News AFL overhauls Academy and FS bid matching, discussing draft lockout

[tombomb]

Carlton/Essendon/Port fans can relax.

They aren't going to lock out the first round.

If they did that, it would end the northern academies and they would have to seriously consider the viability of GWS going forward. They have no hope of ever succeeding on and off the field without high end local talent.

They might make some more changes to the bidding system or limit how many early bids you can match.

 

[Yoda_]

Carlton/Essendon/Port fans can relax.

They aren't going to lock out the first round.

If they did that, it would end the northern academies and they would have to seriously consider the viability of GWS going forward. They have no hope of ever succeeding on and off the field without high end local talent.

They might make some more changes to the bidding system or limit how many early bids you can match.

agree with this. My take was that NGA's was equivalent of the ability to "grow the game" the Northern Academies are doing who miss out on the counter argument of father sons and its tradition.

 

[tombomb]

agree with this. My take was that NGA's was equivalent of the ability to "grow the game" the Northern Academies are doing who miss out on the counter argument of father sons and its tradition.

The NGAs are just a rort that the AFL brought in to placate the non NSW/QLD clubs.

Rather than fixing the bidding system and making that fair, they chose to make the problem much much worse.

The AFL is completely incompetent.

 

[Elixuh]

The NGAs are just a rort that the AFL brought in to placate the non NSW/QLD clubs.

Rather than fixing the bidding system and making that fair, they chose to make the problem much much worse.

The AFL is completely incompetent.

To your prior post, it’s why this leak is hard to get a read on. Under Gil I’d have agreed on the outcome being some change which is far less than what Caro has run with. But this administration is making a lot of nonsensical decisions and are genuinely incompetent.

 

[tombomb]

To your prior post, it’s why this leak is hard to get a read on. Under Gil I’d have agreed on the outcome being some change which is far less than what Caro has run with. But this administration is making a lot of nonsensical decisions and are genuinely incompetent.

I agree with that.

That would be the part that would concern me a bit if I was eyeing someone in the top 5 in 2025/26.

But the AFL, as you would expect, has probably completely underestimated the opposition to such a dramatic immediate change.

 

[Lore]

But then Collingwood gets more than a lot of club and is the second biggest club outside wce who get the smallest.

The distributions make little sense, so drawing conclusions as to what the afl funds is difficult.

All I’ve commented on is what actually happens, which is the lions directly fund our academy via private sponsorship.

AFL Annual Reports - AFL.com.au

View the Australian Football League annual reports

www.afl.com.au

The financial report is tacked onto the end of the annual report (150 pages later) and gives a bit of insight.

Spoiler: transcript for screenreaders etc

AFL Clubs Financial Results
The AFL operates a Club Funding Model, which provides a base distribution and, subject to meeting certain qualifying criteria, a variable distribution.
Variable distributions are designed to provide support to clubs that require additional financial support to fund and maintain their football program (playing and non-playing resources) to a competitive level.
Variable funding distributions are determined based on an estimation of revenue-generating disadvantages that may be caused by, among other things, different supporter base sizes, differing commercial arrangements with stadiums, the financial impact of the fixture and access to income from non-football related businesses.

Distributions to AFL clubs
The AFL makes a number of distributions to AFL clubs. These distributions totalled $420.8 million, an increase of $27.1 million compared with 2023, and included the following:

• A base distribution to all clubs which totalled $219.6 million;
• Variable distributions which totalled $83.1 million;
• AFLW distributions which totalled $34.1 million and
• Other commercial distributions which totalled $84.0 million.

2024 Club Distributions

Club Total ($’000)
Adelaide 19,690
Brisbane Lions 30,362
Carlton 20,526
Collingwood 21,941
Essendon 19,862
Fremantle 19,017
Geelong Cats 19,240
Gold Coast Suns 34,770
GWS Giants 34,548
Hawthorn 18,415
Melbourne 23,811
North Melbourne 26,357
Port Adelaide 22,576
Richmond 18,534
St Kilda 26,102
Sydney Swans 24,299
West Coast Eagles 16,891
Western Bulldogs 23,876

Total 420,816

Included in the above are the following other distributions to the clubs throughout the 2024 season, including, but not limited to travel subsidies, prize money, AFL membership-related distributions, AFL commercial partner payments, AFL-facilitated stadium payments and licensing distributions.

 

[Elixuh]

AFL Annual Reports - AFL.com.au

View the Australian Football League annual reports

www.afl.com.au

The financial report is tacked onto the end of the annual report (150 pages later) and gives a bit of insight.

View attachment 2409314

Spoiler: transcript for screenreaders etc

AFL Clubs Financial Results
The AFL operates a Club Funding Model, which provides a base distribution and, subject to meeting certain qualifying criteria, a variable distribution.
Variable distributions are designed to provide support to clubs that require additional financial support to fund and maintain their football program (playing and non-playing resources) to a competitive level.
Variable funding distributions are determined based on an estimation of revenue-generating disadvantages that may be caused by, among other things, different supporter base sizes, differing commercial arrangements with stadiums, the financial impact of the fixture and access to income from non-football related businesses.

Distributions to AFL clubs
The AFL makes a number of distributions to AFL clubs. These distributions totalled $420.8 million, an increase of $27.1 million compared with 2023, and included the following:

• A base distribution to all clubs which totalled $219.6 million;
• Variable distributions which totalled $83.1 million;
• AFLW distributions which totalled $34.1 million and
• Other commercial distributions which totalled $84.0 million.

2024 Club Distributions

Club Total ($’000)
Adelaide 19,690
Brisbane Lions 30,362
Carlton 20,526
Collingwood 21,941
Essendon 19,862
Fremantle 19,017
Geelong Cats 19,240
Gold Coast Suns 34,770
GWS Giants 34,548
Hawthorn 18,415
Melbourne 23,811
North Melbourne 26,357
Port Adelaide 22,576
Richmond 18,534
St Kilda 26,102
Sydney Swans 24,299
West Coast Eagles 16,891
Western Bulldogs 23,876

Total 420,816

Included in the above are the following other distributions to the clubs throughout the 2024 season, including, but not limited to travel subsidies, prize money, AFL membership-related distributions, AFL commercial partner payments, AFL-facilitated stadium payments and licensing distributions.

Yeah that’s what I was looking at. It doesn’t really tell us much.

 

[Wild Bill]

The NGAs are just a rort that the AFL brought in to placate the non NSW/QLD clubs.

Rather than fixing the bidding system and making that fair, they chose to make the problem much much worse.

The AFL is completely incompetent.

100%!!! NGA is embarrassing.

 

[Lore]

Yeah that’s what I was looking at. It doesn’t really tell us much.

Tells you more than you'd think at first glance:

1. "Base distribution" would be the money that covers the AFL salary cap, so equal for all clubs ($219.6m/18=12.2m per club; which doesn't fully cover it)
2. "AFLW contribution" presumably that's AFLW player salaries, so again equal for all clubs ($34.1m/18=1.9m per club)
3. "Commercial distributions" totalling $84m (average of 4.6m per club) which are merit-based:
   • Travel-subsidies (depending on how much you travel)
   • Prize money (depending on what you win)
   • AFL membership money (depending on how many AFL members nominated your club)
   • AFL commercial partner payments (I'm not 100% sure what that is, but possibly club staff doing appearances for Toyota, 7, Fox, NAB, Telstra?)
   • AFL licensing distributions (sale of licensed merchandise from your club)
   • AFL-facilitated stadium payments (guessing this is money that clubs earn from Marvel Stadium like tickets and food, not money paid to the AFL for using the stadium)
4. "Variable distributions" (totalling 83.1m, average of 4.6m per club) which are equitable, so subject to meeting qualifying criteria to demonstrate that they require additional financial support to fund and maintain a competitive football program both on and off field. The qualifying criteria for extra funding are based on estimated "revenue-generating disadvantages" caused by:
   • supporter base size
   • commercial arrangements with stadiums (i.e., the Gabba issue you mentioned, clubs that have different arrangements with Marvel etc)
   • financial impact of the fixture (i.e., playing on days and in places that limit your ability to make money from a fixture, such as hosting a home game interstate)
   • access to income from non-football related businesses (i.e., clubs that don't have poker machines, pubs and social clubs, eSports teams, or own and operate a medical facility)

 

[Elixuh]

Tells you more than you'd think at first glance:

1. "Base distribution" would be the money that covers the AFL salary cap, so equal for all clubs ($219.6m/18=12.2m per club; which doesn't fully cover it)
2. "AFLW contribution" presumably that's AFLW player salaries, so again equal for all clubs ($34.1m/18=1.9m per club)
3. "Commercial distributions" totalling $84m (average of 4.6m per club) which are merit-based:
   • Travel-subsidies (depending on how much you travel)
   • Prize money (depending on what you win)
   • AFL membership money (depending on how many AFL members nominated your club)
   • AFL commercial partner payments (I'm not 100% sure what that is, but possibly club staff doing appearances for Toyota, 7, Fox, NAB, Telstra?)
   • AFL licensing distributions (sale of licensed merchandise from your club)
   • AFL-facilitated stadium payments (guessing this is money that clubs earn from Marvel Stadium like tickets and food, not money paid to the AFL for using the stadium)
4. "Variable distributions" (totalling 83.1m, average of 4.6m per club) which are equitable, so subject to meeting qualifying criteria to demonstrate that they require additional financial support to fund and maintain a competitive football program both on and off field. The qualifying criteria for extra funding are based on estimated "revenue-generating disadvantages" caused by:
   • supporter base size
   • commercial arrangements with stadiums (i.e., the Gabba issue you mentioned, clubs that have different arrangements with Marvel etc)
   • financial impact of the fixture (i.e., playing on days and in places that limit your ability to make money from a fixture, such as hosting a home game interstate)
   • access to income from non-football related businesses (i.e., clubs that don't have poker machines, pubs and social clubs, eSports teams, or own and operate a medical facility)

Sorry I mean in relation to what we were discussing. I don’t think it answers that.

 

[ghostbat12]

FA picks are created out of thin air and added to the draft order.

as opposed to those original ones made out of solid steel.

 

[tigs2010]

You don't though.

He never used your NGA, never indicated ever Richmond was an option.

There is no relationship to speak of. Not in the way you think it would influence where he wants to play.

Is this actually true though or something you've convinced yourself is true?

 

[briztoon]

It's funny because when we lost access to Cam McKenzie, zero shits were given, Same with Meblourne and Mac Andrew

now because Carlton might lose out, we should be folded, excuse us if we just don't tell you to **** off because your having a tanty

You should never have had nga access to Cam McKenzie in the first place. Melbourne should have been allowed to keep Mac Andrew.

 

[briztoon]

Can I get a vibe check on which clubs are happy about the changes?

Collingwood
Brisbane
St Kilda
Freo for some reason

We're not happy. Our 2026 and 2027 academy teams are stacked.

 

[briztoon]

I know it hasn't been road tested yet, but the new DVI doesn't really stop the rort, clubs are still able to sell high, buy low, multiple times, because the points system only applies to some clubs. Clubs will always want higher picks, will always be willing to buy higher picks. There is no way any team can bundle picks together ( ie. 2 2nds equals pick 16) and jump the pick order, so why do we allow it to happen with a points system?

The whole premise of a points system is counter to the pick-based system, who in their right mind is trading a top 5 pick for 4 x 30-something picks?

Then we have a discount ( 20% down to 10%), Who in buggery thought a discount for inventing picks was worthy of any discount at all? Fair would be adding a 20% loading to the points, not a discount.

Now I'm not against the current systems, but a fairer price has to be paid.

Can we limit the number of picks allowed to be used to say 2 picks instead of unlimited, a top 5 pick becomes a late 1st and early 2nd, a hell of a lot better than 3/4 picks in the 30's, and stop the 1st round being 30 picks long. Stop say GCS taking 3 kids in the top 15 with mortgaging a prior of preceding draft. As it stands, they will have taken 7 1st round kids in 4 years, without having to trade players of value or compromise future drafts, that's obscene by anyone's language.

WB gave up 3 1st round picks to trade for a pick 5/6 (Sanders), GCS have done it in 4 consecutive drafts.

The AFL being the AFL, can't make a decision based on competition fairness without being corrupted by self-interest or bias

Tell me you haven't actually done the math on some of the scenarios you outlined above, under the new DVI.

Oh, and in 2017, We traded picks 20 & 25 for pick 15 from Richmond. That's two second round picks for a first.

 

[Obeanie1]

But then Collingwood gets more than a lot of club and is the second biggest club outside wce who get the smallest.

The distributions make little sense, so drawing conclusions as to what the afl funds is difficult.

All I’ve commented on is what actually happens, which is the lions directly fund our academy via private sponsorship.

Private sponsorship isnt the Brisbane Lions FC money.

The sponsors are there for the AFL to support their company's brand marketing and development.

Lions, Suns, Dolphins, Bears, Titans.......Koalas...they dont really care.......the sponsors still pony up the money.

 

[Elixuh]

Private sponsorship isnt the Brisbane Lions FC money.

The sponsors are there for the AFL to support their company's brand marketing and development.

Lions, Suns, Dolphins, Bears, Titans.......Koalas...they dont really care.......the sponsors still pony up the money.

The level of sponsorship amongst clubs differs greatly.

 

[giantsully]

I think this sums up the problem.

You finish bottom, get pick 1 but a team in top 4 gets a top 5 player through F/S or Academy and also get a free agent.

So instead of getting closer to them in talent, it actually goes the other way.

This assumes that in the absence of the Academies this talent continues to exist. As has been noted many many times, absent the Academies, almost none of these current players choose AFL as their sport (at least that's the case with the Swans).

So, you're back with the idea that the AFL runs the Academies, a concept that failed to produce any significant numbers over the course of a decade.

Which means that at a time when you're bringing in a new club, you're farewelling a source of 6-10 players a year.

All these arguments have been gone over many many times before.

 

[go_the_dockers]

This assumes that in the absence of the Academies this talent continues to exist. As has been noted many many times, absent the Academies, almost none of these current players choose AFL as their sport (at least that's the case with the Swans).

So, you're back with the idea that the AFL runs the Academies, a concept that failed to produce any significant numbers over the course of a decade.

Which means that at a time when you're bringing in a new club, you're farewelling a source of 6-10 players a year.

All these arguments have been gone over many many times before.

I never said that we should get rid of academies, I just said what ever system is created we must ensure the bottom clubs get the best talent. (Both through free agency and the draft)



Issue 1 - Equality
I think that is a separate issue. We need to allow the bottom clubs to rebuild fairly quickly.

You can't keep having the best talent going to certain clubs, and other clubs stuck at the bottom.

Free agency is another issue, which tends to favour the big vic clubs and the clubs at the top at the top of the ladder.

Issue 2 - Player Development.

The academies clearly help local development, and if they werent there the AFL would need to do a lot more.

Having said that, WA player development has been shocking for year. Who is fixing this?
The gold coast accademy has better prospects this year, than all players from WA.
I think QLD last year was better than WA as well.

-----------------

 

[giantsully]

I never said that we should get rid of academies, I just said what ever system is created we must ensure the bottom clubs get the best talent. (Both through free agency and the draft)



Issue 1 - Equality
I think that is a separate issue. We need to allow the bottom clubs to rebuild fairly quickly.

You can't keep having the best talent going to certain clubs, and other clubs stuck at the bottom.

Free agency is another issue, which tends to favour the big vic clubs and the clubs at the top at the top of the ladder.

Issue 2 - Player Development.

The academies clearly help local development, and if they werent there the AFL would need to do a lot more.

Having said that, WA player development has been shocking for year. Who is fixing this?
The gold coast accademy has better prospects this year, than all players from WA.
I think QLD last year was better than WA as well.

-----------------

I get the issues and have some sympathy for them, but the proposed "solutions" would lead to the end of the Academies.

 

[MPMonkeys]

This assumes that in the absence of the Academies this talent continues to exist. As has been noted many many times, absent the Academies, almost none of these current players choose AFL as their sport (at least that's the case with the Swans).

So, you're back with the idea that the AFL runs the Academies, a concept that failed to produce any significant numbers over the course of a decade.

Which means that at a time when you're bringing in a new club, you're farewelling a source of 6-10 players a year.

All these arguments have been gone over many many times before.

Nonsense - there have always been players from NSW and Qld.
A lot of them are champions of the game.

 

[Elixuh]

Nonsense - there have always been players from NSW and Qld.
A lot of them are champions of the game.

Daily reminder that pre-academies there was an average of less than 1 player from Qld per year for the 30 years prior.

There are no elite or even quasi-elite talent pathways in Qld outside the academies. And our academy pathways aren't as good as what exists in Melbourne.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Daily reminder that pre-academies there was an average of less than 1 player from Qld per year for the 30 years prior.

There are no elite or even quasi-elite talent pathways in Qld outside the academies. And our academy pathways aren't as good as what exists in Melbourne.

Michael Voss, Jason Dunstall, Jason Akermanis, Nick Riewoldt.
Seemed to go ok without academies.

 

[Elixuh]

Michael Voss, Jason Dunstall, Jason Akermanis, Nick Riewoldt.
Seemed to go ok without academies.

Dunstall was the earliest of those starting in 1985, 40 years ago. In the past 40 years you were able to name 4 players from Qld who were exceptional

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Daily reminder that pre-academies there was an average of less than 1 player from Qld per year for the 30 years prior.

There are no elite or even quasi-elite talent pathways in Qld outside the academies. And our academy pathways aren't as good as what exists in Melbourne.

That’s crazy, I still remember 11 being picked up in 2006