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

[BartBart]

So happy the 10% discount will be finally gone, the top teams have to pay extra, and you can't use 3+ picks to match.

Fairer cost for the massive privilege for sole access & less gaming the system.

 

[stavro#4]

I said afl wants the depth increase not the clubs.

Auction is the only way, as “giving everyone” an academy is never going to work. All the growth in participation and depth is from northern states. I’m not saying current way works, but I am saying giving out of state clubs NGA zones is useless.

There are so many BS unfair parts to non VIC clubs such as MCG GF, outside commercial money and travel etc. this is the fairest way to do it that would actually work.

VFL teams can disagree. Academies are may more of an advantage than father sons.

With expansion to Tassie - they ain’t going away…

You don’t need academies or Father Sons to go away.

You need fair cost which the rules coming in from 2026 onwards will bring that.

However if you have followed the last 10 pages. Supporters of Clubs who are due either have cracked the sads over that.

Clubs aren’t stupid. They know which of these kids are potential game changers and they won’t part with the relevant picks unless the offers are too good to refuse.

That’s how it should be.

 

[briztoon]

Was an issue then it’s more that right now Brisbane are getting FAs AND FSs AND Academies. It’s the most obvious and glaring example of the system being broken.

I don't recall any media backlash or changes to the draft rules back then. Only the AFL giving GC priority picks as an admittance that they were being continuously being raided, but they had to wait a year, so that Carlton couldn't put their hand out.

Daicos didn’t go to a premiership team but he and Darcy were still ****ed and have been raised numerous times they’re also years old at this point too. The ashcrofts, fletcher and Annabelle are current. You understand the reforms would impact all clubs, it’s not targeted at JUST you.

Daicos and Darcy are one year older than WAshcroft and Fletcher. They're just as current.

It's more the Vic media are targeting us, while letting the Vic clubs off for the same "rort". Call all the clubs out.

As I mentioned before. The only change I have an issue with is, is the loading based on ladder position.

Again, no one is leaving them out all of them have been cited numerous times,

Where? I haven't heard sh!t from the Vic media about Collingwood benefitting from their father sons, or the Dogs getting a leg up with Darcy.

again, saints fans lost two flags to teams with father sons, the issue isn’t new it’s just more prevalent than ever and seems like the afl and other clubs are also now getting a bit jack of it.

Also “well it’s always been corrupt” isn’t the slam dunk you think it is

I haven't said anything about the league being corrupt. Where's that b.s. coming from?

 

[phantom13]

I don't recall any media backlash or changes to the draft rules back then. Only the AFL giving GC priority picks as an admittance that they were being continuously being raided, but they had to wait a year, so that Carlton couldn't put their hand out.

Daicos and Darcy are one year older than WAshcroft and Fletcher. They're just as current.

It's more the Vic media are targeting us, while letting the Vic clubs off for the same "rort". Call all the clubs out.

As I mentioned before. The only change I have an issue with is, is the loading based on ladder position.

Where? I haven't heard sh!t from the Vic media about Collingwood benefitting from their father sons, or the Dogs getting a leg up with Darcy.

I haven't said anything about the league being corrupt. Where's that b.s. coming from?

Neither Darcy nor Daicos went into a reigning premier and only Daicos has been a part of premiership thus far.

That doesn’t mean they’re not good examples of how ****ed the system is but they’re not the best examples, your team is.

Think you had the whole “it’s always been a rort” post didn’t you? Rort/corrupt/whatever same shit. It’s always happened so why change it is a shit reason.

 

[briztoon]

You’ve missed my point.

The academies are great, keep them to get kids into the game but why do they have an exclusive link to a club? If the kids is good enough to be playing a state u/18s, colts, nab league then they should be eligible to be drafted by any club at the appropriate pick number.

The AFL decided they should be set up similar to the NRL pathways, where kids play in the "their" clubs pathways (and recruitment zones), can dream of playing for "their" club, if they're good enough, from the age of 12 in NRL club academies. Because that's what's familiar to families and schools in NSW and QLD.

 

[briztoon]

Cope more. Yes we argued for procedural fairness - as all clubs and supporters should.

But the Camporeales were taken for nothing picks. Lucas was effectively a rookie.

In their U17 year, one of the Camporeales was considered a probable top 10 pick, was spoken about all season as such, and won the BOG medal in the U17 showcase on grand final day.

Carlton campaigned hard that year, that it was unfair that for the AFL to introduce draft rule changes for the following year, when they hadn't had time to accrue picks in the following years draft.

Don't try and normalize the Gold Coast fraud - which by the way I note, the AFL is only introducing this 2 Pick system this year because it is the first year that Gold Coast has not had multiple first round academy players to select.

 

[Obeanie1]

I don't recall any media backlash or changes to the draft rules back then. Only the AFL giving GC priority picks as an admittance that they were being continuously being raided, but they had to wait a year, so that Carlton couldn't put their hand out.

Daicos and Darcy are one year older than WAshcroft and Fletcher. They're just as current.

It's more the Vic media are targeting us, while letting the Vic clubs off for the same "rort". Call all the clubs out.

As I mentioned before. The only change I have an issue with is, is the loading based on ladder position.

Where? I haven't heard sh!t from the Vic media about Collingwood benefitting from their father sons, or the Dogs getting a leg up with Darcy.

I haven't said anything about the league being corrupt. Where's that b.s. coming from?

Well you are having a massive tanty over the rorts coming to an end arent you.

At least you openly admit the rort assisted success currentky being enjoyed by your Lions.

Stop playing the victim and sprinkle a bit of concrete on your weatbix.

Just think how good it will be one day when Brisabane finally win a flag without massive assistance its always needed. Will just need to wait another 10 years for that.

 

[briztoon]

How exactly are Port and Carlton being shafted?

Looks like the kids linked to them are valued very closely to where their natural 1st round picks will fall. If not a second late 1st is needed to land a top 2 talent.

Both clubs will easily have the picks available to satisfy the market value and get their kids.

Teams finishing top 4 get taxed to access players, thats how it should work. The rich pay more tax than the poor. That is perfectly logical.

Clubs still get their accademy or father sons. Only at market rates.

The top 2/4 loading isn't at market rates. It requires an overpay of market rates to match. To match a bid at pick 17, the team that won the GF needs to come up with a points value between pick 12 and pick 13.

That's not fair.

 

[stavro#4]

The top 2/4 loading isn't at market rates. It requires an overpay of market rates to match. To match a bid at pick 17, the team that won the GF needs to come up with a points value between pick 12 and pick 13.

That's not fair.

And just to be clear here.

You don’t need to pay it.

Like it’s entirely Optional and it’s incredibly unlikely a pick 17 is going to turn a runner up into the premier.

So seems like a fair one to let go back into the draft pool, no?

 

[briztoon]

It’s always a bigger issue if you have the premiers getting a top 3 pick for what is junk. The new rules will fix this. You want said player that’s fine but pony up. Likely under these new rules you’d have to make a call which Ashcroft one you wanted.

It’s meant to be hard to match h in the top 3

Again, I have no problem with paying market rates. My issue is with the points loading for top 2 and top 4 teams. That's an over correction.

As I mentioned in my previous post, to match a bid at pick 17, a team needs more points than the value of pick 13.

 

[phantom13]

The AFL decided they should be set up similar to the NRL pathways, where kids play in the "their" clubs pathways (and recruitment zones), can dream of playing for "their" club, if they're good enough, from the age of 12 in NRL club academies. Because that's what's familiar to families and schools in NSW and QLD.

I didnt think you could find a worse argument for leaving it than "well its always been that way" but here we are.

The top 2/4 loading isn't at market rates. It requires an overpay of market rates to match. To match a bid at pick 17, the team that won the GF needs to come up with a points value between pick 12 and pick 13.

That's not fair.

Yeh its almost like the draft is designed to be an equalisation tool.

You know you can trade players too, Cal Ah Chee would argue you dont but anyway.

 

[phantom13]

And just to be clear here.

You don’t need to pay it.

Like it’s entirely Optional and it’s incredibly unlikely a pick 17 is going to turn a runner up into the premier.

So seems like a fair one to let go back into the draft pool, no?

Or not get Fletcher and Annabelle at the very least.

 

[stavro#4]

The top 2/4 loading isn't at market rates. It requires an overpay of market rates to match. To match a bid at pick 17, the team that won the GF needs to come up with a points value between pick 12 and pick 13.

That's not fair.

The current rules increase the ceiling and reduce the floor of the competition (I.e the good sides get better the bad sides get worse).

The rules coming should in theory do the opposite with some time. It should reduce the ceiling of the best sides and increase the floor of the cellar dwellers - especially as the top sides get the free agents at market value and the lower sides bleed them every year.

 

[stavro#4]

Or not get Fletcher and Annabelle at the very least.

I would love to see the reality of what these rules would have done to Brisbane in 2023 when Ashcroft and Fletcher were on their way to them.

They would have needed to trade and once that’s on the table you’re talking about guys integral to both flags.

 

[briztoon]

I really don’t know why I bother with you but I’ll just give you one little snippet of info as you never seem to have a clue what you’re talking about.

Afl national academy, fully funded by the afl.

Ngas funded by the afl to the tune of $120k run by the clubs. Given a club like GC is also fully funded and subsidized by the afl and you guys are still subsidized pretty substantially (5th or 6th most in 24).

I’ll summarize for you since you struggle with most simple ideas.

The afl gives you guys roughly $20m a year to fund your club (they give us the same so no shade) AND also fund your NGA to $120k (which we also get) why do you deserve exclusive access in full to your academies when most other clubs just have those same kids go into the draft.

We don't receive NGA funding, as we don't have an nga academy. And seriously, what's $120k going to fund? One coach and some balls...

Northern clubs also have to fund all the travel and accommodation of their academy teams competing in the Northern Academy series and Talent League. Unlike the Talent league teams, which are funded by the AFL. So our academy teams usually fly in and fly out on the same day of a game, even when the Talent League schedule us for a 11am game in Werribee.

Other clubs don't have their nga kids go into the draft. That's some straight up b.s.

 

[phantom13]

We don't receive NGA funding, as we don't have an nga academy. And seriously, what's $120k going to fund? One coach and some balls...

Northern clubs also have to fund all the travel and accommodation of their academy teams competing in the Northern Academy series and Talent League. Unlike the Talent league teams, which are funded by the AFL. So our academy teams usually fly in and fly out on the same day of a game, even when the Talent League schedule us for a 11am game in Werribee.

Other clubs don't have their nga kids go into the draft. That's some straight up b.s.

You have an equivalent nga so that’s pure semantics and probably allows the AFL to fund it further anyway (all the costs your noting I have no doubt would be AFL funded) and again, the $120k is the listed nga funding you get 20m more that would absolutely go toward it.

Coaches and balls, again, you use existing facilities and equipment (and coaches) this is known. Your development coaches in every team do NGA work.

You don’t fund fully (or even close to fully) no one does but you and a handful of other clubs get exclusive access to the players produced from it whilst no one else does.

If it’s such a drain on resources and funds surely you’d rather do away with it and let the afl fund AND run it since it’s only supposed to help grow the game, but you don’t, cause you know that’s bullshit.

 

[bluebaggerjuls]

pretty ironic these rules are being brought in when it most affects 3 of the bottom 4 teams. What an elite competition

 

[stavro#4]

pretty ironic these rules are being brought in when it most affects 3 of the bottom 4 teams. What an elite competition

The rules have impacted bottom sides for over 10 years.

Its just ironic that you are going to rebuild and pay these prices now if I’m honest

 

[stavro#4]

We don't receive NGA funding, as we don't have an nga academy. And seriously, what's $120k going to fund? One coach and some balls...

Northern clubs also have to fund all the travel and accommodation of their academy teams competing in the Northern Academy series and Talent League. Unlike the Talent league teams, which are funded by the AFL. So our academy teams usually fly in and fly out on the same day of a game, even when the Talent League schedule us for a 11am game in Werribee.

Other clubs don't have their nga kids go into the draft. That's some straight up b.s.

“iTs AbOuT gRoWiNg ThE GaMe”

In his presentation, Fagan contended that the Lions spent $2 million on their academy and needed an incentive to keep investing. He questioned why a club would do so if it had to pay a hefty price for players in the draft.

Atleast he is honest about it.

 

[phantom13]

“iTs AbOuT gRoWiNg ThE GaMe”

In his presentation, Fagan contended that the Lions spent $2 million on their academy and needed an incentive to keep investing. He questioned why a club would do so if it had to pay a hefty price for players in the draft.

Atleast he is honest about it.

Spending $2m of funded money. It’s just such a ridiculous argument. Yeh maybe it costs $2m to run the academy (I’m still HIGHLY skeptical on how their journaling split costs) but they’re hardly digging in their own pockets for it.

It’s just such a dumb argument.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Again, I have no problem with paying market rates. My issue is with the points loading for top 2 and top 4 teams. That's an over correction.

As I mentioned in my previous post, to match a bid at pick 17, a team needs more points than the value of pick 13.

The loading is to stop what happened with the Ashcroft ones and that’s fine. Rather the loading only be for Grand Finalists but for me they have this right. You’ll still get said player but will take two selections

 

[sydney_gws]

I think the new rules are ok, I would add an allowance you can have one 15% discount every 10 years.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I think the new rules are ok, I would add an allowance you can have one 15% discount every 10 years.

No. That’s just allowing a rort every 10 years just no. Pay the price.

 

[bluebaggerjuls]

The rules have impacted bottom sides for over 10 years.

Its just ironic that you are going to rebuild and pay these prices now if I’m honest

making 3 of the bottom 5 pay record prices after allowing top clubs to get players for nothing isnt equalisation its the complete opposite.

 

[stavro#4]

Spending $2m of funded money. It’s just such a ridiculous argument. Yeh maybe it costs $2m to run the academy (I’m still HIGHLY skeptical on how their journaling split costs) but they’re hardly digging in their own pockets for it.

It’s just such a dumb argument.

Let’s just go to a strictly zone/academy model - like they claim to want.

Sandringham has pumped out top 5/top 10 players on the regular.

When we win 5 in a row, they will all be screaming for an uncompromised draft again.

Because they have shown zero capability to understand just how great the impact is.