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

[Elixuh]

Get rid of the ability to match academy players but the selecting club has to pay funds to the academy that produced the player as an investment in future talent production.

Pick 1-5 - $400k
6-10 - $250k
11-18 - $200k
19-36 - $100k
37+ - $50k

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It would not enough if DVI is increased for top picks and discount is removed.

Even now if 10% discount is removed, 5 + 13 is not enough points for pick 1.

Good, and that's how it should be just make it 2 picks and watch this work so much better. The AFL just love to complicate an easy thing. If it's 5 and 7 whatever, point is that 'deal' most fants would say it's par with what a trade for 1 may look like.

 

[Miller1971]

It's not a matter of mandate though. It's about the tools and resources. This goes back to my point that southern clubs NGA academies aren't literally playing games for the AFL team name in their U17 and U18 year. It means that the argument put forward by northern clubs "that southern clubs have academies too" is a bit of a false equivalence. Northern academy does not equal southern academy in terms of club control over player development. Full stop.

Southern club NGA's also have the mandate to produce draftable talent, but fat use is that mandate when there's not a competitive NGA team running around playing U18 games against other top, non-aligned draft picks as is the case in Northern clubs putting together Coates league teams. St Kilda's draft and development coaches cannot dictate to the Oakleigh Chargers what position where they want their NGA eligible player to play in a game, for the purposes of getting a head start of AFL listed development. You don't think that Brisbane Lions' development coach can't get on the phone for a quick word to the Brisbane Lions Coates League Academy coach - who has the same employer, the same person signs their paycheck - and say, "maybe we want to see how Annable goes playing this slightly different role"?

NGA players are playing in the CTL competition.

As for the suggestion that an AFL development coach is directing where the academy coach plays a kid, its a big reach to think this sort of thing is going on.

 

[Stamos]

If it was pick 9, it wasn't.

I don't blame you guys- I would do the same thing.

The system needs tightening that's all

No discounts, period just cut it out it's farcical. The ability to match is the discount.

Think they move to the 2 pick match for top 5 selections at least, I can see that being a smart compromise. What this means in practicality is that lets assume walker is bid at 1, two picks 5 and 13 or so would suffice. Many would say it's unders but it's not too far off 'fair'. It's the top echelon that people are getting annoyed about so make it harder, not impossible but harder clear difference.

What this would mean is lets say GC, they would have to make a call with taking Petrracca OR using the picks to match, they wouldn't be able to do both

I'm not talking about us.

What should you be allowed to match a bid with?
If you can match a bid within a pick or 2, then a discount is a necessary function of the matching process (my example was 7 with 9, but say 6 with 7, or 12 with 14).

No discount, as you seem to suggest it should be, would mean a club would always have to pay extra just to match a bid.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

NGA players are playing in the CTL competition.

As for the suggestion that an AFL development coach is directing where the academy coach plays a kid, its a big reach to think this sort of thing is going on.

I'm just using it as an example of the control that the actual AFL clubs have.

Of course NGA players are playing in the CTL comp. For a different team.

The CTL comp literally has matches played by the four northern teams. Daniel Annable was running around with a Brisbane Lion on his jumper taking coaching direction by a person who has their paycheque signed by the Brisbane Lions.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm not talking about us.

What should you be allowed to match a bid with?
If you can match a bid within a pick or 2, then a discount is a necessary function of the matching process (my example was 7 with 9, but say 6 with 7, or 12 with 14).

No discount, as you seem to suggest it should be, would mean a club would always have to pay extra just to match a bid.

No discounts and a tax (going up to 10% at pick 1 so 1% per pick) inside the top 10 would be what I would do. A bid at 1 you'd be hing to cough up lets say 5 and 7 for the right, something in that range. Most would say it is unders but around the mark. The issue is if clubs can 'split' for more points and thus are paying half price. 2 picks to match a bid inside the top 10 removes the 'advantage' of splitting. As a club you are getting a discount- matching is your discount

 

[Stamos]

As a club you are getting a discount- matching is your discount

It's not a discount if you have to pay more to match.

The whole reason for bringing in bidding was to ensure that clubs paid a more reasonable value than a standard 3rd round pick. It wasn't to make them pay through the nose.

The issue is if clubs can 'split' for more points and thus are paying half price. 2 picks to match a bid inside the top 10 removes the 'advantage' of splitting. As a club you are getting a discount- matching is your discount

'Splitting' isn't an 'issue'.
It allows liquidity in trading, so multiple clubs can get what they want.
All the clubs want trading to be easier, which is why they were lobbying for Future trading 2 years in advance, and reducing limits on what picks could be traded.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It's not a discount if you have to pay more to match.

The whole reason for bringing in bidding was to ensure that clubs paid a more reasonable value than a standard 3rd round pick. It wasn't to make them pay through the nose.


'Splitting' isn't an 'issue'.
It allows liquidity in trading, so multiple clubs can get what they want.
All the clubs want trading to be easier, which is why they were lobbying for Future trading 2 years in advance, and reducing limits on what picks could be traded.

Splitting is a massive issue it's adding more picks to a first round, as it is the 2 pick idea does that but at a much lesser rate. Paying two top 7/8 picks for a bid at 1 is FAIR, that is pretty much spot on. What isn't 'spot on' are 3 back end of teens picks that somehow add up to more points. The 2 pick idea is very fair and it will make clubs keep their original selection and if you have a top end talent you'll need to trade a future out OR a very good player for access, otherwise you let them go to the club that made the bid.

 

[Stamos]

Splitting is a massive issue it's adding more picks to a first round, as it is the 2 pick idea does that but at a much lesser rate. Paying two top 7/8 picks for a bid at 1 is FAIR, that is pretty much spot on. What isn't 'spot on' are 3 back end of teens picks that somehow add up to more points. The 2 pick idea is very fair and it will make clubs keep their original selection and if you have a top end talent you'll need to trade a future out OR a very good player for access, otherwise you let them go to the club that made the bid.

OK, if your issue is adding more picks to a round, then I think a better solution is that the first matching pick has to come within a natural 'round' of the bid ie within 17 picks (until Tassie come in, then 18), but keep the rest of the system the same.

If you can only use 2 picks to match (using the same DVI system), then clubs can't reasonably plan when they don't know when the bid is going to come.

 

[Miller1971]

Clearly you need your listed or retired players with over 100 games to try and have their kids in different years!

Hard thing to balance

 

[LukeParkerno1]

OK, if your issue is adding more picks to a round, then I think a better solution is that the first matching pick has to come within a natural 'round' of the bid ie within 17 picks (until Tassie come in, then 18), but keep the rest of the system the same.

If you can only use 2 picks to match (using the same DVI system), then clubs can't reasonably plan when they don't know when the bid is going to come.

Within 17 is too far, that’s too far unders. Try 10 picks and that’s maybe an option. Clubs do know where these bids are coming. Everyone knew where 80-90% of the bids were this year. Sure Dean went a couple earlier but he was a top 5-6 talent so 3 was hardly some big stretch. Clubs can and will plan 2-3 years out. We don’t need first rounds blowing out to near 30 picks it’s too much.

 

[danster168]

Big Red Machine lol 'go silent when a club benefits'. are you actually joking? yeah we got a rookie listed player in Kalani White after getting a top 5 pick Mac Andrew ripped from our academy.

let me know when that evens itself out. geezus

 

[Stamos]

Within 17 is too far, that’s too far unders. Try 10 picks and that’s maybe an option. Clubs do know where these bids are coming. Everyone knew where 80-90% of the bids were this year. Sure Dean went a couple earlier but he was a top 5-6 talent so 3 was hardly some big stretch. Clubs can and will plan 2-3 years out. We don’t need first rounds blowing out to near 30 picks it’s too much.

If you have to match within a round (17) of picks, the 1st round won’t blow out to 30.

People only knew where the bids were coming in the week before the draft. Nobody would have thought a bid on Dean would come at 3 during the trade period. Twomey still had him ranked 8 in November.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

If you have to match within a round (17) of picks, the 1st round won’t blow out to 30.

People only knew where the bids were coming in the week before the draft. Nobody would have thought a bid on Dean would come at 3 during the trade period. Twomey still had him ranked 8 in November.

Thats still in the top 10, you know you’ll need a top 10 selection it’s hardly some surprise.

17 picks is too much for top tier bids. Those are the ones that people are getting annoyed about it’s not the ones from 20 onwards. 10 picks absolute max between the bid and your first selection is more than fair I’d rather it less but a middle ground of 10 is fair. It means that these sides that make the top 4 are going to have to trade up to get in that range or they pass on the bid. The ones at the back end of the first aren’t the problem

 

[Elixuh]

Big Red Machine lol 'go silent when a club benefits'. are you actually joking? yeah we got a rookie listed player in Kalani White after getting a top 5 pick Mac Andrew ripped from our academy.

let me know when that evens itself out. geezus

It was a tragedy what happened with the Demons and Mac Andrews, I think we can all agree on that, Danny. But Mac is thriving on the GC. We need to be happy for him.

 

[danster168]

It was a tragedy what happened with the Demons and Mac Andrews, I think we can all agree on that, Danny. But Mac is thriving on the GC. We need to be happy for him.

Nope. It arguably cost us a flag and will arguably help the Suns win multiple flags. It was a clear sign of corruption. As was the AFL waiting a full year to allow the dogs to get Ugle-Hagan (despite knowing at the time he would be pick 1) before changing the rules. Absolute joke of an organisation.

 

[My_Username]

Get rid of the ability to match academy players but the selecting club has to pay funds to the academy that produced the player as an investment in future talent production.

Pick 1-5 - $400k
6-10 - $250k
11-18 - $200k
19-36 - $100k
37+ - $50k

It'd only work if it came out of the salary cap or something.

Otherwise the top academy picks would go to rich clubs who could more easily bear the extra cost.

 

[Elixuh]

It'd only work if it came out of the salary cap or something.

Otherwise the top academy picks would go to rich clubs who could more easily bear the extra cost.

I know. It’s about quantity. Let the wealthy Melbourne clubs or wce take all the talent.

 

[bzparkes]

I know. It’s about quantity. Let the wealthy Melbourne clubs or wce take all the talent.

Or just have the AFL take over all junior talent pathways, instead of just investing in the Vic and northern ones?

 

[Elixuh]

Or just have the AFL take over all junior talent pathways, instead of just investing in the Vic and northern ones?

Because that’s worked so well in the past. Do you have any faith that the current afl admin could get that right?

They wouldn’t want the headache of it either.

 

[bzparkes]

Because that’s worked so well in the past. Do you have any faith that the current afl admin could get that right?

They wouldn’t want the headache of it either.

When have they done it in the past?

They already fund junior development in Vic and the northern states, they should do the same for SA and WA.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

When have they done it in the past?

They already fund junior development in Vic and the northern states, they should do the same for SA and WA.

It was a disaster in the northern states when the afl ran it. Won’t happen. More people on the floor in those states to develop players rather than the afl running it.

The bid system has to be better though that’s clear

 

[bzparkes]

It was a disaster in the northern states when the afl ran it. Won’t happen. More people on the floor in those states to develop players rather than the afl running it.

The bid system has to be better though that’s clear

Ok, give SA and WA the extra $40m each they give each of NSW and Qld to run their junior pathways then.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Ok, give SA and WA the extra $40m each they give each of NSW and Qld to run their junior pathways then.

No issue for me doing that actually. I have zero problem with all states having an academy of some sort

 

[Elixuh]

Ok, give SA and WA the extra $40m each they give each of NSW and Qld to run their junior pathways then.

Few people would actually disagree with this. I suspect the only ones who would will be the St Kildas of the world.