Swans' academy.

[smeltitdeltit]

Yeah true we have the richest guernsey in the country

But we dont have the government underwrite our gate, can we get that ?

We also dont get a guaranteed home grand final

Sorry, but does the home team get more tickets for members to the grand final than the 'visitors' ?
The GF is made up of mainly corporates. Last year there was as much purple as brown and gold. Same the year before with the red and white.
Apart from the physical ground itself, a GF is not a home ground advantage.

 

[The King!]

Sorry, but does the home team get more tickets for members to the grand final than the 'visitors' ?
The GF is made up of mainly corporates. Last year there was as much purple as brown and gold. Same the year before with the red and white.
Apart from the physical ground itself, a GF is not a home ground advantage.

Yeah i realise its only helping victorian clubs so we dont call that an advantage

 

[Mateyman]

Yeah i realise its only helping victorian clubs so we dont call that an advantage

Record in AFL GFs at the MCG where it is interstate vs Vic teams since 1990:
Interstate 8
Vic 4
HUUUGE advantage

 

[Leather Poisoning]

IMO the AFL dont want to fork out the extra cash for players in WA given 60% of Freo's list are from WA (similiar for WC I think) so they dont have the retention issues, and the game is already established over here so they see the extra living allowance as a poor investment.

Its not fair and they deserve it as well as the northern teams. Removing it from Sydney would also be unfair. But since they are trying to grow the game in the most populated state where AFL is the 5th most popular sport, a business decision, an economical decision, a risk-reduction decision, and many would say a rational and logical decision would be to give extra money to the places you can grow the game.

The trick would be how to implement it without giving them an unfair advantage and maintain the integrity of your product.

'jus sayn. If you were trying to grow the game, wouldnt you do the same?

Thanks for a good, reasonable post.

What you're saying is that it's not a cost of living allowance but a 'grow the game' allowance or player retention allowance.

The fact they can't call it for what it is just makes the whole thing look really dodgy, and a big part of why supporters feel a bit jaded about the whole thing.

I'm all for giving teams a leg up to get established. And I like the league growing the game - but to manipulate conditions so that the expansion or northern state teams have a better on field chance (through higher salary or exclusive academies is wrong.

Sure - put money into advertising, fan days, playing scholarships etc, but create channels that give aspiring nsw players access to all clubs. Similar to the international rookie thing where they don't get included on the main list, for example.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

IMO the AFL dont want to fork out the extra cash for players in WA given 60% of Freo's list are from WA (similiar for WC I think) so they dont have the retention issues, and the game is already established over here so they see the extra living allowance as a poor investment.

Its not fair and they deserve it as well as the northern teams. Removing it from Sydney would also be unfair. But since they are trying to grow the game in the most populated state where AFL is the 5th most popular sport, a business decision, an economical decision, a risk-reduction decision, and many would say a rational and logical decision would be to give extra money to the places you can grow the game.

The trick would be how to implement it without giving them an unfair advantage and maintain the integrity of your product.

'jus sayn. If you were trying to grow the game, wouldnt you do the same?

Thanks for a good, reasonable post.

What you're saying is that it's not a cost of living allowance but a 'grow the game' allowance or player retention allowance.

The fact they can't call it for what it is just makes the whole thing look really dodgy, and a big part of why supporters feel a bit jaded about the whole thing.

I'm all for giving teams a leg up to get established. And I like the league growing the game - but to manipulate conditions so that the expansion or northern state teams have a better on field chance (through higher salary or exclusive academies is wrong.

Sure - put money into advertising, fan days, playing scholarships etc, but create channels that give aspiring nsw players access to all clubs. Similar to the international rookie thing where they don't get included on the main list, for example.

 

[theta]

Thanks for a good, reasonable post.

What you're saying is that it's not a cost of living allowance but a 'grow the game' allowance or player retention allowance.

The fact they can't call it for what it is just makes the whole thing look really dodgy, and a big part of why supporters feel a bit jaded about the whole thing.

I'm all for giving teams a leg up to get established. And I like the league growing the game - but to manipulate conditions so that the expansion or northern state teams have a better on field chance (through higher salary or exclusive academies is wrong.

Sure - put money into advertising, fan days, playing scholarships etc, but create channels that give aspiring nsw players access to all clubs. Similar to the international rookie thing where they don't get included on the main list, for example.

I think there is a CoLA element > which helps retention > which helps grow the game.

All Northern clubs and WA clubs deserve an allowance imo.

If the CoLA, the Abassador Allowances and the Academies are so wrong and so advantageous, I find it hard to believe so many players, ex-players, legends, media commentators, and AFL exec's can be so wrong so many times, or vote for it repeatedly, or all be coordinating their efforts to conspire and give one team so many advantages.

I also find it interesting that 80% of the time when it becomes a big issue in the media for a couple of weeks it follows a rant from Eddie. No BS. It almost always does.

I dont want any advantages for Sydney because I dont want an asterisks beside their name each season. That said, I dont want to always have to deal with the higher probability of players returning home or being poached when we slide out of the finals for a few years because only 5% of players are from NSW, or because of CoL.

I've written a mountain today on the previous page today. I'll let that respond to your comments.

chrs

 

[Colonial]

Record in AFL GFs at the MCG where it is interstate vs Vic teams since 1990:
Interstate 8
Vic 4
HUUUGE advantage

So the vics cant use their advantage and choke. ..

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Thanks for a good, reasonable post.

What you're saying is that it's not a cost of living allowance but a 'grow the game' allowance or player retention allowance.

The fact they can't call it for what it is just makes the whole thing look really dodgy, and a big part of why supporters feel a bit jaded about the whole thing.

I'm all for giving teams a leg up to get established. And I like the league growing the game - but to manipulate conditions so that the expansion or northern state teams have a better on field chance (through higher salary or exclusive academies is wrong.

Sure - put money into advertising, fan days, playing scholarships etc, but create channels that give aspiring nsw players access to all clubs. Similar to the international rookie thing where they don't get included on the main list, for example.

and get bid by pure dollar amount not included in the cap, because yeah that wont give the same advantage your talking about to the richest club's. apart from that i have no problem with your post, but would reiterate once again, if its going to be open slather then the afl MUST fund it, not throw a pultry $250K as while the club throws in a million.

So far not a single club has asked to fund an academy in a developing area. Surely you can see for a small club to fund an academy BY FORCE of the AFL and see no benefit is blatantly unfair.

would your club continue to do it's part for playing footy in regional areas like tassie if you didn't get millions of dollars in funding and reciprocal games in melbourne?

the AFL must take over the academies if they want to take away the bidding system.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

and get bid by pure dollar amount not included in the cap, because yeah that wont give the same advantage your talking about to the richest club's. apart from that i have no problem with your post, but would reiterate once again, if its going to be open slather then the afl MUST fund it, not throw a pultry $250K as while the club throws in a million.

So far not a single club has asked to fund an academy in a developing area. Surely you can see for a small club to fund an academy BY FORCE of the AFL and see no benefit is blatantly unfair.

would your club continue to do it's part for playing footy in regional areas like tassie if you didn't get millions of dollars in funding and reciprocal games in melbourne?

the AFL must take over the academies if they want to take away the bidding system.

Now the discussion gets interesting.

If Sydney are doing this off their own bat and funds then they should reap some benefit.

The hawks are doing huge amounts of work in New Zealand developing talent and making the most of the international rookie rules. As it stands, I think we can sign these guys quite young 15 or 16? We have 2 guys at the moment that we've put heaps of effort into.
But I also believe that before this signing any club could have come in and signed these guys up.

For it to be structured well - the afl should create the infrastructure (ie the academy) then incentivize clubs to contribute and incentivize clubs to draft these guys (assuming they're behind the rest of the country in terms of development).

As it stands - why would any club put resources into nsw or QLD if the local teams get first crack at the talent? The hawks have done well out of the nsw scholarship scheme that was open to all clubs. I like that system.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

and get bid by pure dollar amount not included in the cap, because yeah that wont give the same advantage your talking about to the richest club's. apart from that i have no problem with your post, but would reiterate once again, if its going to be open slather then the afl MUST fund it, not throw a pultry $250K as while the club throws in a million.

So far not a single club has asked to fund an academy in a developing area. Surely you can see for a small club to fund an academy BY FORCE of the AFL and see no benefit is blatantly unfair.

would your club continue to do it's part for playing footy in regional areas like tassie if you didn't get millions of dollars in funding and reciprocal games in melbourne?

the AFL must take over the academies if they want to take away the bidding system.

Now the discussion gets interesting.

If Sydney are doing this off their own bat and funds then they should reap some benefit.

The hawks are doing huge amounts of work in New Zealand developing talent and making the most of the international rookie rules. As it stands, I think we can sign these guys quite young 15 or 16? We have 2 guys at the moment that we've put heaps of effort into.
But I also believe that before this signing any club could have come in and signed these guys up.

For it to be structured well - the afl should create the infrastructure (ie the academy) then incentivize clubs to contribute and incentivize clubs to draft these guys (assuming they're behind the rest of the country in terms of development).

As it stands - why would any club put resources into nsw or QLD if the local teams get first crack at the talent? The hawks have done well out of the nsw scholarship scheme that was open to all clubs. I like that system.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Now the discussion gets interesting.

If Sydney are doing this off their own bat and funds then they should reap some benefit.

The hawks are doing huge amounts of work in New Zealand developing talent and making the most of the international rookie rules. As it stands, I think we can sign these guys quite young 15 or 16? We have 2 guys at the moment that we've put heaps of effort into.
But I also believe that before this signing any club could have come in and signed these guys up.

For it to be structured well - the afl should create the infrastructure (ie the academy) then incentivize clubs to contribute and incentivize clubs to draft these guys (assuming they're behind the rest of the country in terms of development).

As it stands - why would any club put resources into nsw or QLD if the local teams get first crack at the talent? The hawks have done well out of the nsw scholarship scheme that was open to all clubs. I like that system.

the brake down is 250K comes from the AFL

the clubs fund the rest in the case of Sydney it's a million dollars, the money is sourced from the club and its Sponsors the biggest contributor is QBE bank which commits on average 400K+ per year as part of it's sponsorship with the Sydney Swans.

Now if we are to lose our pick why should the swans invest the money into the Academy?

I've said before i'd love to see all of NSW and Queensland divided up between clubs to develop the area and have them get the same bidding system. because the AFL will never fund these academies properly on their own.

it's why they went the scholarship route in the first place because they didn't want to do the hardyards themselves. Unfortunately it didnt work to increase the level of skills in the state comp because it focused on developing only a handful players

inversely the swans academy is about developing the players to serviceable levels not just to Play A grade footy. I coach junior footy and i'm lucky that we have a pretty good side, but even at under 15's there's teams we're kids struggle with simple handball skills.

people forget 5000 kids have gone through the academies so far and only brandon Jack is playing AFL seniors. this really is about developing the game, but we aren't a rich club, we simply can not fund this if we aren't getting something out of it.

what is fair under the current set up but that the swans should not be allowed to double dip either they take a father son or the academy pick.

if the 250K means that much to other clubs by all means * it off, because if it goes the other and the swans lose access or have to pay something ridicules like 2 picks for a kid thats suddenly become a top 3 pick because of one good carnival where he played in second division, I can guarantee the swans will quite rightly walk away. (and just on that any club the bid's higher then pick 12 for heeney are ******* morons)

 

[Tuco]

Now the discussion gets interesting.

If Sydney are doing this off their own bat and funds then they should reap some benefit.

The hawks are doing huge amounts of work in New Zealand developing talent and making the most of the international rookie rules. As it stands, I think we can sign these guys quite young 15 or 16? We have 2 guys at the moment that we've put heaps of effort into.
But I also believe that before this signing any club could have come in and signed these guys up.

For it to be structured well - the afl should create the infrastructure (ie the academy) then incentivize clubs to contribute and incentivize clubs to draft these guys (assuming they're behind the rest of the country in terms of development).

As it stands - why would any club put resources into nsw or QLD if the local teams get first crack at the talent? The hawks have done well out of the nsw scholarship scheme that was open to all clubs. I like that system.

Well they're saying 10 kids will come out of the Northern Academes this year. Seems to be working to me. Clearly not all of them will stay in NSW or QLD. The 'benefit' to the other clubs will be the constant stream of players nominating for the draft as we go forward - for relatively a small part of the overall investment. If we can get 20 players into the system even more will fall into non-expansion clubs and so on.

There is no expectation from the Academy clubs that if they unearth 5 players in a single draft they'll get them all. Just the expectation that they can at least match a bid for a couple of them after a decade of development costs.

It's interesting you mention the Scholarship system. Clubs certainly did well unearthing a few individuals. But essentially it was a system where all clubs could run an Academy of 'one' player. What is the benefit of a dozen players getting elite training, compared to having 1200-2000 in a any one year getting trained? Your own Scholarship player spoke quite eloquently to the media this week about the importance of the Academy system and how it would have improved his chances as a young player in NSW.

The fact you liked the Scholarship system is an example of opposition supporters being keen to see their own clubs benefit, but not really caring if the game grows and thrives in the expansion states. I repeat 10 players set to nominate this year. It's a pretty good start imho.

New Zealand is an interesting one though. I would suggest any club or group of clubs that offer to set up a scaled version of an Academy in NZ, or Tassie or any area where no pathway exists, or where the pathway to AFL is underresourced should be considered. Why don't the Hawks and Saints take a joint NZ proposal to the AFL?

 

[replicant]

The hawks are doing huge amounts of work in New Zealand developing talent and making the most of the international rookie rules. As it stands, I think we can sign these guys quite young 15 or 16? We have 2 guys at the moment that we've put heaps of effort into.

Got any details of this "huge amounts of work"? Because my understanding is your "huge amounts of work" involves scouting a couple of likely kids and bringing them to Victoria. I don't really see what this does for AFL in NZ... It's like the old scholarship scheme you seem keen on. Good for the clubs, because they get extra players, but it does precisely zero for growing the game in those areas. That's exactly why the AFL dropped the scholarship scheme, it wasn't achieving what the AFL needed it to achieve.

 

[AJB84]

How has this effected saints dogs and demons? Dog's played in 5 prelims since 97 plus finals in 99 and 06. Saints lost two grandfinals by less than a kick plus played in 2 prelims in 04 and 06. Melbourne played in a gf in 2000 and since then had enough first round/priority picks to rival gws and gold Coast.

It has nothing to do with sydneys cola which is now gone or an academy player who up until mcguires rant was rated a late first round pick.

UMM was not talking about this years draft was talking about having access to potential players

 

[momentbymoment]

The hawks are doing huge amounts of work in New Zealand developing talent and making the most of the international rookie rules. As it stands, I think we can sign these guys quite young 15 or 16? We have 2 guys at the moment that we've put heaps of effort into.

This is gold.
So the Swans have been copping abuse for the Academies while the Hawks (and presumably other clubs) are getting access to international kids without any F/S style rules. A conspiracy within a conspiracy.

Eddie I look forward to your rant.

 

[Maddo11]

This is gold.
So the Swans have been copping abuse for the Academies while the Hawks (and presumably other clubs) are getting access to international kids without any F/S style rules. A conspiracy within a conspiracy.

Eddie I look forward to your rant.

Isn't this how we got Pyke?

But because he was already an athlete, we had to put him on the list before we could train him up properly?

 

[worthy]

You only exist as you do because the Tasmanian Government sponsor you.
What other team has had that access to funds?
That's not fair.

Every single team has access to sponsorship.

 

[worthy]

Isn't this how we got Pyke?

But because he was already an athlete, we had to put him on the list before we could train him up properly?

Yes it is, and probably how you got Tadgh Kennelly (sp?)

This is gold.
So the Swans have been copping abuse for the Academies while the Hawks (and presumably other clubs) are getting access to international kids without any F/S style rules. A conspiracy within a conspiracy.

Eddie I look forward to your rant.

International rookies are available to everyone equally, that's why they're a non issue, if they were only available to a couple of teams, then yes, Eddie would be all over it.
See the difference?

 

[momentbymoment]

Yes it is, and probably how you got Tadgh Kennelly (sp?)



International rookies are available to everyone equally, that's why they're a non issue, if they were only available to a couple of teams, then yes, Eddie would be all over it.
See the difference?

Got it.

 

[momentbymoment]

Isn't this how we got Pyke?

But because he was already an athlete, we had to put him on the list before we could train him up properly?

Yes I understand.
But - once again - if we really want full equalisation it will have to go as well.

 

[momentbymoment]

Sorry, but does the home team get more tickets for members to the grand final than the 'visitors' ?
The GF is made up of mainly corporates. Last year there was as much purple as brown and gold. Same the year before with the red and white.
Apart from the physical ground itself, a GF is not a home ground advantage.

Its not just the supporter base, its the travel, sleeping in hotels, etc. The Home Ground is considered a key issue for every other game in the season - it is an issue for the GF as well. The only difference is that it is not a Victorian issue.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Its not just the supporter base, its the travel, sleeping in hotels, etc. The Home Ground is considered a key issue for every other game in the season - it is an issue for the GF as well. The only difference is that it is not a Victorian issue.

Record in AFL GFs at the MCG where it is interstate vs Vic teams since 1990:
Interstate 8
Vic 4
HUUUGE advantage

FWIW, I don't mind the GF going to the team that finished higher's base.
Just need to get the other states stadiums up to scratch

 

[master bate]

Its not just the supporter base, its the travel, sleeping in hotels, etc. The Home Ground is considered a key issue for every other game in the season - it is an issue for the GF as well. The only difference is that it is not a Victorian issue.

The MCG is a small advantage for Melb, Coll, Rich, Hawthorn really and even less for Carl, Geel and Ess. The other Etihad clubs play there sometimes as infrequently as interstate teams. Sleeping in hotels means nothing. Travel, hardly a factor for anyones besides the WA clubs and if they have a home prelim and week off then it's such a tiny factor it wouldn't count.

It would be fairer to take the grand final to other grounds but there aren't any. It's not an advantage that can be changed or manipulated. It is what it is.

 

[Mateyman]

FWIW, I don't mind the GF going to the team that finished higher's base.
Just need to get the other states stadiums up to scratch

I don't really care, but I don't want the GF held at some terrible/soulless ground and the AFL would have an aneurism if they couldn't fit 100K people in. GF is one game where I believe home ground means nothing.

 

[momentbymoment]

The MCG is a small advantage for Melb, Coll, Rich, Hawthorn really and even less for Carl, Geel and Ess. The other Etihad clubs play there sometimes as infrequently as interstate teams. Sleeping in hotels means nothing. Travel, hardly a factor for anyones besides the WA clubs and if they have a home prelim and week off then it's such a tiny factor it wouldn't count.

It would be fairer to take the grand final to other grounds but there aren't any. It's not an advantage that can be changed or manipulated. It is what it is.

The Academies are what they are as well, but that doesn't stop Eddie from going nuts on the Swans every night. Personally, I think it would be awesome to have the GF travel around to the other states. It is a national competition after all.