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

[briztoon]

Not sure. I thought Financial Statements came out Jan 1?

Good info. Can you share that please? Would be interested.

I need to defer to Section 5 on this one. Do you have the Lions last P&L statement?

 

[mpal6]

brisbane, dogs and pies fans should in no way be commenting in this thread because they have no concept of just how unfair the system has been because they're 3 clubs that have been advantaged significantly and havent felt any disadvantage.

Father Son is potluck. We haven't had a good one in 20 years, then we received 3 in one burst. Could've happened to anyone.

Academy - our academy picks are not at the top end until this year. Annable is the first top 10 Academy pick for us. We are not "great exploiters of the system" as you're making it out to be. If anything we're average at best and our late / speculative picks have come good at a decent proportion. Payne pick 54, Coleman pick 37, Gallop pick 42, a 22 year old Bruce Reville as Cat B rookie pick are some examples. Pre-Annable our highest pick was Eric Hipwood (14th pick in 2015), who isn't rated that highly amongst opposition, media etc. In fact we got mocked for offering him a 6 year contract extension in 2022 - we know where Hipwood is ranked in general footy public's view.

If those same academy players got bid earlier in the draft compared to where we rated - they would've gone elsewhere like Prindable went to Pies this year or Samson Ryan/Cumberland went to Richmond in previous years etc. There is plenty of examples out there.

 

[briztoon]

Have you got any stats on this? Freo seem to add a go home recruit every year.

But why is the go home distinction of recruit so significant - Neale, Dunkley, Cameron, Daniher, Allen, Draper, Doedee, McCarthy, Ah Chee, Fort - are they somehow less valuable because they moved for a different reason?

It’s about the stats in regards to composition of team lists, based on state of origin.

Greg Swan highlighted this when he was still with us.

For most Vic clubs, close to 60% percent of their lists are made up of home grown players.

For SA & WA it’s about 50%.

Football states are less likely to lose players to their state of birth, simply because they have fewer non home grown players on their lists.

 

[sr36]

It’s about the stats in regards to composition of team lists, based on state of origin.

Greg Swan highlighted this when he was still with us.

For most Vic clubs, close to 60% percent of their lists are made up of home grown players.

For SA & WA it’s about 50%.

Football states are less likely to lose players to their state of birth, simply because they have fewer non home grown players on their lists.

Swan was working for Brisbane and thus using arguments in Brisbane's interest - now with an employee that oversees the health of the whole comp, one of the things he's going to do is change the matching process to be less advantageous, because it was ridiculous.

If you're arguing for Brisbane's interests an thus to maintain a leg up, you focus in on the go home recruiting factor. If you look at it more holisticaly, you recognise that guys like Neale, Dunkley, Cameron, Daniher, etc. are pretty handy recruits even though they weren't returning to their home state. Players leave or stay or choose their destination for a heap of reasons, with returning to their state of birth only one of them.

 

[danster168]

Father Son is potluck. We haven't had a good one in 20 years, then we received 3 in one burst. Could've happened to anyone.

Academy - our academy picks are not at the top end until this year. Annable is the first top 10 Academy pick for us. We are not "great exploiters of the system" as you're making it out to be. If anything we're average at best and our late / speculative picks have come good at a decent proportion. Payne pick 54, Coleman pick 37, Gallop pick 42, a 22 year old Bruce Reville as Cat B rookie pick are some examples. Pre-Annable our highest pick was Eric Hipwood (14th pick in 2015), who isn't rated that highly amongst opposition, media etc. In fact we got mocked for offering him a 6 year contract extension in 2022 - we know where Hipwood is ranked in general footy public's view.

If those same academy players got bid earlier in the draft compared to where we rated - they would've gone elsewhere like Prindable went to Pies this year or Samson Ryan/Cumberland went to Richmond in previous years etc. There is plenty of examples out there.

your post makes my point. dees have had 0 nga's and 1 father/son in 25 years. So don't say you're 'average'. A lot of those picks say Gallop you wouldn't have had if the system wasn't so deeply flawed. but the afl waited for you to clean up before changing the rules.

There was never incentive for other clubs to bid because the points scaling was screwed up. Once again, another huge benefit for the lions. Take both Ashcrofts out, Fletcher, Gallop and you're not making the finals. You also probably don't take Logan Morris knowing that your midfield isn't sorted for the next 15 years with the Ashcrofts, so take him out too. Your flags are just massive asterisks in my mind.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It’s about the stats in regards to composition of team lists, based on state of origin.

Greg Swan highlighted this when he was still with us.

For most Vic clubs, close to 60% percent of their lists are made up of home grown players.

For SA & WA it’s about 50%.

Football states are less likely to lose players to their state of birth, simply because they have fewer non home grown players on their lists.

If such a problem exists - go home players and relocating - I don't think it's as for such a disadvantage anyway that a) it's not just part of the structural element of the competition that you understood that you were getting yourselves into as you entered the league, much the same way that I don't like WA teams' complaints about longer time in airplanes and b) to the extent that it's a disadvantage, it's not worth effectively compensating with materialising top 30 picks out of thin air, which has been the case (and was the case when Brisbane matched Hipwood and Keays with picks that were effectively worth nothing in real life)

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

If such a problem exists - go home players and relocating - I don't think it's as for such a disadvantage anyway that a) it's not just part of the structural element of the competition that you understood that you were getting yourselves into as you entered the league, much the same way that I don't like WA teams' complaints about longer time in airplanes and b) to the extent that it's a disadvantage, it's not worth effectively compensating with materialising top 30 picks out of thin air, which has been the case (and was the case when Brisbane matched Hipwood and Keays with picks that were effectively worth nothing in real life)

Rioli, Dunkley, Petracca, Neale and Daniher are some pretty big names to go to QLD reasonably recently. Players, particularly Vic, clearly are loving the idea of playing footy in QLD. Find me biggest name not from WA or SA traded to those states.

Any complaints about access to players is pretty irrelevant, the Northern clubs clearly have access to Vic players at least as well as the small Vic clubs, if not better.

I keep getting suckered into this thread just to see Elixuh winding people up and a bunch of people either lying or being ignorant on how much of an absurd list management advantage the points system has been. Lets see if the newest changes will be enough

 

[mpal6]

your post makes my point. dees have had 0 nga's and 1 father/son in 25 years. So don't say you're 'average'. A lot of those picks say Gallop you wouldn't have had if the system wasn't so deeply flawed. but the afl waited for you to clean up before changing the rules.

There was never incentive for other clubs to bid because the points scaling was screwed up. Once again, another huge benefit for the lions. Take both Ashcrofts out, Fletcher, Gallop and you're not making the finals. You also probably don't take Logan Morris knowing that your midfield isn't sorted for the next 15 years with the Ashcrofts, so take him out too. Your flags are just massive asterisks in my mind.

I can't make an argument for what Dees got or didn't get. That's not something we could've controlled either way. If AFL wanted us to cleanup they would've left everything as is for another 10 years.

Clubs refused to bid and that's somehow Lions controlled to their benefit too - I don't know how far your fallacy would go down this rabbit hole but clearly shows there is no balanced conversation can be had here.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I can't make an argument for what Dees got or didn't get. That's not something we could've controlled either way. If AFL wanted us to cleanup they would've left everything as is for another 10 years.

Clubs refused to bid and that's somehow Lions controlled to their benefit too - I don't know how far your fallacy would go down this rabbit hole but clearly shows there is no balanced conversation can be had here.

The new changes coming in will be very fair. The two pick rule should have been in this year and the farcical opening more list spots than you have. You want to split picks have the list spots

It’s fair

 

[Section 5]

So is every club. Also pretty sure we made a profit last year.

Not sure. I thought Financial Statements came out Jan 1?

Good info. Can you share that please? Would be interested.

briztoon mentioned last year so that's 2024.

WilloTree you are saying Jan 1 so i assume you mean year 2025.
So yes, around mid-January the financial records will be available.
However, they may make an announcement prior to the full report being available.
I would be surprised if they don't make a reasonable profit in 2025.

They nearly repaid all the AFL debt last year but decided to wait till 2025 to do that.
Below from "Notes to the Financial Statement"
"and repaid $6,500,000 to the Australian Football League (“AFL”) (2023: $3,500,000)."

Link to the Lions last year's Financial Report if you want a look.
The P & L image below probably gives you enough information.

https://resources.lions.com.au/aflc-bl/photo/2025/01/21/ec504276-42b8-4db8-94a8-593d4818cefa/240000_2024_Financial_Report-FINAL.pdf

 

[LukeParkerno1]

They wanted a few more homegrown gun players for Gold Coast.

Oh trust me I know lol

 

[danster168]

I can't make an argument for what Dees got or didn't get. That's not something we could've controlled either way. If AFL wanted us to cleanup they would've left everything as is for another 10 years.

Clubs refused to bid and that's somehow Lions controlled to their benefit too - I don't know how far your fallacy would go down this rabbit hole but clearly shows there is no balanced conversation can be had here.

the afl gave you 20 years worth of gifts. there's simply no need to keep it open for another 10 years as theres still a salary cap and you couldn' fit all the gifts under the christmas tree so there becomes a point where getting more players for free will eventually be pointless

 

[JasRulz63]

There was never incentive for other clubs to bid because the points scaling was screwed up. Once again, another huge benefit for the lions. Take both Ashcrofts out, Fletcher, Gallop and you're not making the finals. You also probably don't take Logan Morris knowing that your midfield isn't sorted for the next 15 years with the Ashcrofts, so take him out too. Your flags are just massive asterisks in my mind.

You know we were making finals before these guys were on our list right.

 

[GC2015]

This is just a conspiracy with no evidence. If anything, the opposite actually happens, teams delay bids that they know will be matched because they don't want to upset teams in negotiating future trades.

There is evidence to suggest the theory may hold weight, you just never asked. Have a look at Twomey's November phantom draft guide from three weeks ago (here) and you'll notice two things. Firstly, you'll see Uwland and Patterson are ranked inside the top 5 and that's fair enough. I do think both of those players warranted top 5 bids based on what I've seen over the last 12-24 months....

BUT you'll also notice Addinsall barely makes the list and is ranked 30th, meanwhile Murray isn't even on the top 30 list at all. So how does it work out that those two players are bid on with first round picks (17 & 18) when Twomey didn't even have them ahead of 30th position? What about the fact that 3/4 bids that came our way that night were all from West Coast?

I'm sure you're going to shoot it down and call me a conspiracy theorist again, but going from a predicted mid-to-late second round pick (by one of the most prominent draft experts two weeks beforehand) into the first round is a fairly big jump IMO. The same thing happened with Will Graham in 2023 when he unexpectedly jumped into first round contention in the week leading up to the draft after previously beind rated as a second-to-third round pick. So yeah, I do think there's reason to believe some of these academy graduates may have been overhyped and were bid on earlier picks than they probably should've been.

But hey, as I've maintained all along, you're entitled to your opinion (as am I) and you don't have to agree with me.

 

[sr36]

If AFL wanted us to cleanup they would've left everything as is for another 10 years.

The advantages will continue to give rewards for the next 10 years.

 

[sr36]

There is evidence to suggest the theory may hold weight, you just never asked. Have a look at Twomey's November phantom draft guide from three weeks ago (here) and you'll notice two things. Firstly, you'll see Uwland and Patterson are ranked inside the top 5 and that's fair enough. I do think both of those players warranted top 5 bids based on what I've seen over the last 12-24 months....

BUT you'll also notice Addinsall barely makes the list and is ranked 30th, meanwhile Murray isn't even on the top 30 list at all. So how does it work out that those two players are bid on with first round picks (17 & 18) when Twomey didn't even have them ahead of 30th position? What about the fact that 3/4 bids that came our way that night were all from West Coast?

I'm sure you're going to shoot it down and call me a conspiracy theorist again, but going from a predicted mid-to-late second round pick (by one of the most prominent draft experts two weeks beforehand) into the first round is a fairly big jump IMO. The same thing happened with Will Graham in 2023 when he unexpectedly jumped into first round contention in the week leading up to the draft after previously beind rated as a second-to-third round pick. So yeah, I do think there's reason to believe some of these academy graduates may have been overhyped and were bid on earlier picks than they probably should've been.

But hey, as I've maintained all along, you're entitled to your opinion (as am I) and you don't have to agree with me.

GC matched. Your argument assumes ridiculous bargains when matching. Which is the complaint. If you're right, matching was so cheap that it was worth matching a kid at 17 even if you rated him outside 30.

 

[Broski]

It’s fair in the scheme of things. The lions are perennially disadvantaged. It’s all we have to a large extent.

Forever a victim. "My lobster is toooooo buttery".

Spare me.

 

[sr36]

If the Northern fans actually think the concessions were justified - what do they think should be given to Tassie in 15 years time once they're established. They also won't be able to rely on local talent and unlike the Northern clubs don't have a location as likely to attract cashed up blokes in their 20s. They're going to be in a much worse position in terms of recruiting.

 

[Section 5]

I doubt anyone on BF would agree with my thoughts on trades and the draft, especially the AFL.
The AFL love drama and content in the offseason.
That keeps all the plebs interested and commenting about the game
...............................................................................................
My thoughts:
(a)
The AFL should take over the funding and more importantly the running and administration of the Academy's and NGAs.
Actually, drop the NGAs and call all of them AFL academies in all states.
This is to avoid the issue of young players thinking they are likely to be picked up by the club running the academy. Also, the club believing correctly they should be able to get players via discount because of all the work they have put into certain players and helping run the academy's.

That would be a true pathway to becoming an AFL player funded and run by the AFL
The AFL wanted to grow the game so they should do it not the clubs

(b)
AFL players should be able to choose any club once their contract is up. So, no trade involved.
Compensation picks for high profile players to be dropped also.
In these two arears it is up to the players current club to keep them.

It should not be about compensation for losing players as each club has the opportunity to bring someone else in that's out of contract.
I don't really bye into the bigger clubs will get the players over the smaller ones.
That's what the salary cap is in place for.

The AFL reserves the right to give extra draft picks to clubs that have been stuck on the bottom.
The AFL reserves the right to award new clubs admitted to the competition special rules regarding draft and existing players

This way the draft stays a pure way to help the lower 8 clubs over the top 8.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

If the Northern fans actually think the concessions were justified - what do they think should be given to Tassie in 15 years time once they're established. They also won't be able to rely on local talent and unlike the Northern clubs don't have a location as likely to attract cashed up blokes in their 20s. They're going to be in a much worse position in terms of recruiting.

Tasmania has the advantage over NSW/QLD of being a footy state, so the grass-roots support should be there from day one. A different set of challenges. Hopefully the AFL has learned a lot from how they messed up GC in particular at the start (pigs might fly).

 

[sr36]

Tasmania has the advantage over NSW/QLD of being a footy state, so the grass-roots support should be there from day one. A different set of challenges. Hopefully the AFL has learned a lot from how they messed up GC in particular at the start (pigs might fly).

They have an advantage in terms of immediate fanbase. But we're talking about playing lists and recruiting advantages. Tassie are like the Northern states in that they don't get close to producing enough local players they'll be at a similar ration of local players to what the Northern clubs have traditionally had, but unlike Sydney and Southern Qld, it's not an area that draws people in their 20s moving there from Southern States for climate and lifestyle factors. They'll be in a far worse position in terms of recruiting and retaining players. Will you be happy in ten years time if they're handed siginificantly bigger recruiting advantages than you have been receiving - as they are extremely likely to be in a worse position than you guys in terms of recruiting and retention of players.

GC messed themselves up at the start. They simply went most talent and paid absolutely no attention to putting together a club culture. All their senior recruits were talented loose canons or solo artists without targetting any old pros.

 

[mpal6]

They have an advantage in terms of immediate fanbase. But we're talking about playing lists and recruiting advantages. Tassie are like the Northern states in that they don't get close to producing enough local players they'll be at a similar ration of local players to what the Northern clubs have traditionally had, but unlike Sydney and Southern Qld, it's not an area that draws people in their 20s moving there from Southern States for climate and lifestyle factors. They'll be in a far worse position in terms of recruiting and retaining players. Will you be happy in ten years time if they're handed siginificantly bigger recruiting advantages than you have been receiving - as they are extremely likely to be in a worse position than you guys in terms of recruiting and retention of players.

GC messed themselves up at the start. They simply went most talent and paid absolutely no attention to putting together a club culture. All their senior recruits were talented loose canons or solo artists without targetting any old pros.

If what you're stating is true then Tasmania should have an academy 100%. Identify talent early, get into their system and since they'll be tassie born n bred - it's easier for them to continue in the state and grow with the club.

More importantly they may have a country living/lifestyle profile similar to Geelong so they could even compete with cats for players.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

They have an advantage in terms of immediate fanbase. But we're talking about playing lists and recruiting advantages. Tassie are like the Northern states in that they don't get close to producing enough local players they'll be at a similar ration of local players to what the Northern clubs have traditionally had, but unlike Sydney and Southern Qld, it's not an area that draws people in their 20s moving there from Southern States for climate and lifestyle factors. They'll be in a far worse position in terms of recruiting and retaining players. Will you be happy in ten years time if they're handed siginificantly bigger recruiting advantages than you have been receiving - as they are extremely likely to be in a worse position than you guys in terms of recruiting and retention of players.

GC messed themselves up at the start. They simply went most talent and paid absolutely no attention to putting together a club culture. All their senior recruits were talented loose canons or solo artists without targetting any old pros.

I take your first point.

That second paragraph misses the point. The AFL set up the club, the SUNS were created from nothing with poor recruits (with PR in mind) and given sheds to train in, in a rugby league area. Complain all you like about the current draft rules, but you are re-writing history ignoring the issues they faced.

The big problem is the AFL set them up to fail in hindsight, which required a second round of draft concessions. Which is partly causing the current controversy.

 

[sr36]

If what you're stating is true then Tasmania should have an academy 100%. Identify talent early, get into their system and since they'll be tassie born n bred - it's easier for them to continue in the state and grow with the club.

More importantly they may have a country living/lifestyle profile similar to Geelong so they could even compete with cats for players.

I think they should have an academy too. the academies are a good idea. The issue hasn't been the academy - it's been the matching price.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I think they should have an academy too. the academies are a good idea. The issue hasn't been the academy - it's been the matching price.

That and the loopholes, I mean you can't blame clubs this is the AFL and their refusal to make calls. Blind Freddy could say clubs will just open more list spots when the draft commences...so for all this 'the DVI was tougher'...well was it? GC were able to match 4 first rounders and if that wasn't enough add Petracca in oh and have a live pick late in the draft.

Seriously just sit down and fix the thing for good so we don't hear about it and it's simple, no more list spots that you've opened period, and two selections per first round bid, with a deficit NO MORE than your first selection.

Fair on earth it's not that hard they are making this a zillion times more complicated than they have to. I'd like some chance to the DVI but that is such a minor thing fix these two and it's taking out 80% of the issues