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

[bulldogs201616]

Not sure why Carlton and Port fans are complaining. You still have access to two generational talents (Port find out) you might have to pay alot more but when both the clubs are healthy your pushing September. And will get the 1 and 2 players in the draft

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Is Robinson an NGA? This is the problem with NGAs. It’s freos responsibility to fund and develop these guys. All these clubs wanted access but invest nothing to develop the talent.

It’s ludicrous.

Freo would love the responsibility to develop him at Peel and build him up themselves but they arent allowed. Freo and WC fund all of WA football with what they have to pay to the WAFC. Your argument isnt applicable to WA.

 

[SC_Power]

Didn't Cochrane only recently find out he has an indigenous back ground? No offence but if that's the case you don't even deserve him.

It’s not about “deserving just because”, his dad also played 50+ for Port, his brother plays for Port, but your opinion is yours and that’s ok.
There’s more to this story than just Cochrane though. This rule change will affect those players getting to Port, and we all know deep down that if this was Collingwood, there’d be no rule change.

 

[briztoon]

Freo would love the responsibility to develop him at Peel and build him up themselves but they arent allowed. Freo and WC fund all of WA football with what they have to pay to the WAFC. Your argument isnt applicable to WA.

Pretty sure West Coast have their NicNat academy and are allowed access to their kids.

Sounds more like Freo have dropped the ball here and you don’t actually know what your academy is allowed to do.

 

[mpal6]

You mean someone like Paddy McCartin? That's the luck of the draw of the draft and isn't unique to an academy or F/S selection.

Well the luck of the draw argument is fair when you're involving a single high pick. Here we are artificially inflating a club's investment (2 first rounds or maybe more) in order to call it fair value. When that level of investment goes wrong, it can't be luck of draw anymore and deserves scrutiny/review.

Just as an example, Annable in this year's draft is rated top 5 to 10. He's an accumulator, gut running mid but if you place him in another draft - he may go late first round or early second. But to get Annable under new rules, we potentially have to invest our future first too or trade players. If Annable has a McCartin type issue that's luck of the draw for the player but not luck of the draw for club anymore, you've forcefully inflated value impacting one club under the guise of equalization which affects them beyond the current draft. My argument is in this arrangement the risk will outweigh the reward at most occasions when the price is steep.

If the objective is to kill father-son, academy, NGA access - then you might as well lock out first round rather than make this quasi-arrangement of "oh you still have access, wink wink" argument.

 

[mpal6]

1000’s of talented teenagers across the country would do anything just to be drafted, and here we have highly rated, Academy or NGA affiliated kids dictating where they want to go.

Ok you don’t want to leave home or play for another club but you’re in a national draft, fair enough, move aside and we’ll pick a kid that’ll embrace the challenge and do anything to make it.

When 60% or more of draft worthy talent come from Victoria, then this argument will always stay skewed to vic clubs. It's improving lately but Gold Coast drafts are just an outlier so far (2023) rather than a consistent trend of producing draftable talent.

It's easier to make your argument when Victoria, NSW, QLD, WA and SA all contribute 20% of draftable talent. We are nowhere near that yet.

 

[Sheepey]

Well the luck of the draw argument is fair when you're involving a single high pick. Here we are artificially inflating a club's investment (2 first rounds or maybe more) in order to call it fair value. When that level of investment goes wrong, it can't be luck of draw anymore and deserves scrutiny/review.

Just as an example, Annable in this year's draft is rated top 5 to 10. He's an accumulator, gut running mid but if you place him in another draft - he may go late first round or early second. But to get Annable under new rules, we potentially have to invest our future first too or trade players. If Annable has a McCartin type issue that's luck of the draw for the player but not luck of the draw for club anymore, you've forcefully inflated value impacting one club under the guise of equalization which affects them beyond the current draft. My argument is in this arrangement the risk will outweigh the reward at most occasions when the price is steep.

If the objective is to kill father-son, academy, NGA access - then you might as well lock out first round rather than make this quasi-arrangement of "oh you still have access, wink wink" argument.

But that's the point, you don't currently have a single high pick because of where you've placed, and yet have access to a top player in the draft. It should require you to place significant investment into getting him, as it would if he was not an academy-listed player that you were trading up in the draft to get. Yes it's possible that that player may be a bust, but that applies to every high draft pick, academy or not. The draft is designed to be an equalisation mechanism, which the academy picks have undermined, and the accumulation of picks in the 30s to match a bid on a top 5 player makes an absolute mockery of the whole system. So I see this as a good move.

 

[AstonSouffle]

Is Robinson an NGA? This is the problem with NGAs. It’s freos responsibility to fund and develop these guys. All these clubs wanted access but invest nothing to develop the talent.

It’s ludicrous.

What happened with Motlop and Van Rooyen and without warning caused Freo to loose faith and they severely cut back (Freo in particular were massive on it vs. West Coast, they took the community development aspect of it it incredibly seriously). If you recall WA and SA had a bid stronger bid match lockout apply to them first as a staged approach.

But of course, northern academies didn't get this restriction so naturally retreated a bit because the AFL showed bias despite obviously having a conflict of interest.

So if you genuinely think it was Freo's responsibility to keep on funding despite being told they're not to benefit then that's fine if you're consistent, but I doubt you're provided the same logic to your mob.

 

[mpal6]

But that's the point, you don't currently have a single high pick because of where you've placed, and yet have access to a top player in the draft. It should require you to place significant investment into getting him, as it would if he was not an academy-listed player that you were trading up in the draft to get. Yes it's possible that that player may be a bust, but that applies to every high draft pick, academy or not. The draft is designed to be an equalisation mechanism, which the academy picks have undermined, and the accumulation of picks in the 30s to match a bid on a top 5 player makes an absolute mockery of the whole system. So I see this as a good move.

That's the crux of the issue - draft is not equal in the first place when vic kids can stay home or refuse to get drafted elsewhere etc. I understand the utopian view of draft being equal for all, but it never was or never will be. The noise wasn't there when it was footy heartland clubs were benefiting - either via kids staying home or either via players getting traded back from GWS, GC to Victoria etc. It was considered good for the game.

Once these fringe clubs who were previously chained to watching high draft picks go back home but now have started getting their own draftees in their own backyard, the sky's falling argument has taken hold of the narrative.

Oh you can have an academy, but you can't have something that's too good that at times it outperforms the Victorian mothership.

 

[briztoon]

What happened with Motlop and Van Rooyen and without warning caused Freo to loose faith and they severely cut back (Freo in particular were massive on it vs. West Coast, they took the community development aspect of it it incredibly seriously). If you recall WA and SA had a bid stronger bid match lockout apply to them first as a staged approach.

Erm, what? As in can you rewrite this in English.

I don’t recall WA and SA being locked out on their own.

I do recall all the non northern states being locked out.

But of course, northern academies didn't get this restriction so naturally retreated a bit because the AFL showed bias despite obviously having a conflict of interest.

So if you genuinely think it was Freo's responsibility to keep on funding despite being told they're not to benefit then that's fine if you're consistent, but I doubt you're provided the same logic to your mob.

But your point backs up what Sydney said, why bother investing in academies if you don’t have access to the top talent.

 

[amazingjoshy]

That's the crux of the issue - draft is not equal in the first place when vic kids can stay home or refuse to get drafted elsewhere etc. I understand the utopian view of draft being equal for all, but it never was or never will be. The noise wasn't there when it was footy heartland clubs were benefiting - either via kids staying home or either via players getting traded back from GWS, GC to Victoria etc. It was considered good for the game.

Once these fringe clubs who were previously chained to watching high draft picks go back home but now have started getting their own draftees in their own backyard, the sky's falling argument has taken hold of the narrative.

Oh you can have an academy, but you can't have something that's too good that at times it outperforms the Victorian mothership.

You've still got an academy and access to the players

You'll just have to pay more fairly for them

 

[briztoon]

It’ll be very interesting to see how Carlton bulk up their 2026 draft hand, and if a club will be willing to bid early on a father son, if the club doesn’t have the points to match a very early bid.

Can certainly see some kids asking for a trade at the end of their first contract, or even after their first year.

Cochrane will be even more interesting if Port do get nga rights, as it’s my understanding that it’s been Cochrane’s family that has really been pushing his nga application.

 

[amazingjoshy]

It seems strange to me that you're still allowing for the 10% points discount, but preventing a third points pick to be used. That to me doesn't make much sense - a relaxation on one end, and a tightening on the other. Why not allow teams to use a third pick but make the points discount 0%?

Unless the top 8 and top 4 limitations are reducing the 10% discount to 5% and 0%, which would make more sense.

Twomey says the discount will be reduced if not gone

No father-son draft lockout, but AFL set to tighten bidding rules - https://www.afl.com.au/news/1427583

The 10 per cent points discount applied to clubs matching bids is also expected to be further reduced – if not wiped out altogether.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Freo would love the responsibility to develop him at Peel and build him up themselves but they arent allowed. Freo and WC fund all of WA football with what they have to pay to the WAFC. Your argument isnt applicable to WA.

Is Robinson an NGA? This is the problem with NGAs. It’s freos responsibility to fund and develop these guys. All these clubs wanted access but invest nothing to develop the talent.

It’s ludicrous.

Adelaide pay just under a million a year to the SANFL as well. Not sure about Port.

 

[go_the_dockers]

When 60% or more of draft worthy talent come from Victoria, then this argument will always stay skewed to vic clubs. It's improving lately but Gold Coast drafts are just an outlier so far (2023) rather than a consistent trend of producing draftable talent.

It's easier to make your argument when Victoria, NSW, QLD, WA and SA all contribute 20% of draftable talent. We are nowhere near that yet.

Would be interesting to see the stats of top 20 picks over the last 5 years per state.

QLD appears to be smashing WA at the top end of the draft, especially the last 2 or 3 years.

 

[mpal6]

You've still got an academy and access to the players

You'll just have to pay more fairly for them

Who decides what's fair though. And if a club has overpaid is it just bad luck to them or will they get compensated if the player doesn't evolve to that level. There is no sure thing as a top pick either, Zane Duursma was 2023 pick 4, Tsatas was 2022 pick 5 etc - and now the ask is to commit 2 first rounders hoping this player turns out to be a top player eventually.

 

[Lach72]

Will be interesting watching Gold coast trying to get in their players while also pushing to get 6, 13 and 16 into next year as much as possible.

An extra bite of the cherry from this shit show

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Who decides what's fair though. And if a club has overpaid is it just bad luck to them or will they get compensated if the player doesn't evolve to that level. There is no sure thing as a top pick either, Zane Duursma was 2023 pick 4, Tsatas was 2022 pick 5 etc - and now the ask is to commit 2 first rounders hoping this player turns out to be a top player eventually.

You can't expect to pay with a packet of used Twisties though as you've done the last two times and this year. I'm all for keeping the academy, it's needed for a number of reasons, but it has to be fair value for elite talent. I'd say the same thing if it involved Swans players and our academy. Keep it but pay what is fair under market conditions not some arbitrary point curve which is horrid.

It SHOULD be very tough to match a talent in the top 5 let alone in the top 1-3. Your club will need to make a call, do you want the talent or do you want to keep x (lets say a Bailey or a Hipwood, etc).

All the new system is saying is the club needs to pay the exactl equivalent of what lets say pick 3 is in a live sale. Think what Carlton gave up last year for the rights to Jagga Smith, it's doable but it's a heavy price.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Pretty sure West Coast have their NicNat academy and are allowed access to their kids.

Sounds more like Freo have dropped the ball here and you don’t actually know what your academy is allowed to do.

Of course they are allowed access and have some access but the overwhelming amount of development is done via the state squad and WAFL team. The kids only have so much time in the day. Robinson is now out of school but it's split even further when they are at school and the PSA schools are demanding they spend time with their program

You all have just complained so much about how Northern academies are the only ones doing any development and providing any pathways in the state I assumed all time is spent being developed by their AFL club. Do they not, are their actually other pathways for these kids in Northern states?

 

[AstonSouffle]

Erm, what? As in can you rewrite this in English.

I don’t recall WA and SA being locked out on their own.

I do recall all the non northern states being locked out.

But your point backs up what Sydney said, why bother investing in academies if you don’t have access to the top talent.

Do not be a dick.

For the 2021 draft: From Picks 21 to 40, clubs will be able to use their points hauls to match bids on NGA prospects, as per previous years. Then if a bid comes on a player from Pick 41 onwards, clubs will only be required to match using their next available selection.

But there’s another bidding curveball that affects the South Australian and Western Australian-based clubs.

Bids on metropolitan-based Indigenous players tied to West Coast, Fremantle, Adelaide and Port Adelaide’s NGAs can’t be matched inside the top 40 selections.

Fremantle will almost certainly be affected by that this year as South Fremantle’s Jesse Motlop – Freo’s top NGA prospect, who’s the son of ex-Port Adelaide and North Melbourne forward Daniel Motlop – is likely to have his name called out before Pick 40, possibly in the early to mid-20s.

_____

So we get this happen to Freo above, while Freo and West Coast fund all WA talent in the entire game, and you lot cry about withdrawing funding if you don't get first access?

There's only two arguments and you get to pick one,

This chat that Freo should know what's in their academy, they knew what was in their academy and it got taken away - so yeah do you blame them for being bit shy? Your lot have never had this happen and still won't, must be nice hey? Real kicker is that it wasn't uniformly applied across the board, it disproportionally affected WA and SA clubs, but unfortunately, I doubt you'd care how absolutely ludicrous that decision really was, and how much it flies close to the word corruption.

 

[AstonSouffle]

Who decides what's fair though. And if a club has overpaid is it just bad luck to them or will they get compensated if the player doesn't evolve to that level. There is no sure thing as a top pick either, Zane Duursma was 2023 pick 4, Tsatas was 2022 pick 5 etc - and now the ask is to commit 2 first rounders hoping this player turns out to be a top player eventually.

Those two examples aren't players that could get bid on though?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

how would this even be enforced. All this does is increase decrease the negotiating power of victorian clubs while pretty much keeping the same power for non vic clubs. Even though i dont think it could be enforced in any way, a better way would be u have to nominate 2-3 clubs rather than one

No issue with 3 (I'd make it 4 though) clubs, one of the biggest issues these days is players running the game with managers it's become farciacl. It's time for the clubs to get some power back. I use you guys for example, why shouldn't you be able to trade Curnow to the highest bidder and not Geelong for 2 cents in the dollar? He shouldn't be able to just nominate one club.

 

[mpal6]

Those two examples aren't players that could get bid on though?

No reason why the next player who gets bid on couldn't turn out to be that example. We are talking about top 5 pick here and it's not as sure fire as people are raving it to be, if it's so then everyone will put their house on it.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No reason why the next player who gets bid on couldn't turn out to be that example. We are talking about top 5 pick here and it's not as sure fire as people are raving it to be, if it's so then everyone will put their house on it.

Yes but you should have to pay what is worth a top 5 pick.

How about you look what Carlton paid for Jagga Smith last year? Why shouldn't you pay that for the rights? You can still match it that's your advantage, but you can make a call internally whether you want to pay a Jagga Smith price for your academy guy.

 

[Coach_Required]

I'm looking forward to the discussion on trading players completely flipping. Ridiculously, it's always been, "picks have no value for us this year, because we have x who will be bid on" which should be completely against the whole idea of accessing elite talent.

Now teams will have to actually trade players to get to the top of the draft - you know, how it's SUPPOSED to have always worked

I like the fact teams will now have to work at getting those players onto their list. Supporters carrying on like they are being unfairly treated yet are simply ignoring all the teams previously that had to drop a spot in the draft with no say in it, just so a team can get a player cheaply.

You want a top pick to get your F/S or academy player? Awesome, what are you prepared to give for it. Also, this is mainly to make it more difficult for those players at the top end of the draft, if your F/S or academy player falls past the early picks then it's not really going to make a difference.