2018 Draft thread

[dlanod]

The point of the Next Gen academies was to bring in new talent.

No it wasn't, it never was. That might have been the press release line (actually I think the official line was "underrepresented groups", rather than new talent) but there was never any discussion about rules limiting them to new AFL recruits. Tarryn Thomas was representing Tasmania in the U18 championships prior to the existence of North's academy, for example.

It was to give a sop to the traditional states to try and cut the complaining about the Qld and NSW academies. Given there was no effort to limit our academies to new AFL recruits either (though at least some definitely are) I don't really see how this is any different to Blakey, Scott or some of the Vic transplants we've had through ours.

 

[dlanod]

How can they do that?.....were we left flat footed or what?.....and how can Chris allow such a thing!

His kid gets targeted training for the next few years and then at the end he gets to choose Essendon or Brisbane. What's not to like?

 

[Hollow Knight]

His kid gets targeted training for the next few years and then at the end he gets to choose Essendon or Brisbane. What's not to like?

Him spending a few years building a strong affiliation with Essendon, building connections with the playing group and coaches, training at their facilities and ultimately being given the option to play Footy at a big 4 club in his own backyard. A bit there not to like!

 

[dlanod]

Him spending a few years building a strong affiliation with Essendon, building connections with the playing group and coaches, training at their facilities and ultimately being given the option to play Footy at a big 4 club in his own backyard. A bit there not to like!

I'm talking from Chris Johnson's POV.

Sure, there's plenty not to like as fans but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anyone on this forum with kids isn't going to be consulting a focus group of sports clubs' members as to the right way to give them opportunities, so I'm fine with Chris Johnson not doing so either.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I'm talking from Chris Johnson's POV.

Ah, cool.

 

[spotthedog1]

No it wasn't, it never was. That might have been the press release line (actually I think the official line was "underrepresented groups", rather than new talent) but there was never any discussion about rules limiting them to new AFL recruits. Tarryn Thomas was representing Tasmania in the U18 championships prior to the existence of North's academy, for example.

It was to give a sop to the traditional states to try and cut the complaining about the Qld and NSW academies. Given there was no effort to limit our academies to new AFL recruits either (though at least some definitely are) I don't really see how this is any different to Blakey, Scott or some of the Vic transplants we've had through ours.

I'm aware of there never being any rules limiting to new AFL recruits. I know that that's why I've been whinging about them since their inception, and there have been more than a few others on BF as well for the same reasons. It was evident it would be a problem the second they divided up Melbourne as well. Melbourne being well known as an incredibly diverse city, and quite famously having the highest proportionate Greek population outside Greece (and a decent chunk of St Kilda's NGA)... The same goes for Tarryn Thomas. Far as I'm aware, North's academy in Tasmania is still in its infancy, and they won't have had a lot of input into Tarryn's development... But will still get him as a potentially higher draft pick than we have ever had in ours (our highest is Hipwood at 14).

The reason it's different to our academy is that the AFL gave us academies to try to increase the AFL's reach. It was a good commercial decision - children were identified as future players and future fans (if we could get them interested in the sport), and the AFL wanted more fan bases. So up here, we need to attract kids to a sport that isn't prevalent, and in which there aren't as many realistic pathways to develop into an AFL player. The most talented athletes have a few codes going after them. Junior Broncos were well known to sign up hundreds and hundreds of kids who showed decent athletic talent, just to keep them away from other clubs and sports. They can then promise them a pathway direct onto their playing list. AFL couldn't be competitive just saying "you might get drafted somewhere". In order for them to compete with the NRL and have a shot at the talented QLD youngsters, they had to provide them a pathway that would develop them and put them onto their local list. This is different to a Greek heritage Aussie from Oakleigh or an Italian family from Keilor. Those are AFL communities in an AFL dominated city with a 10/18 chance of being drafted to a Vic club.

I can understand your argument that we got access to someone like Ben Keays, who we didn't attract to the sport. But it doesn't change the fact that it's harder to develop to AFL standard in QLD than it is in Victoria, simply because the competition and pathways aren't at the same level. It's also pretty obvious that someone like Keays is the exception and not the rule. The AFL have also famously removed a few players from GWS Academy on discretionary measures because they didn't have enough of a input in their development. I'd expect the AFL to remove Tarryn Thomas from the NM NGA, but I'm not that dumb.

That's a long answer. The short answer is "QLD was never going to result in the reintroduction of zones. Melbourne was".

 

[chopperduck]

Not really in the spirit in what those academies were set up for. Shouldnt be anyone playing for any kind of tac cup or rep team.

I find it amusing that the AFL are trying to push our draft to be an event like the NBA or NFL, yet continue to undermine itself with these kinds of things diluting the available talent.

 

[LemmingMaster]

Speaking to some recruiters the talent is thin. We need ways to increase the talent pool. The academies were a good method. I think long term these NGA will be good.
It is just finding the right balance of cost to the club and not compromising the draft too much. Trading away 3rd round draft picks for first round talent was a slight issue.

 

[briztoon]

Charlie’s little brother didn’t make the WA squad for the U18 champs.

 

[POBT]

Speaking to some recruiters the talent is thin. We need ways to increase the talent pool. The academies were a good method. I think long term these NGA will be good.
It is just finding the right balance of cost to the club and not compromising the draft too much. Trading away 3rd round draft picks for first round talent was a slight issue.

I’m pretty much a supporter of anything that (a) brings people to our game and (b) supports less advantaged or disenfranchised communities to have more opportunities.

But, as I understand it, indigenous footballers are overepresented in the AFL. It is something like 2% of Australians are indigenous and 10% of professional footballers in the AFL are indigenous (don’t quote me on the numbers). Is allowing clubs to guarantee indigenous footballers a club sponsored pathway to the professional level going to increase the numbers that much? This actually seems like an area where the AFL is doing well and where indigenous people have something approaching a fair crack at making it.

In contrast, there are close to 13M people in Queensland and NSW, which constitutes over 50% of Australia’s population. I dunno what the total percentage of Qlders and NSWmen are playing senior AFL footy but it is nowhere near 50%.

 

[LemmingMaster]

I’m pretty much a supporter of anything that (a) brings people to our game and (b) supports less advantaged or disenfranchised communities to have more opportunities.

But, as I understand it, indigenous footballers are overepresented in the AFL. It is something like 2% of Australians are indigenous and 10% of professional footballers in the AFL are indigenous (don’t quote me on the numbers). Is allowing clubs to guarantee indigenous footballers a club sponsored pathway to the professional level going to increase the numbers that much? This actually seems like an area where the AFL is doing well and where indigenous people have something approaching a fair crack at making it.

In contrast, there are close to 13M people in Queensland and NSW, which constitutes over 50% of Australia’s population. I dunno what the total percentage of Qlders and NSWmen are playing senior AFL footy but it is nowhere near 50%.

In my younger years I was around a specialist indigenous football school over here, the amount of talent lost was massive. I think indigenous Australians are naturally suited to AFL. Still there is maybe an element of political correctness around the concept.

I also heard that when the AFL attempted to improve the Queensland and NSW pathways to AFL, they failed terribly. I think the AFL worked out it was cheaper and easier to allow clubs in NSW and Queensland to run the academies.

The hard part is for the clubs in SA, WA and Vic to not get left behind because they cannot access talent on the cheap.

 

[POBT]

I

The hard part is for the clubs in SA, WA and Vic to not get left behind because they cannot access talent on the cheap.

Elliot Yeo - pick 28
Sam Docherty - pick 33

Two examples of absolute bargain basement trades due to a go home factor because the vast majority of talent Qld/NSW clubs recruit are from interstate.

There are no cheap wins running a club in Queensland. Every structural factor is against us. Little to no government investment. Second or third tier sponsorship options at best. Limited supporter base. Little to no home grown player base. Extra travel. Limited free to air coverage into the game’s heartland. No access to the prime time TV slots. And I could go on.

The fact that teams from the big AFL states might complain about inequity and seek to neutralise the one advantage given to frontier state clubs is not surprising at all given they are ultimately driven by self interest. What is so sad is that the custodians of the game give in to those powerful stakeholders over and over again.

If I sound disillusioned, then I am not alone up here. An awful lot of people are getting fed up. The Academy is one of the few shining lights for us. There’s bugger all else left for us.

 

[LemmingMaster]

If I sound disillusioned, then I am not alone up here. An awful lot of people are getting fed up. The Academy is one of the few shining lights for us. There’s bugger all else left for us.

I think the hard part if you have Sydney with the same system as yourself and doing fine.

 

[Carlos Danger]

I think the hard part if you have Sydney with the same system as yourself and doing fine.

The same system hey.
You don't think they were helped out by the extra mill in their salary cap that they've had other than the last couple of years.

 

[dlanod]

I think the hard part if you have Sydney with the same system as yourself and doing fine.

The same system hey.
You don't think they were helped out by the extra mill in their salary cap that they've had other than the last couple of years.

Agreed, but it goes further than that and LemmingMaster putting up a simplistic reply to a single paragraph while ignoring POBT's listed points is pretty disingenuous so I've enumerated the significant advantages Sydney has over Brisbane on the exact points listed for his benefit:

• Little to no government investment - there's been significant NSW dollars gone into the SCG redevelopment, Spotless Stadium, and GWS's training base because NSW sees votes in sports in general.
  
• Second or third tier sponsorship options at best - Sydney is the biggest city in Australia. GWS gets more corporate dollars than it does memberships. Swans gets access to that too. Not as good as Melbourne but AFL players like Buddy, Cameron, Kennedy and Jack with a high profile in their team get significant sponsorship options due to the large corporate base.
• Limited supporter base - Double or more in Sydney.
• Little to no home grown player base - Same.
• Extra travel - An extra hour every flight for Qld states.
• Limited free to air coverage into the game’s heartland - Similar if teams are at a similar spot.
• No access to the prime time TV slots - Similar if teams are at a similar spot.
• Livability/lifestyle - Sydney v Brisbane isn't much of a choice for a player getting paid $300k+ a year, though Brisbane is improving.

 

[spotthedog1]

Elliot Yeo - pick 28
Sam Docherty - pick 33

Two examples of absolute bargain basement trades due to a go home factor because the vast majority of talent Qld/NSW clubs recruit are from interstate.

There are no cheap wins running a club in Queensland. Every structural factor is against us. Little to no government investment. Second or third tier sponsorship options at best. Limited supporter base. Little to no home grown player base. Extra travel. Limited free to air coverage into the game’s heartland. No access to the prime time TV slots. And I could go on.

The fact that teams from the big AFL states might complain about inequity and seek to neutralise the one advantage given to frontier state clubs is not surprising at all given they are ultimately driven by self interest. What is so sad is that the custodians of the game give in to those powerful stakeholders over and over again.

If I sound disillusioned, then I am not alone up here. An awful lot of people are getting fed up. The Academy is one of the few shining lights for us. There’s bugger all else left for us.

Top notch summation of a the situation up here... A like simply wasn't enough.

 

[LemmingMaster]

• Little to no government investment - there's been significant NSW dollars gone into the SCG redevelopment, Spotless Stadium, and GWS's training base because NSW sees votes in sports in general.

The AFL gave the Lions 20 million last year and they gave the Swans 12 million. I see in your simplistic model, no mention of this fact.

The AFL is attempting to compensate you with regards to financial issues. Now you may feel like 8 million more than Sydney is not enough, but that is open to debate.

Anyway, we're getting away from talking about the draft, good luck in the draft and hopefully the Lions and Blues have a good draft, it is looking juicy this year at the top.

 

[Dalions]

• Little to no government investment - there's been significant NSW dollars gone into the SCG redevelopment, Spotless Stadium, and GWS's training base because NSW sees votes in sports in general.

The AFL gave the Lions 20 million last year and they gave the Swans 12 million. I see in your simplistic model, no mention of this fact.

The AFL is attempting to compensate you with regards to financial issues. Now you may feel like 8 million more than Sydney is not enough, but that is open to debate.

Anyway, we're getting away from talking about the draft, good luck in the draft and hopefully the Lions and Blues have a good draft, it is looking juicy this year at the top.

How much did they give to Carlton?

 

[Hollow Knight]

 

[LemmingMaster]

How much did they give to Carlton?

12 I think from memory.

 

[dlanod]

Anyway, we're getting away from talking about the draft, good luck in the draft and hopefully the Lions and Blues have a good draft, it is looking juicy this year at the top.

Since you're still hanging around despite that...

• Little to no government investment - there's been significant NSW dollars gone into the SCG redevelopment, Spotless Stadium, and GWS's training base because NSW sees votes in sports in general.

The AFL gave the Lions 20 million last year and they gave the Swans 12 million. I see in your simplistic model, no mention of this fact.

Come on man, that's a pretty crap effort to cherrypick a single item from a big list and still try to change the goalposts.

The NSW government spent over $170 million on AFL facilities in NSW over the last ten years. Qld has given $60 million for Metricon and $15 million for Springfield (after many many knockbacks). What's the AFL distribution got to do with that, or are you suggesting that in 12 years or so it'll come out even?

The AFL is attempting to compensate you with regards to financial issues. Now you may feel like 8 million more than Sydney is not enough, but that is open to debate.

The AFL attempts to compensate to some degree for differences in membership counts, gate takings, merchandising and corporate sponsorship of the club. None of those were in the list I detailed. None of that $8 million extra can go to the players because of the salary cap.

I know it doesn't fit your narrative but here's the full list again, just in case you missed it:

• Little to no government investment - there's been significant NSW dollars gone into the SCG redevelopment, Spotless Stadium, and GWS's training base because NSW sees votes in sports in general.
  
• Second or third tier sponsorship options at best - Sydney is the biggest city in Australia. GWS gets more corporate dollars than it does memberships. Swans gets access to that too. Not as good as Melbourne but AFL players like Buddy, Cameron, Kennedy and Jack with a high profile in their team get significant sponsorship options due to the large corporate base.
• Limited supporter base - Double or more in Sydney.
• Little to no home grown player base - Same.
• Extra travel - An extra hour every flight for Qld states.
• Limited free to air coverage into the game’s heartland - Similar if teams are at a similar spot.
• No access to the prime time TV slots - Similar if teams are at a similar spot.
• Livability/lifestyle - Sydney v Brisbane isn't much of a choice for a player getting paid $300k+ a year, though Brisbane is improving.

Here's your list:

• AFL gives Brisbane $8 million more than Sydney because Brisbane as a club generates more than $8 million less income than Sydney.

That's a pro for players?

 

[jonnobackpocket]

In my younger years I was around a specialist indigenous football school over here, the amount of talent lost was massive. I think indigenous Australians are naturally suited to AFL. Still there is maybe an element of political correctness around the concept.

I also heard that when the AFL attempted to improve the Queensland and NSW pathways to AFL, they failed terribly. I think the AFL worked out it was cheaper and easier to allow clubs in NSW and Queensland to run the academies.

The hard part is for the clubs in SA, WA and Vic to not get left behind because they cannot access talent on the cheap.

Yeah picking up all these former GWS first and second round picks for picks in 30's, 40's and 50's is not getting talent in the cheap according too you? That is because you are in Victoria.

Do not pretend to be hard done by or understand our plight because you don't.

 

[JasperBeardly]

No it wasn't, it never was. That might have been the press release line (actually I think the official line was "underrepresented groups", rather than new talent) but there was never any discussion about rules limiting them to new AFL recruits. Tarryn Thomas was representing Tasmania in the U18 championships prior to the existence of North's academy, for example.

It was to give a sop to the traditional states to try and cut the complaining about the Qld and NSW academies. Given there was no effort to limit our academies to new AFL recruits either (though at least some definitely are) I don't really see how this is any different to Blakey, Scott or some of the Vic transplants we've had through ours.

Yep, and they really did craft the wording around NGA's to make sure of it to:
"aimed at the attraction, retention and development of all talented players"

Consider that against the stated intention of the Club (ie northern state) Academies:
"aimed at increasing the opportunities for young people in NSW and QLD to learn about and play the game of Australian Rules football."

 

[bungalow_bill]

Attracting is the key word. Wouldn't think that would apply to a kid whose father was a premier ship player and likely already plays AFL to some extent.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

Any value we might get from the Academy system has effectively been negated and so we are back where we started.