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

[LukeParkerno1]

Completely agree with everything you wrote…Any average fan could manage / forecast the problems these things create and yet the AFL tinker around the edges and don’t make the necessary changes to fix the looming problems…It’s all so obviously flawed and easily fixed, and yet here we are…

Even worse we all know they won't fix it properly, and we are back to this discussion again in 12 months.

You can't have the second worst side having the 7th pick in a draft. Sorry but that's not what the draft should look like

 

[Miller1971]

They are when you are matching in the top 5!

Ask yourself this okay and I'll use your club okay you hold pick 5 are you selling that for 3-4 picks in the 20's?

That's the issue. It's not near the value.

This is why the 2 pick max rule has to be in, it will make clubs pay more and be harshly penalised if they go to deficits

No, I am probably not. But its not designed to be fair, its designed to allow a club to match bids and have to give something up in return that is significant. Not just Pick 41 in 1 dradt (aka Tom Hawkins)

4 seconds regardless of where they are would and should not get you a top 5 selection. If Brisbane held pick 5 no way on earth are they trading it for 4 picks in the 30's!

You have to consider that they planned for 2 years to acquire the draft capital to be ready to pick these kids within the rules and the DVI and even contended with a rule change in the middle of all this.

Remember that a club doesn't just have 2 x first round picks, 8 x second round picks and 2 x 3rd round picks by default.

I don't have the time to bother working out all the things they gave up to get to that point, but via lots of strategic trading with other clubs willing to trade, they acquired all of these selections, when the other clubs would have known exactly why they were doing it. NO interest like self interest though, as long as each trade benefited the other club, while Suns incrementally built their draft capital - they were all willing to deal.

They also pretty much have almost no draft capital in 2026, and have a kid in the AIS squad who captained the u17 winning team in the futures game. They will already be looking to plot their way back up the board via trades in order to be in a position to match a bid on him.

 

[Jirik13]

Look whilst true that's the issue, it should have been Petrraca OR one of the top talents, not both. Yes you can say oh we prepared etc. The issue is the value, I've said it over and over again the AFL are complete nuffies. They want to band aid every single problem rather than putting cement on it and stopping it for good. That's on them not the clubs though.

This new change will force clubs to make calls on academy talents and that's good

I agree the value to be paid should be higher.

Where is this new change? It's already Dec 11. I would not be surprised if it's not what's was advertised by Twomey. We may have to wait next year trade period.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It was not 4 in 30s - it was two picks in 20s and two in 30s. Also the value definitely can, especially when you are talking about an unproven 18 year old. Pick 5 can turn out to be next big thing or could turn out to be a Tsatas, Schache or McAsey. Regardless of how big the name is, it comes with an element of unproven factor.

I can give you an alternate view of the world where a proven coleman medallist, all-australian key position forward got traded for a pick 12 in terms of trade value points. So people need to ease up on the hysteria and see what's being revised on the DVI now.

View attachment 2494510

Again would you as Brisbane if you held pick 5 accept 4 seconds for it? Come on yes or no.

The Cameron trade was for one player and it's unders but not completely unders...you are proclaiming a pick 5 is worth 4 in the second round, it's nowhere near it. Let alone the two more in the first round. It's the last two that people are calling a rort and they were we all know why they allowed it though

 

[Jirik13]

No, I am probably not. But its not designed to be fair, its designed to allow a club to match bids and have to give something up in return that is significant. Not just Pick 41 in 1 dradt (aka Tom Hawkins)




You have to consider that they planned for 2 years to acquire the draft capital to be ready to pick these kids within the rules and the DVI and even contended with a rule change in the middle of all this.

Remember that a club doesn't just have 2 x first round picks, 8 x second round picks and 2 x 3rd round picks by default.

I don't have the time to bother working out all the things they gave up to get to that point, but via lots of strategic trading with other clubs willing to trade, they acquired all of these selections, when the other clubs would have known exactly why they were doing it. NO interest like self interest though, as long as each trade benefited the other club, while Suns incrementally built their draft capital - they were all willing to deal.

They also pretty much have almost no draft capital in 2026, and have a kid in the AIS squad who captained the u17 winning team in the futures game. They will already be looking to plot their way back up the board via trades in order to be in a position to match a bid on him.

Can only agree. If I remember correctly, WB gave up 3 1st round picks for Suns pick. Nobody forced them to do it. A lot of teams benefited from Suns too many concession picks (some crazy deals apparently, haha).

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No, I am probably not. But its not designed to be fair, its designed to allow a club to match bids and have to give something up in return that is significant. Not just Pick 41 in 1 dradt (aka Tom Hawkins)




You have to consider that they planned for 2 years to acquire the draft capital to be ready to pick these kids within the rules and the DVI and even contended with a rule change in the middle of all this.

Remember that a club doesn't just have 2 x first round picks, 8 x second round picks and 2 x 3rd round picks by default.

I don't have the time to bother working out all the things they gave up to get to that point, but via lots of strategic trading with other clubs willing to trade, they acquired all of these selections, when the other clubs would have known exactly why they were doing it. NO interest like self interest though, as long as each trade benefited the other club, while Suns incrementally built their draft capital - they were all willing to deal.

They also pretty much have almost no draft capital in 2026, and have a kid in the AIS squad who captained the u17 winning team in the futures game. They will already be looking to plot their way back up the board via trades in order to be in a position to match a bid on him.

It's just nowhere near the value that's the issue, yes they prepared for it, under a completely flawed system that every person could see except for the useless buffoons at AFL house. Should be just a flat rule that you want a talent the first pick has to be inside 18 selections of the bid but the 2 pick rule does most of this anyway

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I agree the value to be paid should be higher.

Where is this new change? It's already Dec 11. I would not be surprised if it's not what's was advertised by Twomey. We may have to wait next year trade period.

They don't really have to announce it to the public till closer to the date next year the clubs would know. The value better be higher

 

[mpal6]

Again would you as Brisbane if you held pick 5 accept 4 seconds for it? Come on yes or no.

The Cameron trade was for one player and it's unders but not completely unders...you are proclaiming a pick 5 is worth 4 in the second round, it's nowhere near it. Let alone the two more in the first round. It's the last two that people are calling a rort and they were we all know why they allowed it though

You are trying to make a simplistic argument and asking for a yes/no. That's not the premise we're working on. What clubs are trying to get through the door as players pretty much decides what level of flexibility they can work with.

AFLW, where these kind of trials get made, Lions traded 12 for 21 and 32 back in 2023. We did it knowing we're taking QLD based academy players in draft and rules enabled it.

If 4xseconds look unfair - what's fair then. 6x seconds? 8x seconds? what'll appease the raging mob. Do tell.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You are trying to make a simplistic argument and asking for a yes/no. That's not the premise we're working on. What clubs are trying to get through the door as players pretty much decides what level of flexibility they can work with.

AFLW, where these kind of trials get made, Lions traded 12 for 21 and 32 back in 2023. We did it knowing we're taking QLD based academy players in draft and rules enabled it.

If 4xseconds look unfair - what's fair then. 6x seconds? 8x seconds? what'll appease the raging mob. Do tell.

If it's a high first rounder, then a first round selection has to be one of the picks, that's a starting point as to what 'fair' should look like. That is more than reasonable. This can be solved mainly by the two pick rule though, if a pick is at 5, you will have to have one in the teens at least to start. That is getting closer to what is fair. More than reasonable.

 

[Yoda_]

did they then change the rules back to allow priority picks? nope. different.

that wasn't the point

 

[rye]

It's manipulating regardless of whether its 'strategic' manipulating or not and it should have been outlawed years ago (across the board for every club) but the afl is useless.

in what ways is it manipulating.

its playing by the rules of the system.

ridiculous post.

 

[rye]

its amazing how many posters in here want to conflate father sons with academies, ignore the fact the AFL already tightened the bidding rules less than 12 months ago and completely erase the history of gold coast / brisbane / gws in particular being feeder clubs under an 'equitable draft' that is imagined to have existed at some point (hint: it never has).

do we want to discuss how how many players gold coast has lost in the last 5 years when discussing their academy haul? how about the 5 years prior to that? do we want to compare that to the number of players absolute basket cases like north melbourne or melbourne lost when they were at a nadir far greater than gold coast ever reached to show how big the disadvantage is?

some of you just want to scream 5 FIRST ROUND PICKS AND PETRACCA! without taking any of the nuance of the gold coast situation into account.

lets stop being dishonest here: you are each advocating for an 'uncompromised draft' because formal equality benefits your team. any consideration of draft rules which promote substantive equality should be thrown to the wayside because northern clubs should exist to feed talent back to the home states.

 

[danster168]

its amazing how many posters in here want to conflate father sons with academies, ignore the fact the AFL already tightened the bidding rules less than 12 months ago and completely erase the history of gold coast / brisbane / gws in particular being feeder clubs under an 'equitable draft' that is imagined to have existed at some point (hint: it never has).

do we want to discuss how how many players gold coast has lost in the last 5 years when discussing their academy haul? how about the 5 years prior to that? do we want to compare that to the number of players absolute basket cases like north melbourne or melbourne lost when they were at a nadir far greater than gold coast ever reached to show how big the disadvantage is?

some of you just want to scream 5 FIRST ROUND PICKS AND PETRACCA! without taking any of the nuance of the gold coast situation into account.

lets stop being dishonest here: you are each advocating for an 'uncompromised draft' because formal equality benefits your team. any consideration of draft rules which promote substantive equality should be thrown to the wayside because northern clubs should exist to feed talent back to the home states.

dees lost Hogan, Luke Jackson, Mcvee, Mac Andrew, p)

 

[Miller1971]

If it's a high first rounder, then a first round selection has to be one of the picks, that's a starting point as to what 'fair' should look like. That is more than reasonable. This can be solved mainly by the two pick rule though, if a pick is at 5, you will have to have one in the teens at least to start. That is getting closer to what is fair. More than reasonable.

depends on what you're trying to achieve.

That would be nice if academies produced 1 x star player each year and just perenially matched them

But in some cases, they go 3-4 years without any - then along comes a haul of 3-4 in a single year.

If you believe in academies and the process of trying to get the kids to their aligned club in a fashion that is still possible, but they have to cough up lots of draft capital - then the current system works ok with continual tweaks.

Rarely can you acquire 4 x first rounders in a single year, but if you give up 3 years worth of first rounders to accumulate a stack of 2nd rounders in a single season - the result is kinda the same isn't it?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

depends on what you're trying to achieve.

That would be nice if academies produced 1 x star player each year and just perenially matched them

But in some cases, they go 3-4 years without any - then along comes a haul of 3-4 in a single year.

If you believe in academies and the process of trying to get the kids to their aligned club in a fashion that is still possible, but they have to cough up lots of draft capital - then the current system works ok with continual tweaks.

Rarely can you acquire 4 x first rounders in a single year, but if you give up 3 years worth of first rounders to accumulate a stack of 2nd rounders in a single season - the result is kinda the same isn't it?

Then acquire the first rounders OR make a call which talent you want more. We can’t have the second worst side having pick 7, it was farcical. All for the academies but fair value has to be the end game, the price should be close to what someone would pay on an open market. Sides this year wanted the cake both ways that’s where the issue is. No one is against the academies but we need to keep the first rounders as pure as possible

 

[LukeParkerno1]

lets stop being dishonest here: you are each advocating for an 'uncompromised draft' because formal equality benefits your team. any consideration of draft rules which promote substantive equality should be thrown to the wayside because northern clubs should exist to feed talent back to the home states.

I'd love to know how an 'uncompromised draft' suits the club I go for? Come on this will be a good one considering we have an academy and got 2 in this year. Even I can see the system is a rort, it's called being fair. You know what I want more than us winning, fairness. This is across the board not just the draft, but travel etc.

 

[Obeanie1]

Obviously Suns are owned and run by AFL. Nothing new there.

Hey Eagles, just put more money into NGA and you will reap benefits too. Not sure what Eagles are doing with all those millions. Although cheap price seems to be over.

I do hope AFL will implement the suggested changes (Twomey). It would be fun watching Carlton and Port trying to match early bids.

If you bothered finding out you would already know the Eagles and Dockers are owned by the WAFL and pay millions every year into running state football in WA including junior development.

And then on top of that spends millions on the Naitanui NGA academy. Freo does the same with their NGA academy.

Not the same full state zone academy benefits enjoyed by expansion clubs.

If you arent an eligible for NGA any side can select the player.

 

[Obeanie1]

I agree the value to be paid should be higher.

Where is this new change? It's already Dec 11. I would not be surprised if it's not what's was advertised by Twomey. We may have to wait next year trade period.

Carlton will be throwing everthing at AFL House to delay.

 

[Jirik13]

If you bothered finding out you would already know the Eagles and Dockers are owned by the WAFL and pay millions every year into running state football in WA including junior development.

And then on top of that spends millions on the Naitanui NGA academy. Freo does the same with their NGA academy.

Not the same full state zone academy benefits enjoyed by expansion clubs.

If you arent an eligible for NGA any side can select the player.

Not following Eagles, it was just a question. Did Naitanui NGA produce any players? If you spend millions on it surely it will. How big is the area? Not going to search for it, sorry

 

[briztoon]

Not really, you had clubs matching first rounders with relative junk nowhere near value. Again I don't blame your club, I blame the AFL. This 2 pick rule should have been in THIS year, we all know why it wasn't though. Of course you have no problem you've just got 4 first rounders for 2 cents in the dollar, heaven don't blame you, the AFL are a bunch of you know whats letting it happen though.

I’m reasonably confident that if the two pick rule was in this year, that Murray and Addinsall wouldn’t have been bid on where they were.

Same with Dean.

Probably would have seen a different strategy from GC about where they traded picks to, and even what they offered up for Petracca.

Would have prioritised trading up, instead of back, and accumulating future picks, because of the two pick + deficit rule.

 

[briztoon]

Look whilst true that's the issue, it should have been Petrraca OR one of the top talents, not both. Yes you can say oh we prepared etc. The issue is the value, I've said it over and over again the AFL are complete nuffies. They want to band aid every single problem rather than putting cement on it and stopping it for good. That's on them not the clubs though.

This new change will force clubs to make calls on academy talents and that's good

Why?

Suns held 4 first round picks in this year’s draft, plus 3 second picks (it was 3 or 4) plus a full complement with extras in the future drafts, before trading for Petracca.

Obviously they had done enough to be able to trade for Petracca and extra picks from trades, to get the best of their kids.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I’m reasonably confident that if the two pick rule was in this year, that Murray and Addinsall wouldn’t have been bid on where they were.

Same with Dean.

Probably would have seen a different strategy from GC about where they traded picks to, and even what they offered up for Petracca.

Would have prioritised trading up, instead of back, and accumulating future picks, because of the two pick + deficit rule.

That’s what it should have been instead the AFL let the farce continue. Least next year they are going to the two pick plus no discount, it’s getting there. It’s still not fantastic but it’s better.

 

[Viceregal]

Query ... from a 'pure draft' perspective ... wasn't it purer when F/s were effectively not part of the process and taken with the third round pick thus leaving the 16th team pick 1, 15th team pick 2 etc (leaving aside the auto generate pre first round priority picks for successive years of sucking which I am not sure which years they were around for)