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

[Sphynx]

The afl did that in the 80s with the saints zone. Took the Mornington peninsula off us and gave it to the hawks. Netted the hawks Mathews, derm and dunstall. What could of been

Sure, if you think the Saints zone stretched from Seaford to Brisbane and this is bizzaro opposites day.

Hilarious your revisionist take on this. It was St Kilda who were the ones that got the golden hand shake for being useless in the 80's

Historically it's as much a Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Fitzroy and Essendon recruiting zone as it is a St Kilda one.

Matthews was recruited about 2 decades (with his brother) before that change

Chris Mew was from Rosebud.

Moncreif played over 200 games for Hawthorn from Edi-Asp.

Kelvin Moore another 300 gamer for Hawthorn from Frankston YCW.

Michael Tuck was from Berwick (originally in the MPNFL)

Edi-Asp is associated with a heap of North players from the 50's, 60's, 70's apart from the Healy brothers who went to Melbourne.

Norm Johnston was a Roy great from Chelsea.

Alves was another went to Melbourne.

John Coleman was from Hastings...



TBH you got absolutely kissed on the dick with Bourke, Robert Harvey, Stuie Lowe and Peckett.


Historically they should have all ended up at other clubs, most of them should have gone to Hawthorn.

 

[P Money]

A lot of the arguments for keeping access to / discounts for northern academy picks seem to be that these are kids that either wouldn't be playing AFL without the academies, or wouldn't be up to AFL standard without academy assistance. Ergo, the clubs that put time/energy/resources into them should reap the rewards, otherwise what's the incentive for those clubs to continue that investment? A pretty sound argument really.

I'm interested to know the opinion of the supporters of those clubs in relation to other clubs' academy zones. Surely the same argument stands - these are (for the most part, we know there's a few outlier examples) kids who would either not be playing aussie rules or would be nowhere near AFL standard without the investment of those clubs. Let's use Essendon's academy zone in the Tiwi as an example. I don't quite understand the justification that Essendon cannot match a pick within pick 40 for one of those players, but northern clubs can match at pick 1 (hypothetically).

 

[botts]

Sure, if you think the Saints zone stretched from Seaford to Brisbane and this is bizzaro opposites day.

Hilarious your revisionist take on this. It was St Kilda who were the ones that got the golden hand shake for being useless in the 80's

Historically it's as much a Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Fitzroy and Essendon recruiting zone as it is a St Kilda one.

Matthews was recruited about 2 decades (with his brother) before that change

Chris Mew was from Rosebud.

Moncreif played over 200 games for Hawthorn from Edi-Asp.

Kelvin Moore another 300 gamer for Hawthorn from Frankston YCW.

Michael Tuck was from Berwick (originally in the MPNFL)

Edi-Asp is associated with a heap of North players from the 50's, 60's, 70's apart from the Healy brothers who went to Melbourne.

Norm Johnston was a Roy great from Chelsea.

Alves was another went to Melbourne.

John Coleman was from Hastings...



TBH you got absolutely kissed on the dick with Bourke, Robert Harvey, Stuie Lowe and Peckett.


Historically they should have all ended up at other clubs, most of them should have gone to Hawthorn.

Wanka

 

[FB19]

Let’s do away with the draft and make it that you can only draft from your academy. Each club has an academy in each state. 10 year initial draftee contracts then everyone becomes an unrestricted free agent. All teams plays each other twice with games every 3 days. All players paid the same and Karl Marx appointed posthumously as new head of football operations, deputised for by the various state Premiers.

 

[botts]

Let’s do away with the draft and make it that you can only draft from your academy. Each club has an academy in each state. 10 year initial draftee contracts then everyone becomes an unrestricted free agent. All teams plays each other twice with games every 3 days. All players paid the same and Karl Marx appointed posthumously as new head of football operations, deputised for by the various state Premiers.

Move back to zones?

 

[Sonny Hayes]

Which is why moaning about F/S is ridiculous.

16 clubs all have equal chance of striking it in the lottery and the romance around it makes it worth keeping. GWS and GC will also start geting eligible players in 10 years or so but perhaps the academy off sets that.

The way that Brisbane and Sydney get both freebies through the academies AND father sons is a bit rich though.

As long as only 4 clubs are allowed priority access to top talent, the draft is always comprimised.

Except a system that is basically completely lottery based in a professional competition is stupid.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Which is why moaning about F/S is ridiculous.

16 clubs all have equal chance of striking it in the lottery and the romance around it makes it worth keeping. GWS and GC will also start geting eligible players in 10 years or so but perhaps the academy off sets that.

The way that Brisbane and Sydney get both freebies through the academies AND father sons is a bit rich though.

As long as only 4 clubs are allowed priority access to top talent, the draft is always comprimised.

It is not equal. It favours the vic clubs massively plus Brisbane and Swans due to Fitzroy, plus Swans being in comp longer.

 

[Dockeroo]

A lot of the arguments for keeping access to / discounts for northern academy picks seem to be that these are kids that either wouldn't be playing AFL without the academies, or wouldn't be up to AFL standard without academy assistance. Ergo, the clubs that put time/energy/resources into them should reap the rewards, otherwise what's the incentive for those clubs to continue that investment? A pretty sound argument really.

I'm interested to know the opinion of the supporters of those clubs in relation to other clubs' academy zones. Surely the same argument stands - these are (for the most part, we know there's a few outlier examples) kids who would either not be playing aussie rules or would be nowhere near AFL standard without the investment of those clubs. Let's use Essendon's academy zone in the Tiwi as an example. I don't quite understand the justification that Essendon cannot match a pick within pick 40 for one of those players, but northern clubs can match at pick 1 (hypothetically).

The afl want a Queensland or NSW team to win the flag. It’s that simple.
They are slowly stacking the GC in particular with concessions to the point they can’t help but be successful

 

[P Money]

The afl want a Queensland or NSW team to win the flag. It’s that simple.
They are slowly stacking the GC in particular with concessions to the point they can’t help but be successful

Well the AFL is on record saying that 'we need a successful team in Sydney'. I don't think that necessarily means 'win the flag' but clearly expansion is a big (if not the #1) goal of the AFL at this point, and pretty clearly that isn't going to work if teams representing those regions are cellar-dwelling for any extended period of time. I mean they propped up the Swans with COLA for how long to ensure they had a leg up and remained perennially successful? I dare say that would still exist if the Swans didn't show their hand so blatantly with the Buddy Franklin acquisition. The idea that COLA offset the higher cost of living in Sydney (pretty laughable justification to begin with - I'm pretty sure Melbourne is a hell of a lot more expensive than Adelaide or Brisbane for example but there was never a Melbourne COLA) for players on lower salaries was never the case, and in essence the Swans had the salary cap of every other team plus the capability to add the best player in the league on the biggest contract in history at zero net cost.

But anyway I digress... what I am really interested in is the cognitive dissidence of supporters of those teams that are artificially propped up because the AFL needs them to be successful in order to 'grow the game', and how they justify (to themselves and/or others) that it's somehow 'fair' that they have exclusive access to elite talent at a 20% discount through their massive academy zones while other teams in Vic and SA cannot draft anyone in the top 40 picks from their comparatively measly academy zones.

As an Essendon fan I can completely accept that our mediocre to awful record over the past 20ish years is entirely the fault of those running the club. But I can sympathise with fans of clubs like North Melbourne who have been struggling for a hell of a long time and watch established clubs like the Swans get significant advantages and essentially a safety net from the AFL from any length of time out of finals (or even premiership) contention.

 

[BloodySwan]

A lot of the arguments for keeping access to / discounts for northern academy picks seem to be that these are kids that either wouldn't be playing AFL without the academies, or wouldn't be up to AFL standard without academy assistance. Ergo, the clubs that put time/energy/resources into them should reap the rewards, otherwise what's the incentive for those clubs to continue that investment? A pretty sound argument really.

I'm interested to know the opinion of the supporters of those clubs in relation to other clubs' academy zones. Surely the same argument stands - these are (for the most part, we know there's a few outlier examples) kids who would either not be playing aussie rules or would be nowhere near AFL standard without the investment of those clubs. Let's use Essendon's academy zone in the Tiwi as an example. I don't quite understand the justification that Essendon cannot match a pick within pick 40 for one of those players, but northern clubs can match at pick 1 (hypothetically).

All for it in principle. Have the NGA increased the number of Indigenous and foreign born/raised players? On the surface it doesn't appear that those numbers have increased since the NGA has been introduced but genuinely don't know

 

[P Money]

All for it in principle. Have the NGA increased the number of Indigenous and foreign born/raised players? On the surface it doesn't appear that those numbers have increased since the NGA has been introduced but genuinely don't know

Good question. I'm not sure how long those academies have been around? I'd suggest it would take some time to make a meaningful difference, i.e. bringing kids through an elite pathway from a young age so potentially would be up to 10 years before you'd see a measurable difference.

 

[BloodySwan]

Good question. I'm not sure how long those academies have been around? I'd suggest it would take some time to make a meaningful difference, i.e. bringing kids through an elite pathway from a young age so potentially would be up to 10 years before you'd see a measurable difference.

Introduced 2016-2017.

 

[P Money]

Introduced 2016-2017.

So we're seeing (as of 2022 draft) players that the clubs have brought in to the elite pathway from 13 years old at the youngest. I'd expect to be seeing a greater proportion of representation in the next few years if the academies are having their desired effect

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

How many clubs have a chance of winning the homesick lottery? Odds stink for NSW and QLD clubs

This argument is rubbish

For every kid who wants to go to vic, 10 clubs have to fight for them.

Getting first dibs at every talented kid the state is a far greater advantage.

 

[botts]

This argument is rubbish

For every kid who wants to go to vic, 10 clubs have to fight for them.

Getting first dibs at every talented kid the state is a far greater advantage.

 

[BloodySwan]

This argument is rubbish

For every kid who wants to go to vic, 10 clubs have to fight for them.

Getting first dibs at every talented kid the state is a far greater advantage.

There are 440 Victorian raised players in the AFL
There are 32 NSW/ACT raised players in the AFL

So each Victorian club has 44 players who would call "homesick"
GWS & Syd has 16 each

The number of talented kids Victorian clubs call upon is way more than the number of talented kid NSW clubs call upon

For those interested, players from their state of origin.

Vic	SA	WA	NSW/ACT	QLD	TAS	NT	Other
440​	127​	124​	32​	32​	18​	8​	11​

These numbers are why they introduce the academies. Get more kids from NSW & QLD into the game.

 

[BloodySwan]

This argument is rubbish

For every kid who wants to go to vic, 10 clubs have to fight for them.

Getting first dibs at every talented kid the state is a far greater advantage.

So every Victorian player Sydney or GWS recruit they have to compete against 10 clubs trying to poach them?

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

So every Victorian player Sydney or GWS recruit they have to compete against 10 clubs trying to poach them?

As I said before, getting first dibs at every talented kid the state is a far greater advantage.

Sydney have got Mills, Heeney, Gulden, Blakey, Campbell (Off the top of my head) on the cheap through their academy. So go on then, who have they lost to 'homesickness' that compares to this list? Dawson?

 

[BloodySwan]

As I said before, getting first dibs at every talented kid the state is a far greater advantage.

Sydney have got Mills, Heeney, Gulden, Blakey, Campbell (Off the top of my head) on the cheap through their academy. So go on then, who have they lost to 'homesickness' that compares to this list? Dawson?

None, Swans have never lost a player due to homesickness. You've got me

 

[sr36]

There are 440 Victorian raised players in the AFL
There are 32 NSW/ACT raised players in the AFL

So each Victorian club has 44 players who would call "homesick"
GWS & Syd has 16 each

The number of talented kids Victorian clubs call upon is way more than the number of talented kid NSW clubs call upon

For those interested, players from their state of origin.

Vic	SA	WA	NSW/ACT	QLD	TAS	NT	Other
440​	127​	124​	32​	32​	18​	8​	11​

These numbers are why they introduce the academies. Get more kids from NSW & QLD into the game.

The issue isn't the academies. The issue is the level of advantageous concession.

 

[FB19]

I have no problem with the academies developing talent. I have no problem with clubs having priority access to players from their academies. I think there should be a more distributed system so you have have academies more than your home state. I also think (same for father son) we need a different matching system. We can’t have first round players going for junk picks and there should be no discounts. Not sure how yet maybe like FA
Compo (but made transparent) there is a draft panel who rate the draft and if clubs want the player they need to have or trade for the matching pick or higher or let them go into the open pool. I can see issues with clubs extorting trade value but even with that limitation I think it’s an upgrade on the current farcical system.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

A lot of the arguments for keeping access to / discounts for northern academy picks seem to be that these are kids that either wouldn't be playing AFL without the academies, or wouldn't be up to AFL standard without academy assistance. Ergo, the clubs that put time/energy/resources into them should reap the rewards, otherwise what's the incentive for those clubs to continue that investment? A pretty sound argument really.

I'm interested to know the opinion of the supporters of those clubs in relation to other clubs' academy zones. Surely the same argument stands - these are (for the most part, we know there's a few outlier examples) kids who would either not be playing aussie rules or would be nowhere near AFL standard without the investment of those clubs. Let's use Essendon's academy zone in the Tiwi as an example. I don't quite understand the justification that Essendon cannot match a pick within pick 40 for one of those players, but northern clubs can match at pick 1 (hypothetically).

One that really grinds my gears on that account was what happened with Nick Blakey.

A rule intended to bring kids who wouldn't otherwise be footy players into the system instead took a promising young FS who was never not playing footy and gave him to one of the most powerful clubs in the land instead of his dad's club that was struggling.

I would think a better system might be that if a kid has multiple avenues, rather than making it his choice give clubs dibs based on finishing position. So North get first right of refusal on a Blakey before it flips to Sydney.

 

[.Shotties.]

A rule intended to bring kids who wouldn't otherwise be footy players into the system instead took a promising young FS who was never not playing footy and gave him to one of the most powerful clubs in the land instead of his dad's club that was struggling.

Firstly, the academies were there to provide an elite pathway into the AFL where it didn't previously exist, not that the players would have otherwise have no idea what the sport was.

As for the bold, being the son of an AFL player in NSW doesn't mean anything
If a child was going to do well because their dad played, xplain why the kids of other AFL players who grew up in, say, Wollongong and further North didn't produce a single player until the academies.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Firstly, the academies were there to provide an elite pathway into the AFL where it didn't previously exist, not that the players would have otherwise have no idea what the sport was.

As for the bold, being the son of an AFL player in NSW doesn't mean anything
If a child was going to do well because their dad played, xplain why the kids of other AFL players who grew up in, say, Wollongong and further North didn't produce a single player until the academies.

It's the 2020s not the 1990s. Nick was never not playing footy.

I'm not saying doubt have academies because I agree they do a lot to promote footy. I'm just saying that if two sides have priority access to the same player then maybe default to the one that finished lower

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

Firstly, the academies were there to provide an elite pathway into the AFL where it didn't previously exist, not that the players would have otherwise have no idea what the sport was.

As for the bold, being the son of an AFL player in NSW doesn't mean anything
If a child was going to do well because their dad played, xplain why the kids of other AFL players who grew up in, say, Wollongong and further North didn't produce a single player until the academies.

If the kid wasn’t playing footy that would be different.

Where the kid was playing footy and simply transferee due to dads work that is different.

Like Hodgeys kids …. They were involved in Aussie rules in Melbourne before they left and transferred. So lions shouldn’t have access via the academy.