Mega Thread Potential future father-son selections

Remove this Banner Ad

And I just had a quick look. I didn't realise it was just that you had to use your next available pick... where did I get the idea it had to be from the same round from?
 
Willo_ said:
I thought it was bid on with what round pick you'd use. So if someone bids their first round pick then you need to use yours to get the player... so you can change your pick numbers around by trade is still an option.

Of course I could be completely wrong as I haven't actually researched it at all
Click to expand...
Dated August 2014

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-27/system-not-bidding-farewell

"The existing system sees father-son or academy recruits subject to a bidding process in which the eligible club, such as North Melbourne last year with father-son prospect Luke McDonald, has to match the best bid with their next draft choice."

Says it won't be changing for this coming year, could change for 2016 though I guess as there are a few articles flying around which suggest the afl are trying to devise an even more equalised bidding system, as of yet no suitable solution.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Willo_ said:
I thought it was bid on with what round pick you'd use. So if someone bids their first round pick then you need to use yours to get the player... so you can change your pick numbers around by trade is still an option.

Of course I could be completely wrong as I haven't actually researched it at all
Click to expand...

Are we talking current system?

Currently , I believe there is a round table and an one every FS they ask the clubs does anyone want to bid on "Joe Blogs". Lets say Joe is an out standing junior and Brisbane want him , and bid P1. Joe's dad's team the Hawks finished as Premiers and take him with their R1 pick.. P18
Of course , maybe Joes is good but not quite that good... maybe he was rated early and slipped. So he gets right thru the first round and Geelong bid their R2..... Hawks then use their R2 pick.... etc etc

If that had been in in 2006... Essendon took Gumbelton with P2..and he was not as good as Hawkins... so I presume they or someone would have bid him at 2,3,4 before our R1 at 7. We would have had to say yes and then no pick available to get Selwood.

The new proposed system.... just too complicated without seeing it work...
 
Cat Attack08 said:
Don't buy into the McGuire hype of the academies, Swans, Giants, Suns and Lions spend millions developing players in NSW and QLD but at no time are we going to see a draft by one of those 4 teams just of academy players so the other 14 teams have access to players who those 4 sides have spent considerable coin developing
Click to expand...
I haven't read anything of McGuire's thoughts. I wouldn't mind the clubs all being allowed to have their own academies (Cats can have the Falcons, who seem to breed a few diamonds fairly regularly!) in which they can plonk their father-sons. James Hitler Hird has the Essendon Academy, so why don't other clubs start something up?

And I'd be happy if the AFL took over the running of the academies, so the Northern Clubs would stop bleating about how much they've invested in their programs. Sydney and GWS, in particular, have the talent of how many million teenage kids split between two clubs? If there was a Victorian academy developed in Melbourne, the talent would be split between 10 clubs and, if it was here in WA, you'd have half the amount of kids that Sydney has.

I don't mind the idea of trading future draft picks. Hopefully the AFL can work out some formula to make things a little fairer, so the Heeney situation doesn't happen again (pick 17 for a kid touted to go in the top 5- I think I even read top 3).
 
Teriyakicat said:
I haven't read anything of McGuire's thoughts. I wouldn't mind the clubs all being allowed to have their own academies (Cats can have the Falcons, who seem to breed a few diamonds fairly regularly!) in which they can plonk their father-sons. James Hitler Hird has the Essendon Academy, so why don't other clubs start something up?

And I'd be happy if the AFL took over the running of the academies, so the Northern Clubs would stop bleating about how much they've invested in their programs. Sydney and GWS, in particular, have the talent of how many million teenage kids split between two clubs? If there was a Victorian academy developed in Melbourne, the talent would be split between 10 clubs and, if it was here in WA, you'd have half the amount of kids that Sydney has.

I don't mind the idea of trading future draft picks. Hopefully the AFL can work out some formula to make things a little fairer, so the Heeney situation doesn't happen again (pick 17 for a kid touted to go in the top 5- I think I even read top 3).
Click to expand...
The thing is each year what is the maximum amount of players that will be drafted out of the academies? 2 at most per team if that.
So who is able to draft the other players that have been developed by those academies after the 4 teams have picked their players? Everyone can and these would be players like Henney said wouldn't be in the draft pool if it weren't for the academy set ups, that is the point that seems to overlooked we have got kids in non traditional football states picking up the game because of the work done by the academies getting out to all the little towns all over NSW and QLD spreading the AFL message to kids who normally wouldn't hear it.

But people see only the Henney's and say "Why not us?" "It's not fair we should have one as well"

We aren't really in a position to complain about Henney going for 17 when we got a potential pick 1 in Hawkins for pick 35
 
Teriyakicat said:
I haven't read anything of McGuire's thoughts. I wouldn't mind the clubs all being allowed to have their own academies (Cats can have the Falcons, who seem to breed a few diamonds fairly regularly!) in which they can plonk their father-sons. James Hitler Hird has the Essendon Academy, so why don't other clubs start something up?

And I'd be happy if the AFL took over the running of the academies, so the Northern Clubs would stop bleating about how much they've invested in their programs. Sydney and GWS, in particular, have the talent of how many million teenage kids split between two clubs? If there was a Victorian academy developed in Melbourne, the talent would be split between 10 clubs and, if it was here in WA, you'd have half the amount of kids that Sydney has.

I don't mind the idea of trading future draft picks. Hopefully the AFL can work out some formula to make things a little fairer, so the Heeney situation doesn't happen again (pick 17 for a kid touted to go in the top 5- I think I even read top 3).
Click to expand...

Tcat , we have to keep in mind that those Northern Academies are meant to give them an advantage. The Cola has gone flat so the AFL need another devise to give them a fizz. On the whole thats reasonable but the question is just how much of an advantage. To get a Heeny let alone 2 every year is way too much of advantage ....its like drafting The best kid for P18 , every year. That advantage would cause all sorts of calls from Vic clubs like their own Academies. No really what the AFL want , so way way or another the new bid system will come in.

Future draft picks sound OK but I'm a bit sceptical . I see it as inflationary , once a club knows its possible , is there any doubt they will be asking for it one every player trade. Take last year. Pies would have demanded P5 and Brisbane's R1 from 2016 for Beams.
 
Cat Attack08 said:
The thing is each year what is the maximum amount of players that will be drafted out of the academies? 2 at most per team if that.
So who is able to draft the other players that have been developed by those academies after the 4 teams have picked their players? Everyone can and these would be players like Henney said wouldn't be in the draft pool if it weren't for the academy set ups, that is the point that seems to overlooked we have got kids in non traditional football states picking up the game because of the work done by the academies getting out to all the little towns all over NSW and QLD spreading the AFL message to kids who normally wouldn't hear it.

But people see only the Henney's and say "Why not us?" "It's not fair we should have one as well"

We aren't really in a position to complain about Henney going for 17 when we got a potential pick 1 in Hawkins for pick 35
Click to expand...
That's not really correct though, is it?

All clubs had/have the opportunity for a FS if it came/comes up. Sydney are getting an exclusive deal via their Academy.

It is an extra not available to other clubs.

And it is paid for by the other clubs as well, as the AFL basically run and fund those northern state clubs.
 
Cat Attack08 said:
The thing is each year what is the maximum amount of players that will be drafted out of the academies? 2 at most per team if that.
So who is able to draft the other players that have been developed by those academies after the 4 teams have picked their players? Everyone can and these would be players like Henney said wouldn't be in the draft pool if it weren't for the academy set ups, that is the point that seems to overlooked we have got kids in non traditional football states picking up the game because of the work done by the academies getting out to all the little towns all over NSW and QLD spreading the AFL message to kids who normally wouldn't hear it.

But people see only the Henney's and say "Why not us?" "It's not fair we should have one as well"

We aren't really in a position to complain about Henney going for 17 when we got a potential pick 1 in Hawkins for pick 35
Click to expand...

too much common sense for bigfooty.
 
I would have thought that to make it more reasonable they tie the weighting to previous year ladder position.

the outcry, for mine a least, was not that the Swans got Heeney for pick 17 or whatever, but that they were in the GF the year before and now grabbed a top 5 kid for pick 17.

Geelong getting Hawkins and Selwood did so but from outside the 8 the year before.

If the top 4 teams from the previous year have FS chances in the following year, they should be able to get them but at a premium based on the their recent success.

If Swans finish top 4 gain, then they be able to get access to their FS but at a premium to the rest of the comp. Mills they can take but needs a Rd 1 and Rd2 pick. Dunkley they need the same. Thus they can trade players to gain picks (this would need the AFL to allow future picks to be traded etc but only the following year).

My 2 cents.

Go Catters
 
CharacterFirst said:
That's not really correct though, is it?

All clubs had/have the opportunity for a FS if it came/comes up. Sydney are getting an exclusive deal via their Academy.

It is an extra not available to other clubs.

And it is paid for by the other clubs as well, as the AFL basically run and fund those northern state clubs.
Click to expand...
Do you mean via the equalisation money the AFL provide the poorer clubs? If so, that's something I hadn't considered.
 
Turbocat said:
Tcat , we have to keep in mind that those Northern Academies are meant to give them an advantage. The Cola has gone flat so the AFL need another devise to give them a fizz. On the whole thats reasonable but the question is just how much of an advantage. To get a Heeny let alone 2 every year is way too much of advantage ....its like drafting The best kid for P18 , every year. That advantage would cause all sorts of calls from Vic clubs like their own Academies. No really what the AFL want , so way way or another the new bid system will come in.

Future draft picks sound OK but I'm a bit sceptical . I see it as inflationary , once a club knows its possible , is there any doubt they will be asking for it one every player trade. Take last year. Pies would have demanded P5 and Brisbane's R1 from 2016 for Beams.
Click to expand...
The AFL would draft a whole new set of rules for trading future draft pick -e.g. limiting how many picks you can trade per year etc. trading draft picks between clubs may be more common. I don't know how it would work but there is potential there.

Sydney may not get another situation where they can grab another Heeney-type in the next 5 years but, just looking at the sheer volume of kids they can choose from, I reckon there will be quality kids to pick the eyes out of each year. And there's been the argument about these kids being allowed to stay in their home state- which is apparently great because they're more likely to stay playing footy in this case- but that doesn't happen in any other state with any other kids, so I see a disadvantage for kids getting drafted into or out of WA for instance.

Imagine giving the Hawks first choice of the elite draftees every year in Vic for their first round pick! *spew*
 
Last edited:
Cat Attack08 said:
The thing is each year what is the maximum amount of players that will be drafted out of the academies? 2 at most per team if that.
So who is able to draft the other players that have been developed by those academies after the 4 teams have picked their players? Everyone can and these would be players like Henney said wouldn't be in the draft pool if it weren't for the academy set ups, that is the point that seems to overlooked we have got kids in non traditional football states picking up the game because of the work done by the academies getting out to all the little towns all over NSW and QLD spreading the AFL message to kids who normally wouldn't hear it.

But people see only the Henney's and say "Why not us?" "It's not fair we should have one as well"

We aren't really in a position to complain about Henney going for 17 when we got a potential pick 1 in Hawkins for pick 35
Click to expand...

Have the AFL set a limit of 2 players now, Cat Attack?

Heeney said he wouldn't have played Aussie Rules if it wasn't for the academy in NSW but how do we know he wasn't told to say that so the AFL could get more leverage and support for their program over there? It didn't cost him anything to say that and it wasn't as if he'd never played AR before and was stolen from Rugby. Most kids in senior high school manage to play two codes of sport at a high level if they're keen. He may have just missed out on the elite training prior to bring drafted.

It's not about the "why not us" factor- it's more about the AFL devising methods that serve to tip the balance further in the direction of stronger clubs, despite mouthing platitudes about equalisation. Someone like Heeney should've cost the Swans two picks in the 2014 draft. So they get 1 bite of the cherry from their academy, only.

Yeah- we got Hawkins back in 2006- but that loophole was shut pretty fast. I still reckon we'd have got Selwood of the dodgy knees with our second round pick that year, though. ;)
That would mean we'd have missed out on Djerrkura... Meh :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

NSFB said:
The old system pre changes I understand that argument. That was unfair/uneven. This much less so.

If the only qualm is that a team can win the flag and get a #1 player for #18. Oh well that's a small chance to happen let alone regularly and isn't compelling enough for mine to abolish what overall is a good aspect of the game.

Yes Heeney was robbery for Sydney (not FS I know and the appropriateness of Syd having academy is another argument entirely) but many though Viney should have gone higher. No one bid early on and Melb got him in the 20's iirc. That's fair. Someone had of bid earlier and iirc they would have had to overlook Toumpas in favour of Viney.
Click to expand...
From memory. (I haven't checked) Melbourne had 1&2, or 1&3 and someone did bid on him. But at about pick 8 or something.

So they got him in the 20,s.
I honestly don't mind that. They were a bottom club that needed that help.
Not fair as a system, but good for Melbourne.
 
It's not fatally flawed.
I just won't be surprised to see it abolished.

Note, I haven't read up on this new proposed points system.
 
NSFB said:
The old system pre changes I understand that argument. That was unfair/uneven. This much less so.

If the only qualm is that a team can win the flag and get a #1 player for #18. Oh well that's a small chance to happen let alone regularly and isn't compelling enough for mine to abolish what overall is a good aspect of the game.

Yes Heeney was robbery for Sydney (not FS I know and the appropriateness of Syd having academy is another argument entirely) but many though Viney should have gone higher. No one bid early on and Melb got him in the 20's iirc. That's fair. Someone had of bid earlier and iirc they would have had to overlook Toumpas in favour of Viney.
Click to expand...

It was a deal. Basically Melb trade with GWS to get Hogan but was ensure that Viney would not be bid on.

Screen Shot 2015-05-06 at 4.33.03 pm.png
 
SJ Teriyakicat

FS_2030.png


From here:
http://www.geelongcats.com.au/video/2015-05-12/the-2030-fatherson-side
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
AFL Round Five potential milestones:
Replies
6
Views
319
CatsDoItBetter
CatsDoItBetter
winty
Toast Potential milestones - 2023 edition.
Replies
18
Views
711
Vdubs
Vdubs
gogeelongcats
rank our top 10 players under 25 on potential value
Replies
21
Views
674
Pure_Ownage
Pure_Ownage
P
GFC Supporters Theme Songs CD Featuring Leigh Colbert on back up!
Replies
3
Views
726
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
323
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