News Changes to Father Son/Academy Bidding

[ponsdale]

And here's the Swans response: http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2015-05-21/club-statement-academy-bidding-system.

Interesting point in that statement:

- The Club supported an equal system for academy and father/son selections.

So they club doesn't see any problem with the investment vs return argument?

 

[Swansujelly]

ridiculous to give 4 picks for one unproven player.

 

[Membling]

Interesting point in that statement:

So they club doesn't see any problem with the investment vs return argument?

'No problem' reads as 'swans can't jump one way or the other on this issue. Point and case the trade ban...'

 

[Wayne Swan]

I see in this morning paper that Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold has threatened the AFL that they will withdraw from any sharing of $ arrangements (read wealthy clubs giving small amounts of money to the poor clubs) if the AFL does not stop the four Northern academy clubs having the ability to dip into next years draft picks to pay for this years picks.

This is targeting us with Mills and Dunkley and targeting GWS with Hopper and Kennedy.

FFS, won't these already privileged anbd advantaged clubs in Melbourne ever stop? Wonder what Maguires view on this is?

 

[FreeAgent1]

Wouldn't it be great it the AFL said ok fine whatever no1 goes into deficit you just moved to end of ND if you end up with negative points.

That would backfire!

 

[brad cooper]

I see in this morning paper that Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold has threatened the AFL that they will withdraw from any sharing of $ arrangements (read wealthy clubs giving small amounts of money to the poor clubs) if the AFL does not stop the four Northern academy clubs having the ability to dip into next years draft picks to pay for this years picks.

This is targeting us with Mills and Dunkley and targeting GWS with Hopper and Kennedy.

FFS, won't these already privileged anbd advantaged clubs in Melbourne ever stop? Wonder what Maguires view on this is?

Imagine how bad Newbold would be if he was president of a club that was never succesful

 

[Superstar swan]

I see in this morning paper that Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold has threatened the AFL that they will withdraw from any sharing of $ arrangements (read wealthy clubs giving small amounts of money to the poor clubs) if the AFL does not stop the four Northern academy clubs having the ability to dip into next years draft picks to pay for this years picks.

This is targeting us with Mills and Dunkley and targeting GWS with Hopper and Kennedy.

FFS, won't these already privileged anbd advantaged clubs in Melbourne ever stop? Wonder what Maguires view on this is?

This crap never gets old....am i mistaken but i thought all clubs had the ability to dip into next years picks

 

[robbieando]

This crap never gets old....am i mistaken but i thought all clubs had the ability to dip into next years picks

All clubs still will but that's not what he is pissed off at, it is the idea that instead of having to use picks from 2015 and 2016 to get Mills/Dunkley and Hopper/Kennedy that we all know is the idea at the moment the AFL will NOW allow only us, GWS, Brisbane and the Suns to be able to trade their future draft picks and thus be able to meet the trade debt over 3 years while still trading in re-enforcements in the first year. So we could trade for need to cover for a key defender this year, still get Mills and Dunkley with end of draft picks, go into debt that couldn't be paid off next year thus we would trade our 2017 picks in 2016 to meet the debt. Something that has only now been brought up and only for the academy clubs which defeats the purpose of introducing the points system in the first place.

If your going to allow trading of future draft picks, don't restrict it to just 4 clubs - allow all 18 clubs to do it. Thus I can see his point.

 

[FreeAgent1]

This crap never gets old....am i mistaken but i thought all clubs had the ability to dip into next years picks

They do, if they have enough father son picks.....AFL should seriously respond with any f/s who are running around playing club footy and say draft these blokes then you can newbold!

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

All clubs still will but that's not what he is pissed off at, it is the idea that instead of having to use picks from 2015 and 2016 to get Mills/Dunkley and Hopper/Kennedy that we all know is the idea at the moment the AFL will NOW allow only us, GWS, Brisbane and the Suns to be able to trade their future draft picks and thus be able to meet the trade debt over 3 years while still trading in re-enforcements in the first year. So we could trade for need to cover for a key defender this year, still get Mills and Dunkley with end of draft picks, go into debt that couldn't be paid off next year thus we would trade our 2017 picks in 2016 to meet the debt. Something that has only now been brought up and only for the academy clubs which defeats the purpose of introducing the points system in the first place.

If your going to allow trading of future draft picks, don't restrict it to just 4 clubs - allow all 18 clubs to do it. Thus I can see his point.

I reckon we were quiet about the new bidding rules did we strike a deal? this all could of been avoided if they didn't knee jerk at the earliest opportunity possible and create a "new" bidding system for one club.

I see it as a offset granted to us by the AFL that they acknowledge with the amount of money and resources we put in we deserve the opportunity to draft all academy players as we see fit.

So whats the likely scenario for this year?

 

[FreeAgent1]

I reckon we were quiet about the new bidding rules did we strike a deal? this all could of been avoided if they didn't knee jerk at the earliest opportunity possible and create a "new" bidding system for one club.

I see it as a offset granted to us by the AFL that they acknowledge with the amount of money and resources we put in we deserve the opportunity to draft all academy players as we see fit.

So whats the likely scenario for this year?

Would be very very late for them to knee jerk it now I would think re: everyone trading future picks. I think they will bring it in next year for everyone else, to keep newbold happy.

 

[robbieando]

I reckon we were quiet about the new bidding rules did we strike a deal? this all could of been avoided if they didn't knee jerk at the earliest opportunity possible and create a "new" bidding system for one club.

But this is not a one club system, the Giants have two players projected to go in the first round and the Lions have a first rounder as well. This smells of the AFL trying to solve a problem that doesn't need solving (allowing academy clubs to trade future picks) but allows it open to massive abuse. Hawks aren't the first to raise the issue, I think they are kicking up the fuss because it seems the AFL is intent on ramming it through.

I see it as a offset granted to us by the AFL that they acknowledge with the amount of money and resources we put in we deserve the opportunity to draft all academy players as we see fit.

Allowing us and the other academy club alone to trade future picks isn't an offset that will automatically see us draft our academy players. We will still be able to draft our academy players under the new bidding system, the ability to trade future picks won't make a difference to that. This is a needless benefit with the change to the system and goes from fixing the concerns clubs had about the Northern Clubs having academies to them having issues with them again, because we can basically double dip. So if the AFL wants to bring in trading of future draft picks, it should be for ALL 18 clubs, not just for the 4 academy clubs.

So whats the likely scenario for this year?

Depends on what system the AFL goes with.

 

[FreeAgent1]

But this is not a one club system, the Giants have two players projected to go in the first round and the Lions have a first rounder as well. This smells of the AFL trying to solve a problem that doesn't need solving (allowing academy clubs to trade future picks) but allows it open to massive abuse. Hawks aren't the first to raise the issue, I think they are kicking up the fuss because it seems the AFL is intent on ramming it through.



Allowing us and the other academy club alone to trade future picks isn't an offset that will automatically see us draft our academy players. We will still be able to draft our academy players under the new bidding system, the ability to trade future picks won't make a difference to that. This is a needless benefit with the change to the system and goes from fixing the concerns clubs had about the Northern Clubs having academies to them having issues with them again, because we can basically double dip. So if the AFL wants to bring in trading of future draft picks, it should be for ALL 18 clubs, not just for the 4 academy clubs.



Depends on what system the AFL goes with.

The future draft deficit was the only real way to make the points system work, e.e. make academy/f-s pick pay value and not just moved to the end of the draft. However in trying to make that more palatable - they opened a can of worms.

I honestly dont think they can close this jar, clubs will be livid re: future picks trading and kind of rightfully so, however there are two alternatives, neither which really work:

1- Everyone can trade future picks (super unlikely as AFL not sold on idea and havent completed due diligence on whether it is right for afl, also WAY TO LATE IN THE SEASON to impliment).
2- No-one can go into deficit this year and everyone can start trading future picks from 2016 (actually hurts VFL clubs every more).

In my opinion the more he pushes the more option 2 becomes viable.

AFL saying ok- No1 can trade future picks!!!! Btw all f/s and academy's is back to old laws

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

The short sighted, self entitled bitching and moaning of Victorian clubs has really resulted in a disservice to football generally.

Every player drafted from NSW and Queensland is one less taken from the Southern states.

Now whilst that's not great for the bottom end talent in those states, it is good for the comp as a whole. It means a lift in the standard more broadly, particularly for those clubs in Victoria.

There is also a social benefit. Less players are required to move interstate away from families at age 17 or 18.

And there is a far greater financial benefit. Every local players drafted from the frontier states to local clubs creates increased interest in the game. Increased interest equals increased ratings. Increased ratings equals increased money. That money gets spread around.

The AFL would have been better served to require of the Northern states that they draft from within their Academies a minimum number of players, perhaps spread over a period of time, and keep the old bidding structure (next draft pick cost). So maybe 10 players over 3 years must come from the Academies.

 

[robbieando]

The future draft deficit was the only real way to make the points system work, e.e. make academy/f-s pick pay value and not just moved to the end of the draft. However in trying to make that more palatable - they opened a can of worms.

I honestly dont think they can close this jar, clubs will be livid re: future picks trading and kind of rightfully so, however there are two alternatives, neither which really work:

1- Everyone can trade future picks (super unlikely as AFL not sold on idea and havent completed due diligence on whether it is right for afl, also WAY TO LATE IN THE SEASON to impliment).
2- No-one can go into deficit this year and everyone can start trading future picks from 2016 (actually hurts VFL clubs every more).

In my opinion the more he pushes the more option 2 becomes viable.

AFL saying ok- No1 can trade future picks!!!! Btw all f/s and academy's is back to old laws

He has raised 3 points which I feel are fair

1) If trading of future draft picks is introduced it CAN'T be two tiered - Clubs that can (the academy clubs) and clubs that can't (the other 14 clubs)
2) If a club has a F/S and/or academy player/s up for selection at the draft they can't trade that years picks in the trade period and then turn up on draft night, match bids and go into deficit. There has to be a minimum points level to enter the draft to bid and or match bids if a club does indeed trade picks during the trade period.
3) Introducing trading of future draft picks could see some clubs trade away their futures if a coach has a year left on their contract and therefore there needs to be safeguards in place to protect clubs from themselves

 

[RUNVS]

Newbold was being very disingenuous when he said that only 4 clubs are allowed to trade future draft picks. He was deliberately misleading people as well as the 4 clubs he is talking about are only able to do that when bidding for an academy player so it is not trading picks at all, rather it is giving future picks to the AFL. They are definitely not being traded away, it is two completely different situations and Newbold knows that.

http://www.sen.com.au/audio

 

[Membling]

In this whole saga I think I may have missed where we can trade away our picks. Unless it is in very small print somewhere.

I believe that it is on the proviso that any club with two or more highly rate F/S or academy picks can go int deficit into the next year of the draft. The picks cannot be trade from on to another eg swans 1st in 2016 for 2 second round picks. Essentially the picks next year are being forfeited.

 

[RW]

In this whole saga I think I may have missed where we can trade away our picks. Unless it is in very small print somewhere.

I believe that it is on the proviso that any club with two or more highly rate F/S or academy picks can go int deficit into the next year of the draft. The picks cannot be trade from on to another eg swans 1st in 2016 for 2 second round picks. Essentially the picks next year are being forfeited.

That's right, we can't "trade" future draft picks as far as I'm aware, they are simply forfeited as RUNVS pointed out.

 

[robbieando]

That's right, we can't "trade" future draft picks as far as I'm aware, they are simply forfeited as RUNVS pointed out.

That's the system as its stands, however the AFL is proposing introducing trading of future Draft Picks on top of the "current" system which appears the Academy clubs will only be able to access and that's what has Newbold upset. People are confusing the two and are thinking he is attacking the bidding system when he isn't

 

[Membling]

That's right, we can't "trade" future draft picks as far as I'm aware, they are simply forfeited as RUNVS pointed out.

Then what is the whole uproar? If a wallis/libba situation comes up then any club can go into deficit.

The fact we have 1 academy and 1 F/S that look to be top picks seems to be overlooked

 

[Membling]

That's the system as its stands, however the AFL is proposing introducing trading of future Draft Picks on top of the "current" system which appears the Academy clubs will only be able to access and that's what has Newbold upset. People are confusing the two and are thinking he is attacking the bidding system when he isn't

Fair enough then. Deficit fine. Trading not.

Gotta love on the fly, knee-jerk rulings. Never have reoccurring problems

 

[SilentHunter_]

Newbold can debate the new rules all he likes, but one thing I will say is how can any of the clubs say they want equalisation when we were banned from bloody trading, and they all didn't say s**t when this happened rather were happy that it had happened. Even now we have trading restrictions on us, the AFL can gagf for all I care, the double standards are astonishing.

 

[RUNVS]

Newbold can debate the new rules all he likes, but one thing I will say is how can any of the clubs say they want equalisation when we were banned from bloody trading, and they all didn't say s**t when this happened rather were happy that it had happened. Even now we have trading restrictions on us, the AFL can gagf for all I care, the double standards are astonishing.

That is a good point. Did not exactly see Eddie and Newbold coming to the Swans defence there.

 

[RW]

That's the system as its stands, however the AFL is proposing introducing trading of future Draft Picks on top of the "current" system which appears the Academy clubs will only be able to access and that's what has Newbold upset. People are confusing the two and are thinking he is attacking the bidding system when he isn't

oh god that is a really dumb move, I don't blame Newbold in that case.

 

[FreeAgent1]

He has raised 3 points which I feel are fair

1) If trading of future draft picks is introduced it CAN'T be two tiered - Clubs that can (the academy clubs) and clubs that can't (the other 14 clubs)
2) If a club has a F/S and/or academy player/s up for selection at the draft they can't trade that years picks in the trade period and then turn up on draft night, match bids and go into deficit. There has to be a minimum points level to enter the draft to bid and or match bids if a club does indeed trade picks during the trade period.
3) Introducing trading of future draft picks could see some clubs trade away their futures if a coach has a year left on their contract and therefore there needs to be safeguards in place to protect clubs from themselves

Dont get me wrong I think he has some valid points, I just think he has gone about it in a very strong-arm way (ala eddie) effectively blackmailing the AFL with equalisation in a public forum.

I get point 3, which is why the afl has historically been heistant to do this, as stated above it was a reaction to make the new points system fairer.

Points 1-2 Whilst not as likely if the libba/wallis situation happened and they went 5-9 the dogs could trade away future picks??