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

[sr36]

That's pretty much how national sporting competitions operate around the world.

London has more EPL teams than any other city/town in England, but they don't have more teams than the rest of the competition combined. Same with the NFL and NBA. The largest cities have more than one team, but not more than the rest of the competition.

I'm not sure why you quoted my post, as your post doesn't address anything I said. Lots of things other than travel are claimed to advantage the Vic clubs and disadvantage the Northern clubs - it's the justification for the academies (travel isn't the justification) - most of those things would become bigger factors if Vic fans were concentrated into 5 clubs - go home recruiting, blockbusters, financial opportunities for players, etc ...

EPL is a really silly comparison that goes against your argument. It's a comp with relegation and without equalisation measures. The number of clubs in London isn't designed, it's the product of market forces. If market forces decided how many AFL clubs were in each state, the ratio of Vic to QLD or NSW clubs would be a lot bigger than your suggested 5:2. It would also be a lot bigger than the current 5:1. If market forces dictated it, the ratio of clubs in WA would rise and they'd drop in QLD and NSW. They'd remain similar in Vic and SA. Vic is about 55% of the clubs and produces a very similar percentage of the players and has a similar percentage of the footy consuming fans. If you halve the number of clubs in vic and double their size - you're going to have to keep and probably increase the asistance for Northern clubs for them to be able to compete.

 

[briztoon]

I'm not sure why you quoted my post, as your post doesn't address anything I said. Lots of things other than travel are claimed to advantage the Vic clubs and disadvantage the Northern clubs - it's the justification for the academies (travel isn't the justification) - most of those things would become bigger factors if Vic fans were concentrated into 5 clubs - go home recruiting, blockbusters, financial opportunities for players, etc ...

EPL is a really silly comparison that goes against your argument. It's a comp with relegation and without equalisation measures. The number of clubs in London isn't designed, it's the product of market forces. If market forces decided how many AFL clubs were in each state, the ratio of Vic to QLD or NSW clubs would be a lot bigger than your suggested 5:2. It would also be a lot bigger than the current 5:1. If market forces dictated it, the ratio of clubs in WA would rise and they'd drop in QLD and NSW. They'd remain similar in Vic and SA. Vic is about 55% of the clubs and produces a very similar percentage of the players and has a similar percentage of the footy consuming fans. If you halve the number of clubs in vic and double their size - you're going to have to keep and probably increase the asistance for Northern clubs for them to be able to compete.

There’s a salary cap in place, and I hope there’s a limit on asa’s.

Part of what I’ve also said is the introduction of longer and more restrictive rookie contracts and free agency that protects clubs, similar to what’s in the NBA. Obviously these changes would extend beyond the first round.

 

[sr36]

There’s a salary cap in place, and I hope there’s a limit on asa’s.

Part of what I’ve also said is the introduction of longer and more restrictive rookie contracts and free agency that protects clubs, similar to what’s in the NBA. Obviously these changes would extend beyond the first round.

So to be clear, your idea around "fairness" is to increase travel for Vic teams by a couple of games, but still have it less than Non-Vic teams. And you want to achieve this by fairly killing clubs and fairly removing some workers rights - making it more like the US where the players have historically been traded like livestock without a say in where they work. Sounds fair to me.

 

[Vankri]

There’s a salary cap in place, and I hope there’s a limit on asa’s.

Part of what I’ve also said is the introduction of longer and more restrictive rookie contracts and free agency that protects clubs, similar to what’s in the NBA. Obviously these changes would extend beyond the first round.

I don’t think you know how the EPL works.

It’s an irrelevant comparison anyway because for one, the fixture is fair and neutral (H&A games against everyone) and for another, the travel factor is insignificant when you can just hope on a train or a private plane and be there in 30min.

There is absolutely no way to change the skew of the competition travel wise without ditching at least 3 Melbourne based teams, or adding 3 non Vic based teams spread across the country. Just like there’s no way to reduce the advantage MCG tenants gets in GFs against non MCG tenants unless you rotate the stadium. Anything short of that is just trying to make up for a natural geographic skew.

I personally think making it up by giving an absolute leg up in drafting talent and competitiveness to four teams in the league (qld and nsw teams) is ridiculous, unfair to sa and wa teams, and the wrong way to think about equalisation. In fact I think the AFL knows that and the ‘travel’ justification is just that, they are giving academies to northern teams because they care more about them being competitive than anyone else in the comp, for commercial reasons and to get an ROI. Look no further to the fact that Brisbane and Sydney still have academies despite having f/s, being long established and extremely successful teams in the past 25 years.

But in typical AFL fashion rather than address the real problem, you will get a rule and an idea on top of another (nga zones) on top of another (rebalance f/s matching system) to come up with a Frankenstein system no one is ultimately happy about.

 

[sr36]

I don’t think you know how the EPL works.

It’s an irrelevant comparison anyway because for one, the fixture is fair and neutral (H&A games against everyone) and for another, the travel factor is insignificant when you can just hope on a train or a private plane and be there in 30min.

There is absolutely no way to change the skew of the competition travel wise without ditching at least 3 Melbourne based teams, or adding 3 non Vic based teams spread across the country. Just like there’s no way to reduce the advantage MCG tenants gets in GFs against non MCG tenants unless you rotate the stadium. Anything short of that is just trying to make up for a natural geographic skew.

I personally think making it up by giving an absolute leg up in drafting talent and competitiveness to four teams in the league (qld and nsw teams) is ridiculous, unfair to sa and wa teams, and the wrong way to think about equalisation. In fact I think the AFL knows that and the ‘travel’ justification is just that, they are giving academies to northern teams because they care more about them being competitive than anyone else in the comp, for commercial reasons and to get an ROI. Look no further to the fact that Brisbane and Sydney still have academies despite having f/s, being long established and extremely successful teams in the past 25 years.

But in typical AFL fashion rather than address the real problem, you will get a rule and an idea on top of another (nga zones) on top of another (rebalance f/s matching system) to come up with a Frankenstein system no one is ultimately happy about.

Personally, I think the travel thing is blown out of proportion. No one considers the Hawks as disadvantaged due to travelling as often as the SA and WA teams.

But to me, if it is deemed a big disadvantage the answer is what Hawthorn are doing. Vic clubs play a couple of home games in another state at what becomes a secondary home ground. A few are already doing it and Collingwood seem to want to have a secondary home on the Gold Coast. And considering most Vic teams are forced to play a couple of games away from their home ground already, I don't think anyone would mind too much. You could level the travel pretty easily that way.

 

[Vankri]

Personally, I think the travel thing is blown out of proportion. No one considers the Hawks as disadvantaged due to travelling as often as the SA and WA teams.

But to me, if it is deemed a big disadvantage the answer is what Hawthorn are doing. Vic clubs play a couple of home games in another state at what becomes a secondary home ground. A few are already doing it and Collingwood seem to want to have a secondary home on the Gold Coast. And considering most Vic teams are forced to play a couple of games away from their home ground already, I don't think anyone would mind too much. You could level the travel pretty easily that way.

Overblown maybe but being fair to say West Coast and Freo, yes it is a strong advantage to them when they welcome teams travellings 3-4hrs on a plane and adapting to the timezone but equally every second week they have to hop on a plane and tour the country. Since there are so many vic based teams naturally Vic teams have more stability in their schedules, travel time etc. Yes they do give up their home ground advantage against some teams but not all of them since I’m sure you’d agree the Pies for examples much rather play at the G than Marvel.

I still think the GF at the G is the biggest and most egregious bias in the game. Once the Brisbane stadium is built logic should dictate the game should rotate across stadiums even if it’s something like 3y G 1y Optus 1y Brisbane to represent the geographic spread of the comp (SA misses out until they upgrade the stadium so it looks like it can host a GF and Sydney gave up on Homebush and has nothing that’s of standard).

 

[sr36]

Overblown maybe but being fair to say West Coast and Freo, yes it is a strong advantage to them when they welcome teams travellings 3-4hrs on a plane and adapting to the timezone but equally every second week they have to hop on a plane and tour the country. Since there are so many vic based teams naturally Vic teams have more stability in their schedules, travel time etc. Yes they do give up their home ground advantage against some teams but not all of them since I’m sure you’d agree the Pies for examples much rather play at the G than Marvel.

I still think the GF at the G is the biggest and most egregious bias in the game. Once the Brisbane stadium is built logic should dictate the game should rotate across stadiums even if it’s something like 3y G 1y Optus 1y Brisbane to represent the geographic spread of the comp (SA misses out until they upgrade the stadium so it looks like it can host a GF and Sydney gave up on Homebush and has nothing that’s of standard).

Yeah WA is a whole different conversation in terms of travel. I don't know why they don't do double up away games and set up a base to stay for the week to reduce their flying. That's the only real way of keeping home and away and reducing that disadvantage.

I'd prefer a Northern Academy well over the MCG grannie. Academies help you every game every year, rather than in one game once a decade.

 

[briztoon]

I personally think making it up by giving an absolute leg up in drafting talent and competitiveness to four teams in the league (qld and nsw teams) is ridiculous, unfair to sa and wa teams, and the wrong way to think about equalisation. In fact I think the AFL knows that and the ‘travel’ justification is just that, they are giving academies to northern teams because they care more about them being competitive than anyone else in the comp, for commercial reasons and to get an ROI. Look no further to the fact that Brisbane and Sydney still have academies despite having f/s, being long established and extremely successful teams in the past 25 years.

But in typical AFL fashion rather than address the real problem, you will get a rule and an idea on top of another (nga zones) on top of another (rebalance f/s matching system) to come up with a Frankenstein system no one is ultimately happy about.

That's what I have said multiple times over the years.

 

[sydney_gws]

I think I finally know how to fix this.
Clubs pay loadings, not discounts.
Loading is =16- draft pick. So a bid on 1 is 15% loading. Pick 11 is 16-11 so 5% loading.
Picks 21 onwards a 5% discount.
Clubs are allowed 2 picks in 10 years where they can override the loading and get a 5% discount instead.

 

[dynasty_Richmond]

I don’t understand why afl just run all northern academy. You can’t tell me these kids are only gonna play afl because they stay in their own states to play. If they get drafted to interstate club there is always go home factor like the vic boys.

I would get rid of all academy’s link to clubs and make father son eligibility 200 games.

 

[sydney_gws]

I don’t understand why afl just run all northern academy. You can’t tell me these kids are only gonna play afl because they stay in their own states to play. If they get drafted to interstate club there is always go home factor like the vic boys.

I would get rid of all academy’s link to clubs and make father son eligibility 200 games.

I think a link to a club does help a bit. But it is there as gws/ gold coast struggle to retain players, and AFL want to artificially help Lions, Swans for tv revenue reasons.
As I said earlier, make clubs pay loadings, perhaps only allow 5 academy matches in a 5 year period. The clubs can stop double dipping and use own draft picks to select academy players, not just pay the minimum possible when forced to by another club.

 

[Elixuh]

I don’t understand why afl just run all northern academy. You can’t tell me these kids are only gonna play afl because they stay in their own states to play. If they get drafted to interstate club there is always go home factor like the vic boys.

I would get rid of all academy’s link to clubs and make father son eligibility 200 games.

They don’t want to run it and it failed miserably the last time they tried.

 

[Elixuh]

I’m sure the pies won’t complain

 

[Groo2]

Lots of things other than travel are claimed to advantage the Vic clubs and disadvantage the Northern clubs - it's the justification for the academies (travel isn't the justification)

Sorry just reading this thread and have to pull you up on this.

If you want to think of it as Us (being the northern clubs) v Them. Them is actually the NRL, not the Victorian clubs.

The main justification of northern academies is to provide a pathway to AFL that can compete with other sports- Specifically NRL. A young kid if any good at both league and Aussie rules, if choosing League (and if any good) can have a direct pathway to the Broncos for example and stay in Qld. The Northern academies is the best way the AFL can provide something similar.

It’s about growing the overall talent pool and helping to combat the go home factor, which is a real thing if only a small percentage of the list is home grown.


The other alternative is extra salary cap space

 

[sr36]

Sorry just reading this thread and have to pull you up on this.

If you want to think of it as Us (being the northern clubs) v Them. Them is actually the NRL, not the Victorian clubs.

The main justification of northern academies is to provide a pathway to AFL that can compete with other sports- Specifically NRL. A young kid if any good at both league and Aussie rules, if choosing League (and if any good) can have a direct pathway to the Broncos for example and stay in Qld. The Northern academies is the best way the AFL can provide something similar.

It’s about growing the overall talent pool and helping to combat the go home factor, which is a real thing if only a small percentage of the list is home grown.


The other alternative is extra salary cap space

I don't disagree with you and your final paragraph actually suggests you agree with me.

Academies are fantastic for growing the game and the number of players and supporter base up North to help compete with other sports.

The rules around drafting of academy players benefits Northern teams and that's justified by many the way you've done with pointing to the go home factor. Other recruiting advantages for big Vic clubs vs Northern teams include the attraction of playing in blockbuster games and extra non-footy financial opportunities due to all the extra media exposure (Northern clubs are starting to draw a few players who want out of the bubble and this is likely to grow).

The bit you quoted of mine was in response to a post saying halving the number of clubs in Vic would level things up. And it would reduce the travel inequality a bit, but on the flipside, there'd be half the Vic clubs competing for go home Vic kids. The surviving Vic clubs would all become much bigger, making every Vic vs Vic game a blockbuster thus increasing Vic blockbusters. And it would increase financial opportunities for Vic players as there'd be less players competing for them and more fans of each surviving club.

It would benefit the surviving Vic teams and make them bigger and stronger with more recruiting pull and less competition for it. It wouldn't benefit Northern or Western teams at all. They'd actually travel slightly more as they'd do more long hauls to Perth or from Perth to Qld.

 

[HFF]

I’m sure the pies won’t complain

He back tracked very hard there Ralphy as what he reported was not true.

A few posters forced him to do a bit mor research as his claims were incorrect about the player not having been involved in the NGA stuff at all, when in fact he had been.
He then changed it to “hasn’t trained with the senior team” yet.

So there is no quirk just misinformation on his part.

 

[Scotland]

They don’t want to run it and it failed miserably the last time they tried.

This is a convenient argument that gets trotted out.

Were the same resources allocated? Were the same pathways in place? Is part of the attraction to NSW/ACT/Qld kids that they can play professionally for the club their academy is linked to or not?

Back in the day players used to come through the NSW/ACT Rams. Some players were eligible for AFL scholarships and used to end up as rookie list selections. Tex Walker, Luke Breust among them. Lenny Hayes, both McVeighs, Nick Davis, Craig Bolton, Cam Mooney all came through the Rams... are the academies producing a lot more players, or just funnelling them into specific recruiting zones?

 

[briztoon]

I don’t understand why afl just run all northern academy. You can’t tell me these kids are only gonna play afl because they stay in their own states to play. If they get drafted to interstate club there is always go home factor like the vic boys.

I would get rid of all academy’s link to clubs and make father son eligibility 200 games.

NRL clubs basically recruit from their zones, and can poach highly rated kids from outside their normal recruiting areas. Kids growing up in a clubs zone have a clear pathway from U6's all the way to the NRL senior teams. These kids grow up supporting their club, playing in junior teams. NRL clubs also have partnerships with certain schools tied to their academies, each school runs it's own Rugby League academy programs developed in conjunction with the NRL club.

Many of the best kids from U16 onwards get signing bonuses, typically around $10k per year, as well free medical and dental through their academy club. Beyond this, if they are invited to preseason training, they earn $1200 per week. And if they are very, very good, can sign for the U20 team on a professional contract.

So yeah, many of these kids, if they are good enough, won't even consider AFL. Why would you, when you don't have to leave home.

There are no rookie contracts. Players can sign for the highest amount they can go for.

Kaylen Ponga is the best example I can provide.

He was in the Brisbane Bronco's academy as a junior (he also flirted with the Brisbane Lions academy, but was never serious about it). At age 15, the North Queensland Cowboys (Townsville) signed him to his first senior (U20) contract in 2013, minimum wage on this contract is $60k a year, seeing as he had 6 NRL clubs chasing him, I'm pretty sure he signed for significantly more. At age 18, he was poached by the Newcastle Knights on a 4 year, $3.6 million contract. Near the end of this contract, he activated an extension clause and from 2023 until 2027, on $1.4 million per year.

Kid probably made $500k before he turned 18. Made $4m by the time he was 22, and will make $10m before he turns 30. He signs his next contract when he's 29.

If you're in the very elite group of the junior academies, why would you switch to AFL when you can make way more money. You my not stay in your home town, but you get to pick where you go from any age.

 

[Profop]

Does the skillset for AFL and NRL really overlap all that much? I would have thought it’s a different sort of athlete that excel in each sport (putting aside the real freak athletes that are amazing at everything)

I still don’t have an issue with northern academies because they are the easiest way to raise the playing standards in the AFL

 

[sydney_gws]

NRL clubs basically recruit from their zones, and can poach highly rated kids from outside their normal recruiting areas. Kids growing up in a clubs zone have a clear pathway from U6's all the way to the NRL senior teams. These kids grow up supporting their club, playing in junior teams. NRL clubs also have partnerships with certain schools tied to their academies, each school runs it's own Rugby League academy programs developed in conjunction with the NRL club.

Many of the best kids from U16 onwards get signing bonuses, typically around $10k per year, as well free medical and dental through their academy club. Beyond this, if they are invited to preseason training, they earn $1200 per week. And if they are very, very good, can sign for the U20 team on a professional contract.

So yeah, many of these kids, if they are good enough, won't even consider AFL. Why would you, when you don't have to leave home.

There are no rookie contracts. Players can sign for the highest amount they can go for.

Kaylen Ponga is the best example I can provide.

He was in the Brisbane Bronco's academy as a junior (he also flirted with the Brisbane Lions academy, but was never serious about it). At age 15, the North Queensland Cowboys (Townsville) signed him to his first senior (U20) contract in 2013, minimum wage on this contract is $60k a year, seeing as he had 6 NRL clubs chasing him, I'm pretty sure he signed for significantly more. At age 18, he was poached by the Newcastle Knights on a 4 year, $3.6 million contract. Near the end of this contract, he activated an extension clause and from 2023 until 2027, on $1.4 million per year.

Kid probably made $500k before he turned 18. Made $4m by the time he was 22, and will make $10m before he turns 30. He signs his next contract when he's 29.

If you're in the very elite group of the junior academies, why would you switch to AFL when you can make way more money. You my not stay in your home town, but you get to pick where you go from any age.

Players seriously considering both league and AFL are very rare, less than 5%, probably about 1%.
I think limit academy/father-son matches to 6 in 5 years, 10% loading applies, you get 2 in 5 years where you reduce the loading to 5% discount.
Clubs can take more academy players by just selecting them with their own picks.

 

[Bald]

He back tracked very hard there Ralphy as what he reported was not true.

A few posters forced him to do a bit mor research as his claims were incorrect about the player not having been involved in the NGA stuff at all, when in fact he had been.
He then changed it to “hasn’t trained with the senior team” yet.

So there is no quirk just misinformation on his part.

He actually responded to me doubling down. He's a bit of a goof.

 

[GenericUsername202]

Academies are staying. And we will always get some form of a discount. Anyone who thinks otherwise are delusional.

 

[Taylor]

I think the discount is fine, but the player should be a free agent for life every time they come out of contract so retention pressure over their career appropriately matches the discount that brought them into the program. The better the player, the longer their career and the more opposition clubs will want to extract them.

To sell the point the AFL, it will mean Victorian clubs don't have to give up any picks to bring talent from academy teams to Victoria and the AFL can push out compensation picks to bolster the academy club in return.

 

[My_Username]

I think the discount is fine, but the player should be a free agent for life every time they come out of contract so retention pressure over their career appropriately matches the discount that brought them into the program. The better the player, the longer their career and the more opposition clubs will want to extract them.

To sell the point the AFL, it will mean Victorian clubs don't have to give up any picks to bring talent from academy teams to Victoria and the AFL can push out compensation picks to bolster the academy club in return.

Interesting solution, but I think the AFL (especially the clubs) wont want to expand FA at all.

The AFLPA will take any loosening of FA qualification as a starting point to expanding it across the board, and the league wont want to give them that opening.

 

[Kangaroosters]

If Cooper Duff-Tytler’s father was born 4 weeks earlier - he’d qualify as an NGA for the Bombers.

Would have added to the pool of academy tied first round players.

Elaborate? What does dads age have to do with the process?