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

[rye]

I don’t mind suns and giants getting a leg up but lions with 3 flags and swans with 2 since 2000 is a joke.
Why should freo with die hard fans and no flags get donuts compared to the other two.
I’ll tell you why AFL is a business.
Business these days roll out the red carpet make them fill special for new and fair weather customers.
Long-standing loyal customers are not important because it doesn’t matter if the product is good or bad we are always there!
Freo has wa players leave because they hate the fishbowl, 10hrs in transit every second week and post career opportunities are only available if you become a club great!

not everything is about freo ronnie

 

[RonnieRaven]

not everything is about freo ronnie

Just some factual information for lions and swans fans to ponder next time riding their tall stallion entitled sword in hand

 

[Makeshift Park]

And 95% of those kids play a sport other than AFL.

While Sydney has “access” to so many kids, it’s really a myth, because most aren’t interested in AFL.

If AFL was the number one sport in NSW, they would be producing more kids than Victoria (who produces 60% of each year’s draft crop).

The problem, I suspect, is a bit more complex than that.

I haven't seen any super recent figures, but prior to Covid, AFL participation rates were:

15+ years old
NSW: 68,500 (and another 8k in ACT)
Vic: 212,000

Under 15
NSW: 62,500 (and another 3k in ACT)
Vic: 160,000

So as of 4 years ago, there was somewhere in the ballpark of 1 NSW AFL player for (only) 3 in Victoria.

Source: https://www.clearinghouseforsport.g...tate_of_Play_Report_-_Australian_Football.pdf

 

[briztoon]

That's fine. I've argued elsewhere for north assistance (thread on the MB is still ongoing) as having a team down the bottom of the letter for an extended period of time creates problems if it's own (fixturing, fairness, etc).

Access to multiple top ten picks on an exception basis is a bridge too far and it seems a common refrain.

I have a “problem” with the AFL’s stance, that they don’t want to see clubs missing out on finals for a period longer than 5 years.

That’s not realistic.

If you are club that genuinely bottoms out like Gold Coast and North have done, West Coast is about to do, and will primarily build through the draft, you’re going to be down for a long time.

Especially if you have a lack of quality mature age talent through the bottom out period. Or if you struggle to attract quality mature age talent, and quite a few of them.

We’re looking at something like 6 to 8 years of drafting at or near the bottom of the ladder before a team begins to be competitive. Not a finals quality team. Just competitive.

If the AFL genuinely wants to help a team in Norths situation, it needs to be through encouraging quality, mature age talent joining such a team.

Not by throwing more high end draft picks at such a club.

Gold Coast now have a lot of high end and quality draftees from 2017 to 2022. Those 2017 & 2018 draftees are about to enter the beginning of their peak years, but they only have 3 quality senior players in Miller, Witts & Collins to lead them. That’s not enough. Especially with Witts close to retirement, Collins beginning to decline, and Miller has already reached his peak.

Gold Coast genuinely need another 6 to 9 quality senior players in the 26 to 29 age group for them to be a genuine finals contender next season.

As of this season, North don’t have a single quality player in the 26 to 29/30 age group.

And they’re probably losing the only player on their list who could be one of those players next year, McKay.

It’s the same problem Gold Coast faces every rebuild. Losing their good players when they reach their restricted free agency year, just when they’re ready as a club to actually compete for a top 8 spot.

Gold Coast should be challenging for the top 8 in 2025, when King, Lukosius and Rankine are hitting their peak as a group, but they’ve already lost Rankine.

North are further behind Gold Coast, even though they started their rebuild earlier, because they genuinely don’t have a single quality player between the ages of 26 and 32 (maybe one if you count Hugh Greenwood).

 

[briztoon]

Makes it way too hard for bottom teams to rebuild via the draft when you forecast 2-3 drafts ahead what talent will be available and instantly you have to cross off 15-30 kids off your first and second round lists due to academies.... In what world is that not a compromised system?? We may as well go back to zoning systems if academies are flooding the first 2 rounds every year and the AFL wont remove it or make it 40 and up each year.

Clubs like hawthorn north will have a much harder time rebuilding compared to sydney.

Half of those 15 to 30 kids aren’t academy kids, they are father son kids. So your “point” is very disingenuous.

Next year’s draft crop, especially the first two rounds, is chock full of Victorian father son kids. Even though half of them are born and raised South Australians.

Maybe 1 northern academy kid in the first round. But that’s line ball.

(Yes I’m aware of the irony that the potential top father son prospect next year is headed to Brisbane).

2025’s draft potentially has more higher end academy draftees. But not the very top end. That’ll mostly be Victorians and a SA kid.

2026 you’re looking at Western Australians and VIC Metro kids. Not so much the northern academies.


(I’ll give you a prediction for the Lions draft next year. We’ll have Ashcroft as a father son as a top 10 draftee. An academy kid in the middle of the second round. Another academy kid in the middle of the third. And a third academy kid in the fourth round or rookie’s draft).

 

[briztoon]

I was just comparing the amount of NSW talent that enters the AFL via Sydney and GWS versus Spargo and Marshall.

But that’s a good thing.

Without academies, how many of those kids would have chosen AFL as a sport?

Tom Green more than likely.

But how many others?

Heeney has said in many interviews that without the Swans academy, he was headed for rugby league.

It’s not like all the players listed are out and out stars of the game.

Quite a lot of them play for Victorian teams btw.

 

[briztoon]

Well my point was you basically have universal access to everyone from the state so I dont know how you think you are going to come back to NSW when you have them all. Passing on them if they are in an academy hardly invalidates that point...

I was legit unsure about if you had complete access (hence the, excuse my ignorance) but it seems the only players from NSW dont have access from are from Riverina which is literally closer to Melbourne than Sydney, hardly a Sydney heartland.

• Todd Marshall: Riverina
• Charlie Spargo: Riverina
• Luke Parks: Literally in the Swans academy but you passed on him
• Ben Davies: Literally in the Swans academy

So yes, unless someone else has evidence, you have universal access apart from Riverina area. Of course you arent going to bring many players back when they are all at the club...

Himmelberg (the other one) who plays for the Crows.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Half of those 15 to 30 kids aren’t academy kids, they are father son kids. So your “point” is very disingenuous.

Next year’s draft crop, especially the first two rounds, is chock full of Victorian father son kids. Even though half of them are born and raised South Australians.

Maybe 1 northern academy kid in the first round. But that’s line ball.

(Yes I’m aware of the irony that the potential top father son prospect next year is headed to Brisbane).

2025’s draft potentially has more higher end academy draftees. But not the very top end. That’ll mostly be Victorians and a SA kid.

2026 you’re looking at Western Australians and VIC Metro kids. Not so much the northern academies.


(I’ll give you a prediction for the Lions draft next year. We’ll have Ashcroft as a father son as a top 10 draftee. An academy kid in the middle of the second round. Another academy kid in the middle of the third. And a third academy kid in the fourth round or rookie’s draft).

F/S kids have been a bit of a freakish abnormality of late… I honestly can’t see that many in the early rounds continuing it is literally a lotto draw in its nature. As evidenced by Brisbane now cashing in on it after only so long in the system. The tree will always eventually bear fruit. Academies are a very unfair system purely based on geographical assignment.

In the past decade.. how many 1-2 round academy selections have there been?? When you add up just how massive a chunk of the open draft is removed from clubs and exclusively available to a select NSW or QLD club.. you can understand why Clarkson makes statements like “ the draft is too compromised” and why clubs like geelong have rebuilt avoiding the pointy end of the draft.

 

[briztoon]

My argument against this is the same as from my original post. Your club is now strong enough and football is now popular enough in those areas where the talent production difference is minimal to SA and WA. The Allies literally just won the carnival for the first time and the U16 team (or whatever it is) has like 50% allies players (might have even been more). Footy has grown in QLD and NSW significantly.

That U18 Allies team. 3 of the best players, and potential top 25 draftees, are Tasmanian. Though North are trying to get priority access to one of them.

Another two are from the Riverina, play for the Murray Bushrangers, and not in any academy, therefore in the open draft.

There’s the three top end GC boys and a possible second round Sydney academy kid, and then maybe another two GC boys. And a GWS academy kid who’s projected second or third round.


As for the U16 AA team. Big asterisks on that one.

Every teams MVP was an automatic selection.

And seeing as Div 2 was split in to the 4 academies, NT and TAS. That’s six automatic AA’s. One or two should not really have been selected in the AA team.

And one of the GC academy boys is also a Father Son boy to Melbourne, and is widely viewed as locked in to Melbourne.

 

[Sturty2Hurty]

people seem to very quickly forget the go home 5 and other first rounders like schache and aish leaving promptly and for far less than drafted value when getting on their soapbox to whinge about brisbane's academy

This happens to every club...

 

[briztoon]

F/S kids have been a bit of a freakish abnormality of late… I honestly can’t see that many in the early rounds continuing it is literally a lotto draw in its nature. As evidenced by Brisbane now cashing in on it after only so long in the system. The tree will always eventually bear fruit. Academies are a very unfair system purely based on geographical assignment.

In the past decade.. how many 1-2 round academy selections have there been?? When you add up just how massive a chunk of the open draft is removed from clubs and exclusively available to a select NSW or QLD club.. you can understand why Clarkson makes statements like “ the draft is too compromised” and why clubs like geelong have rebuilt avoiding the pointy end of the draft.

My point about your previous post still stands. It was disingenuous, as half the kids who are club tied over the next few drafts are father sons, not academy kids.

Heck, 4 of those academy kids are also father son kids to, St Kilda, Brisbane, Melbourne and Hawthorn.

3 probably choose father son over academy, and 1 academy.

 

[briztoon]

Okay everyone looking at this thread from Qld and NSW, I have a question:

I assume everyone agrees that the northern academy system and the advantages for the clubs involved are only justifiable for a finite period of time.

1) At what point do we say the Swans, Lions, Giants and Suns have to draft in an open market, where there are no matched bids, no discounts? Can you point to a figure, or an achievement?

When all the Victorian advantages are removed, and Vic kids stop draft tampering (looking at you Sheezel, Hobbs, Perkins, Smith, Worpel, etc)

 

[The Filth Wizard]

If the AFL genuinely wants to help a team in Norths situation, it needs to be through encouraging quality, mature age talent joining such a team.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say briz but IMO this is a little fanciful. With draft picks those players are forced to join. To bring in quality, mature age talent you need at least three things - money, success and draft collateral, not cheap later picks either because those players will generally be first or second rounders. The AFL can help with bringing in pick collateral, they can help with salary cap concessions but they can't make players join a team bottom two in the league for four years and beyond. The problem with those things is the playing field is shifted again. At that, undoubtedly we've tried to bring in mature talent, mixed quality and the best of the bunch is out for a year now.

For me our rebuild is going to have to follow the Melbourne model, which included an accumulation of mature players along the journey but none of the ones they had when they were at the bottom were in their premiership side. They were able to pick up the missing pieces (May, Lever, Brown for those worrying about key tall stock at North and sprinklings of Melkshams and Langdons to solidify the side). We're going to have to do it without the early gifts the Dees got but one thing we've done well the last year or so is change the background team so that's a start.

I think we're going to go in once more and ask for some bringing talent of any age in. We've already had to take a step back because until we've spoken to the AFL we're preparing to remove two extra players from our rookie list as we've been given no instruction that will continue from last year (the extra two list spots). I also expect that will be it. It's surely a stressful scenario to have to go hat in hand on these things.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Now that live trading is a thing, what is to stop clubs with academies drafting their academy players by actually trading with the club for the specific pick. As an example, Sydney could have traded with Hawthorn for pick 4 and selected Braeden Campbell themselves. Points and matching is bullshit and unbalanced. Keep your academies, keep developing the game in non-afl states. Rather than fund it yourself or through sponsorship, you should be able to send your invoice for costs to the AFL every year. Then if you really like one of your academy players and aren't in position to select them then trade for the pick on draft night.

 

[.Shotties.]

Okay everyone looking at this thread from Qld and NSW, I have a question:

I assume everyone agrees that the northern academy system and the advantages for the clubs involved are only justifiable for a finite period of time.

1) At what point do we say the Swans, Lions, Giants and Suns have to draft in an open market, where there are no matched bids, no discounts? Can you point to a figure, or an achievement?

When they have the same level of access on the open market as traditional states do. When, in most years, a NSW team could expect to have a high-quality player at the top end of the draft without being considered reaching, and I mean this at the time of drafting, not after a few years. Gulden, for example, is a good player, however wasn't considered a first-rounder at the point of the draft.

2) Do you think there's a compelling argument that the Swans and Lions should lose these advantages before GWS and GC? Why?

Not really. The Swans are operating in the same market as the Giants, have a less productive zone in terms of size and area, and haven't had a father son in the time the Giants have been around.

3) In the meantime, is there any justification for the 20% discount on matched bids, aside from how its also a feature of F/S nominations? Could you get behind removing the discount across the board?

Yeah, the clubs have set up, financed, and maintained the top-level football pipeline in these states.

 

[briztoon]

The problem, I suspect, is a bit more complex than that.

I haven't seen any super recent figures, but prior to Covid, AFL participation rates were:

15+ years old
NSW: 68,500 (and another 8k in ACT)
Vic: 212,000

Under 15
NSW: 62,500 (and another 3k in ACT)
Vic: 160,000

So as of 4 years ago, there was somewhere in the ballpark of 1 NSW AFL player for (only) 3 in Victoria.

Source: https://www.clearinghouseforsport.g...tate_of_Play_Report_-_Australian_Football.pdf

The easy rebuttal to this is the number of kids from each state that eventually get drafted.

Sure, junior participation rates are great stats, but if the athletically elite NSW kids are mostly playing other sports, those participation rates mean sfa for this discussion.

How many Vic kids were drafted last year, compared to NSW kids.

Bust that ratio out for me.

 

[briztoon]

This happens to every club...

Not so much the Victorian clubs.

 

[Makeshift Park]

[Sydney] have a less productive zone in terms of size and area [than GWS}

This is an interesting and counterintuitive assertion to me: what's your rationale?

The easy rebuttal to this is the number of kids from each state that eventually get drafted.

That's not a rebuttal. I was providing actual figures to provide real context to your wishy-washy claims that there's bugger all kids interested in AFL in NSW. You're not disproving anything.

Did you mean you're retorting me? If so, I led that post by saying its obviously quite nuanced. eg. Having lots of high schools with good AFL programs no doubt helps Victoria.

Did you notice how many more kids, proportionally, play footy in NSW, than adults?

The future is looking pretty bright for AFL in NSW. Its time the Swans realised they don't need the leg up to continue to compete at the highest level of the comp.

 

[.Shotties.]

This is an interesting and counterintuitive assertion to me: what's your rationale?

Players drafted and players available in the zones.

Why would you find it counterintuitive that a zone that includes more traditional football areas down in the south of the state, has produced more high-end draftees (Setterfield, Hopper, Green, Kennedy, Himmelberg and Brander all in the first round, compared with Mills, Heeney, and Campbell) and has larger population centres is the better one?

 

[briztoon]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say briz but IMO this is a little fanciful. With draft picks those players are forced to join. To bring in quality, mature age talent you need at least three things - money, success and draft collateral, not cheap later picks either because those players will generally be first or second rounders. The AFL can help with bringing in pick collateral, they can help with salary cap concessions but they can't make players join a team bottom two in the league for four years and beyond. The problem with those things is the playing field is shifted again. At that, undoubtedly we've tried to bring in mature talent, mixed quality and the best of the bunch is out for a year now.

For me our rebuild is going to have to follow the Melbourne model, which included an accumulation of mature players along the journey but none of the ones they had when they were at the bottom were in their premiership side. They were able to pick up the missing pieces (May, Lever, Brown for those worrying about key tall stock at North and sprinklings of Melkshams and Langdons to solidify the side). We're going to have to do it without the early gifts the Dees got but one thing we've done well the last year or so is change the background team so that's a start.

I think we're going to go in once more and ask for some bringing talent of any age in. We've already had to take a step back because until we've spoken to the AFL we're preparing to remove two extra players from our rookie list as we've been given no instruction that will continue from last year (the extra two list spots). I also expect that will be it. It's surely a stressful scenario to have to go hat in hand on these things.

Oh, I don't believe it's realistic either. The AFL can't make quality players (I'm thinking restricted free agent types) join any team.

My point was, for North to become competitive in the next 3 years, you'd need to add half a dozen quality players in the 26 to 28 age bracket. Not keep going back to the draft.

2018, Brisbane finished 15th (after finishing 17th, 17th, 18th).

Instead of going to the draft, we traded in Lachie Neale, Jarryd Lyons, Lincoln McCarthy and Marcus Adams. And that's after adding Charlie Cameron and Luke Hodge the year before. While we had prime aged Daniel Rich, Dayne Zorko, Mitch Robinson, Allen Christensen and Steph Martin. So our 2019 team had a senior core of 11 players. Then we had another 11 players aged between 19 and 23 in the team, that included two second year players and 3 third year players.

We weren't that young a team.


If North are going to keep going back to the draft, you probably don't make the 8 for another 4 years.

 

[briztoon]

This is an interesting and counterintuitive assertion to me: what's your rationale?

That's not a rebuttal. I was providing actual figures to provide real context to your wishy-washy claims that there's bugger all kids interested in AFL in NSW. You're not disproving anything.

Did you mean you're retorting me? If so, I led that post by saying its obviously quite nuanced. eg. Having lots of high schools with good AFL programs no doubt helps Victoria.

Did you notice how many more kids, proportionally, play footy in NSW, than adults?

The future is looking pretty bright for AFL in NSW. Its time the Swans realised they don't need the leg up to continue to compete at the highest level of the comp.

Again, participation numbers mean sfa, if the talented kids are playing other sports.

The simple numbers coming through the draft don't bare out that NSW is catching up to a sustainable level.


Brisbane in recent years has been the outlier amongst the Northern clubs in terms of ability to attract quality RFA's via trades.

Sydney, Gold Coast and GWS are still losing more quality players back to the traditional states, than they are able to trade in.

The northern academies are there to provide a counter balance for the number of drafted players the northern clubs lose back Victoria, SA and WA.

10 years ago (2013) Brisbane lost 5 young players in one trade period back to Victoria and WA. Then lost another top 10 draftee two years after drafting him in 2013, to Victoria. Then lost a number 2 pick, two years after drafting him in 2015, back to Victoria.

No, we don't feel like giving up our academies just yet.

North's ladder position sucks for their supporters. But you're not down there because you've been continually raided of your young, talented players by other clubs.

 

[briztoon]

This is an interesting and counterintuitive assertion to me: what's your rationale?

Because more of the traditional AFL playing areas of NSW fall in to GWS's zones (and in the case of far north eastern NSW, fall in to Gold Coasts zones).

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Because it shows the value of the academies and what happens if that elite talent pathway isn't in place.

NSW PLAYERS ON AFL LISTS IN 2023 – NSW Australian Football History Society Inc

Because four states combined for the first time in their history won the champs? Pretty weak evidence.

It's...not? It was less per year than Hawthorns original offer, and has been exceeded by other contracts over its duration.

Went and saw Oppenheimer, great movie

• You keep arguing against things I didnt say, I'm not proposing abolishing of the academies and access after 20 is plenty good enough incentive to continue their academies. It's good enough incentive for everyone else running one and we are all at pick 40 at the moment
• I was like, Campbell Chesser, TOM HAWKINS? How many of these went to school in Vic. Every NSW player not on a NSW list is either really old, really shit, traded out of the club or about as from NSW as I am. While you dont yet have the production yet sSee next point), you have a monopoly on the talent you want which is a far cry from us
• I didnt argue they'd wouldnt be worse (and including NT is generous but technically correct) but winning the comp for the first time and having half the U16s squad is weak evidence the game has grown significantly and catching up? Ok then
• A $10 m contract is not the biggest contract ever? Please, show me a bigger one

 

[.Shotties.]

Went and saw Oppenheimer, great movie

• You keep arguing against things I didnt say, I'm not proposing abolishing of the academies and access after 20 is plenty good enough incentive to continue their academies. It's good enough incentive for everyone else running one and we are all at pick 40 at the moment

With due respect, the NGAs aren't like the Northern Academies. I feel like a broken record on this, but there is no WAFL, SANFL, or TAC Cup-level, hell, even decent school football here. The Northern Academies ARE the talent pathway here. What's been put in and what's required isn't the same.

• I was like, Campbell Chesser, TOM HAWKINS? How many of these went to school in Vic. Every NSW player not on a NSW list is either really old, really s**t, traded out of the club or about as from NSW as I am.

They fall under NSW state of origin rules. I feel like going from "Every NSW player is on NSW lists" to "I don't think these ones count" is progress though! It does highlight again, though, that players from this state don't return. We don't get the benefit or 'homesickness', and never have, predating the academies.

You guys in the last few years alone had O'Maera, Jackson, Clarke, Hogan, Lobb, Brad Hill and McCarthy ask to go home. Some didn't turn out, but at the point they were traded, most were rated highly enough.

• While you dont yet have the production yet sSee next point), you have a monopoly on the talent you want which is a far cry from us

• I didnt argue they'd wouldnt be worse (and including NT is generous but technically correct) but winning the comp for the first time and having half the U16s squad is weak evidence the game has grown significantly and catching up? Ok then

Yes, that a combined squad of four states winning their first-ever title with a large input from draftees from QLD is weak evidence that the game in NSW is catching up.

• A $10 m contract is not the biggest contract ever? Please, show me a bigger one

We're discussing the ability to recruit players. The relevant part of the contract is the per-year amounts, as that's what affects the recruiting. A 3 million dollar contract is different if it's over 5 or 3 years. Over the course of Franklin's contract, there have been players with higher per-year amounts than what Franklin was on in a given year.

I think we're just talking past each other at this point. You think the Swans are at a point where, if academies had their access reduced, the Swans would be on even footing with WA and SA teams. I disagree. In any one year, the Swans would probably be unlikely to have access to elite talent from NSW, let alone more than one in the first two rounds and don't and never have benefited from the go-home factor to the extent traditional states. If you want academy and recruiting access to be on the same footing as other states, I would want to see that we would be able to consistently access good, home-state talent at the sharp end of the draft.

 

[Dockeroo]

With due respect, the NGAs aren't like the Northern Academies. I feel like a broken record on this, but there is no WAFL, SANFL, or TAC Cup-level, hell, even decent school football here. The Northern Academies ARE the talent pathway here. What's been put in and what's required isn't the same.

They fall under NSW state of origin rules. I feel like going from "Every NSW player is on NSW lists" to "I don't think these ones count" is progress though! It does highlight again, though, that players from this state don't return. We don't get the benefit or 'homesickness', and never have, predating the academies.

You guys in the last few years alone had O'Maera, Jackson, Clarke, Hogan, and Lobb. You also had Brad Hill and McCarthy ask to go home. At the point these players were traded they weren't considered washed-up s**t-trucks like you claimed earlier.




Yes, that a combined squad of four states winning their first-ever title with a large input from draftees from QLD is weak evidence that the game in NSW is catching up.

We're discussing the ability to recruit players. The relevant part of the contract is the per-year amounts, as that's what affects the recruiting. A 3 million dollar contract is different if it's over 5 or 3 years. Over the course of Franklin's contract, there have been players with higher per-year amounts than what Franklin was on in a given year.

The two main elements of risk to a contract from a club POV are the yearly amount and the duration.
Getting a player for 9 years on a contract that size was unprecedented and was a massive risk by Sydney.
It’s the biggest deal in AFL history by far.