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

[Caligo]

I am curious to know what clubs NGA having actually do within the program. How many kids involved (I assume no teams)? Can we see numbers somewhere? From what age? Does it include girls too? Cost? Some links would be handy to educate myself.

I also wish I understood it much better. It feels very opaque.

 

[Jirik13]

I also wish I understood it much better. It feels very opaque.

I learned a bit looking at Eagles web site Academy links.

As for Suns I suspect most money comes from AFL Queensland who facilitates academy together with Suns. I still remember pre-covid several sources mentioning pitiful amount of money in Suns budget spent on academy (200-300K).

This recent link gives an idea how Suns academy approaches North Qld.

North Queensland Academy Update

As part of a review into the Academy programs in North Queensland, the SUNS Academy have made some changes to the North Queensland Under 17s male and female programs, to further assist with the development of players in regional areas in the talent pathway.

www.goldcoastfc.com.au

The Suns scale of academy is huge. It looks like 600+ kids are named in boys/girls teams every year across 13-19 years categories with comprehensive training and playing schedule.

 

[Caligo]

I learned a bit looking at Eagles web site Academy links.

Ooh thank you!

 

[Obeanie1]

No, it's an NGA which taps players who are mostly already in WAFL pathways.

Whut? No-one said it did. I said the WAFL and the elite talent paths there predate both teams.

I do appreciate you've coupled onto this point and are also now attempting to refer to a club that occasionally produced AFL players who played a game as a talent pathway.

...not...really? Sole is a pretty key point.

Lol. Your argument about other clubs playing for it got ripped. Sponsorship is wellfare now? Okay mate.

Yeah I know how it works. The owners of your licence, the WAFC use their money to fund the WAFL. That isn't the Eagles doing that.

No they're not. I get the game you're trying to play where the WAFC's actions are the Eagles because by some miracle, one of two clubs in a traditional football state makes a profit for the licence holder, but that isn't the same thing as a club setting up a talent and representative pathway where there hadn't been one previously.

I missed something, are the Suns not running their academy?

So there was nothing in Qld prior to the AFL Suns were formed? They started developing elite talent pathways from ground zero did they?

Wrong.

So who's money do they use to develop this talent? Other stakeholders because the Suns are not profitable.

The Eagles and Freo's profits and dividends fund WAFL and grass roots football development..........but you say that's not of the Eagles doing. Did someone else generate those profits? No.

The Naitanui academy also funded and operated by the club. Not existing previously.

Lol. But when the Suns get funded by the Qld govt and AFL club profits.......well that's different and it's ALL the Suns doing?

What a interesting twisted view of reality.

Must of missed the post where this point was 'ripped'.

Pretty obvious you have a 'rose coloured glasses' view comparing the AFL owned Suns efforts and priority access rights to academy kids versus other clubs.

Will be very interesting to see what convoluted model the AFL applies in Tassie. A traditional football state with existing elite talent pathways.

By your reckoning the Tassie team should NOT receive similar academy access to what the Northern expansion clubs have since from your perspective everything is already set up and running in Tasmania, a traditional AFL state.

 

[.Shotties.]

Are you claiming it isn't factual?

No. It's always just funny when Hawks fans bring that up thinking it's a slam dunk about NSW players.

 

[.Shotties.]

So there was nothing in Qld prior to the AFL Suns were formed? They started developing elite talent pathways from ground zero did they?

Was there something that allowed kids something like the level of the Talent league where they could play rep-level football above inter-league football that also bought them into consistent contact with trainers who were more than community volunteers? No.

Wrong.

No, it's not. You just don't know what you're taking about.

So who's money do they use to develop this talent? Other stakeholders because the Suns are not profitable.

Who is money? Imagine they mostly use the money from their academy sponser.

The Eagles and Freo's profits and dividends fund WAFL and grass roots football development..........but you say that's not of the Eagles doing. Did someone else generate those profits? No.

No, it's not. The WAFC was funding and running the WAFL and talent pathways before the Eagles were even a thought.

The Naitanui academy also funded and operated by the club. Not existing previously.

Dude, it's an NGA. It taps into existing pathways with kids who are already in those pathways. How dense are you?

Lol. But when the Suns get funded by the Qld govt and AFL club profits.......well that's different and it's ALL the Suns doing?

...yeah because those pathways that didn't exist before the Suns set them up?

What a interesting twisted view of reality.

Must of missed the post where this point was 'ripped'.

Not surprising since your counter point to "the Suns academy is the highest level of football training you can get in the area and a level of rep football and exposure which didn't exist previously, which is different to setting up an NGA which taps existing pathways" is "Oh yeah, well the Eagles set up an NGA, so they're doing just as much!".

Will be very interesting to see what convoluted model the AFL applies in Tassie. A traditional football state with existing elite talent pathways.

By your reckoning the Tassie team should NOT receive similar academy access to what the Northern expansion clubs have since from your perspective everything is already set up and running in Tasmania, a traditional AFL state.

I mean, you're not wrong. How it pans out, I don't know.

 

[Caligo]

The Suns didn't set anything up. The AFL did. The Suns are an AFL subsidiary.

 

[sydney_gws]

The Suns didn't set anything up. The AFL did. The Suns are an AFL subsidiary.

But they will have had alot of people putting good efforts in though.

 

[Caligo]

But they will have had alot of people putting good efforts in though.

Absolutely. The growth up there is impressive. If we want to beat RL we need to put the serious effort in.

 

[Elixuh]

Absolutely. The growth up there is impressive. If we want to beat RL we need to put the serious effort in.

Yes, all I see in this thread are a lot of people wanting this bloke to win,

No, that is not a Carlton Board member, its the Chairman of rugby league. AFL fans strong together.

 

[Dockeroo]

Absolutely. The growth up there is impressive. If we want to beat RL we need to put the serious effort in.

But why though? Why do we want to beat rugby league?
I can’t understand this mentality. The AFL spends hundreds of millions of dollars in western Sydney and Gold Coast propping up teams that will probably never stand on their own, just to “beat” rugby league?

Why can’t we accept that AFL is the game in afl states and rugby league is the game in RL states. Isn’t that ok?
Do we want to kill off rugby league entirely to the point it is never played again in Australia, and in doing so completely compromise our own competitions and structures? Just so the AFL ceo can say “we won”?

I don’t understand it. There is no war with rugby league. They have their area and fanbase and AFL have theirs. Both good sports. Everyone should be happy.
Rugby league are not down here in Melbourne aggressively expanding into two or three new clubs. They have one stable team here that’s been around for 25 plus years and no signs of another one anytime soon.

 

[Caligo]

But why though? Why do we want to beat rugby league?
I can’t understand this mentality. The AFL spends hundreds of millions of dollars in western Sydney and Gold Coast propping up teams that will probably never stand on their own, just to “beat” rugby league?

Why can’t we accept that AFL is the game in afl states and rugby league is the game in RL states. Isn’t that ok?
Do we want to kill off rugby league entirely to the point it is never played again in Australia, and in doing so completely compromise our own competitions and structures? Just so the AFL ceo can say “we won”?

I don’t understand it. There is no war with rugby league. They have their area and fanbase and AFL have theirs. Both good sports. Everyone should be happy.
Rugby league are not down here in Melbourne aggressively expanding into two or three new clubs. They have one stable team here that’s been around for 25 plus years and no signs of another one anytime soon.

There are personal reasons I want to see the death of RL and especially RU, but on a general level there are only so many athletically gifted young people born every year in Australia. By expanding the AFL footprint we increase our share of those youngsters, improving the quality of our game.

As for your point about whether it is even possible, RU is clearly, clearly dying. On every single measure. We need to keep the pressure up. NSWRU can die in a deep dark hole.

 

[go_the_dockers]

But why though? Why do we want to beat rugby league?
I can’t understand this mentality. The AFL spends hundreds of millions of dollars in western Sydney and Gold Coast propping up teams that will probably never stand on their own, just to “beat” rugby league?

Why can’t we accept that AFL is the game in afl states and rugby league is the game in RL states. Isn’t that ok?
Do we want to kill off rugby league entirely to the point it is never played again in Australia, and in doing so completely compromise our own competitions and structures? Just so the AFL ceo can say “we won”?

I don’t understand it. There is no war with rugby league. They have their area and fanbase and AFL have theirs. Both good sports. Everyone should be happy.
Rugby league are not down here in Melbourne aggressively expanding into two or three new clubs. They have one stable team here that’s been around for 25 plus years and no signs of another one anytime soon.

When I travel to QLD, AFL has a strong foothold in the state.

Rugby may dominate, but I think we can get 30% of the market pretty easily.
Same in NSW.

 

[go_the_dockers]

7 of the top 29 picks are not available to everyone.

We can not compromise the draft this much and have an even comp.

http://archive.today/Y1yr0

Lucas Camporeale - Carlton
Ben Camporeale - Carlton
Levi Ashcroft - Brisbane
Malakai Champion - after pick 40 - Eagles
Joel Cochran - Swans
Leonardo Lombard-GC
Sam Marshall - Brisbane
Tyler Welsh- Crows

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

7 of the top 29 picks are not available to everyone.

We can not compromise the draft this much and have an even comp.

http://archive.today/Y1yr0

Lucas Camporeale - Carlton
Ben Camporeale - Carlton
Levi Ashcroft - Brisbane
Malakai Champion - after pick 40 - Eagles
Joel Cochran - Swans
Leonardo Lombard-GC
Sam Marshall - Brisbane
Tyler Welsh- Crows

Change next year I think could/ Should happen . Have a 10% discount, 2 picks to match. If you can't match with 2, 5% discount, and only first round picks to be used ( and must include a pick within 3 of ladder position pick)
So if Brisbane finish 6th and have 13, they can use 13,31 for Ashcroft. If that isn't enough points, they can trade down and use 16, 2025r1.

 

[Jeremias]

Change next year I think could/ Should happen . Have a 10% discount, 2 picks to match. If you can't match with 2, 5% discount, and only first round picks to be used ( and must include a pick within 3 of ladder position pick)
So if Brisbane finish 6th and have 13, they can use 13,31 for Ashcroft. If that isn't enough points, they can trade down and use 16, 2025r1.

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.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Change next year I think could/ Should happen . Have a 10% discount, 2 picks to match. If you can't match with 2, 5% discount, and only first round picks to be used ( and must include a pick within 3 of ladder position pick)
So if Brisbane finish 6th and have 13, they can use 13,31 for Ashcroft. If that isn't enough points, they can trade down and use 16, 2025r1.

No discount.
Can't match if you trade your next pick.
Adjust pick value, so that first round picks are worth a lot more.
If the pick is a first round, then the points are automatically taken off next year's pick rather than to use a 2nd round pick.

Carlton would use two first round picks for Camporeale twins, same with Brisbane.

Not sure how this works when you get 4 or 5 picks in the one year.

 

[sydney_gws]

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.

I agree best for major changes to be 2025.
I personally support an interim measure to stop ridiculous trading down though to match with junk. So I would make 2024 you can only use 3 picks to match.
Brisbane would still get Ashcroft, Crows Welch, Carlton the Camporeales quite easily.

 

[Lore]

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.

I think they addressed that in the pinned article from memory, people are hoping it’ll be radical but it won’t

 

[Pure_Ownage]

No discount.
Can't match if you trade your next pick.
Adjust pick value, so that first round picks are worth a lot more.
If the pick is a first round, then the points are automatically taken off next year's pick rather than to use a 2nd round pick.

Carlton would use two first round picks for Camporeale twins, same with Brisbane.

Not sure how this works when you get 4 or 5 picks in the one year.

You loosen the trading of future picks so a club with 4 players in the r1 in one year match with their next 3 years worth of r1s.

 

[liz]

Not sure how this works when you get 4 or 5 picks in the one year.

I suspect instances of clubs having multiple (ie 3, 4 +) highly rated players available will be rare. Gold Coast did this time but it’s the first I can recall.

Under any system of matching, eventually clubs will have to choose which bids to match and which players to let go if they have multiple players available.

It’s worth noting that had Gold Coast snuck into the final eight this year they would only have been able to match two first round bids. A team finishing in the top four can only match one (in the first round).

That condition doesn’t apply to FS options, though maybe it should. But it would be less common to get multiple FS players in one year.

 

[Caligo]

That condition doesn’t apply to FS options, though maybe it should. But it would be less common to get multiple FS players in one year.

Perfect example of an easy change to the rules to make things fairer, and I doubt anyone would complain. Just a few little tweaks and we could really straighten out so many of the problems. The biggest one for me would be dramatically increasing the points value of top 5 picks and significantly increasing the points value of picks 6-10.

 

[GC2015]

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

You're right, it would be unfair. Only problem is it would appear we're probably going to see two top 4 teams (Brisbane & Carlton) receive priority access to two first round picks each for a fairly cheap price. In fact, it's entirely possible Levi Ashcroft will be the number 1 pick next year and one of the Campo twins looks like he's in the 5-10 range right now. The AFL has the opportunity to eliminate the possibility of scrutiny by just changing the rules now but that would be very unfair for the teams that have completed future trades with 2024 in mind. Just depends on whether the AFL wants another year of complete outrage towards a system they could have altered 12 months prior.

 

[Caligo]

You're right, it would be unfair. Only problem is it would appear we're probably going to see two top 4 teams (Brisbane & Carlton) receive priority access to two first round picks each for a fairly cheap price. In fact, it's entirely possible Levi Ashcroft will be the number 1 pick next year and one of the Campo twins looks like he's in the 5-10 range right now. The AFL has the opportunity to eliminate the possibility of scrutiny by just changing the rules now but that would be very unfair for the teams that have completed future trades with 2024 in mind. Just depends on whether the AFL wants another year of complete outrage towards a system they could have altered 12 months prior.

Outrage does drive clicks.

 

[liz]

and I doubt anyone would complain.

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).