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

[sr36]

We're discussing the academies. One of the key themes here is access to good quality talent from the city the teams are in.

Snore. Bigfooty conspiracy theories about underpaying a whole list 10% to create a warfund. You can't honestly believe it.

We've got a national draft - the AFL is clearly not aiming to ensure that players remain in their own state - that's a strange theory in a comp with a national draft. The academies are to grow the game and supporter base in the Northern states. To maximise this aim, the AFL gives the Northern clubs extremely generous access rights to the academy players, because they want these teams to be strong, as it will help to grow the game in those states.

What? How is pointing out that COLA wasn't used for retention but to recruit Buddy Franklin a conspiracy theory?

 

[loki04]

Heaps of clubs lose players.
Freo losing heaps recently should they have an academy?

Lol feel for freo compared to every other start up club they got rorted on their list build.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The academies are to grow the game and supporter base in the Northern states. To maximise this aim, the AFL gives the Northern clubs extremely generous access rights to the academy players, because they want these teams to be strong, as it will help to grow the game in those states.

What? How is pointing out that COLA wasn't used for retention but to recruit Buddy Franklin a conspiracy theory?

But surely you understand that the academies are not just to make the teams strong in and of themselves (otherwise there would continue to be ongoing concessions outside of the draft), but rather to make the link between the playing base and the AFL clubs themselves in those regions stronger. Especially when the playing base is competing against other sports that also offer academy-style systems and provide the opportunity for talented juniors to remain in their home city (if they desire).

It's a lot easier for a kid and their family to be supporters of a team and to go to games, if they're participating in a club-branded academy and the family knows they'll stay local should they be good enough to be drafted. There's no point handing out free GWS tickets at Auskick clinics if there isn't a more heavily invested ongoing link should they continue to play in junior clubs or school footy.

 

[loki04]

We're discussing the academies. One of the key themes here is access to good quality talent from the city the teams are in.

Snore. Bigfooty conspiracy theories about underpaying a whole list 10% to create a warfund. You can't honestly believe it.


He's certainly come through this year, hasn't he.

I've always rated him. Warner is a stud too, although not academy related.

Swans have built a very good list that will be up there for a sustained run at top 4 over the coming years.

 

[sr36]

But surely you understand that the academies are not just to make the teams strong in and of themselves (otherwise there would continue to be ongoing concessions outside of the draft), but rather to make the link between the playing base and the AFL clubs themselves in those regions stronger. Especially when the playing base is competing against other sports that also offer academy-style systems and provide the opportunity for talented juniors to remain in their home city (if they desire).

It's a lot easier for a kid and their family to be supporters of a team and to go to games, if they're participating in a club-branded academy and the family knows they'll stay local should they be good enough to be drafted. There's no point handing out free GWS tickets at Auskick clinics if there isn't a more heavily invested ongoing link should they continue to play in junior clubs or school footy.

The academies themselves are about growing the game and supporters in Northern States. They're a great idea. Players train with a club and are much more likely to support that club - lots more come along for the ride when a player is drafted to that club and becomes a star. The matching price is about giving a leg up to the clubs. Outside of these 4 clubs, there's a national draft - the AFL doesn't care whether the kid is playing for his local team. That's purely a Northern states thing - as they're trying to grow the northern market.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The academies themselves are about growing the game and supporters in Northern States. They're a great idea. Players train with a club and are much more likely to support that club - lots more come along for the ride when a player is drafted to that club and becomes a star. The matching price is about giving a leg up to the clubs.

Yep, I don't think many people would argue against changing the rules on the edges.

Change the value of points to picks to better represent the currency of actual trades, remove or decrease the 20% discount, understand that the right to match, the go-home factor and the inside information that the club can provide (Sydney obviously knew more than other clubs how good Gulden was gonna be, whether they 'hid' him is up for debate) provide an advantage to the club anwyay.

It's a far different debate though than suggesting that these clubs don't deserve some sort of priority access to these players carte blanche.

 

[sr36]

Yep, I don't think many people would argue against changing the rules on the edges.

Change the value of points to picks to better represent the currency of actual trades, remove or decrease the 20% discount, understand that the right to match, the go-home factor and the inside information that the club can provide (Sydney obviously knew more than other clubs how good Gulden was gonna be, whether they 'hid' him is up for debate) provide an advantage to the club anwyay.

It's a far different debate though than suggesting that these clubs don't deserve some sort of priority access to these players carte blanche.

I wouldn't say deserve priority access to the local player, but I can see why its beneficial to growing the game. And if that can be done without giving these clubs too big a leg up, then fair enough.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I wouldn't say deserve priority access to the local player, but I can see why its beneficial to growing the game.

I suppose the logic goes back to the clubs' voting in of GWS and GC in the first place. Other than the self-interest if it being a bit less likely to win a flag (1/18th is less than 1/16th over the long term), the entire purpose of their entry was for the health of the code , the clubs understanding that they have a part in the AFL's dual mission of managing the code as well as running a (as fair as possible) professional competition.

In other words, if we're not going to compromise the league somewhat for some long-term strategic interest, why bother creating those teams at all?

 

[.Shotties.]

The academies are to grow the game and supporter base in the Northern states. To maximise this aim, the AFL gives the Northern clubs extremely generous access rights to the academy players, because they want these teams to be strong, as it will help to grow the game in those states.

These access rights also allow them a similar level of access to players who are more likely to stay as those in traditional football states.

What? How is pointing out that COLA wasn't used for retention but to recruit Buddy Franklin a conspiracy theory?

Show me a single piece of evidence that the Cost of Living Allowance was misused and not distributed as intended.

 

[.Shotties.]

I wouldn't say deserve priority access to the local player, but I can see why its beneficial to growing the game. And if that can be done without giving these clubs too big a leg up, then fair enough.

As I've said a few times, one person's leg up is another person's balancing of inbuilt inequalities.

 

[sr36]

As I've said a few times, one person's leg up is another person's balancing of inbuilt inequalities.

But you seem to think any size of advantage will balance things. In order to balance this inequality that you're imagining the size of the advantage has to be right.

And which clubs do you think it balances you with? Freo, North, StKilda, Port?

These access rights also allow them a similar level of access to players who are more likely to stay as those in traditional football states.

Can you show me an AFL statement that this is an academy goal? It'd be pretty strange to have a national draft if the AFL wanted to stop players from moving state.

 

[sr36]

In other words, if we're not going to compromise the league somewhat for some long-term strategic interest, why bother creating those teams at all?

It's the size of the compromise.

I think we underestimate how big an impact draft concessions have and how long they last. We shouldn't, the draft along with salary cap is why we have an even comp where all teams have rolled through the pointy end over the last 20 years (GC time will come with or without their draft concessions)

Pies wouldn't have made the 8 last year without the draft concessions that gave us Pendles, Moore, Daicos, Daicos and Quaynor. It's one thing to have draft concessions that are based on luck like FS (luck that was skewed to the Vic teams but should be balanced now except for the new kids on the block). But intentionally built in ones of a bigger magnitude?

A one off advantage given today, peaks in about 10 years time with the benefit lasting 15 years - or in Pendleburys case 20 years. Ongoing advantages accumulate and if the academies do their job will get bigger and bigger every year.

Academy draft concessions have already enabled the Swans to beat the cycle and bounce straight back up after a very long stint at the top. And the advantages aren't even close to fully kicking in yet. If you don't expect the Northern clubs to dominate the next 20+ years, then you're not watching.

 

[FootyLad0]

It should be 100 games or played in a premiership team auto qualifying.

Luke Ball tried to get the rule changed when he retired as he wanted his boys to play for the club he won a flag at.

Same with Isaac Smith, wants kids to be applicable for the Cats not the Hawks lol

 

[Ehswan]

It's the size of the compromise.

I think we underestimate how big an impact draft concessions have and how long they last. We shouldn't, the draft along with salary cap is why we have an even comp where all teams have rolled through the pointy end over the last 20 years (GC time will come with or without their draft concessions)

Pies wouldn't have made the 8 last year without the draft concessions that gave us Pendles, Moore, Daicos, Daicos and Quaynor. It's one thing to have draft concessions that are based on luck like FS (luck that was skewed to the Vic teams but should be balanced now except for the new kids on the block). But intentionally built in ones of a bigger magnitude?

A one off advantage given today, peaks in about 10 years time with the benefit lasting 15 years - or in Pendleburys case 20 years. Ongoing advantages accumulate and if the academies do their job will get bigger and bigger every year.

Academy draft concessions have already enabled the Swans to beat the cycle and bounce straight back up after a very long stint at the top. And the advantages aren't even close to fully kicking in yet. If you don't expect the Northern clubs to dominate the next 20+ years, then you're not watching.

These well balanced summaries never seem to take into account all the players returning to the 'disadvantaged ' states like vic , SA and wa. Of the 11 Victorian premiers in the last 12 years, there is alot of players that have returned home from the Northern states. Periods of dominance we will see...swings and roundabouts.
Then they might get the chance to come and play and 8th placed vic team at the mcg in the grand final

 

[Obeanie1]

But surely you understand that the academies are not just to make the teams strong in and of themselves (otherwise there would continue to be ongoing concessions outside of the draft), but rather to make the link between the playing base and the AFL clubs themselves in those regions stronger. Especially when the playing base is competing against other sports that also offer academy-style systems and provide the opportunity for talented juniors to remain in their home city (if they desire).

It's a lot easier for a kid and their family to be supporters of a team and to go to games, if they're participating in a club-branded academy and the family knows they'll stay local should they be good enough to be drafted. There's no point handing out free GWS tickets at Auskick clinics if there isn't a more heavily invested ongoing link should they continue to play in junior clubs or school footy.

So lets make it easier and all warm and fuzzy for some families in some states.

But not others?

Other states kids and families dont matter. Got it.

There is a word that describes that.

 

[Obeanie1]

These well balanced summaries never seem to take into account all the players returning to the 'disadvantaged ' states like vic , SA and wa. Of the 11 Victorian premiers in the last 12 years, there is alot of players that have returned home from the Northern states. Periods of dominance we will see...swings and roundabouts.
Then they might get the chance to come and play and 8th placed vic team at the mcg in the grand final

What a dumb arguement.

Go list the QUALITY players who have move to Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sydney over the past 5 to 10 years. Those clubs have now become destination clubs. Especially the Lions and Swans who are recent grand finalists.

Then go look at what QUALITY has moved to WA.

So your point is massively outdated and incorrect in the current day.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So lets make it easier and all warm and fuzzy for some families in some states.

But not others?

Other states kids and families dont matter. Got it.

There is a word that describes that.

Lol sure but the two clubs were voted in unanimously by the 16 other clubs. If the other clubs didn't like it they didn't have to accept it.

 

[Obeanie1]

Lol sure but the two clubs were voted in unanimously by the 16 other clubs. If the other clubs didn't like it they didn't have to accept it.

Geez. And what has that got to with anything?

Did the clubs get to vote on all the concessions handed out over time? No.

What a hollow point you raised.

 

[sr36]

These well balanced summaries never seem to take into account all the players returning to the 'disadvantaged ' states like vic , SA and wa. Of the 11 Victorian premiers in the last 12 years, there is alot of players that have returned home from the Northern states. Periods of dominance we will see...swings and roundabouts.
Then they might get the chance to come and play and 8th placed vic team at the mcg in the grand final

Yes there is a poaching advantage in being a Vic club up the top of the ladder. There isn't an advantage for a Vic club not at the top - they pay over the odds to poach anyone good as there's 11 other competitors - many whom are much more attractive destinations. So this balancing act doesn't balance the Academy clubs with the Western state teams or most of the Vic teams - it will put them on short term equity with the Victorian teams at the top of the ladder - it will put them up at the pointy end of the ladder. And the big difference is that those Vic teams at the top will eventually fall unless they get lucky with the draft/draft concessions like the Pies have so far, whereas the system is built so that the Northern clubs don't need the miracle of birth to fall in their favour to maintain a top list - it'll just happen, cause that's how the system is currently built - they'll stay at the top - unless the system is balanced more equitably.

 

[Obeanie1]

Ok lets compare how the AFL equalises competition.

Versus how the horse racing industry equalises its competition.

Now in racing if a horse is too good and starts winning too much what do they do? They add weight in the saddle to slow the best horses down to make a closer race.

In the AFL some clubs get weights added. The ones that have existed longer and are established. They were winning and the new clubs struggling. Fair enough.

However now the newer expansion clubs are winning. Making grand finals. Have lists the envy of the competition. Whereas some of the established clubs have bottomed out and are struggling to rebuild, especially with all the concessions still being gifted to clubs playing in grand finals.

So right now the AFL is weighing down the 'horses' finishing last. And allowing the fastest horses to run with no weight, in fact they go the opposite, they 'inject' these fastest horses with additional help and allow the fastest horses to just keep getting faster.

The AFL is now basically a 'fixed horse race' with some clubs so weighed down they have no chance in catching those backed by AFL House. And the AFLs fat cat executives are more focused on bonuses than running a real competition where all teams can compete on an equal footing. The proof is in the ladder finishes and lists some teams have and the discounted priority access they get whereas other team at the bottom of the ladder get nothing.

Welfare is there to support the struggling. Not make the best teams making grand finals even stronger. How much stronger do the Swans and Lions need to get before the welfare is backed off until they need it again? THAT's the issue.

 

[Ehswan]

What a dumb arguement.

Go list the QUALITY players who have move to Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sydney over the past 5 to 10 years. Those clubs have now become destination clubs. Especially the Lions and Swans who are recent grand finalists.

Then go look at what QUALITY has moved to WA.

So your point is massively outdated and incorrect in the current day.

Ok I'll bite.

The argument is not about which clubs can ' recruit players ' from other teams.
As you can find a case for and against at any point in time.
What you can't argue against is the statistics.
Statistically there will always be a percentage not willing to move interstate or Will return Home.
So if your list is made up of let's say 60 percent of home grown talent versus 20 percent for the Northern states.

Conclusion would be that Statistically the Northern states are always going to be 3 times more likely to lose players.
They also have to pay a hole lot more to keep players from other states.
Hopefully you understand the ' dumb ' argument

 

[Jirik13]

What a dumb arguement.

Go list the QUALITY players who have move to Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sydney over the past 5 to 10 years. Those clubs have now become destination clubs. Especially the Lions and Swans who are recent grand finalists.

Then go look at what QUALITY has moved to WA.

So your point is massively outdated and incorrect in the current day.

You may want to remove Suns from the list.

Suns past 5-10 years - B Ellis, Constable, Young, J Anderson, Townsend, Hallahan, Horlin-Smith, C Ellis, Weller, Atkins, T Berry, Wigg, Hombsh, Barlow, Currie, Witts (probably not a complete list).

Hm, you said a quality list -> Witts, Weller.

Suns a destination club? Just wait until we play finals

 

[Obeanie1]

Ok I'll bite.

The argument is not about which clubs can ' recruit players ' from other teams.
As you can find a case for and against at any point in time.
What you can't argue against is the statistics.
Statistically there will always be a percentage not willing to move interstate or Will return Home.
So if your list is made up of let's say 60 percent of home grown talent versus 20 percent for the Northern states.

Conclusion would be that Statistically the Northern states are always going to be 3 times more likely to lose players.
They also have to pay a hole lot more to keep players from other states.
Hopefully you understand the ' dumb ' argument

I don't put the Suns in the same position as the Swans, Lions and GWS who have all made grand finals recently, are playing finals AND have lists overflowing with talent. Suns list is overflowing with talent and are about to gain the rewards from that.

You can shove your 'Northern States' argument. Its no longer relevant and total BS. Lions, Swans and GWS haven't suffered for years in attracting talent and are three of the best sides in the comp now. And success breeds success, that's why Grundy, Jordan AND Adams all moved to the Swans in the Northern states. Its why Dunckley, Daniher and Neale moved to the Lions in the Northern states.

Welfare assistance is for a struggling person or individual. NOT for clubs making grand finals. Your Suns can keep getting it until they start making grand finals. This is the point. Teams making finals and grand finals should not get assistance..........they don't need it.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Ok lets compare how the AFL equalises competition.

Versus how the horse racing industry equalises its competition.

Now in racing if a horse is too good and starts winning too much what do they do? They add weight in the saddle to slow the best horses down to make a closer race.

In the AFL some clubs get weights added. The ones that have existed longer and are established. They were winning and the new clubs struggling. Fair enough.

However now the newer expansion clubs are winning. Making grand finals. Have lists the envy of the competition. Whereas some of the established clubs have bottomed out and are struggling to rebuild, especially with all the concessions still being gifted to clubs playing in grand finals.

So right now the AFL is weighing down the 'horses' finishing last. And allowing the fastest horses to run with no weight, in fact they go the opposite, they 'inject' these fastest horses with additional help and allow the fastest horses to just keep getting faster.

The AFL is now basically a 'fixed horse race' with some clubs so weighed down they have no chance in catching those backed by AFL House. And the AFLs fat cat executives are more focused on bonuses than running a real competition where all teams can compete on an equal footing. The proof is in the ladder finishes and lists some teams have and the discounted priority access they get whereas other team at the bottom of the ladder get nothing.

Welfare is there to support the struggling. Not make the best teams making grand finals even stronger. How much stronger do the Swans and Lions need to get before the welfare is backed off until they need it again? THAT's the issue.

But it's been pointed out over and over on this thread that the AFL isn't just tasked with running a competition. It has a dual task of being the non-profit custodian and manager of the sport. While trying to balance some elements of a fair competition, it still ultimately undermines that competition in order to balance the dual tasks, of which the clubs (most of whom are in turn independent and also have additional constitutional tasks beyond just winning games) are accepting.

I broadly agree with this, otherwise as a Western Bulldogs member I'd vote, or otherwise engage with the democratic nature of the club, to stop this.

So this comparison is stupid and dumb because you're not comparing the right things.

 

[Ehswan]

Yes there is a poaching advantage in being a Vic club up the top of the ladder. There isn't an advantage for a Vic club not at the top - they pay over the odds to poach anyone good as there's 11 other competitors - many whom are much more attractive destinations. So this balancing act doesn't balance the Academy clubs with the Western state teams or most of the Vic teams - it will put them on short term equity with the Victorian teams at the top of the ladder - it will put them up at the pointy end of the ladder. And the big difference is that those Vic teams at the top will eventually fall unless they get lucky with the draft/draft concessions like the Pies have so far, whereas the system is built so that the Northern clubs don't need the miracle of birth to fall in their favour to maintain a top list - it'll just happen, cause that's how the system is currently built - they'll stay at the top - unless the system is balanced more equitably.

You don't need an academy if you can recruit/ draft out of your own backyard.
You are not paying a premium to keep interstate players 'Happy ' being away from home. How many players do Collingwood etc lose to the return home factor compared to Northern clubs. Collingwood weren't at the top when they had treloar returning. Carlton weren't at the top when they were getting gws players or nearly getting papley or docherty or all the other names they have. Losing players to go home is far more prominent than any other measure if list losses. Equality is never going to be Equal.
MCG grand finals. Days afforded to particular clubs.
The outrage would be massive from the traditional football states if they were drafting and developing top end talent ,only to see them walk just before their prime at a discounted draft pick exchange ..