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

[Choogler]

Should go to a more American system of trade where clubs can trade players to a destination not a team unless the player is a free agent. Player can nominate a state not a team. This at least will mean clubs get a fair outcome at the trade table. You don’t want this you stay till the F/A or you enter the draft where you can be taken with any club. The players have WAY too much say where they go- nominate a state but that’s where it ends

I agree players hold the whip hand, but the American system would never survive here because of our restraint of trade laws. Most times uncontracted players have gone to court in the past, they've won. Contracted players could sue clubs for failing to honour their contracts.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I agree players hold the whip hand, but the American system would never survive here because of our restraint of trade laws. Most times uncontracted players have gone to court in the past, they've won. Contracted players could sue clubs for failing to honour their contracts.

Players would still get the city of their choice. It is taking a little of the power away, you nominate a State and it’s a best offer. Don’t like it you can nominate your terms through the draft and take your chances that way at the conclusion of your contract. This would stop the rubbish of players deliberately having clubs over a barrel and nominating the worst club to negotiate with. You want to go to Melbourne that’s fine but there’s 8 clubs there, Adelaide 2, Perth 2, Sydney 2, and qld 2. It’s fairer for every club not just out of state sides. Would also stop high draft picks wanting to get out after a year

 

[jdstorm]

Players would still get the city of their choice. It is taking a little of the power away, you nominate a State and it’s a best offer. Don’t like it you can nominate your terms through the draft and take your chances that way at the conclusion of your contract. This would stop the rubbish of players deliberately having clubs over a barrel and nominating the worst club to negotiate with. You want to go to Melbourne that’s fine but there’s 8 clubs there, Adelaide 2, Perth 2, Sydney 2, and qld 2. It’s fairer for every club not just out of state sides. Would also stop high draft picks wanting to get out after a year

Even if you didn’t go full America and asked players to nominate 2 or 3 clubs when requesting a trade that helps somewhat.

 

[bzparkes]

Kako was rated where he was bid on, that was a stacked draft. Who should he have been picked ahead of? He's a star but he's a star small forward was near the best top 10 we've had.

I'm fine with taking the discount away, but there doesn't need to be a system where you pay MORE that's ridiculous. Take the discount away and you are paying near fair price.

You absolutely should pay more to get priority access to certain players, then clubs need to actually make proper decisions around recruitment and not just scoop up their academy kids at a discount.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Kako was rated where he was bid on, that was a stacked draft. Who should he have been picked ahead of? He's a star but he's a star small forward was near the best top 10 we've had.

I'm fine with taking the discount away, but there doesn't need to be a system where you pay MORE that's ridiculous. Take the discount away and you are paying near fair price.

The discounts allow teams to pay a fair price. Removing it actually makes them pay more than a fair price.

Can anyone really say matching a bid at pick 1 with pick 2 isn't paying a fair price? Because a club can't do that without getting a discount.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I agree players hold the whip hand, but the American system would never survive here because of our restraint of trade laws. Most times uncontracted players have gone to court in the past, they've won. Contracted players could sue clubs for failing to honour their contracts.

Restraint of trade laws are easily worked around. Simply by making all contracts with the AFL itself.
If you go to work for a software programming company, you don't get to decide which city you get to work in. You work where they have jobs available. If not, then you go an work for a different company.

So in the AFL, you work in the city they assign you to through the draft. If you don't like that, you go and work for another Australian Rules football organisation. There is no restraint on footballers being paid to play football. They just have to pick an employer that lets them work where they want to work, which may not pay as well as the AFL.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The discounts allow teams to pay a fair price. Removing it actually makes them pay more than a fair price.

Can anyone really say matching a bid at pick 1 with pick 2 isn't paying a fair price? Because a club can't do that without getting a discount.

More than happy to remove the discount it will make the first pick higher and I go for a northern side. The ability to match is more than enough. That’s it though but has to be across the board F/S, NGA, academy

 

[jdstorm]

The discounts allow teams to pay a fair price. Removing it actually makes them pay more than a fair price.

Can anyone really say matching a bid at pick 1 with pick 2 isn't paying a fair price? Because a club can't do that without getting a discount.

It’s absolutely not a fair price. Pick 1 is more valuable then pick 2.

In an open draft if a club had pick 2 and they wanted to trade up for pick 1 they might not be able to depending on how the club with pick 1 valued the draft.

Having exclusive access to that player is a huge advantage in and of itself. Also if a club would rather the player at pick 2 then to pay extra to match they are more then welcome to pass on matching and selecting a different player pick 2

 

[Duckimus Prime]

It’s absolutely not a fair price. Pick 1 is more valuable then pick 2.

In an open draft if a club had pick 2 and they wanted to trade up for pick 1 they might not be able to depending on how the club with pick 1 valued the draft.

Having exclusive access to that player is a huge advantage in and of itself. Also if a club would rather the player at pick 2 then to pay extra to match they are more then welcome to pass on matching and selecting a different player pick 2

Yet that player is probably only pick one because of the work said club put into them for the past year or more.

 

[Purple Suit]

The discounts allow teams to pay a fair price. Removing it actually makes them pay more than a fair price.

Can anyone really say matching a bid at pick 1 with pick 2 isn't paying a fair price? Because a club can't do that without getting a discount.

Paying pick 2 for a pick 1 would be fine. Paying pick 27, 32, 40 + 42 is where the system gets in trouble and it's more likely that pick 1 is taken at pick 3 since other teams don't want their draftee to miss out on a higher rating / cash.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Paying pick 2 for a pick 1 would be fine. Paying pick 27, 32, 40 + 42 is where the system gets in trouble

Whenever this is brought up, it always ignores what teams give up in trade to gather those later picks.

And if people (including other list managers) don't think teams give up enough, then stop being so generous in trading with them.

and it's more likely that pick 1 is taken at pick 3 since other teams don't want their draftee to miss out on a higher rating / cash.

This isn't a problem with the system, this is clubs making judgements on list calls themselves. Complaining that a club didn't pay enough because clubs decided not bid on a player? That's ridiculous.

 

[Yoda_]

Paying pick 2 for a pick 1 would be fine. Paying pick 27, 32, 40 + 42 is where the system gets in trouble and it's more likely that pick 1 is taken at pick 3 since other teams don't want their draftee to miss out on a higher rating / cash.

The time it gets confusing is when teams have multiple academy/father so selections like Essendon, Gold Coast and Sydney have this year.

Gold Coast is going to be a test case this year, you would almost guarantee they go into deficit for next year only holding picks 8, 14, 18 and 32 as picks with points attached for the three top 20 potential draftees.

 

[Purple Suit]

Whenever this is brought up, it always ignores what teams give up in trade to gather those later picks.

And if people (including other list managers) don't think teams give up enough, then stop being so generous in trading with them.


This isn't a problem with the system, this is clubs making judgements on list calls themselves. Complaining that a club didn't pay enough because clubs decided not bid on a player? That's ridiculous.

It's never even close to the value of the top draft pick. The locked in gun coming a mile away can be planned for a year or two out and clubs can extract heaps of value by trading late assets into next year's late assets plus a bit extra.

Take a look at what Brisbane has been able to do lately without even losing any players. They had enough left over to trade for Dunkley too. Port went on their own trading spree in the past few years but don't have multiple top 10 picks to go along with it, lost an AA player and no first this year unlike Brisbane.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

The time it gets confusing is when teams have multiple academy/father so selections like Essendon, Gold Coast and Sydney have this year.

Gold Coast is going to be a test case this year, you would almost guarantee they go into deficit for next year only holding picks 8, 14, 18 and 32 as picks with points attached for the three top 20 potential draftees.

The Suns don't have many stand out academy players in the next few drafts, so might well go into deficit to get as many as possible of this years crop.

Very possible they let at least one of Addinsall or Coulson go depending on where the bids come. The Suns have plenty of young mid's. IMO Uwland and Patterson will be matched no matter where the bids are, after that who knows.

Lots of teams will be trying hard to gather points to trade for Port's first.

 

[Yoda_]

It's never even close to the value of the top draft pick. The locked in gun coming a mile away can be planned for a year or two out and clubs can extract heaps of value by trading late assets into next year's late assets plus a bit extra.

Take a look at what Brisbane has been able to do lately without even losing any players. They had enough left over to trade for Dunkley too. Port went on their own trading spree in the past few years but don't have multiple top 10 picks to go along with it, lost an AA player and no first this year unlike Brisbane.

Why isn't Addinsal thought of higher than he is?

 

[briztoon]

Those “advantages” are really seperate to the integrity of talent distribution/equalisation which is what the draft/salary cap/Academy’s seek to address.

As someone not from Victoria I personally don’t care about any of those things. Seems irrelevant to the particular topic and just clubs trying to leverage their situation to their advantage by having a sook as opposed to coming up with a genuinely fair system.

Also the current system is far from a Minor. Winning a flag and then getting 2 no 1 picks in 2 years for 3rd round picks plus a few extra FRPs is beyond cooked

Which team won a flag and had the first pick in two drafts?

 

[jdstorm]

Which team won a flag and had the first pick in two drafts?

Eyeroll

 

[My_Username]

Paying pick 2 for a pick 1 would be fine. Paying pick 27, 32, 40 + 42 is where the system gets in trouble and it's more likely that pick 1 is taken at pick 3 since other teams don't want their draftee to miss out on a higher rating / cash.

Agreed.

First pick used should need to be within 1 round of when the the player is selected. With live trading, that should be very doable.

Only limit on that would be that if a club gets multiple players, only the first player should have that requirement (either that or they get to choose which picks they use to pay) because if they first player takes out your first 2 picks it could get a bit tough to find another high pick and would probably just lead to stupid stuff like banking picks with other clubs as pre arranged trades and it'd all get really messy.

 

[Daddoo]

The discounts allow teams to pay a fair price. Removing it actually makes them pay more than a fair price.

Can anyone really say matching a bid at pick 1 with pick 2 isn't paying a fair price? Because a club can't do that without getting a discount.

Pick 2 is fair price for pick 1? How do you figure that? Pick 1 is more valuable than pick 2, so paying pick 2 for pick 1 is unders. Is pick 3 fair price for pick 2? If so, then pick 4 must be fair price for pick 3 and pick 5 must be a fair price for pick 4. Where do you draw the line? You see where I'm going with this. This is why they assign points to each pick.

If the AFL wants to promote itself as a balanced competition, then the FS priority access needs to be scraped. Why should one club get a benefit just because it's been around longer and has more FS coming through? I'm biased because I'm a Freo supporter, but realize that both Pavlich and Mundy have kids we could benefit from with this rule. I still think it should be scrapped. If Finn Mundy get drafted by Geelong, oh well. If they have a higher pick in the draft, it means they were below us on the ladder (assuming the pick wasn't acquired in a trade), and they deserve better access to players.

The FS is an antiquated, sentimental rule. The comp would benefit more from all teams having a bite of the apple rather than the big clubs continuing to get a leg up.

 

[tombomb]

Paying pick 2 for a pick 1 would be fine. Paying pick 27, 32, 40 + 42 is where the system gets in trouble and it's more likely that pick 1 is taken at pick 3 since other teams don't want their draftee to miss out on a higher rating / cash.

Under the new system 27,32,40+42 would give you 1378 pts. Leaving you needing to find another top 10 draft pick to match a deal on pick one.

 

[Vindicater]

The lower discount and lesser points is going to make a huge change this year.

At the moment if Annable is bid on at 5 then the Lions top four picks (17, 37, 42 and 47) will not match the bid.

The Lions at least will need to get creative.

 

[Bostonian]

How about they can all pick their academy players with their first two rounds picks and have no access to Southern state players until round 3.

 

[Vindicater]

Gold Coast are going to need to get creative as well.

If Uwland is picked first they will need to use all of 9, 12 and 19 to match (and will get a pick 27-29 back)

Then they will only have picks 27 and 29 to match a bid for Patterson which likely comes before five as well.

 

[jdstorm]

Gold Coast are going to need to get creative as well.

If Uwland is picked first they will need to use all of 9, 12 and 19 to match (and will get a pick 27-29 back)

Then they will only have picks 27 and 29 to match a bid for Patterson which likely comes before five as well.

They’ll trade pick 9 for close to the points to match pick 1 probably to west coast to avoid bids at pick 1 and 2

 

[Vindicater]

They’ll trade pick 9 for close to the points to match pick 1 probably to west coast to avoid bids at pick 1 and 2

Even if the the bid is at pick 3 they will need to trade 9 for +700 points.

For example.

They would need to trade 9 to West Coast for picks 14, 19 and 32 to make it work and I doubt West Coast do that.