Port Adelaide starts new Indigenous academy!

[Adam Marrett23]

Listen to the Mark Evans interview on 5AA in full and at the end dodges the top up player issue for Port.



Click on this link
5aa...https://soundcloud.com/fiveaa/mark-evans-on-the-next-generation-afl-club-academies

Their piss weak at the AFL. Their trying to get every excuse out there why they can say no and are to weak to make a decision incase low and behold their favorite clubs kick up a fuss.

 

[Grave Danger]

Listen to the Mark Evans interview on 5AA in full and at the end dodges the top up player issue for Port.



Click on this link
5aa...https://soundcloud.com/fiveaa/mark-evans-on-the-next-generation-afl-club-academies

When they asked if he has a view on it he waffles on about Freo and Collingwood not getting top ups for their suspended players. Gee, that sounds like he's saying Essendon shouldn't get any top-ups either, doesn't it - not likely!

 

[Smithy7]

Rowe asked Mark Evans about seed funding and he said $30,000 and hopes the clubs matched it, so given its 10 clubs I am assuming each Vic club gets $30,000 to start the ball rolling. He did say some clubs already have community footy programs and dont call them academies. I known the Western Bulldogs have run multicultural footy programs for about a decade.

OK.. so the AFL have split NT up for ..
Collingwood
Essendon
Geelong
Hawthorn
Melbourne
Port have been accommodating and playing games in NT. So this is going to end is it, and the above Clubs will now play each other in NT... Thats four games a season ....
Oh right .. no way they can't do that to Victorian Clubs .....

 

[Onward To Victory]

Why on earth would the NT not be distributed to the SA clubs in any potential zoning?! Or Queensland or NSW clubs (as happened when GC and GWS were started). Makes no sense for Victoria, especially as Victoria supplies close to 50% of all players for the AFL anyway.

 

[Janus]

The clubs that got the allocation are those that either a) put in the work to develop a strategy (i.e Melbourne with Alice Springs, which is why they get that zone) or b) have the resources necessary to establish an academy which won't see benefit for a number of years. It's about increasing the talent pool - if those Victorian clubs want those players, they have to bid their picks just like the Northern state clubs do.

 

[TradeDraft]

So Collingwood get Tennant Creek and ........

What?

 

[Traveling_Power]

OK.. so the AFL have split NT up for ..
Collingwood
Essendon
Geelong
Hawthorn
Melbourne
Port have been accommodating and playing games in NT. So this is going to end is it, and the above Clubs will now play each other in NT... Thats four games a season ....
Oh right .. no way they can't do that to Victorian Clubs .....

the AFL will still want us to play Melbourne at Alice springs .... (pity it couldn't be Melbourne v either Collingwood or Hawks)

 

[Traveling_Power]

Why on earth would the NT not be distributed to the SA clubs in any potential zoning?! Or Queensland or NSW clubs (as happened when GC and GWS were started). Makes no sense for Victoria, especially as Victoria supplies close to 50% of all players for the AFL anyway.

probably because SA will be broken up for us and the cows

also with 10 clubs in Victoria they will need the extra state (NT) and the AFL wont want to upset the Hawks / Roos by taking Tassie

 

[VineValerian]

Nice to see the AFL continues to jump as high and as quickly as it can to pander to the Vic teams in this issue, at the same time tearing down all that Port has established with this initiative.
Guess we'll end up with no base in the NT, and SA will be distributed with us receiving Kangaroo Island, Andamooka and Mt Gambier whilst the Cows get everywhere else.
Oh and good to see they give the Vic clubs, who have spent the equivalent of a packet of Doritos corn chips on indigenous development, seed funds as well, whist PAFC who have done all the heavy lifting here receives.................eergghh, uummmhhh, oh gosh must have missed that bit out

Can we expand our Academy to include a younger group as well, say Under 16 / Year 10 kids, and get them to start their education dedication and focus earlier, with a view to granting them priority access to our current "senior" Academy intake two years after if they pass subjects, etc appropriately? That way we skim the talent from the NT catchment area at an earlier age and adopt them into our indigenous programme and away from the clutches of the Melbourne scabs before they arrive there.

 

[Jason K]

This was always going to happen re-Acadamies. To be honest, I would prefer to do the Acadamy with no view to attain the players, just selfless community programs that develop and nurture talent and be seen as a community club. As soon as benifits of being able to recruit the players are introduced, everyone knows vic clubs will be handed the fruits of our labour.

 

[CharlieKelly]

Is it a safe assumption that if we and the Crows are granted academies in SA, it'll follow the same lines as the AFL father-son rules?

so we'd get Central District, Woodville-West Torrens, North Adelaide and West Adelaide - northern and western Adelaide

Crows would get Glenelg, South Adelaide, Sturt and Norwood - southern and eastern Adelaide

plus the corresponding country zones, we'd get...

• Central District: Gawler, Barossa Valley and Adelaide Plains
• North Adelaide: Port Pirie, Port Augusta, the Mid-North + Flinders Ranges region
• Port Adelaide: Port Lincoln, Whyalla and the Eyre Peninsula + Ceduna and the Far West
• West Adelaide: the Riverland region + Coober Pedy, Roxby Downs and the outback region
• Woodville-Torrens: the Yorke Peninsula + APY lands

Crows would get...

• Glenelg: Mt. Gambier and the South East region
• Norwood: north-eastern Adelaide (Modbury, Golden Grove) + northern Adelaide hills + Broken Hill
• South Adelaide: Fleurieu Peninsula + Kangaroo Island
• Sturt: Murray Bridge, Murraylands and southern Adelaide Hills

I'd probably divide West Adelaide's zone, they can have the Riverland, Ricciuto country, plus I think their metro zone goes as far south as Flagstaff Hill (that's where Adam Cooney was from), so they can have the southern half of it, that gives them the southern and eastern half of the state

 

[Steve Dore]

What?

Give me a clue.

 

[bigblackboz]

Why would it be shot? What is happening is exactly what we planned for in September 2013 when the full re-unification of the club occurred and we lost the Magpies junior zones, so we set up a plan for when they finally went, we would set up several academies in place of the juniors. The long run plan was to get access to these kids via a draft exemption just like father-son or academy players in NSW and Qld. So its all lining up. We just want access in 2016 draft and you Vics can get access in 2017 draft as recommended by Bill Kelty.

Exactly but it ain't going to happen. Non QLD and NSW clubs have never been given any "right" to academy players before. Lots of clubs have academies. Just because you wasted your time and money, it isn't the AFL's fault.

The rumour I'm hearing is that Port and Adelaide can't agree on who gets what is SA as it will effectively divide Adelaide in half and not necessarily along current lines i.e. Port areas could go to Adelaide and Adelaide areas could go to Port. I assume that SANFL zones complicate this even further. I'm sure they will be announced or told what they are getting shortly but the NT dream for Port is over as much as that sucks.

There are major implications as if you "zone" an area to a particular team there may be small shifts in who the population support and over the longer term this could have major implications for support of both teams.

 

[chiwigi]

Exactly but it ain't going to happen. Non QLD and NSW clubs have never been given any "right" to academy players before. Lots of clubs have academies. Just because you wasted your time and money, it isn't the AFL's fault.

The rumour I'm hearing is that Port and Adelaide can't agree on who gets what is SA as it will effectively divide Adelaide in half and not necessarily along current lines i.e. Port areas could go to Adelaide and Adelaide areas could go to Port. I assume that SANFL zones complicate this even further. I'm sure they will be announced or told what they are getting shortly but the NT dream for Port is over as much as that sucks.

There are major implications as if you "zone" an area to a particular team there may be small shifts in who the population support and over the longer term this could have major implications for support of both teams.

Wasted time and money helping indigenous kids?

I guess that's where we as a club and the AFL's golden boys differ.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Exactly but it ain't going to happen. Non QLD and NSW clubs have never been given any "right" to academy players before. Lots of clubs have academies. Just because you wasted your time and money, it isn't the AFL's fault.

The rumour I'm hearing is that Port and Adelaide can't agree on who gets what is SA as it will effectively divide Adelaide in half and not necessarily along current lines i.e. Port areas could go to Adelaide and Adelaide areas could go to Port. I assume that SANFL zones complicate this even further. I'm sure they will be announced or told what they are getting shortly but the NT dream for Port is over as much as that sucks.

There are major implications as if you "zone" an area to a particular team there may be small shifts in who the population support and over the longer term this could have major implications for support of both teams.

My understanding is they have looked at aligning clubs with the zones of the clubs the father sons are aligned to, but that is stuffed as we have been working with the west coast area since 1970 , but Norwood got the area after 2014 season and Norwood are aligned to the crows for father sons.

 

[Portia]

Father/son eligibility is so entirely redundant now that there's no reason for us to be constrained by SANFL zones at all

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Father/son eligibility is so entirely redundant now that there's no reason for us to be constrained by SANFL zones at all

It is the Sanfl and their keep it simple for simple people time warp.

 

[bigblackboz]

Wasted time and money helping indigenous kids?

I guess that's where we as a club and the AFL's golden boys differ.

Not at all. You guys are complaining about getting no reward for the effort you have put in. I fully understand helping these kids but the point is that you shouldn't be expected to get rewarded by it as there was never any AFL system is place that said you would. If its a charitable act, there should be no need for a reward. So yes, if you wanted a reward which seems to be what your fellow posters were complaining about then you have wasted your money. If it was a charitable act then you have done a good thing for society.

 

[bigblackboz]

My understanding is they have looked at aligning clubs with the zones of the clubs the father sons are aligned to, but that is stuffed as we have been working with the west coast area since 1970 , but Norwood got the area after 2014 season and Norwood are aligned to the crows for father sons.

And thats the problem, this is the AFL, the SANFL zones to a fair extent have no involvement with this. Its one of those things where the thinking needs to change from the SANFL running football to the AFL running football. The father son zones too expire 20 years after entrance to the AFL so they are basically gone now anyway so I don't think they are relevant in the bigger picture. For simplicity the SANFL zones make it easier but I think the AFL will consider it's zones more important than SANFL zones.

The zones also can't be too inflexible as one of the issues could be that the SA may not be split between two teams long term. Eastern South Australia may get given to a Victorian Team. My estimates are that SA teams will have about 800k in their zones and Vic teams 650k population. Hence, there will be a structural advantage to SA teams. Hence, I think the notion that SA will be split between the two SA teams as not likely long term. I also think its very possible with stronger population growth, a Vic team relocates to Tassie and the possibility that the northern zones are reduced in size as we go forward allowing Victorian teams to creep over the border, mean it won't be too much an issue long term but they may creep over the border so places like Mount Gambier might find themselves in a Victorian team's zone.

The bigger issue would be WA where their zones may be twice the size of the Victorian zones. I don't think its going to be 50-50 split of both SA and WA long term. Adjustments will be made.

 

[mic59]

Nice to see the AFL continues to jump as high and as quickly as it can to pander to the Vic teams in this issue, at the same time tearing down all that Port has established with this initiative.
Guess we'll end up with no base in the NT, and SA will be distributed with us receiving Kangaroo Island, Andamooka and Mt Gambier whilst the Cows get everywhere else.
Oh and good to see they give the Vic clubs, who have spent the equivalent of a packet of Doritos corn chips on indigenous development, seed funds as well, whist PAFC who have done all the heavy lifting here receives.................eergghh, uummmhhh, oh gosh must have missed that bit out

Can we expand our Academy to include a younger group as well, say Under 16 / Year 10 kids, and get them to start their education dedication and focus earlier, with a view to granting them priority access to our current "senior" Academy intake two years after if they pass subjects, etc appropriately? That way we skim the talent from the NT catchment area at an earlier age and adopt them into our indigenous programme and away from the clutches of the Melbourne scabs before they arrive there.

Now that Port have opened the doors all the Longs, Rioli's, O'Loughlins and McAdams will be in the hands of Hawthorn, Melbourne, Collingwood and the Cats. Which explains why a cat supporter is making smug comments on this board saying we did not deserve academy players because "no-one asked us to do it". Easy to say after they have got an unfair leg-up for years with f/s. Although with Melbourne my sympathy is with the players as they are one of the AFL's black holes and on their way to being a Vic feeder club.

 

[chiwigi]

Not at all. You guys are complaining about getting no reward for the effort you have put in. I fully understand helping these kids but the point is that you shouldn't be expected to get rewarded by it as there was never any AFL system is place that said you would. If its a charitable act, there should be no need for a reward. So yes, if you wanted a reward which seems to be what your fellow posters were complaining about then you have wasted your money. If it was a charitable act then you have done a good thing for society.

The point is we have been doing something for charity, then others do the same thing and are allowed to gain.
A perfectly reasonable query then is; can we gain too?

 

[Cheesey Mac]

The zones also can't be too inflexible as one of the issues could be that the SA may not be split between two teams long term. Eastern South Australia may get given to a Victorian Team. My estimates are that SA teams will have about 800k in their zones and Vic teams 650k population. Hence, there will be a structural advantage to SA teams. Hence, I think the notion that SA will be split between the two SA teams as not likely long term. I also think its very possible with stronger population growth, a Vic team relocates to Tassie and the possibility that the northern zones are reduced in size as we go forward allowing Victorian teams to creep over the border, mean it won't be too much an issue long term but they may creep over the border so places like Mount Gambier might find themselves in a Victorian team's zone.

While I understand that the zones would probably move in time to mirror populations in the same way electorates do, surely there wouldn't be any structural advantage as long as the academy bidding rules remain the same?

In your estimate, Port and the Crows have access to 150k more people in their zone, would therefore develop more kids, but operate in the same 'draft points' system as every other club. The SA clubs could only recruit as many kids as their allocated points allow, and other clubs would be able to bid for mid-range academy products (because realistically bids for higher range ones would have their bids matched). The SA clubs are still made to pay for their academy products, and the non-SA clubs still have access to them by bidding for them, in the same way that Port and the Crows would have access to Victorian academy players by bidding for them.

I don't see a structural advantage here, if anything wouldn't the SA clubs be spending more because of a higher number of kids they'd need to/could possibly develop that fell into their zones?

 

[Portology]

And thats the problem, this is the AFL, the SANFL zones to a fair extent have no involvement with this. Its one of those things where the thinking needs to change from the SANFL running football to the AFL running football. The father son zones too expire 20 years after entrance to the AFL so they are basically gone now anyway so I don't think they are relevant in the bigger picture. For simplicity the SANFL zones make it easier but I think the AFL will consider it's zones more important than SANFL zones.

The zones also can't be too inflexible as one of the issues could be that the SA may not be split between two teams long term. Eastern South Australia may get given to a Victorian Team. My estimates are that SA teams will have about 800k in their zones and Vic teams 650k population. Hence, there will be a structural advantage to SA teams. Hence, I think the notion that SA will be split between the two SA teams as not likely long term. I also think its very possible with stronger population growth, a Vic team relocates to Tassie and the possibility that the northern zones are reduced in size as we go forward allowing Victorian teams to creep over the border, mean it won't be too much an issue long term but they may creep over the border so places like Mount Gambier might find themselves in a Victorian team's zone.

The bigger issue would be WA where their zones may be twice the size of the Victorian zones. I don't think its going to be 50-50 split of both SA and WA long term. Adjustments will be made.

Yes loads of adjustments - think age profile not just populations.

The AFL will have to drag the SANFL kicking and screaming into changing its rules for playing lists for the two AFL club reserves sides. The zones clash right away. For example, Port has a 50 year heritage in player recruitment and community support on the South Australian "west coast", two years ago that SANFL zone was gifted to Norwood and all other Port SANFL zones were gifted to other non-AFL SANFL clubs. Now, in theory, we compete with Norwood for talented kids from that zone and critically we also want the best of them to be able to play in the same top level SANFL comp, which under current rules isn't allowed for Port. So if you're the next Wingard and you can't play senior SANFL level with Port Academy but you can with Norwood where do you go? Probably skip the toothless hamstrung local AFL academy, get a year in of playing against "men" and go straight to the draft.

The equivalent issue in Vic would be if draft age kids at an AFL-academy-linked club were banned from playing in the VFL because of the intransigence of non-AFL linked VFL clubs, but that can't happen because of AFL control of the VFL. And there is no viable TAC cup type alternative here. And effectively no issue with overlapping zone issues there in Vic.

There is no piece of SA territory unmarked by a SANFL zone - this is a dispute between the local mob SANFL and the national mob AFL. By ripping out Port's legacy SANFL zones when restructuring to allowing the "AFL reserves" teams to play, it's almost as though the SANFL were setting themselves up for a negotiating position on this with the AFL. That's probably giving SANFL too much credit though. I ****ing hate the SANFL.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

And thats the problem, this is the AFL, the SANFL zones to a fair extent have no involvement with this. Its one of those things where the thinking needs to change from the SANFL running football to the AFL running football. The father son zones too expire 20 years after entrance to the AFL so they are basically gone now anyway so I don't think they are relevant in the bigger picture. For simplicity the SANFL zones make it easier but I think the AFL will consider it's zones more important than SANFL zones.

Another person who lives in the pre 2007 world. The 20 year eligibility period for the father to play his games and the 20 year sunset clause for the son to be drafted within has been scrapped, after the 2007 rule changes. Not that there are any non Port Adelaide father sons to worry about but there are a few potential Port players from pre 1997 who have sons around 18 playing decent footy. Here's a tip - that wiki page is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The zones also can't be too inflexible as one of the issues could be that the SA may not be split between two teams long term. Eastern South Australia may get given to a Victorian Team. My estimates are that SA teams will have about 800k in their zones and Vic teams 650k population. Hence, there will be a structural advantage to SA teams. Hence, I think the notion that SA will be split between the two SA teams as not likely long term. I also think its very possible with stronger population growth, a Vic team relocates to Tassie and the possibility that the northern zones are reduced in size as we go forward allowing Victorian teams to creep over the border, mean it won't be too much an issue long term but they may creep over the border so places like Mount Gambier might find themselves in a Victorian team's zone.

The total number of people in the zone is a useless stat. What is important is the number of boys in the 10-15 age group that fit the definition of aboriginal or particular multicultural ethnic demographic that the AFL want the clubs to develop as that is what this is all about. What is the point of having a zone with 500,000 people but their are only 25 boys of aboriginal decent in the 10-15 age group but in the NT you have a zone with 10,000 people and you have 327 aboriginal boys in that 10-15 age group?? Same deal within one lot of the zones having lots of Anglo Aussies over foreign born or say 3rd generation non Anglos given the ABS defines first generation Australians as people living in Australia who were born overseas, so you would think 2nd generation is the cut off point.

Tassie there are no full blood aboriginal natives left, but yes aboriginal people move down there, so what is the definition of aboriginal compared to the mainland?? Does 1/8th count on the mainland but 1/32nd on Tassie? Yes I know aboriginal people consider there is no such thing as part aboriginal, but we are talking white man rules for a white mans game so some sort or line has to be drawn, just like you would say for Ron Barassi's grandson or great grand son is eligible because there was an Italian immigrant who came to Oz in the 1850's. A line will be drawn. Tassie also has bugger all immigration from overseas so the number of boys in the 10-15 age group that meet the multicultural definition would be small.

The bigger issue would be WA where their zones may be twice the size of the Victorian zones. I don't think its going to be 50-50 split of both SA and WA long term. Adjustments will be made.

No the big issue is that there are lots more aboriginals as a percentage of the population in WA so how does that compare to the overseas born percentage and their kids in WA compared to Victoria and are the numbers of the two are approximately the same when spread out over 2 clubs vs 10.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Not at all. You guys are complaining about getting no reward for the effort you have put in. I fully understand helping these kids but the point is that you shouldn't be expected to get rewarded by it as there was never any AFL system is place that said you would. If its a charitable act, there should be no need for a reward. So yes, if you wanted a reward which seems to be what your fellow posters were complaining about then you have wasted your money. If it was a charitable act then you have done a good thing for society.

I'm not complaining as we knew the rules, and we wanted to drive the issue. All I want is a 12 month first mover advantage for setting something up the AFL saw works well and has decided to copy. We get access to our academy kids in 2016, there might be none good enough to go in 2016 draft, and you Vic clubs get access in 2017 for starting late.