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

[jdstorm]

Someone complaining is as certain as death and taxes.

Whenever a system is altered there will be some who feel hard done by. It's unavoidable. And maybe it's more than feeling hard done by. Some will be, relative to other clubs. I don't think delaying any changes will make any difference to that.

I also think that clubs were put on notice before this year's trade and draft periods that the process was under review. So it won't come as a complete shock, whatever changes are made and when. And it isn't apparent that any trades were done anticipating existing matching rules that might not have been done if details of possible changes were already available. Specifically, none of Brisbane, Adelaide or Carlton traded out their first round pick for 2024 thinking they wouldn't need it to match a probable/possible top ten pick on a linked player (as Collingwood did the year before Daicos was available).

To be fair that’s because they realised Collingwood messed up trading that pick (which became Finn Calahan) as they would have got much better value just waiting and trading it later

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Just get rid of discounts and allow only two picks to match a bid and if they can’t then the points they are short come off their future first with 100% tax. (The year after if they have already traded that pick)
This should be done in the 2025 season after Carlton get the twins under the current bullshit rules.

 

[Obeanie1]

Surely not even the AFL would implement changes for the 2024 draft.

I applaud moves to make the system fairer for all but it has to be for 2025 onwards.

Clubs don’t just plan for the current draft. Every single club with F/S, NGA and academy prospects in 2024 will have made moves already to accommodate the potential recruitment of those players.

It would be completely unfair to change the system for 2024.

Why wouldn't they do something in 2024?

Understand the vested interest for no change because as a Carlton supporter you want your club to get one more bite at a heavily discounted father son system.

They should at least allow other clubs to match acadmey NGA bids after live pick 20.

 

[Caligo]

Can anyone remember how long it was between the NGA change to only allow matching at pick 40 and the draft where that rule was first imposed? I think it was around mid November in 2020 for the 2021 draft, but that might be completely wrong.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Why wouldn't they do something in 2024?

Understand the vested interest for no change because as a Carlton supporter you want your club to get one more bite at a heavily discounted father son system.

They should at least allow other clubs to match acadmey NGA bids after live pick 20.

It probably depends on what the changes are.

The AFL allows trading 2 years in advance. Given how the bid matching mechasims work (trading future picks, stocking up later picks ect) it is unfair to change the rules 1 year in advance. That's just common sense. It would be like changing AFL rules halfway through a season. It doesn't matter if they are better. You can't change the rules while the game is in play

That said, if the changes are minor you could argue it's immaterial whether you bring them in next year or not. Also, if you wanted to make other changes like allowing academy bid matches outside 20 I can't see why you couldn't bring them in next season as it doesnt really hurt anyone. But if it's a complete overhaul of the bid matching system that would be super unfair. Not just for clubs with father sons / academy links but also clubs who have stocked up on future picks like Richmond to trade with bidding clubs.

 

[Jeremias]

Why wouldn't they do something in 2024?

Understand the vested interest for no change because as a Carlton supporter you want your club to get one more bite at a heavily discounted father son system.

They should at least allow other clubs to match acadmey NGA bids after live pick 20.

I gave the answer to the question in the post you’ve quoted.

It’s not a question of having a vested interest. It would simply be grossly unfair to make changes mid draft cycle.

Clubs have actively planned for next draft. Changing for the year after impacts nobody’s plans.

 

[Saab NLAW]

What biases how about every player being drawn to Victoria. Northern states deal with vultures from other clubs way more than a Victorian side.

All for a reduction in the discount but gradual and in line with percentages drafted from those states. It’s not at a stage right now to reduce it to 0, somewhere in the 10-12% is about right.

The curve is the issue, top 10 picks should be worth double that’s the issue not the discount applied. The 9 pick idea is fantastic.

Compensation should go for FA none of this farce that North did we all know why you did it don’t pretend it was any other reason

What absolute bullshit, Sydney loses players at the same rate, or even less, then the rest of the clubs in the competition. Way better than the smaller Melbourne clubs. Sydney also has a fantastic record for attracting elite talent.

Sydney fans are the Greens of the AFL

 

[.Shotties.]

What absolute bullshit, Sydney loses players at the same rate, or even less, then the rest of the clubs in the competition. Way better than the smaller Melbourne clubs. Sydney also has a fantastic record for attracting elite talent.

Sydney fans are the Greens of the AFL

Sydney /= the entirety of the Northern States.

 

[Caligo]

Sydney /= the entirety of the Northern States.

At some point soon the afl should recognise that sydney/Brisbane are in a different position to gws/gc. They should not have the same academy rules (does gc still have NT pre-listing?).

 

[Jirik13]

At some point soon the afl should recognise that sydney/Brisbane are in a different position to gws/gc. They should not have the same academy rules (does gc still have NT pre-listing?).

No more free pre-listing for Suns from last year.

 

[Saab NLAW]

Sydney /= the entirety of the Northern States.

Sydney fans want everything, all the advantages over everyone else. Absolutely ridiculous from a club who which constantly plays in finals. For Sydney fans to sook and claim that they face the same challenges as GCS or GWS fanciful stuff.

And in typical Sydney fashion you ignore all the points being made.

 

[Saab NLAW]

I gave the answer to the question in the post you’ve quoted.

It’s not a question of having a vested interest. It would simply be grossly unfair to make changes mid draft cycle.

Clubs have actively planned for next draft. Changing for the year after impacts nobody’s plans.

Why not? They did it to Melbourne when they suddenly changed the rules stopping us from getting Mac Andrew.

Why is it considered grossly unfair to some clubs but not to others?

 

[Jeremias]

Why not? They did it to Melbourne when they suddenly changed the rules stopping us from getting Mac Andrew.

Why is it considered grossly unfair to some clubs but not to others?

Where did I say it wasn’t grossly unfair when the NGA rules were changed?

 

[Obeanie1]

I gave the answer to the question in the post you’ve quoted.

It’s not a question of having a vested interest. It would simply be grossly unfair to make changes mid draft cycle.

Clubs have actively planned for next draft. Changing for the year after impacts nobody’s plans.

Grossly unfair?

As opposed to the current grossly unfair set up?

That argument isn't particularly compelling.

Don't change the current grossly unfair system because it would be unfair on clubs who are hoping to benefit from a grossly unfair system one last time?

And if clubs need to match future bids with later picks those 3rd rounders are not a problem to find. In fact the reason clubs accumulated so many future picks was because they traded 2023 picks for picks and points in the FUTURE so they didn't WASTE good picks last draft on bids for quality 1st rounders. They already got the benefit in 2023 and by doing that they already gained a massive uplift. Just because your club has two father sons coming up doesn't justify continuing the rort for one last dance.

How many clubs traded quality 2024 picks to pay for 2023 bids? Anyone? No.

So your point is moot. There is no grossly unfair disadvantage at all by stopping the rort now.

And making general sweeping statements doesn't cut it. Feel free to provide examples on which club would suffer a grossly unfair outcome because they traded in 2024 picks.

Did Carlton make any trades into the 2024 draft?

Fans who don't want change follow clubs who have benefited from grossly unfair access to academy kids and father sons. That's the truth of the matter.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Why wouldn't they do something in 2024?

Understand the vested interest for no change because as a Carlton supporter you want your club to get one more bite at a heavily discounted father son system.

They should at least allow other clubs to match acadmey NGA bids after live pick 20.

It's always been reported that due to picks being traded from the 2024 already, the proposed changes won't come.into effect until 2025. And fair enough too.

 

[Obeanie1]

It's always been reported that due to picks being traded from the 2024 already, the proposed changes won't come.into effect until 2025. And fair enough too.

Fair enough for a fan of a club with two father sons eligible in 2024.

Yours is a very biased view.

Don't deny it.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Grossly unfair?

As opposed to the current grossly unfair set up?

That argument isn't particularly compelling.

Don't change the current grossly unfair system because it would be unfair on clubs who are hoping to benefit from a grossly unfair system one last time?

And if clubs need to match future bids with later picks those 3rd rounders are not a problem to find. In fact the reason clubs accumulated so many future picks was because they traded 2023 picks for picks and points in the FUTURE so they didn't WASTE good picks last draft on bids for quality 1st rounders. They already got the benefit in 2023 and by doing that they already gained a massive uplift. Just because your club has two father sons coming up doesn't justify continuing the rort for one last dance.

How many clubs traded quality 2024 picks to pay for 2023 bids? Anyone? No.

So your point is moot. There is no grossly unfair disadvantage at all by stopping the rort now.

And making general sweeping statements doesn't cut it. Feel free to provide examples on which club would suffer a grossly unfair outcome because they traded in 2024 picks.

Did Carlton make any trades into the 2024 draft?

Fans who don't want change follow clubs who have benefited from grossly unfair access to academy kids and father sons. That's the truth of the matter.

Taking the F/S hyperbole out of the equation,.making changes to the 2024 draft would also adversely effect clubs like Freo and Richmond, who have investee heavily into next year's draft

I don't think having to wait an extra season/year for the draft changes is going to hurt anyone.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Fair enough for a fan of a club with two father sons eligible in 2024.

Yours is a very biased view.

Don't deny it.

We haven't had a decent Father Son prospect in years so it's only fair we get one final chance of taking advantage of the system at good rates

 

[.Shotties.]

And in typical Sydney fashion you ignore all the points being made.

The **** are you talking about? You completely changed the parameters of the point to argue against it.

 

[liz]

Taking the F/S hyperbole out of the equation,.making changes to the 2024 draft would also adversely effect clubs like Freo and Richmond, who have investee heavily into next year's draft

I don't think having to wait an extra season/year for the draft changes is going to hurt anyone.

Why would Richmond or Freo be disadvantaged by any changes?

 

[Saab NLAW]

Where did I say it wasn’t grossly unfair when the NGA rules were changed?

You said it was grossly unfair to make changes at short notice, yet that is exactly what happened to Melbourne.

Melbourne accepted the decision and moved on, so who cares what the sooks complain about. The AFL should make a decision based on protecting the integrity of the draft and act on it immediately

 

[Jeremias]

Grossly unfair?

As opposed to the current grossly unfair set up?

That argument isn't particularly compelling.

And that’s a frankly ridiculous argument not worth pursuing seriously.

Let’s do something unfair because the system is already unfair.

Can we at least try and bring some logic to the table, please?

Don't change the current grossly unfair system because it would be unfair on clubs who are hoping to benefit from a grossly unfair system one last time?

No. Don’t change the system when some clubs have actively planned for it already.

Instead flag changes for the next year (or any subsequent future year) which won’t directly impact anyone’s existing strategies or movements.

It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.

Just because your club has two father sons coming up doesn't justify continuing the rort for one last dance.

It has nothing to do with Carlton directly, though yes sure they’d be impacted by a change.

It would be unfair regardless of whether Carlton was in the discussion.

Some people are capable of looking at the bigger picture. I’m sorry if that doesn’t include you but please don’t drag us all down to the same level.

How many clubs traded quality 2024 picks to pay for 2023 bids? Anyone? No.

Are you the arbiter of “quality”?

The question is not whether they’ve traded quality picks, but rather simply whether they’ve traded picks.

If the answer is no, then there’s no issue.

If the answer is yes - and it is - then clubs have planned in advance for the 2024 draft.

So your point is moot. There is no grossly unfair disadvantage at all by stopping the rort now.

That’s some very odd mental gymnastics. It’s not even close to being correct.

You disagree with the point for reasons you haven’t yet made particularly clear. That doesn’t make the counter argument a moot one.

And making general sweeping statements doesn't cut it. Feel free to provide examples on which club would suffer a grossly unfair outcome because they traded in 2024 picks.

Did Carlton make any trades into the 2024 draft?

Wait a second. You’re telling me I’m biased because Carlton have F/S prospects coming through, but then admit to not knowing which clubs have planned in advance for 2024?

And you want a serious discussion? Really?

Fans who don't want change follow clubs who have benefited from grossly unfair access to academy kids and father sons. That's the truth of the matter.

No, the truth of the matter is you seem unwilling or incapable of discussing the actual topic without bringing irrelevant stuff into the discussion.

And seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder.

“Don’t want change” is garbage. I never said I don’t want change or that the system should not be changed.

 

[Saab NLAW]

The * are you talking about? You completely changed the parameters of the point to argue against it.

The point is that the AFL has a history of making immediate changes to the draft so the sooks should just accept the any decision made

 

[Caligo]

No more free pre-listing for Suns from last year.

Ty. Hard to keep track.

 

[Jeremias]

You said it was grossly unfair to make changes at short notice, yet that is exactly what happened to Melbourne.

That doesn’t answer my question, so I’ll ask it again:

Where did I say it wasn’t grossly unfair when the NGA rules were changed?