Swans' academy.

[master bate]

Well then you didn't pay attention at the time. That was the deal.

First article i could find, from 2010:
http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2010-04-06/roos-welcomes-new-academy

You know the definition of a loophole right? It's something not originally obvious that allows a shortcut. As said.
- First call on their services
- Bidding system
Both of those processes will remain. It's just the matching of the bid which should change from a pick 10+ picks later at the top of the draft to something fairer. And if we change the father son as well then it will still be a bidding system similar to father son.

Bingo. There is our difference. Hence, I'm looking forward to Melb, Coll or Hawthorn to setup a frontier academy, spend big dollars to develop kids from 12 years old and not get any advantage in securing them. In your eyes, it damn branding exercise. If you believe that's the incentive, I've got a bridge to sell you. Staggering.

Sydney at various times over the years have either complained about or gladly accepted advantages for:
- Cost of living and retention of players
- Small percentage of local based players on their list
- Inability to convince compete with Leagues ability to sign local players and offer them a pathway
- Poor standard of the state league
- Inability to bottom out and rebuild due to importance
- GWS stepping on their turf

All of those things can be corrected or alleviated with the academy system. If that's just a branding issue then you're the one looking for the bridge.

And we aren't hearing any proposal from the AFL and it's not coming from me that we change anything but the way high draft pick bids are matched fairly. So all the player related incentives are still there. So you can draft Brandon Jacks and Abe Lincolns or whatever his name is all day long. Just when you get a Heeney you pay up. That's all most of us are asking.

 

[SB70]

You know the definition of a loophole right? It's something not originally obvious that allows a shortcut. As said.
- First call on their services
- Bidding system
Both of those processes will remain. It's just the matching of the bid which should change from a pick 10+ picks later at the top of the draft to something fairer. And if we change the father son as well then it will still be a bidding system similar to father son.

Sydney at various times over the years have either complained about or gladly accepted advantages for:
- Cost of living and retention of players
- Small percentage of local based players on their list
- Inability to convince compete with Leagues ability to sign local players and offer them a pathway
- Poor standard of the state league
- Inability to bottom out and rebuild due to importance
- GWS stepping on their turf

All of those things can be corrected or alleviated with the academy system. If that's just a branding issue then you're the one looking for the bridge.

And we aren't hearing any proposal from the AFL and it's not coming from me that we change anything but the way high draft pick bids are matched fairly. So all the player related incentives are still there. So you can draft Brandon Jacks and Abe Lincolns or whatever his name is all day long. Just when you get a Heeney you pay up. That's all most of us are asking.

I know the consensus here is to argue on club lines but this just makes sense. I get Sydney fans wanting a windfall but arguing it is fair is a bit rich.

 

[AlibiMonday]

Just when you get a Heeney you pay up. That's all most of us are asking.

We are paying up. We'll be paying Pick 16-18, while if we were as average as Melbourne, we'd end up paying a 2nd rounder, much like the steal you got with Viney. Don't remember you harping on about paying up back then?? The hypocrisy is truly breathtaking.

If you were all just honest, you'd realise that you cannot stomach our good management and hard work.

 

[master bate]

We are paying up. We'll be paying Pick 16-18, while if we were as average as Melbourne, we'd end up paying a 2nd rounder, much like the steal you got with Viney. Don't remember you harping on about paying up back then?? The hypocrisy is truly breathtaking.

If you were all just honest, you'd realise that you cannot stomach our good management and hard work.

You got Tom Mitchell for a pretty good deal as well. I'm all for changing the father son. But it is at least a system where 16 clubs get a relative shot at. Not 4. I'm all for changing the academy bidding for GWS, Gold Coast, Brisbane etc as well.

I'd hate GWS to get some absolute steals and given they have the southern NSW area that produced some champions of the game such as Carey, Hawkins, Crawford and Tex Walker it's a realistic possibility that in time they will.

One way or another GWS are going to be a good side in a few years time. Maybe even mixing it with the swans in top 4 contention. If they paid pick 15 for the next Shane Crawford how would you feel?

I just want advantages gone so we can judge you on your merits. The smart swans supporters have seen the writing on the wall and don't want all their hard work tarnished by asterisks. These academy rules don't actually affect Melbourne much. Sydney will be way better than us regardless. It's more the teams like North, Essendon, Port who have been building up for a while now who then might struggle to get passed Sydney on the ladder if they get high draft picks at discount price.

 

[AlibiMonday]

If GWS paid pick 15 for the next Shane Crawford how would you feel?

...and they'd developed him into a Shane Crawford since he was a 12 year old kid. I wouldn't be the slightest bit worried. They invested time, money and other resources in him and 1000 others for 5-8 years. The alternative is the guy is picked up as an undeveloped rookie with a high ceiling (ala Keiran Jack or Luke Bruest).

The reality is that there is absolutely no problem with this academy system. People simply cannot stand that Sydney are reaping a minor return from a long term investment whilst they're at the top of the table. Mid-table, you absolutely wouldn't hear a peep. Which means the whole basis of the argument is built on sour grapes. The clubs must have been more than happy to see Sydney spunking their money developing hundreds of failed NSW kids because nothing was said whilst they dropped $1Mpa for 4 years, yet as soon as they develop a reasonable one, they want it revoked - biggest load of whinging BS I've seen.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

You got Tom Mitchell for a pretty good deal as well. I'm all for changing the father son. But it is at least a system where 16 clubs get a relative shot at. Not 4. I'm all for changing the academy bidding for GWS, Gold Coast, Brisbane etc as well.

I'd hate GWS to get some absolute steals and given they have the southern NSW area that produced some champions of the game such as Carey, Hawkins, Crawford and Tex Walker it's a realistic possibility that in time they will.

One way or another GWS are going to be a good side in a few years time. Maybe even mixing it with the swans in top 4 contention. If they paid pick 15 for the next Shane Crawford how would you feel?

I just want advantages gone so we can judge you on your merits. The smart swans supporters have seen the writing on the wall and don't want all their hard work tarnished by asterisks. These academy rules don't actually affect Melbourne much. Sydney will be way better than us regardless. It's more the teams like North, Essendon, Port who have been building up for a while now who then might struggle to get passed Sydney on the ladder if they get high draft picks at discount price.

then have the AFL fund it.

again you avoid the issue, no one from any expansion club is saying we should have free reign academies, the fact is they are not cheap to run if the clubs MUST run them then they MUST be compensated. either through funding or draft compensation.

it's like Bigfooty is a meth addict that can't stop talking about some light bulb they saw.
you want northern clubs to stand on their own feet, but when they make a financially sound decision, financing academies in exchange for draft access. Then saying well if we lose that we will have to reassess our investment.

Suddenly "oh it's for the good of the game, take the hit so whoever's s**t at the time benefit's" and of all the things now we have melbourne supporters claiming they don't receive AFL support, on top of what 80% of priority picks you've been bailed out (on top of receiving AFL disequal funds for years) the AFL arranges a rolled gold deal to get roosy to your club and for the first time in history takes a player that's retired off a clubs books before his contract finished.

meanwhile the lions are rotting and the AFL threatened to pull funding if they removed the cancer to protect the AFL's image, nobody is on the footy show running funding drives and asking how can we get brissy back on its feet because having teams that aren't competitive isn't good for the game. no one's bending over backwards to take over their debt or get them a premiership coach. the fact is plenty of melbourne based clubs get funding and support and they get it without any scrutiny or objections.

Meanwhile any assistance to a club up north is attacked because clubs in expansion states must beholden to extra burdens and investigations. FFS north during there so called "war" with the AFL received over 10 million dollars of AFL funding no questions asked 7 million from the ASD alone.

the fact is unless your a WA team you've all received AFL assistance at one time or another, we are club that was forcibly relocated by the VFL after having our own funding cut for years. the club nearly died and this was done on purpose by the VFL headed by richmond and saint kilda footy clubs. then it's all about our so called advantages and everybody pretends no other club receives AFL support, ever. so save us your tired hypocritical bullshit.

the lions are a prime example of the difference in how AFL support is viewed between northern clubs and everywhere else, when the lions eventually get bailed out, This site will be all to wall with threads about the AFL "propping up" northern clubs and how these poor clubs like the Bulldogs and Roo's receiving no support (when in fact they are the largest recipients of AFL funding year after year) and how the game has sold it's soul, meanwhile anyone up north who follows the game will still remember watching the footy show at 12:30 at night and how everybody was gathering around singing koombaya and celebrating the "new" bright future of the demons when they got priority pick, after priority (which was only stopped because of hawthorn getting picks after winning a flag) followed by funding and a rolled gold coach.

BTW no swans fan gives two shits about your little jaded asterisks that have been applied to 98% of every flag ever won at this point.

 

[Tedeski]

You know the definition of a loophole right? It's something not originally obvious that allows a shortcut. As said.
- First call on their services
- Bidding system
Both of those processes will remain. It's just the matching of the bid which should change from a pick 10+ picks later at the top of the draft to something fairer. And if we change the father son as well then it will still be a bidding system similar to father son.

Sydney at various times over the years have either complained about or gladly accepted advantages for:
- Cost of living and retention of players
- Small percentage of local based players on their list
- Inability to convince compete with Leagues ability to sign local players and offer them a pathway
- Poor standard of the state league
- Inability to bottom out and rebuild due to importance
- GWS stepping on their turf

All of those things can be corrected or alleviated with the academy system. If that's just a branding issue then you're the one looking for the bridge.

And we aren't hearing any proposal from the AFL and it's not coming from me that we change anything but the way high draft pick bids are matched fairly. So all the player related incentives are still there. So you can draft Brandon Jacks and Abe Lincolns or whatever his name is all day long. Just when you get a Heeney you pay up. That's all most of us are asking.

Roos will use Melbourne's first pick to bid for Heeney.
Swans will let Roos take him with that pick.
You heard it here first.

Roos will also offer a 3 year contract to a key 30 YO player that won't be part of Melbourne's succession plan. He will purely just help give Roos some success whilst he is there. Malceski.
Don't be surprised if Roos offers Ryan O'Keefe a contract to bolster the midfield. Roos seems to be coaching for the now so he can move of into the sunset with his reputation intact.

You should be more interested in the questionable decisions being made at Melbourne at the moment with the amount of money that has been flung at Roos.
No doubt that he will restore some pride in your team but just have a look at your coaches. It is the Sydney Swans retirement fund.
Jobs for the boys.
Does that not concern you. Roos knows exactly what these academies are for yet he chose to put the boots into the Swans on the Eddie McGuire anti Swans propaganda show on MMM!

Just let the AFL fund the academies 100% & make all players available to everyone. That way we can just take them back when they're 'homesick' & after they've had 2 or 3 years put into them.

Come on Gillon.
Make a decision & stop using Eddie's spine to hold you upright!

 

[Syd]

Roos will use Melbourne's first pick to bid for Heeney.
Swans will let Roos take him with that pick.
You heard it here first.

No.

 

[Tedeski]

No.

OK!
We'll take him with pick 18!

 

[Tedeski]

I know the consensus here is to argue on club lines but this just makes sense. I get Sydney fans wanting a windfall but arguing it is fair is a bit rich.

A call bullsh.t that you are a Swan supporter!

 

[go_the_dockers]

the lions are a prime example of the difference in how AFL support is viewed between northern clubs and everywhere else, when the lions eventually get bailed out, This site will be all to wall with threads about the AFL "propping up" northern clubs and how these poor clubs like the Bulldogs and Roo's receiving no support (when in fact they are the largest recipients of AFL funding year after year) and how the game has sold it's soul, meanwhile anyone up north who follows the game will still remember watching the footy show at 12:30 at night and how everybody was gathering around singing koombaya and celebrating the "new" bright future of the demons when they got priority pick, after priority (which was only stopped because of hawthorn getting picks after winning a flag) followed by funding and a rolled gold coach.

No one has an issue with clubs get extra funding where they need it. Ideally all clubs should be able to spend the same about of cash on players, coaches and recruiting staff.

I think the AFL has done a brilliant job fixing up Melbourne by getting Roos and a new CEO in to fix the club from the inside out, and I would support the AFL if they did a similar job with Brisbane or any other club.

The issue I have is when you compromise the draft or the salary cap, these are the two main things which keep the competition even.

 

[SB70]

We are paying up. We'll be paying Pick 16-18, while if we were as average as Melbourne, we'd end up paying a 2nd rounder, much like the steal you got with Viney. Don't remember you harping on about paying up back then?? The hypocrisy is truly breathtaking.

If you were all just honest, you'd realise that you cannot stomach our good management and hard work.

Bit different in terms of numbers. We have 3 kids invited to combine this year where FS comes about occasionally.
I think changing FS has merit as well - not stop the clubs getting them just a fairer price.
While Viney was a bargains he didn't get to a top side so situation wasn't as heated but I would support a situation where they get him at 23 or whatever it was but also have to downgrade next pick.

 

[master bate]

...and they'd developed him into a Shane Crawford since he was a 12 year old kid. I wouldn't be the slightest bit worried. They invested time, money and other resources in him and 1000 others for 5-8 years. The alternative is the guy is picked up as an undeveloped rookie with a high ceiling (ala Keiran Jack or Luke Bruest).

The reality is that there is absolutely no problem with this academy system. People simply cannot stand that Sydney are reaping a minor return from a long term investment whilst they're at the top of the table. Mid-table, you absolutely wouldn't hear a peep. Which means the whole basis of the argument is built on sour grapes. The clubs must have been more than happy to see Sydney spunking their money developing hundreds of failed NSW kids because nothing was said whilst they dropped $1Mpa for 4 years, yet as soon as they develop a reasonable one, they want it revoked - biggest load of whinging BS I've seen.

Firstly it's not 1 mil per year. AFL kicks in 250k of it. Then I'm not sure you need Mickey O as coach, aren't there others without such expensive profiles to run it as proficient coaches? Maybe Mickey O's wage is partly justified by the publicity he gives it, ie. part of the academy is an advertising thing. Then QBE kick money in, which I've already said isn't as charity, how many 1000's of kids are running around with QBE logos on all their gear? The net cost of the whole thing to the swans is probably more like 500k and considering the advertising value they get it's so much less. Then you add all the things you never debate me on like the value of boosting the number of kids, families, local clubs etc which can all feed back to the swans. And of course the pre development of players which is a nice little boost to have kids training up in the swans organization. All that for 500k.

Then the big one which is that no southern team can have an academy. Collingwood would sign on tomorrow for 500k to have an academy heck they'd pay the whole thing themselves no sponsors or AFL funding. Beats buying pubs.

IF you were mid table you wouldn't be getting such a big bargain at the draft table. That's all my opinion is about and that's the entire problem with the system. Sydney might finish with 17 wins, then in the first round (which is where it really counts) get the same draft pick as Brisbane who might finish with 6 wins. Cyclical nature of competition and draft completely upset.

Of course I understand Heeney probably wouldn't be as good as he is today without the swans academy. But a lot of the TAC cup kids wouldn't be where they are in the draft without the TAC, same with WA kids and WAFL, no one club gets to benefit from that regardless of where the funding came from. The draft happens at 18. If Sydney are developing kids so well for the draft then that's great, but that alone doesn't mean they should just get to keep them for unders. The good development should see lots of kids available in 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks and if you decides that giving up a second rounder plus pick 18 to equal Heeney's value is too steep there's plenty of other kids.

 

[SB70]

A call bullsh.t that you are a Swan supporter!

Because I don't want our success tainted by an unfair advantage.
I just don't get the argument that we pay for it so we should get an advantage - this just goes totally against the concept of equalisation.

I actually don't think the advantage will end up being huge but it could be - if Heeney, Mills and Dunkley are all genuine top 5 picks and we get them at 18, 18 and 36 it could impact the competition for a decade and the bitching and moaning about any success will make COLA seem insignificant.
If we have a system like what it appears the AFL are talking about and Heeney is bid for at 3 we get him and pick 50 for pick 18 and 36. To me that is still good value, still gets local kids on our list, helps with promotion of the academy to the kids and takes the heat out of the debate so they survive long term. Surely this is a better result for Sydney than losing academies or the go to solution of let AFL pay and let the kids go wherever.

 

[Tedeski]

Because I don't want our success tainted by an unfair advantage.
I just don't get the argument that we pay for it so we should get an advantage - this just goes totally against the concept of equalisation.

I actually don't think the advantage will end up being huge but it could be - if Heeney, Mills and Dunkley are all genuine top 5 picks and we get them at 18, 18 and 36 it could impact the competition for a decade and the bitching and moaning about any success will make COLA seem insignificant.
If we have a system like what it appears the AFL are talking about and Heeney is bid for at 3 we get him and pick 50 for pick 18 and 36. To me that is still good value, still gets local kids on our list, helps with promotion of the academy to the kids and takes the heat out of the debate so they survive long term. Surely this is a better result for Sydney than losing academies or the go to solution of let AFL pay and let the kids go wherever.

Let the AFL fund them 100%, let the Vic clubs draft them & then bring them back home 2 years later via the VHRS!
(Victorian Homesickness Recruiting Strategy)

You must have enjoyed the Hawks win over the Swans the other night. Thanks for Buddy, Kennedy & McGlynn!

I still call bullsh.t that you are a Swan supporter!

 

[bluespooner]

I just don't get the argument that we pay for it so we should get an advantage - this just goes totally against the concept of equalisation.

Sydney doesn't pay for anything, it just passes on money it gets from the AFL to fund the academy.

The hypocrisy of spoonfed supporters is truly staggering. Not only was the priority draft pick introduced to assist Sydney and Brisbane to be competitive back in the early 1990s; with Victorian clubs having to forego their zones to provide for the national competition. Now the swans as one of the most significant beneficiaries of this AFL system want more by having their own private zone to which they have first selection rights.

As I said absolutely staggering given all the other advantages this club has been gifted.

 

[J_Moore]

if Heeney, Mills and Dunkley are all genuine top 5 picks and we get them at 18, 18 and 36 it could impact the competition for a decade and the bitching and moaning about any success will make COLA seem insignificant.

Dunkley is a father-son, so why he's featuring in this conversation at all confuses me.

 

[SB70]

Let the AFL fund them 100%, let the Vic clubs draft them & then bring them back home 2 years later via the VHRS!
(Victorian Homesickness Recruiting Strategy)

You must have enjoyed the Hawks win over the Swans the other night. Thanks for Buddy, Kennedy & McGlynn!

I still call bullsh.t that you are a Swan supporter!

What I am arguing for has more benefit to Sydney than your argument and is likely to be successful and therefore survive long term.

 

[SB70]

Dunkley is a father-son, so why he's featuring in this conversation at all confuses me.

If we use first round on one we get to use 2nd pick on the other as it stands. No real difference to two FS or two academy players but the academy numbers make it more likely.

 

[aussierulesrules]

...and they'd developed him into a Shane Crawford since he was a 12 year old kid. I wouldn't be the slightest bit worried. They invested time, money and other resources in him and 1000 others for 5-8 years. The alternative is the guy is picked up as an undeveloped rookie with a high ceiling (ala Keiran Jack or Luke Bruest).

The reality is that there is absolutely no problem with this academy system.

Ha ha, good one!

The problem is that 14 other clubs aren't allowed to start up their own academy if they want to, so that they too can get in some of the best young talent in a particular area and then develop them under elite guidance for years and then get them on the cheap once they are draft eligible. Do you really think that rich clubs like Collingwood, Hawthorn, West Coast, Fremantle and so-on wouldn't do it in a flash if they were allowed to? Imagine if Geelong started one up in their area!!?

And for anyone trying to suggest that Sydney only gets a "minor" advantage" with their academy, that is such a load of ignorant crap it isn't funny.

If the rules don't change this year, over the next two seasons Sydney could potentially get 3 who are rated as top 5 or at a minimum top 10 prospects with picks like 18, 18 and 36, which would be an extraordinary advantage (two through the academy and one through F/S, which means that one would be taken with just a 2nd rounder). Potentially adding the equivalent of 3 Ollie Wines at bargain prices to their already super-strong list, which just goes completely against the equalisation the AFL has been all about since first introducing the draft and salary cap.

I read yesterday that of all those invited to the draft combine this year, a whopping 25% come from NSW and Qld, which shows how much the game is growing in those areas and if the academy rules stay the same, the teams in those states who have academies are likely to get a big advantage at draft time pretty much every year from now on and that's why it is almost certainly going to change ASAP.

It would be like a club having a production line of F/S prospects coming through year after year and we've seen what an enormous advantage a team like Geelong were able to get by getting the likes of Ablett, Scarlett and Hawkins on the cheap.

There's no way that that is a fair or equitable system and that of course is why so many who support Sydney are fighting so hard for it to be kept the same, because they know what an extraordinary advantage it will give them over most of the rest of the competition and unfortunately they are seemingly too selfish to care about whether it is a fair or right system or not.

then have the AFL fund it.

No issues with that. All most of us want is a fair system and it would not be fair for you to have to fork out all this money if you don't get any significant advantage in return.

AFL funds the academies, clubs with academies pay a fair price for anyone they sign from their academy. Good for the competition and no-one is getting a huge competitive advantage on their competitors that others aren't able to get.

Chances are that Sydney will still make out like absolute bandits next year even if they had to give up all their picks for Mills and Dunkley though, as that would still be ludicrously good value. Every other club in the comp would gladly give up all regular their picks in the 16-100 range if it meant getting a "potential top 3 pick" (Mills) and another who could also be worth a top 5, or at worst 10, pick.

If the AFL are fair-dinkum about making clubs pay a fair price they ought to make them give up at least one pick in the following year's draft as well, under those sort of circumstances. (Eg. their first 3 picks next year and then their first rounder the following year as well- which could still be excellent value).

 

[Sydney Bloods]

No one has an issue with clubs get extra funding where they need it. Ideally all clubs should be able to spend the same about of cash on players, coaches and recruiting staff.

I think the AFL has done a brilliant job fixing up Melbourne by getting Roos and a new CEO in to fix the club from the inside out, and I would support the AFL if they did a similar job with Brisbane or any other club.

The issue I have is when you compromise the draft or the salary cap, these are the two main things which keep the competition even.

the colas already gone and thats not what this thread, this is about the academy.
If we don't get the Picks that were agreed to and signed off by the other clubs, then compensate us for the money we have spent developing the kids. That's all we ask.

the fact is MY club held up its end of the responsibility in the agreement to do the AFL's job. now everybody is bitching because in a year were we are up, we look to be getting the most overrated draft pick of all time. (and god i hope it's saint kilda who bid on him as top ten and we pass)

 

[Kummerspeck]

Thread has been a great read. Thanks for all who contributed. I especially like the comparisons of the Swans academy zone which has produced one rookie in the last five years to places like Geelong and Western Australia.

 

[Scotland]

Thread has been a great read. Thanks for all who contributed. I especially like the comparisons of the Swans academy zone which has produced one rookie in the last five years to places like Geelong and Western Australia.

I especially like the parts where Swans fans tell everyone how the zone has produced next to no players so having first dibs on any academy players is not an advantage yet don't want their club to lose said advantage and think investing $1m p.a. of "their" money into it is a good idea and benefits the whole competition. No holes in that logic at all.

 

[Kummerspeck]

I especially like the parts where Swans fans tell everyone how the zone has produced next to no players so having first dibs on any academy players is not an advantage yet don't want their club to lose said advantage and think investing $1m p.a. of "their" money into it is a good idea and benefits the whole competition. No holes in that logic at all.

I'm sure you do like patchworking the differing arguments of many different posters into something you can refute easily.

 

[Scotland]

I'm sure you do like patchworking the differing arguments of many different posters into something you can refute easily.

An interest we both share it would seem.