Academy rule changes

[JasRulz63]

http://afl.com.au/news/2016-08-22/draft-loophole-to-remain-despite-some-clubs-concern

No more "hidden" draft picks, so we can only have as many picks in the draft as we do list spots.

 

[jjami15]

http://afl.com.au/news/2016-08-22/draft-loophole-to-remain-despite-some-clubs-concern

No more "hidden" draft picks, so we can only have as many picks in the draft as we do list spots.

You know one of the real things I hate about the code I follow is the w***ers in head office. So Gold Coast have 11 picks thus far, Geelong have 9 and Bulldogs 8. So when they enter the draft they have to have that many list spots free or is it more that they can use anymore picks after they have filled their list?

 

[braddsey]

You know one of the real things I hate about the code I follow is the ******s in head office. So Gold Coast have 11 picks thus far, Geelong have 9 and Bulldogs 8. So when they enter the draft they have to have that many list spots free or is it more that they can use anymore picks after they have filled their list?

The outcome is the same, but the way I read it - you can only go into the draft with as many list spots as you have available. So if GC have 11 picks, but only 8 list spots, then in the final draft order they will only have 8 picks.
I think what it will mean is we'll see fringe players delisted with the committment to redraft - so other than a few more list management headache's (and stress for the fringe players), there won't be any real impact - we'll always be able to put together enough picks for the required points.

I don't particularly have a problem with this rule change - if you recall all the discussion last year, many here on BF thought this rule was already in place.
The bigger worry is that they will slowly erode the benefits of the academy. This year they change the number of picks rule. Next year they insist we need to have a pick in the round to get the player. They following year they reduce the discount. After that they remove the ability togo into deficit on the following years draft...

Edit: In the end I think this will more harm other clubs trying to move up the draft order, than the academy clubs. The real benificiaries of the pick trading was the clubs who got to move up the draft order. The academy clubs still get to hang onto the points they need for the players, and maybe have further options available to them to select non-academy players at the top end of the draft giving they haven't already shown their hand by trading down.

 

[jackess]

That's bullshit. Basically means you have to know where the academy picks will be taken before trade period.

 

[JasRulz63]

You know one of the real things I hate about the code I follow is the ******s in head office. So Gold Coast have 11 picks thus far, Geelong have 9 and Bulldogs 8. So when they enter the draft they have to have that many list spots free or is it more that they can use anymore picks after they have filled their list?

With the example of us last year, we went into the draft with 5 list spots but we had six picks within the first 3 rounds (2, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42). Under the old rules, we went into the draft with all those picks available for use for drafting or points. Under the new rules, we'd lose pick 42 and only be allowed to go in the draft with the first five picks listed.

So if Gold Coast want to go into the draft with their 7 picks within the first three rounds available for draft or points, they'd need to clear 7 list spots.

 

[SizeMatters]

lionshine taking into account who is likely to be available who would you be going for at this stage with our picks 2, 20 and 28 if our academy boys are not bid on before then.

the new rules is going to screw us up big time... it might force us to take academy players with live selections if we are keen on them in case they go higher than we expect and miss out because of the only taking in picks for list space rule. Maybe? I'm not sure but it looks like it could be a problem.

 

[M Malice]

the new rules is going to screw us up big time... it might force us to take academy players with live selections if we are keen on them in case they go higher than we expect and miss out because of the only taking in picks for list space rule. Maybe? I'm not sure but it looks like it could be a problem.

yep, i was thinking that too, but i held off posting because i am not 100% up on the bidding and matching bid rules, i would massively suck if that was the case.

any rules that affect it like that should be phased in over 2 years, clubs (particularly academy clubs) would be trading in later round picks with the belief that the rules will be the same at least for the next year, i know the gold coast have a plethora of 2nd round picks this year.

 

[Ironmonger]

It's remarkable how quickly the AFL acts at the merest possibility that northern states clubs are getting a slight advantage through the academies, and yet we've been waiting over a decade for them to figure out how much harder it is to run a club in Queensland without assistance.

And now we start to the countdown to the first northern state club to delist a player in order to free up a later draft pick to use for points, forcing the AFL to change the rules again.

 

[Gibbo_88]

None of us should be surprised. You would think it would be relatively straight forward for the AFL to develop a system that can stand for 5 years and then be changed. They are making what could have been a simple system more and more complicated. It's almost like the administrators of the game sit around all year looking at what they can change to justify their pay.

 

[Ironmonger]

None of us should be surprised. You would think it would be relatively straight forward for the AFL to develop a system that can stand for 5 years and then be changed. They are making what could have been a simple system more and more complicated. It's almost like the administrators of the game sit around all year looking at what they can change to justify their pay.

It really is extraordinary how often they seem to be taken by surprise by their own rules.

 

[lionsbest]

None of us should be surprised. You would think it would be relatively straight forward for the AFL to develop a system that can stand for 5 years and then be changed. They are making what could have been a simple system more and more complicated. It's almost like the administrators of the game sit around all year looking at what they can change to justify their pay.

Absolutely brilliant

 

[Bucking Beads]

That's bullshit. Basically means you have to know where the academy picks will be taken before trade period.

They make it up as they go. The second a Vic club whinges they buckle

 

[spotthedog1]

the new rules is going to screw us up big time... it might force us to take academy players with live selections if we are keen on them in case they go higher than we expect and miss out because of the only taking in picks for list space rule. Maybe? I'm not sure but it looks like it could be a problem.

My prediction is that all 4 academy teams will start operating their primary lists at 38-39 players instead of 40. One year we'll recruit fewer than we delist, and from then on we'll be able to use 5 draft picks to get 3 players every year.

It screws us on trade value a bit, and it screws us on the ability to hold and develop talent, but then helps us with effective recruiting. End up with mid-range draft talent rather than lower-range speculative draft talent.

Even more likely the rookie list gets combined with the primary list in a year or two as well. Expecting to see 42-44 player lists instead of 38-40.

 

[Last of the Roys]

http://afl.com.au/news/2016-08-22/draft-loophole-to-remain-despite-some-clubs-concern

No more "hidden" draft picks, so we can only have as many picks in the draft as we do list spots.

The Victorian clubs say "jump" and the AFL says "how high?" when it comes to complaints about the northern academies. It is just getting beyond ridiculous. Given Hawthorn and Collingwood's vehement opposition to practical financial equalisation measures, the following section of the article hardly came as a surprise.

...Hawthorn has been a vocal opponent of the bidding system, with list manager Graham Wright telling AFL.com.au's Road to the Draft podcast earlier this year the Hawks thought the loophole unfairly impacted other clubs. ...

Gee I am sure we got a fair hearing with Gill and his mates on the AFL commission given the influence Eddie McGuire has and the fact Mark Evans and Andrew Newbold (who are both from Hawthorn) now have key roles in the AFL.

So the AFL spends most of its time on trying to fix the northern academies to placate Victorian clubs, at the same time Brisbane has been left to wither on the vine for a decade accumulating a huge debt with the worst facilities in the League and Gold Coast are still yet to make the finals despite it being their 6th year.

Of course they pay no attention whatsoever to a super club like Hawthorn reaping all of the benefits from the introduction of expansion teams by mere fact they were already a great side when the expansion teams came in. Not to mention being one of the primary beneficiaries of the increased player trading that has occurred around the introduction of free agency (rather than free agency itself which the AFL actually had the gall at the time to call an equilisation measure while still keeping a straight face).

 

[JasRulz63]

Hawthorn are probably annoyed that they didn't realise the value of the pick 38 and 40 that they gave in the Jed Anderson trade that North basically turned into pick 17.

 

[dlanod]

Apparently 2016 picks traded in last year will not count against the total this year, but I can't find a reference to confirm that.

 

[dlanod]

I think this change means that it makes most sense for us to go with a 38 player senior list to give us two extra draft slots, then prelist as a rookie any academy boys left over that we rate (e.g. Reuben last year). I don't know if we have the available list flexibility to manage it this year though.

 

[winged1]

I think this change means that it makes most sense for us to go with a 38 player senior list to give us two extra draft slots, then prelist as a rookie any academy boys left over that we rate (e.g. Reuben last year). I don't know if we have the available list flexibility to manage it this year though.

They will come up with something, but there does seem to be a couple you would like up from the rookie list, though Archie will have to take a spot because we cant re-rookie him. Silly knee-jerk management of a system that should be simple.

 

[dlanod]

They will come up with something, but there does seem to be a couple you would like up from the rookie list, though Archie will have to take a spot because we cant re-rookie him. Silly knee-jerk management of a system that should be simple.

Archie aside, if you have a 38 player senior list you can upgrade up to two rookies to the senior list at the start of the season. You don't need anyone on the LTI for those upgrades.

 

[Crusha]

Archie aside, if you have a 38 player senior list you can upgrade up to two rookies to the senior list at the start of the season. You don't need anyone on the LTI for those upgrades.

I thought there have been plenty of "hints" (leaked from HQ I'm guessing) that the Rookie list will be done away with (this year ????).

 

[jackess]

Collingwood have 2 potential father sons this year don't they? I'd love for them to miss out on one because the new rule and for him to go on and be a gun (for us).

 

[dlanod]

I thought there have been plenty of "hints" (leaked from HQ I'm guessing) that the Rookie list will be done away with (this year ????).

I think that's generally true, but they've confirmed it won't be this year.

 

[dlanod]

Collingwood have 2 potential father sons this year don't they? I'd love for them to miss out on one because the new rule and for him to go on and be a gun (for us).

They already passed on Stewart who's looked the goods at times for GWS.

 

[Ironmonger]

A new thread called 'Academy Rule Changes'.

If history's any guide, this thread will get a lot of use over a long period of time.

In ten years when we're debating the AFL's decision to remove the last remaining academy concession, a 5% discount on players born within 750m of Brisbane's Central Business District and not having lived outside it for more than six consecutive hours, we'll look back on this as a golden age.

 

[M Malice]

A new thread called 'Academy Rule Changes'.

If history's any guide, this thread will get a lot of use over a long period of time.

In ten years when we're debating the AFL's decision to remove the last remaining academy concession, a 5% discount on players born within 750m of Brisbane's Central Business District and not having lived outside it for more than six consecutive hours, we'll look back on this as a golden age.

it's even funnier because it will probably turn out to be scarily prophetic.

#nostramonger