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

[Jirik13]

Clubs in Victoria will do it and you have massive inequality, don't complain when your best players are pillaged by Victorian clubs. Each to their own, if you want King playing for the Pies in August for instance.

Club tries to lure players regardless of MST. It's all about creating environment to retain players, winning culture. if player wants to leave he will. Mid season trade will have no impact on it. You ignore the fact that the club will have to agree to a trade as player is under contract. At least clubs extract higher value.

If King decides to go nothing is stopping him.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Club tries to lure players regardless of MSD. It's all about creating environment to retain players, winning culture. if player wants to leave he will. MSD will have no impact on it. You ignore the fact that the club will have to agree to a trade as player is under contract. At least clubs extract higher value.

That is IF it's implemented correctly, we all know it won't. As usual we will have the AFL half doing this correctly, like they did the points system. What happens, it ends up worse. Clubs won't get more value anyway, this is giving players even MORE ability to dictate where to be traded to, as it is they should only be able to nominate a state not a club.

 

[Jirik13]

That is IF it's implemented correctly, we all know it won't. As usual we will have the AFL half doing this correctly, like they did the points system. What happens, it ends up worse. Clubs won't get more value anyway, this is giving players even MORE ability to dictate where to be traded to, as it is they should only be able to nominate a state not a club.

I am pretty sure players under contract will not be able to move without club's permission. Anyway, let's see. As for Ben, why would Suns agree to trade him mid-season without extra value.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I am pretty sure players under contract will not be able to move without club's permission. Anyway, let's see.

We will see, hardly convinced the AFL do this correctly.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Oops, posted this in the wrong thread, but it may as well stay, many of the points are common

FARCE - it's something the AFL does so well and a Mid Season Draft will be no different. Other farces are

AFLX

NGA's

Discounts on top draftees

Drafting top players with junk picks

A Points Scale that bears no resemblance to what those picks are worth in the real world of clubs trading

Have a rule that only allow clubs to hold draft picks for actual main list vacancies in the lead up to the ND, then at 7.01pm on draft night simply throw that rule out and allow clubs to hold a box full of junk picks regardless of their list vacancies

Compo picks being manipulated by clubs giving overweight two year contracts, then once the trade is done, a more sensible 4 or 5 year contract is wheeled out

Clubs will be manipulating the MST the moment the ill thought through rules are announced by the AFL

The only rule that could save the MST is a financial one. Contracts can't be back ended and are set in stone (like Buddy's and not like Daniher's) and clubs must have room in their salary cap that year to trade a player in.

I'd like to know which clubs are actually pushing for this, a certainty that it's the big Vic clubs. It will distort the run to the flag and probably enable clubs to buy a flag, at the expense of other contenders. Vicbias at work again.

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

That is IF it's implemented correctly, we all know it won't. As usual we will have the AFL half doing this correctly, like they did the points system. What happens, it ends up worse. Clubs won't get more value anyway, this is giving players even MORE ability to dictate where to be traded to, as it is they should only be able to nominate a state not a club.

The real danger is if a player is out of contract at years end, and a free agent. Clubs down the bottom will realise there is no chance of the player staying , so will çhoose to trade mid year.
I don't know how this will work, will players association accept only players not playing much or on lower wages being allowed to move.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I cannot believe that they're tacking on more complicated and complex systems rather than just fixing the scale of points value.

• Changing the mathematics so draft picks scale down quicker. There's an argument that picks after 40 or so should have zero or next to zero points value at all, and nobody in reality would trade, for example, pick 2 for pick 18, 25 and 50 in reality.
• Even outside of the context of clubs clearly trading in only one direction (clubs needing points trading down and clubs not needing points trading up), it's just based purely on out of date mathematics: https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf
• The data was based on regressing AFL player salaries to 2014, with players drafted before 2014, but clearly successful clubs are with draft picks and how they distribute salaries has changed since them. Also, the league rule changes have fundamentally changed draft values. In 2014, later draft picks had value because you had to fill out your entire list at the time, but now they have less value because of easier delisted free agency and SSP rules, pick 60 in the draft isn't what it is when you can pass over that pick and finalise your list in February or the mid-season draft instead (ignoring rookie listed players). Pick 60 and therefore by mathematical formula pick 40 relative to pick 1 or 5 or 10 isn't what it was worth 10 years ago simply by virtue of list rule changes, but draft value points are treating it like it is.
• Get rid or reduce the 20% discount.
• Other people have made good points about delisting and re-drafting the same player to open draft points, while 'in theory' it means other clubs can recruit them and you get Hugh Greenwood
  1

  Hugh Greenwood

  Age

  33

  Ht

  190cm

  Wt

  92kg

  Pos.

  Mid

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  16.9

  4star

  K

  8.8

  3star

  HB

  8.1

  5star

  M

  2.3

  2star

  T

  6.8

  5star

  CL

  4.6

  5star

  D

  17.4

  4star

  K

  10.4

  4star

  HB

  7.0

  4star

  M

  1.5

  2star

  T

  8.9

  5star

  CL

  5.6

  5star

  D

  16.4

  4star

  K

  8.6

  4star

  HB

  7.8

  5star

  M

  2.2

  3star

  T

  7.6

  5star

  CL

  4.4

  5star

  situations in practical terms it's being gamed.

 

[Dogflogger]

Instead of having a mid season trade I'd prefer if Geelong and Collingwood just write down the players they want on a piece of paper and just have the AFL figure out how to get them there, do it all behind closed doors.

 

[Obeanie1]

Can I have some examples of the Eagles or Dockers bringing players into the WAFL system?

Que? There were no development pathways in the state before the academies. There was local, state reps and that was about it. There wasn't even a pipeline into a condensed, high-level competition in Sydney because there still isn't one.

I do like how your mask came off with the "Or whatever the excuse is" comment. You want access for the WA clubs to WA talent because the NSW players have the academies, completely ignoring the circumstances around the set up of the academies.

Remind us again why the Swans and Lions need academies?

Recall many years ago it was to balance not getting having meaningful father son access.

And also to balance the fact that the comp was raiding the expansion clubs lists and players didn't want to move to NSW and QLD.

So a couple of decent reasons. 10 years ago.

Now the Lions are loading up on father sons and both clubs loading up on A grade players requesting trades to non traditional football states.

So those circumstances why they were set up. They don't exist any longer. But the beneficial access remains.

Meanwhile other clubs get nothing.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Remind us again why the Swans and Lions need academies?

Recall many years ago it was to balance not getting having meaningful father son access.

And also to balance the fact that the comp was raiding the expansion clubs lists and players didn't want to move to NSW and QLD.

So a couple of decent reasons. 10 years ago.

Bow the Lions are loading up on father sons and both clubs loading up on A grade players requesting trades to non traditional football states.

So those circumstances why they were set up. They don't exist any longer. But the beneficial access remains.

Meanwhile other clubs get nothing.

WA and SA clubs are irrelevant. All comparisons are to big VIC clubs which have a massive advantage over everyone and always will. No reason Sydney and Brisbane can’t keep the academies going with only access to top 20 talent.

If they absolutely need continued full access, WA and SA clubs should get complete access to all indigenous talent from the state with no bid restrictions as well so we get SOMETHING to compete with advantages basically almost every other club has

 

[Obeanie1]

WA and SA clubs are irrelevant. All comparisons are to big VIC clubs which have a massive advantage over everyone and always will. No reason Sydney and Brisbane can’t keep the academies going with only access to top 20 talent.

If they absolutely need continued full access, WA and SA clubs should get complete access to all indigenous talent from the state with no bid restrictions as well so we get SOMETHING to compete with advantages basically almost every other club has

I'm OK with them retaining the advantages as long as everyone admits that the reasons they were brought in initially are no longer valid.

So instead of removing this positive football program simply allow other clubs similar rights to their academy kids.

More kids get developed.

Everyone wins and we have equalisation across the academies and states.

 

[FB19]

It would be really interesting to do a poll and see where we can find fan consensus on changes to make things fairer. Overall it feels like the points system and paying fair value is something easier to solve than access to players, given the inequities built into geography and the system in general.

 

[.Shotties.]

Remind us again why the Swans and Lions need academies?

Lack of access to home-state talent and to increase the overall draft pool.

Recall many years ago it was to balance not getting having meaningful father son access.

Dunno about that. I think you just made it up to argue against.

And also to balance the fact that the comp was raiding the expansion clubs lists and players didn't want to move to NSW and QLD.

So a couple of decent reasons. 10 years ago.

Sorry, have you seen the last ten years for the Swans before this trade period?

Now the Lions are loading up on father sons and both clubs loading up on A grade players requesting trades to non traditional football states.

Both clubs? A-graders? A salary dump and Adams who was told he was going to be shifted out from the midfield rotation?

So those circumstances why they were set up. They don't exist any longer. But the beneficial access remains.

Uh...yes they do. What percentage of your list is made from WA talent? How many WA players have requested trades back to WA in the last ten years? We've had one Sydney (hell, NSW) born player request a trade back in 40 years up here.

Meanwhile other clubs get nothing.

You don't need to build and maintain a list based from majority interstate players, so that's nice.

 

[.Shotties.]

WA and SA clubs are irrelevant. All comparisons are to big VIC clubs which have a massive advantage over everyone and always will. No reason Sydney and Brisbane can’t keep the academies going with only access to top 20 talent.

If they absolutely need continued full access, WA and SA clubs should get complete access to all indigenous talent from the state with no bid restrictions as well so we get SOMETHING to compete with advantages basically almost every other club has

I always put this up when this is discussed, but build your list from 90% interstate players with little meaningful access to home state players for 30 years then I'm happy to discuss advantages and disadvantages in the league.

 

[Obeanie1]

Lack of access to home-state talent and to increase the overall draft pool.

Dunno about that. I think you just made it up to argue against.

Sorry, have you seen the last ten years for the Swans before this trade period?

Both clubs? A-graders? A salary dump and Adams who was told he was going to be shifted out from the midfield rotation?

Uh...yes they do. What percentage of your list is made from WA talent? How many WA players have requested trades back to WA in the last ten years? We've had one Sydney (hell, NSW) born player request a trade back in 40 years up here.

You don't need to build and maintain a list based from majority interstate players, so that's nice.

Open the other eye.

Stop being argumentative for the sake of it.

The reasons for the academies when created was valid. Doesnt matter what you do or dont recall. I dont dispute that so lets stop the BS.

The clubs that needed academies for whatever reason 10 years ago are now 10 years ahead. Several of those clubs have lists full of talent and are playing in grand finals and 3 of those clubs are top 4 chances again.

No issue with those (your) clubs retaining their academies and access. Its a good concept if fairly applied.

However other teams with struggling lists, not playing finals should not continue to be unfairly handicapped. Especially those clubs who simply dont have access to top quality trades and free agents who are not interested in moving from the Eastern side of the country.

Easy fix. Allow the struggling clubs the same academy rights. Are you against struggling clubs to have equal access? Why?

 

[sydney_gws]

Open the other eye.

Stop being argumentative for the sake of it.

The reasons for the academies when created was valid. Doesnt matter what you do or dont recall. I dont dispute that so lets stop the BS.

The clubs that needed academies for whatever reason 10 years ago are now 10 years ahead. Several of those clubs have lists full of talent and are playing in grand finals and 3 of those clubs are top 4 chances again.

No issue with those (your) clubs retaining their academies and access. Its a good concept if fairly applied.

However other teams with struggling lists, not playing finals should not continue to be unfairly handicapped. Especially those clubs who simply dont have access to top quality trades and free agents who are not interested in moving from the Eastern side of the country.

Easy fix. Allow the struggling clubs the same academy rights. Are you against struggling clubs to have equal access? Why?

I don't mind if northern academies are only allowed 2 picks to match, father sons 3 picks, or a difference in the discount allowed.
Perhaps 12% for academies, 18% for father sons

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I always put this up when this is discussed, but build your list from 90% interstate players with little meaningful access to home state players for 30 years then I'm happy to discuss advantages and disadvantages in the league.

I think that was a fine argument however long ago but Brisbane and yourself appear to no retention issues and a fantastic capacity to recruit players from Vic. WA and SA clubs might have a historical stronger base to pull from but the gap is clearly closing very fast given the performances of the Allies the last few years.

Also, while we have that bigger base it is also incredibly difficult to trade in players from states apart from our own unless they are being pushed out. Do you think there was any world we were getting a Franklin, Dunkley, Daniher or Neale level player to request a trade to us? Off the top of my head it has never happened before but I'm open to names if I've missed someone. Playing "out of the spotlight" and close to VIC appears to be genuinely appealing to players

I would argue all things considered, that you have as much access to talent across all the pathways as WA and SA clubs do.

As said before, personally, I am ok with GWS and in particular GC still having unfiltered access to all talent in their academies. They have added disadvantages being still newish clubs with small crowds compared to Sydney and Brisbane which make them extra unappealing to trade to. I dont think the more establish northern clubs need that leg up though.

I also maintain that all things considered, WA and SA clubs having complete access to indigenous talent is a fair equalisation measure if Sydney and Brisbane get to keep their current academy access.

It wont happen though, there is no world the leper states ever get given an advantage in any way shape or form

 

[.Shotties.]

I think that was a fine argument however long ago but Brisbane and yourself appear to no retention issues and a fantastic capacity to recruit players from Vic. WA and SA clubs might have a historical stronger base to pull from but the gap is clearly closing very fast given the performances of the Allies the last few years.

But it isn't closed, and the argument is still a reality.

Also, while we have that bigger base it is also incredibly difficult to trade in players from states apart from our own unless they are being pushed out. Do you think there was any world we were getting a Franklin, Dunkley, Daniher or Neale level player to request a trade to us?

One of those players requested a trade to Sydney because his wife was here. I'm not sure what your parameters are, given you've only named players, but over the years you've had a few non-WA players inthe 200 game club or who have won goal kicking awards. What Fremantle has done with them once they're recruited is another thing.

Off the top of my head it has never happened before but I'm open to names if I've missed someone. Playing "out of the spotlight" and close to VIC appears to be genuinely appealing to players

We've had father-sons turn us down to stay in Victoria. We've had fewer players ask to be traded home to us in 40 years than Fremantle has had in one off season.

I would argue all things considered, that you have as much access to talent across all the pathways as WA and SA clubs do.

Okay. I'm not sure what objective measures you've based that on.

I also maintain that all things considered, WA and SA clubs having complete access to indigenous talent is a fair equalisation measure if Sydney and Brisbane get to keep their current academy access.

Counterpoint: You get an academy in a non-football area with no existing development infrastructure.

Open the other eye.

Stop being argumentative for the sake of it.

The reasons for the academies when created was valid. Doesnt matter what you do or dont recall. I dont dispute that so lets stop the BS.

What? I think recalling whether something actually has happened is pretty important. You can't just say 'I think this was the reason the academies were formed' then argue against it.

The clubs that needed academies for whatever reason 10 years ago are now 10 years ahead. Several of those clubs have lists full of talent and are playing in grand finals and 3 of those clubs are top 4 chances again.

No issue with those (your) clubs retaining their academies and access. Its a good concept if fairly applied.

However other teams with struggling lists, not playing finals should not continue to be unfairly handicapped. Especially those clubs who simply dont have access to top quality trades and free agents who are not interested in moving from the Eastern side of the country.

Easy fix. Allow the struggling clubs the same academy rights. Are you against struggling clubs to have equal access? Why?

I'm all for the same level of academy access. As I said above, when those clubs have had to build their list from 90% interstate players without meaningful access to home-state talent for 30 years, give them an academy in the equivilent of Newcastle, Wollongong or the Northern Rivers.

 

[Freomaniac]

I don't care about the rules just make them the same for everyone. None of this bullshit QLD concessions.
Not happy with the FS rules either hugely benefitted the older clubs, but keep it in place until we can start benefitting too.

you think the AFL would help the dockers in Any shape or form?

 

[Freomaniac]

brisbane were rubbish for 15 years

in terms of supporter bases, i think the fact that brisbane has consistently had the lowest membership tally excluding the 2 most recent expansion clubs despite having a sizable victorian supporter faction from the merger should tell you that we do not really have a big supporter base at all.

the club still has to draft and recruit in a manner different to other clubs due to particulars of being a queensland team, and it still does not always work (lohmann is going to leave this year for peanuts)

the academy has produced one first round pick in its existence (hipwood)
(e: you could consider fletcher as well, but was technically drafted as a f/s selection)

to take away brisbanes academy access when we have arguably had the second least productive northern academy after a period of modest success seems extremely reactionary

fremantle Have been rubbish for their entire 30 year life span. Whats your point? lol

 

[Freomaniac]

I thought Hannebery was pretty mutual?

Melbourne have lost Hogan and Jackson as top players to (go home) for example

And the dockers gave you fair compo for both Hogan and Jackson.

Demons won both of those trades.

Demons won the ed Langdon trade too.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

But it isn't closed, and the argument is still a reality.

One of those players requested a trade to Sydney because his wife was here. I'm not sure what your parameters are, given you've only named players, but over the years you've had a few non-WA players inthe 200 game club or who have won goal kicking awards. What Fremantle has done with them once they're recruited is another thing.

We've had father-sons turn us down to stay in Victoria. We've had fewer players ask to be traded home to us in 40 years than Fremantle has had in one off season.

Okay. I'm not sure what objective measures you've based that on.

Counterpoint: You get an academy in a non-football area with no existing development infrastructure.

What? I think recalling whether something actually has happened is pretty important. You can't just say 'I think this was the reason the academies were formed' then argue against it.

I'm all for the same level of academy access. As I said above, when those clubs have had to build their list from 90% interstate players without meaningful access to home-state talent for 30 years, give them an academy in the equivilent of Newcastle, Wollongong or the Northern Rivers.

We can continue the same points as last time I suppose;

• No one will request a trade home, the Northern clubs have access to basically all talent from the state. There is no one to request a trade home because almost everyone any good is drafted by those clubs. Its an irrelevant point
• I remember having the discussion with you before saying how the Buddy contract seems to have stopped you being able to recruit and it will be interesting to see how you go this offseason. Three interstate players choosing Sydney
• I wouldn’t want the academies disbanded, they have a purpose, just proposing that since you have access to all talent in the state, restricting to top 20 would be better. If not, WA and SA having access to indigenous talent with same access is fair. Do you honestly don’t think that’s not fair? For what it’s worth, I’m happy for the same thing to be applied to F/S
• I don’t think anything is really applicable from the 90s but Croad is one I forgot about. I’d like to say we learnt our lesson on going after players that literally have to be pushed out to join you but I’m not sure we have. Point taken but I’m fairly confident the recent trend of Sydney and Brisbane being able to recruit players not from their state a lot easier than WA and SA will continue.
• The gap isn’t closed (QLD seems to have more talent last draft and this one than WA though) but it’s close, when you will you be happy you don’t need a drafting advantage over WA and SA? And again, all I’m proposing is restricting access to the top 20, by nature of getting all talent in the state in your academies, your still at an advantage, or that we get a small leg up.

In the end, I’ll be ok so long as they make teams pay an actual appropriate price on bid players but I do find your insistence that WA and SA aren’t disadvantaged at all in comparison pretty stubborn

 

[Freomaniac]

When a club like Melbourne, North or the Doggies are able to attract the best player in the league like Sydney has then you may have an argument.

The rules for Sydney are a rort, everyone knows it, stop gaslighting us

please tell me when the dockers rorted the system? lol

I guess you are happy for Freo to pay premium for Hogan and Jackson lol

 

[Freomaniac]

They should only get picks at the back end of the first round and be made to trade them like last year.

They don’t need more top 3 kids, they need more seasoned bodies who aren’t trash.

Nah....

North need quality young kids and you know it.

Go look at Norths 1996 premiership side. It was built on the back on 3 blokes had had debuts in 1988: John Longmire, Mick Martyn and Wayne Carey.

You want North to get seasoned mature bodies? Who are they? they wont be played in their prime years of 24-29.

 

[.Shotties.]

We can continue the same points as last time I suppose;

• No one will request a trade home, the Northern clubs have access to basically all talent from the state. There is no one to request a trade home because almost everyone any good is drafted by those clubs. Its an irrelevant point

Not when 1 (one) player requested a trade home in the 30 years preceding it.

• I remember having the discussion with you before saying how the Buddy contract seems to have stopped you being able to recruit and it will be interesting to see how you go this offseason. Three interstate players choosing Sydney

Ah, see here we're getting a bit slippery with terms. I remember every time we discuss trades of non-WA players to Freo, you have a very clear qualifier that it's players who are fringe or on the outer at their club, yet here we are counting a salary dump, a delisted free agent and Taylor Adams as win. Taylor I can kind of give you, though given he was told he was being moved out of the midfield rotation and on the older side of 30, I don't think it's a weak argument to say he was on the outer at his club.

• I wouldn’t want the academies disbanded, they have a purpose, just proposing that since you have access to all talent in the state, restricting to top 20 would be better.

Go for it.

• If not, WA and SA having access to indigenous talent with same access is fair. Do you honestly don’t think that’s not fair? For what it’s worth, I’m happy for the same thing to be applied to F/S

Again, I'm happy for you guys to have an academy in an area that isn't a traditional football one and has no talent pathway infrastructure like ours. Why do you think having open access to indigenous players who likely would have have been in talent pathways (like Jesse Motlop) is an equal counter-balance?

• I don’t think anything is really applicable from the 90s but Croad is one I forgot about. I’d like to say we learnt our lesson on going after players that literally have to be pushed out to join you but I’m not sure we have. Point taken but I’m fairly confident the recent trend of Sydney and Brisbane being able to recruit players not from their state a lot easier than WA and SA will continue.

Well, I guess you have to weigh up which group of recruits you'd like to have had a shot at from 2013 onwards:

Callum Sinclair, Michael Talia, Ryan Clarke, Jackson Thurlow, Lewis Taylor, Kaiden Brand, Aaron Francis, Tom Hickey, James Jordon, Brodie Grundy, and Taylor Adams

vs.

Cam McCarthy, Bradley Hill, Joel Hamling, Brandon Matera, Reece Conca, Jesse Hogan, Rory Lobb, Travis Colyer, James Aish, Jordan Clark, Josh Corbett, Jeremy Sharp, Jaeger O'Meara, Luke, Jackson, Will Brodie, and Nathan Williams

• The gap isn’t closed (QLD seems to have more talent last draft and this one than WA though) but it’s close, when you will you be happy you don’t need a drafting advantage over WA and SA?

When, like WA and SA, we have a reasonable chance in most drafts to take high quality, home state talent near our picks. Where we don't need to reach for an end of round player with a low pick because he'd from NSW.

• And again, all I’m proposing is restricting access to the top 20, by nature of getting all talent in the state in your academies, your still at an advantage, or that we get a small leg up.

This seems like you think the state of football in NSW is identical or better than in WA and SA, and it isn't. If we weren't competing with 3 other codes at a high level for talent, then yeah, taking all possible talent in the state would be huge, but that isn't the case.

In the end, I’ll be ok so long as they make teams pay an actual appropriate price on bid players but I do find your insistence that WA and SA aren’t disadvantaged in the current system pretty frustrating.

You aren't any more disadvantaged than Sydney.