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

[tombomb]

I disagree with that. Yes change the points table (make non top 20 picks worth way less points) as it will reduce the incentive for clubs to trade down but close the loophole altogether, theres no reason it needs to stay open and clubs have shown they will exploit loopholes. The afl are idiots to consistently leave loopholes in rules. It should never be legal to match with 6 mid range picks.

So limit it to 3 current year picks and anything else (residual points) has to come off your fr1 and if you are still short the residual comes off the fr1 2 years ahead. That makes clubs pay fair value.

They also need to close the loophole around list spots. Gc had only 6 spots open yet used way over 10 picks to match all their bids. Im not bagging gc as many other clubs have exploited this same thing by live trading once the draft opens. But gc should have been forced to either delist another 5 players and risk clubs taking them dfa (if they really wanted to use 10 or more picks for bids) or be limited to using their highest 6 picks and the residual come off their 2024, 25, 26 fr1s, as should other clubs like wbd etc that have done it too. Write it in clearly that you cannot live trade in current year picks in excess of your list spots. So if you have 5 senior slots the day before the draft you cannot use more than 5 picks (critical if you have 3 academy guys to match in the same pool) to match and if 5 isnt enough to cover all your bids you either let the player go or use your future 1sts to pay for it.

Those changes will stop the clubs finding loopholes too easily.

It just doesn't need to be complicated like this.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It just doesn't need to be complicated like this.

Why doesnt it? Are you trying to say it needs to be simple because afl house are not intelligent enough to implement anything with more than 3 conditions in it?

The point is to come up with the right solution not the simplest one.

 

[tombomb]

Why doesnt it? Are you trying to say it needs to be simple because afl house are not intelligent enough to implement anything with more than 3 conditions in it?

The point is to come up with the right solution not the simplest one.

yeah that is what I am saying

 

[Caligo]

yeah that is what I am saying

None of us can argue with you then. And you aren't even wrong.

 

[danster168]

typical afl to shaft the dees once we have some father sons coming up but sure let's gift the dogs, pies and lions anything they please. Oh, but sorry dees, no Mac Andrew for you. you can't make this stuff up.

They should've changed the rules before the Ugle-hagan draft. But the AFL wanted to wait. And now look at the carnage. The 2 teams in the granny with the 2 most gifted teams in terms of father sons. good job afl

 

[Bonz]

typical afl to shaft the dees once we have some father sons coming up but sure let's gift the dogs, pies and lions anything they please. Oh, but sorry dees, no Mac Andrew for you. you can't make this stuff up.

They should've changed the rules before the Ugle-hagan draft. But the AFL wanted to wait. And now look at the carnage. The 2 teams in the granny with the 2 most gifted teams in terms of father sons. good job afl

They did change the rules after Ugle-Hagan, they the rules for the NGA Academies.

You will still be able to draft your father sons (similar to Northern clubs being able to draft academy prospects), just there will likely be a more accurate going rate for them.

The AFL isn't picking on Melbourne, St Kilda or any clubs with academy/ Northern Academy Prospects coming up, they are just trying to ensure clubs pay proper compensation.

Changes won't be made for this upcoming draft (not to impact teams who made trades), but they will be in place for the 2025 and announced before the trade period.

Ideally the AFL should have done this a little earlier, but I think they are making the right approach currently.

 

[Caligo]

An odd father son question: do games for the Brisbane bears count towards the requirement for Brisbane lions eligibility? In other words, if you played 80 games for the bears and 80 for the Lions, are your sons eligible as lions father sons?

 

[danster168]

They did change the rules after Ugle-Hagan, they the rules for the NGA Academies.

You will still be able to draft your father sons (similar to Northern clubs being able to draft academy prospects), just there will likely be a more accurate going rate for them.

The AFL isn't picking on Melbourne, St Kilda or any clubs with academy/ Northern Academy Prospects coming up, they are just trying to ensure clubs pay proper compensation.

Changes won't be made for this upcoming draft (not to impact teams who made trades), but they will be in place for the 2025 and announced before the trade period.

Ideally the AFL should have done this a little earlier, but I think they are making the right approach currently.

but it was obvious that the system was flawed well before Ugle Hagan was gifted to the dogs. It's an absolute joke that the afl didn't work quickly enough.

 

[GC2015]

An odd father son question: do games for the Brisbane bears count towards the requirement for Brisbane lions eligibility? In other words, if you played 80 games for the bears and 80 for the Lions, are your sons eligible as lions father sons?

They do. This is why Jaspa Fletcher was F/S eligible for the Brisbane Lions. His father Adrian Fletcher played 86 games for the Brisbane Bears and 21 games for the Brisbane Lions. That's 107 games total for the Bears/Lions making his son F/S eligible. I believe the same rules apply to any Fitzroy players that ended up in Brisbane.

 

[Caligo]

They do. This is why Jaspa Fletcher was F/S eligible for the Brisbane Lions. His father Adrian Fletcher played 86 games for the Brisbane Bears and 21 games for the Brisbane Lions. That's 107 games total for the Bears/Lions making his son F/S eligible. I believe the same rules apply to any Fitzroy players that ended up in Brisbane.

Ty . I thought I had read that somewhere but I couldn't remember.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

yeah that is what I am saying

Well thats not good enough on their part then.

All the more reason to implement a solution that you think the clubs cant get around if you think the afl admin is useless (which i agree they are).

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I believe the same rules apply to any Fitzroy players that ended up in Brisbane.

Or just 50 games for Fitzroy.

 

[mpal6]

No you absolutely have to make it so r1 bids are paid for with r1 picks but you make it flexible enough to be workable. So for eg you have to hold a pick within 10 spots (within r1) of the bid.
So if say daicos (or walter) was bid at p1 and the club has p2 they can trade it so long as at the end of the trade period they have a pick in the top 11 (ie they could have traded 2 down how wce did in ginbeys year). Gives teams at least some flexbility in the event a player is a top 3 bid. But it ensures a club cant trade back a r1 4 separate times and match with 30s picks (as both wbd and wce did). That is ridiculous and needs to go. As mentioned if you loosen the rules around trading future 1sts while mandating you must match a r1 with a r1 it will make this work.

10 won't work. You are relying on both the f/s club's ability to trade up as well as other clubs willing to trade down. There are drafts where no one was willing to move in first 10 spots.
Easy way would be making f/s club put forward their first rounds for 2 years and adjust some point value to it. This way its all under the control of the club choosing to bid for it rather than relying on good will from others.

 

[Caligo]

10 won't work. You are relying on both the f/s club's ability to trade up as well as other clubs willing to trade down. There are drafts where no one was willing to move in first 10 spots.
Easy way would be making f/s club put forward their first rounds for 2 years and adjust some point value to it. This way its all under the control of the club choosing to bid for it rather than relying on good will from others.

The trouble with that is that in your case for example, you could be getting the pick 1 player with picks 17 (29) and 17 (29). It isn't exactly fair value, although it is closer than the current system.

If you want a top 3 player you should have some responsibility at the trade table. Assuming you should just get top 3 players because you can is incredibly entitled.

 

[mpal6]

The trouble with that is that in your case for example, you could be getting the pick 1 player with picks 17 (29) and 17 (29). It isn't exactly fair value, although it is closer than the current system.

If you want a top 3 player you should have some responsibility at the trade table. Assuming you should just get top 3 players because you can is incredibly entitled.

Well you can't arbitrarily set a 10 pick window for a club to trade into, when there is no willing party at the other end. It is near impossible in some drafts where other clubs have set players in mind and there will be little to no incentive for current pick holders to trade out. You're essentially setting up a target for a club which it can never meet.

I don't agree with "top 3" narrative either, he's a draft talent who is a top prospect in that year in comparison to players of similar age. That player may turn out into a Judd or a Schache. Giving up two firsts is a costly investment already, you can't expect the club to tear up existing player contracts, trade players and pulverize the list to create draft collateral.

 

[Caligo]

Well you can't arbitrarily set a 10 pick window for a club to trade into, when there is no willing party at the other end. It is near impossible in some drafts where other clubs have set players in mind and there will be little to no incentive for current pick holders to trade out. You're essentially setting up a target for a club which it can never meet.

I don't agree with "top 3" narrative either, he's a draft talent who is a top prospect in that year in comparison to players of similar age. That player may turn out into a Judd or a Schache. Giving up two firsts is a costly investment already, you can't expect the club to tear up existing player contracts, trade players and pulverize the list to create draft collateral.

Basically you just don't want to pay fair value.

 

[Dogflogger]

great way for a team to be made to pay a fair price for a father son is to abolish the father son rule, let the teams trade for higher picks if they want a highly valued father son, and if they don't get them, wait 2-3 years for that first contract to be over and trade for them.

 

[Caligo]

great way for a team to be made to pay a fair price for a father son is to abolish the father son rule, let the teams trade for higher picks if they want a highly valued father son, and if they don't get them, wait 2-3 years for that first contract to be over and trade for them.

That isn't fair price, that is just removing it. There has to be a way to make it fair price and keep it (although I would be happy just to remove it too).

 

[Iva Bigun]

There are too many things that aren't fair in this league including the fixture. Would basically have to change the entire sport haha

Agree, 10 teams hardly ever travelling and their fans have the option to go to 14-16 local games their club is involved in. If we are going to make it clean then let’s get serious about and end this BS as well

 

[Caligo]

Agree, 10 teams hardly ever travelling and their fans have the option to go to 14-16 local games their club is involved in. If we are going to make it clean then let’s get serious about and end this BS as well

How could you end that though? Any solution to that problem would fundamentally destroy the game. You would have to get rid of half a dozen Victorian teams, or add another dozen non Victorian teams, or do something really weird to home and away games.

It isnt possible to fix the travel issue, especially for WA teams.

 

[mpal6]

Basically you just don't want to pay fair value.

Basically, I'm just showing you how the 10 pick scenario is not going to work.

Here's an easier counter - if first round picks are the ones causing all this angst, may be just make the first round pure draft. No father son, academy, NGA etc ? This way if a club rates a certain player as first round worthy, they get 2 years (or 3 years in future) of the service as part of drafting.

If the player chooses to do a Horne-Francis by the end of year 1, then both the club that drafted him and the recipient club can work out the trade scenario without impacting rest of the draft.

 

[Caligo]

Basically, I'm just showing you how the 10 pick scenario is not going to work.

Here's an easier counter - if first round picks are the ones causing all this angst, may be just make the first round pure draft. No father son, academy, NGA etc ? This way if a club rates a certain player as first round worthy, they get 2 years (or 3 years in future) of the service as part of drafting.

If the player chooses to do a Horne-Francis by the end of year 1, then both the club that drafted him and the recipient club can work out the trade scenario without impacting rest of the draft.

I hope we eventually do get to the point when the first round is pure, like other professional sports with drafts (nba, nfl, NHL). Sadly I think our sport is probably too unbalanced right now to allow for that, but hopefully soon. I would certainly support it.

 

[GC2015]

How could you end that though? Any solution to that problem would fundamentally destroy the game. You would have to get rid of half a dozen Victorian teams, or add another dozen non Victorian teams, or do something really weird to home and away games.

It isnt possible to fix the travel issue, especially for WA teams.

We know there are too many teams based in Melbourne. That much is very obvious and Vic teams are the major beneficiaries of that because it guarantees less travel. Collingwood played 17/23 home and away games in Melbourne last year. Gold Coast played 10/23 home and away games in Queensland last year and one of those games was in a different city (Brisbane).

It's obviously a very unfair situation but it doesn't appear that any of the Melbourne teams will be departing the league any time soon so the AFL should be workshopping ways to make it more fair without booting teams from the league. I think at the bare minimum every Victorian team should be forced to play 1/3 of the home and away season (8 games) outside of their home state. The ones that don't sell off home games to interstate cities should also be forced to travel to Perth and Queensland twice each season to make up for the lack of travel and the non-Vic teams should preference interstate away games against teams located closest to them i.e QLD teams play two games in NSW and just one in WA each season and WA teams play just one game in QLD and two in SA.

It'll never be 100% fair but it can certainly be improved.

 

[Caligo]

We know there are too many teams based in Melbourne. That much is very obvious and Vic teams are the major beneficiaries of that because it guarantees less travel. Collingwood played 17/23 home and away games in Melbourne last year. Gold Coast played 10/23 home and away games in Queensland last year and one of those games was in a different city (Brisbane).

It's obviously a very unfair situation but it doesn't appear that any of the Melbourne teams will be departing the league any time soon so the AFL should be workshopping ways to make it more fair without booting teams from the league. I think at the bare minimum every Victorian team should be forced to play 1/3 of the home and away season (8 games) outside of their home state. The ones that don't sell off home games to interstate cities should also be forced to travel to Perth and Queensland twice each season to make up for the lack of travel and the non-Vic teams should preference interstate away games against teams located closest to them i.e QLD teams play two games in NSW and just one in WA each season and WA teams play just one game in QLD and two in SA.

It'll never be 100% fair but it can certainly be improved.

I agree there are too many vic teams, but to significantly change the travel amounts for vic clubs you can't just get rid of 1 or 2 of then.

Your idea of forcing vic clubs to play games away from home is interesting. I think they would outright reject it, but maybe we could change the NGA rules and make the place you play your home games out of state (or at least out of melb) be the place you get your mini academy. That might bring some vic clubs on board.

I agree completely about your point about trying to make things fairer and better. We need to keep trying.

 

[GC2015]

I agree there are too many vic teams, but to significantly change the travel amounts for vic clubs you can't just get rid of 1 or 2 of then.

Your idea of forcing vic clubs to play games away from home is interesting. I think they would outright reject it, but maybe we could change the NGA rules and make the place you play your home games out of state (or at least out of melb) be the place you get your mini academy. That might bring some vic clubs on board.

I agree completely about your point about trying to make things fairer and better. We need to keep trying.

How can they reject it? It's an away game. A club shouldn't have any say over where their away game is played.

There are eight non-Vic clubs in the AFL and I'm suggesting all Vic teams should be required to travel interstate a minimum of eight times per season. This shouldn't be difficult.