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

[Elixuh]

Just need to wait and see how the bidding changes play out this year.

In theory, if clubs have to pay a 'fair' price then that should resolve most of the fairness issues.

The AFL should have made these changes 10 years ago.

The thing that pisses me off is where is the leadership from the AFL. Why do they just let St Kilda's BS fester?!

For the same reason the US government doesn’t respond to people who claim the government has been taken over by shape shifting reptilians who came from under the earths crust.

You don’t give crackpots and hacks any attention or air. They’re not even worth addressing publicly. The GWS ceo making any comment was enough of a mistake.

What’s worth more to the AFL - strengthening the talent pool while also trying to introduce new teams to the comp + ensuring the northern clubs have some foundation and advantage against the structural advantages other vfl teams have had for decades + a host of other cost related concerns which I cbf detailing…I mean gcs aren’t functional and are costing the afl squillions, do we really think the afl will remove their academy anytime soon?

OR

Giving any credence to what St Kilda says.

 

[FootyLad0]

We have a salary structure in place. Literally every player on our list takes a pay cut to keep everyone together.

No one player has been on a million a year deal yet.

That’s good they have that established, then I wonder why people think the Cats are doing anything different?
They’ve been well vocal about doing so since the Chapman, Bartel, Ling, Mooney days etc.

Hawks did it in the 2010’s. Great clubs can get guys to buy in and sacrifice for the betterment of the team.

Don’t understand why people are complaining about Northern Academies.
Just change the price to pay to bid match is the way to do it,
Same with NGA’s and Father Son and it should be all good.

My idea has always been Pick within 10 places must be used to bid match on said player. Get rid of points rubbish.
Solves problems right there, don’t have the pick required?
Tough luck, pay up or lose it.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

What I find strange is these weird, meta-debates about the whole system, rather than just toning down the strength of the advantage.

Currently you only have to pay 80% of the points of a bid. Give the teams less of an advantage if its 90%.

 

[Ashman23]

What I find strange is these weird, meta-debates about the whole system, rather than just toning down the strength of the advantage.

Currently you only have to pay 80% of the points of a bid. Give the teams less of an advantage if its 90%.

It's been said before regarding the points discount. The only benefit you should get is the actual opportunity to match that bid.

 

[Mat Mann]

What I find strange is these weird, meta-debates about the whole system, rather than just toning down the strength of the advantage.

Currently you only have to pay 80% of the points of a bid. Give the teams less of an advantage if its 90%.

Changes were already approved in 2023 to the cost of the bidding process

The DPI curve was adjusted as well as the discount %
That comes into effect for this year's draft.

My club's position is that this is not enough change.

The reason why they are all tied together is because the AFL has allowed F/S to be tied together with Academy's and allowed NGA's to appease the outcry about northern academies.

is changing the points curve and discount going to change the bigger issue though?
imo. it won't, it won't stop the double dipping, the trading out of high picks into following years, just look at the prices Melbourne and Carlton paid for trading into the 1st round last year ( essentially 2 frdp's ), that is the price that clubs should be paying for high academy picks, not a few 3rd picks and a discount.

Brisbane and Sydney have been 2 of the better-performing teams of the last 25 years
Brisbane in 7 GF's and Sydney in 5 (6 if you go back 4 more years)
Both teams have access to F/S and both teams have been competitive for 30 years or more, how much longer do they get special treatment?

we are heading back to the zone-based days where 5 clubs dominated a 20-year period. The draft was introduced and every team made a preliminary in the next 18 or so years. Why are we so hell bent on going back to a system that's been proven to be broken?

Just need to wait and see how the bidding changes play out this year.

In theory, if clubs have to pay a 'fair' price then that should resolve most of the fairness issues.

The AFL should have made these changes 10 years ago.

The thing that pisses me off is where is the leadership from the AFL. Why do they just let St Kilda's BS fester?!

probably because it's not just St Kilda, sure, we're the public mouthpiece, but there is plenty of support from other clubs on the issue

 

[jdstorm]

Changes were already approved in 2023 to the cost of the bidding process

The DPI curve was adjusted as well as the discount %
That comes into effect for this year's draft.

My club's position is that this is not enough change.

The reason why they are all tied together is because the AFL has allowed F/S to be tied together with Academy's and allowed NGA's to appease the outcry about northern academies.

is changing the points curve and discount going to change the bigger issue though?
imo. it won't, it won't stop the double dipping, the trading out of high picks into following years, just look at the prices Melbourne and Carlton paid for trading into the 1st round last year ( essentially 2 frdp's ), that is the price that clubs should be paying for high academy picks, not a few 3rd picks and a discount.

Brisbane and Sydney have been 2 of the better-performing teams of the last 25 years
Brisbane in 7 GF's and Sydney in 5 (6 if you go back 4 more years)
Both teams have access to F/S and both teams have been competitive for 30 years or more, how much longer do they get special treatment?

we are heading back to the zone-based days where 5 clubs dominated a 20-year period. The draft was introduced and every team made a preliminary in the next 18 or so years. Why are we so hell bent on going back to a system that's been proven to be broken?


probably because it's not just St Kilda, sure, we're the public mouthpiece, but there is plenty of support from other clubs on the issue

Teams overvalue picks to the point where using the cost to trade up isn’t really indicative of the true value of that pick.

I agree it’s crap that teams are allowed to trade their FRPs back for extra points that’s crap.

Also tying players to zones sucks. Just let recruiters find the best talent they can. (At say under 8s or 10s level) players shouldn’t be allowed to join academy’s at 16/17 when they are already in pathways

However the point is to streamline and expand elite player development and it works well for that.

 

[Mat Mann]

Teams overvalue picks to the point where using the cost to trade up isn’t really indicative of the true value of that pick.

I agree it’s crap that teams are allowed to trade their FRPs back for extra points that’s crap.

Also tying players to zones sucks. Just let recruiters find the best talent they can. (At say under 8s or 10s level) players shouldn’t be allowed to join academy’s at 16/17 when they are already in pathways

However the point is to streamline and expand elite player development and it works well for that.

it's working for sure, now we have the situation where 1/3 of draftable talent is tied to 4 clubs. NSW/Qld are producing more talent than SA and WA.

 

[jdstorm]

it's working for sure, now we have the situation where 1/3 of draftable talent is tied to 4 clubs. NSW/Qld are producing more talent than SA and WA.

I wonder if we’d have the same issue if WA and SA clubs had exclusive access to players from those states.

Seems like the incentive has encouraged investment from those clubs in player development.

Personally I’m team Everyone should have an academy and the points system should be fair/equatible

 

[crankygeese]

it's working for sure, now we have the situation where 1/3 of draftable talent is tied to 4 clubs. NSW/Qld are producing more talent than SA and WA.

This is just incorrect

2024- https://www.zerohanger.com/afl-draf...al-clubs-for-all-86-new-recruits-news-157066/
NSW and QLD combined produced 10 players. (11 if you want to include Levi as F/S for the Lions, though he played his juniors in VIC)
WA produced 10
SA produced 13

So SA and WA produced more than twice as many players in a draft that was considered weak on WA and SA talent.

2023 - https://www.zerohanger.com/the-68-j...presented-in-the-2023-afl-draft-class-145921/
NSW and QLD combined produced 8 players (that's including Connor OSullivan and Phoenix Gothard ffrom Albury to get to 8)
WA produced 13
SA produced 9

Both of those were considered strong drafts for NSW/QLD and weak drafts for WA/SA

If you want to get up in arms about Northern Academies, Next Gen Academies, Father/Sons and the fact that NONE of those three should exist and the AFL should push for a completely open draft, absolutely fine.

But at least get your numbers right.

2023 and 2024 were the strongest ever draft years for NSW/QLD. Meanwhile WA and SA matched them when they were at their worst. The Northern Academies are years away from producing 33% of the talent for the draft pool. Considering NSW and QLD combined have roughly 52% of the national population, the fact that they're only just starting to produce almost 10% of the draft pool after years of hard work in the juniors should be celebrated, considering how far back they were when they began.

You could speculate that they might improve this year, and NSW/QLD might produce 25% of the kids taken, but we'll have to wait and see on that. Assuming we'll see close to 44 picks in the first 2 rounds and maybe 70 picks all up, that would mean 17/18 kids from the Northern Academies this year. I don't think there are that many prospects even in contention. So where are you getting 33% from?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

This is just incorrect

2024- https://www.zerohanger.com/afl-draf...al-clubs-for-all-86-new-recruits-news-157066/
NSW and QLD combined produced 10 players. (11 if you want to include Levi as F/S for the Lions, though he played his juniors in VIC)
WA produced 10
SA produced 13

So SA and WA produced more than twice as many players in a draft that was considered weak on WA and SA talent.

2023 - https://www.zerohanger.com/the-68-j...presented-in-the-2023-afl-draft-class-145921/
NSW and QLD combined produced 8 players (that's including Connor OSullivan and Phoenix Gothard ffrom Albury to get to 8)
WA produced 13
SA produced 9

Both of those were considered strong drafts for NSW/QLD and weak drafts for WA/SA

If you want to get up in arms about Northern Academies, Next Gen Academies, Father/Sons and the fact that NONE of those three should exist and the AFL should push for a completely open draft, absolutely fine.

But at least get your numbers right.

2023 and 2024 were the strongest ever draft years for NSW/QLD. Meanwhile WA and SA matched them when they were at their worst. The Northern Academies are years away from producing 33% of the talent for the draft pool. Considering NSW and QLD combined have roughly 52% of the national population, the fact that they're only just starting to produce almost 10% of the draft pool after years of hard work in the juniors should be celebrated, considering how far back they were when they began.

You could speculate that they might improve this year, and NSW/QLD might produce 25% of the kids taken, but we'll have to wait and see on that. Assuming we'll see close to 44 picks in the first 2 rounds and maybe 70 picks all up, that would mean 17/18 kids from the Northern Academies this year. I don't think there are that many prospects even in contention. So where are you getting 33% from?

Even if we ignore population and simply take the fact that 4/18 teams out of the league are there, and use that as a baseline, we're not even there yet that the presence of these teams are proportionally generating the same amount of talent (22%).

Which is part (not all) but part of the reasons the academies exist in the first place - the four northern teams are always going to have to relocate more players and have less family/network support for its young players than the other 14 teams. I think the four teams sometimes over-emphasise it - its a minor effect, but it still does exist.

 

[Vindicater]

If you just completely kill the discount and make the clubs pay the full price then you will see alot less bids matched.

 

[Atomboy]

If you just completely kill the discount and make the clubs pay the full price then you will see alot less bids matched.

That will be sad, all those kids from NSW and Qld will just go and play suburban rugby league rather than elite level AFL.

 

[Elixuh]

That will be sad, all those kids from NSW and Qld will just go and play suburban rugby league rather than elite level AFL.

Y y y you understand when he says bids won’t be matched he means they will be drafted by other clubs. Oh dear!

 

[Elixuh]

If you just completely kill the discount and make the clubs pay the full price then you will see alot less bids matched.

The changes they’ve made adequately address the concerns of, primarily, St Kilda in that it makes it difficult for clubs to match multiple first round picks. Does anyone care about the Jack Payne’s of the world who are taken with picks in the 50s? I don’t think so.

 

[Jirik13]

If you just completely kill the discount and make the clubs pay the full price then you will see alot less bids matched.

I doubt Northern clubs would be running academies if they don't get any benefits from it. Personally, I don't care if AFL runs academies or clubs.

Easy solution for me on top of index value adjustment (this year) would be to limit bids. E.g. top 4 teams no match first round (for all NGA, Northern academies, F/S). I bet clubs don't want to do that for F/S. There was actually limit on matches in first round for Northern academies before this season changes.

 

[Elixuh]

I doubt Northern clubs would be running academies if they don't get any benefits from it. Personally, I don't care if AFL runs academies or clubs.

100% if the AFL or other clubs want to run the academies up here go nuts.

 

[Purple Suit]

I doubt Northern clubs would be running academies if they don't get any benefits from it. Personally, I don't care if AFL runs academies or clubs.

Easy solution for me on top of index value adjustment (this year) would be to limit bids. E.g. top 4 teams no match first round (for all NGA, Northern academies, F/S). I bet clubs don't want to do that for F/S. There was actually limit on matches in first round for Northern academies before this season changes.

But they do get benefits, even at full price there is a benefit of a player being tied with their choice plus using multiple lower picks for a higher one. That will always be cheaper than trading up in the open market.

The other factor is that the AFL pays for them. Why would the Northern clubs not run them when it adds money into their club and community presence?

 

[Membling]

But they do get benefits, even at full price there is a benefit of a player being tied with their choice plus using multiple lower picks for a higher one. That will always be cheaper than trading up in the open market.

The other factor is that the AFL pays for them. Why would the Northern clubs not run them when it adds money into their club and community presence?

That is fundamentally wrong.

But anyway

 

[threenewpadlocks]

But they do get benefits, even at full price there is a benefit of a player being tied with their choice plus using multiple lower picks for a higher one. That will always be cheaper than trading up in the open market.

The other factor is that the AFL pays for them. Why would the Northern clubs not run them when it adds money into their club and community presence?

The right to match and the uncertainty over how other clubs rate a player is enough of a bid.

It's an extreme example, but an academy player might be rated the best player in the draft by the team that he's tied to. They're more likely to know this as they have the inside word about his personality etc. him having been in the academy.

In an open draft, that team has no idea when another club might take him, so they don't want the risk of him being snapped up, so they use their own first round pick on him.

In the bidding system, they can wait until another team actually takes him (say in the second round), then match straight away.

Other than the points or the discount or the exchange rate, you can't tell me that e.g. Sydney knew how good Gulden was going to be above other clubs and had he no longer been tied to the club, he would have gone in the teens by them.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Other than the points or the discount or the exchange rate, you can't tell me that e.g. Sydney knew how good Gulden was going to be above other clubs and had he no longer been tied to the club, he would have gone in the teens by them.

Lets just call that one even okay, we paid hideous overs for Campbell and unders for Gulden okay. That said Campbell was thought to be the higher player by the club, Gulden did have things to work on going through it's why he dropped so far

 

[Purple Suit]

That is fundamentally wrong.

But anyway

Why is it wrong? Because the Northern clubs pay for the academies themselves while getting bigger distributions from the AFL than anybody else by nearly 10m a season in some cases?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Why is it wrong? Because the Northern clubs pay for the academies themselves while getting bigger distributions from the AFL than anybody else by nearly 10m a season in some cases?

Sydney pumps millions into the academy these are not run by the AFL. That said it should be the ability to match is our discount I've said this for years.

 

[mpal6]

The changes they’ve made adequately address the concerns of, primarily, St Kilda in that it makes it difficult for clubs to match multiple first round picks. Does anyone care about the Jack Payne’s of the world who are taken with picks in the 50s? I don’t think so.

Yep the care factor goes higher once they come good.

Jack Payne - pick 54.. meh. Omfg he's their full back and look at the size of him after 3-4 years of playing in 2s !

Coleman - undrafted, pick 37 overager next year.. meh again. omg look at his kicking ! he's their laser boot on a discount !!! arrghh we can't take this anymore !!

 

[mpal6]

I doubt Northern clubs would be running academies if they don't get any benefits from it. Personally, I don't care if AFL runs academies or clubs.

Easy solution for me on top of index value adjustment (this year) would be to limit bids. E.g. top 4 teams no match first round (for all NGA, Northern academies, F/S). I bet clubs don't want to do that for F/S. There was actually limit on matches in first round for Northern academies before this season changes.

Father/Son limit? what do you mean father son limit? Don't you get the romance and history and playing for father's club goosebumps at all?

you do realize Ashcroft, Daicos and Darcy would've quit footy and gone for nightfill jobs at Coles if they couldn't get drafted by their father's club ? World ending stuff right there !

 

[Purple Suit]

Father/Son limit? what do you mean father son limit? Don't you get the romance and history and playing for father's club goosebumps at all?

you do realize Ashcroft, Daicos and Darcy would've quit footy and gone for nightfill jobs at Coles if they couldn't get drafted by their father's club ? World ending stuff right there !

That's preposterous, only Darcy would be tall enough to do a good job stacking shelves.