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.

 

[longdonkey]

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.

The underlying reason for all this is. The A(V)FL are just telling the interstate clubs you can't have good things

 

[longdonkey]

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

Why are Academy players considered a rort while Free Agency or picks acquired through free agency aren't? I would consider the pick that Geelong got given for Steven Motlop every bit as much of a rort as any Academy player.

Also isn't there a Bews still running around Cardigan Park?

 

[Elixuh]

Why are Academy players considered a rort while Free Agency or picks acquired through free agency aren't? I would consider the pick that Geelong got given for Steven Motlop every bit as much of a rort as any Academy player.

Also isn't there a Bews still running around Cardigan Park?

At the end of the day every club in the league is rorting. Its just that like 2 or 3 of them, we all know who, aren't very good at it and so complain.

 

[Tom14]

Why are Academy players considered a rort while Free Agency or picks acquired through free agency aren't? I would consider the pick that Geelong got given for Steven Motlop every bit as much of a rort as any Academy player.

Also isn't there a Bews still running around Cardigan Park?

RORTS are a big tent - so if you want to include free agents or free agent compo picks then please do.

The more RORTS recognition the better!

 

[Tom14]

Why are Academy players considered a rort while Free Agency or picks acquired through free agency aren't? I would consider the pick that Geelong got given for Steven Motlop every bit as much of a rort as any Academy player.

Also isn't there a Bews still running around Cardigan Park?

Bowes and pick 7 for a second rounder equals a rort too imo.

 

[longdonkey]

At the end of the day every club in the league is rorting. Its just that like 2 or 3 of them, we all know who, aren't very good at it and so complain.

The academies are only there in the first place to stop the flow of players out of Victoria into the Northern States but the moment that you get good players they want to shut you down.

I've got no issue with it being more difficult, the rort is manipulating draft picks and trading for players and then getting the academy players as well. But of course the AFL will go down the you can't have first round players route instead.

 

[Tom14]

The academies are only there in the first place to stop the flow of players out of Victoria into the Northern States but the moment that you get good players they want to shut you down.

I've got no issue with it being more difficult, the rort is manipulating draft picks and trading for players and then getting the academy players as well. But of course the AFL will go down the you can't have first round players route instead.

Biggest rort by a mile is letting clubs do more trades on draft night to get more picks than they have list spots. It is genuinely ridiculous - you go in with your number of picks being limited by list spots and then on the night they let you trade for more picks and it becomes piss easy to match bids.

We ended up with too many third rounders after matching the Levi and Marshall bids that we then traded for future thirds which will help with Annable.

 

[Coach_Required]

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.

You have to draw the line in the sand at some point, if you keep going back to what previously happened then it will never change. ATM its oh they got Darcy, they got Daicos, they have Ashcroft, tomorrow it will be they got Walker, they got Bewick.

Enough is enough. I'm glad the AFL are finally willing to address the rort. Top 5 kids in the draft is where the AFL should be targeting. That way clubs still have incentives to develop F/S or academies but those kids who are the cream at the top should be available to the bottom sides struggling.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

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.

But by this logic no team should have ever had to pay more because Geelong got Hawkins top 3 prospect with a third-round pick or that Sydney got Heeney top 3 prospect with pick 18. Why try to improve things because it's been less perfect in the past?

 

[jdstorm]

My concern isn’t the players at pick 20+. Every club at this point has had a chance to grab them.

It’s the absolute top end talent that go to finals sides when clubs at the bottom desperately need them.

Imagine North with Naicos or Darcy right now. They would be significantly better.

The cost to acquire a top 5 pick is usually astronomical. The saving grace is that if the player somehow falls to you at 5. You could trade back to 10 for some assets and still get your kid.

From memory Top 3 picks have about a 33% chance to make AA top 10 about 10% so you have a better chance at the top but it’s still far from certain.

I’m fine with clubs getting access to these players for the right price as you said the cost of a top 5 pick is astronomical and you’d essentially need to pay that twice to get a player bid on at pick 1

 

[Duckimus Prime]

The cost to acquire a top 5 pick is usually astronomical. The saving grace is that if the player somehow falls to you at 5. You could trade back to 10 for some assets and still get your kid.

Really? Because Port managed to get one in a superdraft with trading that started with giving up Jared Polec, Jasper Pittard and a bunch of late crap.

And eventually got pick 5 and a guy who was a top 10 selection, for pick 6, pick 35 and a future third.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Really? Because Port managed to get one in a superdraft with trading that started with giving up Jared Polec, Jasper Pittard and a bunch of late crap.

And eventually got pick 5 and a guy who was a top 10 selection, for pick 6, pick 35 and a future third.

On the flipside the Bulldogs had to give up pick 10, pick 17 and a future first-rounder just to trade up for pick 6 most recently to get Ryley Sanders.

That's what we're talking about here.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

But by this logic no team should have ever had to pay more because Geelong got Hawkins top 3 prospect with a third-round pick or that Sydney got Heeney top 3 prospect with pick 18. Why try to improve things because it's been less perfect in the past?

Sydney developed Isaac Heeney as a player because they had access to him. And they still paid a 1st round pick. If they didn't have access to him, they don't develop him and no one in the AFL gets Isaac Heeney.

And hows the shit blokes move from Geelong calling for Father-Son to be scrapped after the way they benefitted from that rort.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

On the flipside the Bulldogs had to give up pick 10, pick 17 and a future first-rounder just to trade up for pick 6 most recently to get Ryley Sanders.

That's what we're talking about here.

So your club did a rubbish job at getting more out of Gold Coast when they were desperately trying to get more points for matching three first round Academy kids?

This is why Gold Coast didn't pay "a fair price" for their Academy kids. I mean, the Dogs were dumb enough to hand them 3 first round picks for pick 4.

Clubs could've not done the trades, Pick 4 would've been eaten up by the bid on Walter at 3. They wouldn't have had the picks to match Read at 10, or Rogers at 14.

But then the Dogs wouldn't have been able to use 17 anyway since it would've been eaten up by the bid on Croft. Which you ignore in this comparison.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So your club did a rubbish job at getting more out of Gold Coast when they were desperately trying to get more points for matching three first round Academy kids?

This is why Gold Coast didn't pay "a fair price" for their Academy kids. I mean, the Dogs were dumb enough to hand them 3 first round picks for pick 4.

You do realise the need to trade pick 17 for us was to also get points to match a Croft bid?

 

[mpal6]

But by this logic no team should have ever had to pay more because Geelong got Hawkins top 3 prospect with a third-round pick or that Sydney got Heeney top 3 prospect with pick 18. Why try to improve things because it's been less perfect in the past?

You have to draw the line in the sand at some point, if you keep going back to what previously happened then it will never change. ATM its oh they got Darcy, they got Daicos, they have Ashcroft, tomorrow it will be they got Walker, they got Bewick.

Enough is enough. I'm glad the AFL are finally willing to address the rort. Top 5 kids in the draft is where the AFL should be targeting. That way clubs still have incentives to develop F/S or academies but those kids who are the cream at the top should be available to the bottom sides struggling.

The issue with this drawing the line on the sand is AFL doing a classic flipflop for the greater good of the game when the next big "Victorian" father son shows up in the radar - as it'll be a travesty for the said last name to be kicking footy in some other jumper other than their dad's one. Let's flip the rule again as "it'll be good for the footy" whatever the heck that means.

They've done the same flipflop with NGA as well, robbing Demons off Mac Andrew and then flipping back 2 years later to a free for all now.

You asked for a points system DVI which has just been implemented but whether or not it's effective - it doesn't matter. You want more changes and swing the pendulum the other side extremely until the whole thing is broken. Classic knee jerk all around and AFL is just responding to it which is pretty pathetic/crazy overall.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The issue with this drawing the line on the sand is AFL doing a classic flipflop for the greater good of the game when the next big "Victorian" father son shows up in the radar - as it'll be a travesty for the said last name to be kicking footy in some other jumper other than their dad's one. Let's flip the rule again as "it'll be good for the footy" whatever the heck that means.

They've done the same flipflop with NGA as well, robbing Demons off Mac Andrew and then flipping back 2 years later to a free for all now.

You asked for a points system DVI which has just been implemented but whether or not it's effective - it doesn't matter. You want more changes and swing the pendulum the other side extremely until the whole thing is broken. Classic knee jerk all around and AFL is just responding to it which is pretty pathetic/crazy overall.

Nobody's saying that the AFL shouldn't have different procedures to make changes that what's being reported in the media, bloody hell, or that they're making fixes in the best way forward.

 

[Profop]

Eh the Saints need to make a big song and dance about this to distract their fans from the fact that a bunch of teams dealing with the same ‘unfair’ system are sailing past them at a rate of knots

 

[JTTheKing]

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.

Clubs can hardly even get normal trades done within the trade period and you seriously think they’d be able to get what you propose done in 5 minutes?

Please.

Ridiculous idea.

 

[JTTheKing]

Eh the Saints need to make a big song and dance about this to distract their fans from the fact that a bunch of teams dealing with the same ‘unfair’ system are sailing past them at a rate of knots

I think the funniest part about the Saints moaning is that they then go and throw 1.8 mil a year at TDK and all we get is a compo pick.

Now I happen to think the compo system is silly. However it is funny how cooked the whole trade system is.

If it was an American sport for example like the NBA and TDK was refusing to sign a new contract because he’s after a giant one, his club could ship him off for a proper trade haul.

Part of the rort is that clubs have no power to do what they want with a valuable asset.

We saw it last year with Geelong and Bailey Smith. A top 4 side can just bully the Dogs into giving up a great talent for a bag of chips essentially.

Everyone complains about rort this, rort that. The reality is there’s flaws in every system in the AFL.

Make some amendments to the father sons and academies. But FFS it’s tiring hearing any club moaning about a lack of success and blaming it on either.

Teams continue to prove that if you make some smart trades, signings and some decent draft picks (particularly value ones) and have good coaching and instil a good culture, you will go back up the ladder. Just look at Hawthorn. They could have gone to the bottom after that flag era and pissed and moaned about unfairness. They didn’t though. They did all sorts of smart things and quickly rose back up the ladder.

Meanwhile a team like North has just seemed to draft a bunch of midfielders and other random players with no real direction and you wonder why they’re still on the bottom. That isn’t because of father sons or academies. They continue to make silly decisions.

 

[juddy_Like]

Pre-academies was this an issue?

Yes it was basically the over generous priority picks where the middle of the table teams were disadvantaged.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

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

And he was an actual rort. Father-Son for a guy that never played for them, and his Dad only played 211 games (in SANFL counting) over 12 years.

And see SANFL counting includes the night series games, which the AFL has previously stated don't count for Father-Son.

Yes it was basically the over generous priority picks where the middle of the table teams were disadvantaged.

And guess where the clubs that got all of those are located...

 

[Elixuh]

And he was an actual rort. Father-Son for a guy that never played for them, and his Dad only played 211 games (in SANFL counting) over 12 years.

And see SANFL counting includes the night series games, which the AFL has previously stated don't count for Father-Son.


And guess where the clubs that got all of those are located...

The best kind of rort

 

[HBFlanker]

Simple solution to the Free agency circus at the moment.

If you finish top 4 you can't bring in a free agent that year.

I cannot believe this hasn't been introduced yet.

 

[Elixuh]

Simple solution to the Free agency circus at the moment.

If you finish top 4 you can't bring in a free agent that year.

I cannot believe this hasn't been introduced yet.

Clubs like WCE would argue that is unfair to them as Bris is giving them pick 2.

I'd personally get rid of free agency. We can't copy what other sports do because other sports don't have half the competitions teams in one city.