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

[Saab NLAW]

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?

Your question is irrelevant. You're complaining that the AFL shouldn't do something which is unfair to a club, here let me help you remember your argument

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?

My point is that it hasn't stopped the AFL in the past by making an unfair ruling and change the way it works. The fact that it was the NGA is completely irrelevant.

Not sure why you're getting so upset with others by this fact

 

[Jeremias]

Your question is irrelevant.

Only because you can’t answer it.

If you’re going to accuse someone of something, make sure you can back it up.

You're complaining that the AFL shouldn't do something which is unfair to a club, here let me help you remember your argument

A single club? No. Multiple clubs have dealt 2024 picks already.

My point is that it hasn't stopped the AFL in the past by making an unfair ruling and change the way it works. The fact that it was the NGA is completely irrelevant.

I know your point.

The system is unfair so who cares if this is unfair too, right?

Sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument.

Not sure why you're getting so upset with others by this fact

And here we go…can’t argue the point so apparently now I’m upset.

Do better thanks, and if you can’t, don’t bother.

 

[Saab NLAW]

Since when has the AFL ever been fair with any decision they make?

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Why would Richmond or Freo be disadvantaged by any changes?

Because obviously they have their picks lined up for specific trade targets I would imagine.

The argument is academic at any rate, the changes won't be brought in until the 2025 national draft. This has been reported several times by people in the know in the media like Riley Beveridge

 

[liz]

Because obviously they have their picks lined up for specific trade targets I would imagine.

The argument is academic at any rate, the changes won't be brought in until the 2025 national draft. This has been reported several times by people in the know in the media like Riley Beveridge

That doesn’t explain why they might be disadvantaged by changes to bidding and matching rules. What has one got to do with the other?

And I doubt the AFL yet has much idea of what changes it might make, so I don’t see how Beveridge or others in the media could know.

 

[.Shotties.]

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

That wasn't the point of what I was saying, nor what I was replying to.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

That doesn’t explain why they might be disadvantaged by changes to bidding and matching rules. What has one got to do with the other?

And I doubt the AFL yet has much idea of what changes it might make, so I don’t see how Beveridge or others in the media could know.

They out source their proposals to people in the media like Beveridge to gauge club and public reaction and feedback.

Most clubs actually don't want to the changes to come into 2024 draft for reasons I stated above (because picks have already being traded)

Carlton will still have to absorb our first rounder next season for the Campo twins in all likelihood. So I don't need the need for sooking in that scenario, esp as one is significantly rated higher than the other..

 

[H00t]

I know that whatever solution the AFL come up with will be needlessly complicated and poorly thought out.

The real problem is the points system. Currently later picks are incorrectly valued. By lessening the value of later picks making it much harder to stockpile picks it would solve the issue overnight.

As stockpiling later picks wouldn’t mean many points and teams wouldn’t just be able to trade for as many points as they want.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Since when has the AFL ever been fair with any decision they make?

Correct, the AFL are incompetent. They don't seem to be able to make a single decision properly without screwing it up and having to fix it a few years later when it works out exactly as people predicted it would. It's a real wonder the game has gone as far as it has when run by such fools. I put that down to rugby league being run by even more incompetent clowns.

 

[marcmurphy3]

That doesn’t explain why they might be disadvantaged by changes to bidding and matching rules. What has one got to do with the other?

And I doubt the AFL yet has much idea of what changes it might make, so I don’t see how Beveridge or others in the media could know.

Richmond brought in an F2, 2 F3s and 2 F4s over this draft and trade period so they could trade up in next year's draft with clubs that need points. If they change the points scale or bidding system to devalue later picks they won't be able to do that. They will just be left with a bunch of late picks they probably don't need. They would be disadvantaged because they made list management decisions under one set of rules, only for the afl to change them, no longer allowing them to follow through on that strategy.

Freo is a different matter. I think their F1s retain their value whatever changes are made so doesn't really affect them.

 

[Caligo]

Clubs knew the AFL was reviewing all of this before the trade period. All the whining from Carlton and Brisbane fans is self serving dribble. Because they are the ones who will be benefiting. Again.

Two finals teams will benefit yet again from a terrible system in 2024. The time to start dealing with it is right now, not after those clubs get even more benefits.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Clubs knew the AFL was reviewing all of this before the trade period. All the whining from Carlton and Brisbane fans is self serving dribble. Because they are the ones who will be benefiting. Again.

Two finals teams will benefit yet again from a terrible system in 2024. The time to start dealing with it is right now, not after those clubs get even more benefits.

There was a memo halfway through the trade period and no detail over the scope of the changes or what they are (detail that was still not provided by draft time). Not sure that counts.

Also, didn't you just get a 1st round father son pick this year? A bit rich to say its Carlton benefiting yet again, given we havent got a fs inside pick 50 in over 20 years.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

If we are worried about being fair, then obviously discounts would go but I guess they could work out which club has benefited most from FS discounts since 2015 when the points came in and allow all clubs discounts up to that amount.

 

[Obeanie1]

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?


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.


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.


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.


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.



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?



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.

You come across as someone desperately trying to defend a father son system that is grossly unfair with its discounts.

Example. Nick Diacos draft cost was ludicrously unfair. FACT. You disagree? Even the Vic media admit that.

You have failed to show why changing this debarcle now is grossly unfair.

How will it be grossly unfair if clubs start paying a fair price for access to father sons?
They still get priority access just with a reduced discount.

You point the finger at me of arbitrating quality when you are doing the exact same thing with arbitrating a change now would be grossly unfair. You dont even know what the changes are and you are here opposing change. You cant have it both ways.

At an absolute stretch it would be annoying to the club who had planned to benefit from a unfair system. Thats not grossly unfair at all.

And you even admit clubs haven't traded into next year with any decent picks, just junk picks they picked up planning to use in a current grossly unfair system.

And for a Mod you seem quite aggressive dismissing an opinion that challenges yours. And you are. I'm being very careful and respectful in addressing your arguments. If you weren't a Mod you would have got both barrels by now, that's how transparent your argument is.

If changes were made to discounts there would be grumbles from the entitled big Vic clubs. Especially ones with twin father sons on the horizon. But nowhere near the uproar that is currently occurring criticising the current grossly unfair system.

 

[Obeanie1]

If we are worried about being fair, then obviously discounts would go but I guess they could work out which club has benefited most from FS discounts since 2015 when the points came in and allow all clubs discounts up to that amount.

100%.

Not difficult to run the maths over who has benefited more than others before we make any changes.

Then there is a 'true up' to balance the ledger and clubs who have got little or no benefit from the AFL's policies get issued points to use on bids in the new system.

It isn't hard and it balances the ledger. Can't get any fairer than that.

 

[marcmurphy3]

I'm not really stressed on the discount. The 10% or 20% is arbitrary without context of what it's being discounted off. I mean, you could hypothetically keep the discount and increase the base points scale and bids could be more expensive then if you removed the discount and kept the points scale the same.

The priority should really be to make the base points scale more reflective of actual value. Then it's a philipsophical conversation as to whether clubs should get a discount on top for the work put into developing the player or whether the right to match is reward enough.

 

[Jeremias]

You come across as someone desperately trying to defend a father son system that is grossly unfair with its discounts.

Sorry but you don’t seem to have followed the conversation at all.

To help you out, this was literally the first thing I wrote in this thread. I’ll even bold the most important part for you.

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.

Doesn’t read like “someone desperately trying to defend a father son system that is grossly unfair with its discounts.”

 

[mpal6]

AFLW drafting already showed where academy bid match might go. Lions had to hold a pick in the round where they needed to match for their academy player. If you don't have a pick in that round then you miss out.


Sticking point might be father son changes going forward. Or if the club have both Father Son and academy players to match within the same round. In my view if I value the draftee high enough I'd be comfortable letting go of first round pick in the current year and the future first pick next year to match both players.

 

[Caligo]

AFLW drafting already showed where academy bid match might go. Lions had to hold a pick in the round where they needed to match for their academy player. If you don't have a pick in that round then you miss out.


Sticking point might be father son changes going forward. Or if the club have both Father Son and academy players to match within the same round. In my view if I value the draftee high enough I'd be comfortable letting go of first round pick in the current year and the future first pick next year to match both players.

Really solid part of the solution. I would say though that it could be smoothed out a little by requiring a pick within say 10-20 places of the pick you are matching (imagine if the player you are matching is the last person bid on in R1, demanding a R1 pick for him seems unfair).
Some version of that though sounds really good.

 

[Lore]

Do a pre-draft auction for all the alt-pathways players with national draft picks as currency.

They should also do an kind of auction for the first round of the draft. Basically what happens anyway when a club doesn’t want to use the pick they have, but it’s all behind closed doors and boring to watch on TV. So make it public, make all the club phone calls accessible to the broadcaster (perhaps with a delay), kind of like team radio on the F1 broadcast…

 

[sydney_gws]

Really solid part of the solution. I would say though that it could be smoothed out a little by requiring a pick within say 10-20 places of the pick you are matching (imagine if the player you are matching is the last person bid on in R1, demanding a R1 pick for him seems unfair).
Some version of that though sounds really good.

I think they need to change this year, to stop the clubs getting good players for almost nothing.
E.g if Brisbane win flag and Ashcroft is rated number 1, Brisbane can just trade 18 for 22,2025r2 with somebody.
Then trade 22 for 30 31, then 30 for 40 41 , 31 for 42 43.
So effectively trade 18 for 2025r2 and Ashcroft.
If only 2-3 picks is allowed and you must include a top20 pick for a bid in the top 10,
then Brisbane probably match with 18,36,54
Or 18, 36 part of their 2025r1 pick.

 

[Caligo]

I think they need to change this year, to stop the clubs getting good players for almost nothing.
E.g if Brisbane win flag and Ashcroft is rated number 1, Brisbane can just trade 18 for 22,2024r2 with somebody.
Then trade 22 for 30 31, then 30 for 40 41 , 31 for 42 43.
So effectively trade 18 for 2024r2 and Ashcroft.
If only 2-3 picks is allowed and you must include a top20 pick for a bid in the top 10,
then Brisbane probably match with 18,36,54
Or 18, 36 part of their 2025r1 pick.

Absolutely. I want to see the changes now considering those benefiting are all finals teams.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Absolutely. I want to see the changes now considering those benefiting are all finals teams.

Lol Hawthorn got a couple of F/S picks in the last draft

Bit rich of you to complain about potential changes only coming into 2025.

Carlton have played finals ONCE in 11 years and haven't had one decent f/s pick up since Jarrod Waite and sooks like you complain we keep rorting the system ffs ?

 

[Caligo]

Lol Hawthorn got a couple of F/S picks in the last draft

Bit rich of you to complain about potential changes only coming into 2025.

Carlton have played finals ONCE in 11 years and haven't had one decent f/s pick up since Jarrod Waite and sooks like you complain we keep rorting the system ffs ?

I was more talking about Brisbane but sure, feel free to compare an end of first round f/s (pick 18) with your guy who will probably be top 5.

Those things are totally comparable.

But if Brisbane ends up winning the flag and getting pick 1 on top of already getting a free top pick the year before and another one coming in a few years?

And that is before we start looking at using academies as a method to nab father sons of multi premiership captains (again by brisbane).

 

[Jeremias]

I was more talking about Brisbane but sure, feel free to compare an end of first round f/s (pick 18) with your guy who will probably be top 5.

Those things are totally comparable.

There were 10 players picked in the 1st round after McCabe. It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that he was taken at the end of the round.

As for a probable top 5 pick, have you just made that up, or can you point to where that's been mentioned as a possibility?

You're right. Comparing a club that has benefited from F/S recently with another that has not isn't a great way to go about this...