AFL set to introduce live bidding for father-son and academy picks

[Defacto]

Interest? perhaps.

Locked in for late first round? nah...

Bartel went at pick 8 - no chance they lose him

Johnson at pick 24.

if by your assertion he was an early second rounder - it is possible they lose Johnson - however I don't think that would have been the likely situation.

Gary wasn't that highly rated and his first 5 years suggested he was taken at the right spot. Just because he morphed into footballing immortality doesn't change his rating.

The F/S rule was in place for every club at the time. Luck and genetics play a part - as does the fickle nature of an oval ball bouncing.

lol hilarious post

gee for someone you didnt rate the initial contract offered to ablett must have been massive overs in your eyes

 

[Periphery]

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.

Exactly, it's hardly the end of the world and the Swans will get whoever they want but it will just cost them slightly more than under the previous system.

It'll probably make teams more cautious about bidding and will probably result in a slight decline in the value of the bids, but we will have to wait and see how drastic that is. It wont be enough to fully counteract the new pricing system but it could soften it a little.

 

[Dangerousfield]

The new system is clearly a joke and surely the free agency compensation is more of an injustice where Melbourne can get pick 3 for Frawley and collingwood got pick 11 for Thomas and of course Eddie didn't complain about that and people are more worried about an untried 18 year old kid that nobody knows if he going to make it or not

What about Hawthorn getting pick 19 for Buddy??!!

Can't believe all the hooha and disinformation about the four northern academies. The fact that after five years they are finally producing players out of Queensland and more particularly out of NSW is a bonus for the whole game. This is about growing AFL at the grass roots up in those states and I think the AFL recognises that it's the four teams that attract the kids to start playing not the AFL brand.

If the four northern clubs get a bit of a bonus at draft time with local products then it probably helps balance out the massive inequities in their lists where most players are from interstate and as we saw last year, the go home card was played greatly to the detriment of Brisbane, aided by southern clubs encouraging kids to come home, including your team Eddie McGuire!

Free Agency is the biggest threat to a level playing field but no one is kicking up about that because the rich influencial clubs are the ones benefitting!

This angst about the academies is so far off the mark it makes so many posting on here exposed as one eyed idiots. I'm a Crows supporter but I can see the benefits of them and we haven't had a single F/S yet!

 

[coniglio_number1]

I'm sure the Victorian clubs would prefer us picking up Jack steeles and Isaac heeneys and leave the Adam treloars and lachie whitfields for them?

 

[Fatcat08]

Given the AFL have now so generously provided us with a metric for valuing draft picks I'd be very interested to see the points differential in player trades between teams. Do players who leave the NSW and QLD teams actually have a greater gap points wise between their own draft position and the remuneration they generate in a trade? Or is it fairly even for all teams when they lose a player via a trade? hmmm might be something I have a crack at when I find a bit of time. Might have to limit it to players involved in trades 4 years of less after they were drafted, after that stage I'd say its more on what players they are rather than what draft pick they were.

Interesting exercise none the less. Would be good to see if any inequality actually exists or whether its just assumed.

A thought on the whole differential between the top few draft picks and their scores. You can't help wonder if they've made allowances or not in the calculations for the inflation factor of being drafted to a lower team as a high draft pick. Given sides have to pay minimum amounts of the salary cap, sides with lower quality lists can afford to pay (and probably need to pay) these higher picks more proportionally in order to retain them. It could have an inflationary affect.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Just a few thoughts:

1. Live bidding makes a lot of sense. Clubs will now know who is still on the table when it comes to making/matching a F/S or Academy bid - much clearer way to see someone's value. I also think the next step is to introduce live trades on draft day, similar to how the NBA does it. (for example: you have pick 20 - but see a player you ranked in the top 5 has slipped to 15... time for some frantic trading to see if you can move up to the next pick)... also allows for my suggestion for:

2. I'm not a fan of the points system - I think it complicates the matter too much and is trying to add arbitrary values to something. I would much rather see a simple system not to different from what we have now. The biggest issue people seem to have with the current system is when a FS/Aca pick drops 15-18 spots (ie. Heeney). Why not change it so the matching bid has to be within the next 10 picks? If you have a pick in that range - great, everything works out fine. If you dont? You need to trade up.
(And most clubs would have a pretty good idea at what range a player might be bid for... so could use the leadup to the draft to tradeup to the required spot, or to have some potential trades ready to then make the final decision when needed to on draft day)... effectively, you allow "the market" to decide how much a team has to give up to get the player, rather than some arbitrary points system.

3. Where do academy players rate compared to F/S, and are the academies needed? I think the academies are great for AFL in Qld and NSW... and although they require quite a lot of investment from the clubs, you would probably have overall better outcomes than you would get with just F/S's. The clubs themselves are able to develop these guys, and in turn get first hand knowledge of where to rate them leading up to the draft... other clubs don't really get to do this, and from this perspective I think they are more valuable than F/S's. You could argue that it should be the AFL itself resourcing academies, with players available to all clubs, or even have a combined state academy, resourced equally by both clubs in the state, and each of the 2 clubs able to get them as an academy selection (my preference if it was practical)... but would either option give as good an outcome as a club doing it themselves?

 

[RUNVS]

Every Victorian, South Australian, Western Australian and Tasmanian should read this

Time the AFL stopped treating northern clubs like outposts, writes Andrew Hamilton
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...199983756?sv=643bc9089a4f64e8765b0648621f09b2

THE AFL has sent Brisbane and the Gold Coast Suns to conquer the new world and armed them only with toy guns.

Queensland’s two clubs along with the Swans and GWS are on the frontline of the AFL’s code-war. Yet the game’s rulers refuse to arm them adequately because of the howls of outrage from the traditional states.

The Lions and Suns have threatened to shut down their talent academies — which were designed to lure the best young athletes away from the rugby codes and other traditional Queensland sports — if the AFL pushes through new rules that increase the draft value of players they have developed.

Why should cash-strapped clubs invest money in programs that don’t offer them an advantage? Especially when you could argue the academies are more critical to the AFL than the clubs.

Once again, the traditional clubs, led by perennial victim Eddie McGuire, are whingeing about a so-called unfair advantage while overlooking the fact that everything about the competition is stacked in their favour.

Every park and school in Victoria is a talent nursery. The TAC Cup is one giant academy.

They also need to be reminded that every Queenslander that gets picked by either Brisbane or Gold Coast means one more Victorian, Sandgroper or South Australian gets to stay home.

The Northern States may be expansion markets, but it is time the AFL stopped treating them like outposts.

The sport’s growth depends on them.

Critics who argue the AFL has already done enough by bankrolling the Suns and Giants are missing the point. They were created to expand the fixture, which was the key selling point in the AFL’s $1.25b broadcast deal.

New fans, and that means increased TV audiences and more lucrative broadcast deals, will only come from NSW and Queensland. So will new players.

The latest brouhaha is a knee-jerk reaction to the Swans’ selection of academy graduate Isaac Heeney last year.

Melbourne bid draft pick 2 for Heeney, the Swans had to part with their first pick which was only No. 18.

Under the new system, draft picks from 1-74 would be assigned a points value on a sliding scale, starting with the No. 1 pick being worth 3000 points, pick No. 2 2517 and so on.

That would mean Sydney would have had to offer multiple picks to match Melbourne’s bid.

They got lucky. And the fear from the rest of the competition is it will happen again in 2015 with gun teen academy player Callum Mills, who many believe is a top-five contender.

Given there is usually only between 90 and 100 players from the northern states on AFL lists, most of them late picks or rookies, it won’t happen often enough to justify the hysteria from the traditional states.

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

 

[swiftdog]

What Could Have the 2014 Draft Looked Like?

So basically, I re-created the 2014 draft under the newly proposed system to the best of my ability. I made some assumptions while doing it. While this definitely won't be exactly what would have happened, it's just to get a feel of how the changes could have effected the draft.


Assumptions:
1) Future draft picks can't be traded or used as compensation. I.e. there's no rollover effect to the following year if a club can't afford to match the bid on a player.

2a) All clubs that made bids on father-sons and academy players in 2014 under the current system would have made the same bids under the new system. There's been a bit of talk about clubs not making the same bid (i.e. Melbourne wouldn't have bid pick 2 for Heeney) but for the purposes of this example, they did.
2b) In some cases, a club bid for a player and then after that bid was matched, traded the pick used to make the bid to another team. In this case, the team receiving the draft pick will make the 'live' bid. I.e. Western Bulldogs used pick 5 (at the time) to bid on Darcy Moore, Collingwood matched the bid, Western Bulldogs then traded their pick to GWS. In this example, GWS will use that pick to bid on Darcy Moore.

3) All clubs will match bids where possible (as it happened in 2014).

4) Clubs drafted on a 'best available' basis. My assumption is that the 2014 draft takes the form of a ranked list of players, where pick 1 (Paddy McCartin) was the best player available down to picks in 60's and 70's being the 60-80th best ranked players in the draft. While different clubs have different tactics when drafting on a needs/best available/hometown/etc basis, I'm assuming that all clubs would take the next 'best' player based on 2014 draft order. Obviously, academy players and father-sons are outliers in this system.

NOTE - This post will probably be mega-long. A TLR summary will be posted at the bottom.


2014 AFL 'Live' Draft

ROUND 1
Pick 1: St. Kilda - Paddy McCartin

Melbourne make a bid for Isaac Heeney
Sydney must pay 1888 points for Heeney
Sydney use picks 18 (985 pts), 37 (483) and 38 (465) for Heeney, 1933 points used, 45 left over
Sydney's picks 18 and 37 move back to 88 and 89 respectively, pick 38 moves to pick 70 (39 points)

Pick 2: Sydney - Isaac Heeney (AP)
Pick 3: Melbourne - Christian Petracca
Pick 4: Melbourne - Angus Brayshaw
Pick 5: GWS - Jarrod Pickett
Pick 6: Collingwood - Jordan De Goey

GWS* (assumption 2b) make a bid for Darcy Moore
Collingwood must pay 1489 points for Moore
Collingwood use picks 10 (1395) and 30 (629) for Moore, 2024 points spent, 535 left over
Collingwood's pick 10 moves back to 89, pick 30 moves to 35 (522)

Pick 7: Collingwood - Darcy Moore (FS)
Pick 8: GWS - Caleb Marchbank
Pick 9: GWS - Paul Ahern
Pick 10: Gold Coast - Peter Wright
Pick 11: Geelong - Nakia Cockatoo
Pick 12: West Coast - Liam Duggan
Pick 13: Richmond - Corey Ellis
Pick 14: Fremantle - Lachlan Weller
Pick 15: Adelaide - Jake Lever
Pick 16: Gold Coast - Jarrod Garlett

North Melbourne bid on Jack Steele
GWS must pay 769 points for Steele
GWS use pick 23 (815) for Steele, 815 points spent, 46 points left over
GWS' pick 23 moves back to 70 (39)

Pick 17: GWS - Jack Steele (AP)
Pick 18: North Melbourne - Sam Durdin
Pick 19: Essendon - Kyle Langford
Pick 20: Carlton - Blaine Boekhorst
Pick 21: Essendon - Jayden Laverde
Pick 22: St.Kilda - Hugh Goddard


ROUND 2:

Pick 23: St.Kilda - Daniel McKenzie
Pick 24: GWS - Patrick McKenna
Pick 25: North Melbourne - Daniel Nielson
Pick 26: Western Bulldogs - Toby McLean
Pick 27: Western Bulldogs - Lukas Webb
Pick 28: Carlton - Dillon Viojo-Rainbow
Pick 29: Gold Coast - Touk Miller

Hawthorn* (assumption 2b) bid on Billy Stretch
Melbourne must pay 535 points for Stretch
Melbourne use picks 40 (429) and 51 (259) for Stretch, 688 points spent, 153 points left over
Melbourne's pick 40 moves back to 91, pick 51 moves to 60 (146)

Pick 30: Melbourne - Billy Stretch (FS)
Pick 31: Hawthorn - Brayden Maynard*
Pick 32: West Coast - Daniel Howe*

Richmond bid on Liam Dawson
Brisbane must pay 423 points for Dawson
Brisbane use picks 42 (395) and 58 (170) for Dawson, 565 points spent, 142 points left over
Brisbane's pick 42 moves back to 92, pick 58 moves to 61 (135)

Pick 33: Brisbane - Liam Dawson (AP)
Pick 34: Richmond - Tom Lamb*

Fremantle bid on Jack Hiscox
Sydney must pay 392 points for Hiscox
Sydney can't afford to match bid

Pick 35: Fremantle - Jack Hiscox (AP - bid not matched by Sydney)
Pick 36: Adelaide - Connor Menadue*
Pick 37: Collingwood - Connor Blakely*

North Melbourne bid on Harris Andrews
Brisbane must pay 349 points for Andrews
Brisbane can't afford to match bid

Pick 38: North Melbourne - Harris Andrews (AP - bid not matched by Brisbane)
Pick 39: Western Bulldogs - Harrison Wigg*
Pick 40: Melbourne - Ed Vickers-Willis*
Pick 41: St.Kilda - James Rose*
Pick 42: Adelaide - Declan Hamilton*
Pick 43: Western Bulldogs - Alex Neal-Bullen*


ROUND 3

Pick 44: Western Bulldogs - Jack Lonie*
Pick 45: Geelong - Mitch McGovern*
Pick 46: Collingwood - Bailey Dale*
Pick 47: Hawthorn - Caleb Daniel*
Pick 48: Hawthorn - Cory Gregson*
Pick 49: West Coast - Matthew Goodyear*
Pick 50: Richmond - Teia Miles*

Fremantle bid on Zaine Cordy
Western Bulldogs must pay 221 points for Cordy
Western Bulldogs can't afford to match bid

Pick 51: Fremantle - Zaine Cordy (FS - not matched by Western Bulldogs)
Pick 52: Geelong - Mark Pittonet*
Pick 53: Port Adelaide - Jackson Nelson*
Pick 54: Sydney - Nathan Drummond*
Pick 55: Adelaide - Oscar McDonald*
Pick 56: Geelong - Ed Langdon*
Pick 57: Carlton - Dean Gore*
Pick 58: Western Bulldogs - Dougal Howard*
Pick 59: Melbourne - Harry Dear*


ROUND 4

Pick 60: Carlton - Jordan Cunico*
Pick 61: Brisbane - Clem Smith*
Pick 62: Gold Coast - PASSED
Pick 63: Brisbane - Jayden Foster*
Pick 64: West Coast - Josh Watts*
Pick 65: Richmond - Damien Cavka*
Pick 66: Fremantle - Daniel Butler*
Pick 67: Port Adelaide - Josh Deluca-Cardillo*
Pick 68: Sydney - Logan Austin*
Pick 69: Carlton - PASSED
Pick 70: GWS - PASSED
Pick 71: Sydney - Abe Davis (AP)


ROUND 5

Pick 72: GWS - PASSED
Pick 73: Brisbane - Jaden McGrath
Pick 74: Gold Coast - PASSED
Pick 75: Collingwood - PASSED
Pick 76: West Coast - Alec Waterman (FS - no bids)
Pick 77: Richmond - Reece McKenzie
Pick 78: Port Adelaide - Jesse Palmer
Pick 79: Sydney - PASSED


ROUND 6

Pick 80: GWS - PASSED
Pick 81: Brisbane - Josh McGuinness
Pick 82: Carlton - PASSED
Pick 83: Richmond - PASSED
Pick 84: Port Adelaide - Billy Frampton


ROUND 7

Pick 85: GWS - Jeremy Finlayson (AP - no bids)
Pick 86: Brisbane - PASSED
Pick 87: Carlton - PASSED
Pick 88: Sydney - PASSED
Pick 89: Sydney - PASSED
Pick 90: Collingwood - PASSED
Pick 91: Melbourne - PASSED
Pick 92: Brisbane - Josh Clayton (AP - no bids)

* indicates that a club picked up a higher ranked player than what they would have under the current rules
PS - I couldn't figure out what happened with Abe Davis, I was under the impression that Geelong bid for him with pick 70 (that Sydney matched with pick 73) but as far as I could tell Geelong never had a pick around then? Regardless, I just gave him to Sydney


And below is just a summary of how the new rules would effect clubs on an individual level in terms of what players they would/could pick up and what picks would be used on them.

Club-By-Club Summary

Adelaide (current system): Lever (pick 14), Wigg (35), McGovern (43), Dear (58)
Adelaide (new system): Lever (pick 15), Menadue (36), Hamilton (42), McDonald (55)

Brisbane (current): Dawson (44 AP), Andrews (61 AP), Watts (65), McGrath (73), McGuinness (81), Clayton (86 AP)
Brisbane (new): Dawson (33 AP), Smith (61), Foster (63), McGrath (73), McGuinness (81), Clayton (92 AP)

Carlton (current): Boekhorst (19), Viojo-Rainbow (28), Smith (60), Foster (63)
Cartlon (new): Boekhorst (20), Viojo-Rainbow (28), Gore (57), Cunico (60)

Collingwood (current): De Goey (5), Moore (9 FS), Maynard (30), Goodyear (48)
Collingwood (new): De Goey (6), Moore (7 FS), Blakely (37), Dale (46)

Essendon (current): Langford (17), Laverde (20)
Essendon (new): Langford (19), Laverde (21)

Fremantle (current): Weller (13), Blakely (34), Langdon (54), Deluca-Cardillo (68)
Fremantle (new): Weller (14), Hiscox (35 AP-SYD), Cordy (51 AP-WB), Butler (56)

Geelong (current): Cockatoo (10), Gregson (47), Gore (55), Cunico (59)
Geelong (new): Cockatoo (11), McGovern (45), Pittonet (52), Langdon (56)

Gold Coast (current): Wright (8), Garlett (15), Miller (29)
Gold Coast (new): Wright (10), Garlett (16), Miller (29)

GWS (current): Pickett (4), Marchbank (6), Ahern (7), McKenna (23), Steele (24 AP), Finlayson (85 AP)
GWS (new): Pickett (5), Marchbank (8), Ahern (9), Steele (17 AP), McKenna (24), Finlayson (85 AP)

Hawthorn (current): Howe (31), Miles (49), Pittonet (50)
Hawthorn (new): Maynard (31), Daniel (47), Gregson (48)

Melbourne (current): Petracca (2), Brayshaw (3), Neal-Bullen (40), Stretch (42 FS), McDonald (53)
Melbourne (new): Petracca (3), Brayshaw (4), Stretch (30 FS), Vickers-Willis (40), Dear (59)

North Melbourne (current): Durdin (16), Nielson (25), Vickers-Willis (36)
North Melbourne (new): Durdin (18), Nielson (25), Andrews (38 AP-BRIS)

Port Adelaide (current): Howard (56), Austin (69), Palmer (78), Frampton (84)
Port Adelaide (new): Nelson (53), Deluca-Cardillo (67), Palmer (78), Frampton (84)

Richmond (current): Ellis (12), Menadue (33), Drummond (52), Butler (67), McKenzie (77)
Richmond (new): Ellis (13), Lamb (34), Miles (50), Cavka (64), McKenzie (77)

St.Kilda (current): McCartin (1), Goddard (21), McKenzie (22), Lonie (41)
St.Kilda (new): McCartin (1), Goddard (22), McKenzie (23), Rose (41)

Sydney (current): Heeney (18 AP), Rose (37), Hiscox (38 AP), Davis (70 AP)
Sydney (new): Heeney (2 AP), Drummond (54), Austin (68), Davis (71 AP)

West Coast (current): Duggan (11), Lamb (32), Nelson (51), Cavka (66), Waterman (76 FS)
West Coast (new): Duggan (12), Howe (32), Goodyear (49), Watts (64), Waterman (76 FS)

Western Bulldogs (current): McLean (26), Webb (27), Hamilton (39), Dale (45), Daniel (46), Cordy (62 FS)
Western Bulldogs (new): McLean (26), Webb (27), Wigg (39), Neal-Bullen (43), Lonie (44), Howard (58)


I've got my own thoughts on the pros and cons of the new system but I'll probably save them for another time, this post is long enough as is.

 

[Defacto]

Given the AFL have now so generously provided us with a metric for valuing draft picks I'd be very interested to see the points differential in player trades between teams. Do players who leave the NSW and QLD teams actually have a greater gap points wise between their own draft position and the remuneration they generate in a trade? Or is it fairly even for all teams when they lose a player via a trade? hmmm might be something I have a crack at when I find a bit of time. Might have to limit it to players involved in trades 4 years of less after they were drafted, after that stage I'd say its more on what players they are rather than what draft pick they were.

Interesting exercise none the less. Would be good to see if any inequality actually exists or whether its just assumed.

A thought on the whole differential between the top few draft picks and their scores. You can't help wonder if they've made allowances or not in the calculations for the inflation factor of being drafted to a lower team as a high draft pick. Given sides have to pay minimum amounts of the salary cap, sides with lower quality lists can afford to pay (and probably need to pay) these higher picks more proportionally in order to retain them. It could have an inflationary affect.

People have been doing this for a while

St kilda has been doing it internally for a while now also

 

[telsor]

Every Victorian, South Australian, Western Australian and Tasmanian should read this

Time the AFL stopped treating northern clubs like outposts, writes Andrew Hamilton
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...199983756?sv=643bc9089a4f64e8765b0648621f09b2


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

'Stop treating us as outposts' and 'Keep giving us advantages'

The ONLY justification for you getting any advantages is because you're being treated as outposts!

 

[RUNVS]

'Stop treating us as outposts' and 'Keep giving us advantages'

The ONLY justification for you getting any advantages is because you're being treated as outposts!

and clearly you do not realise that Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania have had their markets saturated. There is no more growth to be found in those states beyond a steady increase in population. In order to get real gains all that is left is New South Wales and Queensland, two states with a combined population of 12.1 million people. Australia has a population of 23.1 million so if the AFL wants access to 52% of Australia's population then they are going to have to stop thinking that New South Wales and Queensland are like the AFL states. New South Wales and Queensland need help, a lot more help than the other states to bring juniors into the system. Right now around 90 players in the AFL come from both states, 90 out of 800 players. It is simply not acceptable that over 52% of the population has less than 12% of the players in the AFL.

If AFL fans want to fix that then they are going to have to accept that some thing are important for the growth of the game and one of those things is a strong academies system.

 

[telsor]

and clearly you do not realise that Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania have had their markets saturated. There is no more growth to be found in those states beyond a steady increase in population. In order to get real gains all that is left is New South Wales and Queensland, two states with a combined population of 12.1 million people. Australia has a population of 23.1 million so if the AFL wants access to 52% of Australia's population then they are going to have to stop thinking that New South Wales and Queensland are like the AFL states. New South Wales and Queensland need help, a lot more help than the other states to bring juniors into the system. Right now around 90 players in the AFL come from both states, 90 out of 800 players. It is simply not acceptable that over 52% of the population has less than 12% of the players in the AFL.

If AFL fans want to fix that then they are going to have to accept that some thing are important for the growth of the game and one of those things is a strong academies system.

So you DO want to be treated like an outpost?

Make a choice...do you want to have your cake or eat it?

 

[coniglio_number1]

So you DO want to be treated like an outpost?

Make a choice...do you want to have your cake or eat it?

Would you prefer to prevent us from stealing your precious Victorian children like Treloar and Cameron? If we spend our draft selections in local talent that will leave all those Victorians with deserving clubs like footscray and saint kilda. Isn't that one of the main arguments on big footy since we began to exist? The plundering of your rightful players?

Every Jack Steele drafted by us is another Jeremy Cameron left for Richmond and it's promised glory

 

[Periphery]

So you DO want to be treated like an outpost?

Make a choice...do you want to have your cake or eat it?

RUNVS wants to be able to hold the rest of the competition to ransom so that they can keep getting large draft concessions in the form of academies.

 

[yodellinhank]

So you DO want to be treated like an outpost?

Make a choice...do you want to have your cake or eat it?

No, they want to be treated like a frontier.

 

[telsor]

Would you prefer to prevent us from stealing your precious Victorian children like Treloar and Cameron? If we spend our draft selections in local talent that will leave all those Victorians with deserving clubs like footscray and saint kilda. Isn't that one of the main arguments on big footy since we began to exist? The plundering of your rightful players?

Every Jack Steele drafted by us is another Jeremy Cameron left for Richmond and it's promised glory

I would prefer all clubs to play by a system that is as fair as is practically possible.

 

[RUNVS]

No, they want to be treated like a frontier.

Or perhaps we just want the AFL and the heartlands to acknowledge that circumstances in NSW and QLD are different.

Do all Western Australians, Victorians, South Australians and Tasmanians. In all honesty do you want the game to grow beyond what it is now? If you do want it to grow where do you see that growth coming from?

 

[telsor]

Or perhaps we just want the AFL and the heartlands to acknowledge that circumstances in NSW and QLD are different.

Do all Western Australians, Victorians, South Australians and Tasmanians. In all honesty do you want the game to grow beyond what it is now? If you do want it to grow where do you see that growth coming from?

If the price is making the comp more and more uneven in order to 'promote the game' up there by artificially making those teams strong with unfair advantages, then no, not really.

 

[coniglio_number1]

The people complaining on this forum have obviously never ran a business before.

Fact of the matter is that the afl is a business and expansion into new markets is the only way to ensure future growth. For example mcdonalds wouldn't be what it is today if it refused to expand beyond its heartland area.

I understand the what about me feeling that people are upset about but fact of te matter is that in a few decades when NSW and QLD are pumping out players then this initial growing pain will all be forgotten

 

[RUNVS]

The people complaining on this forum have obviously never ran a business before.

Fact of the matter is that the afl is a business and expansion into new markets is the only way to ensure future growth. For example mcdonalds wouldn't be what it is today if it refused to expand beyond its heartland area.

I understand the what about me feeling that people are upset about but fact of te matter is that in a few decades when NSW and QLD are pumping out players then this initial growing pain will all be forgotten

and the fact also remains that supposedly for all the leg ups the expansion clubs have gotten the two most dominant teams in the AFL over a sustained period in the past 25 years have been Geelong and Hawthorn.

 

[telsor]

The people complaining on this forum have obviously never ran a business before.

Fact of the matter is that the afl is a business and expansion into new markets is the only way to ensure future growth. For example mcdonalds wouldn't be what it is today if it refused to expand beyond its heartland area.

I understand the what about me feeling that people are upset about but fact of te matter is that in a few decades when NSW and QLD are pumping out players then this initial growing pain will all be forgotten

It's a business, sure, but first and foremost it's a sporting competition, and the bulk of it's 'clients' (fans) wont stay if it's not a reasonably even comp.

 

[telsor]

and the fact also remains that supposedly for all the leg ups the expansion clubs have gotten the two most dominant teams in the AFL over a sustained period in the past 25 years have been Geelong and Hawthorn.

So now you need a another leg up because your club has been poorly run?

 

[estibador]

If AFL fans want to fix that then they are going to have to accept that some thing are important for the growth of the game and one of those things is a strong academies system.

I'm fine with the academies as long as a fair price is paid for the draftees.

Just having the option of first dibs on any kid you want is payment enough for running the academies. That's a pretty a fair deal imo, other clubs would love that opportunity. No need to throw in the added advantage of bargain bin prices too, that just throws it too far out of whack.

 

[RUNVS]

I'm fine with the academies as long as a fair price is paid for the draftees.

Just having the option of first dibs on any kid you want is payment enough for running the academies. That's a pretty a fair deal imo, other clubs would love that opportunity. No need to throw in the added advantage of bargain bin prices too, that just throws it too far out of whack.

I don't know why the AFL just doesn't give Sydney zones like we wanted. Remove us from the draft and let us setup zones and only remove the zones when the AFL deems it is too much of an advantage. I would happily see the Swans removed from the draft but allowed unlimited access to our zone.

 

[coniglio_number1]

If heeney was in our academy then our pick 4 would've been used for him and this whole mess wouldn't exist. Using your first available selection is the highest one could pay so not Sydneys fault but losing multiple picks on an untried 18yr old is a bit rich. Cale Morton was a highly rated junior. Imagine if a club lost all it's worthwhile selections to keep him.