News Changes to Father Son/Academy Bidding

[RUNVS]

The system is not bad but it definitely needs tweaking as the cost of the first 3 draft picks is way too high. Pick 1 is not 30% better than pick 4.

 

[SASwan]

Looks like we should ask the AFL to refund us all the money we have spent over the past few years developing the current group of Sydney Academy players and from this point on let the AFL fund the Swans Academy and all of the other Academies. Brisbane, Gold Coast and the Giants should also ask for a refund.

Then they can implement their bidding system on the basis that the AFL has funded it in full for the current crop of players.

Otherwise allow the current players in each system to play out. Most will not make it onto our list or any other team's list. Big cost to us for a bunch of spuds! But a great investment in AFL in a rugby league state.

Other clubs should be very careful about changing the Father-Son rules. It has already been tightened up. Might be us this year but it will be Collingwood or Carlton next year. What goes around comes around.

 

[swansfan51]

Pick 1 is not 30% better than pick 4.

You're right - in drafts since 2000, it is more than that. Here's the number of games played by draftees #1 and #4 in each year

2013 9 vs 16
2012 30 vs 18
2011 29 vs 39
2010 73 vs 85
2009 86 vs 26
2008 95 vs 90
2007 106 vs 76 (delisted)
2006 177 vs 94
2005 185 vs 140
2004 214 vs 124 (delisted)
2003 219 vs 197
2002 247 vs 1 (delisted)
2001 250 vs 111
2000 281 vs 46

The worst long-term #1 pick in terms of games per season is Matthew Kreuzer, definitely not a spud. Not a single dud player.

The #4s include Cale Morton, Richard Tambling, Luke Livingston and Tim Walsh

 

[SASwan]

Perhaps we should ask Mills and Dunkley to take it easy this year and hope their value slides.

Just don't go in so hard, don't gather too many possessions, try not to get into the best players.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Perhaps we should ask Mills and Dunkley to take it easy this year and hope their value slides.

Just don't go in so hard, don't gather too many possessions, try not to get into the best players.

Careful now do you want us to be hit with another penalty.

 

[Mister B]

Looks like we should ask the AFL to refund us all the money we have spent over the past few years developing the current group of Sydney Academy players and from this point on let the AFL fund the Swans Academy and all of the other Academies. Brisbane, Gold Coast and the Giants should also ask for a refund.

Then they can implement their bidding system on the basis that the AFL has funded it in full for the current crop of players.

Otherwise allow the current players in each system to play out. Most will not make it onto our list or any other team's list. Big cost to us for a bunch of spuds! But a great investment in AFL in a rugby league state.

Other clubs should be very careful about changing the Father-Son rules. It has already been tightened up. Might be us this year but it will be Collingwood or Carlton next year. What goes around comes around.

If I remember correctly when QBE recently announced further sponsorship they made an explicit clarification that if the AFL messed with the draft system and academies the sponsorship would be withdrawn. I say if changes are made we pull all funding, shut the academy down and watch as the AFL makes a complete balls up of the situation. I could only hope that with the withdrawal of the academy, the likes of Mills announced he was switching to NRL as there was greater support for juniors in NSW.

 

[MarkP]

Here is the news we have been waiting for

AFL set to introduce live bidding for father-son picks
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ding-for-fatherson-picks-20150127-12zb9b.html


http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ding-for-fatherson-picks-20150127-12zb9b.html

If I understand that correctly our chances of getting Dunkley are really low.

And just a year after Collingwood get whats-his-name Moore under the old father son system eh....

Obviously just a coincidence.

I just knew they were going to do something to stop the Mills + Dunkley opportunity though.

Power politics 101 and the VFL mafia are having a field day.

Regardless of the equity in the new system - and at first blush I reckon it has merit - the outright arrogance of the AFL in imposing what amounts to a 2 year Swans-based restriction in the market is mind boggling.

They don't care that we all see and know why they are doing it. And meanwhile Hawthorn trade in another AA who probably, definitely, had a better offer from Freo on the table. I mean really? This is banana republic dictator stuff.

Very disappointed if we do nothing about it for next year after we rolled over this one gone.

 

[RW]

Don't get me wrong, I think the formula has merit, and it probably does its job in the sense that it will ensure clubs pay a price somewhat closer to market value for the standout F/S and academy picks who genuinely would be top 10 draft selections normally, it probably won't change things too much for the rest.

Having said that, I'm not personally a fan of attempting to measure outcomes that are inherently uncertain, as no-one knows whether any of the academy prospects will even make it, and these things have a habit of evening out over time anyway. Sure, you might end up with a steal one year, but next year you could pay overs for someone who'll never play a senior game. We're putting our own money into the Academy which means WE bear the risk if it isn't successful. That's why it's important that we fight to ensure that we reap our fair share of the rewards when our investment DOES bear fruit. Otherwise, why would we invest in it?

This new system probably won't stop us picking up the players we want if we really want them, it'll just stop us getting a Heeney or Mills for unders. To be honest, as others have said, it's hard to see it as anything other than a thinly disguised attempt to make life more difficult for the Swans.

 

[Jack2Jack]

It's not the worst system although it is completely knee jerk, maybe the % discount should be pushed up a little bit to make it worthwhile for the clubs to run these academies (30-35% would be more around the mark)...also I don't see the point in F/S only being 15%, why not just make 25%(if that's what it stays as) as well. F/S may be a little 'unequal' but it's a nice little touch and should stay, they don't need to Americanise everything.

The equalisation committee is a joke though and completely needs to completely scrapped or restaffed. To have someone like McGuire who has nothing but his own personal club interests at heart (despite the fact he tries to hide his agendas behind other things) is a big detriment true competition equality . They need to have representatives from every state which hosts an AFL club, so they can truly understand the challenges faced by each and every state, not just a group of very biased Victorian club presidents who think/pretend they know what development is like in NSW/QLD, or think/pretend they know how travel truly impacts WA teams etc.

 

[nottenthagain]

Perhaps we should ask Mills and Dunkley to take it easy this year and hope their value slides.

Just don't go in so hard, don't gather too many possessions, try not to get into the best players.

So much hype around these two which is driven by the media and various whingers with an agenda, hopefully the media coverage is fair and they fall to their true positions/value. They should go as hard as possible and be picked on merit... if they are we should be fine. As good as Mills seems, I don't see him as a no.1 at the moment.... long way to go though.

 

[FreeAgent1]

And just a year after Collingwood get whats-his-name Moore under the old father son system eh....

Obviously just a coincidence.

I just knew they were going to do something to stop the Mills + Dunkley opportunity though.

Power politics 101 and the VFL mafia are having a field day.

Regardless of the equity in the new system - and at first blush I reckon it has merit - the outright arrogance of the AFL in imposing what amounts to a 2 year Swans-based restriction in the market is mind boggling.

They don't care that we all see and know why they are doing it. And meanwhile Hawthorn trade in another AA who probably, definitely, had a better offer from Freo on the table. I mean really? This is banana republic dictator stuff.

Very disappointed if we do nothing about it for next year after we rolled over this one gone.

I can see teams going massively into negative points (i.e. trading next years picks essentially) and subsequently trading in following years back into the draft, only way I can see teams not getting trade raped if they have academies/f-s picks and just upgrade rookies. Swans haven't had a top 10 pick in years (ok heeney excluded) if we can get 2, they are prob worth 2015's pick 14-18, + second round and 2016 14-18 + second round (moved to early 3rd) . I mean especially if they are top 5 picks you would trade 17+35 for pick 1-5 every day of the week.

 

[Tedeski]

I've had a good look at the points system and the way it will work at the National Draft and it appears basically ok to me. The only problem I have is the steep rise in points towards the top picks.

The 25% discount is very fair for the expenditure we put into our academy and very workable in our favour during the trade period and ND. We get players at a 25% discount to their "actual" worth so that is a bonus. Other clubs may also be a little wary of using a pick at that "actual" worth on an academy player who having been immersed in our club for 6 years could go home after just two seasons for far less than the bidding club paid for him.

Our problem is the probability that Mills could be number 1. On the above scenario, I don't think he will be. He'd would have to be clearly better than the best Victorian midfielder for say St.Kilda to risk their No1 pick on him and that is highly unlikely. As shown at the last draft, a number of players are likely to be around the mark and a through and through dyed in the wool Swan in Mills is not going to be picked before similar home state players.

If the 2014 draft was done under the news rules, Melbourne would not have bid pick 2 or pick 3 on Heeney, they would have gone with the two local players they did take Petracca and Brayshaw.

So Heeney would not have cost us 2517 (1888) points, at most he would have cost pick 4 2034 (1526). We can only hope that Mills slips to be just in the top mix and not a clear number 1 and that Dunkley rates mid teens say pick 15 1112 (834) equivalent to pick 22.

In a dream scenario, could you get pick 1 from St.Kilda for say Hanneberry, gives you pick 1 worth 3000 points. You then draft Mills with pick 1 (2250) leaving you 750 points to upgrade your pick 18 worth 985 points to pick 7 1644 points and 91 points left over to upgrade your pick 36 502 points to pick 32. Select a KPD player you want at pick 7 then use pick 32 and later picks to get Dunkley at pick 15.

So it's Hanners out, Mills, Dunkley and KPD at pick 7 in!

This system will work for us guys and then Eddie will start complaining about the 25% discount

We are just the best club at recruiting & list management.
This intimidates the Fat Controller because he knows his club will be trash for the next 5 years!

 

[Wayne Swan]

We are just the best club at recruiting & list management.
This intimidates the Fat Controller because he knows his club will be trash for the next 5 years!

McGuire seems to be particularly anti Swans to the point of irrationality. As for his club, he's still smarting from his "Captain's pick" of Buckley as coach that has turned a premiership side into also rans, despite having the most charmed run of advantages of any side in the comp.

Full confidence in our club to make the right calls come draft time, whether that be passing or drafting Mills and Dunkley. They will know what is available to draft in 2016 and whether we burn some of those picks this year.

 

[ponsdale]

The fundamental principle of the formula is sound - trying to get a fairer system for F/S and Academy selections. The inequity lies in the two key variables used.

The sliding scale of value dropping steeply from pick 1 down is supposed to be based on data (average salaries for players taken at those picks from 2000 onwards) so it's unlikely that the AFL will change this.

The other is the two discount factors that are applied. The AFL presentation deck states that the 15% and 25% values are indicative only so I would expect a lot of debate around these. The fact that the Academy selections were allocated a greater discount factor in the examples is a strong indicator that the AFL recognises the greater investment made in running the academies. G Swan is already arguing for an increase in the academy discount factor. The Swans, rightly, are performing some detailed analysis internally before they come back with a reasoned position for a greater discount factor.

You can bet that all clubs will argue for an greater discount factor for the F/S selections as well.

My bet is that both discount factors will increase to around 20% for F/S and to 30-35% for Academy selections. This will provide sufficient incentive to clubs to continue academies and to retain f/s as well.

The fact that the selections then become part of draft day will be fascinating to watch. Each club will still have their list of players to select at particular draft points. We will get a truer view of a player's perceived worth rather than just saying that 'player X would have been top five if he wasn't preselected'. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[FreeAgent1]

[QUOTE=" We will get a truer view of a player's perceived worth rather than just saying that 'player X would have been top five if he wasn't preselected'. I'm looking forward to it.[/QUOTE]

Wont it distort it?? I mean by forcing a competitor to pay overs, the club is unlikely to say ahh 2500 points....pass they just wont take picks 1,2. (Heeney example that the swans would trade 18,37 38 for 2 and 70) they would still likely make the trade, but heeneys real value is more likely to be no 3-5, but knowing the swans will pick him up anyway distorts the decision matrix.

 

[MickyG]

[QUOTE=" We will get a truer view of a player's perceived worth rather than just saying that 'player X would have been top five if he wasn't preselected'. I'm looking forward to it.

Wont it distort it?? I mean by forcing a competitor to pay overs, the club is unlikely to say ahh 2500 points....pass they just wont take picks 1,2. (Heeney example that the swans would trade 18,37 38 for 2 and 70) they would still likely make the trade, but heeneys real value is more likely to be no 3-5, but knowing the swans will pick him up anyway distorts the decision matrix.

The Swans may or may not pick him up if the price is too high. I just made this post on the main board:

I think that under the proposed system Heeney would have got a bid at 4 from GWS. Melbourne would not use pick 2 or 3 when there are equal or better Victorian players. That's 2034 points less 25% = 1526. That uses our pick 18 (985pts) plus pick 37 (483pts) and 58 points off pick 38 moves it to pick 42. There is no way Fremantle would have used a second round pick on Hiscox (who has only played for two years but has an athletics background that resulted in very good draft testing results). We paid overs for Hiscox. I don't think anyone would have used a second round pick on him so we would probably still get James Rose with pick 42. In the third round I think there could have been bids for Hiscox and/or Davis but we would have used picks 57 (that we passed with) and 70, and carried over a points debt to this year. In my worse case scenario that may have cost us 400 points which is equal to a move from pick 18 to pick 32. Not great but when other recruiters knew this situation and are aware of the Mills and Dunkley 2015 draft situation would they have been more cautious bidding for Hiscox and Davis? I suspect they may have been very cautious and we could have picked them up with picks 57 and 70. In this scenario the outcome would not have been any different to what we actually got.

 

[Vin Rogue]

The fundamental principle of the formula is sound - trying to get a fairer system for F/S and Academy selections. The inequity lies in the two key variables used.

The sliding scale of value dropping steeply from pick 1 down is supposed to be based on data (average salaries for players taken at those picks from 2000 onwards) so it's unlikely that the AFL will change this.

The other is the two discount factors that are applied. The AFL presentation deck states that the 15% and 25% values are indicative only so I would expect a lot of debate around these. The fact that the Academy selections were allocated a greater discount factor in the examples is a strong indicator that the AFL recognises the greater investment made in running the academies. G Swan is already arguing for an increase in the academy discount factor. The Swans, rightly, are performing some detailed analysis internally before they come back with a reasoned position for a greater discount factor.

You can bet that all clubs will argue for an greater discount factor for the F/S selections as well.

My bet is that both discount factors will increase to around 20% for F/S and to 30-35% for Academy selections. This will provide sufficient incentive to clubs to continue academies and to retain f/s as well.

The fact that the selections then become part of draft day will be fascinating to watch. Each club will still have their list of players to select at particular draft points. We will get a truer view of a player's perceived worth rather than just saying that 'player X would have been top five if he wasn't preselected'. I'm looking forward to it.

I'd like us to look at the problem we face slightly differently and argue from a different perspective. We are being offered a discount ( 25%) for players that we select. In effect, that discount is a payment for the Swans development work of the AFL code in hostile territory. What if the Swans select no player in a draft? The AFL is essentially getting a freebie. Yet the swans investment costs in the academy remain exactly the same.
And when the academy produces players that are deemed to be future guns, how are the swans compensated for their investment, if we are unable to match the bid made by our other competitors?
One possible answer, is that when other Clubs select players from any Academy/Development squad, that 25 per cent of the points used become a credit for the host club. This will have a potential disincentive factor for other Clubs to bid against the host - so perhaps we need to barter with our percentage take.This assists us if we miss out on a Mills or Dunkley.
In the event that no players are selected, then I feel that it would only be right, that our service be deemed to cost 25 per cent ( ? )of the rolling average of points of the past three years' drafts. In this way, it is made very clear that the Swans are being paid as AFL promoters and developers of the code in NRL heartland. And if the Swans,Lions, Suns and Giants get a good return from this excise/bounty, it is only because they have enticed gifted kids away from the rival code. And that is something even Fat Eddie would like. In fact if the Fat Controller was in charge of the Swans, he would already have come up with this win/win plan and would have spruiked it far and loud.
Reckon there might be something we can gain by pushing from these angles.

 

[Blacky]

I think we will come away with them

Just have to play the cards close to the chest

 

[mark121]

At first sight appears to be a fair however I believe it goes too far. Using Heeney as example we would need to trade all our picks for one player preventing trading and only leaving players around pick 80 for the remaining selections. One player taken that late isn't an issue but 5 or 6 taken that late it could be very damaging to list balance.

If we take Dunkley and Mills this year they could end up costing us 2 years of draft picks limiting all options for 2 years. IMO changing the rules this much means teams will no longer get steals from the academies causing interest will wane.

For that reason I expect to see us withdraw funding from the academies over the next couple of years. If the AFL are serious about the academies they would need to fill the drop in investment but i doubt this would happen and gains made in attracting youngsters to the sport and a possible career will stall returning to normal.

All this said i'm sure we would still take both if given the option.

 

[mark121]

A lot of questions would still need to be answered.

For example if a team bids pick 17 and you match with pick 18 you would be gaining points not losing them are they carried over to next year? are they affecting your later picks?

Would we have the choice of what round picks we lose? for example could we keep our first round pick by surrendering our 2nd and third if they add up to enough points?

Are we able to trade picks to improve the amount of points our picks are worth? For example could we trade pick 28 for picks 30, 48 and 60 or are the picks committed as soon as we bid?

I imagine all the answers to all of these questions especially the last one wound be to our detriment but if not it becomes more manageable.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf

A closer look at the examples indicates we would have no control at all if we match the bid and picks would all be locked in.

 

[mark121]

After reading other boards it also can get messy with later pics for example if two academy players are bid on with picks 38 and 39 and our 3rd is pick 37 they would be matched to our 4th round pick and all the carry over points would apply to our first round the next year.

The following years first would lose 480 points and would see picks slip from 2nd to 3rd, 5th to 11th, 10 to 20, 15 to 30 even 18 to 36.


Under these circumstances teams wouldn't take both and may not take either. It doesnt get much better if picks 52, 53 and 54 are substituted for 38, 39 and 40

 

[alanlau34]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...199983756?sv=643bc9089a4f64e8765b0648621f09b2

Good article, the Northern Alliance needs to stay strong against the Axis powers

 

[ponsdale]

[QUOTE=" We will get a truer view of a player's perceived worth rather than just saying that 'player X would have been top five if he wasn't preselected'. I'm looking forward to it.

Wont it distort it?? I mean by forcing a competitor to pay overs, the club is unlikely to say ahh 2500 points....pass they just wont take picks 1,2. (Heeney example that the swans would trade 18,37 38 for 2 and 70) they would still likely make the trade, but heeneys real value is more likely to be no 3-5, but knowing the swans will pick him up anyway distorts the decision matrix.[/QUOTE]
Not quite - I think a larger discount for f/s and for academy selections would discourage other clubs risking trying to push the price up. They would need to be confident that they would be happy poaching the f/s or academy selection at their pick.

 

[ponsdale]

Melbourne would not use pick 2 or 3 when there are equal or better Victorian players.

I actually believe Roosy rated Heeney to be Pick 2. At that stage, everyone was assuming that Petracca was going to the Saints, so Roosy would have been very happy with Heeney and Brayshaw.

Now if the new suggested rules had applied and Heeney was live during the draft, then the Saints took McCartin, then we would have really known where Roosy rated Heeney against Petracca.

 

[ponsdale]

One possible answer, is that when other Clubs select players from any Academy/Development squad, that 25 per cent of the points used become a credit for the host club. This will have a potential disincentive factor for other Clubs to bid against the host - so perhaps we need to barter with our percentage take.This assists us if we miss out on a Mills or Dunkley.

The disincentive is that the other club has to effectively over-pay for an academy selection vs the host club's (currently proposed) 25% discount. The AFL will simply adjust this factor rather than adding in another credit over the top.

In the event that no players are selected, then I feel that it would only be right, that our service be deemed to cost 25 per cent ( ? )of the rolling average of points of the past three years' drafts. In this way, it is made very clear that the Swans are being paid as AFL promoters and developers of the code in NRL heartland. And if the Swans,Lions, Suns and Giants get a good return from this excise/bounty, it is only because they have enticed gifted kids away from the rival code. And that is something even Fat Eddie would like. In fact if the Fat Controller was in charge of the Swans, he would already have come up with this win/win plan and would have spruiked it far and loud.
Reckon there might be something we can gain by pushing from these angles.

I think this is an interesting point. Of course the counter argument against additional reward in non-selection years is that the northern clubs get to have an academy in the first place. I don't believe that this adequately compensates for the investment (especially in time and marketing/promotion). The short answer to this may be an annual academy/marketing grant made to the northern clubs for the AFL to 'sponsor' the academies. They really do do rgeat work in raising both the profile of the game and bring more quality kids into the draft which is fundamentally beneficial to the game long term.