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

[jdstorm]

Sounds good.

Saints aligned to Sandy catchment area.

Not a huge fan of aligned catchment areas /Zones

Think clubs should get whatever kids want to join them.

But yeah if saints want to build an academy with sandy jrs and pay a fair price for them at draft I’m all for it

Edit: re cost

I agree it should be very high and in practice I think the two pick rule is as close to fair as is possible.

I think the point of this system is if clubs develop players via an academy then they should be entitled to bring that player in for appropriate compensation.

Just worry about teams hoarding high picks but I suppose that’s what defecit is for

 

[stavro#4]

Not a huge fan of aligned catchment areas /Zones

Think clubs should get whatever kids want to join them.

But yeah if saints want to build an academy with sandy jrs and pay a fair price for them at draft I’m all for it

The argument was that there wasn’t a draft and back to zones.

The Saints would be zoned to Sandy.

We would be a power house from the AFLs smallest catchment area and every other year have multiple top 5 level talents.

Which isn’t fair. Which is why we have a draft.

 

[phantom13]

The argument was that there wasn’t a draft and back to zones.

The Saints would be zoned to Sandy.

We would be a power house from the AFLs smallest catchment area and every other year have multiple top 5 level talents.

Which isn’t fair. Which is why we have a draft.

Which is effectively what Brisbane and the GC get. Exclusive access to the whole state. There’s been at least one if not two first rounders in that list for 5ish years now.

The academies should work to get kids into Aussie rules but just like every other state they should be in the national draft after that.

 

[stavro#4]

Edit: re cost

I agree it should be very high and in practice I think the two pick rule is as close to fair as is possible.

I think the point of this system is if clubs develop players via an academy then they should be entitled to bring that player in for appropriate compensation.

Just worry about teams hoarding high picks but I suppose that’s what defecit is for

The entitlement is the access for development. It shouldn’t mean a discounted cost to bring them in.

North lost out on Daicos and Darcy in 2021 due to the father son rules and the fact nothing picks were the cost to bring them in.

Could you imagine their fortunes if they had one now instead of JHF?

Imagine if you had pick 1 this year and that is what was needed to select Walker or Cochrane.

What would you be looking for to trade that pick down to their pick, not even trading it out and how could that positively impact your rebuild?

The issue is so much more than clubs crying for missed access due to a high cost. It literally could turn that cellar dweller into a finals side in a year or two if the talent is that good.

 

[stavro#4]

Which is effectively what Brisbane and the GC get. Exclusive access to the whole state. There’s been at least one if not two first rounders in that list for 5ish years now.

The academies should work to get kids into Aussie rules but just like every other state they should be in the national draft after that.

Brisbane are a high chance to 3 peat maybe even 4 peat because of these rules. GC will be dominant for a decade

As the dogs were dipping they got Darcy. As the pies crashed they gambled and lost trading out a pick 2 but still got Daicos 12 months later and won a Flag 24 months after that.

It’s an insane advantage

 

[Yoda_]

I’m not disagreeing.

But the argument is to be grandfathered to support these clubs landing these kids.

Because of all the planning development and list management that went into it.

My point to all of you is that when it had NO IMPACT on any of your clubs. No one cared.

They literally did this to Melbourne and St Kilda and then wound the rules back the very next draft. No one kicked and screamed demanding the rules be grandfathered or argued those clubs needed the benefit.

Your previous point was that those clubs needed the support because they are struggling… then put a stop to it.

So how are you going to support the clubs who have never benefitted? The clubs stuck in the lower to middle reaches of the ladder who are trying to get out.

Cam Mckenzie to Saints who finished 10th in 2022, 10th in 2021 and won a final in 2020?

Or are we going to complain about the table topping, and that years premiers from not being able to match a bid on a top 5 selection? the very thing some are complaining about.. If it were a Brisbane or a GCS, the uproar would be monstrous at the time, not in hindsight


As I said, the clubs who could benefit from these are three clubs who are struggling.

 

[tombomb]

Just when you think the AFL might finally do something smart for a change, they bring in a stupid rule to compromise the draft even more with extra picks being given out and abandon plans to start fixing the moronic restricted free agency rules.

 

[Yoda_]

The entitlement is the access for development. It shouldn’t mean a discounted cost to bring them in.

North lost out on Daicos and Darcy in 2021 due to the father son rules and the fact nothing picks were the cost to bring them in.

Could you imagine their fortunes if they had one now instead of JHF?

Imagine if you had pick 1 this year and that is what was needed to select Walker or Cochrane.

What would you be looking for to trade that pick down to their pick, not even trading it out and how could that positively impact your rebuild?

The issue is so much more than clubs crying for missed access due to a high cost. It literally could turn that cellar dweller into a finals side in a year or two if the talent is that good.

The academy "growing the game" argument needs to be in the way of extra spots down the list and not in the first round.

Use the Gold Coast / Melbourne example

Melbourne, imho, should have been allocated an end of ND spot that could be subsuduzed by the AFL to "grow the game",or better still, have been given a cat B spot. That is "growing the game" the AFL is hiding behind.

This notion that player A goes to club A to "grow the game" is out dated. For a national game the AFL crows about, we are very narrow minded. Saw someone during the week suggest we must play the AFL grand final at night to compete with, you guessed it, the northern states NRL time slot.

 

[jdstorm]

The entitlement is the access for development. It shouldn’t mean a discounted cost to bring them in.

100% agree

Just think that every club is out for themselves and if there is a way for clubs to block other teams getting access to players they will do that.

I believe defecit is supposed to help that but that seems to have its own flaws at present:

See Essendon missing out on Adam Sweid because defecit at present has to come from the round the pick is used and it would have cost Essendon a downgrade of its first round pick (likely top 5) to match a bid in the late 20s

 

[Port 2004]

Just when you think the AFL might finally do something smart for a change, they bring in a stupid rule to compromise the draft even more with extra picks being given out and abandon plans to start fixing the moronic restricted free agency rules.

Let’s be honest. The AFL is a corrupt as they come. They do everything possible to ensure that GC and Brisbane are ok in a Rugby state and then once mission is accomplished Swan and co decide to shaft other clubs who are about to benefit from all the work they have put into Academy kids. Corrupt to the core is the AFL.

 

[stavro#4]

Cam Mckenzie to Saints who finished 10th in 2022, 10th in 2021 and won a final in 2020?

Or are we going to complain about the table topping, and that years premiers from not being able to match a bid on a top 5 selection? the very thing some are complaining about.. If it were a Brisbane or a GCS, the uproar would be monstrous at the time, not in hindsight


As I said, the clubs who could benefit from these are three clubs who are struggling.

10th is the middle of nowhere. It’s not on some path of greatness.

It doesn’t support your point we don’t need further support. What have our next 3 ladder positions been since you used ladder positions?

The academy "growing the game" argument needs to be in the way of extra spots down the list and not in the first round.

Use the Gold Coast / Melbourne example

Melbourne, imho, should have been allocated an end of ND spot that could be subsuduzed by the AFL to "grow the game",or better still, have been given a cat B spot. That is "growing the game" the AFL is hiding behind.

This notion that player A goes to club A to "grow the game" is out dated. For a national game the AFL crows about, we are very narrow minded. Saw someone during the week suggest we must play the AFL grand final at night to compete with, you guessed it, the northern states NRL time slot.

I have no issue with that.

But it’s worth adding that the development argument is flawed. We sit there and say these kids because of their family links - ignoring the fact they have grown up playing AFL. Are entitled to afl level coaching and support.

However everyone else who has no historical family links just gets the normal path. What if they all had AFL level coaching. Wouldn’t the talent level grow?

100% agree

Just think that every club is out for themselves and if there is a way for clubs to block other teams getting access to players they will do that.

I believe defecit is supposed to help that but that seems to have its own flaws at present:

See Essendon missing out on Adam Sweid because defecit at present has to come from the round the pick is used and it would have cost Essendon a downgrade of its first round pick (likely top 5) to match a bid in the late 20s

And that’s a fair point.

My view is that it should all be simplified.

Keep the access with the trade off being the high cost. No deficits allowed. All clubs must have the picks ready to go or they can’t match.

 

[SC_Power]

Why?

These changes have been discussed and delayed for two years already. Clubs whinged and complaigned because they would miss out. Just like you and Port are now.

Swans pivoted in weeks to land Curnow in an unexpected trade. Being able to trade 3 x 1 sts means any club can trade up. Port will finish bottom 5 and esily have the picks for your kid. Not a problem.

So why are Port supporters whinging and calling for legal intervention? Because they will need to pay fair price for a gun kid?

If you want to misrepresent what the complaint is, then don’t bother replying. Nothing about fair price. Never has been.

How much simpler can I put it?
If the changes were introduced (not proposed) with appropriate lead time ie last August /September, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We could/would have still pursued the top picks we proposed for NAS, and instead had them ready for this year and Cochrane (which was only approved in November after 2 years, more amateur behaviour).
Is that simple enough for you?

Did you want us to do this without any commitment by the AFL?
Look it’s already April, 8 months later and still nothing. Imagine how stupid we would look that we traded away players and delisted players based on a proposal that was pushed back because Carlton and Essendon complained.p, and a player that we were still waiting for a ruling on after 2 years.

But you’ll ignore all of that, because “you want a rort”, however wrong, is easier to argue against.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Does anyone serious think Carlton underpaid for Harry Dean last year?? I just do not understand the need for harsher rules when the new system has only been in for 1 year and seemingly did its job.

 

[jdstorm]

And that’s a fair point.

My view is that it should all be simplified.

Keep the access with the trade off being the high cost. No deficits allowed. All clubs must have the picks ready to go or they can’t match.

My view is fairly similar.

Don’t like defecit but think there needs to be something in place to allow teams to get their players if other teams are being uncooperative. Only other option I can think of is a “fine” system where teams can essentially use cap space to purchase the missing points.

Don’t think the players association would like that much as it takes money out of the player payment pool

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Let’s be clear.

Your position seems to be that because I’m not concerned about who gets caught out by these rule changes, after watching the AFL change them on a whim and then reverse them the very next draft with no one defending my club, my opinion somehow isn’t relevant.

What’s actually happening here is a lot of disingenuous argument dressed up as fact. Claims that clubs “weren’t told” have already been proven wrong. The idea that you need multiple trade periods to execute your “strategy” doesn’t hold up either. You only gained access to Dougie in November, and clubs routinely position themselves for top end talent within the same draft year.

And the “it’ll be too hard to acquire picks” line doesn’t pass the sniff test. Port managed to get themselves into position for Nas last year with one first rounder. It’s not some impossible task.

At the end of the day, it would be far more honest to just say it outright. You want your club to benefit from broken rules. You want access to three highly rated kids at bargain prices because Gold Coast and Brisbane got that advantage, and now you feel entitled to the same.

I can understand wanting that. What doesn’t stack up is hiding behind arguments that have already been shown to be false instead of just admitting it.

And for what it’s worth, I’m completely comfortable with clubs having to pay fair value. If that means trading out real talent to get deals done, so be it. It’s YOUR CLUBS CHOICE if they want to invest so much collateral into an unproven kid. Otherwise stop crying at the cost. There are clubs who sit at the bottom of the ladder that would draft these kids without further thought with pick 1 or pick 2 or pick 3.


And for the record, my club wanted a completely uncompromised first round of the draft. No father sons. No academy picks. No compos.

Imagine the crying you would have done then. This way you still get your talent. You just need to pay a FAIR price for the elite talent.

Which again, is just selfishness from you and your club given that, despite the fact you are over 100 years old, you seemingly have no father son talent available, and you're too incompetent to develop any NGAs, so you'd rather no one have access to something truly great in our game - the father son system - rather than acknowledge the fact that your football club is a perennial failure of an organization.

 

[stavro#4]

Does anyone serious think Carlton underpaid for Harry Dean last year?? I just do not understand the need for harsher rules when the new system has only been in for 1 year and seemingly did its job.

You paid (off the top of my head) picks 20/23/25.

So yes you underpaid.

Not one supporter base would trade pick 3 for those 3 picks.

So it didn’t do its job.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Does anyone serious think Carlton underpaid for Harry Dean last year?? I just do not understand the need for harsher rules when the new system has only been in for 1 year and seemingly did its job.

That’s on par for pick 3 but pick 1/2 should be higher and rightly so. You matched with two picks so your side showed how you can do it and easily.

And last year’s system didn’t do its job- look what GC were matching with. It’s why the two pick rule is very necessary. It won’t be a big deal if you finish towards the bottom 6.

 

[stavro#4]

Which again, is just selfishness from you and your club given that, despite the fact you are over 100 years old, you seemingly have no father son talent available, and you're too incompetent to develop any NGAs, so you'd rather no one have access to something truly great in our game - the father son system - rather than acknowledge the fact that your football club is a perennial failure of an organization.

Your club hasn’t seen an ounce of success since you were caught cheating, so it figures that that you would be desperate to be apart of another rort.

 

[tombomb]

Let’s be honest. The AFL is a corrupt as they come. They do everything possible to ensure that GC and Brisbane are ok in a Rugby state and then once mission is accomplished Swan and co decide to shaft other clubs who are about to benefit from all the work they have put into Academy kids. Corrupt to the core is the AFL.

Hmmm, not really.

The AFL has been talking about draft changes for years.

Laura Kane wanted to bring in the DVI table changes straight away in 2024 and everyone said it was unfair to Brisbane and Carlton for them to happen straight away. So they delayed them for a year.

Now everyone complains that Brisbane got an extra Ashcroft for nothing and Gold Coast were able to bank all these points to match bids in 2025.

The AFL should have made these changes 10 years ago.

Port will still get Cochrane and Pilot. You don't need to stress.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Which is effectively what Brisbane and the GC get. Exclusive access to the whole state. There’s been at least one if not two first rounders in that list for 5ish years now.

The academies should work to get kids into Aussie rules but just like every other state they should be in the national draft after that.

The academies work and the criticism and unfair advantage is simply a result of them being exceptionally effective in developing elite talent.. The model works and should be expanded not held back.. All AFL clubs need to be given catchments in the outer suburbs, and regional areas away from the private school development programs, Northern Territory etc incentivise the clubs to develop the talent in these regions.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

You paid (off the top of my head) picks 20/23/25.

So yes you underpaid.

Not one supporter base would trade pick 3 for those 3 picks.

So it didn’t do its job.

It was 9 & 11 + church change. That was the highest price ever paid for a father son.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

That’s on par for pick 3 but pick 1/2 should be higher and rightly so. You matched with two picks so your side showed how you can do it and easily.

And last year’s system didn’t do its job- look what GC were matching with. It’s why the two pick rule is very necessary. It won’t be a big deal if you finish towards the bottom 6.

Why? In which draft has picks 1&2 been considered considerably more valuable than pick 3..

 

[Count_Zero]

Gcs didn’t overpay for petracca. They turned Flanders into Petracca, which is a lay-down misère trade for any club.

So they lost a player to add a player and then drafted some players. Not really shocking is it?

IT was pick 7 and 8 for Petracca

Redirect Notice

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Your club hasn’t seen an ounce of success since you were caught cheating, so it figures that that you would be desperate to be apart of another rort.

Cheers scoops.

 

[stavro#4]

It was 9 & 11 + church change. That was the highest price ever paid for a father son.

So none of the other picks were used on your other academy pick?