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

[Lore]

But without a lack of completely true financial and management (the appointing of directors of the board) independence from the AFL, they in effect already are for the four northern clubs. That is completely missed by people who like to claim that the academies are independent from the AFL. I would argue that the operations of (especially) GWS and GC in its entirety are not independent from the AFL either.

South Melbourne and Fitzroy aren’t new franchises that the AFL invented and appointed directors to. They just moved up north and changed their names. Hence having academy and father son simultaneously (GC/GWS still waiting for their first f/s).

 

[Scotland]

Luke Hodge is so full of shit.

Brisbane invested resources into Cooper Hodge. Tremendous, so if WC invest resources into Drew Petrie

Drew Petrie

Age

43

Ht

197cm

Wt

101kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.3

3star

K

8.6

3star

HB

3.7

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

2.7

4star

G

1.3

5star

No current season stats available

D

5.2

2star

K

4.0

2star

HB

1.2

2star

M

1.6

2star

T

1.8

4star

G

0.0

1star

's son(s) should we get preferential access? Who cares about the 316 games Drew Petrie

Drew Petrie

Age

43

Ht

197cm

Wt

101kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.3

3star

K

8.6

3star

HB

3.7

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

2.7

4star

G

1.3

5star

No current season stats available

D

5.2

2star

K

4.0

2star

HB

1.2

2star

M

1.6

2star

T

1.8

4star

G

0.0

1star

played for North, he played 16 for us and stayed in WA.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

But without a lack of completely true financial and management (the appointing of directors of the board) independence from the AFL, they in effect already are for the four northern clubs. That is completely missed by people who like to claim that the academies are independent from the AFL. I would argue that the operations of (especially) GWS and GC in its entirety are not independent from the AFL either.

I'm playing nice for the Academy bro's, regardless of who is truly funding it already, if Sydney want to claim they wont fund it anymore, the AFL can fund it, whatever.

 

[longdonkey]

All paid for by the other clubs though.

Paid for by the other clubs but initially wanted by the Victorian clubs to decrease the number of Vic kids drafted to northern states.
Here build these academies in Qld and NSW so you can get your own players rather than taking ours. But not if they are too good then we'll take them away.

 

[Wild Bill]

This will be the draft that finally forces change.

Suns getting 2 top 5 players and Bris getting 1.

The premier could be taking a pick in the 30s. The whole thing is cooked and needs to be blown up.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

South Melbourne and Fitzroy aren’t new franchises that the AFL invented and appointed directors to. They just moved up north and changed their names. Hence having academy and father son simultaneously (GC/GWS still waiting for their first f/s).

Fine, but you still have GC and GWS people claim that they 'fund' the northern academies and 'if you don't like it the AFL can fund it' when what they're saying it literally the same thing.

In any case I find the arguments a bit pointless.

We want the academies to be efficient in how it spends its money. One way to do that is to encourage the kids to be invested and want to join the academies. Most of the kids support the local team. So if your average 13 year old academy player Gold Coast fan is on the fence whether they should continue with the academy, one way of encouraging them is to get them to run around in a Gold Coast jumper as they get a thrill 'playing' for the team that they support. I know when I was a junior member of the Dogs I got a thrill in our annual junior 'train with the AFL players' junior member day when I got to pretend I was a Bulldogs player too.

So the AFL directly funds the northern academies through their funding of the northern teams and the lack of board independence especially with GWS and GC. We also agree that the academies should have local team branding to make them effective. At that point, is there even a difference to when the "club" or "the AFL" runs them? Either party could run them irrespective of the draft advantages we give at the end result.

 

[sydney_gws]

There have made many suggestions, another one is only let first round bids be paid for by first rounders.
So if you have pick 8 and a player bid on at 3, you pay with 8 and next years first ( if it's 10, you give that up and get a pick with the leftover points, perhaps pick 24.
So over two years you effectively have traded
8, 10 for 3,24 ( taking your father son gun at 3).

 

[longdonkey]

This will be the draft that finally forces change.

Suns getting 2 top 5 players and Bris getting 1.

The premier could be taking a pick in the 30s. The whole thing is cooked and needs to be blown up.

Easy to say everything is cooked but only certain rules will get changed and that will allow certain clubs to be stronger than others still.

 

[Taylor]

I'll just list the father son picks for now as I get to 2015 and there's 5 academy players in the first round matched with a total of (for all players): Pick #11, #33, #36, #37, #43, #34, #40, #36, #37, #48, #50, #55, #59 (SYD/BRI/GC/GWS only)

This era was pre trade period meeting, clubs bid, next pick matched it:

2010 - Mitch Wallis (WBD) bid at pick #16 (Port) - pick #22 used
2011 - Tom Mitchell (SYD) bid at pick #16 (Freo) - pick #21 used
2012 - Joe Daniher (ESS) bid at pick #7 (Port) - pick #10 used
2012 - Jack Viney

7

Jack Viney

Age

31

Ht

179cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.1

5star

K

9.4

4star

HB

12.6

5star

M

2.8

3star

T

5.7

5star

CL

5.0

5star

D

21.8

5star

K

10.3

4star

HB

11.5

5star

M

2.5

3star

T

4.5

5star

CL

5.0

5star

D

13.4

4star

K

8.6

4star

HB

4.8

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

3.4

5star

CL

3.6

5star

(MEL) bid at pick #7 (Port) - pick #26 used (included for the bid)
2013 - Luke McDonald (NOR) bid at pick #6 (WCE) - pick #8 used
2014 - Darcy Moore

30

Darcy Moore

Age

29

Ht

203cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.1

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

4.8

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

169.1

3star

D

13.9

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

6.6

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

0.7

1star

MG

182.0

3star

D

6.8

2star

K

4.2

2star

HB

2.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

87.4

2star

(COL) bid at pick #5 (WBD) - pick #9 used

This new era introduced points:

2015 - No F/S - 5 Northern Academy players
2016 - No F/S - 4 Northern Academy players
2017 - No F/S - 0 Northern Academy players
2018 - No F/S - 1 Northern Academy, 2 NGA players (Syd Academy player should be F/S to North)
2019 - No F/S - 1 Northern Academy, 1 NGA players
2020 - No F/S - 2 Northern Academy, 3 NGA players
2021 - Sam Darcy (WBD) bid at #2 (GWS) - picks #34, 42, 43, 44, 45 used
2021 - Nick Daicos (COL) bid at #4 (GCS) - picks #38, 40, 42, 44 used
2021 - #5 Mac Andrew NGA denied after rule change
2021 - # 11 Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera NGA denied after rule change
2022 - Will Ashcroft (BRI) bid at #2 (NOR) - picks #40, 42, 43, 46 used
2022 - Jaspa Fletcher (BRI) bid at #12 (WBD) - picks #41, 47, 49 used
2022 - Max Michalanney (ADE) bid at pick #17 (SYD) - picks #46, 56, 59 used
2022 - 1 other Northern Academy player
2023 - Jordan Croft (WBD) bid at pick #15 (SYD) - picks #44, 46, 47 used
2023 - Will McCabe (HAW) bid at pick #19 (NOR) - picks #42, 44
2023 - 5 other Academy players
2024 - Levi Ashcroft (BRI) bid at pick #5 (MEL) - picks #40, 42, 43, 46 used
2024 - 2 other Northern Academy, 1 NGA player

 

[threenewpadlocks]

• Lets assume that the updated DVI points system is truly accurate in what draft picks are worth relative to each other if bidding did not exist (it isn't but for the sake of argument it is)
• If your team has 1 player bidded on, you can only use 3 picks' worth of points to match that bid, irrespective of how many list spots you free up. For each subsequent player you have bidded on, you can use the points value of 1 additional pick
• For the first pick used to match points value, you must use a pick within 18 picks of where the bid came (one natural round) to match that pick. Bid on pick 4, must use a pick between 5 and 22.
• Reduce the discount from 10% to 0%. Or if we agree we still want to give some bias to F/S and northern academies, just minimise the discount to 2% or whatever. Some discount is better than none.

 

[Taylor]

My proposal is you get a 5% penalty on points for every priority access player you match a bid on in the last ten years.

You can just pick the player yourself, no point % penalty applied.

 

[Obeanie1]

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.

The problem is the Lions getting top 5 talent every year waxing back and forth between priority access to academy guns and the next year get another gun father son.

One of the main justifications for academies was expansion sides didn't have access to father sons.

But the Lions and Swans get both. Academy AND father son access.

And the Lions have taken full advantage with a bit of luck involved.

Pretty sure those facts were glossed over by Briztoon.

 

[Obeanie1]

There is no incentives. The AFL will effectively kill the talent pool and the popularity of the sport in NSW and QLD. This decision will shoot themselves in the foot and years down the line they will only regret it more.

How?

A kid gets to move interstate to play AFL. It's an adventure. If they are a soft mummies boy they can go home and ask for a trade.

Do all Qld kids play rugby league for only Qld sides?

No they don't. And they still want to play at the top level interstate.

 

[Obeanie1]

The AFL is unlikely to volunteer money for an academy when they can get clubs to pay for it with a bit of strategic inequality… also because they’re more effective when tied to a club (which is why we have academies instead of scholarships in the first place).

The AFL and sponsors fund Northern academies. That's the reality.

Without the extra millions shovelled into their coffers the Northern clubs would be broke and couldn't afford academies.

 

[longdonkey]

The AFL and sponsors fund Northern academies. That's the reality.

Without the extra millions shovelled into their coffers the Northern clubs would be broke and couldn't afford academies.

In reality AFL TV money runs every club and some have more sponsorship money than others. Who pays is a moot point because inevitably TV cash runs everything.

 

[Atomboy]

St Kilda whinging about being disadvantaged then offering Liam Ryan a 4 year deal and TDK a 8 year deal is ****ing hilarious

The irony of a club not being able to access young talent in the draft thereby forced to pay overs for established talent is clearly not lost on you….

 

[Scotland]

In reality AFL TV money runs every club and some have more sponsorship money than others. Who pays is a moot point because inevitably TV cash runs everything.

TV money isn't generated or distributed evenly.

If every club got a $23m distribution from the AFL instead of some getting $17m and some getting $35m the landscape would look very different. If the broadcasters got to pick and choose and negotiate with clubs directly the landscape would look very very different. Let's not pretend that 7 or Fox really want to show North vs WC from Bunbury if Carlton vs Essendon is on.

The AFL fund GC and GWS in order to have 9 games a round and a game each round in NSW and Qld because both those things have some value to the broadcast deal. You'd have to be intimately involved in the negotiations to know how much each aspect of the broadcast deal is worth what dollar amount. I don't think anyone really disagrees with the approach, though you would hope there is a plan for those clubs to eventually be self sustaining. The issue is that the AFL prioritises on field success of the Northern clubs over the integrity of the competition. Complain all you want about Collingwood getting 900 games at the MCG and having Friday night games etc. but they still have the same salary cap as everyone else and still pick players from the same draft.

You can't have clubs consistently adding top draft picks to their lists regardless of ladder position. It completely defeats the purpose of having a draft.

 

[Obeanie1]

In reality AFL TV money runs every club and some have more sponsorship money than others. Who pays is a moot point because inevitably TV cash runs everything.

Incorrect.

Some clubs get millions more in distributions than other clubs.

THAT is the TV rights money.

Clubs generate their own revenue from memberships, merchandise, sponsors and stadium deals. Nothing to do with TV rights and AFL distributions and funding.

The additional distributions above average to the Northern clubs and other smaller clubs help fund the academies along with sponsors.

 

[Scotland]

The irony of a club not being able to access young talent in the draft thereby forced to pay overs for established talent is clearly not lost on you….

St Kilda aren't forced to do anything. You might not get TDK unless it's $500k overs per year but you don't have to go after TDK.

The Saints have finished 10th, 10th, 6th, 12th, 12th the last 5 years. Yes you've been jumped in the draft order like a lot of clubs but your access to young talent is impacted by being a perpetual middling side. Sucks for fans but that is the draft actually working as intended. You did draft poorly when you were at the bottom but that was a decade ago now.

 

[Atomboy]

St Kilda aren't forced to do anything. You might not get TDK unless it's $500k overs per year but you don't have to go after TDK.

The Saints have finished 10th, 10th, 6th, 12th, 12th the last 5 years. Yes you've been jumped in the draft order like a lot of clubs but your access to young talent is impacted by being a perpetual middling side. Sucks for fans but that is the draft actually working as intended. You did draft poorly when you were at the bottom but that was a decade ago now.

So the way to make the draft fairer is just to tank relentlessly ?.

 

[Scotland]

So the way to make the draft fairer is just to tank relentlessly ?.

If that's what you took from that, sure.

Last gets pick 1. First gets pick 18. That's the whole point.

There are many ways to build a list. Hawthorn offloaded guys like Hay, Thompson, Croad (sorta) back in the early to mid 2000s and built the core of their threepeat team via the draft. Then added some missing pieces via trades. Then they went down a different path and added O'Meara, Tom Mitchell, Wingard etc. who were established. And more recently they let those guys go (not for any huge return) and went young again.

You can improve your list without tanking or bottoming out to get top 5 picks, but in order to have a 5 pick you really should finish in the bottom 5. I don't think that is controversial.

 

[Atomboy]

If that's what you took from that, sure.

Last gets pick 1. First gets pick 18. That's the whole point.

There are many ways to build a list. Hawthorn offloaded guys like Hay, Thompson, Croad (sorta) back in the early to mid 2000s and built the core of their threepeat team via the draft. Then added some missing pieces via trades. Then they went down a different path and added O'Meara, Tom Mitchell, Wingard etc. who were established. And more recently they let those guys go (not for any huge return) and went young again.

You can improve your list without tanking or bottoming out to get top 5 picks, but in order to have a 5 pick you really should finish in the bottom 5. I don't think that is controversial.

Your last paragraph is very true, reckon it will happen this year ?.

 

[Scotland]

Your last paragraph is very true, reckon it will happen this year ?.

Absolutely not.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

St Kilda aren't forced to do anything. You might not get TDK unless it's $500k overs per year but you don't have to go after TDK.

The Saints have finished 10th, 10th, 6th, 12th, 12th the last 5 years. Yes you've been jumped in the draft order like a lot of clubs but your access to young talent is impacted by being a perpetual middling side. Sucks for fans but that is the draft actually working as intended. You did draft poorly when you were at the bottom but that was a decade ago now.

At some point St Kilda has to turn the concept of salary cap room into on-field value though.

Overpaying a player is bad, but it's less bad than only paying 95% of your cap forever, and part of the reason that they have finished in those positions for the last 5 years is precisely because they were paying 95% (or less, because of front-loading) of the cap.

 

[Atomboy]

At some point St Kilda has to turn the concept of salary cap room into on-field value though.

Overpaying a player is bad, but it's less bad than only paying 95% of your cap forever.

A less worse solution is to allow clubs to trade salary cap space for picks.

Will ultimately turn the AFL into the Premier League though where a handful of clubs dominate every year and use the others as feeders.