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

[Caligo]

Dawson, Membrey, Mitchell, Nankervis to name a few.

Mitchell was actively kicked out. Horse couldn't stand him.

Agree with your central point though. Non footy state clubs need academies for all the reasons we are all aware of. We must grow the game.

 

[.Shotties.]

Mitchell was actively kicked out. Horse couldn't stand him.

No he ****ing wasn't kicked out. He had a contract the same length as Parker and Hannebery, and longer than Kennedy on the table, and had played almost every game in the last two years.

 

[Caligo]

No he ******* wasn't kicked out. He had a contract the same length as Parker and Hannebery, and longer than Kennedy on the table, and had played almost every game in the last two years.

Horse wanted him gone.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

No he ******* wasn't kicked out. He had a contract the same length as Parker and Hannebery, and longer than Kennedy on the table, and had played almost every game in the last two years.

was low balled…

 

[.Shotties.]

Horse wanted him gone.

There's zero evidence of this, and a mass of evidence that Horse did not want him gone.

 

[Caligo]

There's zero evidence of this, and a mass of evidence that Horse did not, in fact, want him gone.

Pointless arguing. Ask other Swans.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Yes, however in my first post, I specified a particular area because these aren't traditional football areas with existing talent pathways like the TAC Cup.

No. My argument is that Blakey's dad being a former player doesn't mean he automatically would have made it and, in fact, growing up in Sydney without an elite pathway, he probably wouldn't have based on literally the entire weight of evidence we have about father-sons in non-traditional football areas. The funny part is that both you and another poster have tried a gotcha where you highlight that players kids, even with the help of talent pathways, can't crack the AFL.

No, your argument is stupid because you can't furnish it with examples of what's actually being discussed (for the fifth time, examples of players from anywhere north of Wollongong moving to Victoria? Even one?) and you need to either distort the original point or become increasingly more vague in order to argue it.

Schools don't list everyone that went to there school for obvious reasons. You just need to watch the draft. The uneducated eye would think Ryley Sanders was Victorian if North hadn't been trying to arrange priority access to him.

The father son argument is that he would have played footy regardless and if he was good enough then he would have had pathways open to him. Listing a few father sons who weren't good enough regardless of pathways doesn't support your argument.

 

[I Love Lamb]

If you want to uncompromise the draft you need to rid it of all the potential ways in which it can be compromised.

Which would effect:

• Father Son selections
• Academy selections (northern and NGA)
• Draft Assistance
• Free agency compensation

To fix some of those you'd aslo need an approach around the go home factor. IMO the ability to trade against a players will would sort this (like in MLB), or at the very least change the conversation around it.

Infact the AFL would need to fund almost an entirely new pathway programs into the AFL.

If they fixed it properly, funded academies centrally, amended trading rules to curb the go home stuff, placed limitations on academy selections across the board (both northern and NGA), adjusted the F/S rules, abolished free agency compensation and draft assistance.

You would get somewhere near an uncompromised draft.

The AFL are not going to fix any of those things more than band aid solutions where they don't have to do the heavy funding. So the system is broken and the result is a compromised draft.

It is how it is and how it will continue to be.

Scrap FA compo and draft assistance, give them soft cap (maybe hard cap also) increase or access to state league players in lieu. First dibs on delisted FAs also.

With F/S, NGA and northern academies, put a cap of 1 player per team every 3 years. Would force clubs like Brisbane to choose which Ashcroft to take, or Collingwood Daicos, or WBD Darcy or JUH, or GC - Walters/Reed ect

Still an advantage but makes clubs have to decide and commit opposed to it being a free for all as it is now. A bit more balance and a bit more strategy (Eg do you take your 1 player this year or take your chances that other kid will continue to jet through and pick him up next year/ the year after).

 

[.Shotties.]

Schools don't list everyone that went to there school for obvious reasons. You just need to watch the draft. The uneducated eye would think Ryley Sanders was Victorian if North hadn't been trying to arrange priority access to him.

Okay, educate me then. You made the argument, I assume you're basing it on something. Who has moved from the areas I've based my argument on? You said plenty have, which players did you have in mind? Let's see what you can produce on the sixth attempt.

The father son argument is that he would have played footy regardless and if he was good enough then he would have had pathways open to him. Listing a few father sons who weren't good enough regardless of pathways doesn't support your argument.

No, moving to Melbourne is not having 'pathways open to you'. It's not the same as being able to get elite training and game time in your own city from the age of 12.

What's more, the fact that Blakey is the first father-son to be drafted out of a non-traditional footy area in QLD or NSW actually does support the argument that he most likely wouldn't have made it before the academies.

 

[sr36]

Imagine in 2025 if the AFL just decided to clear the boards. Wooden spoon got Pick 1, no swaps, no NGA, no father sons! The draw also would have to be cleared up. 17 rounds playing every team once, alternating each year for home and away. Home being your own ground not Cairns, Hobart or Ballarat. GWS v Fremantle for ANZAC day anyone. Essendon v Collingwood 5pm Sunday arvo in round 16.
We are stuck in a sporting competition so compromised it’s a joke!

The joke is that people view a mechanism designed to give particular teams an advantage as an incredibly pure thing that cannot be altered or have its purity compromised in the slightest.

For all the supposed corruption and AFL bias, they're overseeing an extremely even comp. The compromises for equality - the draft and the salary cap - are doing their job and these supposedly outrageous concessions haven't altered that.

 

[Caligo]

Okay, educate me then. You made the argument, I assume you're basing it on something. Who has moved from the areas I've based my argument on? You said plenty have, which players did you have in mind? Let's see what you can produce on the sixth attempt.


No, moving to Melbourne is not having 'pathways open to you'. It's not the same as being able to get elite training and game time in your own city.

What's more, the fact that Blakey is the first father-son to be drafted out of a non-traditional footy area in QLD or NSW actually does support the argument that he most likely wouldn't have made it before the academies.

It isnt the same as what you asked for, but Cooper Hodge made the QLD team before he joined an academy. He didn't need an academy because he already had one of the great football minds to guide him from birth.

He should not be allowed to be listed by Brisbane. They did not make him.

This issue is too new to have many examples, but you won't find a clearer one than Hodge.

Academies are critical. They shouldn't undermine father son though.

 

[Taylor]

The solution to the father son/academy players is to purchase them with points allocated evenly to teams (or less to top eight teams) every single year and you can only match the bids with those points - but you can trade for them from other clubs.

The reason I say this is because if you change a rule this year then all the clubs that have enjoyed that advantage already have even more advantage from then on. None of these plans ever seek to claw back the advantage the teams already enjoy.

With a FS/Academy matching points system the AFL can work back to say 2010 and then apply the standard points per year for every team, minus the value of the FS/academy players that club has taken since and then current matching balances will be given.

Some clubs might be in debt and need to buy the points off other clubs.

The points should be in the range of 400 to 500 per year so that a team can match the equivalent of a pick #1 every five years. That can be changed to a different figure, it doesn't matter as long as it facilitates a way for clubs who already have the players and benefits to be equalised with the clubs that are about to miss out on those advantages.

 

[I Love Lamb]

The solution to the father son/academy players is to purchase them with points allocated evenly to teams (or less to top eight teams) every single year and you can only match the bids with those points - but you can trade for them from other clubs.

The reason I say this is because if you change a rule this year then all the clubs that have enjoyed that advantage already have even more advantage from then on. None of these plans ever seek to claw back the advantage the teams already enjoy.

With a FS/Academy matching points system the AFL can work back to say 2010 and then apply the standard points per year for every team, minus the value of the FS/academy players that club has taken since and then current matching balances will be given.

Some clubs might be in debt and need to buy the points off other clubs.

The points should be in the range of 400 to 500 per year so that a team can match the equivalent of a pick #1 every five years. That can be changed to a different figure, it doesn't matter as long as it facilitates a way for clubs who already have the players and benefits to be equalised with the clubs that are about to miss out on those advantages.

Clawback comes when those players want to be paid millions and said clubs need to offload them because they can’t afford so many top liners

 

[FB19]

There are several problems that you don’t solve all at once.
The easiest is remove the discount. Priority access is enough advantage.
The next is bid matching allowing early picks to be matched with loads of junk late picks has to go. Would introduce a rule forcing the maximum number of picks that can be used to 2 to force the use of decent picks.
With the rules above remove the pick 40 arbitrary restriction. you should be able to draft anyone from your academy system but also pay fair whack.
Free agency compo needs to go even though it hurts the lower clubs. The idea that giving up the cap space is enough is laughable. The compo calculation needs to become transparent and then used to determine value that the receiving club needs to give up to secure the free agent. Same rules as above no more than 2 picks to match the valuation. Make the rules easier to understand clearer and logically consistent.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

There are several problems that you don’t solve all at once.
The easiest is remove the discount. Priority access is enough advantage.
The next is bid matching allowing early picks to be matched with loads of junk late picks has to go. Would introduce a rule forcing the maximum number of picks that can be used to 2 to force the use of decent picks.
With the rules above remove the pick 40 arbitrary restriction. you should be able to draft anyone from your academy system but also pay fair whack.
Free agency compo needs to go even though it hurts the lower clubs. The idea that giving up the cap space is enough is laughable. The compo calculation needs to become transparent and then used to determine value that the receiving club needs to give up to secure the free agent. Same rules as above no more than 2 picks to match the valuation. Make the rules easier to understand clearer and logically consistent.

Its far easier to solve the problems all at once by removing father sons and academy access.

 

[FB19]

Its far easier to solve the problems all at once by removing father sons and academy access.

I like father sons it’s unique to our game I am happy to keep it accepting it distorts the draft but under my proposal clubs pay a much closer price to the pick they are bid at. Academy is more interesting you can make the argument the players should go into the open pool and it is part of each clubs role to support the development of players within. But the AFL then must fund them wholly.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

I like father sons it’s unique to our game I am happy to keep it accepting it distorts the draft but under my proposal clubs pay a much closer price to the pick they are bid at. Academy is more interesting you can make the argument the players should go into the open pool and it is part of each clubs role to support the development of players within. But the AFL then must fund them wholly.

A uniquely terrible part of our game. Let them trade for them at the end of their first contract.

 

[Taylor]

Clawback comes when those players want to be paid millions and said clubs need to offload them because they can’t afford so many top liners

If Tom Hawkins left the Cats for this reason around 2012 then the best player of that draft (Tom Hawkins), that the Cats got for pick #41 (allowing them to also get Joel Selwood), would have been traded for more first round picks.

There's no equalisation there.

The father son rule changes just made that advantage above even greater for Geelong by making it "more fair" for the likes of North and Essendon to pay first round picks for McDonald and Daniher.

Whenever the rules are changed it pulls the ladder up behind those clubs that have already benefited from it. Most recently it would be JUH to the Dogs triggering a change.

Doesn't hurt the dogs who got the advantage, only hurts the teams who may have got their turn for a high ranked academy player.

Any change needs to focus on leveling the existing unlevel landscape before changing the rules for future events.

 

[I Love Lamb]

If Tom Hawkins left the Cats for this reason around 2012 then the best player of that draft (Tom Hawkins), that the Cats got for pick #41 (allowing them to also get Joel Selwood), would have been traded for more first round picks.

There's no equalisation there.

The father son rule changes just made that advantage above even greater for Geelong by making it "more fair" for the likes of North and Essendon to pay first round picks for McDonald and Daniher.

Whenever the rules are changed it pulls the ladder up behind those clubs that have already benefited from it. Most recently it would be JUH to the Dogs triggering a change.

Doesn't hurt the dogs who got the advantage, only hurts the teams who may have got their turn for a high ranked academy player.

Any change needs to focus on leveling the existing unlevel landscape before changing the rules for future events.

Maybe a secondary rule should be that all FS and NGA are automatically free agents. So if they do move the team they leave get **** all for them.

 

[Taylor]

Maybe a secondary rule should be that all FS and NGA are automatically free agents. So if they do move the team they leave get * all for them.

Interesting proposal, that will facilitate your previous position of using the salary cap as the equalization.

Watch the clubs argue that they should pay 20% more in points value to not have that free agent for life status on their priority access player if that were the case.

 

[mad_eagle]

Now you can also add in...



First pick of R2 should be - pick 19
First pick of R2 will be - ≈ pick 27

I've sat back and kept my mouth shut as much of this has unfolded, but it's getting beyond ridiculous now. The amount of academy/priority/FA compo picks are making the draft complete & utter joke. West Coast needs as much new talent as possible to rejuvenate its list. What should be a pick in the late teens is now pushing towards pick thirty, and with each pick further back into the twenties it becomes more & more speculative.

Is it time to blow it up & start again?

 

[citizen-erased]

Now you can also add in...



First pick of R2 should be - pick 19
First pick of R2 will be - ≈ pick 27

I've sat back and kept my mouth shut as much of this has unfolded, but it's getting beyond ridiculous now. The amount of academy/priority/FA compo picks are making the draft complete & utter joke. West Coast needs as much new talent as possible to rejuvenate its list. What should be a pick in the late teens is now pushing towards pick thirty, and with each pick further back into the twenties it becomes more & more speculative.

Is it time to blow it up & start again?

ergh
thats gonna mean it goes longer than the brownlow on fox

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I for one am outraged this pushes back our 2nd pick this year. Unacceptable

 

[JGreezy]

The biggest improvement here would be matching bids with picks from the same round.

That would push pick 19 back to 21.

GC will come in with pick 5 and turn it into about 10 late picks on draft night without needing to have open list spots for them.

 

[citizen-erased]

I for one am outraged this pushes back our 2nd pick this year. Unacceptable

your coach has been coaching his brother i see

i like this