AFL Destroying the Father and Son

[The_Reaper]

I just find it amusing how much of a stink the academies cause for those down south. Yeah, us northern clubs are just filled to the brim with all the fantastic top end talent coming out of NSW and QLD. Looking over the past few years, i can totally see why this is such a problem, and why the rest of the clubs can't stand someone else getting first dibs on the never ending flow of simply unbelievable players coming through.

Nothing has been said about any kind of unfair advantage or leg up the northern clubs have had... until now. Until someone got a first round pick coming through the academy. Yet people fail to realise that that player might not be anywhere near the level they are, heck, they might not even be playing the sport all together, if it wasn't for the academies in the first place.

Money gets pumped into grass roots level to develop and improve talent in northern states. Finally starts showing some early signs of actually contributing some meaningful talent to the draft pool each year, and everyone goes bananas over how much of an advantage the norther clubs have. Some advantage, these players aren't even on a list year, and we've paid money to develop them to this point.

If other clubs want to take the players back off us, then they can start contributing sections of their salary cap back to the northern clubs as compensation in development costs.

Of course once the other 16 clubs start paying us for our WAFL development.

Crows haven't had one yet as the AFL changed the qualification rules to stop Bryce Gibbs coming to us.

And you'll have a chance with Jarman soon and future father sons.

 

[nottenthagain]

The academy system makes sense for the expansion clubs who are a long way off father/sons, but they should be phased out for Sydney and Brisbane. I don't think it is fair to change the 'price' for next year, as clubs like Sydney and Collingwood have probably already made strategic list management decisions on the priviso of the current rules, which us fair enough.

I would change the price from the 2015 draft, and have the Brisbane and Sydney academies phased out, that is, no further young players added, but have the current players continue until they are of age.

I agree with the phasing out of the academies (GWS and GC barely need help with list building but I'll leave that for another argument/debate) providing they have proved themselves to be an unfair advantage.... I think the Swans have about 10 AFL games out of 6 years of academy funding thus far, Eddie and co are currently flipping out over potential, not quantifiable results. The rider to this is we should only drop out if the AFL can maintain the same level of development as the clubs can... our funding of the academies should be phased out over a similar time scale. I have serious doubts the AFL will be able to do that and history suggests it's nigh on impossible for them to do so but again that another argument/debate....

I disagree with any changes to this draft as it's not fair on drafting clubs considering how much money has been already spent on research and scouting. Next year it should be some sort of sliding scale (see below) of picks until the kids entering the academy this year are through the system.

This is random thoughts so please no saga responses..... I'm just trying to have a crack at it.

2014 - no change
2015 - anymore than a 10 pick advantage (not based on bidding - independent judgement) should equal picks from that round plus next round, only available to first and second round selections, ie a 10 pick advantage in the first round would disqualify you from being able to take a second player
2016 + 2017 - anymore than a 8 pick advantage (not based on bidding - independent judgement) should equal picks from that round plus next round, only available to first and second round selections but only one player can be taken.
2018 + 2019 - anymore than a 5 pick advantage (not based on bidding - independent judgement) should equal picks from that round plus next round, only available to first round selection but only one player can be taken.

2016 onwards is almost a negligible advantage as only a reasonably small pick upgrade would cost you the current round plus your next round pick, that should appease the southerners but still give the kids currently in the system an incentive to stay with the program.

I strongly believe the F/S shouldn't be tampered with, the romanticism and luck of the draw resonates with a lot of fans and i think it's a nice quirk and similar to the academies I wouldn't want kids in the system to get ruled out of their dream move - baring in mind the F/S can be opted out of by the player. I'm not sure how that would fit in with the above bidding though. Anyway, it could be a pure draft by 2020.... once you also get rid of the uneven draw, the international rookies, the 3rd party player endorsements, alternative talent rule and Eddie Maguire - he's a pest!

..... I'm done with spit balling ideas now

 

[Colonial]

Oh and at least that cash comes out of WC's own pocket, not from AFL handouts/sponsors.

Maybe you should look up the AFL financial details on handouts per year before saying this. Its illuminating

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Maybe you should look up the AFL financial details on handouts per year before saying this. Its illuminating

What is your point?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Is it not inherently inequitable that the centre of the AFL world is Melbourne and that players playing for Melbourne clubs get more media attention? Is it not inherently inequitable that the grand final is always played at the MCG? Is it not inherently inequitable that some clubs get more Friday night games than others?

Is it not inherently inequitable that only 8 of the 102 draftees from last year came from NSW, QLD or NT? Is it not inherently inequitable that the northern states have 22% of the clubs but only 8% of 2013 draftees originated from those states?

Is it not inherently inequitable that the northern states will always have to deal with the go home factor in a way that clubs from traditional football states never will because a) far fewer footballers originate from those states as a percentage and b) Brisbane and Sydney aren't AFL football cities and as such they don't provide the exposure that Melbourne does.

The academies are a small amount of assistance given to the northern clubs to combat the enormous inequities that currently exist. Yes, there are inherent inequities literally everywhere in AFL football, but people are absolutely kidding themselves if they think a club like Brisbane is currently unfairly favoured by these inequities.

Quoting this post for its pure truthbomb status. It will be ignored by those who can't handle an inconvenient truth.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Is it not inherently inequitable that the centre of the AFL world is Melbourne and that players playing for Melbourne clubs get more media attention? Is it not inherently inequitable that the grand final is always played at the MCG? Is it not inherently inequitable that some clubs get more Friday night games than others?

Is it not inherently inequitable that only 8 of the 102 draftees from last year came from NSW, QLD or NT? Is it not inherently inequitable that the northern states have 22% of the clubs but only 8% of 2013 draftees originated from those states?

Is it not inherently inequitable that the northern states will always have to deal with the go home factor in a way that clubs from traditional football states never will because a) far fewer footballers originate from those states as a percentage and b) Brisbane and Sydney aren't AFL football cities and as such they don't provide the exposure that Melbourne does.

The academies are a small amount of assistance given to the northern clubs to combat the enormous inequities that currently exist. Yes, there are inherent inequities literally everywhere in AFL football, but people are absolutely kidding themselves if they think a club like Brisbane is currently unfairly favoured by these inequities.

Bit of a thread-killer this one.

I notice no one has tried to argue against it.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Bit of a thread-killer this one.

I notice no one has tried to argue against it.

Hard to complain about advantages if you acknowledge the disadvantages they are designed to address.

Eddie probably has a problem with only disabled people getting subsidised wheelchairs. "Where is mine!?!?!? Equity! Equity I say!"

 

[Kwality]

Quoting this post for its pure truthbomb status. It will be ignored by those who can't handle an inconvenient truth.

Missed me - yep, its true but is it inequitable? Why? Should any of this be equitable anyhow? To grow anything requires nurturing & its not something one section of our footy community grasps.

Victoria has not pulled its weight in terms of the number of players it contributes to the pool of players - NT, Tas, SA & WA always contribute more players to the pool than their clubs (if any) require. Thats not equitable ?

Equitable?

 

[Kwality]

Fine - let's get West Coast to set up an academy in Sydney. Let them find 700 boys who are prepared to pay $400 per year to be part of the really popular West Coast team. Let them provide training for the 700 twice a week at three different locations. Let them fork out a million dollars a year for the off chance they might get the occasional bargain in the draft.

You know the work done by WA footy in the Pilbara - about the same distance from Perth as Sydney IF geography is one of your points. Dont be under the illusion WA & SA footy are run by the AFL, Eddies squawking is not the position of anyone but the div1 Vic clubs.

 

[Colonial]

What is your point?

That the sydney clubs get given all the money isnt exactly true. When balanced with all clubs


But yeah your right who needs facts..

 

[Ruse]

The same people who want the academy system phased out will be the same ones that will be complaining that there's a massive dearth of talent in the afl in 3 years and crying for the afl to fix it.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Victoria has not pulled its weight in terms of the number of players it contributes to the pool of players - NT, Tas, SA & WA always contribute more players to the pool than their clubs (if any) require. Thats not equitable ?

Do you have the stats to back that up?

 

[Seedsfan]

Fine - let's get West Coast to set up an academy in Sydney. Let them find 700 boys who are prepared to pay $400 per year to be part of the really popular West Coast team. Let them provide training for the 700 twice a week at three different locations. Let them fork out a million dollars a year for the off chance they might get the occasional bargain in the draft.

Not hard for Sydney to afford it seeing they just live off AFL hand outs

 

[dazbroncos]

Yet there was no whinging from you when you got how many zone picks plus 17 year olds plus anything else you got! GC and GWS have had the most freebies!

Not to mention a TRUCK full of cash to throw at the best player in the competition in his prime that made it impossible for any incumbent club to compete.
For which some of us got impaled regarding the compensation..

Go Catters

 

[dazbroncos]

New franchises are different to established clubs. The AFL had to give out concessions and it was always going to be a difficult balance.
Did the AFL get it right? We do not know yet, they might've given too little - or too much.. Time will tell.

Ablett, Martin, Bennell, Prestia, JOM, Swallow. And that is just the 6 in the MF. And there is more. Fair to say the AFL gave to you with both hands and them some.

GO Catters

 

[dazbroncos]

I just find it amusing how much of a stink the academies cause for those down south. Yeah, us northern clubs are just filled to the brim with all the fantastic top end talent coming out of NSW and QLD. Looking over the past few years, i can totally see why this is such a problem, and why the rest of the clubs can't stand someone else getting first dibs on the never ending flow of simply unbelievable players coming through.

Nothing has been said about any kind of unfair advantage or leg up the northern clubs have had... until now. Until someone got a first round pick coming through the academy. Yet people fail to realise that that player might not be anywhere near the level they are, heck, they might not even be playing the sport all together, if it wasn't for the academies in the first place.

Money gets pumped into grass roots level to develop and improve talent in northern states. Finally starts showing some early signs of actually contributing some meaningful talent to the draft pool each year, and everyone goes bananas over how much of an advantage the norther clubs have. Some advantage, these players aren't even on a list year, and we've paid money to develop them to this point.

If other clubs want to take the players back off us, then they can start contributing sections of their salary cap back to the northern clubs as compensation in development costs.

I don't think its a Rd1 pick coming thru. Its a Rd1 pick going to a club that is highly successful already, adding top FA players with an extended salary cap, has won a Flag 2 years removed, is competing for one again this year and could potentially grab a Top 5 seeded pick for pick 18.

There should not be one complaint about GWS, Bris or GC getting Academy preselection presuming they all finish outside Top4. For mine, no Academy preselection should be allowed if you finish top 4.

And FS should be left alone. It is a completely separate entity. If Swans have a FS next year, then they can bid as per normal.

GO Catters

 

[Colonial]

Not hard for Sydney to afford it seeing they just live off AFL hand outs

Links?

 

[Colonial]

What is your point?

Meaning you would be incorrect in thinking the northern clubs live off handouts. If thats true then all the clubs are

 

[replicant]

Why not? The club already hands over 3 million+ per year, which mostly goes to junior and league development. At least this way, the club might get a return instead of funding a feeder comp for the expansion clubs.

Oh and at least that cash comes out of WC's own pocket, not from AFL handouts/sponsors.

Can WCE (or Freo) fans please explain this in more detail, or point me to some good info.

As far as i understand (which might be all wrong), both clubs are run independently, but owned by the WAFC. The WAFC also runs and funds the WAFL.

If this is the case, it's not really "funds coming out of WC's own pocket", it's really funds coming out of one of the WAFC's pockets (WC), and going into a different pocket (WAFL)?

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Not hard for Sydney to afford it seeing they just live off AFL hand outs

You do realise that the advertising, sponsorship and media rights dollars that flow into ALL clubs are heightened because of the games push into non-traditional states? Your club receives more money because of the potential audiences in NSW & Qld.

All clubs receive money from the AFL. Even yours. In fact Collingwood received more last year under the Club Future Fund than Gold Coast. More than twice as much actually. Sydney themselves received less than 6 of the 10 Victorian clubs. In total payments from the AFL they received less than every Victorian club.

 

[Colonial]

You do realise that the advertising, sponsorship and media rights dollars that flow into ALL clubs are heightened because of the games push into non-traditional states? Your club receives more money because of the potential audiences in NSW & Qld.

All clubs receive money from the AFL. Even yours. In fact Collingwood received more last year under the Club Future Fund than Gold Coast. More than twice as much actually. Sydney themselves received less than 6 of the 10 Victorian clubs. In total payments from the AFL they received less than every Victorian club.

Now now now dont let facts come into it. Crazy talk, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria is what they want to here

 

[Seedsfan]

You do realise that the advertising, sponsorship and media rights dollars that flow into ALL clubs are heightened because of the games push into non-traditional states? Your club receives more money because of the potential audiences in NSW & Qld.

All clubs receive money from the AFL. Even yours. In fact Collingwood received more last year under the Club Future Fund than Gold Coast. More than twice as much actually. Sydney themselves received less than 6 of the 10 Victorian clubs. In total payments from the AFL they received less than every Victorian club.

Future funds are for retired players Gold Coast have about 5 of those so they don't need a future fund. Collingwood does not get more money because of northern clubs more of our money is spent trying to support them. I know most of the victorian clubs are ****ed financially but a lot of the money they get has to do with playing at etihad.

 

[Colonial]

Future funds are for retired players Gold Coast have about 5 of those so they don't need a future fund. Collingwood does not get more money because of northern clubs more of our money is spent trying to support them. I know most of the victorian clubs are ****** financially but a lot of the money they get has to do with playing at etihad.

Link?

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Future funds are for retired players Gold Coast have about 5 of those so they don't need a future fund.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...struggling-clubs/story-e6frg7mf-1226147306183

"The financial boost to all clubs -- with a particular slant towards the poorer clubs -- will be introduced from next year.

The new equalisation fund, known as the club future fund, replaces annual special distribution, which has provided clubs with funding of $52 million over the past five years."

 

[whatboutbob]

I know most of the victorian clubs are ****** financially but a lot of the money they get has to do with playing at etihad.

So if I'm reading it right, what you're saying is there are mitigating circumstances that make it ok from some clubs to get more cash from the AFL...?