Mega Thread Potential future father-son selections

Remove this Banner Ad

Vdubs said:
Not sure, father-son spots have rules of eligibility; maybe 1 a year max? Pity, because we will likely miss out on a Wojo, or a Mooney, or a Scarlett , etc. along the way somewhere.
Click to expand...
Here are the rules, Vdubs.
There was a limit of 1 for a very short time (2001-2002, just in time for us to grab GAJ) but the rule changed again- coincidentally just in time for Collingwood to be able to draft two Shaw cousins in 2003.
 
Vdubs said:
Not sure, father-son spots have rules of eligibility; maybe 1 a year max? Pity, because we will likely miss out on a Wojo, or a Mooney, or a Scarlett , etc. along the way somewhere.
Click to expand...
Bulldogs grabbed Wallis and Libba juniors in the same draft
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Teriyakicat said:
Here are the rules, Vdubs.
There was a limit of 1 for a very short time (2001-2002, just in time for us to grab GAJ) but the rule changed again- coincidentally just in time for Collingwood to be able to draft two Shaw cousins in 2003.
Click to expand...

Is that right? I cant remember that. We took Woolnough and Scarlett in the same draft back a while ago. Scarlett deemed the lesser player and a R4 pick
 
Vdubs said:
Both as F-S's?
Click to expand...

Yep. It's just the luck of the draw. I'm not sure how it would work if, say Petracca and McCartin both qualified as F/S with the same club (i.e. if it was unclear at the time of bidding which player is valued more highly), but with two pretty highly touted (but not top 5 worthy) picks like Wallis and Liberatore, it just ended up being the first round pick for Wallis and the second round pick for Liberatore.
 
MC Extra Dollop said:
Yep. It's just the luck of the draw. I'm not sure how it would work if, say Petracca and McCartin both qualified as F/S with the same club (i.e. if it was unclear at the time of bidding which player is valued more highly), but with two pretty highly touted (but not top 5 worthy) picks like Wallis and Liberatore, it just ended up being the first round pick for Wallis and the second round pick for Liberatore.
Click to expand...


The team that wishes to draft the son then has to match the highest bid with their next available draft selection.
That would mean that an opposition team determines the order of drafting of F/S selections. If both players are deemed 3rd round, then a club would take one with the next pick, whether 3rd/4th round (depending on the order) and then the second F/S with their following pick- as the words are 'next available'

http://www.aflrules.com.au/afl-players/afl-draft/
 
:oops:
I forgot to include the rule history that I found, in my post yesterday. My apologies, Vdubs Turbocat Cat Attack08

Prior to 1997 the rule allowed the son to be recruited by his father's club, bypassing the draft entirely. West Coast's Ben Cousins, for example, was recruited in this manner, without the Eagles parting with any draft picks. In 1997 the father–son rule was altered to force clubs to use a second round draft selection for their first father–son selection. If two players were to be drafted by the same club in the same year, then a third round selection was used for the second player. Geelong used this rule in 1997 to draft Marc Woolnough with their second selection and Matthew Scarlett with their third round pick, whilst Collingwood chose to not select Marcus Picken.[2][3] In 2001, the rule was changed to only allow a single selection per year, costing the club a third round selection. Notably, this rule allowed Geelong to draft All Australian and Brownlow Medalist Gary Ablett Jr. to the club in 2001 using only their 3rd round (40th overall) draft pick. In 2003 the rules were changed again to allow multiple players to be drafted in a single year, with a third round selection used for the first player and a second round selection being used for the second player.[4] Collingwood drafted cousins Brayden and Heath Shaw using their second and third round selection in 2003.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father–son_rule

Back in 1997, if there'd been a third F/S selection, a club would've had to use a first round selection.

From June 2003:
Geelong, fearful of an imminent change to the father-son rule, has pleaded with the AFL not to proceed with its plan to revamp it.
The Cats, with the backing of Collingwood, have asked the AFL to reconsider its revised stance on the rule, which is that while clubs will be permitted to take more than one son in a given year, the "second" son will cost them a second-round draft pick.
The Cats were among the clubs who agitated for the rule to be changed to allow clubs to take more than one son in a draft. As it stands now, clubs can take only one father-son, in exchange for their third-round draft pick.
Under the system now favoured by the AFL and expected to be announced as soon as next week, the clubs with access to two father-son players would give up their third pick for the first player and their second-round pick for the next. In the unlikely event, there was a third son, this would cost a first-round draft choice.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/19/1055828434792.html
 
GeeCat said:
Jack Scarlett is in the training squad for the 2015 Geelong Falcons. Will be interesting to see how he goes.

They won't qualify for F/S, but Michael Kol's two boys (Harrison and Peterson) plus Brendan McCartney's son (Lockie) are also in the same initial Falcons squad.
Click to expand...

Just checked the Updated list and he is no longer on it.:(
 
Now the northern clubs have their academies- and what a windfall it was for the Swans in the last draft- and probably this year's draft :eek: -the arguments have started about methods the AFL would like to introduce in order to "equalise" this part of the equation :rolleyes:

According to the following article, the Geelong fathers have been doing a grand job of producing little clones of themselves (hopefully!!), to the order of having more than 30 potential father sons in the pipeline... so to speak. :D


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...y-bidding-system/story-fni5f22o-1227218961436
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Turbocat said:
I guess if he is close enough , the Falcons will identify him. Any idea on size position? If we did follow the Academy approach we would put all the time and effort we could into someone like that .
Click to expand...
From what age do they play with the Falcons, Turbo? 16? Or do they let some 15 year olds train with them but not play?
 
Teriyakicat said:
Now the northern clubs have their academies- and what a windfall it was for the Swans in the last draft- and probably this year's draft :eek:
Click to expand...
The question seems to revolve around two things;

1/. Should the Northern States get first call on the Academy players?

2/. Are they paying market value.

Addressing the second question first, Heeny's acquisition is much like our recruitment of Hawkins under the Father-Son rule.

After we got Hawkins, such was the angst from other clubs the rule was changed as it was felt we didn't pay market value for him (i.e a Top 5 or Top 3 selection in the draft).

Now Father-Sons have to be rated much like the other players in the pool as opposed to the (relative) "free-hit" clubs used to have by parting with a third rounder (usually).

At the moment, the Academy players go through the same process as Father-Son bidding (a system that seems to work reasonably well).

As a Geelong supporter who has seen us do well out of Father-Sons I don't think we should turn around and complain about the Northern Academies.

Sydney gaining Heeney for pick 18 is just as much about timing as anything else. If the Swans had finished in the bottom half of the 8 no-one would really have cared too much.

Especially if they hadn't also just recruited Tippett and Franklin.

The Academies will ultimately be good for everyone as the 4 Northern sides can't take all of these players and the talent pool does needs topping up from these states.

It'll take time but we're already seeing the results. I may be wrong but it seemed that more players were drafted out of NSW last year than we had seen previously.

As for the first question, it'll come down to a person's opinion.

If you pump time and money into someone do you expect to reap the benefits down the track for the resources and time you put into them? If you spend time and money on 100 young kids and less than 10 are actually deemed good enough to just be drafted (and being drafted is simply the first step to "making it" in the AFL) then you might feel that you probably have some right to get first dibs on them.

And don't forget, the Northern state clubs still have to make room on their list for these players. They aren't given extra spots on their lists for them (as far as I know) so they are making a judgement call that the kids they are drafting are better options than the ones going out the other side.

It is an argument that has some parallels with free-agency although the main difference is Free Agents have put in some time with the club that first drafted and developed them.
 
Last edited:
I think it's more a case of the academies being able to pump out extremely good players year after year, whereas it's very unlikely a group of footballers from the same club will have coordinated their own "performance" to the same extent. How often would any club have access to two or three father sons of the quality of these academies? Never? And year after year? Yes, maybe not all of the quality of Heeney but what if Sydney is top 8 for the next 4 years and manages to score a top 6-8 player every year? And they pick up a top 20 player with their second draft pick- because they can! The rules say they can.

If we're talking about the northern clubs being able to pick the eyes out of a group of 100 young kids- albeit restricted by their openings at draft time- there is no equivalent in the Victorian - or WA/SA clubs at all.

The northern clubs are also getting access to players who play in their "system"- run by their own clubs. The closest we'd get would be to have our father sons and the best local players playing in the VFL prior to that year's draft. So we'd revert to a "zoning" system again- which is exactly what these academies are. Then draft the best of these players via the bidding process. Yes, there are only so many that we can draft but we only need two stars per year, with perhaps a third "bargain" draftee, to form the nucleus of a GCFC/GWS- type club.

I'm not sure I fully understand all the ins and outs of how the academy systems and the bidding process works- I do appreciate the fact that the clubs have invested heavily in these academies and want first dibs, as you say, but there is no equivalent in any other state and, for the purpose of "growing" our Aussie Rules in these rugby states, I feel the AFL have weighted the seesaw heavily to the advantage of the northern clubs. If an academy just happens to produce two top 10-20 players and rival clubs have bid first draft picks on each, do Sydney/GWS/whoever only get one of those players because they can only match one round 1 bid? Or can they take both, matching the second bid with their next highest draft pick - ie round 2?
 
Teriyakicat said:
I think it's more a case of the academies being able to pump out extremely good players year after year, whereas it's very unlikely a group of footballers from the same club will have coordinated their own "performance" to the same extent. How often would any club have access to two or three father sons of the quality of these academies? Never? And year after year?
Click to expand...
It is very rare but it happened to us with Scarlett and Woolnough and the Bulldogs had it recently with Liberatore and Wallis. This year we might get to see how this all works for the Swans as they have a highly rated Academy player in Mills and a very good Father-Son in Dunkley.

Teriyakicat said:
Yes, maybe not all of the quality of Heeney but what if Sydney is top 8 for the next 4 years and manages to score a top 6-8 player every year? And they pick up a top 20 player with their second draft pick- because they can! The rules say they can
Click to expand...
Producing extremely good players year on year is a valid point however the counter argument is quality fluctuates year on year.

We see that with the draft. Some years there are a good 10-15 elite types while other years there might only be 4 or 5 (have a look at the top 30 in 2003, it makes for dire reading with the odd exception).

Last year Heeney came along who, at the moment, is something of an outlier for a NSW player. But we simply don't know how good he'll be (we assume he'll be good but that is still an assumption, just like any draftee from 2014).

Because he is considered very good people are getting up-in-arms about the ability of the Northern State clubs getting access to these players first. What happens if he is the only kid to be really good to come out of this system in the next 3-4 years?

What happens if, shock-horror, he is a bust? Should Sydney be compensated for being "made" to use a pick on him? Obviously I'm being flippant here but I think you see what I'm driving at.

Next year Mills and perhaps Keays (a Queenslander) may be towards the top end (others may pop up during the year but these 2 seem the most likely that I've seen) but even if it is 4 or 5 players that is still a fairly small percentage of very good players to come out of the Academies considering the proposed numbers running through there.

The other thing to note, Heeney is on record as saying that if not for the Academy he wouldn't be playing AFL. Mills is also a switcher from rugby league. That's 2 kids that are more likely to play AFL than another sport and that seems like a good thing to me.

Teriyakicat said:
If we're talking about the northern clubs being able to pick the eyes out of a group of 100 young kids- albeit restricted by their openings at draft time- there is no equivalent in the Victorian - or WA/SA clubs at all.

The northern clubs are also getting access to players who play in their "system"- run by their own clubs. The closest we'd get would be to have our father sons and the best local players playing in the VFL prior to that year's draft.
Click to expand...

I think clubs can apply to the AFL to allow potential father-sons to play some games in the VFL. I'm sure we did it with Jordon Bourke during his draft year. It isn't the same but I think it can be done.

On the local talent side of things, I'm sure Geelong brings in players from the local area to play VFL so we can have a look at them.

Agreed, it isn't the same but thems the rules.

Teriyakicat said:
So we'd revert to a "zoning" system again- which is exactly what these academies are. Then draft the best of these players via the bidding process. Yes, there are only so many that we can draft but we only need two stars per year, with perhaps a third "bargain" draftee, to form the nucleus of a GCFC/GWS- type club.
Click to expand...
If zoning worked we'd still have it. Just imagine if Geelong got first (or multiple) access to the Geelong region and had first call on the best player(s) from there year on year?

Since I'd back the region of greater Geelong to produce better quality footballers, at a higher frequency, in greater volume than either NSW or QLD currently that sort of proposal would skew things the other way.

You'd know the players who have come out of this area recently as well as anyone and that would be a massive advantage to Geelong (which I obviously wouldn't object to being a supporter).

Teriyakicat said:
I'm not sure I fully understand all the ins and outs of how the academy systems and the bidding process works- I do appreciate the fact that the clubs have invested heavily in these academies and want first dibs, as you say, but there is no equivalent in any other state and, for the purpose of "growing" our Aussie Rules in these rugby states, I feel the AFL have weighted the seesaw heavily to the advantage of the northern clubs. If an academy just happens to produce two top 10-20 players and rival clubs have bid first draft picks on each, do Sydney/GWS/whoever only get one of those players because they can only match one round 1 bid? Or can they take both, matching the second bid with their next highest draft pick - ie round 2?
Click to expand...
The bidding (and player value) is the crux of this issue I believe.

Because of the Father-Son rule (probably only existing because of a romantic notion), AFL compensation for free agents and Academy players the draft isn't really "pure" which rubs against its intent.

If it was pure then the teams at the bottom would get their choice of any player eligible to be drafted. Before the rule change for F/S this wasn't the case.

At least clubs can now bid on players forcing the clubs they are "tied to" to actually cough up something more resembling their value.

The bidding needs to be tweaked. Off the top of my head, if a club like Melbourne was prepared to part with pick #2 for Heeney, for example, then Sydney should be made to try and match (or better) that offer (since that is my understanding of how bidding works) rather than just sit back and go "oh, OK, I guess we'll use pick 18 then".

That way Melbourne might still receive something despite missing out on Heeney.

If nothing else it means Sydney has to do something to match or beat the proposed bid. Last year that might have benefited another bottom placed side in St. Kilda who had Pick #1.

There will still be the issue of money and time expended by these clubs on their Academies. On this matter I'm not clear as to the breakdown of expenditure.

I'll assume the 4 clubs in question put in money along with resources and I believe the AFL also dips into its purse. Do the Southern state clubs also contribute? No idea. But if ALL the AFL clubs did pitch in to support the Academies then perhaps there are more grounds to argue against "exclusivity".

If the other clubs contributed perhaps they too could get first call on one of these kids (much like the old NSW scholarship program).

Sorry, that is all a bit of an essay.
 
Last edited:
The Pivotonian said:
It is very rare but it happened to us with Scarlett and Woolnough and the Bulldogs had it recently with Liberatore and Wallis. This year we might get to see how this all works for the Swans as they have a highly rated Academy player in Mills and a very good Father-Son in Dunkley.

Producing extremely good players year on year is a valid point however the counter argument is quality fluctuates year on year.

We see that with the draft. Some years there are a good 10-15 elite types while other years there might only be 4 or 5 (have a look at the top 30 in 2003, it makes for dire reading with the odd exception).

Last year Heeney came along who, at the moment, is something of an outlier for a NSW player. But we simply don't know how good he'll be (we assume he'll be good but that is still an assumption, just like any draftee from 2014).

Because he is considered very good people are getting up-in-arms about the ability of the Northern State clubs getting access to these players first. What happens if he is the only kid to be really good to come out of this system in the next 3-4 years?

What happens if, shock-horror, he is a bust? Should Sydney be compensated for being "made" to use a pick on him? Obviously I'm being flippant here but I think you see what I'm driving at.

Next year Mills and perhaps Keays (a Queenslander) may be the towards the top end (others may pop up during the year but these 2 seem the most likely that I've seen) but even if it is 4 or 5 players that is still a fairly small percentage of very good players to come out of the Academies considering the proposed numbers running through there.

The other thing to note, Heeney is on record as saying that if not for the Academy he wouldn't be playing AFL. Mills is also a switcher from rugby league. That's 2 kids that are more likely to play AFL than another sport and that seems like a good thing to me.



I think clubs can apply to the AFL to allow potential father-sons to play some games in the VFL. I'm sure we did it with Jordon Bourke during his draft year. It isn't the same but I think it can be done.

On the local talent side of things, I'm sure Geelong brings in players from the local area to play VFL so we can have a look at them.

Agreed, it isn't the same but thems the rules.

If zoning worked we'd still have it. Just imagine if Geelong got first access to the Geelong region and had first call on the best player from there year on year?

Since I'd back the region of greater Geelong to produce better quality footballers, at a higher frequency, in greater volume than either NSW or QLD currently that sort of proposal would skew things the other way.

You'd know the players who have come out of this area recently as well as anyone and that would be a massive advantage to Geelong (which I obviously wouldn't object to being a supporter).

The bidding (and player value) is the crux of this issue I believe.

Because of the Father-Son rule (probably only existing because of a romantic notion), AFL compensation for free agents and Academy players the draft isn't really "pure" which rubs against its intent.

If it was pure then the teams at the bottom would get their choice of any player eligible to be drafted. Before the rule change for F/S this wasn't the case.

At least clubs can now bid on players forcing the clubs they are "tied to" to actually cough up something more resembling their value.

The bidding needs to be tweaked. Off the top of my head, if a club like Melbourne was prepared to part with pick #2 for Heeney, for example, then Sydney should be made to try and match (or better) that offer (since that is my understanding of how bidding works) rather than just sit back and go "oh, OK, I guess we'll use pick 18 then".

That way Melbourne might still receive something despite missing out on Heeney.

If nothing else it means Sydney has to do something to match or beat the proposed bid. Last year that might have benefited another bottom placed side in St. Kilda who had Pick #1.

There will still be the issue of money and time expended by these clubs on their Academies. On this matter I'm not clear as to the breakdown of expenditure.

I'll assume the 4 clubs in question put in money along with resources and I believe the AFL also dips into its purse. Do the Southern state clubs also contribute? No idea. But if ALL the AFL clubs did pitch in to support the Academies then perhaps there are more grounds to argue against "exclusivity".

If the other clubs contributed perhaps they too could get first call on one of these kids (much like the old NSW scholarship program).

Sorry, that is all a bit of an essay.
Click to expand...

I just resigned my position as a Gold Coast Suns Academy coach in Cairns.

I can only speak on my experiences with the Gold Coast Football Club... They invest huge amounts into these kids which are often identified from about an under 12 level or talent ID'd from other sports. They work a lot on basic skills and are taught game sense at a higher level than what is taught at club level (as you can imagine in Cairns there aren't a plethora of experienced high level junior coaches up in Cairns to teach the modern game).

Many kids without this exposure would never have what it takes to make it at the next level as there is no comp that even rival the GFL juniors let alone a TAC to develop them. The fruit of all this extra work will start to pay dividends for Gold Coast over the next 3 to four years. The recent 15 and under state side finished second to Victoria (by only about 10 points) in the school boy championships, beating SA, WA and others along the way. The state side from Victoria was combined country and metro side, the first time this has happened in a number of years. The majority of the kids in this side are either in the lions academy or the suns and if they aren't they would be now. Names like Brad Scheer and Jack Bowes will most likely be some of the first products off the production line.

Lachlan Weller was an academy product but had not lived inside the zone for 5 years so he could not be selected.

I think for these clubs they should be entitled to first choice on their academy players but should be penalised heavier for father suns than non academy clubs. If a father/son is available they must make a choice to take him and forfeit the rights to that years academy players or take the academy players.

That should even it all out. At the end of the day the academies are good for finding and developing talent in non traditional areas and should stay after all the TAC, WAFL and SANFL do a good job of developing player for us to access.
 
Glen Quagmire said:
I just resigned my position as a Gold Coast Suns Academy coach in Cairns.

I can only speak on my experiences with the Gold Coast Football Club... They invest huge amounts into these kids which are often identified from about an under 12 level or talent ID'd from other sports. They work a lot on basic skills and are taught game sense at a higher level than what is taught at club level (as you can imagine in Cairns there aren't a plethora of experienced high level junior coaches up in Cairns to teach the modern game).

Many kids without this exposure would never have what it takes to make it at the next level as there is no comp that even rival the GFL juniors let alone a TAC to develop them. The fruit of all this extra work will start to pay dividends for Gold Coast over the next 3 to four years. The recent 15 and under state side finished second to Victoria (by only about 10 points) in the school boy championships, beating SA, WA and others along the way. The state side from Victoria was combined country and metro side, the first time this has happened in a number of years. The majority of the kids in this side are either in the lions academy or the suns and if they aren't they would be now. Names like Brad Scheer and Jack Bowes will most likely be some of the first products off the production line.

Lachlan Weller was an academy product but had not lived inside the zone for 5 years so he could not be selected.

I think for these clubs they should be entitled to first choice on their academy players but should be penalised heavier for father suns than non academy clubs. If a father/son is available they must make a choice to take him and forfeit the rights to that years academy players or take the academy players.

That should even it all out. At the end of the day the academies are good for finding and developing talent in non traditional areas and should stay after all the TAC, WAFL and SANFL do a good job of developing player for us to access.
Click to expand...

Great insight. Keep up the posting.

There is no doubt for a national competition that the academies need to exist and that the clubs the support them regionally should get some fruit from it.
I just had issues with a club that was in the GF, and had finished top 4 for several years, getting a touted top 5 pick from pick 17.
That seems strong reward at that time.

GO Catters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
AFL Round Five potential milestones:
Replies
6
Views
302
CatsDoItBetter
CatsDoItBetter
winty
Toast Potential milestones - 2023 edition.
Replies
18
Views
706
Vdubs
Vdubs
gogeelongcats
rank our top 10 players under 25 on potential value
Replies
21
Views
668
Pure_Ownage
Pure_Ownage
P
GFC Supporters Theme Songs CD Featuring Leigh Colbert on back up!
Replies
3
Views
714
winty
winty
Phipppppa
Opinion Is the Future of GFC set?
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
catswhiskers
catswhiskers
witsend
Toast Selwood Tribute Song - “He Came Pre-Bandaged”
Replies
1
Views
320
Geelong_Sicko
Geelong_Sicko
Geelong_Sicko
When exactly did 'bom bom bom bom' find its way into the Geelong post-match club song?
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
noclashjumpers
noclashjumpers

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top