News AFL to overhaul draft on father-sons, academy picks

[Elmer_Judd]

Can someone please explain to me when the Suns' list concessions are going to expire? Namely, the expanded access to Darwin and the extra list spots?

I thought this was only temporary, but it's been 4 years now? Genuinely curious about this.

The AFL never said the Gold Coast NGA would be wound back IIRC and at any case it doesn't seem like winding back any time soon (rightly or wrongly)

 

[Elixuh]

What in the actual * does this mean?

If you don’t know what growing the game means then I’m afraid I can’t help you. Growing the game is very important.

 

[philthy05]

If you don’t know what growing the game means then I’m afraid I can’t help you. Growing the game is very important.

lol Jesus.


I told you, you don’t need priority access to players to grow the game.

You could have ngas where you don’t have priority access and achieve the same result.

The afl could run the academies and achieve the same result.

Ergo, you do not need priority access to players in your nga to “grow the game”

I already explained this to you.


Why you want nga access is for your own wants. For the success of your team. Anything else is bullshit.

I’ve said I think nga and access to those players helps those teams be competitive and that’s reason enough for them.

Your reply was absurd and made no sense in context of our discussion.

 

[Elixuh]

lol Jesus.


I told you, you don’t need priority access to players to grow the game.

You could have ngas where you don’t have priority access and achieve the same result.

The afl could run the academies and achieve the same result.

Ergo, you do not need priority access to players in your nga to “grow the game”

I already explained this to you.


Why you want nga access is for your own wants. For the success of your team. Anything else is bullshit.

I’ve said I think nga and access to those players helps those teams be competitive and that’s reason enough for them.

Your reply was absurd and made no sense in context of our discussion.

Disagree with that, growing the game is important.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

You did not pay pick 2 for daicos.

You traded out that pick a year prior as a future draft selection for picks in the 2020 draft. Your club obviously thought you were going to finish higher up the ladder.

You did not pay pick 2 for daicos. You paid a bunch of late picks bundled together for him.

Say it any way you want. We wouldnt have traded that pick if we wernt getting Nick. Poor trading and another poor choice from my club were certainly part of that trade. But Nick was the reason we did the trade. In the end he cost more then the pick 4 he went at. We traded pick 2 for basically a couple picks in the 30's and thats about what nick cost in draft picks the following year. Im not saying he wasnt worth more then pick 2 though. My club has done some poor trading over the last 10 years.

 

[WilloTree]

Commercially AFL is the most dominant sport by a country mile.
Healthy talent coming through the draft each year.
Strong participation.

In short you’re not competing with an entrenched and established code which is dominant in your market and which is light years ahead of you. If you were, you would understand that to begin to crack that market share you need a number of levers including clear elite talent pathways which the academies provide. They also grow the talent pool for the game.

I can see by referencing swimming in one of your posts above you have no intention of having a reasonable conversation and even your fellow purple warriors are turning on you.

I’m not sure why you’re so against academies, we are just growing the game. Growing the game.

Wait - where did I say I'm against the academies? I've been very vocal in my support!

wow

 

[Elixuh]

Wait - where did I say I'm against the academies? I've been very vocal in my support!

wow

Then what are you arguing with me about. Leave me alone to grow the game.

 

[WilloTree]

Then what are you arguing with me about. Leave me alone to grow the game.

The academies grow the game - correct - we agree.

That wasn't the discussion...at all.

 

[WilloTree]

I’m fine with having non-trad states with priority access to those players but the claims of growing the game are absolute bullshit from a logical point of view.


Afl could run academies and grow the game. Clubs could run the academies without getting access to those nga players (there’s even precedence for this, it’s what the non-trad states do and have done for decades yeah)


Fans saying they need ngas to grow the game are incorrect.


What they do, and what the fans are solely interested in is to give those teams priority access to those players.

It’s self serving. And there’s a real logical argument that those non-trad teams need that access to be competitive.

I’m supportive of non-trad teams have ngas and access to them because it helps them be competitive and that’s a good thing for the league.


But any argument that they need ngas to grow the game is bullshit. It can be done without their access, which is what the fans of those clubs are concerned about.

Spot on

 

[Saab NLAW]

Why you want nga access is for your own wants. For the success of your team. Anything else is bullshit.

This is pretty much it, every argument any of them come up with is motivated by this single statement. They are so used to having these types of advantages they now think it's their right and not a luxury

 

[philthy05]

Disagree with that, growing the game is important.

If you’re going to be a troll can’t you be remotely funny?

Anyone following this discussion now either thinks you’re an idiot, or trying to be funny / a troll and failing badly, and I don’t know which is worse.

Say it any way you want. We wouldnt have traded that pick if we wernt getting Nick. Poor trading and another poor choice from my club were certainly part of that trade. But Nick was the reason we did the trade. In the end he cost more then the pick 4 he went at. We traded pick 2 for basically a couple picks in the 30's and thats about what nick cost in draft picks the following year. Im not saying he wasnt worth more then pick 2 though. My club has done some poor trading over the last 10 years.

So… you didn’t give up pick 2 for daicos.

No amount of saying so changes the facts.

You traded a future 1st round pick for multiple 2nd rounders, obviously because you thought your future pick would be higher.

It doesn’t matter if your club thought you wouldn’t need it for daicos, you did not give it up to acquire him.

You traded it for draft picks in the 2020 draft, the year before you took daicos.

Facts. Traded a future first in 2020 for 2nd rounders in the 2020 draft.

Did not trade pick 2 to acquire daicos in 2021.

 

[LoungeLizard]

If you’re going to be a troll can’t you be remotely funny?

Anyone following this discussion now either thinks you’re an idiot, or trying to be funny / a troll and failing badly, and I don’t know which is worse.





So… you didn’t give up pick 2 for daicos.

No amount of saying so changes the facts.

You traded a future 1st round pick for multiple 2nd rounders, obviously because you thought your future pick would be higher.

It doesn’t matter if your club thought you wouldn’t need it for daicos, you did not give it up to acquire him.

You traded it for draft picks in the 2020 draft, the year before you took daicos.

Facts. Traded a future first in 2020 for 2nd rounders in the 2020 draft.

Did not trade pick 2 to acquire daicos in 2021.

You tell others to read, yet you seem to not taker your own advice.

If the rules changed, Collingwood most likely would not have traded that pick, could not say for certain, but if the didn't they would have had pick 2 for Daicos, he went at 4.

 

[philthy05]

You tell others to read, yet you seem to not taker your own advice.

If the rules changed, Collingwood most likely would not have traded that pick, could not say for certain, but if the didn't they would have had pick 2 for Daicos, he went at 4.

Nobody made Collingwood trade that pick, and they didn’t use that trade to get daicos.

They traded that pick because they were betting on being up the ladder, and they used the trade to get into the 2020 draft which they targeted players heavily.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Nobody made Collingwood trade that pick, and they didn’t use that trade to get daicos.

They traded that pick because they were betting on being up the ladder, and they used the trade to get into the 2020 draft which they targeted players heavily.

"You tell others to read, yet you seem to not take your own advice."

Read this again.

 

[philthy05]

"You tell others to read, yet you seem to not take your own advice."

Read this again.

Great contribution you’re making to the thread.


Your club made a dumb trade, you traded a future draft pick so you could get into the 2020 draft thinking you were going to be up the ladder the next year.

Have a whinge. You still paid peanuts for daicos.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Great contribution you’re making to the thread.


Your club made a dumb trade, you traded a future draft pick so you could get into the 2020 draft thinking you were going to be up the ladder the next year.

Have a whinge. You still paid peanuts for daicos.

Omg, I thought you were actually joking, but no you're not joking, you are actual thick as a plank.

Go back and do what you have been telling others and actually read what I said, I said, if the rules were changed, you know, what this thread is actually about, then Collingwood, would probably have not traded that pick.

Anyway, I now realise I am talking to a brick wall, so bye, have a good day.

 

[My_Username]

Afl could run academies and grow the game. Clubs could run the academies without getting access to those nga players (there’s even precedence for this, it’s what the non-trad states do and have done for decades yeah)

Do you think they could do the job as well though?

Kids will get more interested in the game when they have a club to attach that support to, and that happens best when the clubs are involved.

Would you be happy with the AFL funding/running the academies, and at the same time paying to have Suns(etc) players, paraphernalia, and tickets to games promoted at every opportunity?

Growing the game includes growing the clubs in those areas, and that happens best when the clubs are involved.

As an aside, it also helps bring about 3rd party payments to past and present players, evening up the scales there too....Or would you prefer the AFL gives our players additional money to cover that? As I recall, giving additional payments tends to upset fans of clubs in traditional states.

 

[philthy05]

In the end through poor trading we paid pick 2 for nd

Omg, I thought you were actually joking, but no you're not joking, you are actual thick as a plank.

Read that.


Yes he claimed pies paid pick 2 for nd.


It’s right there where he says, literally, pies paid pick 2 for nd.

My replies to that poster pointed out the facts

Pies traded pick 2 for 2020 draft picks, and had nothing to do with matching for daicos.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Read that.


Yes he claimed pies paid pick 2 for nd.


It’s right there where he says, literally, pies paid pick 2 for nd.

My replies to that poster pointed out the facts

Pies traded pick 2 for 2020 draft picks, and had nothing to do with matching for daicos.

Oh my, now you are doubling down, go put the whole quote up, he said, "If the system was changed"

You know, exactly what I said.

My god, what a plank.

 

[philthy05]

Do you think they could do the job as well though?

Kids will get more interested in the game when they have a club to attach that support to, and that happens best when the clubs are involved.

Would you be happy with the AFL funding/running the academies, and at the same time paying to have Suns(etc) players, paraphernalia, and tickets to games promoted at every opportunity?

Growing the game includes growing the clubs in those areas, and that happens best when the clubs are involved.

As an aside, it also helps bring about 3rd party payments to past and present players, evening up the scales there too....Or would you prefer the AFL gives our players additional money to cover that? As I recall, giving additional payments tends to upset fans of clubs in traditional states.

1. Port and the crows are involved in running local academies and help with developing local talent for players they don’t have access to.

Something we had to explain to that suns supporter 15 times over the last couple of pages.


So not only is it possible for non-trad clubs to do exactly what you’re saying without having access to those players , there’s examples of clubs already doing it.

2. I’m not sure what the second question is actually asking me? Would it bother me if the afl was paying you? Aren’t they actually paying you the money as it is?




Again. Academies to “grow the game”

Sure.

Do the teams need priority access to Jed Walter and Callum mills to grow the game?

No.


You need access to those players to help be competitive, and that in my mind is pretty necessary.

 

[philthy05]

Oh my, now you are doubling down, go put the whole quote up, he said, "If the system was changed"

You know, exactly what I said.

My god, what a plank.

What relevance does saying if the rule changes have to him saying that

And i ******* quote

“In the end through poor trading we paid pick 2 for nd”


He quite literally said you paid pick 2 for daicos.


Saying “if the rules changed” has nothing to do with that statement.

That’s arguing you wouldn’t have done the trade (which is conjecture and also neither here nor there in a statement that says

“We paid pick 2 for nd”

I’ve shown quite factually that you did not in any way pay pick 2 for daicos.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Sadly we poorly traded out pick 2 because of N Daicos for not much. If the system was different we would have keep that pick. In the end through poor trading we paid pick 2 for ND. We also used pick 8 (if I remember correctly) for Moore and a pick in the 50s or J Daicos because no one wanted him. Sadly Collingwood isnt the best club for getting cheap father sons despite having 3 good ones.

lll
So… you didn’t give up pick 2 for daicos.

No amount of saying so changes the facts.

You traded a future 1st round pick for multiple 2nd rounders, obviously because you thought your future pick would be higher.

It doesn’t matter if your club thought you wouldn’t need it for daicos, you did not give it up to acquire him.

You traded it for draft picks in the 2020 draft, the year before you took daicos.

Facts. Traded a future first in 2020 for 2nd rounders in the 2020 draft.

Did not trade pick 2 to acquire daicos in 2021.

Come on. I never said we directly traded pick 2 for Nick. However we did give it up because of him. Spin all you want. Those are the facts. Nick cost us pick 2..... indirectly.... If we had to for example give a first round pick for Nick, or a pick within 5 picks of where he was drafted which I think is very fair then we would have not traded out our future 1st. (Pick 2). Because we would have needed it for him.

 

[sydney_gws]

Here is the 2019 U16 team

View attachment 1866515


Not sure about you but I have not heard of half those players. The U16 AA team often does not mean much in terms of who actually gets drafted.

Didn't Nick Daicos make it? JHF Is there.

 

[sydney_gws]

Come on. I never said we directly traded pick 2 for Nick. We didnt trade pick 2 for Daicos but we did give it up because of him. Spin all you want. Those are the facts. Nick cost us pick 2..... indirectly.... but he did. Keep spinning though.

I think if the new rules are 10% discount, 2 picks then pies would still do well from a Nick Daicos, pick 2 situation.
They wouldn't trade their future first, would need 3000×.9 =2700 points.
That is picks 5,20.
Pies would trade 2,f2 for 5 ,f1.
Get 2,20,f2 for Daicos,f1.

 

[Vindicater]

Just ditch the discount.

See what that is like and then adjust again if needed.