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

[sydney_gws]

They changed the rules last year so clubs don’t pay with 5 round 3 picks.
A year later with no real time to evaluate the change, or review there modifications, they want to change them ASAP.
The AFL leadership are proving once again, they are a weak, indecisive and an incompetent team.
I’m sure if the ARL had a system they could copy, then we wouldn’t be having changes!!!

I think the commission approved the slow response, wanting Brisbane and Gold Coast to be set up for 10 or so years of near guaranteed success. They have been caught with their pants down a bit as it has resulted in teams down further and for longer than desirable, harming the overall product. Hence are potentially " overreacting" in response.

 

[Lore]

Not sure how this fell off the first page.

GWS and Carlton have officially had words with the league about it now too.

Blues, Giants in talks with League over impending draft changes

Carlton has had discussions with the League around possible changes to draft bidding

www.afl.com.au

 

[mpal6]

I believe there won't be snap changes. AFL just threw it out there to see the level of pushback and discontent.

If they do the sensible thing, it'll be a 2-3 years of new DVI - watch father-son academy and NGA players get drafted / go elsewhere and then curve would've normalized by itself.

 

[The Tilt]

I believe there won't be snap changes. AFL just threw it out there to see the level of pushback and discontent.

If they do the sensible thing, it'll be a 2-3 years of new DVI - watch father-son academy and NGA players get drafted / go elsewhere and then curve would've normalized by itself.

It really makes no sense for them to first repair the DVI (as they've done) and then immediately impose a complete block on clubs matching a bid in the first round. The primary relevance of the DVI relates to what clubs pay when matching bids on high draft picks. Since they've gone to the trouble of overhauling the DVI, they may as well wait to see what effect it has before preventing clubs from matching on high picks altogether.

 

[mpal6]

It really makes no sense for them to first repair the DVI (as they've done) and then immediately impose a complete block on clubs matching a bid in the first round. The primary relevance of the DVI relates to what clubs pay when matching bids on high draft picks. Since they've gone to the trouble of overhauling the DVI, they may as well wait to see what effect it has before preventing clubs from matching on high picks altogether.

Yep, agreed. Also - I think they should bring back that rule of "1 bid match only in first round if you've played finals". It's dumb AFL removed it last year for whatever reason. If that rule was in place right now then Suns will be getting Zeke but not Patterson and the rest. Considering where the gold coast list is at, it's a fair way to balance how many first rounders they can take overall.

They could still use their traded-in first rounders to take the players but it'll be an open draft pick selection rather than Suns able to bid match anywhere.

 

[crankygeese]

Yep, agreed. Also - I think they should bring back that rule of "1 bid match only in first round if you've played finals". It's dumb AFL removed it last year for whatever reason. If that rule was in place right now then Suns will be getting Zeke but not Patterson and the rest. Considering where the gold coast list is at, it's a fair way to balance how many first rounders they can take overall.

They could still use their traded-in first rounders to take the players but it'll be an open draft pick selection rather than Suns able to bid match anywhere.

They removed it this year because it never applied to Father/Son players or Next Gen Academy players, only Northern Academy players.

‘It isn’t right’: How AFL’s great draft dilemma was exposed this week — and how to fix it

A draft protest threat means the AFL is nearing a tipping point. Here’s how to fix it

www.foxsports.com.au

"In contrast, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Sydney and GWS can match bids on academy players at any point in the draft, with the only restriction coming from their on-field performance; a team can match one first-round bid if they reach the preliminary finals, two if they reach the finals but are knocked out in the first two weeks, and an unlimited number if they miss the finals. The rule was introduced during the Giants’ period of premiership contention in the late 2010s."

If it had been applied to all bid matched players equally, the Lions wouldn't have Fletcher and Marshall, as they made the prelim finals in both of those draft years.
Once the Lions had already got their kids, they couldn't keep the restrictions in place with other clubs looking like they would have multiple 1st round selections. They could either apply the restrictions equally across all matched bids, or not apply them at all, they chose the latter.

Prelim finalists can only match 1 1st round bid
Finalists who don't make the Prelim can match 2 1st round bids
Non-finalists can match unlimited first round bids.

 

[mpal6]

They removed it this year because it never applied to Father/Son players or Next Gen Academy players, only Northern Academy players.

‘It isn’t right’: How AFL’s great draft dilemma was exposed this week — and how to fix it

A draft protest threat means the AFL is nearing a tipping point. Here’s how to fix it

www.foxsports.com.au

"In contrast, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Sydney and GWS can match bids on academy players at any point in the draft, with the only restriction coming from their on-field performance; a team can match one first-round bid if they reach the preliminary finals, two if they reach the finals but are knocked out in the first two weeks, and an unlimited number if they miss the finals. The rule was introduced during the Giants’ period of premiership contention in the late 2010s."

If it had been applied to all bid matched players equally, the Lions wouldn't have Fletcher and Marshall, as they made the prelim finals in both of those draft years.

Once the Lions had already got their kids, they couldn't keep the restrictions in place with other clubs looking like they would have multiple 1st round selections.

Prelim finalists can only match 1 1st round bid
Finalists who don't make the Prelim can match 2 1st round bids
Non-finalists can match unlimited first round bids.

I believe it would've been fair too - Fletcher and Marshall going elsewhere.
May have quelled the noise much earlier.

 

[Stamos]

Yep, agreed. Also - I think they should bring back that rule of "1 bid match only in first round if you've played finals". It's dumb AFL removed it last year for whatever reason. If that rule was in place right now then Suns will be getting Zeke but not Patterson and the rest. Considering where the gold coast list is at, it's a fair way to balance how many first rounders they can take overall.

They could still use their traded-in first rounders to take the players but it'll be an open draft pick selection rather than Suns able to bid match anywhere.

If the DVI is set correctly, then such a restriction is unnecessary.

 

[mpal6]

If the DVI is set correctly, then such a restriction is unnecessary.

I think there is a subtle difference in retaining that rule.

Let's say there is a great draft incoming where a club has a lot of first rounders. If we want to divide up the talent evenly and have all clubs get equal chance at drafting those elite talent players, then limiting the finals playing club to 1 bid match makes a great rule to maintain that draft equality.

Sure, the club with all those first rounders can still trade players from their list to get more early picks, but they have to hope for the father-son, academy, NGA aligned players fall to those picks rather than they can jump up and take them wherever.

 

[Stamos]

I think there is a subtle difference in retaining that rule.

Let's say there is a great draft incoming where a club has a lot of first rounders. If we want to divide up the talent evenly and have all clubs get equal chance at drafting those elite talent players, then limiting the finals playing club to 1 bid match makes a great rule to maintain that draft equality.

Sure, the club with all those first rounders can still trade players from their list to get more early picks, but they have to hope for the father-son, academy, NGA aligned players fall to those picks rather than they can jump up and take them wherever.

It might make more sense for Academy players, but not for Father/Sons.
Father/Son players are pretty rare, and random, so it goes against the spirit of the rule to punish a good kid (and the club) because they happened to make finals.
You might not get another FS for 15 years, or make finals again in the next 5.

But then we're back to having different rules for different categories.

I think it makes the most sense to limit restrictions, but make clubs pay a fair price through a correctly set DVI. Then, if a club who finishes high up (and therefore holds lesser draft currency) has multiple players they need to match bids on, they need to trade out of future drafts, or trade decent players, to be able to match.
Let the trading market decide.

 

[Bostonian]

Time to get rid of the Father Son. Silvagni is the latest fs to move to another club.

If tradition is such a big thing why are father sons moving? Usually for the best outcome for club or player or both.

You mean the son who moved to where his father is?

 

[mpal6]

It might make more sense for Academy players, but not for Father/Sons.
Father/Son players are pretty rare, and random, so it goes against the spirit of the rule to punish a good kid (and the club) because they happened to make finals.
You might not get another FS for 15 years, or make finals again in the next 5.

But then we're back to having different rules for different categories.

I think it makes the most sense to limit restrictions, but make clubs pay a fair price through a correctly set DVI. Then, if a club who finishes high up (and therefore holds lesser draft currency) has multiple players they need to match bids on, they need to trade out of future drafts, or trade decent players, to be able to match.
Let the trading market decide.

If the club desperately wants that father son, they can use their 1 bid match allowed for first round to use it and get that player. They still retain that mechanism but it also means they can't take a NGA in parallel at the same time "via bid match" in the first round. Feel free to trade up and see if your NGA player falls to your pick. open season.

 

[go_the_dockers]

If the club desperately wants that father son, they can use their 1 bid match allowed for first round to use it and get that player. They still retain that mechanism but it also means they can't take a NGA in parallel at the same time "via bid match" in the first round. Feel free to trade up and see if your NGA player falls to your pick. open season.

Clubs getting one first round talent every year is too much in my opinion, when other clubs get one player every 20 years.

I do wonder if something like 3000 points over 5 years, and any unused points can be used in the following 5 years. (Only counts the top 20 picks, anything after that follows existing rules)

 

[Stamos]

If the club desperately wants that father son, they can use their 1 bid match allowed for first round to use it and get that player. They still retain that mechanism but it also means they can't take a NGA in parallel at the same time "via bid match" in the first round. Feel free to trade up and see if your NGA player falls to your pick. open season.

What if they have 2 FS in 1 year though?
And might not have another 1st round rated FS for another 3 decades?

 

[bzparkes]

What if they have 2 FS in 1 year though?
And might not have another 1st round rated FS for another 3 decades?

Trade up for it, or move on some players for picks.

Or make a hard decision on which one to pick.

This all needs to come to a stop at some point, otherwise chuck the draft out completely.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

If the club desperately wants that father son, they can use their 1 bid match allowed for first round to use it and get that player. They still retain that mechanism but it also means they can't take a NGA in parallel at the same time "via bid match" in the first round. Feel free to trade up and see if your NGA player falls to your pick. open season.

Using this as example, but a lot of the suggestions being put forward involve the club in question needing to preempt if and where a bid may come and make trades in anticipation.

IMO these ideas would work better if we went back to pre draft bids. Once these are in clubs can then do the trades they need to match or get ahead of bids as needed.

 

[Stamos]

Trade up for it, or move on some players for picks.

Or make a hard decision on which one to pick.

This all needs to come to a stop at some point, otherwise chuck the draft out completely.

Yes, you would need to trade out players or future picks to be able to match.
But the restriction on matching is unnecessary.

 

[Lore]

Yep, agreed. Also - I think they should bring back that rule of "1 bid match only in first round if you've played finals". It's dumb AFL removed it last year for whatever reason. If that rule was in place right now then Suns will be getting Zeke but not Patterson and the rest. Considering where the gold coast list is at, it's a fair way to balance how many first rounders they can take overall.

They could still use their traded-in first rounders to take the players but it'll be an open draft pick selection rather than Suns able to bid match anywhere.

That was never a rule..?

 

[Lore]

I think there is a subtle difference in retaining that rule.

Let's say there is a great draft incoming where a club has a lot of first rounders. If we want to divide up the talent evenly and have all clubs get equal chance at drafting those elite talent players, then limiting the finals playing club to 1 bid match makes a great rule to maintain that draft equality.

Sure, the club with all those first rounders can still trade players from their list to get more early picks, but they have to hope for the father-son, academy, NGA aligned players fall to those picks rather than they can jump up and take them wherever.

What’s the point of being able to trade future picks if you can’t use them on players from your own state?

 

[bzparkes]

Yes, you would need to trade out players or future picks to be able to match.
But the restriction on matching is unnecessary.

I don't really care if there's a restriction or not but clubs should be made to pay a premium on matching. Whoever thought a discount in the past was reasonable was a fool.

If a club wants to blow their entire draft hand for 2 years to pick up 2 highly rated father sons/academy picks, then they should be allowed to but then they'll be picking the rest of their players from the 5th round. That's the decision clubs should have to make.

It would obviously be less punishing the further down the ladder you are.

 

[Stamos]

I don't really care if there's a restriction or not but clubs should be made to pay a premium on matching. Whoever thought a discount in the past was reasonable was a fool.

The discount is built into the DVI calculation, so that the maths and matching bids works. You're not getting a real discount.

A 'premium' would be a complete nonsense, and antithetical to the incentives for running academies, or for FS.

The AFL stuffed up by having the previous DVI so poorly calculated.
The new DVI might not be perfect, but if it had been in place for the last 10 years, I doubt anyone would be complaining too much now about how things had worked out.

 

[Stamos]

Bombers, Power dads call on AFL to keep sons' dreams alive

Darren Bewick and Steven Salopek hope any changes to the AFL's father-son rule will allow their sons, Koby and Louis, to follow in their footsteps

www.afl.com.au

 

[crankygeese]

That was never a rule..?

So the way they described the rule was inaccurate, but there was a restriction on how many bids Northern Academy clubs match for a few years.

Prelim finalists can only match 1 1st round bid
Finalists who don't make the Prelim can match 2 1st round bids
Non-finalists can match unlimited first round bids.

However, it only applied to Northern Academies, it never applied to Father/Sons, and it never applied to Next Gen Academies. Though this was the same period where Next Gen Academies couldn't match on picks in the top 20 and then the top 40, so the NGAs had their own restrictions.

Third paragraph in this article. - https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/te...s/news-story/42ee1ff76e5efe29e4d354294379236b

"In contrast, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Sydney and GWS can match bids on academy players at any point in the draft, with the only restriction coming from their on-field performance; a team can match one first-round bid if they reach the preliminary finals, two if they reach the finals but are knocked out in the first two weeks, and an unlimited number if they miss the finals. The rule was introduced during the Giants’ period of premiership contention in the late 2010s."

If it had been applied to all bid matched players equally, the Lions wouldn't have Fletcher and Marshall, as they made the prelim finals in both of those draft years. Because Washcroft, Lashcroft, and Fletcher were F/S, there were no restrictions on the Lions matching for all of them, despite the fact they made Prelims in both of those seasons.

Once the Lions had already got their kids, the AFL couldn't keep the restrictions in place with other clubs looking like they would have multiple 1st round selections. They could either apply the restrictions equally across all matched bids, or not apply them at all, they chose the latter.









Like Reply

 

[eastfreo75]

You mean the son who moved to where his father is?

Therefore, when his father was at the Giants it should have a Father son for GWS?

 

[Lore]

Therefore, when his father was at the Giants it should have a Father son for GWS?

Tom Mitchell left his father’s club. Joe Daniher left his father’s club.

There’s also West Australians that left WA to play in the east and vice versa.

There are northern and NGA academy players that ended up elsewhere.

There’s players you drafted that then left.

Why do anything if a player might leave anyway? Let’s just have a free for all and let players sign where they want with whoever will pay them the most. Salary cap acts as equalisation.