News Changes to Father Son/Academy Bidding

[RUNVS]

I have really noticed that the opposition supporters who think the academies are a good idea and are most vocal in support tend to be opposition supporters from NSW or QLD. I went onto the Collingwood board earlier and even a couple of their supporters (from Sydney) were vocally supportive of the academies. It goes to show that if a person understands why the academies were setup, which was due to the really poor talent finding systems in NSW and QLD previously, then those people do support the idea of academies and see them as something that will help the code in the expansion markets.

NSW and QLD have half of Australia's population and for too long this has been a resource way under utilised. Imagine how much of a higher standard the AFL would be so instead of the 90 or so players from NSW and QLD in a competition of 800 players instead there were 200 players. 200 between QLD and NSW is an ambitious goal but I think it is possible and possible within 15 to 20 years as well if the AFL make the right decisions about the academies.

 

[Vin Rogue]

The disincentive is that the other club has to effectively over-pay for an academy selection vs the host club's (currently proposed) 25% discount. The AFL will simply adjust this factor rather than adding in another credit over the top.

But the Club which gains the Academy footballer has chosen them against every other possibility. They are not bidding overs - their bid is their commercial assessment that this footballer is their best bet at that price. And if the swans are unable to match it because we deem it to be "overs", then we have invested in the academy for diddly squat - and that is why we need a mechanism whereby the academy host clubs are still "paid" for their service.

I think this is an interesting point. Of course the counter argument against additional reward in non-selection years is that the northern clubs get to have an academy in the first place. I don't believe that this adequately compensates for the investment (especially in time and marketing/promotion). The short answer to this may be an annual academy/marketing grant made to the northern clubs for the AFL to 'sponsor' the academies. They really do do rgeat work in raising both the profile of the game and bring more quality kids into the draft which is fundamentally beneficial to the game long term.

The extra reward factor which could be allocated as an average in non selection years to host clubs means that the points become cheaper for the host club, and their likelihood of bidding for their own academy footballers becomes more likely. That would be a great result for the AFL and the academies who are tryiong to forge pathways in hostile territory.

 

[Vin Rogue]

The disincentive is that the other club has to effectively over-pay for an academy selection vs the host club's (currently proposed) 25% discount. The AFL will simply adjust this factor rather than adding in another credit over the top.


I think this is an interesting point. Of course the counter argument against additional reward in non-selection years is that the northern clubs get to have an academy in the first place. I don't believe that this adequately compensates for the investment (especially in time and marketing/promotion). The short answer to this may be an annual academy/marketing grant made to the northern clubs for the AFL to 'sponsor' the academies. They really do do rgeat work in raising both the profile of the game and bring more quality kids into the draft which is fundamentally beneficial to the game long term.

Clubs will never "over pay" for an academy selection in the sense that their selection is an open one. They do not have to choose an academy player. If they choose an academy selection they have deemed that player to be the best available for them. Whereas the swans do not have the same "open selection" available to them.The Club which picks up our best academy prospect, essentially is being asked to pay the swans for their development and investment in the system which produced that quality prospect. When we miss out on our own best academy prospect, because we cannot afford the bid price offered by another Club, then the swans need some other way of being compensated for their investment...and the AFL should see this as a reasonable misgiving if they want the Academy system to remain in place.

 

[ScrewInStuds]

I haven't done the maths but my gut feeling is that the 25% academy discount and 15% f/s discount is just an opening bid, and these will get bumped up to about 35% and 25% respectively, resulting in Sydney burning all of our picks plus a downgrade of our first rounder in 2016 to get both Dunkley and Mills. I'd be ok with this, we've got a lot of young talent in over the last couple of years and in 2016 when our trade restrictions are up we could look to land either a decent free agent or some unwanted laidler types to keep our depth looking good.

 

[ScrewInStuds]

I haven't done the maths but my gut feeling is that the 25% academy discount and 15% f/s discount is just an opening bid, and these will get bumped up to about 35% and 25% respectively, resulting in Sydney burning all of our picks plus a downgrade of our first rounder in 2016 to get both Dunkley and Mills. I'd be ok with this, we've got a lot of young talent in over the last couple of years and in 2016 when our trade restrictions are up we could look to land either a decent free agent or some unwanted laidler types to keep our depth looking good.

Ok, so I stopped being lazy and whipped out the calculator.

In the hypothetical situation that:
both f/s and academy picks get their discounts bumped up to 25% and 35% respectively
We finish first in 2015 and 2016
Dunks is bid at as pick 8, with Mills bid as pick 2


In 2015 we could get both Dunks and Mills, leaving all of our picks at 74 or later.
In 2016 we have to pay a points hangover, leaving us with picks 41, 54, 72, and 74, but the afl imposed trade ban from the previous year leaves us with the cash to pick up a handy free agent as well as a couple of unwanted players from other clubs.

It sounds extreme, but another way of looking at it would be pick 18, 36, and 72 for Mills, with picks 18, 54, and a down grade of 36 to 41 for Dunkley. Doesn't sound so bad when you look at each trade individually, but it's a lot of eggs in two baskets.

Out of curiosity, who here would/wouldn't take this deal?

 

[Membling]

Ok, so I stopped being lazy and whipped out the calculator.

In the hypothetical situation that:
both f/s and academy picks get their discounts bumped up to 25% and 35% respectively
We finish first in 2015 and 2016
Dunks is bid at as pick 8, with Mills bid as pick 2


In 2015 we could get both Dunks and Mills, leaving all of our picks at 74 or later.
In 2016 we have to pay a points hangover, leaving us with picks 41, 54, 72, and 74, but the afl imposed trade ban from the previous year leaves us with the cash to pick up a handy free agent as well as a couple of unwanted players from other clubs.

It sounds extreme, but another way of looking at it would be pick 18, 36, and 72 for Mills, with picks 18, 54, and a down grade of 36 to 41 for Dunkley. Doesn't sound so bad when you look at each trade individually, but it's a lot of eggs in two baskets.

Out of curiosity, who here would/wouldn't take this deal?

Take it and run. Have players coming out of contract in 2016. Could be very active either way

 

[Vin Rogue]

Ok, so I stopped being lazy and whipped out the calculator.

In the hypothetical situation that:
both f/s and academy picks get their discounts bumped up to 25% and 35% respectively
We finish first in 2015 and 2016
Dunks is bid at as pick 8, with Mills bid as pick 2


In 2015 we could get both Dunks and Mills, leaving all of our picks at 74 or later.
In 2016 we have to pay a points hangover, leaving us with picks 41, 54, 72, and 74, but the afl imposed trade ban from the previous year leaves us with the cash to pick up a handy free agent as well as a couple of unwanted players from other clubs.

It sounds extreme, but another way of looking at it would be pick 18, 36, and 72 for Mills, with picks 18, 54, and a down grade of 36 to 41 for Dunkley. Doesn't sound so bad when you look at each trade individually, but it's a lot of eggs in two baskets.

Out of curiosity, who here would/wouldn't take this deal?

A season of under age footy yet to go. Mills seems to be the real deal. If he wants to come, then we pays the price. Let's wait and see with Dunks. The happy nappies might have spread their love.....nothing definite in him choosing us as his destination. Same deal though. If he wants us, then we pays the ferryman and the future looks after itself.

 

[Swansujelly]

this is all s**t as, and we are being punished for no more than top notch list management/recruiting, and a bit of luck with the young ones. * eddie, * the AFL, and anyone who thinks this is a good outcome.

 

[tizzay7]

Stuff em all its a crock of bull. if we cant get both then let one of em go. In three years they should say hey i want to go home. Tell em not to sign an extension and either walk to the psd or demand that they come to us. Simple. Let em develop for a few years and then swoop.

We get shafted for doing the right thing and then get shafted again when we can possibly pick up a few good academy kids. We push this game hard in nsw for them to say nope we want what you have just like a brat of a child.

All we can do now is hope that this "system" gets tweaked a little bit in our favour. We already know that this is going to happen so we hust have to deal with it. We know now that this is as bad it can get.

 

[YorshireSwan]

Personally I can understand why opposition supporters don't like it, I mean I read the hostile arguments against Melbourne (as poor as they were) getting a leg up with a priority pick. I also understand the business and economic perspective of the AFL and why we (and others) receive the concessions we do.

I think the proposed system is a step in the right direction, I think the discounts need some massaging but I tend to agree if we are to receive first right of refusal then we should pay a reasonable price. Looking at it practically I think the Mills / Dunkley scenario will be the exception to the rule over time not the norm.

I still say, whatever it costs take them and back our great club to make the decisions required to ensure we remain competitive for another 10 years straight.

 

[ScrewInStuds]

Take it and run. Have players coming out of contract in 2016. Could be very active either way

A season of under age footy yet to go. Mills seems to be the real deal. If he wants to come, then we pays the price. Let's wait and see with Dunks. The happy nappies might have spread their love.....nothing definite in him choosing us as his destination. Same deal though. If he wants us, then we pays the ferryman and the future looks after itself.

I tend to agree - I would take that deal in a heartbeat if both players have great 2015 seasons. As a top 4 club, I reckon that any time that you get a chance to take elite young talent at a discounted rate you have to take it.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Typical, getting reamed but I expected it. We are the swans we can get through it. This is far from the 'worst' scenario I anticipated anyway.

 

[mtooler]

Another small positive is that 4 clubs can purchase the No. 1 pick whenever it suits and Collingwood is not one of those clubs.

 

[Millky95]

Another small positive is that 4 clubs can purchase the No. 1 pick whenever it suits and Collingwood is not one of those clubs.

Yet. This rule will "not be working" or will "require an update" soon as Collingwood have another F/S coming up.

 

[mtooler]

Personally after looking at the points and scale etc, we take mills and dunkley. Our best drafts are later rounds anyway. In last three years our two first live selections have been Towers and Rose, although Zac Jones may beat the curse.

I think we take the two big boys and just recycle players to rill gaps, were right in the premiership window anyway and will be thereabout for next 5 years.

 

[MickyG]

Ok, so I stopped being lazy and whipped out the calculator.

In the hypothetical situation that:
both f/s and academy picks get their discounts bumped up to 25% and 35% respectively
We finish first in 2015 and 2016
Dunks is bid at as pick 8, with Mills bid as pick 2


In 2015 we could get both Dunks and Mills, leaving all of our picks at 74 or later.
In 2016 we have to pay a points hangover, leaving us with picks 41, 54, 72, and 74, but the afl imposed trade ban from the previous year leaves us with the cash to pick up a handy free agent as well as a couple of unwanted players from other clubs.

It sounds extreme, but another way of looking at it would be pick 18, 36, and 72 for Mills, with picks 18, 54, and a down grade of 36 to 41 for Dunkley. Doesn't sound so bad when you look at each trade individually, but it's a lot of eggs in two baskets.

Out of curiosity, who here would/wouldn't take this deal?

I would but ...

With you assumptions, my understanding is that in 2015 we would not have enough points for Mills. A question is can we then bid on Dunkley with a pick that has no points and carry forward outstanding points from bidding on Mills plus all the points owing on Dunkley? Does this system then disqualify a high finishing team from more than one top player?

If the answer to that is that you can use picks with no points then in 2016, pick 18 would be gone and there would still be 340 points owing which comes off our next pick 36 so it moves to pick 60. So that means pick 18, 36, and 72 in 2015, with pick 18 and a down grade of 36 to 60 in 2016.

I'd still do that but would be happier if the discount increased to 30 or 35%.

 

[Dan87]

If it means going

2015- Mills + Dunkley+ 2 scrap yard picks
2016- all scrap yard picks

I thought we might not do it. But after sleeping on it for a few days I reckon the administration will pull the trigger on it. Finding, high end NSW talent is the ultimate priority when it comes to drafting. We can top up from anywhere, we just topped up and only run a 38-39 name senior list. We just drafted a handful of young defenders, we have a 5 year forward line, we have some ruck depth.

I think we'll lock it in. Whether we trade for Mills/ Dunkley points will be interesting.

 

[Blacky]

I reckon we would do it

We have been better at picking later in the draft anyway

 

[FreeAgent1]

If it means going

2015- Mills + Dunkley+ 2 scrap yard picks
2016- all scrap yard picks

I thought we might not do it. But after sleeping on it for a few days I reckon the administration will pull the trigger on it. Finding, high end NSW talent is the ultimate priority when it comes to drafting. We can top up from anywhere, we just topped up and only run a 38-39 name senior list. We just drafted a handful of young defenders, we have a 5 year forward line, we have some ruck depth.

I think we'll lock it in. Whether we trade for Mills/ Dunkley points will be interesting.

I dont think we can nominate scrap picks for 2016 (nor will they be enough points), I am pretty sure its your lowest picks until you hit the amount of points then a upgrade it partial points taken.

Having said that it I totally think they will take it and rely on rookie upgrade with other picks.

 

[ponsdale]

I can easily see the us trading in for draft picks to accumulate some points and then selecting both Mills and Dunkley. There will be one or two squeezed out to look for more opportunity elsewhere with Heeney and then those two and others coming through. We may be more inclined to trade them out for the additional points benefit and then contain the effective 'price' to the 2015 draft and have no carry over points debt.

 

[swansfan51]

I reckon we would do it

We have been better at picking later in the draft anyway

Better, but still below the league average. We would be better off taking the academy players who we have better knowledge of.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

We've already worked with them. It makes sense to not give that development away to someone else.

 

[Blacky]

Better, but still below the league average. We would be better off taking the academy players who we have better knowledge of.

I would imagine our drafting past pick 20 is up there with the best, or at least above average

 

[Membling]

Can imagine a tactic may be to feel out other clubs and try to split first rounder and a player for two picks in mid 20's. Same with second rounder. Down grading a pick ten spots for 2 within about 10 and 15 spots could reap rewards. Especially later ones

 

[ponsdale]

Paul Roos' comments from experience in both NSW and Victoria:

"The problem is the Swans take [Kurt] Tippett, [Lance] Franklin and then clubs can't attack that so they go to the academy. In my view, having spent time in Sydney and time in Melbourne, it's not really about the academy," Roos said.

"It's really about how do we create a fair market and I suppose it's clubs now saying: 'Even though the Swans acted within the rules with Tippett and Franklin, the next stage is we can't have [them get] Isaac Heeney and we can't have Callum Mills - you have two or three top picks.'

"Again, I think the whole argument has got really blurred and really confused."