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

[Scotland]

I'm not really that bothered if people are angry. Those people should maybe take a broader perspective and see the reasons for the academy system being as it is currently.

Yes, the AFL wants teams in Northern markets to be successful.

Tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in Qld and NSW. Growing the game is great, but when you are cannibalising the comp to do so it becomes too much.

BTW, I agree with those saying there should be no discount. I'd also limit it to one match in the first round per year (and group academy/NGA/FS together in that).

That is a fairer system absolutely. But teams shouldn't be entering the draft at 18 knowing they can pick in the top 5.

I'd also happily scrap the whole system if the AFL evened up the issues the non-Vic teams face, but that's not going to happen.

This is a nothing argument. You don't make the competition fairer by fixing things that weren't broken. If the AFL played a full H&A season Collingwood would still play 26 games in Victoria. West Coast and Freo would still travel the most. It is how it is. My team has way more money and members than GWS... so what? The draft and salary cap are supposed to be the equalisers.

Junior development is one thing but the academy draft rules are parochial draft tampering. Remind me again why Gold Coast, stacked with talent drafted from in and outside Queensland, that just recruited two established players from outside Queensland, needs priority access to junior talent from Queensland? Players play all over the country, hence the reigning premiers had Neale, Dunkley, Ah Chee, McKenna, Daniher etc. who all decided to live in Brisbane.

 

[Scotland]

Yes, they do.
But unless it's a team trading for more points to match FS/NGA/Academy bids, then they are traded on how the clubs value the actual specific picks, or, in the case of live trading, the specific player available.
If you're not trading for points, then points don't come into your calculations.

This is completely arbitrary though.
And the true value of a draft pick varies every year depending on the player/s available.

The AFL tried to calculate the value of picks based on historical trades, and completely botched it.
And now, with a decade of evidence, they've dramatically changed the scale and made it a lot fairer.
Whether it will need to be further improved, who knows?

It's arbitrary, but you need to have something. Pick 1, 2, 3 in one draft could be better than pick 1 in 3 drafts in a row. It's an inexact science. But no one is giving you pick 1 in a trade for 10 second round picks.

The AFL tried to come up with a system that makes it look like players are being bid on when in reality everyone knows where they are going. You reckon Sam Darcy and Nick Daicos aren't where they are if they are bid on at pick 1? Of course they are.

Examples like Tom Green show what a farce it is. GWS traded ahead of a likely bid so could get Lachie Ash and then Green. Smart by them but makes a mockery of the system. Callum Mills at pick 3 was matched with picks 33, 36, 37 and 43. This was 11 years ago and the AFL seemed to think it was fine.

If the AFL introduced live trading during the draft you would see very different outcomes as there would be actual competition for players.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

This is a nothing argument. You don't make the competition fairer by fixing things that weren't broken. If the AFL played a full H&A season Collingwood would still play 26 games in Victoria. West Coast and Freo would still travel the most. It is how it is. My team has way more money and members than GWS... so what? The draft and salary cap are supposed to be the equalisers.

Many would argue that is happening right now. Just not those supporters whose clubs have advantages in area's other than the draft.

Junior development is one thing but the academy draft rules are parochial draft tampering. Remind me again why Gold Coast, stacked with talent drafted from in and outside Queensland, that just recruited two established players from outside Queensland, needs priority access to junior talent from Queensland? Players play all over the country, hence the reigning premiers had Neale, Dunkley, Ah Chee, McKenna, Daniher etc. who all decided to live in Brisbane.

I think you're massaging the facts a bit here. Comparing Brisbane and the Suns isn't really fair. They have got those players partly due their recent success on field. The Suns got Noble and Rioli last year yes. Noble wasn't best 22 at Collingwood, so really goes in the bucket with the Holman's, Long's and Atkins. Rioli is an A grader for sure, and the first the Suns have got. So that's one in a decade.

The Suns have been at the bottom for their whole existence, losing games and players consistently. And now they are finally getting it together everyone wants to immediately take their advantage away (and the academy is now without doubt an advantage, I'm not arguing it isn't). Without addressing the advantages the other teams get......

In the end, the academies are helping to grow the game in the northern states, so they will not go away. That's what the AFL wants. Let's see how this new system works for a few years. Maybe it's the right balance now? Next year the Suns won't have any first round academy players, and the pick one will probably be a Carlton FS. I look forward to watching that debate play out.

 

[Stamos]

It's arbitrary, but you need to have something. Pick 1, 2, 3 in one draft could be better than pick 1 in 3 drafts in a row. It's an inexact science. But no one is giving you pick 1 in a trade for 10 second round picks.

The AFL tried to come up with a system that makes it look like players are being bid on when in reality everyone knows where they are going. You reckon Sam Darcy and Nick Daicos aren't where they are if they are bid on at pick 1? Of course they are.

Examples like Tom Green show what a farce it is. GWS traded ahead of a likely bid so could get Lachie Ash and then Green. Smart by them but makes a mockery of the system. Callum Mills at pick 3 was matched with picks 33, 36, 37 and 43. This was 11 years ago and the AFL seemed to think it was fine.

If the AFL introduced live trading during the draft you would see very different outcomes as there would be actual competition for players.

They do have something though.
And like I said, they botched the values initially, and should have changed it earlier, but they have made a massive change now which makes it much fairer.

Yes, Darcy and Daicos were always going to their fathers’ clubs, as they should be. The issue is about if a fair price is paid, and now clubs have to pay a fairer price.

Again, you’re arguing about a previous system which has largely been addressed.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Saying the 'first round' is completely disingenuous.

Two first round picks could be picks 19 and 20 or it could be picks 1 and 2.
There is a massive, massive difference between getting two players ranked in the top 5 in comparison to getting two players in the teens.

How about we wait to see the new system in place? Seriously it’s fixed a lot of the issues people were complaining about.

 

[fargothegreat]

Have you even looked at the new system? GC can only match a max of 2 this first round.

That's not correct. There is no limit on the number of bids that can be matched.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

That's not correct. There is no limit on the number of bids that can be matched.

The limits were removed, you're right. No idea why.

I think this poster means the Suns probably won't be ABLE to match more than two bids, even if they are allowed too.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Melbourne media reporting no change to Father-Son rules

 

[Elixuh]

Melbourne media reporting no change to Father-Son rules

I'm shocked.

I doubt there's unanimity on this issue. Some clubs will have FS in the pipeline and absolutely won't want changes. Others will have benefited from it in the past and their view could go either way - kick the ladder or they see the benefit and so want to retain. A couple of clubs who are sad and want it gone.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

View attachment 2392622

I'm shocked.

I doubt there's unanimity on this issue. Some clubs will have FS in the pipeline and absolutely won't want changes. Others will have benefited from it in the past and their view could go either way - kick the ladder or they see the benefit and so want to retain. A couple of clubs who are sad and want it gone.

Shutting it down or changing it drastically will make the league even more uneven when clubs have already or about to benefit from it.

I'm not sure what the solution is for equalisation sakes.

 

[MPMonkeys]

The limits were removed, you're right. No idea why.

I think this poster means the Suns probably won't be ABLE to match more than two bids, even if they are allowed too.

And those two players are ranked in the top 5 of the draft and could even be 1-2.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Shutting it down or changing it drastically will make the league even more uneven when clubs have already or about to benefit from it.

I'm not sure what the solution is for equalisation sakes.

Uncompromised draft, including father-sons.
If Collingwood want Daicos or Carlton want Walker or Essendon want Bewick then they trade up to get them. Thats the only way that fair value is realised.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Uncompromised draft, including father-sons.
If Collingwood want Daicos or Carlton want Walker or Essendon want Bewick then they trade up to get them. Thats the only way that fair value is realised.

You missed my point.

You can't just suddenly activate an uncompromised draft when those clubs just picked up top tier young talent for free.

That will make equalisation at its lowest point ever.

 

[MPMonkeys]

You missed my point.

You can't just suddenly activate an uncompromised draft when those clubs just picked up top tier young talent for free.

That will make equalisation at its lowest point ever.

Its not fair in the short term, I agree.
But if you don't fix it, then the system will continue to be crap and the NSW and Qld clubs will just continue to get free hits every draft.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

And those two players are ranked in the top 5 of the draft and could even be 1-2.

Depends who you listen to but yeah they look good.

I do find it funny that Uwland hasn't played all year and is apparently pick 1. Suspect it's more the journos don't know who is and he's an easy headline.

I have no issue with clubs bidding early, it's supposed to be a competitive industry.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

You missed my point.

You can't just suddenly activate an uncompromised draft when those clubs just picked up top tier young talent for free.

That will make equalisation at its lowest point ever.

Someone will always lose if the system is changed. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Someone will always lose if the system is changed. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

Wonder if something like this can work?

Uncompromised draft begins in 2030

Until then, there is a calculated system that quantifies what clubs have matched or bidded in the past (should be able to do that easily) making them ineligible to bid on their FS/NGA prospects (so would make the Collingwood's and Brisbane's ineligible for example as they have already benefitted significantly from the system, while the other clubs can still use the rule until 2030 unless they go past the points cutoff).

You can keep FS and NGA romanticism by those draftees that nominate are signed to a 2 year contract that gives them an option to be a restricted free agent to their FS/NGA club.

 

[fargothegreat]

Melbourne media reporting no change to Father-Son rules

No change this year

 

[LukeParkerno1]

That's not correct. There is no limit on the number of bids that can be matched.

That’s correct but they literally don’t have the picks, yes they might be able to trade one in but it’s hardly going to be an asset that many want seeing GC are improving.

They are paying nearly double what it was.

Let’s wait and see how it is in practice

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The limits were removed, you're right. No idea why.

I think this poster means the Suns probably won't be ABLE to match more than two bids, even if they are allowed too.

Pretty much maybe 3 if you can get a buyer for your future 1 and that may be a very tough sell with GC improving massively

 

[GC2015]

I'm shocked.

2025 has been an epic fail for Bassat.

Tried to kill the northern academies - FAIL
Tried to kill the father-son rule - FAIL
Tried to retain NWM - FAIL?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The right to match is itself a massive advantage, because if you believe that your Academy player is truly the best avaliable player at your own love pick, you're not obligated to take him where you'd otherwise risk losing him not dropping to your next pick. This goes beyond simply rating a player in a scouting sense, these clubs have the inside info having watched these players train more given they literally run the academies.

For the sake of argument, Sydney might have rated Errol Gulden (with their inside info of him having developed him themselves) as the literal best player in the 2020 draft. They had pick 4 which they took McDonland and a bunch of later picks. If Gulden was not able to be matched, they would have either had to take him with pick 4, or hope but not be certain that other clubs didn't rate him and that he would slide to their next pick.

Instead what happened in reality was that the Swans could get to pick 4, still rate Gulden as the rank 1 player in the draft but not have to take him and just know to be certain to match whenever another club eventually picks him (pick 32).

Obviously Gulden was not rated rank 1 by anyone but the principle still holds true. There is every possibility that (e.g., for the sake of argument, if he was rated as the 2nd best player in the draft by Richmond) Josh Similie could have lasted from pick 7 to pick 12 for the Tigers and had he been academy tied to Richmond. Instead Richmond took him with pick 7, as they genuinely rated him as the best option, rather than waiting until the next team rated him as the best option and matching that (say pick 15 or whatever).

Remember, we're adding 10%/20% formerly on that existing right to match system.

 

[Greendogg5]

Is the Tas team going to get an academy like the northern states?

 

[GC2015]

Is the Tas team going to get an academy like the northern states?

You can just about bet the house that they will for their first few years in the AFL as they try to build a unique Tassie team culture from scratch. I suspect it will then be reviewed after 5ish years in the league and altered if it's too advantageous / disadvantageous. It's probably fair to suggest that outside of their inaugural list build where they can literally write blank cheques, the Devils will most likely struggle to recruit big names to join the club unless they are highly competitive on field or the player has an existing connection to the Apple Isle. So the 'northern academy' model may be needed for Tasmania indefinitely.

 

[Profop]

General public (including me) love FS I doubt they ever get rid of it

If the need is to stop the 1st round going out of control then remove discount along with the pick value changes that have already been made

Also scrap compensation picks for free agents, that’s a real rort