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

[Jirik13]

I am intrigued that the afl haven't opened up both QLD and NSW for academies to all clubs.

Divvie up the state and enable all clubs to run an academy in the states. Have to have guidelines about who is eligible, minimum requirements for the academy running (spending, contact hours, eligibility). Allow all clubs to prelist their academy members onto their list.

Rewards Academy success, increases funding into both QLD and NSW grass roots footy, grows the drafting pool of talent, etc etc

Sounds good to me. Grow game, increase talent pool, more players.

 

[Jirik13]

The problem with just saying it’s okay if they are bad is it still has an effect on other bad teams trying to rebuild. I have an even bigger issue with that North situation. I think the league as a whole has so many issues to address. Priority picks are an absolute joke.

The draft and the salary cap are the measures in place to rebuild a team. If a club is well run they will rebuild in time. What we need is a clear run at these things. Academies are a part of the issue. Father son another part, compensation picks and priority picks another.

Let the equalisation measures do what they are supposed to do and butt out from the rest as a league.

IMO, the whole AFL system is screwed.

 

[Shadow89]

I am intrigued that the afl haven't opened up both QLD and NSW for academies to all clubs.

Divvie up the state and enable all clubs to run an academy in the states. Have to have guidelines about who is eligible, minimum requirements for the academy running (spending, contact hours, eligibility). Allow all clubs to prelist their academy members onto their list.

Rewards Academy success, increases funding into both QLD and NSW grass roots footy, grows the drafting pool of talent, etc etc

This is actually a very smart idea - and would satiate a lot of clubs, IMO. Only problem is, you end up with an NGA situation like Geelong - where you get a shit area and can't even take a prospect in the Top 40 when you get one anyway.

Definitely something different to think about though.

 

[Membling]

This is actually a very smart idea - and would satiate a lot of clubs, IMO. Only problem is, you end up with an NGA situation like Geelong - where you get a s**t area and can't even take a prospect in the Top 40 when you get one anyway.

Definitely something different to think about though.

The hardest part would be the zoning. Would likepy be based upon residential hubs/city centres.

Prelist the players and they count for main list selections

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

This is actually a very smart idea - and would satiate a lot of clubs, IMO. Only problem is, you end up with an NGA situation like Geelong - where you get a s**t area and can't even take a prospect in the Top 40 when you get one anyway.

Definitely something different to think about though.

I don't think Vic clubs need academies at all really, esp given our states rich breeding grounds and f/s selections.

 

[bluespooner]

More like Suns were badly set up by AFL. In the end AFL owns Suns and essentially runs the club. To start the expansion club in NRL territory 8 years in metal sheds and with coach and admin who never worked in those roles before tells you all you need to know.

Yet, the GC receives $28m from the AFL in distributions every year. Essentially the same funding as West Coast, Collingwood and Hawthorn combined and every year it is the equivalent of having it flushed down the crapper. Zero results and zero interest from a franchise with no capacity to stand on its feet.

Even with a NGA roughly a quarter the size of the country, expanded list sizes and all that money the AFL has nothing to show for its handouts.

 

[Purple Suit]

Yeah, Vics fans go a bit nuts here. It will take 3-5 years for draftees to develop and quite possibly some will not deliver on potential. And if Suns do play finals matching bids in round 1 is severely limited.

Obviously, AFL wants Suns to prosper. Right now, they are far from established and successful club. When Suns play finals regularly, sure support can be wind it down.

I still remember when Suns got Ainsworth, Brodie, Bowes, Scrimshaw with all that excitement. Now only Ainsworth really starting to deliver.

Why stop with just the draft rules? All the Northern Clubs shouldn’t be penalised for the push in the back rule. They need different rules since they are in a rugby state. The integrity of the comp is second to buying them a flag.

 

[Purple Suit]

Hey hey, l was only asking about the state of elite junior development in WA and SA.

In terms of FS, you do have the same advantage as all clubs in having access to FS but it's not the AFL's fault if the father doesn't produce son's that go onto play football or if the club foregoes the chance to pick up a FS eligible player if they deemed that player not worth a pick or the father played 99 games.

And before you go on, l do agree that raising the threshold from 50 to100 games is utterly crap but l don't think we can go back to pre 1997 rules where a FS could bypass the draft like Cousins or after 1997 when 2nd and 3rd rounders were needed or pre 2006 where 150 WAFL or 200 SANFL got you under FS.

Back to the topic...

This is completely wrong, it’s like saying GWS & GC have the same access to FS as the Victorian clubs.

The WAFL / SANFL access was flawed as it was a cut off, not added together with AFL games plus a much bigger number to make it impossible.

 

[.Shotties.]

There is no financial cost. Sydney are and always have been massively over funded by the AFL. They have been nigh on insolvent and bailed out more than once.

Collingwood, Hawthorn, West Coast and others pay for the Sydney academy.

Ah...what? QBE pays for it in its entirety.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Its not hard.
You do a few things:

1.You change the bidding system so at least 1 pick used for matching has to be within 10 places of where the bid is made.
2. You cant use more than 3 picks to match a bid.
3. If you trade out of the R1 you cant match a r1 bid.
4. Fix the points table so late picks are worth way less and top 30 picks more.
5. Close the loophole that allows teams to trade in picks that they dont have the list spots for once the draft opens.

To balance that out you allow teams to go into a greater amount of points deficit than currently and you let futures be traded 2 or 3 years in advance not just one. So that way if a club has multiple round 1 bids like this year they can use the next 2-3 years of r1s to match.

This would still allow clubs to get their academy players but would make them pay fair value instead of double dipping and rorting the points system as clubs do now.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Its not hard.
You do a few things:

1.You change the bidding system so at least 1 pick used for matching has to be within 10 places of where the bid is made.
2. You cant use more than 3 picks to match a bid.
3. If you trade out of the R1 you cant match a r1 bid.
4. Fix the points table so late picks are worth way less and top 30 picks more.
5. Close the loophole that allows teams to trade in picks that they dont have the list spots for once the draft opens.

To balance that out you allow teams to go into a greater amount of points deficit than currently and you let futures be traded 2 or 3 years in advance not just one. So that way if a club has multiple round 1 bids like this year they can use the next 2-3 years of r1s to match.

This would still allow clubs to get their academy players but would make them pay fair value instead of double dipping and rorting the points system as clubs do now.

Why make it complicated and add so many different rules when point 4 does what every other point intends to?

If picks are valued more appropriately teams will need to use higher picks to match bids (point 1), won't be able to use multiple late picks as they wont be worth enough points (point 2 and 5), will need round 1 picks to get enough points to match early round 1 bids (point 3).

The last point isn't exactly the same but don't think you should need a 1st round pick to match a bid at pick 18. If it's Top 5 then yes fair enough

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

Why make it complicated and add so many different rules when point 4 does what every other point intends to?

If picks are valued more appropriately teams will need to use higher picks to match bids (point 1), won't be able to use multiple late picks as they wont be worth enough points (point 2 and 5), will need round 1 picks to get enough points to match early round 1 bids (point 3).

The last point isn't exactly the same but don't think you should need a 1st round pick to match a bid at pick 18. If it's Top 5 then yes fair enough

I don't think point 3 is needed. I think for point 1 within 10 is ok, but I would allow a natural first rounder to he used as well.
So if you win flag and have pick 18, you can match a bid at 2 or 3 using 18 and other picks, not trade it down to 25 26 and get more points from it.
It will be very hard to trade up to get pick 11 for such a team.
If only 3 picks are allowed to match, they would have to use 18,36, (and a deficit to be paid by F1).

 

[Elixuh]

I am intrigued that the afl haven't opened up both QLD and NSW for academies to all clubs.

Divvie up the state and enable all clubs to run an academy in the states. Have to have guidelines about who is eligible, minimum requirements for the academy running (spending, contact hours, eligibility). Allow all clubs to prelist their academy members onto their list.

Rewards Academy success, increases funding into both QLD and NSW grass roots footy, grows the drafting pool of talent, etc etc

It was mooted years ago. Zero clubs wanted to take it up. Too much investment for too little reward, especially when VFL clubs already have 65% of their lists drafted from Vic.

That may change if AFL really takes off up here and the clubs begin getting hauls like GC this season, most seasons. It’s why club presidents like Eddie wanted them abolished, bc Collingwood doesn’t want to invest in their own but don’t want other clubs to have them.

 

[Sphynx]

Its not hard.
You do a few things:

1.You change the bidding system so at least 1 pick used for matching has to be within 10 places of where the bid is made.
2. You cant use more than 3 picks to match a bid.
3. If you trade out of the R1 you cant match a r1 bid.
4. Fix the points table so late picks are worth way less and top 30 picks more.
5. Close the loophole that allows teams to trade in picks that they dont have the list spots for once the draft opens.

To balance that out you allow teams to go into a greater amount of points deficit than currently and you let futures be traded 2 or 3 years in advance not just one. So that way if a club has multiple round 1 bids like this year they can use the next 2-3 years of r1s to match.

This would still allow clubs to get their academy players but would make them pay fair value instead of double dipping and rorting the points system as clubs do now.

This. I agree with most points, particularly, max 3 picks to match any bid and at least 1 pick within 10 selections of a matched bid.

Ill add:

Remove the 20% discount on everything.

Add a 20% tax for academy players, as they circumvent all rules that apply to the rest of the talent pool, including early access to potential draftee's. Levi Ashcroft has been at training sessions at Brisbane for 2 years already.

F/S is neutral with 0% loading.

Further weight the top 5 picks in the draft.

These have to be protected.

To match a pick in the top 3 should take an absolutely ridiculous amount of points for a team who doesn't hold a nearby pick.

As we saw with WCE, they knocked back 4 x R1 picks for Reid (which was a higher points value than what Adelaide offered North for JHF).

Revised Points required

Pick 1 - 5,000 (up from 3,000) - It's up from 2,400 if you take into account the removed 20% discount. So over doubled.
Pick 2 - 4,000 (up from 2,500)
Pick 3 - 3,750 (up from 2,234)



No club can match bids on more than 2 players in a draft, under any scheme (Academy, F/S, NGA etc)


You essentially can't match a top 3 bid without having 2-3 picks in the first 12, the way it should be and how a club would actually value that pick if they traded for it.

Every single matched bid fails the sniff test, they would have been laughed out of the trade room if offered to move up for that pick to the holding club.

 

[marcmurphy3]

This. I agree with most points, particularly, max 3 picks to match any bid and at least 1 pick within 10 selections of a matched bid.

Ill add:

Remove the 20% discount on everything.

Add a 20% tax for academy players, as they circumvent all rules that apply to the rest of the talent pool, including early access to potential draftee's. Levi Ashcroft has been at training sessions at Brisbane for 2 years already.

F/S is neutral with 0% loading.

Further weight the top 5 picks in the draft.

These have to be protected.

To match a pick in the top 3 should take an absolutely ridiculous amount of points for a team who doesn't hold a nearby pick.

As we saw with WCE, they knocked back 4 x R1 picks for Reid (which was a higher points value than what Adelaide offered North for JHF).

Revised Points required

Pick 1 - 5,000 (up from 3,000) - It's up from 2,400 if you take into account the removed 20% discount. So over doubled.
Pick 2 - 4,000 (up from 2,500)
Pick 3 - 3,750 (up from 2,234)



No club can match bids on more than 2 players in a draft, under any scheme (Academy, F/S, NGA etc)


You essentially can't match a top 3 bid without having 2-3 picks in the first 12, the way it should be and how a club would actually value that pick if they traded for it.

Every single matched bid fails the sniff test, they would have been laughed out of the trade room if offered to move up for that pick to the holding club.

That's completely ridiculous and over the top. Incredibly complicated and pretty much makes it impossible to match bids in the top 5. Penalising clubs if they want to take an academy player.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

This. I agree with most points, particularly, max 3 picks to match any bid and at least 1 pick within 10 selections of a matched bid.

Ill add:

Remove the 20% discount on everything.

Add a 20% tax for academy players, as they circumvent all rules that apply to the rest of the talent pool, including early access to potential draftee's. Levi Ashcroft has been at training sessions at Brisbane for 2 years already.

F/S is neutral with 0% loading.

Further weight the top 5 picks in the draft.

These have to be protected.

To match a pick in the top 3 should take an absolutely ridiculous amount of points for a team who doesn't hold a nearby pick.

As we saw with WCE, they knocked back 4 x R1 picks for Reid (which was a higher points value than what Adelaide offered North for JHF).

Revised Points required

Pick 1 - 5,000 (up from 3,000) - It's up from 2,400 if you take into account the removed 20% discount. So over doubled.
Pick 2 - 4,000 (up from 2,500)
Pick 3 - 3,750 (up from 2,234)



No club can match bids on more than 2 players in a draft, under any scheme (Academy, F/S, NGA etc)


You essentially can't match a top 3 bid without having 2-3 picks in the first 12, the way it should be and how a club would actually value that pick if they traded for it.

Every single matched bid fails the sniff test, they would have been laughed out of the trade room if offered to move up for that pick to the holding club.

Ashcroft is FS to Brisbane, so would avoid your draconian measures.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Outside of that Mills and Blakey are the only top 10 academy selections we have had and they have eaten up the rest of our picks

Campbell?

 

[Lore]

This. I agree with most points, particularly, max 3 picks to match any bid and at least 1 pick within 10 selections of a matched bid.

So in theory that would work out to something like:

Match Pick 1 with Picks 10, 20, and 65

Ill add:

Remove the 20% discount on everything.

Match Pick 1 with Picks 10, 20, and 27.

Add a 20% tax for academy players, as they circumvent all rules that apply to the rest of the talent pool, including early access to potential draftee's. Levi Ashcroft has been at training sessions at Brisbane for 2 years already.

20% tax? the kid only goes as high as he does because of the extra time that is put into them by the clubs. Otherwise they'd draft the same kid with pick 35, or even as a rookie depending on who knew they existed (or perhaps not at all, if the kid goes down the NRL path).

In any case:

Match Pick 1 with Picks 10, 12 and 20.

F/S is neutral with 0% loading.

Why is F/S 0% but academy is 20%, given clubs mostly don't put any effort into their father/sons?

Further weight the top 5 picks in the draft.

These have to be protected.

To match a pick in the top 3 should take an absolutely ridiculous amount of points for a team who doesn't hold a nearby pick.

As we saw with WCE, they knocked back 4 x R1 picks for Reid (which was a higher points value than what Adelaide offered North for JHF).

Revised Points required

Pick 1 - 5,000 (up from 3,000) - It's up from 2,400 if you take into account the removed 20% discount. So over doubled.
Pick 2 - 4,000 (up from 2,500)
Pick 3 - 3,750 (up from 2,234)

Match Pick 1 with picks 3 and 13 (assuming 13 is worth the same as it already was, but 3 is worth 3750).

No club can match bids on more than 2 players in a draft, under any scheme (Academy, F/S, NGA etc)

Why?

Is there really an issue if GC get 4 academy players at picks 4, 22, 40, and 58?

As long as the quality of the player is a good match for the pick used to acquire him I don't see why anyone should really care.

Ditto father/sons and any other pathway product, remembering that most of them are acquired at the end of the draft or as rookies.

If the points system is changed to properly reflect the value of picks, it should prevent clubs from taking multiple academy or father/sons in the top 5 or 10 by default, unless they trade out a very, very good player to acquire the picks, which is fair do I reckon. No one would care if the dogs gave up idk, Bont? to get JUH.

 

[eastfreo75]

Time to get rid of the draft and go to zones.

1. Competition for young talent - this year the Swans lost a kid to Rugby league.
2. Homesickness - players already slide in the draft and corrupts the integrity of the draft.
3. Academy works and will increase player strength.
4. Teams can turn around quicker in a rebuild with free agency.


Possible Zones
1. 20th team - Perth Panthers - West Perth, East Perth and Perth (by the way, Colours Black, Red and Blue)
2. Tasmania - Tasmania, Ireland and East Gippsland
3. GWS - Riveria, Canberra and Western Sydney
4. Swans - NSW regional. Sydney city excluding Western Syndey
5. Gold Coast - Gold Coast and other parts of Queensland
6. Brisbane - Brisbane and other parts of Queensland
7. Port - Country SA, NT and part of Adelaide.
8. Adelaide - Parts of Adelaide
9. West Coast - Claremont, Subiaco and Swan Districts
10. Fremantle - East Fremantle, South Fremantle and Peel

Victorian teams go back to city and country zones.

AFL teams will allocate resources from recruitment to development.

 

[.Shotties.]

Time to get rid of the draft and go to zones.

1. Competition for young talent - this year the Swans lost a kid to Rugby league.
2. Homesickness - players already slide in the draft and corrupts the integrity of the draft.
3. Academy works and will increase player strength.
4. Teams can turn around quicker in a rebuild with free agency.


Possible Zones
1. 20th team - Perth Panthers - West Perth, East Perth and Perth (by the way, Colours Black, Red and Blue)
2. Tasmania - Tasmania, Ireland and East Gippsland
3. GWS - Riveria, Canberra and Western Sydney
4. Swans - NSW regional. Sydney city excluding Western Syndey
5. Gold Coast - Gold Coast and other parts of Queensland
6. Brisbane - Brisbane and other parts of Queensland
7. Port - Country SA, NT and part of Adelaide.
8. Adelaide - Parts of Adelaide
9. West Coast - Claremont, Subiaco and Swan Districts
10. Fremantle - East Fremantle, South Fremantle and Peel

Victorian teams go back to city and country zones.

AFL teams will allocate resources from recruitment to development.

Lol. You reckon any team in their right mind would swap a WAFL pathways for Regional NSW or Queensland?

 

[Caligo]

Lol. You reckon any team in their right mind would swap a WAFL pathways for Regional NSW or Queensland?

Someone can do the numbers but I would absolutely take all of non western Sydney and all of regional nsw that isn't the Riverina over 3 wafl clubs.

What we are seeing at schoolboy level is pretty exciting here in Sydney.

 

[Membling]

Campbell?

Clean miss on my end for the 2020 draft

 

[FlyHigh18]

Keep similar system but get rid of all the shit. It'll work fine when used as intended.

• Preserve round 1 draft order
• No academy / NGA matching in round 1. But allow both clubs to immediately negotiate a trade.
• No discounts
• Any assistance packages can only begin after round 1
• Father son matching in round 1 is ok but with +20% or so premium.

 

[GC2015]

Keep similar system but get rid of all the s**t. It'll work fine when used as intended.

• Preserve round 1 draft order
• No academy / NGA matching in round 1. But allow both clubs to immediately negotiate a trade.
• No discounts
• Any assistance packages can only begin after round 1
• Father son matching in round 1 is ok but with +20% or so premium.

With the exception of 16 clubs continuing to get unrestricted F/S access and the 2 newest expansion clubs not for at least another decade, that would be a pretty fair system. However, the one factor lots of people down south keep forgetting is that the AFL is trying very hard to grow the game in NSW & QLD and they are having an enormous amount of success in doing that through the current northern academy pathways. The incentive to put in maximum effort is there for both parties because the northern clubs know they can get access to top 10 players if they develop them correctly and the players get the benefit of being able to stay in their home city and play for the team they've been associated with since 12 years of age.

If you start restricting the northern academy access to round 2 and beyond then they will go the same way of the NGAs where the northern clubs won't put in maximum effort because they can't reap the ultimate reward from it. So unless the AFL wants to undo A LOT of hard work that's gone in over the last 10 years since the northern academies were launched, they won't restrict round 1 northern academy access. Like it or not, this is the most success they've ever had at growing the game in NSW & QLD.

 

[Obeanie1]

Sure, success helps a great deal. But to say that academies has very little to do with growing game is not objective view, IMO.

You should check out regularly what Suns and its academy actually do in communities. Suns now runs thousands kids through academy from if I remember correctly 11-12 years old, organizing camps, recruitments events all over the place, organizing coaches clinics, setting up additional staff in the regions, organizing training, visits, etc.

Always was wondering what clubs actually do withing NGA academies.

Good for the Suns doing all that.

Every other club does similar. The WA clubs run academies, community camps, community events and engages with its support base.

That has nothing to do with how cheap priority access is currently. Especially when other clubs who don't get multiple father sons PLUS don't get unlimited academy access PLUS have never been able to attract top level Vicitian trades like the Swans and Lions regularly do and so will the Suns.