The Academies - 2016

[Ants]

As we are told with the traditional advantages. "Deal with it".

Have a nice day.

Which ignores the fact that the AFL has seldom (in recent history) said "deal with it". They've had things like additional cap to try and help it. They've introduced preferential picking and extra list spots for local rookies. They've now got the academies. They've tweaked the draw to try and make life easier for WA travel arrangements.

And you're ignoring the zoning idea will also produce monster clubs. Like it used to. Or are you just planning on being one of the monsters, and stuff the rest of the competition?

 

[Colonial]

Which ignores the fact that the AFL has seldom (in recent history) said "deal with it". They've had things like additional cap to try and help it. They've introduced preferential picking and extra list spots for local rookies. They've now got the academies. They've tweaked the draw to try and make life easier for WA travel arrangements.

And you're ignoring the zoning idea will also produce monster clubs. Like it used to. Or are you just planning on being one of the monsters, and stuff the rest of the competition?

As apposed to the traditional benefits that are just "to bad" for the interstaters eh?

Victorians are funny.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Ants]

As apposed to the traditional benefits that are just "to bad" for the interstaters eh?

Victorians are funny.

A very mature and complete response. Why don't you actually say why zoning will work now, when it was an abject failure in the past?

 

[Ants]

I come from an NBA background. I'd prefer to see NBA style trading and free agency rules.

Basically a player is tied to a club for the first 7 years of their playing career before they can take full advantage of free agency rules.

But clubs can trade players, without the players having any say in their destination.

You may want to see that. The AFLPA is WAAAAYYYY too powerful for that to happen. As Harrisendblue said, we're going to see less restrictive trading in the future most likely, not more restrictions.

And I agree that is a bad thing for the game.

 

[Colonial]

A very mature and complete response. Why don't you actually say why zoning will work now, when it was an abject failure in the past?

So no response to the victorian benefits?

If you mean academies then they are working. More and more players being drafted from the northern states. This whole zoning is a victorian thing

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Ants]

So no response to the Victorian benefits?

If you mean academies then they are working. More and more players being drafted from the northern states. This whole zoning is a Victorian thing.

I'm a little confused by your response. I listed how the AFL had tried to deal with some of those benefits now and in the recent past, to which you responded "As apposed to the traditional benefits that are just "to bad" for the interstaters eh?". This didn't make much sense as I'd just listed the special benefits you guys had got to try and offset them.

But if you want me to be clearer:

• I believe that the Northern states should receive some degree of extra funding for the salary cap to reflect the greater extracurricular earning opportunities footballers have in football states. Which you did have, until Sydney gave the AFL a case of bad optics and we know how they always respond to that.
• I think travel is overstated for anyone beyond the WA clubs (where its a big issue). The difference between GWS and Essendon for travel is going to be (on average) 3-4 trips a year. Offsetting that is the substantial home ground advantage versus (non-Geelong) Victorian sides. I don't think its a huge difference.
• Go home has been very bad for GWS and Brisbane recently. But is that truly "normal"? GWS's current circumstances are a special case with the plethora of talent and cutting of list size. Brisbane's issues are arguably of their own making with a combination of facilities and culture and (hopefully) a one-off. For many states the go-home has had swings and roundabouts (e.g. SA lost Dangerfield and Stenglein, but have gained Ebert, Polec, Thompson, Wanganeen). Offsetting this was that northern states have been given extended rookie lists and preferential rookie picks for local players. The AFL is chucking lots of money at Brisbane. You now have preferential drafting of locals (via the academy system). I think that is about right.
• Father/Son: Two of the academy teams have equal access to other teams. The remaining two will. In the mean time, there should be some system of which the academy is it. However, it should be noted the academies currently appear to be well in front of normal F/S selections, where quality options are pretty rare across the other clubs. Essendon has had one top 10 candidate in 15 years, and nobody who was probably worth a second rounder in that time.

I'm sure I've missed a few benefits.

On your second part, why is the zoning a "Victorian thing"?

I also don't see that you've really responded to my point that if you're using history to justify that the AFL can't run local development, that it also indicates zoning is a failure. Saying "deal with it" isn't much of a response.

I would note that the initial post you replied to I added a bit to around the time you were responding (1:16 pm vs. 1:20 pm). I don't know if you'll want to read/respond to any of that.[/QUOTE]

 

[Colonial]

Would love to. Care to qoute properly so i can go through the points?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Ants]

Rats, deleted a "]". Fixed.

And just on a side note, to be clear on where I'm coming from, here is how I'd change the academies to be "fair". Obviously this is pie in the sky stuff, since it won't happen, but at least it shows where my views are.

I think the AFL should classify the entire country into a couple of categories. Category 1 would be areas with good development paths and these should all be a national TAC system. Tassie, WA, SA and NT all get TAC clubs, and more for rural Victoria/SA/WA and southern NSW. All players from these areas would go into the draft.

Other areas then get categories with lower levels. The AFL may still be spending money on junior systems, but it is likely to be far less (commensurate with what they currently spend outside the TAC). Depending on the degree these areas are AFL vs. non-AFL they get rated as either Category 2 or 3. Every club gets funding from the AFL, and they can then develop players in these areas like the current academies. How focussed they are in particular areas or widespread is each clubs' choice. Zones aren't exclusive (with exception below). There would be minimum standards for how much support players get, and maximums (so clubs can't "buy" a kids loyalty off another club). The fixed budgets mean the richer clubs don't get advantaged. This would assist development in all rural and non-AFL areas. The budget for each club would be split between Category 2 and 3, so clubs time has to be split between these areas. All clubs get the 20% discount and preferential drafting. All funding from the AFL (who hopefully continues to use sponsorship to subsidise the whole thing).

You might also add a 4th category which is for players in Category 1 which qualify under the AFL's multicultural/indigenous banner, but maybe not.

For the Northern clubs, you get exclusive zones which are your exclusive areas with their own, specific budgets. These would all be "Category 3" areas, so need the most development but you get extra budget for this. Doing this reflects that GWS/Suns don't have F/S rules, and that we want locals playing for the northern clubs. You would also be able to recruit in the "free for all" zones as well, with the same budget as everyone else has (or use that budget to beef up work in your exclusive zones). Category 2 areas close to your locales (maybe some areas of Queensland?) might also be zoned exclusively to the clubs, but they would need to use their "general" pot of budget to pay for development there.

This system would help promote footy throughout Australia, give non-Northern states some of the advantages of academies while giving the Northern states a larger advantage as well as exclusive rights to local players. Rating areas between categories would allow for changes over time (e.g. if an area became AFL centric, or at least from category 3 to 2) and mean that the "extra" budget the Northern clubs has is always spent on the areas needing the most development. But exclusive rights to local Category 2 areas would give a way of getting locals into those clubs.

The system would cost, but I think would be well worth it.


In conjunction with this in a perfect world all AFL players would be submitting their tax filings during their career and for 5 years post retirement/delistment. Then the AFL would increase the cap for those areas where players can't earn as much. This would offset the fact players can earn more in some states than others. Then give a small bonus to clubs' salary caps for the number of interstate players the club has. Obviously both adjustments may need some adjustment to make sure a "Franklin" type situation doesn't occur and that the bonus to the cap reflects the mix of senior and rookie players.

 

[Colonial]

I'm a little confused by your response. I listed how the AFL had tried to deal with some of those benefits now and in the recent past, to which you responded "As apposed to the traditional benefits that are just "to bad" for the interstaters eh?". This didn't make much sense as I'd just listed the special benefits you guys had got to try and offset them.

But if you want me to be clearer:

• I believe that the Northern states should receive some degree of extra funding for the salary cap to reflect the greater extracurricular earning opportunities footballers have in football states. Which you did have, until Sydney gave the AFL a case of bad optics and we know how they always respond to that.
• I think travel is overstated for anyone beyond the WA clubs (where its a big issue). The difference between GWS and Essendon for travel is going to be (on average) 3-4 trips a year. Offsetting that is the substantial home ground advantage versus (non-Geelong) Victorian sides. I don't think its a huge difference.
• Go home has been very bad for GWS and Brisbane recently. But is that truly "normal"? GWS's current circumstances are a special case with the plethora of talent and cutting of list size. Brisbane's issues are arguably of their own making with a combination of facilities and culture and (hopefully) a one-off. For many states the go-home has had swings and roundabouts (e.g. SA lost Dangerfield and Stenglein, but have gained Ebert, Polec, Thompson, Wanganeen). Offsetting this was that northern states have been given extended rookie lists and preferential rookie picks for local players. The AFL is chucking lots of money at Brisbane. You now have preferential drafting of locals (via the academy system). I think that is about right.
• Father/Son: Two of the academy teams have equal access to other teams. The remaining two will. In the mean time, there should be some system of which the academy is it. However, it should be noted the academies currently appear to be well in front of normal F/S selections, where quality options are pretty rare across the other clubs. Essendon has had one top 10 candidate in 15 years, and nobody who was probably worth a second rounder in that time.

I'm sure I've missed a few benefits.

On your second part, why is the zoning a "Victorian thing"?

I also don't see that you've really responded to my point that if you're using history to justify that the AFL can't run local development, that it also indicates zoning is a failure. Saying "deal with it" isn't much of a response.

I would note that the initial post you replied to I added a bit to around the time you were responding (1:16 pm vs. 1:20 pm). I don't know if you'll want to read/respond to any of that.

[/QUOTE]
I know this post confused muself.

Now maybe it's the lack of sleep but i read your previous posts as academies evil etc and they wont work.

But this post seems to agree that they do work and are necessary.


If i have misread then i apologise.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Ants]

I know this post confused muself.

Now maybe it's the lack of sleep but i read your previous posts as academies evil etc and they wont work.

But this post seems to agree that they do work and are necessary.

If i have misread then i apologise.

I was initially replying to BruceFromBalnarring who was suggesting giving Victorian clubs academies and fixed geographies (as well as Non-Victorian clubs), which a few others have suggested over the course of the thread. I was pointing out that this is effectively zoning, and historically doesn't work.


On the academies, I was saying that if the goal is "equalisation" (which it mostly is), that the academies will almost certainly need tweaking over time as the odds of the initial structure magically equalising for all 4 teams is pretty unlikely. And that can go both ways - GWS may do really really well if current zones aren't tweaked, but GCS from my understanding have a much smaller population in their area than the other teams and some real headaches with location. So maybe it won't work anywhere near as well for them.

So given this, you need to be open to tweaking if they are over/under performing at equalising things since otherwise you'll just set in stone inequities (whether positive or negative for a particular club).

And of course, over the really long term they'll hopefully need to be scrapped as we'll have so many NSW and QLD kids coming through that the need for them is over. Of course, if that ever happens it will be a long time coming.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

A very mature and complete response. Why don't you actually say why zoning will work now, when it was an abject failure in the past?

he has no response and so deflects.

he thinks the gf being played in melbs is reason enough for them to have an academy full of tac cup kids.

 

[Colonial]

he has no response and so deflects.

he thinks the gf being played in melbs is reason enough for them to have an academy full of tac cup kids.

Deflects? Nah brings some balance to the scaremongering.

If im wrong in something have no problems apologising unlike certain people who just disappear for a few days.

Your last sentence is garbage and I've never said that a Victorian GF is the reason for the academies and they arent all tac cup.
If i have prove it.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Deflects? Nah brings some balance to the scaremongering.

If im wrong in something have no problems apologising unlike certain people who just disappear for a few days.

Your last sentence is garbage and I've never said that a Victorian GF is the reason for the academies and they arent all tac cup.
If i have prove it.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

this is one of the victorian advantages that will never change which justifies the academies alongside the non-existent go home phenomenon that has seen a shitload of victorians move to GWS.

Keep deflecting.

 

[coniglio_number1]

non-existent go home phenomenon.

Adams
Darley
Frost
Tyson
Boyd
Jaksch
O'rourke
Bugg
Lamb
Plowman
Sumner
Treloar
Ahern
Hoskin-Elliott
Marchbank
McCarthy
McKenna
Stewart

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Adams
Darley
Frost
Tyson
Boyd
Jaksch
O'rourke
Bugg
Lamb
Plowman
Sumner
Treloar
Ahern
Hoskin-Elliott
Marchbank
McCarthy
McKenna
Stewart

most of those are shite who couldn't get a game which you have traded to your victorian charity club for late picks so that you can clear list spots for academy picks.

 

[dlanod]

most of those are shite who couldn't get a game which you have traded to your victorian charity club for late picks so that you can clear list spots for academy picks.

So if he just listed, say, Adams, Tyson, Boyd, Treloar and McCarthy, you'd be in favour of addressing a legitimate go home phenomenon?

 

[Bojan KantKick]

So if he just listed, say, Adams, Tyson, Boyd, Treloar and McCarthy, you'd be in favour of addressing a legitimate go home phenomenon?

I can easily point to Ward, Davis, Mumford, Shaw, Deledio, Griffin to show that it's bs.

Notice how your club has stopped losing blokes now your culture and coaching staff isn't the absolute shitshow it was a few years ago. It wasn't go home factor, they wanted out of Brisbane.

 

[Colonial]

this is one of the victorian advantages that will never change which justifies the academies alongside the non-existent go home phenomenon that has seen a shitload of victorians move to GWS.

Keep deflecting.

No deflection at all.

Proven facts that some victorians just dont want to see.

I note you didnt show any proof of what you said i was saying. Any apology?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Colonial]

I can easily point to Ward, Davis, Mumford, Shaw, Deledio, Griffin to show that it's bs.

Notice how your club has stopped losing blokes now your culture and coaching staff isn't the absolute shitshow it was a few years ago. It wasn't go home factor, they wanted out of Brisbane.

3 were paid overs to get them up here in the 1st place.

The rest which were no longer wanted by their club.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Bojan KantKick]

3 were paid overs to get them up here in the 1st place.

The rest which were no longer wanted by their club.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

only shaw was pushed out the door and he chose to leave victoria when he could have moved anywhere.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

No deflection at all.

Proven facts that some victorians just dont want to see.

I note you didnt show any proof of what you said i was saying. Any apology?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

they are not facts at all. you have spoken about the advantage of playing the gf at the mcg many times and used it as a justification for an academy. why would i apologise.

keep deflecting.

 

[Ants]

he has no response and so deflects.

he thinks the gf being played in melbs is reason enough for them to have an academy full of tac cup kids.

You do realise making a strawman of your opponent's arguments is pretty much the silliest way of debating something? It makes you look foolish. I may not agree with all of General Giant's points, but the idea that there isn't a bias against certain states seems a little far fetched, and to pretend his entire argument is around the Grand Final is ridiculous.

On the players leaving, it is pretty clear that GWS and Brisbane have in recent times had a significant talent drain. Now, in the case of GWS there is a strong argument that this was always part of their start up design if successful (as they would have a glut of talent), but saying the players leaving are rubbish and down playing it isn't going to win many arguments.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

You do realise making a strawman of your opponent's arguments is pretty much the silliest way of debating something? It makes you look foolish. I may not agree with all of General Giant's points, but the idea that there isn't a bias against certain states seems a little far fetched, and to pretend his entire argument is around the Grand Final is ridiculous.

On the players leaving, it is pretty clear that GWS and Brisbane have in recent times had a significant talent drain. Now, in the case of GWS there is a strong argument that this was always part of their start up design if successful (as they would have a glut of talent), but saying the players leaving are rubbish and down playing it isn't going to win many arguments.

a lot of those players couldn't even get a game for carlton last year. every club has list turnover. comparing Stewart, Lamb, Jacks, Sumner, etc to Treloar is ridiculous.

Brisbane lost players due to a poor culture and a terrible coaching staff.

GG mentions the GF as one of about three bullshit reasons to justify their academy.

 

[coniglio_number1]

a lot of those players couldn't even get a game for carlton last year. every club has list turnover. comparing Stewart, Lamb, Jacks, Sumner, etc to Treloar is ridiculous.

Brisbane lost players due to a poor culture and a terrible coaching staff.

GG mentions the GF as one of about three bullshit reasons to justify their academy.

First rounder
concession
Rookie
Pick 3
Pick 1
first rounder
pick 2
concession
First rounder
Pick 3
Pick 10
concession
Pick 7
Pick 4
pick 6
First rounder
Second rounder
Second rounder

That's the reality of what was lost due to homesickness

 

[Bojan KantKick]

First rounder
concession
Rookie
Pick 3
Pick 1
first rounder
pick 2
concession
First rounder
Pick 3
Pick 10
concession
Pick 7
Pick 4
pick 6
First rounder
Second rounder
Second rounder

That's the reality of what was lost due to homesickness

due to poor drafting you mean.

You were lucky to get anything for potatoes like O'rourke, Jacksh and Sumner.