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

[LukeParkerno1]

Which has been my position the entire time.

Been more than happy so long as it’s COMPLETELY open. That means no F/S no academy and no NGA. You can trade up to get the talents if need be or wait till their contract goes

 

[Purple Suit]

Every team knew Cerra was a flight risk, pre-draft. But you still chose him.

If players are constantly leaving, there's obviously an issue somewhere with the team or club.

Just like Brisbane had during the 2010-2016 years? You got rewarded with a priority pick as well I believe to help you address it.

Freo’s main issue has been Colin Young but he’s running out of players to demand a trade.

I don’t want any picks etc, I think the same needs to apply to Gold Coast & any other team.

 

[briztoon]

Just like Brisbane had during the 2010-2016 years? You got rewarded with a priority pick as well I believe to help you address it.

Freo’s main issue has been Colin Young but he’s running out of players to demand a trade.

I don’t want any picks etc, I think the same needs to apply to Gold Coast & any other team.

We were are basket case. Leigh Matthews publicly said the club was broken.

It took Swan, Noble and Fagan being parachuted in by the AFL to right us. That was 9 years ago.

Yes, we received an end of first round compensation pick, and had to trade it.

 

[sr36]

Why? Freo have lost more gun players than any other team recently but no one says we should get a hand out.

You've also poached lots too though.

 

[sr36]

I don't think anyone has done it recently outside of teams benefiting significantly from father sons and academy players.

A few one season wonders, but nothing long term established. Carlton the closest and they looked really out of their depth in the prelim and should have been flogged by Melbourne who had 8 more scoring shots. I don't think they ever looked like contenders. Fremantle upper mid table, Adelaide haven't been able to, Saints haven't been able to, North.

The teams that have had success in the last ten years either recruited the vast majority of their talent before the state of things got bad or have be the beneficiates.

Winning is not just about the list. It's also about getting off field stuff right too. Melbourne and Carlton have had good enough top end players to have had much stronger eras than they've had. Freo have put together a bloody good list and should be challenging this year without the help of draft concessions. Hawthorn too.

In terms of your morality angle, I don't see how a team getting a star due to having been hopeless is more moral than getting one due to the luck of F.S.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I don't think anyone has done it recently outside of teams benefiting significantly from father sons and academy players.

A few one season wonders, but nothing long term established. Carlton the closest and they looked really out of their depth in the prelim and should have been flogged by Melbourne who had 8 more scoring shots. I don't think they ever looked like contenders. Fremantle upper mid table, Adelaide haven't been able to, Saints haven't been able to, North.

The teams that have had success in the last ten years either recruited the vast majority of their talent before the state of things got bad or have be the beneficiates.

Not entirely. While in general that's happened Geelong won a flag in 2022 with nearly half the side being either late picks/rookies or trades/FAs so it can be done.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Winning is not just about the list. It's also about getting off field stuff right too. Melbourne and Carlton have had good enough top end players to have had much stronger eras than they've had. Freo have put together a bloody good list and should be challenging this year without the help of draft concessions. Hawthorn too.

In terms of your morality angle, I don't see how a team getting a star due to having been hopeless is more moral than getting one due to the luck of F.S.

The draft itself is morally based. Why is structured the way it is? As an equalization measure, which is founded in fairness.
You can make all the right choices over your career as a recruiter, a club, a playing group and be ****ed because some team like Collingwood that made horrendous choices with Ned Guy, can be gifted a superstar.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Not entirely. While in general that's happened Geelong won a flag in 2022 with nearly half the side being either late picks/rookies or trades/FAs so it can be done.

Geelong won because Dangerfield and Cameron went there, partially because of location, but I doubt that move would happen if Geelong were a basket case so it's partially because of a successful era, which was founded by the best father son run a team has ever had, which still included a generational father son.

Even if F/S it's only a tiny element, it's not repeatable. None in the history of the game has trade in two players the caliber of Dangerfield and Cameron inside 5 years of each other. It's not a basis for emulation. You can't be like hey North, forget the draft, just trade in Daicos and Darcy.

 

[sr36]

The draft itself is morally based. Why is structured the way it is? As an equalization measure, which is founded in fairness.
You can make all the right choices over your career as a recruiter, a club, a playing group and be ****ed because some team like Collingwood that made horrendous choices with Ned Guy, can be gifted a superstar.

Your last sentence undermines your argument. The draft is designed so that teams who make horrendous decisions and become crap are gifted stars.

I'm all for the draft, but It'd call it equalisation based rather than being moral. Not sure if making the best kids go to the worst teams or rewarding incompetence is based on morality - it's a system to make the comp more even and thus more entertaining.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Geelong won because Dangerfield and Cameron went there, partially because of location, but I doubt that move would happen if Geelong were a basket case so it's partially because of a successful era, which was founded by the best father son run a team has ever had, which still included a generational father son.

Even if F/S it's only a tiny element, it's not repeatable. None in the history of the game has trade in two players the caliber of Dangerfield and Cameron inside 3 years of each other. It's not a basis for emulation.

I don't disagree Cameron and dangerfield and Hawkins were crucial but there's still a wider point here that you're missing if you look at that side. (For the purposes of this I class any pick outside the first 2 rounds as a late pick)
For example out of the 23
Henry-rookie that everyone passed on
Z Guthrie-rookie (and the size of a 12yo auskicker when we took him)
Close-rookie as an overeager that everyone passed on
Stengle-DFA-reasons well known
Tuohy-cat b/trade
Stanley-trade (and frankly wasn't that good at the time we traded him in)
Oconnor-Cat B
Miers-late pick that almost everyone passed on (even after his TAC GF)
Smith-FA as a 31yo
Bews-yes he was FS but basically the last pick in his draft that no one bid on
Blicavs-cat b steeplechase
Rohan-trade late pick (61)
Atkins-rookie at 23 after years in the vfl
That's 12 out of 23 some that played crucial roles that year that were either rookie listed originally or trades for very little that had nothing to do with dangerfield or Cameron.

I technically could have included Stewart but I didn't as he was taken in the 2nd round even though he was 23 and mature age.
Even the 2 emergencies in ceglar and menegola were previously delisted players.

If you look at that side it only had 9 first round picks in it (I'm including Cameron and Hawkins in that despite them not technically being r1s) in selwood Cameron Hawkins dangerfield de koning c Guthrie Smith rohan and parfitt. But out of that list 2 were brought in from other clubs for almost nothing (Smith and rohan) one was the sub and no longer is on a list (parfitt).

So my point was more you don't need a side stacked with r1s and you can get around the issues in the draft you speak of. But your recruiting to find rookies and alternative pathway players needs to be great, you need to have a good development program and good culture to attract players. Every club could do this if they make the right investments.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Your last sentence undermines your argument. The draft is designed so that teams who make horrendous decisions and become crap are gifted stars.

I'm all for the draft, but It'd call it equalisation based rather than being moral. Not sure if making the best kids go to the worst teams or rewarding incompetence is based on morality - it's a system to make the comp more even and thus more entertaining.

It doesn't, it undermines your argument that it's about getting off field right too. In the years before your flag, you had racism scandal, bad player behavior, poor salary cap management, poor trading and it didn't hamper you at all.

If the teams who finished down the bottom, traded away their draft picks and still got to take the first picks in the draft, you would say it's unfair. Which is exactly what happened.

Equalization is morality. Having the same teams win because they are rich or had past success is no way to run a competition. It maps to real world politics. There are billions of people world wide who share that perspective.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I don't disagree Cameron and dangerfield and Hawkins were crucial but there's still a wider point here that you're missing if you look at that side. (For the purposes of this I class any pick outside the first 2 rounds as a late pick)
For example out of the 23
Henry-rookie that everyone passed on
Z Guthrie-rookie (and the size of a 12yo auskicker when we took him)
Close-rookie as an overeager that everyone passed on
Stengle-DFA-reasons well known
Tuohy-cat b/trade
Stanley-trade (and frankly wasn't that good at the time we traded him in)
Oconnor-Cat B
Miers-late pick that almost everyone passed on (even after his TAC GF)
Smith-FA as a 31yo
Bews-yes he was FS but basically the last pick in his draft that no one bid on
Blicavs-cat b steeplechase
Rohan-trade late pick (61)
Atkins-rookie at 23 after years in the vfl
That's 12 out of 23 some that played crucial roles that year that were either rookie listed originally or trades for very little that had nothing to do with dangerfield or Cameron.

I technically could have included Stewart but I didn't as he was taken in the 2nd round even though he was 23 and mature age.
Even the 2 emergencies in ceglar and menegola were previously delisted players.

If you look at that side it only had 9 first round picks in it (I'm including Cameron and Hawkins in that despite them not technically being r1s) in selwood Cameron Hawkins dangerfield de koning c Guthrie Smith rohan and parfitt. But out of that list 2 were brought in from other clubs for almost nothing (Smith and rohan) one was the sub and no longer is on a list (parfitt).

So my point was more you don't need a side stacked with r1s and you can get around the issues in the draft you speak of. But your recruiting to find rookies and alternative pathway players needs to be great, you need to have a good development program and good culture to attract players. Every club could do this if they make the right investments.

You don’t need to but Hawkins may have been pick 1, Cameron probably would’ve been pick 1, Selwood 7 and Dangerfield pick 10. Those plus Stewart were what that side was built around.
You don’t need a stack of top end picks but history tells us you need the talent that the top end of the draft possesses.

 

[sr36]

It doesn't, it undermines your argument that it's about getting off field right too. In the years before your flag, you had racism scandal, bad player behavior, poor salary cap management, poor trading and it didn't hamper you at all.

If the teams who finished down the bottom, traded away their draft picks and still got to take the first picks in the draft, you would say it's unfair. Which is exactly what happened.

Equalization is morality. Having the same teams win because they are rich or had past success is no way to run a competition. It maps to real world politics. There are billions of people world wide who share that perspective.

It does undermine your argument - you said that you shouldn't get gifted a star if you make horrendous decisions - but that's exactly what the draft is designed to do.

The bolded does actually occur a bit even without concessions - but over a few years rather than 1. Eg. WCE trade out early picks to have a crack at flags, when the team is burnt out they hit the bottom, they then get early picks. It's the moral equivalent of maxing out your credit card and then being given a government handout because your debt is impacting you.

Equality and fairness aren't the same thing. The draft is great as equality makes the league better. I don't particularly like the equality factor of the draft being reduced by the various draft concessions. But also think the academies are important for growing the game and like the romance of a Daicos playing for Colligwood, a Silvagni playing for Carlton, etc.. Just got to get the price right to match.

 

[sydney_gws]

The draft itself is morally based. Why is structured the way it is? As an equalization measure, which is founded in fairness.
You can make all the right choices over your career as a recruiter, a club, a playing group and be ****ed because some team like Collingwood that made horrendous choices with Ned Guy, can be gifted a superstar.

What did Ned Guy actually do?
I think probably stuffed up the spreadsheet with player salaries, didn't add them all up properly.
How did he end up at AFL HQ then? Do they reward mediocrity there?

 

[Dr Tigris]

What did Ned Guy actually do?
I think probably stuffed up the spreadsheet with player salaries, didn't add them all up properly.
How did he end up at AFL HQ then? Do they reward mediocrity there?

Yes

 

[Red Black and Blue]

It does undermine your argument - you said that you shouldn't get gifted a star if you make horrendous decisions - but that's exactly what the draft is designed to do.

The bolded does actually occur a bit even without concessions - but over a few years rather than 1. Eg. WCE trade out early picks to have a crack at flags, when the team is burnt out they hit the bottom, they then get early picks. It's the moral equivalent of maxing out your credit card and then being given a government handout because your debt is impacting you.

Equality and fairness aren't the same thing. The draft is great as equality makes the league better. I don't particularly like the equality factor of the draft being reduced by the various draft concessions. But also think the academies are important for growing the game and like the romance of a Daicos playing for Colligwood, a Silvagni playing for Carlton, etc.. Just got to get the price right to match.

Depends on the time lines, you could make all the right decisions given your teams individual context and still be dictated to by events that occurred generations ago, like an explayer ****ing a woman 19 years ago, that will generate a 1st to 18th hierarchy none the less.

My whole point being factors of talent acquisition external to the normal draft order are dictating the actual draft in a way that prevents bottom to top rising in an acceptable time frame.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

What did Ned Guy actually do?
I think probably stuffed up the spreadsheet with player salaries, didn't add them all up properly.
How did he end up at AFL HQ then? Do they reward mediocrity there?

As well as trading pick 3 for essentially Liam McMahon and Caleb Poulter.

 

[Stamos]

Rule tweak to help Swans, Pie to wait, clubs target basketballer

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

A previous rule, introduced in 2017, limited top four clubs to matching only one Academy bid inside the top 20 picks and prevented top eight clubs from matching no more than two Academy bids inside the top 20 selections.

However, that rule was removed by the AFL heading into the 2025 season, which opens the door for Sydney to gain access to the gun Academy trio regardless of its final ladder position if they hold enough picks under the points system.

 

[mpal6]

Rule tweak to help Swans, Pie to wait, clubs target basketballer

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

Well, that's dumb from AFL. For the first time they would've seen top talents going to other clubs and bring a bit of "everyone benefitting from the system" to the equation. Shame.

 

[Stamos]

Well, that's dumb from AFL. For the first time they would've seen top talents going to other clubs and bring a bit of "everyone benefitting from the system" to the equation. Shame.

I don't think so.
The limits were completely arbitrary. What happens if a club has a really good crop of kids in a year they do well, and then nobody in the next few years when they miss finals?

It is so much harder to bring in multiple top draftees with the new DVI.
So clubs should be allowed to do it, but they're going to have to give something up to get the points.
Unlike the Suns in 2023.

 

[GC2015]

Well, that's dumb from AFL. For the first time they would've seen top talents going to other clubs and bring a bit of "everyone benefitting from the system" to the equation. Shame.

It's important to point out that no such limitation existed with the F/S rule and we saw Brisbane take advantage of that in 2022 when they matched two top 12 bids for F/S players Will Ashcroft and Jaspa Fletcher after playing in a prelim a month earlier. Around this time last year it looked like Carlton were going to find themselves in a similar scenario with the Camporeale twins looking like first round picks after the Blues made a prelim in 2023. It didn't work out that way for Carlton, but when the AFL were reviewing the rules it was becoming obvious that this was a distinction between the F/S and academy bidding rules that didn't really make sense.

I believe the F/S and academy bidding rules are exactly the same now. Hypothetically, a club could have 3-4 first round F/S and/or academy picks come through in the same year and there's no reason why they can't match bids for all of them, assuming they have accumulated enough points to do so. Port Adelaide will likely be the first ones to test this out in 2027 when Rodan (F/S), Salopek (F/S) and Pilot (NGA) all come through in the same draft class and it looks like they are all considered likely first round picks as of right now.

 

[Dogflogger]

Well, that's dumb from AFL. For the first time they would've seen top talents going to other clubs and bring a bit of "everyone benefitting from the system" to the equation. Shame.

I thought it was funny when they changed the NGA rules for 2 years, I guess the northern clubs didn't have many lined up in that period. but thank god Mac Andrew didn't make it to Melbourne or Cam Mckenzie to Saints. would have thrown the whole league outta whack.

 

[mpal6]

It's important to point out that no such limitation existed with the F/S rule and we saw Brisbane take advantage of that in 2022 when they matched two top 12 bids for F/S players Will Ashcroft and Jaspa Fletcher after playing in a prelim a month earlier. Around this time last year it looked like Carlton were going to find themselves in a similar scenario with the Camporeale twins looking like first round picks after the Blues made a prelim in 2023. It didn't work out that way for Carlton, but when the AFL were reviewing the rules it was becoming obvious that this was a distinction between the F/S and academy bidding rules that didn't really make sense.

I believe the F/S and academy bidding rules are exactly the same now. Hypothetically, a club could have 3-4 first round F/S and/or academy picks come through in the same year and there's no reason why they can't match bids for all of them, assuming they have accumulated enough points to do so. Port Adelaide will likely be the first ones to test this out in 2027 when Rodan (F/S), Salopek (F/S) and Pilot (NGA) all come through in the same draft class and it looks like they are all considered likely first round picks as of right now.

While I get the argument of Father Son vs Academy rules, the reality is academy production line is bound to grow much longer due to scale and reach its having across the board. Look at your own club, you are at a stage of breaking through for the first finals campaign and list is maturing to the point that you can't hang on to all those upcoming academy players anyway.
It was a great PR opportunity for AFL to say game's growing, Gold Coast are not hanging on to all players when they are finals ready, everyone's benefiting from the talent pool and calm the farm to those who have been whinging about academy for a long time.
It also means if GC hits a rut and need to lean on more academy players - there will always be the sampleset years to showcase - years where you were good and academy players got drafted elsewhere. It's a strategic thing to let everyone have a win and at the same time keep academy going which is a need for northern clubs. AFL is too short-sighted to think this way.

 

[GC2015]

While I get the argument of Father Son vs Academy rules, the reality is academy production line is bound to grow much longer due to scale and reach its having across the board. Look at your own club, you are at a stage of breaking through for the first finals campaign and list is maturing to the point that you can't hang on to all those upcoming academy players anyway.
It was a great PR opportunity for AFL to say game's growing, Gold Coast are not hanging on to all players when they are finals ready, everyone's benefiting from the talent pool and calm the farm to those who have been whinging about academy for a long time.
It also means if GC hits a rut and need to lean on more academy players - there will always be the sampleset years to showcase - years where you were good and academy players got drafted elsewhere. It's a strategic thing to let everyone have a win and at the same time keep academy going which is a need for northern clubs. AFL is too short-sighted to think this way.

The father-son rule is really designed to create generational connections to a specific club and there's a generational aspect to the academy as well. You place these kids in the academies and depending on their background, they either adopt Aussie rules as their preferred sport and begin supporting the northern club OR if they were already really into footy (that's the minority of these northern academy kids) then they adopt the northern club as their second team and perhaps even their first team one day in the future. That creates a new generation of supporters for the northern clubs/AFL that wouldn't have previously been possible and it flows into the next generation when their kids get to that age. It's literally a multi-generational conversion tool for the AFL because most of these academy kids aren't going to make it to the AFL, but they will always have those teenage memories of participating in the academy and will likely continue to follow footy to some degree for the rest of their life.

Two current great examples of this is one of the most revered NRL players of all time in Cam Smith having his daughter participate in the Suns academy and Gold Coast Titans' legend Mark Minichiello having his son participate in the Suns academy. If both of these kids end up making it to the AFL/AFLW then we've secured two potentially very talented juniors from rugby league backgrounds and it's proof that we're making serious inroads into growing the game up here. However, even if they don't make it, we've still likely created footy fans from families that would've previously never had a good reason to get into footy and almost definitely would've focused on their roots in rugby league instead. Plus, their kids will likely also give footy a go in 10-20 years from now. It keeps flowing and growing as the years go by and that's the real benefit for the AFL when it comes to the academies.

 

[sr36]

The father-son rule is really designed to create generational connections to a specific club and there's a generational aspect to the academy as well. You place these kids in the academies and depending on their background, they either adopt Aussie rules as their preferred sport and begin supporting the northern club OR if they were already really into footy (that's the minority of these northern academy kids) then they adopt the northern club as their second team and perhaps even their first team one day in the future. That creates a new generation of supporters for the northern clubs/AFL that wouldn't have previously been possible and it flows into the next generation when their kids get to that age. It's literally a multi-generational conversion tool for the AFL because most of these academy kids aren't going to make it to the AFL, but they will always have those teenage memories of participating in the academy and will likely continue to follow footy to some degree for the rest of their life.

Two current great examples of this is one of the most revered NRL players of all time in Cam Smith having his daughter participate in the Suns academy and Gold Coast Titans' legend Mark Minichiello having his son participate in the Suns academy. If both of these kids end up making it to the AFL/AFLW then we've secured two potentially very talented juniors from rugby league backgrounds and it's proof that we're making serious inroads into growing the game up here. However, even if they don't make it, we've still likely created footy fans from families that would've previously never had a good reason to get into footy and almost definitely would've focused on their roots in rugby league instead. Plus, their kids will likely also give footy a go in 10-20 years from now. It keeps flowing and growing as the years go by and that's the real benefit for the AFL when it comes to the academies.

Yeah, it's as much about creating a fan base as producing players. It's why you need the academies to be club rather than AFL run. It's a massive leg up though.