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

[Lore]

Changes announced at the end of 2024 to come into effect in 2025 are based around a new draft value index (how many points each pick is worth), a reduced discount for clubs matching bids (10%, down from 20%), and as of the 2024 Draft, bids on NGA players can be matched in the first round, rather than being locked out until pick 40.

Below are the two Draft Value Indexes (DVIs), the first was in use up until 2024, and the second is from this year (2025) onwards. I've added an extra column to indicate what pick you would need to match a bid if the bid was matched with only one pick. In 2024 you could match pick 1 with pick 2, but in 2025 you would need pick 1 to match a bid at 1... etc.

Spoiler: 2024 DVI

Round	Pick	Pick value	Bid match requirement	Equivalent pick
Round 1	1	3000	2400	2
Round 1	2	2517	2014	4
Round 1	3	2234	1787	5
Round 1	4	2034	1627	7
Round 1	5	1878	1502	8
Round 1	6	1751	1401	9
Round 1	7	1644	1315	11
Round 1	8	1551	1241	12
Round 1	9	1469	1175	13
Round 1	10	1395	1116	14
Round 1	11	1329	1063	16
Round 1	12	1268	1014	17
Round 1	13	1212	970	18
Round 1	14	1161	929	19
Round 1	15	1112	890	20
Round 1	16	1067	854	21
Round 1	17	1025	820	22
Round 1	18	985	788	23
Round 2	19	948	751	25
Round 2	20	912	715	26
Round 2	21	878	681	27
Round 2	22	845	648	28
Round 2	23	815	618	30
Round 2	24	785	588	31
Round 2	25	756	559	32
Round 2	26	729	532	34
Round 2	27	703	506	36
Round 2	28	677	480	37
Round 2	29	653	456	38
Round 2	30	629	432	39
Round 2	31	606	409	41
Round 2	32	584	387	42
Round 2	33	563	366	43
Round 2	34	542	345	45
Round 2	35	522	325	46
Round 2	36	502	305	47
Round 3	37	483	286	49
Round 3	38	465	268	50
Round 3	39	446	249	51
Round 3	40	429	232	53
Round 3	41	412	215	54
Round 3	42	395	198	55
Round 3	43	378	181	57
Round 3	44	362	165	58
Round 3	45	347	150	59
Round 3	46	331	134	61
Round 3	47	316	119	62
Round 3	48	302	105	63
Round 3	49	287	90	65
Round 3	50	273	76	66
Round 3	51	259	62	67
Round 3	52	246	49	69
Round 3	53	233	36	70
Round 3	54	220	23	71
Round 3	55	207	10	72
Round 3	56	194	nil	any
Round 4	57	182
Round 4	58	170
Round 4	59	158
Round 4	60	146
Round 4	61	135
Round 4	62	123
Round 4	63	112
Round 4	64	101
Round 4	65	90
Round 4	66	80
Round 4	67	69
Round 4	68	59
Round 4	69	49
Round 4	70	39
Round 4	71	29
Round 4	72	19
Round 4	73	9

Spoiler: 2025 and beyond DVI

Round	Pick	Pick value	Bid match requirement	Equivalent pick
Round 1	1	3000	2700	1
Round 1	2	2481	2233	2
Round 1	3	2178	1960	4
Round 1	4	1962	1766	5
Round 1	5	1795	1616	6
Round 1	6	1659	1493	7
Round 1	7	1543	1389	8
Round 1	8	1443	1299	9
Round 1	9	1355	1220	10
Round 1	10	1276	1148	11
Round 1	11	1205	1085	12
Round 1	12	1140	1026	13
Round 1	13	1080	972	15
Round 1	14	1024	922	16
Round 1	15	973	876	17
Round 1	16	924	832	18
Round 1	17	879	791	19
Round 1	18	836	752	20
Round 2	19	796	712	21
Round 2	20	757	673	22
Round 2	21	721	637	23
Round 2	22	686	602	24
Round 2	23	653	569	25
Round 2	24	621	537	26
Round 2	25	590	506	27
Round 2	26	561	477	28
Round 2	27	533	449	30
Round 2	28	505	421	31
Round 2	29	479	395	32
Round 2	30	454	370	33
Round 2	31	429	345	34
Round 2	32	405	321	35
Round 2	33	382	298	36
Round 2	34	360	276	38
Round 2	35	338	254	39
Round 2	36	317	233	40
Round 3	37	297	nil	any
Round 3	38	277
Round 3	39	257
Round 3	40	238
Round 3	41	220
Round 3	42	202
Round 3	43	184
Round 3	44	167
Round 3	45	150
Round 3	46	134
Round 3	47	118
Round 3	48	102
Round 3	49	86
Round 3	50	71
Round 3	51	57
Round 3	52	42
Round 3	53	28
Round 3	54	14
Round 3	55	0
Round 3	56	0

Clubs have already been limited to one pick in the national draft for each available spot on the senior list for the last few years. The minimum open list spots prior to the draft is 3, in order to take a minimum of 3 picks in the national draft (including rookie upgrades).

With the new DVI, picks in the second and third round are significantly devalued, and fourth round picks have no value at all. Grand Final teams' third round picks also have no value under the new DVI. This means that trading in enough points to match a high bid is far more difficult from 2025 onwards.

Notably, in 2025 you cannot match Pick 1 with your natural draft hand if you finish outside the bottom 5. The club that starts with picks 5, 23 and 41 will not have enough points to match Pick 1 without trading for more picks, while the premiers' natural draft hand is now insufficient to match a bid above 10th.


As of Monday 18th of August 2025, the AFL is also floating the possibility of a draft lockout affecting the first 5 or 10 picks, or potentially the whole first round.

Spoiler: 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.

 

[Blackas87]

The problem statement is cost to acquire and access to talent.

The FRP method does nothing to equalise either issue. It only equalises the double dipping loophole clubs have taken advantage of.

It doesn’t release more talent back to the open draft. It doesn’t provide a fairer cost to acquire. It just slides picks back and creates deficits.

But moving back in following drafts means you are missing out on higher talent, leaving more talent to other clubs.

 

[Elixuh]

You seemingly aren’t great at understanding the impacts these decision make to clubs trading and list management.

Irrelevant if Will is a spud.

He was the best rated kid in that draft. North would have loved him at pick 1.

Father son and academies have both been the issue. The saints have lobbied again both and it seems based on Cal Twomeys news on Friday that both will be impacted.

My argument to the fix is to allow for both but ensure a pick within 5 of the bid is required to match as opposed to what the AFL has lobbied which looks like a blanket ban in the top 5/10/entire first round.

You're concocting rationale's and fantasy land narratives about the motivations of clubs with no evidence to back up your assertions and asking us to accept these things as fact (lol). Just a long list of 'what ifs' as though that is a credible way to make an argument.

They manufactured an extra first round pick. I'd hazard a guess and say North thought it was a wise list decision at the time. Especially as it allowed them to get 2 of 3 guys they rated highly as opposed to one. That is all from doing a quick 60 second google search.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I prefer mine to all these number crunching to be honest.

You match only a single first round academy/NGA in a year. Also, as part of matching, you are giving up rights to match any first round father/son academy nga in the following year. Clubs can still keep their natural or traded first round pick in the following year and go ahead select from open draft pool in the year they cant match. If an academy player naturally fall to their pick and they select him in open pool - that's fine too.

Now youre forcing clubs to make a choice which year they want to match first round academy or NGA.

This is only for first round bid match - no limit from second round onwards.

Only change I'd make to yours is the club gets to choose which year of a first round they can't match within a 3 year period. So for instance lets use mine okay we match Max King okay, we are then asked which year 2026-2028 do we wish to forfeit our first round selection.

 

[stavro#4]

You're concocting rationale's and fantasy land narratives about the motivations of clubs with no evidence to back up your assertions and asking us to accept these things as fact (lol). Just a long list of 'what ifs' as though that is a credible way to make an argument.

They manufactured an extra first round pick. I'd hazard a guess and say North thought it was a wise list decision at the time. Especially as it allowed them to get 2 of 3 guys they rated highly as opposed to one. That is all from doing a quick 60 second google search.

They manufactured an extra first round pick because there wasn’t a clear #1 pick outside of Ashcroft…. Who they bid on at pick 2

But moving back in following drafts means you are missing out on higher talent, leaving more talent to other clubs.

Unless you have another first round pick, say via compo and you can push that back.

Which is what you said.

So fair value is never paid. You just create a deficit that you can keep sliding back until you get to a draft and decided you have no interest (let’s say this year) and clear your deficit.

It doesn’t allow top talent back to struggling clubs and it doesn’t equate to say Brisbane giving up anything significant

First pick can move up by matching, 2nd pick can move back making up the difference

 

[mpal6]

Only change I'd make to yours is the club gets to choose which year of a first round they can't match within a 3 year period. So for instance lets use mine okay we match Max King okay, we are then asked which year 2026-2028 do we wish to forfeit our first round selection.

That's fair too. You are conceding a future year where prospects are unclear. Could be good, could be bust so its a fair lottery at that point.

 

[mpal6]

Problem with having a pick within 5 means a club with a pick within 5 must be willing to trade it out for what you’ve got.

It’s a hard ask. The academies were set up to have more local talent playing at club close to their homes to avoid player exodus due to go home factor.

You’re expecting Gold Coast to trade with one of only 5 clubs that may not be willing to trade their pick when we don’t even know where the player will have a bid placed on, for whatever Gold Coast are willing to give up that those 5 clubs aren’t interested in.

This is a tall ask.

It's not a hard ask, it's a ask setup to fail from the get go. Who in their right mind won't ask for a ransom from a club who are desperately looking for a pick within 5 of where the bid is made. Everyone holding those 5 picks will of course !!

9/10 times it'll fail to the point clubs will give up. but that's what the poster wants anyway.

 

[mpal6]

You seemingly aren’t great at understanding the impacts these decision make to clubs trading and list management.

Irrelevant if Will is a spud.

He was the best rated kid in that draft. North would have loved him at pick 1.

Father son and academies have both been the issue. The saints have lobbied again both and it seems based on Cal Twomeys news on Friday that both will be impacted.

My argument to the fix is to allow for both but ensure a pick within 5 of the bid is required to match as opposed to what the AFL has lobbied which looks like a blanket ban in the top 5/10/entire first round.

That's a BS argument - whether or not Will turns out good / spud totally matters coz you're asking the club to mortgage their future and more just for the privilege of matching a bid for a player.

You know what, I hope Saints decimate father son as part of this exercise. It'll be great to watch this one go and then kids of Montagna, Riewoldt etc pop up as good prospects. The cries then will be deafening

 

[stavro#4]

It's not a hard ask, it's a ask setup to fail from the get go. Who in their right mind won't ask for a ransom from a club who are desperately looking for a pick within 5 of where the bid is made. Everyone holding those 5 picks will of course !!

9/10 times it'll fail to the point clubs will give up. but that's what the poster wants anyway.

No, I want fair value paid.

All other alternatives very much avoid this crucial point.

Not a single fan of an academy or beneficiary of father sons wants the Rort to stop.

Which is why it will be so much worse for you if the AFLs blanket approach occurs.

 

[stavro#4]

That's a BS argument - whether or not Will turns out good / spud totally matters coz you're asking the club to mortgage their future and more just for the privilege of matching a bid for a player.

You know what, I hope Saints decimate father son as part of this exercise. It'll be great to watch this one go and then kids of Montagna, Riewoldt etc pop up as good prospects. The cries then will be deafening

Mortgaging your future is exactly what you would be doing to acquire the pick to land will.

That’s entirely the point of this discussion.

Ensuring fair value is paid by clubs acquiring father sons and academies.

Pick 18 or multiple random picks based on DVI isn’t the fix.

Hence why the afl is now considering a black et approach to the first 5/10/entire first round.

 

[mpal6]

No, I want fair value paid.

All other alternatives very much avoid this crucial point.

Not a single fan of an academy or beneficiary of father sons wants the Rort to stop.

Which is why it will be so much worse for you if the AFLs blanket approach occurs.

What's fair value anyway? what's fair value if you happen to take Tom McCartin mortgaging 2 draft values worth of points and then he goes bust with concussions.

There is fair value and there is outrageous value which is what most of them are suggesting here. Oh take 2 years worth of firsts, trade your players, pillage your list to get within 5 picks - it's just looney town ideas for a brand new draft prospect who may or may not be successful in the end. He could be Daicos, Ashcroft or he could be Jack Watts.

 

[mpal6]

Mortgaging your future is exactly what you would be doing to acquire the pick to land will.

That’s entirely the point of this discussion.

Ensuring fair value is paid by clubs acquiring father sons and academies.

Pick 18 or multiple random picks based on DVI isn’t the fix.

Hence why the afl is now considering a black et approach to the first 5/10/entire first round.

No it's not. It's the same father son system which every single club has benefited from. We struck gold 3/3 in recent years in Ashrcrofts, Fletcher after 20 years of nothing prior to that and you want a knee jerk change.

I wonder why you didn't make any noise when Daicoses, Darcy, Libba, Cloke etc where all getting funneled through to Vic clubs. Why is this such a big issue now I wonder.

 

[stavro#4]

What's fair value anyway? what's fair value if you happen to take Tom McCartin mortgaging 2 draft values worth of points and then he goes bust with concussions.

There is fair value and there is outrageous value which is what most of them are suggesting here. Oh take 2 years worth of firsts, trade your players, pillage your list to get within 5 picks - it's just looney town ideas for a brand new draft prospect who may or may not be successful in the end. He could be Daicos, Ashcroft or he could be Jack Watts.

THATS THE POINT!!!!!

If you value him that highly. You make the trade. That’s FAIR. What happens there after is irrelevant. That’s football.

See Paddy McCartin.

The entire issue is that clubs haven’t had to pay fair value for the access, the alternative right now is removing the access.


If your only option was to get pick 2 to draft Will, what do you think it would have cost you?

Multiple firsts and a good player

 

[mpal6]

THATS THE POINT!!!!!

If you value him that highly. You make the trade. That’s FAIR. What happens there after is irrelevant. That’s football.

See Paddy McCartin.

The entire issue is that clubs haven’t had to pay fair value for the access, the alternative right now is removing the access.


If your only option was to get pick 2 to draft Will, what do you think it would have cost you?

Multiple firsts and a good player

All of a sudden I need to find Pick 2 for Will, when prior to that Dogs didn't had to find pick 2 for Darcy or Pies needed to find pick 4 for Daicos. Mate, you just a have a big problem as the benefit suddenly started flowing our way as well - as long as we didn't get anything and it stayed Victoria centric like prior, you didn't have a problem with it.

 

[stavro#4]

No it's not. It's the same father son system which every single club has benefited from. We struck gold 3/3 in recent years in Ashrcrofts, Fletcher after 20 years of nothing prior to that and you want a knee jerk change.

I wonder why you didn't make any noise when Daicoses, Darcy, Libba, Cloke etc where all getting funneled through to Vic clubs. Why is this such a big issue now I wonder.

We have been complaining the entire time. It’s been a multi year issue that we have been on the front foot about.

Our presentation on the issue was how the current draft rules are creating a divide similar to the pre draft rules in the 80s involving zones.

My club would like it scrapped. My solution is a within 5 pick alternative that allows you to still take Ashcroft - but you would need to pay market value for the pick.

 

[Tom14]

Will was 2 and Levi was 5 in a live draft.

How did Adelaide go from bottom to top without any of these RORTS. Weird huh.

Croms have a first round father son rort, thank goodness. Inshallah the 20ish year streak of a rort team winnning the flag will continue

 

[Blackas87]

Unless you have another first round pick, say via compo and you can push that back.

Which is what you said.

So fair value is never paid. You just create a deficit that you can keep sliding back until you get to a draft and decided you have no interest (let’s say this year) and clear your deficit.

It doesn’t allow top talent back to struggling clubs and it doesn’t equate to say Brisbane giving up anything significant

Brisbane doesn’t get to decide when they have no interest though.

They could be bottom 4 next year and moving pick 4 to pick 18.

Struggling clubs are only moving 1 spot back, it’s not a significant step back especially when looking back at drafts it’s never a correct order. The best players could be Fyfe at pick 17 or Dangerfield at 7 ect…

The academies are just to allow NSW and Queensland clubs to acquire local talent where as Vic, SA and WA clubs can do much easier.

There has been plenty of times where Vic, SA and WA clubs have overlooked intestate talent to draft local, this is just allowing another player from another state to remain home.

 

[stavro#4]

Brisbane doesn’t get to decide when they have no interest though.

They could be bottom 4 next year and moving pick 4 to pick 18.

Struggling clubs are only moving 1 spot back, it’s not a significant step back especially when looking back at drafts it’s never a correct order. The best players could be Fyfe at pick 17 or Dangerfield at 7 ect…

The academies are just to allow NSW and Queensland clubs to acquire local talent where as Vic, SA and WA clubs can do much easier.

There has been plenty of times where Vic, SA and WA clubs have overlooked intestate talent to draft local, this is just allowing another player from another state to remain home.

The issue is the cost to access. All you are doing is letting them pick and choose when they access and making payment 12 months later.

Brisbane haven’t missed the finals since 2018 as an example. It’s likely they never pay fair value for the access to top 5 talents.

It has no impact on today.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Struggling clubs are only moving 1 spot back, it’s not a significant step back especially when looking back at drafts it’s never a correct order. The best players could be Fyfe at pick 17 or Dangerfield at 7 ect…

1 pick is not a big issue, it is when you have years like this when you have 5 of the top 10 not available to all clubs that it becomes a big problem.

The new point system is a lot better, and at least GC have multiple first round picks to match the 3 players they have.

If they keep those picks, and don't trade them for later picks then you know the point system is working.

 

[Tom14]

Croms have a first round father son rort, thank goodness. Inshallah the 20ish year streak of a rort team winnning the flag will continue

Finalists by RORTS:

Crows: Michalanney F/S; Tex under the dodgy NSW scholarship program that preceded the academies. An extra home game due to Gather Round.

Pies: Pendles (priority pick was Dale Thomas, but the extra pick was pendles), Moore, Daicos x2, Quaynor.

Geelong: Best natural advantage due to fixture in the comp, COTTON ON and Rhys Stanley's farm. Notice no father sons left and none on the horizon so makes sense why C Scott is now anti Father son, their natural advantages will be untouched.

Lions: Andrews, Ashcroft x 2, Hipwood, Fletcher, Marshall.

GIANTS: Less than you would think - start up concessions still relevant for Toby Greene and Coniglio (I think), and Tom Green is the big academy player.

Hawks: Calsher Dear. They also RORTED the lions out of a draft pick for Brandon Ryan because Gunners needed a compassionate trade back to them.

Freo: Sandgroper chip on shoulder = biggest RORT of all. Brandon Walker NGA but isn't very good and hasn't played all year. Of course they got another big RORT this year - Norf sold them a home game so that got them in the 8. Counts as a RORT premiership imo.

Gold Coast and the bulldogs speak for themselves, perhaps the greatest rort accumulators in the game today.


We RORT-enjoyers can't lose this year

 

[Blackas87]

The issue is the cost to access. All you are doing is letting them pick and choose when they access and making payment 12 months later.

Brisbane haven’t missed the finals since 2018 as an example. It’s likely they never pay fair value for the access to top 5 talents.

It has no impact on today.

I disagree, they keep moving their position back in the draft.

They get one top 5 player but 3-4 years of getting pick 18 if they remain a finals side. 3-4 years of all 17 other clubs getting a preference over them.

 

[Elixuh]

1 pick is not a big issue, it is when you have years like this when you have 5 of the top 10 not available to all clubs that it becomes a big problem.

The new point system is a lot better, and at least GC have multiple first round picks to match the 3 players they have.

If they keep those picks, and don't trade them for later picks then you know the point system is working.

Pre-academies was this an issue?

 

[Tom14]

Pre-academies was this an issue?

On a totally different topic it is very funny that the Freo team of 2013-15 misses out on being a rort team because they traded away their 2001 priority pick to Hawthorn (missing out on Hodge/Ball/Judd).

 

[go_the_dockers]

Pre-academies was this an issue?

I don't think so. I think at worse it was 3 or 4 players in the top 20 but that was very rare.

Even with academies, it has only been a big issue since they started producing more talent.

 

[Blackas87]

1 pick is not a big issue, it is when you have years like this when you have 5 of the top 10 not available to all clubs that it becomes a big problem.

The new point system is a lot better, and at least GC have multiple first round picks to match the 3 players they have.

If they keep those picks, and don't trade them for later picks then you know the point system is working.

Top 10 players aren’t available to All clubs, Fremantle for example won’t have access to top 10 players this year.

But that’s why I said a maximum of 20 position deficit (this could be less or more) and then you lose a pick.

You lose a pick then you won’t have access to the 1st round. Won’t have access to academy players if you don’t have a pick.

Clubs would have to choose whether it’s worth taking all players in the top 10.

Just because a club bids on a player in the top 10 doesn’t mean the matching club agrees.

The draft isn’t an exact science, you can get great players outside the top 10, Fremantle getting Murphy Reid at 17 and Fyfe at 20 are great examples. The academy system is just to allow Northern state clubs to have local talent, there is no guarantee these players will end up the top 10 player from their respective draft years. These clubs will also move back their draft positions in following years.

 

[Elixuh]

I don't think so. I think at worse it was 3 or 4 players in the top 20 but that was very rare.

Even with academies, it has only been a big issue since they started producing more talent.

I thought I'd have to ask a few questions to get us there but we got there in one. Kudos my friend.