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

[mpal6]

Do you even do 5 minutes of research before asking a dumb @rse question?

First of all Gold Coast didn't have an academy kid in the Jack Bowes salary dump draft.

They traded Bowes and their natural pick 7, for a future 2023 draft pick.

Secondly, Izak Rankine walked out on GC that draft and they got pick 5 and a couple of future 3rd and 4th round picks in the trade with Adelaide, for the 2023 draft when they had a bunch of academy kids.

They also traded their second round pick and the Lions second round pick (which they held from a previous trade) for a two future second round picks, to prioritise drafting academy kids who won't walk out on them.

They traded another player to Fremantle for another future pick.

They took 1 player in the 2022 draft (Bailey Humphrey)(upgraded 2 rookies to their senior list to meat the AFL's requirement of 3 players in the draft), dumped the Bowes salary, and traded every other pick they held in to 2023.

Do you honestly believe Northern clubs want to lose interstate players?

Gold Coast would have preferred to keep Rankine and Lukosius. Would have preferred to keep Steven May and Tom Lynch. Would have preferred to keep Jack Scrimshaw (and for the kid to have put in some effort, and not have his dad whinging every week on their BigFooty team board).

Where do those multiple second and third round picks to match a top 10 bid come from?

Either a team is trading out a decent player, or a number of players for picks/points, or they are trading out a first round pick for a points upgrade.

Either way, another team or teams are benefitting from these trades as well by getting players or decent picks in the draft to improve their list.

This is all too much detail ! We bottom of ladder club supporters + vic club supporters just want to rage about all the first rounders that Brisbane, Gold Coast, GWS, Sydney are getting ! Just let us rage ! Don't care about all the details as it will start making too much sense !

Jokes aside - it's funny we were watching all these first round father sons and academy players just roll into so many other clubs without so much as raising any concerns. It included No.1 pick Jamarra Ugle-Hagan, it included Daicos, Sam Darcy etc etc. List goes on. They even raided our list / players and blamed our lack of culture as the reason we can't hold on to them. Everything was perfect in other club supporter eyes back then.

After 20 years we finally get our lick of ice cream in father son (Ashcrofts + Fletcher) which coincided with some good luck drafting (Morris) and trades (Dunkley, Neale etc). Finally academy might bear fruit too with a top liner (Annable). Now everything looks bad for the clubs who have been perennially benefitting from the same rules all along. Go figure.

 

[TradeDraft]

You mean since they floated the possibility of a lockout for bid matching in the first 5/10/round picks?

Twomey on Gettable (transcript is voice recognition software from the Podcasts app):

“Well, I spoke to several clubs who are a part of the AFL's football managers meeting on Monday. And they all left with the view that the league very much has significant change on its mind with regards to the bidding system as part of that, of course, the father-son and academy system. So while clubs in some quarters are pushing for this, we know St Kilda, we know Geelong have raised this.

The majority are fearful that the AFL is going to be bringing in a draft lockout, whether it's the first five picks, first 10 picks or the first round, whether it's a protected zone, the bids can't be matched on those father-sons, academy and NGA players. And the feeling that the clubs took from Monday's meeting as well is that the league is keen to get the ball rolling on this pretty soon, potentially even as soon as next year. So I think there's gonna be some significant backlash to this, this potential draft lockout.

And clubs will rally against that. So let's look at a couple that will. I mean, we just spoke about Cody Walker in recent weeks and how good he's been[…]”

From Gettable: Father-son ‘lockout’ fear, Don to depart, big play for Saint, Harley call close?, 20 Aug 2025

This material may be protected by copyright.

AFL again just Changing things for the Sake of It

 

[Elixuh]

AFL again just Changing things for the Sake of It

AFL has gone woke against academies

 

[mpal6]

We just have to start coaching our academy kids to say they need to stay home or else they'll have a mental health breakdown. Just play the same card that vic draftees have been playing all along.

Be brave ! speak your mind ! express yourself and your feelings ! Just tell them how drafting you would be a waste of their precious first round pick and they should look elsewhere instead.

 

[stavro#4]

You mean since they floated the possibility of a lockout for bid matching in the first 5/10/round picks?

Twomey on Gettable (transcript is voice recognition software from the Podcasts app):

“Well, I spoke to several clubs who are a part of the AFL's football managers meeting on Monday. And they all left with the view that the league very much has significant change on its mind with regards to the bidding system as part of that, of course, the father-son and academy system. So while clubs in some quarters are pushing for this, we know St Kilda, we know Geelong have raised this.

The majority are fearful that the AFL is going to be bringing in a draft lockout, whether it's the first five picks, first 10 picks or the first round, whether it's a protected zone, the bids can't be matched on those father-sons, academy and NGA players. And the feeling that the clubs took from Monday's meeting as well is that the league is keen to get the ball rolling on this pretty soon, potentially even as soon as next year. So I think there's gonna be some significant backlash to this, this potential draft lockout.

And clubs will rally against that. So let's look at a couple that will. I mean, we just spoke about Cody Walker in recent weeks and how good he's been[…]”

From Gettable: Father-son ‘lockout’ fear, Don to depart, big play for Saint, Harley call close?, 20 Aug 2025

This material may be protected by copyright.

Sounds utterly brilliant.

The bottom clubs getting the right access to talent.

Clubs prevented from double dipping or gambling and being bailed out ala Collingwood/Naicos

 

[MPMonkeys]

We just have to start coaching our academy kids to say they need to stay home or else they'll have a mental health breakdown. Just play the same card that vic draftees have been playing all along.

Be brave ! speak your mind ! express yourself and your feelings ! Just tell them how drafting you would be a waste of their precious first round pick and they should look elsewhere instead.

Coach them all you want. End of the day no draftee is going to stand out of football for 3 years as a matter of principal.

 

[Dogflogger]

Coach them all you want. End of the day no draftee is going to stand out of football for 3 years as a matter of principal.

Those Academy players bleed Brisbane lions, they will do anything that is asked of them. I've heard they all get a good night kiss from pappa Fagan.

 

[Fud#3]

Sounds utterly brilliant.

The bottom clubs getting the right access to talent.

Clubs prevented from double dipping or gambling and being bailed out ala Collingwood/Naicos

If clubs are desperate for these FS or academies, there's nothing stopping them from trading for them after they are drafted.

In fact, I'd be happy for live player trading on draft night too.

Last year for example, if Melbourne pick Levi Ashcroft at 5, Brisbane had 5 minutes to come up with a trade that Melbourne will accept. This means they pay real market value, not multiple 2nd or 3rd picks, and also means clubs don't dummy bid as they are actually picking a player they will have to keep.

FS / academies are then treated like any other player.

 

[TradeDraft]

What is suggested will definitely help bottom teams rebound. The problem is top 8/4 teams are getting top 5/10 picks for 2nd and 3rd rounders

Teams been down for sometime like North and has not got any Better with High Draft Picks

Need more then Top Picks to turn the team around and start climbing the Ladder

 

[jdstorm]

Before any lockout I hope they try out having clubs need to use a maximum of 2 picks to match any bid.

Going via DVA you’d be needing picks 6 and 7 to match pick 1 and that feels fair.

Pick 4 = 13 and 14
Pick 10 = 23,24

 

[gillon]

Daicos and Ashcroft brothers are going to dominate the AFL landscape for the next decade after their teams got them for the equivalent of a bag of chips. On top of many others.

It will be tragic for teams such as Carlton and Essendon if they do introduce a lockout of some sort when other teams are going to reap benefits for an extended period.

Going from a bunch of later picks = pick 1, to completely restricting access is a huge step.

 

[theflyingviking]

Easy
Allow father sons and nga


If you take one in the “first round” you lose next years first round as well as your points you need to bid/match this year
If the father son/ nga is a 2nd rounder bid/ match you lose next years 2nd rounder as well as points and picks needed this year


In other words you’ll think twice and have to pay a far bigger price rather than virtually auto getting them

 

[mpal6]

Coach them all you want. End of the day no draftee is going to stand out of football for 3 years as a matter of principal.

Mate, no club out there picked Sheezel, Wardlaw, Tsatas, Perkins etc. Remember this one? Your club benefited from this guys charade. So it's ok for vic kid to speak his mind but an interstate kid "banned and needs to be made an example of?"

Don’t pick me, I’m staying home: AFL world stunned by top 10 prospect Archie Perkins’ call

‘Didn’t come out the way he meant it’: AFL manager defends top 10 prospect’s stunning call

www.foxsports.com.au

You also seem to make it sound like AFL or bust. We'll make the kid say if you pick me elsewhere I'll stay home and play NRL instead. Now that'll be a good advertisement for the other code. What do you reckon mate?

If I was with NRL I will run ad campaigns even - big bad AFL tries to bully 17 year old minors with mental health issues. That'll be a good advertisement for the code too.

 

[mpal6]

Easy
Allow father sons and nga


If you take one in the “first round” you lose next years first round as well as your points you need to bid/match this year
If the father son/ nga is a 2nd rounder bid/ match you lose next years 2nd rounder as well as points and picks needed this year


In other words you’ll think twice and have to pay a far bigger price rather than virtually auto getting them

I wouldn't advocate for "losing" 2 years worth of picks as its far too big a price to pay - two first rounds - for a young unproven player.

Rather I'd suggest if a club is already playing finals then feel free to take the academy/father son/NGA one year in first round as long as you can find the points needed in new DVI - also, you don't get to match any of them in the first round draft of the following year.

So the club may still have a late pick in teens next year they can use to get player from open draft. But they have to choose wisely in terms of which year they want to match father/son, academy and NGA.

 

[stavro#4]

Before any lockout I hope they try out having clubs need to use a maximum of 2 picks to match any bid.

Going via DVA you’d be needing picks 6 and 7 to match pick 1 and that feels fair.

Pick 4 = 13 and 14
Pick 10 = 23,24

I’d prefer a pick within 5 of the bid.

That forces clubs to have to trade talented players and immediately removes the freebie aspect of this entire rort.

 

[Miller1971]

Father/sons seem to come in two moulds, the kind that don’t give a **** for one reason or another (Tom Mitchell, Josh Dunkley, Joe Daniher), and the kind that couldn’t play anywhere else (Daicoses).

Dunkley wanted to go to Sydney, the Swans just didn't want him. I'm sure they regret it now.

I think the draft is a farce anyway so it’s not really a draft, just a weird sort of semi-auction system using draft points. I’d just go to a full auction with draft points (not salary based). Equal bids break in favour of the lower ranking team. Max bid 3000 points.

By tanking the draft I mean limiting their exposure. They miss the combine or the nationals with an ‘injury’, or put about a rumour of a chronic injury, act stupid in interviews, or whatever.

Jaspa Fletcher and now Zeke Uwland have both conveniently sat out almost all of their top age years.

 

[mpal6]

Dunkley wanted to go to Sydney, the Swans just didn't want him. I'm sure they regret it now.

Nah, it's the other way around from what I remember. Dunkley told Sydney if he gets bid by a Melbourne club he would like to stay and Swans not to match it. If it was from a club in QLD, SA, WA etc - he wanted the Swans to match it as he'd rather come to Sydney in that scenario.

His first preference was to stay home if he gets drafted by Melbourne based club which is how the draft panned out for him.

 

[Lore]

Nah, it's the other way around from what I remember. Dunkley told Sydney if he gets bid by a Melbourne club he would like to stay and Swans not to match it. If it was from a club in QLD, SA, WA etc - he wanted the Swans to match it as he'd rather come to Sydney in that scenario.

His first preference was to stay home if he gets drafted by Melbourne based club which is how the draft panned out for him.

Yep that’s the one.

And then he moved to Brisbane sometimes a bit of extra maturity does the trick.

 

[SKR]

Easy
Allow father sons and nga


If you take one in the “first round” you lose next years first round as well as your points you need to bid/match this year
If the father son/ nga is a 2nd rounder bid/ match you lose next years 2nd rounder as well as points and picks needed this year


In other words you’ll think twice and have to pay a far bigger price rather than virtually auto getting them

I have posted it before, but I will post it again. I think the fairest way to match F/S or NGA bids is to make teams pay full value of the pick used for the bid, plus a premium or tax on top, essentially to move up the draft order. The premium or tax is based on how far away the next pick is that the team is using to match the bid.

Lets say the premium is 3% per pick you move ahead in the order. If a team bids at pick 5, and the team matching the bid has pick 8, the matching team must pay the points equivalent of pick 5, plus an additional 9% (3 x 3%) to jump from pick 8 to pick 5. Alternatively, if the team matching has pick 15, they must now pay the points equivalent of pick 5, plus an additional 30% (10 x 3%) to move from pick 15 to pick 5.

I look at the ways that teams game the system at the moment, and I think this fixes them. For example:

1) Teams currently trade their first rounder for a bunch of 2nd and 3rd round picks and match early bids with picks in the 30s and 40s. If a team does this under the revised rules above, the premium becomes much heftier (i.e. if a team has to move from say pick 30 to pick 5, the premium becomes 75% on top of the full value of pick 5, they would essentially have to pay the points equivalent of 175% of pick 5).

2) Teams currently trade out their first round pick for a future first, expecting it to be consumed in the bid, and then match the bid with a bunch of 2nd and third round picks (essentially getting their first round pick back like what Essendon did with Kako last year). Similar to 1) above, if a team does this under the revised rules proposed above, the premium or tax to match the bid from the second round becomes much heftier and unaffordable.

3) Teams currently trade up the order, ahead of any expected bids on their F/S or NGA talent, and then matching any bids with a bunch of 2nd and 3rd round picks (essentially gaining an extra first round pick). Again, similar to 1) and 2) above, if a team consumes their first round pick and then tries to match a bid with a second round pick, the premium becomes a lot higher and unaffordable.

4) Teams have multiple F/S or NGA talents in a single draft. Under the proposed revised bid matching rules, teams would reasonably be able to match a bid for one, however, the premium on the second would be a lot higher. Alternatively, the team matching would need to trade to obtain a second high end pick to match the second F/S or NGA bid. In any case, it ensures that a team obtaining multiple high end F/S or NGAs will have to have multiple high end picks, or otherwise have to pay a much higher price.

I think the strength of this system is that it ensures that every high end bid requires a high end draft pick to match, or else it becomes too unaffordable to match. The only way I can see teams trying to game the system is to try to trade up the draft order as close to the expected bid range as possible to reduce the premium they would have to pay, in which case, they are just paying as close to fair value as possible.

The only issue is it may be difficult for teams to now obtain enough points in a single draft to match the bids, so I would set a minimum amount that must be paid in the current draft (for example, it may be 70%), and allow the balance (say 30%) to be paid out of the following draft.

 

[Miller1971]

Nah, it's the other way around from what I remember. Dunkley told Sydney if he gets bid by a Melbourne club he would like to stay and Swans not to match it. If it was from a club in QLD, SA, WA etc - he wanted the Swans to match it as he'd rather come to Sydney in that scenario.

His first preference was to stay home if he gets drafted by Melbourne based club which is how the draft panned out for him.

Stay 'home' in Yarram, 3 hours from Melbourne where he then worked in Sale in his first year out of school?

Dunkley was a poor kick as a junior, Dogs bid on him in the 2nd round unexpectedly and Swans chose not to match because he wasn't expected to go that high by most recruiters. He actually flew to sydney multiple times as a junior to train with their academy.

 

[mpal6]

Stay 'home' in Yarram, 3 hours from Melbourne where he then worked in Sale in his first year out of school?

Dunkley was a poor kick as a junior, Dogs bid on him in the 2nd round unexpectedly and Swans chose not to match because he wasn't expected to go that high by most recruiters. He actually flew to sydney multiple times as a junior to train with their academy.

The generous deal that got Dunkley to the Dogs

AFL.com.au reveals the deal that brought Josh Dunkley to the Dogs

www.afl.com.au

This is the official word from AFL site. Family wanted him to stay close in Victoria and Swans agreed to it. I have nothing for or against where Dunkley got drafted but I remember this due to the unique arrangement Swans had with Dunkley.

 

[Bostonian]

We just have to start coaching our academy kids to say they need to stay home or else they'll have a mental health breakdown. Just play the same card that vic draftees have been playing all along.

Be brave ! speak your mind ! express yourself and your feelings ! Just tell them how drafting you would be a waste of their precious first round pick and they should look elsewhere instead.

The difference is your club is instructing them to do that.

Any kid in Victoria who does it isn't doing it under the instruction of a single club.

 

[mpal6]

The difference is your club is instructing them to do that.

Any kid in Victoria who does it isn't doing it under the instruction of a single club.

We're not going to be that explicit are we.

Here are the various articles about how kids are managing to say things in past AFL drafts in order to stay home. You can read it and make up your own mind on what you'd like to say.... or something like that hopefully.

 

[Bostonian]

We're not going to be that explicit are we.

Here are the various articles about how kids are managing to say things in past AFL drafts in order to stay home. You can read it and make up your own mind on what you'd like to say.... or something like that hopefully.

You and Sydney already have the largest advantages of any clubs when it comes to the draft.

Do what you're suggesting and it amounts to draft tampering.

 

[Lore]

The difference is your club is instructing them to do that.

Any kid in Victoria who does it isn't doing it under the instruction of a single club.

Aren't they? I've heard of it a few times.