL with the players made available to all clubs through the draft.

The AFL are fools and Sydney are reaping the advantage.

 

[madmug]

Great Post - after a lot of rubbish in this tread.

Benefits of an Academy are greatly exaggerated. How is junior footy in Tassie? For the population I think they produce a lot of players so nothing like the situation in NSW and Queensland, and therefore no justification for an Academy.

I think Tasmania has gotten quite good returns on its money from supporting the AFL but could probably pay less if they bargained harder. The Hawthorn sponsorship has worked for them and Hobart got a lot of visitors out of the North games although I wonder if the Government were just producing rubbish to support their decisions.

For North, playing non Victorian teams in Hobart would make sense even if those games broke even as it would stop you losing money at Etihad. (Note that the Swans got a very good crowd at the SCG this year playing Port so if the interstate teams are playing well supporters will turn up.)

The Tasmanian Government is probably going to want to split the money more evenly between Launceston and Hobart next deal but that Tasmania emblem on the front of the last two season's Premiers is great marketing. The AFL will be reluctant to trash a sponsor so I can not see them putting pressure on Hawthorn to drop the games and sponsorship. Selling games has worked well for Hawthorn but three or four is probably the limit as you note with the fracturing of support. All this suggests that the four games in Launceston to Hawthorn and three to North in Hobart is a good model and what I'd expect to continue unless there is another round of expansion.

Their is a lot said about the 'value' or otherwise of paying so much for games at Aurora.

As far as having games at both Aurora & at Bellerive is that it would be silly for the AFL to continue to have two different clubs playing in Tasmania. It is a dumb move & a poor look by the AFL to allow it to happen & to continue.

So often people say that Tassie people needs to work together to get an AFL team of our own. Well what do you do when its the politicians & AFL who gave us 2 AFL teams & cause the very division they complain about!!!.

I mean how stupid is that!!

 

[Kummerspeck]

The AFL are fools

Not really. They clearly believed that a) athletes in NSW and QLD were more likely to take up the sport and b) that the previous attempts to generate talent out of the two states weren't successful and that it would be better to have academies set up and run by the local teams. Given the draft numbers from the states have improved since the academies came in and they're producing players for other teams as well, you can't argue with the effectiveness of it. As for the advantage, yep, it's there. It's a small one at absolute best though.

 

[Colonial]

Lol, who else is benefitting from the top end talent from the academy ?

Also, no-one, repeat no-one thinks the academies are a bad idea, they are fantastic, but they should be run by the AFL with the players made available to all clubs through the draft.

The AFL are fools and Sydney are reaping the advantage.

As has been said. The afl have tried this, it didnt work then. Most people would be happy if they did. But they dont want to. As an alternative this is completely fair and reasonable when ballanced against the traditional states domination in junior numbers

 

[AstonSouffle]

How much of a slap in the face to the Hawks would it be after they have put 15 years into Tas, and have gained good local support with much of that still growing through junior footy with a big stake in junior support, yes, i'm involved in junior footy and see the level of support the Hawks have.
I would not support Hawthorn increasing their games commitment in Tassie.
If any club should be offered an academy in Tas it should be the Hawks, that said, academies are a shocking rort, and a huge advantage, but if the AFL offer one, I say hell yeah.

Look, everyone banging about it's massive advantage. Don't we have to see if it's causing this 'advantage'. As it stands we've got one club in Sydney who has got Heeney and the academies have been around for longer than a year. Who mind you hasn't even played a game.

I think anyone who considers it a good idea to douse situations in hyperbole, need to step back and see if that is actually the situation. Since the situation right now is that there is no situation, we have no proof that the academies will cause domination. Possibly it will just level out? Round 1 draft picks came out of these states this year and it wasn't Sydney that just benefited. Freo did as well, so I'm inclined to believe raising overall quality across the board is better for the competition in general.

Getting more numbers up from Tassie will improve the size of the pool and allow the other clubs to select for mainland(heartland) talent. Which means I've not entirely against Saints getting NZ one in the future, or a club being punted to Darwin for the same deal.

 

[worthy]

Not really. They clearly believed that a) athletes in NSW and QLD were more likely to take up the sport and b) that the previous attempts to generate talent out of the two states weren't successful and that it would be better to have academies set up and run by the local teams. Given the draft numbers from the states have improved since the academies came in and they're producing players for other teams as well, you can't argue with the effectiveness of it. As for the advantage, yep, it's there. It's a small one at absolute best though.

The ability to draft someone that many believe to be the best pure mid in the draft is not "a small one at absolute best".
It will be the same next year when Sydney draft another equally rated.
As I said, the academies are great, but if the afl can't run them, then they should fund them and make all players available to all clubs.

"General Giant, post: 36308656, member: 130535"]As has been said. The afl have tried this, it didnt work then. Most people would be happy if they did.

Did the AFL set up an academy that failed ? or did they implement some half arsed system?

But they dont want to. As an alternative this is completely fair and reasonable when ballanced against the traditional states domination in junior numbers

I honestly don't understand how you can believe that

 

[Tas]

Great Post - after a lot of rubbish in this tread.

Benefits of an Academy are greatly exaggerated. How is junior footy in Tassie? For the population I think they produce a lot of players so nothing like the situation in NSW and Queensland, and therefore no justification for an Academy.

The kid in your avatar would have likely gone top 5 and Sydney picked him up with pick 18. You just have to try and imagine what it would have cost the Swans to acquire a top 5 pick. Granted, you are not always going to get those scenarios, however, draft is meant to be a balancing mechanism and there is something wrong if you get a top 5 talent with pick 18.

AFL are looking to overhaul the system next year. Not sure if the changes will achieve anything or not.

I am not against academies, the TAC system produces a lot of footballers in Victoria, but I think they are something that should be handled by the AFL, those TAC team get paid money for each footballer drafted, so the 'football' factories get a lot of additional resources for producing AFL grade players, and they have tweaked the system to ensure there are some standouts rather than create a good level playing field. Academies do not have such limitations and academies run by clubs can focus the development on talent to suit their individual need rather than do what is best for the competition.

It is just more ideal that talent development is at arms length from clubs. I think Tasmania produces a good number of footballers for their size, they had 3 in the draft this year, however, their state based system is an inferior pathway to the AFL than what is available in Vic, SA or WA. Tasmanian players often have to leave Tasmania to get exposure somewhere else. For us, Grima had to play SANFL and Brown had to come play in the VFL to get exposure. I think an academy would help Tasmania, but again, I don't think a club should get first dibs on the talent.

I think Tasmania has gotten quite good returns on its money from supporting the AFL but could probably pay less if they bargained harder. The Hawthorn sponsorship has worked for them and Hobart got a lot of visitors out of the North games although I wonder if the Government were just producing rubbish to support their decisions.

It isn't the government, the world's leading market analysts have said North have produced $20 in business activity for Hobart for every $1 they have spent, I think a significant factor in having Victorian teams play in Tasmania is they bring a lot of mainlanders to Tasmania, a lot of people do surprisingly take a vacation when games are on and spend a weekend in Tassie being either the home or away team, there were a lot of Swans supporter who went to Tassie last year.

However, there would be diminishing returns, once the novelty wears off, Hawks who tend to bring the same teams and weaker teams to Launceston have seen a decline in attendances. Once Tasmania essentially has their own team be it co-location, relocation or their own team, the tourist side of the business will decline or disappear entirely, this puts in jeopardy the vast majority of current funding.

Ultimately, playing footy in Tasmania should be about giving access of AFL footy to Tasmanian, not to bring them in tourists to fill grounds. For Hawthorn and for North it is purely a business venture. Hobart wouldn't have got the funding to redevelop the stadium if we didn't play there, we share the revenue we generate with Cricket Tasmania and Football Tasmania, so there are a lot of winner from our current arrangement.

While I think it is fine they want their own team, the current metrics wont apply to their own team, the money the government pays is based on the expectation that it will draw in a lot of visitors, a Tasmanian team for Tasmanians is not going to do that so the scope for the current funding arrangement will not exist.

For North, playing non Victorian teams in Hobart would make sense even if those games broke even as it would stop you losing money at Etihad. (Note that the Swans got a very good crowd at the SCG this year playing Port so if the interstate teams are playing well supporters will turn up.)

Other than Hawthorn, Richmond and St Kilda have strong followings in Tasmania (it was why Richmond was the one who wanted to play in Hobart but the AFL refused), we are playing both teams in Hobart next year so we are not just moving games we do not want to play in Melbourne, there are interstate teams we will be playing there but we have generally played good interstate teams there.

The Tasmanian Government is probably going to want to split the money more evenly between Launceston and Hobart next deal but that Tasmania emblem on the front of the last two season's Premiers is great marketing. The AFL will be reluctant to trash a sponsor so I can not see them putting pressure on Hawthorn to drop the games and sponsorship. Selling games has worked well for Hawthorn but three or four is probably the limit as you note with the fracturing of support. All this suggests that the four games in Launceston to Hawthorn and three to North in Hobart is a good model and what I'd expect to continue unless there is another round of expansion.

I think if it was left to Tasmania, Hawthorn and North we would come to a good arrangement, however, the AFL have said there will be no Tasmanian games unless the deals go through the AFL, and they ideally want one team to be involved in Tasmania and they do not want that team distracted by a tertiary market. The AFL want North and South to become united, because ultimately, if they are going to end up with their own team in the future, they have to be united.

I just can't see any team agreeing to play a huge number of games there, if it is short-term with an exit strategy then the potential risk to your primary market would result in a massive risk to the club, while we have a lot of members, most have been conditioned to not going to games and watching on Fox typical of rugby clubs, moving almost all games would exacerbate the problem.

Also, if you have an exit strategy then ultimately, you are spending time and an opportunity cost developing a market you are not going to enjoy the fruits of your labour. That is problematic, especially if you intend to eventually go back to a very competitive market, it would be very problematic.

In reality, the AFL ultimately would have the expectation that the large number of games from one club would eventually become permanent and their supporter based locally would decline the longer the arrangement went on. The AFL would prefer that they were not dependant on Victorian broadcasting revenue, moving teams out of Victoria and losing viewer numbers in Victoria would only be viable if NSW and QLD games would eventually move to the primary channel and would demand a lot more revenue than they currently generate. Otherwise the AFL is going to lose a lot of money from the outcome.

Tasmanian ratings are not the primary interest for advertisers, NSW and Victoria are the biggest advertising markets, followed by QLD and WA/SA are secondary, there is no scope for significant improvement in ratings from Tasmania as it is already a Football state. In terms of expansion and market share, it would be far more lucrative long-term for the AFL to focus on regions which had significant population growth, however, politically speaking, Tasmania would remain a thorn in their arse if their presence remained missing from a national competition.

I think the AFL could live with a co-location model if it was the best option and most feasible logistically and financially. It may not be what Tasmanians would prefer, however, the prospect of generating a $40-50m annual turnover without significant long-term government funding from a fairly small population base and state which isn't particularly wealthy is I would imagine an extremely difficult thing to achieve.

I am just not sure there are many interested in putting their heads in that noose. Sadly, I think our president is one who has a delusional opinion on the merits of co-location, and it is only because of that which makes our club vulnerable. However, I think ifwe are particularly strong on-field over the next couple of years it would inflate numbers and off-field performance due to bandwagon support to make it extremely unlikely that he would be able to sell it even to a loyal board.

 

[Kummerspeck]

As I said, the academies are great, but if the afl can't run them, then they should fund them and make all players available to all clubs.

So instead of providing the staff, facilities and funding, the Northern clubs just provide the facilities and staff? Pass. Getting a good kid for a 12 pick discount and then being removed from the draft for all but one pick is a small advantage.

 

[MickyG]

The kid in your avatar would have likely gone top 5 and Sydney picked him up with pick 18. You just have to try and imagine what it would have cost the Swans to acquire a top 5 pick. Granted, you are not always going to get those scenarios, however, draft is meant to be a balancing mechanism and there is something wrong if you get a top 5 talent with pick 18.

AFL are looking to overhaul the system next year. Not sure if the changes will achieve anything or not.

I am not against academies, the TAC system produces a lot of footballers in Victoria, but I think they are something that should be handled by the AFL, those TAC team get paid money for each footballer drafted, so the 'football' factories get a lot of additional resources for producing AFL grade players, and they have tweaked the system to ensure there are some standouts rather than create a good level playing field. Academies do not have such limitations and academies run by clubs can focus the development on talent to suit their individual need rather than do what is best for the competition.

It is just more ideal that talent development is at arms length from clubs. I think Tasmania produces a good number of footballers for their size, they had 3 in the draft this year, however, their state based system is an inferior pathway to the AFL than what is available in Vic, SA or WA. Tasmanian players often have to leave Tasmania to get exposure somewhere else. For us, Grima had to play SANFL and Brown had to come play in the VFL to get exposure. I think an academy would help Tasmania, but again, I don't think a club should get first dibs on the talent.

I've previously written:
The problem is that most Vic, SA and WA based people don't understand that junior ALF in NSW and Qld is way behind that in the AFL states. Therefore the quality and quantity of players available in the draft from NSW and Qld is poor. I apologise if this is insulting to your intelligence but some of the posters on here are insulting ours by their ignorance or choosing to ignore that simple fact.

This year the Swans have benefited from getting one player 'cheap' but then paying overs for another. Overall the Swans have been winners from that but this is not going to happen every year.

In my opinion when 4 of the first 18 players drafted are coming from NSW and Qld for a few years then you get rid of the Academy bidding system. In the meantime I think they will introduce some other system where players are graded and other picks or next years picks get combined or moved later to balance any perceived unfairness.

Here's a few points:

• It's probably too late now (and unfair) for the AFL to change the Academies.
• It is better for the Academies to have a state based brand rather than a national one so Swans or Suns Academy is more meaningful than AFL Academy.
• The Academies draw on the resources of the clubs including players, coaching staff, management, contacts and sponsors. It is therefore cheaper and easier than if the AFL were to try and recreate that. Consider the money QBE had pumped in over the last five years and how would they feel about it suddenly being the Toyota AFL Academy. How much can the AFL get out of Toyota to replace the money being put in by QBE and the other clubs' sponsors?

You can argue over all of those but in total I think it means what has been created will not get changed too much.

This probably suggests what would need to happen if they go with a Tassie Academy, put some limits around how long or maybe how many picks you get.

A Tassie Academy will require a Tassie team which I can't see happening...

It isn't the government, the world's leading market analysts have said North have produced $20 in business activity for Hobart for every $1 they have spent, I think a significant factor in having Victorian teams play in Tasmania is they bring a lot of mainlanders to Tasmania, a lot of people do surprisingly take a vacation when games are on and spend a weekend in Tassie being either the home or away team, there were a lot of Swans supporter who went to Tassie last year.

...Once Tasmania essentially has their own team be it co-location, relocation or their own team, the tourist side of the business will decline or disappear entirely, this puts in jeopardy the vast majority of current funding.

Ultimately, playing footy in Tasmania should be about giving access of AFL footy to Tasmanian, not to bring them in tourists to fill grounds.

I think if it was left to Tasmania, Hawthorn and North we would come to a good arrangement, however, the AFL have said there will be no Tasmanian games unless the deals go through the AFL, and they ideally want one team to be involved in Tasmania and they do not want that team distracted by a tertiary market. The AFL want North and South to become united, because ultimately, if they are going to end up with their own team in the future, they have to be united....

Your arguments convince me more that the four games in Launceston and three in Hobart is a good model, maybe even in the long term. I can't see a Melbourne team playing more than four games away from Melbourne. Tasmanians have a lot of loyalty to the Melbourne teams. Hard to know how that would change if there was a Tasmanian team. When living in Perth I had a discussion with a Docker's supporter who changed teams when they came in to the competition based on supporting the local team. (Perth is lot further away from Melbourne than Tasmania.) Others noted continuing support for the VFL teams they supported prior to the AFL. With a small population you would need a lot of supporters to shift over and attend regularly. It will be a tough business case for a full time team in Tasmania especially with lower Government support.

 

[Tas]

I've previously written:
The problem is that most Vic, SA and WA based people don't understand that junior ALF in NSW and Qld is way behind that in the AFL states. Therefore the quality and quantity of players available in the draft from NSW and Qld is poor. I apologise if this is insulting to your intelligence but some of the posters on here are insulting ours by their ignorance or choosing to ignore that simple fact.

I think people do understand it, but it is largely AFL in Sydney is a long way behind, the Riverina is more neutral when it comes to football and rugby and that region does play the game at a junior level more widespread than in Sydney. Similarly, Gold Coast has had stronger ties to football due to early migration and has produced a number of AFL footballers.

Three is no doubt the system in place is a long way behind those in Victoria. I don't think anyone is arguing that having academies is a negative. It is the fact they are not arms-length from clubs which is the problem.

This year the Swans have benefited from getting one player 'cheap' but then paying overs for another. Overall the Swans have been winners from that but this is not going to happen every year.

I agree, however, the process should be AFL funded and independently operated in my opinion. I do not see why the same or better result can't be achieved if the AFL undertake it, they invest a lot in Victorian junior football and produce a lot of players as a result. AFL's agreement with SANFL and WAFL does not allow the AFL to be involved in junior development in those states and they underachieve in terms of their output of talent.

I don't see the need for priority access. A much larger pool of players from NSW will directly and indirectly benefit the Swans. Those that leave the nest obviously sometimes want to go home. At the end of the day, I don't think Swans supporters give a lick where their players come from, would a Swans premiership team made of a foreign legion be any worse received?

I think clubs like Swans, and Port recently, have shown that it isn't success that draws or keeps players at a club, it is having a good environment that does.

In my opinion when 4 of the first 18 players drafted are coming from NSW and Qld for a few years then you get rid of the Academy bidding system.

The number of positions isn't as problematic as the relative worth of the player vs the pick the team has. Ie, if Heeney was considered the 18th best kid in the draft and the Swans had pick #5, would you support a system that required Swans to take him with pick #5 if a team below the Swans bid with a better pick? No, you would hate it, because it would put you at an extreme disadvantage.

Those who benefit from the system because it gives an advantage obviously want to retain it. If my club got stuck in Tasmania and we had access to an Academy I would want us to abuse the s**t out of it as well, however, I would still say it is wrong and harms the draft.

People need to understand that your opinion isn't going to influence AFL policy, everyone knew COLA was bogus, if you had it you wanted it, naturally. Our ability to fleece the system with the hilariously bad free agency rule is a great boon for my club, I still think it is largely horseshit that we can get Dal Santo, Waite and Higgins for pretty much nothing. How is the draft meant to create equity with s**t like that going on?

Just because it benefits my club doesn't mean I have to defend it. It can be bogus, it can benefit your club, but it doesn't have to be right. I'd like to see more Swans supporters say it is bogus, but it is what it is and the Swans will abuse the s**t out of it as long as humanly possible until the system is changed.

EVERY club is looking for ANY advantage they can get.

if we get access to an academy I hope we bend the AFL over like we did with the old ten year rule, and like we are doing with free agency. However, there isn't a sane neuron in my head that would suggest it is fair or reasonable.

In the meantime I think they will introduce some other system where players are graded and other picks or next years picks get combined or moved later to balance any perceived unfairness.

Here's a few points:

• It's probably too late now (and unfair) for the AFL to change the Academies.
• It is better for the Academies to have a state based brand rather than a national one so Swans or Suns Academy is more meaningful than AFL Academy.
• The Academies draw on the resources of the clubs including players, coaching staff, management, contacts and sponsors. It is therefore cheaper and easier than if the AFL were to try and recreate that. Consider the money QBE had pumped in over the last five years and how would they feel about it suddenly being the Toyota AFL Academy. How much can the AFL get out of Toyota to replace the money being put in by QBE and the other clubs' sponsors?

You can argue over all of those but in total I think it means what has been created will not get changed too much.

I think it is never too late to change something that isn't right. We will have to see if the AFL's proposed changes to the bidding systems for next year is more equitable or not, it is apparently very complex but all the clubs have supported it in theory. It might be a moot point come next year.

This probably suggests what would need to happen if they go with a Tassie Academy, put some limits around how long or maybe how many picks you get.

A Tassie Academy will require a Tassie team which I can't see happening...

There is a lot of water to go under the bridge, at present there is nothing stopping my club's chairman from accepting a long-term deal before we can boot him out of office. You would like to think sanity will prevail, however, people go a bit troppo when it comes to expansion, relocations and mergers. I can't explain the phenomenon or why it happens, but most seem to regret what they did or turn into raving lunatics afterwards.

The two who have the most to fear would be my club of course due to constitutional weakness plus delusions of grandeur, and the other would be the Saints if they have two more horrific years off-field. I can't see the man who screwed clubs like St Kilda chasing blood money for the players sending half the comp to the wall giving a flying * about the St Kilda supporters. I hope their constitution is a lot better than ours is.

Your arguments convince me more that the four games in Launceston and three in Hobart is a good model, maybe even in the long term. I can't see a Melbourne team playing more than four games away from Melbourne. Tasmanians have a lot of loyalty to the Melbourne teams. Hard to know how that would change if there was a Tasmanian team. When living in Perth I had a discussion with a Docker's supporter who changed teams when they came in to the competition based on supporting the local team. (Perth is lot further away from Melbourne than Tasmania.) Others noted continuing support for the VFL teams they supported prior to the AFL. With a small population you would need a lot of supporters to shift over and attend regularly. It will be a tough business case for a full time team in Tasmania especially with lower Government support.

The current arrangement works, but it is not what the Tasmanian people want, however, I just don't see how it is sustainable them having their own side.

However, that didn't stop the AFL ploughing ahead with GWS and GC, even though they face similar issues and their course of action has also resulted in weakening the Swans and Lions at the same time.

I have reservations that even the threat of a potential catastrophe wont hinder the AFL from making bad decisions, it really hasn't stopped them in the past and the current administration isn't any better.

 

[Defacto]

ffs just return the zones and let the big 4 share the flags amongst them

 

[Moist Biscuit]

ffs just return the zones and let the big 4 share the flags amongst them

Only 1 of the "big 4" has won a flag since 2000. So your post is both stupid and invalid.

 

[Defacto]

Only 1 of the "big 4" has won a flag since 2000. So your post is both stupid and invalid.

lol my post went straight over the top of your head didnt it

 

[mikey127]

Sorry Tas is our academy after this off season. McGuiness Watts and Mitch Robinson added to Josh Green and Ryan Harwood.

 

[The_Reaper]

ffs just return the zones and let the big 4 share the flags amongst them

You mean West Coast and Adelaide right

 

[Defacto]

You mean West Coast and Adelaide right

hehehe just divide the state in two. no doubt eagles will be clinging to the sought after fertile zones like peppermint grove

 

[walhawk]

Academy is merely a bribe to North to play 7 - 8 games there which would help the league's goal of financial equalisation (robbing the rich Hawks to pay the poor North).
Tas govt or people don't want that.
I suspect neither does Hawthorn or North.
To prop up the poor clubs best to get Hawks our of Launceston and Saints in. They are the ones in the most trouble.
Saints - Launceston
North - Hobart
Dogs - Ballarat
Demons - NT
Hawks can take over Saints match in NZ where they have been sponsoring the local leagues for a decade.
DONE.

 

[MickyG]

... the process should be AFL funded and independently operated in my opinion. I do not see why the same or better result can't be achieved if the AFL undertake it,

... there is nothing stopping my club's chairman from accepting a long-term deal before we can boot him out of office.

... The two who have the most to fear would be my club of course due to constitutional weakness plus delusions of grandeur, and the other would be the Saints if they have two more horrific years off-field.

... The current arrangement works, but it is not what the Tasmanian people want, however, I just don't see how it is sustainable them having their own side.

However, that didn't stop the AFL ploughing ahead with GWS and GC, even though they face similar issues and their course of action has also resulted in weakening the Swans and Lions at the same time.

I have reservations that even the threat of a potential catastrophe wont hinder the AFL from making bad decisions, it really hasn't stopped them in the past and the current administration isn't any better.

Heeney produced a lot of noise about the Swans Academy this year and Mills will next year if the Swans finish top 4 (which I think we will). You add Heeney playing well in seniors (probably won't happen as Swans rarely play first year players) or/and the Dunkley father son pick, and the noise will get extreme. Eddie wasn't going to mess with the father son system this year but he will next so something will happen next year (especially if the Pies are having a bad year!)

In a previous thread someone had looked back over x years and calculated the probability of a player performing (based on number of games I think). So from my vague memory; pick 1 had a value of about 90 and pick 60 had a value of about 5. The idea proposed was that if say Heeney is rated as pick 3 with a value of 82 then you would need to use the value of your picks (possibly over two years) to 'pay' for him. This would provide a formula for shifting picks as well so maybe your second or third round pick moves up or down. The issue then is how do you come up with a value. Personally I'd go with surveying all the clubs, eliminating the highest two and bottom two, and then averaging the rest. I suspect they will come up with something like this and I'd rate it as fair. If there was a system like this would you accept the connection of the Academies to the clubs?

The AFL is very money driven. Current Academies are mostly paid for by the four clubs and their sponsors. Any change will cost the AFL so I don't think it will happen.

Would Tasmania go with having their emblem on a Hawk's jumper one year and a North (or Saint's) jumper the next? Would losing the Tasmanian sponsorship be offset by higher attendance for Hawthorn in Melbourne? The answer to the second question is probably the best guide to what will happen. If there's more money to be made by Hawthorn playing more in Melbourne then the AFL will push for that.

Full time relocation to Tasmania is not economic. At the same time 4 games Melbourne, 4 games Launceston and three games Hobart isn't going to work but as you say that won't stop them. Adding an Academy could get the deal over the line. Adding the best player from Tasmania to your list every year would certainly be attractive, wouldn't it?

 

[legend166]

The ability to draft someone that many believe to be the best pure mid in the draft is not "a small one at absolute best".
It will be the same next year when Sydney draft another equally rated.
As I said, the academies are great, but if the afl can't run them, then they should fund them and make all players available to all clubs.


Did the AFL set up an academy that failed ? or did they implement some half arsed system?



I honestly don't understand how you can believe that

If the Academy didn't exist, would you have preferred us to get Heeney to tank his draft interviews, and then demand a trade back to Sydney after his draftee contract had expired? Is that a fairer system?

 

[MickyG]

Academy is merely a bribe to North to play 7 - 8 games there which would help the league's goal of financial equalisation (robbing the rich Hawks to pay the poor North).
Tas govt or people don't want that.
I suspect neither does Hawthorn or North.
To prop up the poor clubs best to get Hawks our of Launceston and Saints in. They are the ones in the most trouble.
Saints - Launceston
North - Hobart
Dogs - Ballarat
Demons - NT
Hawks can take over Saints match in NZ where they have been sponsoring the local leagues for a decade.
DONE.

Missed some:
Richmond - Nth Qld
GWS - Canberra

You could be on the money. Will a NZ Academy get the deal done for the Hawks?

 

[Defacto]

Missed some:
Richmond - Nth Qld
GWS - Canberra

You could be on the money. Will a NZ Academy get the deal done for the Hawks?

Saints are in a better position now to grab NZ

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Heeney produced a lot of noise about the Swans Academy this year and Mills will next year if the Swans finish top 4 (which I think we will). You add Heeney playing well in seniors (probably won't happen as Swans rarely play first year players) or/and the Dunkley father son pick, and the noise will get extreme. Eddie wasn't going to mess with the father son system this year but he will next so something will happen next year (especially if the Pies are having a bad year!)

In a previous thread someone had looked back over x years and calculated the probability of a player performing (based on number of games I think). So from my vague memory; pick 1 had a value of about 90 and pick 60 had a value of about 5. The idea proposed was that if say Heeney is rated as pick 3 with a value of 82 then you would need to use the value of your picks (possibly over two years) to 'pay' for him. This would provide a formula for shifting picks as well so maybe your second or third round pick moves up or down. The issue then is how do you come up with a value. Personally I'd go with surveying all the clubs, eliminating the highest two and bottom two, and then averaging the rest. I suspect they will come up with something like this and I'd rate it as fair. If there was a system like this would you accept the connection of the Academies to the clubs?

The AFL is very money driven. Current Academies are mostly paid for by the four clubs and their sponsors. Any change will cost the AFL so I don't think it will happen.

Would Tasmania go with having their emblem on a Hawk's jumper one year and a North (or Saint's) jumper the next? Would losing the Tasmanian sponsorship be offset by higher attendance for Hawthorn in Melbourne? The answer to the second question is probably the best guide to what will happen. If there's more money to be made by Hawthorn playing more in Melbourne then the AFL will push for that.

Full time relocation to Tasmania is not economic. At the same time 4 games Melbourne, 4 games Launceston and three games Hobart isn't going to work but as you say that won't stop them. Adding an Academy could get the deal over the line. Adding the best player from Tasmania to your list every year would certainly be attractive, wouldn't it?

I like that idea. Swans give up 1st and 2nd or 3rd this year for Heeney and the same next year for Mills. Could also be used for Father Sons. I don't care that Sydney have the academies i just want them to pay fair value for their picks.

 

[worthy]

If the Academy didn't exist, would you have preferred us to get Heeney to tank his draft interviews, and then demand a trade back to Sydney after his draftee contract had expired? Is that a fairer system?

That utter rubbish adds nothing to this thread, shame on you.

BTW, everyone, I repeat (again), everyone wants the academy to exist.

BTW, everyone, I repeat (again), everyone wants the academy to exist.

BTW, everyone, I repeat (again), everyone wants the academy to exist.

But, it should be funded by the AFL, and all players made available to all clubs.

If a drafted player requests to return home after his contract expires, then so be it, it's how the system currently works.

 

[shintemaster]

So often people say that Tassie people needs to work together to get an AFL team of our own. Well what do you do when its the politicians & AFL who gave us 2 AFL teams & cause the very division they complain about!!!.

I mean how stupid is that!!

They didn't cause the division. They are just exploiting it.

 

[Colonial]

Missed some:
Richmond - Nth Qld
GWS - Canberra

You could be on the money. Will a NZ Academy get the deal done for the Hawks?

Dream on swannette