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

[briztoon]

But they do get benefits, even at full price there is a benefit of a player being tied with their choice plus using multiple lower picks for a higher one. That will always be cheaper than trading up in the open market.

The other factor is that the AFL pays for them. Why would the Northern clubs not run them when it adds money into their club and community presence?

AFL doesn’t pay for Sydney’s or Brisbane’s academies. Both are funded through sponsors.

 

[Choogler]

NGA zoning is apparently based on residence not SANFL club.

Don’t quote me on it as I haven’t researched it, but it’s what I’ve been told.

you are correct.. and it is weird that the map showing the zones for every club has

Slight correction is SA didnt (and not 100% they do have now) access to indigenous kids from metro in their NGA but did for international and any other way kids get eligibility for NGA, Borlase qualified as he was born overseas in Egypt

This from 2016

SA, WA clubs get indigenous, multicultural zones

SA and WA clubs allocated their indigenous and multicultural zones

www.afl.com.au

 

[Choogler]

NGA’s and Northern Academies aren’t growing the talent pool.

All they are doing is providing a higher standard of training and competition, comparable to the CTL.

And it’s debatable that the Vic NGA’s are even doing this, as those kids have exposure to the best talent pathways in the country already.

How many guys are now playing AFL because of those academies, when they'd not otherwise be?

 

[Choogler]

Why is it wrong? Because the Northern clubs pay for the academies themselves while getting bigger distributions from the AFL than anybody else by nearly 10m a season in some cases?

They do get bigger distributions than most, but they still have a long way to go before they catch up to Melbourne, WB, NM and StK whose prop-up funding has gone on for decades and shows no signs of abating. At least in the future, the Northern cubs MAY become self-sustaining, something those 4 Vic-based clubs haven't achieved in a hundred years.

 

[Purple Suit]

AFL doesn’t pay for Sydney’s or Brisbane’s academies. Both are funded through sponsors.

100% funded by sponsors? Even better, the rules are costing the Northern clubs nothing then so they can continue even if the rules change.

They do get bigger distributions than most, but they still have a long way to go before they catch up to Melbourne, WB, NM and StK whose prop-up funding has gone on for decades and shows no signs of abating. At least in the future, the Northern cubs MAY become self-sustaining, something those 4 Vic-based clubs haven't achieved in a hundred years.

Brisbane gets nearly 30m in funding, Sydney 24m, GC & GWS get 35m each. Only North & Saints got more than Sydney with 26m, every other team gets less, as little as 16m for WC, Freo got 19m.

 

[Choogler]

100% funded by sponsors? Even better, the rules are costing the Northern clubs nothing then so they can continue even if the rules change.



Brisbane gets nearly 30m in funding, Sydney 24m, GC & GWS get 35m each. Only North & Saints got more than Sydney with 26m, every other team gets less, as little as 16m for WC, Freo got 19m.

I never said those 4 clubs get more NOW, I said the northern clubs have a long way to go to catch them for the prop-up that has gone on for decades.

 

[briztoon]

How many guys are now playing AFL because of those academies, when they'd not otherwise be?

You mean NGA’s or Northern Academies, or both?

From the Lions, Hipwood and Payne wouldn’t have played AFL. Hipwood would have stuck with cricket, and Payne would have stayed with athletics, chasing an Olympic place. Both have said this multiple times at club functions.

The Coleman brothers moved down to Brisbane from the NT, to join the academy and chase their AFL dreams.

Fair chance Andrews wouldn't have made it, but that's a longer discussion.

If the academies didn't exist, would there be AFL club scouts up here watching the kids at QAFL Colts level, or seniors?


Both Heeney and Mills have said they would have stuck with rugby league. Both have repeated this in print and tv interviews.


No disrespect to the QAFL and QAFL Colts, but the pathways up here, excluding the academies, just aren't at the same standards of the Coates Talent League, SANFL or WAFL Colts or League.

When I was a kid and competing in sports, one of my coaches once told me, kids only improve when playing above their level. The good kids keep improving and moving up, while others find their level and that's as far as they go.

We see the northern academies teams are only just competitive with the CTL teams when most of their top kids are off playing private school footy. Imagine if these kids weren't filtered up to the academies, and only had Colts or Seniors as their highest local level.

Then they are reliant on who ever is the State coach to select them for the National Championships.

 

[briztoon]

Brisbane gets nearly 30m in funding, Sydney 24m, GC & GWS get 35m each. Only North & Saints got more than Sydney with 26m, every other team gets less, as little as 16m for WC, Freo got 19m.

AFL clubs are non profit organisations. What does it mater how much those distributions are, as they are basically the AFL handing out the funding to run each team, and that money comes from the media and sponsorship deals the AFL has, not the individual clubs. It's not like your club is actually paying money from it's own pockets to keep another club afloat. The alternative is the AFL could go back to being the VFL, then neither your club or mine would exist. Or we could have a league wide revenue sharing model, where all club profits go in to one big pot, then divided equally between each club, after all running costs are covered.

 

[Choogler]

You mean NGA’s or Northern Academies, or both?

Just to be clear, I support the northern academies, particularly GC & GWS as they actually contribute to growing the game and its player base in non-traditional areas.

Something also had to be done to get those 2 clubs some "stay at home" talent because those 2 clubs were just revolving door training academies for the Vic clubs. Regularly, after developing someone into a quality AFL player, (mainly) Vic clubs would move on them and they'd head home.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Just to be clear, I support the northern academies, particularly GC & GWS as they actually contribute to growing the game and its player base in non-traditional areas.

Something also had to be done to get those 2 clubs some "stay at home" talent because those 2 clubs were just revolving door training academies for the Vic clubs. Regularly, after developing someone into a quality AFL player, (mainly) Vic clubs would move on them and they'd head home.

Should go to a more American system of trade where clubs can trade players to a destination not a team unless the player is a free agent. Player can nominate a state not a team. This at least will mean clubs get a fair outcome at the trade table. You don’t want this you stay till the F/A or you enter the draft where you can be taken with any club. The players have WAY too much say where they go- nominate a state but that’s where it ends

 

[My_Username]

If you just completely kill the discount and make the clubs pay the full price then you will see alot less bids matched.

I'd dump the % and just give clubs a certain amount of discount per year, and let them bank it.

e.g. 100pts per year. (might be more, might be less...whatever)

Got a player every year? OK, you wont get much discount. (100pts)

Need to wait 10 years for a FS pick to finally come through? You get up to 1,000pts off. (and save the rest).

Still gives a head tip towards the reasons these exist in the first place, while providing a balance in the benefits from club to club.

Being able to match is still the biggest benefit however.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I'd dump the % and just give clubs a certain amount of discount per year, and let them bank it.

e.g. 100pts per year. (might be more, might be less...whatever)

Got a player every year? OK, you wont get much discount. (100pts)

Need to wait 10 years for a FS pick to finally come through? You get up to 1,000pts off. (and save the rest).

Still gives a head tip towards the reasons these exist in the first place, while providing a balance in the benefits from club to club.

Being able to match is still the biggest benefit however.

Spot on and it stops the haves and have nots argument abit.

 

[jdstorm]

Forget a discount clubs should have to pay overs for top 10 picks since we all know these guys slip a few spots lower then they’d go in an open draft

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Forget a discount clubs should have to pay overs for top 10 picks since we all know these guys slip a few spots lower then they’d go in an open draft

Hardly. Nowadays clubs bid aggressively on the academy/father son and academy. I know everyone will point to GWS not bidding on Daicos..but they bid on Darcy. Is that too wrong? Darcy is a dead set gun.

 

[jdstorm]

Hardly. Nowadays clubs bid aggressively on the academy/father son and academy. I know everyone will point to GWS not bidding on Daicos..but they bid on Darcy. Is that too wrong? Darcy is a dead set gun.

Last year Essendon did “good will” trades with Melbourne and St kilda to push the bid for Kako down a few spots.

there’s been a few gun protected players that have slipped as all teams want their own players to slip when it’s their turn.

Just worth closing that loophole

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Last year Essendon did “good will” trades with Melbourne and St kilda to push the bid for Kako down a few spots.

there’s been a few gun protected players that have slipped as all teams want their own players to slip when it’s their turn.

Just worth closing that loophole

Kako was rated where he was bid on, that was a stacked draft. Who should he have been picked ahead of? He's a star but he's a star small forward was near the best top 10 we've had.

I'm fine with taking the discount away, but there doesn't need to be a system where you pay MORE that's ridiculous. Take the discount away and you are paying near fair price.

 

[Tackle Bag]

AFL doesn’t pay for Sydney’s or Brisbane’s academies. Both are funded through sponsors.

AFL contributes funding to both.

 

[jdstorm]

Kako was rated where he was bid on, that was a stacked draft. Who should he have been picked ahead of? He's a star but he's a star small forward was near the best top 10 we've had.

I'm fine with taking the discount away, but there doesn't need to be a system where you pay MORE that's ridiculous. Take the discount away and you are paying near fair price.

Agree to disagree.

I think that assuming the “points” represent fair value for the player, there should be a premium talent surcharge if you will for the real top end picks.

I’d like to see a system where teams will sometimes pass on these guys due to cost. I think it should be be priced at trading up for that type of pick and the benefit is access to the opportunity to do so as clubs rarely trade out of those top spots for a reason

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Agree to disagree.

I think that assuming the “points” represent fair value for the player, there should be a premium talent surcharge if you will for the real top end picks.

I’d like to see a system where teams will sometimes pass on these guys due to cost. I think it should be be priced at trading up for that type of pick and the benefit is access to the opportunity to do so as clubs rarely trade out of those top spots for a reason

You are going watch too much the other way and you know it. Thats just putting an unnecessary handbrake on clubs developing and retention.

All for the discount going the ability to match is your discount. This is on the provision that some advantages Melbourne sides get are addressed

 

[jdstorm]

You are going watch too much the other way and you know it. Thats just putting an unnecessary handbrake on clubs developing and retention.

All for the discount going the ability to match is your discount. This is on the provision that some advantages Melbourne sides get are addressed

If the price is too high clubs just don’t match and use their allocated picks.

I think this just makes the cost higher and means teams will potentially not match pushing these players back into the open pool (or trading out players to get them) which further equalises the comp

 

[LukeParkerno1]

If the price is too high clubs just don’t match and use their allocated picks.

I think this just makes the cost higher and means teams will potentially not match pushing these players back into the open pool (or trading out players to get them) which further equalises the comp

Then you need to lose some of the advantages YOUR way. You are wanting Northern clubs to give up their minor advantage whilst not addressing the ones Victorian clubs get, start with the travel, start with games at the MCG, not to mention a home decider if you make it. I mean Collingwood have how many games at home again?

Removing the discount is fine, I've been for this from day dot. The ability to match is the discount.

 

[jdstorm]

Then you need to lose some of the advantages YOUR way. You are wanting Northern clubs to give up their minor advantage whilst not addressing the ones Victorian clubs get, start with the travel, start with games at the MCG, not to mention a home decider if you make it. I mean Collingwood have how many games at home again?

Removing the discount is fine, I've been for this from day dot. The ability to match is the discount.

Those “advantages” are really seperate to the integrity of talent distribution/equalisation which is what the draft/salary cap/Academy’s seek to address.

As someone not from Victoria I personally don’t care about any of those things. Seems irrelevant to the particular topic and just clubs trying to leverage their situation to their advantage by having a sook as opposed to coming up with a genuinely fair system.

Also the current system is far from a Minor. Winning a flag and then getting 2 no 1 picks in 2 years for 3rd round picks plus a few extra FRPs is beyond cooked

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Those “advantages” are really seperate to the integrity of talent distribution/equalisation which is what the draft/salary cap/Academy’s seek to address.

As someone not from Victoria I personally don’t care about any of those things. Seems irrelevant to the particular topic and just clubs trying to leverage their situation to their advantage by having a sook as opposed to coming up with a genuinely fair system.

Also the current system is far from a Minor. Winning a flag and then getting 2 no 1 picks in 2 years for 3rd round picks plus a few extra FRPs is beyond cooked

It’s very relevant every Victorian fan wants to keep every single advantage whist removing ones outside of Victoria. You want to remove the advantages you have to give some up be fair for goodness sakes. Here is an idea how about a minimum MCG games for every club and that means EVERY club. If that means your Collingwood has to play a home game away from the G so be it.

The new system in this year literally stops the Brisbane and GC situations so they have addressed this. I’d have no issue going a bit further and removing discounts but across the board F/S included.

 

[jdstorm]

It’s very relevant every Victorian fan wants to keep every single advantage whist removing ones outside of Victoria. You want to remove the advantages you have to give some up be fair for goodness sakes. Here is an idea how about a minimum MCG games for every club and that means EVERY club. If that means your Collingwood has to play a home game away from the G so be it.

The new system in this year literally stops the Brisbane and GC situations so they have addressed this. I’d have no issue going a bit further and removing discounts but across the board F/S included.

Have the GF in Perth or Brisbane’s new stadium for all I care.

Flights/travel an issue. AFL should just buy a plane and everyone gets first class level leg room. Problem solved. It’s max 3 hours. Takes over an hour to get from Bondi to North Sydney Oval in traffic via bus yet you wouldn’t call that an unfair travel amount if a game had to be rescheduled there.


You can still match a no1 pick bid with a few second rounders which wouldnt get you close via the trade market.

you can still double dip by trading above the bid match (allowed Bulldogs to get Sanders as well as their FS)

Teams get the points for these picks by back trading their own FRPs into these points in a comical way.

It’s a blatantly broken system that needs fixing. You want a No1 pick and you finish top 4 then you better be trading one of the 10 best players on your team

Anyway we disagree on this. All good

 

[sr36]

They do get bigger distributions than most, but they still have a long way to go before they catch up to Melbourne, WB, NM and StK whose prop-up funding has gone on for decades and shows no signs of abating. At least in the future, the Northern cubs MAY become self-sustaining, something those 4 Vic-based clubs haven't achieved in a hundred years.

You may want to look this up. It's just plain wrong.

Melb and WB are on the same distribution bracket as Port and Sydney - which tends to be the league average distribution. Brisbane the same as Stk - slightly above league average, North get a little bit more than that and GC and GWS get way above that.