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

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Maybe. Complete guess how North and Collingwood rated JHF, Nick and Sam Darcy.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out if no first round matching comes in next year

My theory is that Port will get Dougie Cochrane at a discount anyway. Who's going to spend what he'll be worth at the draft when he's likely to be such a flight risk. And if someone does and Port and Cochrane are committed to each other, he'll get there by trade, probably at a discount.

Maybe. Complete guess how North and Collingwood rated JHF, Nick and Sam Darcy.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out if no first round matching comes in next year

My theory is that Port will get Dougie Cochrane at a discount anyway. Who's going to spend what he'll be worth at the draft when he's likely to be such a flight risk. And if someone does and Port and Cochrane are committed to each other, he'll get there by trade, probably at a discount.

It’s not easy though. Say Port end up with pick ~8 and he is rated at 1 you have the possibility of 7 teams trying to bluff you.

 

[sr36]

It’s not easy though. Say Port end up with pick ~8 and he is rated at 1 you have the possibility of 7 teams trying to bluff you.

And Port have 7 or 8 opportunities to bluff their opponent. It shouldn't be easy to jump from 8 to 1. You should have to pay a price. And with the greater freedom of player movement, he'll get to Port later on anyway if they both want that.

It's just a reality that academies are good for the growth of the game but bad for equalisation of the comp as they weaken the draft as an equalisation measure and give a significant advantage to teams with much better zones.

I think the current system is way too tilted to growth. And should be tilted back towards equalisation, particularly with the salary cap also becoming less effective an equalisation measure for other reasons. Obviously others disagree.

 

[WillHayward]

The only thing that really bothers about the current system is when good teams can pick up a top 10 player using a collection of shit later picks. That's a joke and should be removed as a possibility.

 

[Atomboy]

The only thing that really bothers about the current system is when good teams can pick up a top 10 player using a collection of shit later picks. That's a joke and should be removed as a possibility.

Totally.

Don’t have a first rounder to secure a FS/Academy player ?. Shift an established player out to secure it.

 

[longdonkey]

Finals teams look like they are going to feast on the rotting corpses of Carlton and Essendon but Academies and Father/Sons are the problem. PLEAAASSSE.

 

[Lore]

Finals teams look like they are going to feast on the rotting corpses of Carlton and Essendon but Academies and Father/Sons are the problem. PLEAAASSSE.

Could it be a coincidence that those rotting corpses have highly rated father sons/NGA kids in the next couple of years?

 

[SurreyBlue]

I think the AFL need to differentiate between Acadamy picks and Father Sons.
One was introduced to assist Northern states get stronger, (not grow the game but nice sidetrack), the other is part of the AFLs history.
IMO, Acadamy picks have played their part and now need a fresh outlook. GC Suns are taking the p1$$.
Father sons stays as is. Interstate teams are now getting and will also get some value coming through.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Has Cody Walker gone to West Coast yet?

I hear he is looking at property in Perth

 

[SurreyBlue]

Has Cody Walker gone to West Coast yet?

I hear he is looking at property in Perth

That’s the Riewold kids. They heard they might get drafted to StKida and will feel lonely as the only FS.

 

[Purple Suit]

Finals teams look like they are going to feast on the rotting corpses of Carlton and Essendon but Academies and Father/Sons are the problem. PLEAAASSSE.

The issue appears to be there is too much money for star players now and they are starting to realise there is more to life than getting an extra few million when you are earning 10-20m over your career.

Therefore the rich are get richer and the salary cap isn’t the leveller it used to be to be if players take haircuts for success.

F/S & Academies are still a major problem since they were the rort for most top clubs to get rich in the first place and are preventing the poor clubs from moving up the ladder.

 

[sydney_gws]

It's for a different thread.

But I view the MCG GF as a legitimite advantage.
And the big KMs flown by the WA teams as a legitimite disadvantage.
A team like Sydney has the home ground, sleeping in your own bed and travel advantage the same amount of time as they have that disadvantage. So does Collingwood. It nets out.

There is potentially an accumulated disadvantage of travel with 5 extra Sydney - Melbourne flights over the course of a 25 week home and away season - but I don't think that's significant at all.

West gets 11 home games, others 10.75.

 

[tombomb]

Of course there is absolutely zero leadership from the AFL on this issue.

You'd think at some point Dillon or one of his cronies would bob up and point out that they have just dramatically changed the bidding system.

 

[mpal6]

The issue appears to be there is too much money for star players now and they are starting to realise there is more to life than getting an extra few million when you are earning 10-20m over your career.

Therefore the rich are get richer and the salary cap isn’t the leveller it used to be to be if players take haircuts for success.

F/S & Academies are still a major problem since they were the rort for most top clubs to get rich in the first place and are preventing the poor clubs from moving up the ladder.

You still need a high quality core that's working and already playing finals for the rest to buy-in and take haircuts.

We are in a good place in this scenario with Dunkley, Rayner, Neale, Andrews, Hipwood and Payne taking much less than what they can get elsewhere. McCluggage may have been the top $ player we retained in the last 2 years. It's easy to show that core and then get the buy-in from new arrivals as well. Daniher came across at 800-850 for 3 years and then added another 2 for a lower base, left one year's salary on the table and walked away.

It's not a sustainable model long term for us coz we don't have external backers like Geelong do for Cotton On for example. Once some of our next wave start demanding top dollar, then our cap will start going out of whack creating issues that Carlton and others are experiencing today.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Of course there is absolutely zero leadership from the AFL on this issue.

You'd think at some point Dillon or one of his cronies would bob up and point out that they have just dramatically changed the bidding system.

It only took them 10 years to change something, that was obviously broken.

I agree we should we wait and see what happens this trade period, but it clubs continue to move back in the draft for points, then the point system should be changed again. (Lets not wait 10 years this time)

I would prefer for them to keep the discount, and make the point system so steep that clubs are looking to trade up the order to get points than the other way around.

 

[Lore]

The issue appears to be there is too much money for star players now and they are starting to realise there is more to life than getting an extra few million when you are earning 10-20m over your career.

Therefore the rich are get richer and the salary cap isn’t the leveller it used to be to be if players take haircuts for success.

F/S & Academies are still a major problem since they were the rort for most top clubs to get rich in the first place and are preventing the poor clubs from moving up the ladder.

what does money have to do with f/s?

And which of the northern clubs are we deeming rich?

 

[tombomb]

I think the AFL need to differentiate between Acadamy picks and Father Sons.
One was introduced to assist Northern states get stronger, (not grow the game but nice sidetrack), the other is part of the AFLs history.
IMO, Acadamy picks have played their part and now need a fresh outlook. GC Suns are taking the p1$$.
Father sons stays as is. Interstate teams are now getting and will also get some value coming through.

It would be shorter to just write ... 'Things that benefit my team should stay. Things that don't, should go'.

 

[longdonkey]

Could it be a coincidence that those rotting corpses have highly rated father sons/NGA kids in the next couple of years?

Hi Lore, I couldn't agree more and we are in exactly the same situation as you. AFL remove our impediment of not being able to draft our Academy players if they live in Adelaide metro and they investigate no First Round matching. There are already 3 All Australians from our Academy playing at other clubs. We have only been able to take one player ourselves.

I get it that people will say you just want an advantage for your club and that is somewhat true but the more true statement is I don't want a disadvantage for my club and that is what has been happening for over 20 years with father/son and Academy rules.

For us it not what we pay in draft collateral that's the problem, its actually getting access that's the issue.

 

[giantsully]

Daily reminder that pre-academies there was an average of less than 1 player from Qld per year for the 30 years prior.

There are no elite or even quasi-elite talent pathways in Qld outside the academies. And our academy pathways aren't as good as what exists in Melbourne.

The NSW figures (outside the Riverina) would be much the same.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I think the AFL need to differentiate between Acadamy picks and Father Sons.
One was introduced to assist Northern states get stronger, (not grow the game but nice sidetrack), the other is part of the AFLs history.
IMO, Acadamy picks have played their part and now need a fresh outlook. GC Suns are taking the p1$$.
Father sons stays as is. Interstate teams are now getting and will also get some value coming through.

This of course wouldn't have anything to do with having a top 5 F/S on the radar right? Come off it. It has to be fair across all things that includes academy, father son and NGA. Whatever they decide, one rule fits all, come up with a FAIR compromise. My opinion hasn't changed, a few things need to occur

1. Wait to this year plays out
2. Remove all discounts- the ability to match is your discount it's not some charity here.
3. Top 5 lockout, this doesn't mean you can't get the player okay, this means you can't match a bid, so if you want Walker, organise a trade package for the no1-3 pick (wherever he's likely to fall)
4. Increase the curve, top 10 picks still need to be higher valued even with the changes, Brisbane (and I'm not bagging them okay) should not be matching with pick 19 and a second for a top 5 pick.
5. First selection has to be within 12 positions of the bid otherwise you forfeit the right (only to apply for bids in the first round)

 

[Lore]

Hi Lore, I couldn't agree more and we are in exactly the same situation as you. AFL remove our impediment of not being able to draft our Academy players if they live in Adelaide metro and they investigate no First Round matching. There are already 3 All Australians from our Academy playing at other clubs. We have only been able to take one player ourselves.

I get it that people will say you just want an advantage for your club and that is somewhat true but the more true statement is I don't want a disadvantage for my club and that is what has been happening for over 20 years with father/son and Academy rules.

For us it not what we pay in draft collateral that's the problem, its actually getting access that's the issue.

Yep. I think if everyone is paying fair value with the DVI and discounts or taxes on whoever they have priority access to, then it should be self-levelling. At the end of the day you shouldn't be able to match high first round picks or multiple first round picks as a finals team unless you're also trading out valuable assets to make it possible (whether players or future picks or in some cases perhaps salary cap space).

Every club that has been fielding players for more than 20 years should be having father-son prospects coming through at approximately the same rate (unless they're delisting everyone at 99 games). This is the argument I've made for many years when WA and SA clubs complain about the 250 games or 300 games rules for F/S state prospects, because when you start getting your sons of AFL players coming through it will be fair. If they take that away then it negates my whole previous argument and that makes me grumpy.

There's also an element of luck. You can have as many off-spring of your 100-game AFL players as you like, but to play AFL they have to be boys and they have to be good enough. Essendon got 1 of the Hirds as a Cat B rookie (via soccer) and he didn't make the cut. Neither of Fletcher's boys made it onto the list even though the 31 was held for them. Alwyn Davey has a bunch of sons, the twins were the eldest and both have now been delisted. There's loads of Danihers running around... Darcy got on the list but wasn't much chop. Everyone knows what Joe was like. The rest, nope. Tex Wanganeen you would be aware of as a Port supporter. delisted. Tom Wallis, delisted. Jake Long, delisted. I'm probably forgetting a bunch of them, but for all the players we drafted because of the name they carried, only like 2 turned out half decent in the last 30 years. Jobe and Joe. But we still wouldn't want another club drafting our Daveys, Longs, Wallises, Fletchers and Hirds, if there's any chance of them being the 30th bloke picked on game day we want it to be for us.

 

[giantsully]

One of the big issues with the northern academy defenders is you guys just don’t see the importance of bottom clubs getting the top end talent.
It’s like - “oh isn’t it great we are getting all these extra players from Queensland” great for the game, etc etc.

Even if the consequence is that Brisbane play finals for 15 years in a row. Meaning that’s one less place for a bottom club like north or west coast to aspire to dislodge in the 8. You guys just don’t care about that.
It’s soon going to be comp when the top 8 is really a top 6, plus Brisbane and GC who are automatic finalists every year due to the sheer weight of numbers of elite talent they are getting for peanuts from the top of the draft.

It’s urgently needing a drastic overhaul.
Picks 1,4 and 5 heading to two finalists in this years draft for basically nothing is just farcical. How many years in a row now is that?
Couldn’t care less how well it’s growing the game.

I know, it was sooo much easier to extract talent out of the Gold Coast when they only drafted from Vic, SA and WA. How are they going to play their role as traditional state incubators if they develop and draft their own hometown talent?

Once again, if GCS develop new talent, then you'll still have access to the same elite talent you would have had w/o an Academy (not to mention all the "go home" specials that you pull in every year, often in greater numbers than the Academies manage).

 

[longdonkey]

Yep. I think if everyone is paying fair value with the DVI and discounts or taxes on whoever they have priority access to, then it should be self-levelling. At the end of the day you shouldn't be able to match high first round picks or multiple first round picks as a finals team unless you're also trading out valuable assets to make it possible (whether players or future picks or in some cases perhaps salary cap space).

Every club that has been fielding players for more than 20 years should be having father-son prospects coming through at approximately the same rate (unless they're delisting everyone at 99 games). This is the argument I've made for many years when WA and SA clubs complain about the 250 games or 300 games rules for F/S state prospects, because when you start getting your sons of AFL players coming through it will be fair. If they take that away then it negates my whole previous argument and that makes me grumpy.

There's also an element of luck. You can have as many off-spring of your 100-game AFL players as you like, but to play AFL they have to be boys and they have to be good enough. Essendon got 1 of the Hirds as a Cat B rookie (via soccer) and he didn't make the cut. Neither of Fletcher's boys made it onto the list even though the 31 was held for them. Alwyn Davey has a bunch of sons, the twins were the eldest and both have now been delisted. There's loads of Danihers running around... Darcy got on the list but wasn't much chop. Everyone knows what Joe was like. The rest, nope. Tex Wanganeen you would be aware of as a Port supporter. delisted. Tom Wallis, delisted. Jake Long, delisted. I'm probably forgetting a bunch of them, but for all the players we drafted because of the name they carried, only like 2 turned out half decent in the last 30 years. Jobe and Joe. But we still wouldn't want another club drafting our Daveys, Longs, Wallises, Fletchers and Hirds, if there's any chance of them being the 30th bloke picked on game day we want it to be for us.

I agree there is a massive amount of luck involved. We have a large amount of sons of the 2004 premiership team that are starting to come through now. I think there are 5 or 6 Burgoyne sons between Peter and Shaun. The oldest Trent was a rookie with us, and I think is at Melbourne now as rookie. Jase we picked in the 50's and looks like a mid ranked player with a decent future. Rome is playing SANFL with Port and we keep hearing stories its always the next one that is the best.
Anyway, there are many others as well, some you hear about and I'd say some possibly aren't even playing footy.
If we had a handful come through as first round picks then there would be hell to pay. Which could happen with Salopek and Rodan's.
Everyone loves father/son but only if its them that benefits.

 

[tombomb]

This is what I would do:

Points table - as is for 2025

Discount - gone

NGAs - gone

Compensation for restricted free agent - gone

Compensation for unrestricted free agent - max end of first round.

Father/Son + Northern Academies (Sydney/Brisbane) - max one first round match per season and two every 5 years.

Northern Academies (GWS/GC) - one first round match per season

Tasmania - unlimited until they make finals. one first round match per season after that.

2nd round onwards (everyone) - One bid match every year.

Rules are fixed for 5 years and reassessed at the midseason bye of the 4th year.

 

[Purple Suit]

You still need a high quality core that's working and already playing finals for the rest to buy-in and take haircuts.

We are in a good place in this scenario with Dunkley, Rayner, Neale, Andrews, Hipwood and Payne taking much less than what they can get elsewhere. McCluggage may have been the top $ player we retained in the last 2 years. It's easy to show that core and then get the buy-in from new arrivals as well. Daniher came across at 800-850 for 3 years and then added another 2 for a lower base, left one year's salary on the table and walked away.

It's not a sustainable model long term for us coz we don't have external backers like Geelong do for Cotton On for example. Once some of our next wave start demanding top dollar, then our cap will start going out of whack creating issues that Carlton and others are experiencing today.

Yes,
You have to build the team and get into the successful position to get players wanting to go there for unders but F/S & Academies give cheap access to more talent.

what does money have to do with f/s?

And which of the northern clubs are we deeming rich?

I'm just saying it's another factor which is stopping the poor (on field) clubs from rising. They can't recruit anybody, have to pay extreme overs to keep stars they develop themselves. Meanwhile contracted players want out for less money that what they are getting. It compounds the issue of successful clubs getting cheap talent when they shouldn't be as the salary cap isn't the lever it is suppose to be.

All the Northern clubs are rich. Brisbane & Sydney are filthy rich. GWS just rich. GC are new wealth. I can't complain about GC getting their turn at contending, it just seems the AFL never turned off the tap a few years ago when it was obvious they were started to get completely stacked. It still might blow up in their face as you have to have spots for all that talent and good players will leave who aren't getting games. I just think the time is now to turn it off, even if it means the poor clubs miss out short term. An uncompromised 1st round of the Draft will then get them back up the ladder quicker than waiting for a F/S or academy kid.

 

[Purple Suit]

This is what I would do:

Points table - as is for 2025

Discount - gone

NGAs - gone

Compensation for restricted free agent - gone

Compensation for unrestricted free agent - max end of first round.

Father/Son + Northern Academies (Sydney/Brisbane) - max one first round match per season and two every 5 years.

Northern Academies (GWS/GC) - one first round match per season

Tasmania - unlimited until they make finals. one first round match per season after that.

2nd round onwards (everyone) - One bid match every year.

Rules are fixed for 5 years and reassessed at the midseason bye of the 4th year.

Why should the Northern clubs get to match 1st rounders from the academy? Since it has started, the Northern clubs have played finals much greater than any other region on average accept Geelong. It's a massive leg up that isn't fair on everyone else and is starting to show. I expect all Northern clubs to play finals next year and it will stand out like dogs balls. The AFL might need to impose trade restrictions to cancel out the affect although that didn't prevent Sydney from making nearly every 2nd GF for the past decade.

Matching 2nd rounders with everyone else is still a massive advantage as you get all the kids to choose from, not just the NGA qualified kids.

It would be shorter to just write ... 'Things that benefit my team should stay. Things that don't, should go'.