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

[sr36]

The simplest solution is to remove any discounts or access arrangements for the northern clubs on the proviso that each of the other clubs in the league will provide substantial financial contributions from their budgets which go towards us running and resourcing the academies.

Then they can get equal access to all the awesome talent.

Have you seen the AFL distribution? That's already occurring.

It'll eventually occur that the concessions go, and the academies will still be beneficial as you'll work them like the Cats work their region - without any concessions. In the meantime, it's going to be a really strong couple of decades for the Northern clubs with them being way over-represented at the pointy end of the ladder.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It'll eventually occur that the concessions go, and the academies will still be beneficial as you'll work them like the Cats work their region - without any concessions. In the meantime, it's going to be a really strong couple of decades for the Northern clubs with them being way over-represented at the pointy end of the ladder.

For all this really strong access, Northern Clubs have won how many lately? Brisbane last year and I guess we won one lately, they rest are all Melbourne clubs, WCE have who have an amazing footy nursery. The end goal is winning though, if you are second you are last albeit with a worse draft pick.

 

[ShadowCat]

No matter who you support, no matter what your opinion, this year is an absolute disaster when it comes to draft equitability.

Never seen so many 'linked' players in my entire time of watching AFL. You really don't want to have picks in this draft.

 

[sr36]

For all this really strong access, Northern Clubs have won how many lately? Brisbane last year and I guess we won one lately, they rest are all Melbourne clubs, WCE have who have an amazing footy nursery. The end goal is winning though, if you are second you are last albeit with a worse draft pick.

We're only just seeing the full benefit of the early stages of the academy access - with the early successes now at their peaks. Since then the numbers coming through have steadily grown - the full benefit of the more recent years with a lot more coming through is still years away. All the Northern Academy teams are beautifully poised for an extended run at the top without an end in sight as they'll continue to get discounted access to top draft picks. THey'll have to stuff up to not overachieve.

 

[Elixuh]

Have you seen the AFL distribution? That's already occurring.

It'll eventually occur that the concessions go, and the academies will still be beneficial as you'll work them like the Cats work their region - without any concessions. In the meantime, it's going to be a really strong couple of decades for the Northern clubs with them being way over-represented at the pointy end of the ladder.

The distributions don’t cover all of it and there are cost intangibles associated with operating them in unfunded time and facility use etc. The other clubs should contribute to increase the academy sizes and to cover these other costs out of their own budget. Then they can get the equal access.

Where has GCS been the last 15 years? Their academy wasn’t too strong then. Brisbane has had one pick under 20 in its existence, pick 14 Hipwood. How strong are they really?

 

[sr36]

The distributions don’t cover all of it and there are cost intangibles associated with operating them in unfunded time and facility use. The other clubs should contribute to increase the academy sizes and to cover these other costs out of their own budget. Then they can get the equal access.

Yeah they do. Sydney have the biggest academy and were talking up how much they spend - in excess of $1million a year was the figure they put out.

AFL revenue is made on behalf of the clubs - TV rights are earnt by the clubs. It's the clubs and not the AFL funding and creating the show. Earnings are then distributed by the AFL, so the distributions are the other clubs contributing.

Here's the distributions from 2023:

Revealed: Where your club sits on AFL’s $276m ladder... and who’s getting the most help

Where your club sits on AFL’s $276m ladder as league’s wealth divide explained

www.foxsports.com.au

I think the academies are great, but the draft concessions - not so much.

 

[Elixuh]

Yeah they do. Sydney have the biggest academy and were talking up how much they spend - in excess of $1million a year was the figure they put out.


Here's the distributions from 2023:

Revealed: Where your club sits on AFL’s $276m ladder... and who’s getting the most help

Where your club sits on AFL’s $276m ladder as league’s wealth divide explained

www.foxsports.com.au

They don’t. It’s why the lions have to have pretty low caps relative to what we’d like. If there were greater contributions then this could increase dramatically for the good of the game and I’d agree with loss of access.

It’d be nicer if the funding arrangement for academies was separate so that this could be more easily borne out rather than relying on second hand info. But it is what it is.

What im saying is if you want to remove access and other concessions then you need to rethink funding and resource allocation arrangements.

 

[sr36]

They don’t. It’s why the lions have to have pretty low caps relative to what we’d like. If there were greater contributions then this could increase dramatically for the good of the game and I’d agree with loss of access.

Look it up. Brisbane and Sydney earn much more revenue than those clubs on the same AFL distribution tier as them, and a fair bit more than some clubs below them on the distribution tier. Their distribution includes a lot of funding for expansion. I'm certainly not complaining about that - I think it's great that they're funded to grow the game - but the pretence that they're sacrificing to do it, rather than being funded to do it, is just false.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

We're only just seeing the full benefit of the early stages of the academy access - with the early successes now at their peaks. Since then the numbers coming through have steadily grown - the full benefit of the more recent years with a lot more coming through is still years away. All the Northern Academy teams are beautifully poised for an extended run at the top without an end in sight as they'll continue to get discounted access to top draft picks. THey'll have to stuff up to not overachieve.

Yet the GF if a northern side makes it a GF is heavily favoured towards a Melbourne side, I mean half of them if not more play how many games on the MCG, what was Collingwood up to last year? 13 or something, we got 2 lol and none since mid year. Sure the access is great, but it's not equitable never will be. I'm all for removing discounts though but it has to be across the board, father son and NGA too. It can't be lets remove one and not the others that's more than grossly unfair and you know it. I've said it 3 years ago, fix the curve (about time this has been done), then fix the discounts, the ability to match is the discount, however this has to be removed for F/S and NGA too, that is fair. The tradeoff though is that ALL teams have to be scheduled for FOUR games at the MCG and at least 1 in the last 6 weeks.

 

[sr36]

Yet the GF if a northern side makes it a GF is heavily favoured towards a Melbourne side, I mean half of them if not more play how many games on the MCG, what was Collingwood up to last year? 13 or something, we got 2 lol and none since mid year. Sure the access is great, but it's not equitable never will be. I'm all for removing discounts though but it has to be across the board, father son and NGA too. It can't be lets remove one and not the others that's more than grossly unfair and you know it. I've said it 3 years ago, fix the curve (about time this has been done), then fix the discounts, the ability to match is the discount, however this has to be removed for F/S and NGA too, that is fair. The tradeoff though is that ALL teams have to be scheduled for FOUR games at the MCG and at least 1 in the last 6 weeks.

I'm taking our current draft concession advantage: Nick Daicos, Isaac Quaynor and Darcy Moore - as a way bigger advantage than we get from the MCG granny. We'd be no chance at all of getting an MCG Grand Final advantage if we hadn't got the draft concessions.

I'd keep FS and try to get the curve right - and work out an advantage to compensate GC and GWS for that not applying to them. And probably Port and Freo for it being less likely to apply to them yet. I think it'd be relatively easy to work out an approximate draft pick value that you'd expect to get in the long run from F/S, based on historical results.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm taking our current draft concession advantage: Nick Daicos, Isaac Quaynor and Darcy Moore - as a way bigger advantage than we get from the MCG granny. We'd be no chance at all of getting an MCG Grand Final advantage if we hadn't got the draft concessions.

You are a better chance in an average year than any Northern side- you play there 2/3 of the year and I don't blame the afl, you get 70k every week, but it's a significant advantage especially when it's completely different to any other ground. We played like dog trash but Brisbane having a prelim in Mel last year was a positive. I blame the AFL here, it's not hard to schedule games at the MCG for Northern sides, one should be in the last 6-8 weeks. Work back from there with the draw, it shouldn't be that complicated, the AFL love to ultra complicate everything.

Your concessions are fine, least you did pay relatively close to value, Quaynor you actually paid a bit 'overs' at the time. I blame the silly clubs not bidding on Daicos at 1 there.

 

[sr36]

You are a better chance in an average year than any Northern side- you play there 2/3 of the year and I don't blame the afl, you get 70k every week, but it's a significant advantage especially when it's completely different to any other ground. We played like dog trash but Brisbane having a prelim in Mel last year was a positive. I blame the AFL here, it's not hard to schedule games at the MCG for Northern sides, one should be in the last 6-8 weeks. Work back from there with the draw, it shouldn't be that complicated, the AFL love to ultra complicate everything.

Your concessions are fine, least you did pay relatively close to value, Quaynor you actually paid a bit 'overs' at the time. I blame the silly clubs not bidding on Daicos at 1 there.

You don't make the GF in an average year.

Here's the maths on the advantage of an MCG GF for MCG tenants.

Everything else being equal, you should make the Granny once every 9 years. It should work out that MCG tenants play a Granny with an advantage against a non-MCG tenant once every 12 years.

So in 120 years, you should get the advantage of a home game ground final 10 times.

Home teams win 60% of games. So rather than winning 5 of those 10, you should win 6.

That's an extra flag once every 120 years.

Definitely an advantage, but nowhere near as big an advantage as an advantage that makes you a better team and thus more likely to play in the Grand Final.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You don't make the GF in an average year.

Here's the maths on the advantage of an MCG GF for MCG tenants.

Everything else being equal, you should make the Granny once every 9 years. It should work out that MCG tenants play a Granny with an advantage against a non-MCG tenant once every 12 years.

So in 120 years, you should get the advantage of a home game ground final 10 times.

Home teams win 60% of games. So rather than winning 5 of those 10, you should win 6.

That's an extra flag once every 120 years.

Definitely an advantage, but nowhere near as big an advantage as an advantage that makes you a better team and thus more likely to play in the Grand Final.

It's still an advantage, so it's not fair to take out more of the one thing you deem as our advantage, that will make the advantage non northern sides have as more, that's completely unfair. The solution is MCG games, let these sides get used to the conditions more. For example we play Essendon, why on earth can't that be at the MCG, just an example. If the AFL come out and say we guarantee 4 games for every Northern side every year, I'd be all for having the discussion. This is on the proviso that it is equitable acrross the board NGA, F/S and academy. They should all be the same and you pay the same.

 

[Elixuh]

I don’t think we will ever agree on what equalisation looks like. I mean Collingwood complained last week about the travel load of playing in opening round and not wanting to do that anymore. Which is patently ridiculous.

At some point you just have to ignore the noise from the people with their own little interests and press on.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I don’t think we will ever agree on what equalisation looks like. I mean Collingwood complained last week about the travel load of playing in opening round and not wanting to do that anymore. Which is patently ridiculous.

At some point you just have to ignore the noise from the people with their own little interests and press on.

To be fair with Collingwood, all they said was they wanted it spread around and that's hardly asking a lot, I think that's a reasonable request. They didn't say they wouldn't do it, just that it should be spread around. For instance the Dogs and Giants have a good rivalry it could be them. Just can the opening round anyway it's a horrible concept that does zilch aside from adding ridiculous early season byes

 

[briztoon]

No matter who you support, no matter what your opinion, this year is an absolute disaster when it comes to draft equitability.

Never seen so many 'linked' players in my entire time of watching AFL. You really don't want to have picks in this draft.

Wait until next years draft. It’ll get worse, and that’s primarily because of the Vic NGA’s and FS’s.

 

[briztoon]

I don’t think we will ever agree on what equalisation looks like.

A totally uncompromised draft, but draftees are locked into 8 year contracts, with the first four years guaranteed and the next four are club options.

If a kid wants a trade, he can’t nominate a team, or even State.

 

[sr36]

It's still an advantage, so it's not fair to take out more of the one thing you deem as our advantage, that will make the advantage non northern sides have as more, that's completely unfair. The solution is MCG games, let these sides get used to the conditions more. For example we play Essendon, why on earth can't that be at the MCG, just an example. If the AFL come out and say we guarantee 4 games for every Northern side every year, I'd be all for having the discussion. This is on the proviso that it is equitable acrross the board NGA, F/S and academy. They should all be the same and you pay the same.

Change the grand final venues or better still expand the capacity of Docklands so that's big enough and the MCG can become a rotating venue. Force some Vic teams to play games against each other in other states if travel is meausred as a significant issue.

But most of all, don't give teams a significant advantage that will make them a better team. The real risk to an even comp and why most sports comps have the same teams at the top every year is that particular clubs have an advantage that results in them having significantly better players. In other comps it's money.

The AFL thrives on the evenness of the comp. The draft, salary cap and soft cap have done a fantastic job of stopping juggernauts from growing due to money, but they've created the conditions for juggernauts to grow due to location. We know that these teams are already more than competitive without the need of an extra leg up. It's currently like a reverse draft where selected top teams are given advantages in the draft that will make them even better - it's crazy in terms of the AFL's desire for evenness, as the advantage will continue to grow and layer up as more and more academy kids come through.

 

[Elixuh]

A totally uncompromised draft, but draftees are locked into 8 year contracts, with the first four years guaranteed and the next four are club options.

If a kid wants a trade, he can’t nominate a team, or even State.

What about tariffs on talent taken from the academies by non northern clubs?

 

[dmac_55]

Wait until next years draft. It’ll get worse, and that’s primarily because of the Vic NGA’s and FS’s.

Any rough ballpark numbers on how many of next years first 25 are NGA's or FS?

 

[Elixuh]

Change the grand final venues or better still expand the capacity of Docklands so that's big enough and the MCG can become a rotating venue. Force some Vic teams to play games against each other in other states if travel is meausred as a significant issue.

But most of all, don't give teams a significant advantage that will make them a better team. The real risk to an even comp and why most sports comps have the same teams at the top every year is that particular clubs have an advantage that results in them having significantly better players. In other comps it's money.

The AFL thrives on the evenness of the comp. The draft, salary cap and soft cap have done a fantastic job of stopping juggernauts from growing due to money, but they've created the conditions for juggernauts to grow due to location. We know that these teams are already more than competitive without the need of an extra leg up. It's currently like a reverse draft where selected top teams are given advantages in the draft that will make them even better - it's crazy in terms of the AFL's desire for evenness, as the advantage will continue to grow and layer up as more and more academy kids come through.

The issue is you’ve got to be realistic about what is possible, eg it doesn’t make sense to force vfl teams to play each other interstate.

 

[sr36]

I don’t think we will ever agree on what equalisation looks like. I mean Collingwood complained last week about the travel load of playing in opening round and not wanting to do that anymore. Which is patently ridiculous

At some point you just have to ignore the noise from the people with their own little interests and press on.

Yep. But in a comp that you you've designed to be even by implementing things like a draft, a salary cap and a soft cap to stop wealthy teams from becoming much better teams than their opponents, you need to also assess whether you've built in things that will make some teams much better than their opponents. Time will tell, but I think they've put the balance well out of whack with the academies.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Change the grand final venues or better still expand the capacity of Docklands so that's big enough and the MCG can become a rotating venue. Force some Vic teams to play games against each other in other states if travel is meausred as a significant issue.

But most of all, don't give teams a significant advantage that will make them a better team. The real risk to an even comp and why most sports comps have the same teams at the top every year is that particular clubs have an advantage that results in them having significantly better players. In other comps it's money.

The AFL thrives on the evenness of the comp. The draft, salary cap and soft cap have done a fantastic job of stopping juggernauts from growing due to money, but they've created the conditions for juggernauts to grow due to location. We know that these teams are already more than competitive without the need of an extra leg up. It's currently like a reverse draft where selected top teams are given advantages in the draft that will make them even better - it's crazy in terms of the AFL's desire for evenness, as the advantage will continue to grow and layer up as more and more academy kids come through.

How much of an advantage do the big vic teams get with having extra marquee time slots?

If a club get 10 to 15 marquee time slots are year vs under 5, is that worth an extra 100k-200k in player sponsorship for the top 5 players? e.g. Gold Coast vs Collingwood

This is pretty much additional salary cap space for the big vic teams.

 

[Elixuh]

Yep. But in a comp that you you've designed to be even by implementing things like a draft, a salary cap and a soft cap to stop wealthy teams from becoming much better teams than their opponents, you need to also assess whether you've built in things that will make some teams much better than their opponents. Time will tell, but I think they've put the balance well out of whack with the academies.

You can’t have an even comp when half a national competitions clubs exist in one city. There will always be things which advantage vfl clubs and things which advantage non-vfl clubs. It’s about creating a balance of these inequalities.

 

[briztoon]

What about tariffs on talent taken from the academies by non northern clubs?

What academies?