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

[JTTheKing]

Ryan Daniels came up with an interesting point regarding northern academies, let them take as many as they want but they can't go into the first 2 rounds of the open draft. Not sure i agree with it but different idea.

Yep, the easiest solution seems to be to limit how many first rounders you can take in the one year if you have an academy or father son.

It stinks this year that the Suns will make the finals and have access to potentially two top ten picks (one maybe being the best player in the draft) when you’ve got teams like the Eagles and Roos who have just been terrible for seasons on end now.

 

[Elixuh]

Well I’m not sure what else you propose.

Managers and their dirty tricks won’t go away.

They’ve been empowered far too much.

I’d be willing to guess half the players wouldn’t just pack up and leave at the first opportunity.

It’s a completely different reality when you get drafted and actually have to go there versus throwaway lines in interviews with clubs about how you won’t cope with moving.

It will never be perfect but nothing about the draft is. Teams are always missing on picks for all sorts of reasons.

Not every club drafting high is stuck in a perpetual cycle of going nowhere and so dependent on one pick being the be all and end all.

That’s the point. All these clubs like St Kilda ask for an ‘equal’ draft but it’s not equal for some teams under what they propose.

 

[Lore]

Yep, the easiest solution seems to be to limit how many first rounders you can take in the one year if you have an academy or father son.

It stinks this year that the Suns will make the finals and have access to potentially two top ten picks (one maybe being the best player in the draft) when you’ve got teams like the Eagles and Roos who have just been terrible for seasons on end now.

Why stop them taking 5+ first round picks if they want to? They'll have to trade a couple of great players to get those picks, but I don't see how that's an issue.

 

[mpal6]

Clubs should show more balls and draft some of these sooks.

Some of them are mummy’s boys plain and simply that need a bit of a reality check and an interstate move might give them that.

if they’re an elite talent and a few years at the club isn’t enough to make them change their mind, at least you’ll get some sort of return for them (like North with JHF). If I was one of those clubs I’d prefer that to drafted a lesser talent.

They’ve already got managers advising them on all the dirty tricks to get where they want. I’d be willing to bet half the time it’s the manager helping them concoct a bullshit story.

And If the players leave later - would the club who showed balls and took the risk be credited back with more priority pick? To what end does that benefit the club anyway - getting another 18 year old who may or may not stick around again perpetuating a never ending rebuild cycle.

 

[JTTheKing]

And If the players leave later - would the club who showed balls and took the risk be credited back with more priority pick? To what end does that benefit the club anyway - getting another 18 year old who may or may not stick around again perpetuating a never ending rebuild cycle.

I mean that’s just part and parcel of the draft.

High picks flop for all sorts of reasons every season.

I don’t think one player leaving should make or break a rebuild.

If my team is on the bottom I don’t want them passing up on some high talent if they’re that much better than the rest available because of potential flight risk.

I know Carlton is in Melbourne and therefore footy bubble blah blah. But we drafted Cripps who was a WA boy and he began his career playing on some truly awful teams. Yet he stayed because we drafted a couple of other WA boys and despite how shit we were we put in a fair bit of time into making him feel at home.

I feel like some clubs just can’t be bothered.

 

[briztoon]

It's an inequality that doesn't count as it's not a vic centric problem. Interstate clubs are losing players and Vic teams are gaining them - that's good isn't it. Strong vic clubs are good for footy is the line that gets trotted out whenever there is a benefit that needs to be swept under the carpet.

But but but this whole jumping the draft position to get players, omg sky's falling. Once you solve this problem there'll be world peace and AFL will become perfect for everyone.

Was legit the discussion on SEN Vic on Friday morning as I was driving to work. Were talking about Carlton and Essendon specifically, and saying it takes to long to rebuild through the draft. No discussion what so ever that two incompetent club legends were in charge of both clubs during their initial rebuilding period a decade ago.

 

[VDS66]

I’m yet to hear a solution to interstate clubs - especially those in NSW and Qld - not being able to draft best available talent most drafts (I’d say it’s every draft but I obviously don’t know that for certain) because prospects make it clear they don’t want to go interstate.

Part of the many reasons for the academies is to bridge that inequality.

It's simple. Keep the academies but pay fair market value.

Explain how GCS can trade out Bowes to clear his wages, and throw in pick 7, and then use a bunch of cheap picks to land a top prospect?

The problem with the whole go home or draft local factor is that a Vic club that drafts a local kid in the first round, has to pay with a first. That's it.

Northern clubs just need points to match. If Lombard was a top 10 then you pay with a top 10.

This year will expose what a farce it is. The AFL know it, hence the pre-emptive stirke because of the oncoming blowback.

 

[briztoon]

Clubs should show more balls and draft some of these sooks.

Some of them are mummy’s boys plain and simply that need a bit of a reality check and an interstate move might give them that.

if they’re an elite talent and a few years at the club isn’t enough to make them change their mind, at least you’ll get some sort of return for them (like North with JHF). If I was one of those clubs I’d prefer that to drafted a lesser talent.

Do you actually know what North traded out and received back in the JHF trade.

North traded out JHF (2021 pick 1) + their 2022 pick 1 + a 2023 future third round pick.

They got back, 2022 pick 2 + 2022 pick 3 + 2023 future first round pick tied to Port (ended up being pick 15).

Can make an arguement that North lost out in that trade, purely on picks in and out.

They’ve already got managers advising them on all the dirty tricks to get where they want. I’d be willing to bet half the time it’s the manager helping them concoct a bullshit story.

 

[Elixuh]

It's simple. Keep the academies but pay fair market value.

Explain how GCS can trade out Bowes to clear his wages, and throw in pick 7, and then use a bunch of cheap picks to land a top prospect?

The problem with the whole go home or draft local factor is that a Vic club that drafts a local kid in the first round, has to pay with a first. That's it.

Northern clubs just need points to match. If Lombard was a top 10 then you pay with a top 10.

This year will expose what a farce it is. The AFL know it, hence the pre-emptive stirke because of the oncoming blowback.

1. Just make the points system fairer. I don't think anyone is arguing it shouldn't be made fairer.
2. GCS were an interesting case study of the go home factor. They ruined their cap over many years having to massively overpay spuds like Bowes just to minimise hemorrhaging of talent out the door. I can't recall which year - but they finished way down the ladder and had cap troubles. The Lions were doing the same thing pre-2017. Prior to academies basically all of the Lions list year to year was from interstate - its not sustainable.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It's an inequality that doesn't count as it's not a vic centric problem. Interstate clubs are losing players and Vic teams are gaining them - that's good isn't it. Strong vic clubs are good for footy is the line that gets trotted out whenever there is a benefit that needs to be swept under the carpet.

But but but this whole jumping the draft position to get players, omg sky's falling. Once you solve this problem there'll be world peace and AFL will become perfect for everyone.

Yeah, the overall list management landscape really benefits teams like St Kilda. Who just had to pay the best contract in history to a player who probably isn't in the top 20 best players in the league, in order to retain them, after they drafted them.

Just listen to yourself, seriously.

 

[briztoon]

Yep, the easiest solution seems to be to limit how many first rounders you can take in the one year if you have an academy or father son.

The new draft value index, that comes in to effect for the first time this year, already achieves this.

If you are a top 8 team with your own natural picks, it's hard to match a top 5 pick. You certainly aren't matching two first round picks. You won't even have the points to match a top 5 pick plus a second round pick.

However, if you're a team that has just lost a high end player "going home" and have received a good first round pick, you should have every chance to match on multiple first round academy or father sons kids.

It stinks this year that the Suns will make the finals and have access to potentially two top ten picks

Hang about, the Suns have never made finals before, and you're whinging about them making finals, after they have been raided time and time again by Victorian and South Australian clubs for talented players.

The Suns aren't just magically matching those bids though. They have 3 first round picks in this years draft.

One of those picks came from losing Jack Lukosius, a former pick 2 in 2018, back to South Australia. And that's after loosing former 2018 pick 3 Izak Rankine back to South Australia the year before.

The Suns also traded 2024 pick 13 to Collingwood, for their 2025 first round pick. That pick 13 they got off the Western Bulldogs in the 2023 draft, by trading a 2023 first round pick to the Bulldogs for their 2024 first round pick.

So the Suns were planning 2 years ago to push first round picks in to this draft, to help "pay" for their academy kids.
So the Suns have prioritised drafting their own academy kids years in advance, instead of using first round picks they have had on other interstate kids, who might up and leave 3 to 5 years later.

(one maybe being the best player in the draft) when you’ve got teams like the Eagles and Roos who have just been terrible for seasons on end now.

The Eagles and Roos have been terrible for years, because they made repeated poor list management choices (Eagles, go on their board, they admit this) and the Roos, for repeated poor draft choices, because they have drafted mids in the top end of the draft for 10 years in a row.

The Roos also have substandard training facilities which contributes to them being an unattractive club to potential trade targets in a saturated market.

 

[briztoon]

I mean that’s just part and parcel of the draft.

High picks flop for all sorts of reasons every season.

I don’t think one player leaving should make or break a rebuild.

If my team is on the bottom I don’t want them passing up on some high talent if they’re that much better than the rest available because of potential flight risk.

I know Carlton is in Melbourne and therefore footy bubble blah blah. But we drafted Cripps who was a WA boy and he began his career playing on some truly awful teams. Yet he stayed because we drafted a couple of other WA boys and despite how shit we were we put in a fair bit of time into making him feel at home.

I feel like some clubs just can’t be bothered.

Your team hasn't seen 5 kids recently drafted, walk out the door in 1 trade period, and get screwed on all 5 trades. Followed by more players leaving over the next couple of years.

Nor has your club had it's two co-captains walk out on their club, after losing multiple young players to Vic clubs year on year.

Nor have you experienced being screwed over in a trade, because the Vic club won't pay fair trade value, so instead walks the player through the PSD. Oh wait, it was your sh!t faced club that did that.

Seriously, you have no ****ing idea what it's like to go through these experiences.

 

[Elixuh]

Yeah, the overall list management landscape really benefits teams like St Kilda. Who just had to pay the best contract in history to a player who probably isn't in the top 20 best players in the league, in order to retain them, after they drafted them.

Just listen to yourself, seriously.

St Kilda and North have their own issues as they are the smallest clubs in a saturated market and are basically irrelevant. I don’t say that as a put down but that’s the reality.

The bigger clubs in Melbourne have too many advantages.

That is the Saints biggest issue by daylight.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

St Kilda and North have their own issues as they are the smallest clubs in a saturated market and are basically irrelevant. I don’t say that as a put down but that’s the reality.

The bigger clubs in Melbourne have too many advantages.

That is the Saints biggest issue by daylight.

Sure, but you can see how it's not exactly appreciated when you bucket those big Victorian teams with North, St Kilda and Dogs who by many measures have the worst of it of anyone in the league, Victorian or otherwise, and fail to exclude them when you attack "the Victorians"

 

[JTTheKing]

Your team hasn't seen 5 kids recently drafted, walk out the door in 1 trade period, and get screwed on all 5 trades. Followed by more players leaving over the next couple of years.

Nor has your club had it's two co-captains walk out on their club, after losing multiple young players to Vic clubs year on year.

Nor have you experienced being screwed over in a trade, because the Vic club won't pay fair trade value, so instead walks the player through the PSD. Oh wait, it was your sh!t faced club that did that.

Seriously, you have no ****ing idea what it's like to go through these experiences.

Tell us how you really feel…

I’m well aware of past exits of players.

A team like Gold Coast for example was a complete joke in terms of how they were run so it’s hardly shocking they continually lost players. Young draftees were just treating their time up there as a few years of relaxation before getting sick of the club amounting to nothing and wanting to win somewhere else. They made it very easy for players to move on.

I’m not saying players will just magically stop leaving if you draft them but I think if clubs are serious about improving they’ll be successful in retaining some of these players.

Not sure what else the solution is. Managers won’t stop with the BS.

 

[JTTheKing]

Do you actually know what North traded out and received back in the JHF trade.

North traded out JHF (2021 pick 1) + their 2022 pick 1 + a 2023 future third round pick.

They got back, 2022 pick 2 + 2022 pick 3 + 2023 future first round pick tied to Port (ended up being pick 15).

Can make an arguement that North lost out in that trade, purely on picks in and out.

Yes I am well aware

where did I ever say they won out?

Trade will work out pretty well for them if Sheezel continues on the path he is and Wardlaw turns into a player.

 

[ghostbat12]

Your team hasn't seen 5 kids recently drafted, walk out the door in 1 trade period, and get screwed on all 5 trades. Followed by more players leaving over the next couple of years.

Nor has your club had it's two co-captains walk out on their club, after losing multiple young players to Vic clubs year on year.

Nor have you experienced being screwed over in a trade, because the Vic club won't pay fair trade value, so instead walks the player through the PSD. Oh wait, it was your sh!t faced club that did that.

Seriously, you have no ****ing idea what it's like to go through these experiences.

Elliot yeo was all Brisbane. He confirmed on a podcast it was an arguement over $50k and had Brisbane given it to him, he would have stayed.

Brisbane didn’t rate him enough. To be fair we didn’t think he would be that good either.

 

[briztoon]

It's simple. Keep the academies but pay fair market value.

Explain how GCS can trade out Bowes to clear his wages, and throw in pick 7, and then use a bunch of cheap picks to land a top prospect?

Do you even do 5 minutes of research before asking a dumb @rse question?

First of all Gold Coast didn't have an academy kid in the Jack Bowes salary dump draft.

They traded Bowes and their natural pick 7, for a future 2023 draft pick.

Secondly, Izak Rankine walked out on GC that draft and they got pick 5 and a couple of future 3rd and 4th round picks in the trade with Adelaide, for the 2023 draft when they had a bunch of academy kids.

They also traded their second round pick and the Lions second round pick (which they held from a previous trade) for a two future second round picks, to prioritise drafting academy kids who won't walk out on them.

They traded another player to Fremantle for another future pick.

They took 1 player in the 2022 draft (Bailey Humphrey)(upgraded 2 rookies to their senior list to meat the AFL's requirement of 3 players in the draft), dumped the Bowes salary, and traded every other pick they held in to 2023.

The problem with the whole go home or draft local factor is that a Vic club that drafts a local kid in the first round, has to pay with a first. That's it.

Do you honestly believe Northern clubs want to lose interstate players?

Gold Coast would have preferred to keep Rankine and Lukosius. Would have preferred to keep Steven May and Tom Lynch. Would have preferred to keep Jack Scrimshaw (and for the kid to have put in some effort, and not have his dad whinging every week on their BigFooty team board).

Northern clubs just need points to match. If Lombard was a top 10 then you pay with a top 10.

Where do those multiple second and third round picks to match a top 10 bid come from?

Either a team is trading out a decent player, or a number of players for picks/points, or they are trading out a first round pick for a points upgrade.

Either way, another team or teams are benefitting from these trades as well by getting players or decent picks in the draft to improve their list.

This year will expose what a farce it is. The AFL know it, hence the pre-emptive stirke because of the oncoming blowback.

 

[txbyhull]

Had a skim of the thread

Compo picks are screwing up the draft more than exclusive players. This season we will potentially see 3 top 10 picks created out of thin air (WCE, Essendon, Carlton) which is a huge disadvantage for every other team. They should go. Clubs will adjust and trade players a year early if they remain unsigned.

Just give every club an academy with a salary cap to equalise things (and some form of Quota system to incentive players from diverse backgrounds) will increase the overall talent/skill of the comp and is inherently fair. Far better option then outsourcing majority of talent development to Vic private schools

No priority picks for Being terrible for a prolonged period. Just fire your spud of a list manager. Bad young teams are cheap just throw money at the right vets

Something you’ll only ever read from a VIC club who has 10x as many players to choose from as non-VIC

 

[briztoon]

Yeah, the overall list management landscape really benefits teams like St Kilda. Who just had to pay the best contract in history to a player who probably isn't in the top 20 best players in the league, in order to retain them, after they drafted them.

Just listen to yourself, seriously.

St Kilda suffer from being in a saturated market place, where they are small name club that can't compete with the big name clubs.

They also currently have multiple dodgy and poor list management people in charge of their club.

Saints, North and Melbourne struggle because of the very nature of the AFL. Too many teams in one city, in a league that has expanded to much, instead of moving more of the traditional clubs interstate.

North should have gone to the Gold Coast. St Kilda should have gone to Western Sydney. Melbourne should have been relocated, probably to Tassie.

 

[briztoon]

Sure, but you can see how it's not exactly appreciated when you bucket those big Victorian teams with North, St Kilda and Dogs who by many measures have the worst of it of anyone in the league, Victorian or otherwise, and fail to exclude them when you attack "the Victorians"

5 minutes after Gold Coast drafted Ben King, St Kilda's official media tweeted out about trading for him in two years.

Ports list manager warned Gold Coast not to draft Rankine and Lukosius.

St Kilda's president is on a campaign attacking our academies, instead of fixing the culture at his club, most notably who's in charge of list management, and not addressing the inequalities it faces in it's own market place.

North have repeatedly shot themselves in to foot at the draft, by not actually addressing list needs. Plus North had the opportunity to get out of Melbourne, ala Fitzroy, and address some of it's issues.

It gets a bit hard to distinguish any of the southern clubs from one another, when it appears they're all coming for you.

 

[txbyhull]

Sure, but you can see how it's not exactly appreciated when you bucket those big Victorian teams with North, St Kilda and Dogs who by many measures have the worst of it of anyone in the league, Victorian or otherwise, and fail to exclude them when you attack "the Victorians"

Every vic team has advantages that non-vic's aren't afforded. Full stop.

 

[briztoon]

Tell us how you really feel…

lol. I don't actually like Gold Coast, but it's f*cking fodder when people whinge about them, while ignoring that their own clubs have shafted them.

We were in the same place to less than a decade ago, and it took the AFL parachuting in our CEO, Head of Football and Coach to sort us out. It's amazing how quickly things can turn around when the right people are in charge at the top.

I’m well aware of past exits of players.

A team like Gold Coast for example was a complete joke in terms of how they were run so it’s hardly shocking they continually lost players. Young draftees were just treating their time up there as a few years of relaxation before getting sick of the club amounting to nothing and wanting to win somewhere else. They made it very easy for players to move on.

A lot of that is on the AFL, not setting them up properly to start with. No club base, just demountable work site offices and port -a-loos, no gym, etc.

It was literally here's your license, good luck. When kids coming from the Vic private schools had better resources, you know the AFL half @rsed it.

I’m not saying players will just magically stop leaving if you draft them but I think if clubs are serious about improving they’ll be successful in retaining some of these players.

Not sure what else the solution is. Managers won’t stop with the BS.

The AFL actually stepping in and making the hard decisions to straighten the whole competition out.

I don't actually believe in academies or father sons, but the whole competition if full of inequalities that disadvantage almost every club, while benefitting the big 6 Victorian clubs, so in such a competition, I'll take every advantage my club can get. The only regret I currently have, is that my club doesn't prioritise it's academy to the same level that Gold Coast and Sydney do.

 

[briztoon]

Elliot yeo was all Brisbane. He confirmed on a podcast it was an arguement over $50k and had Brisbane given it to him, he would have stayed.

Brisbane didn’t rate him enough. To be fair we didn’t think he would be that good either.

I'm well aware the Go Home 5 were on us. For various reasons.

Just like most of St Kilda's issues are internal and Vic based.

Norths are list management based, and internal (different from Saints).

West Coasts are self inflicted list management decisions and then draft based on Vic mummies boys.

 

[txbyhull]

I'm well aware the Go Home 5 were on us. For various reasons.

Just like most of St Kilda's issues are internal and Vic based.

Norths are list management based, and internal (different from Saints).

West Coasts are self inflicted list management decisions and then draft based on Vic mummies boys.

My favourite self inflictions; a generational injury list and multiple medical retirements.