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

[Blackas87]

Why is this better? It doesn’t really do anything about the issue of paying a fair price.

Top 4 clubs still acquire the talent and might lose pick 18 in future.

They also might lose pick 1 if they drop down. No club stays top 4 forever.

Richmond won 3 premierships in 4 years (2017-2020)haven’t been in the top 4 since and are now cemented in the bottom 4.

West Coast won a flag in 2018. Haven’t played finals now for 5 years, bottom 4 for 4 years.

Richmond won 3 premierships in 4 years, haven’t been in the top 4 since and

 

[Elixuh]

They weren’t live picks. They slid due to clubs not bidding using pick 1s.

If you can’t remove your bias from the conversation, why are you having it?

If you had to pay fair price you likely get 1 not both and not all 4 including Marshall + Fletcher. You also likely lose key pieces to your 2024 flag side.

There would be very little fans across the AFL who actually want the father son gone or even academies.

People want fair price to acquire. A pick within 5 is the fairest method. A players draft band is pretty accurate in the first round over a month out from the draft.

Gives an opinion based as fact around clubs taking the Ashcrofts with 1s and then says bias. Noice.

GWS confirmed that they wanted a KPP so Ashcroft was never going at 1.

Levi at 5 and claiming he was 1, I won't dignify with a response.

FS has been in place forever, why is it only suddenly a discussion - do you think?

 

[stavro#4]

It's impractical to have to get a selection within 5, if it's 18 then I'll be more onboard but everyone whinged when that was basically the system the first time round. They are over complicating a very simple thing which is so typical of the AFL.

They also might lose pick 1 if they drop down. No club stays top 4 forever.

Richmond won 3 premierships in 4 years (2017-2020)haven’t been in the top 4 since and are now cemented in the bottom 4.

West Coast won a flag in 2018. Haven’t played finals now for 5 years, bottom 4 for 4 years.

Richmond won 3 premierships in 4 years, haven’t been in the top 4 since and

The problem statement is cost to acquire and access to talent.

The FRP method does nothing to equalise either issue. It only equalises the double dipping loophole clubs have taken advantage of.

It doesn’t release more talent back to the open draft. It doesn’t provide a fairer cost to acquire. It just slides picks back and creates deficits.

 

[stavro#4]

Gives an opinion based as fact around clubs taking the Ashcrofts with 1s and then says bias. Noice.

GWS confirmed that they wanted a KPP so Ashcroft was never going at 1.

Levi at 5 and claiming he was 1, I won't dignify with a response.

FS has been in place forever, why is it only suddenly a discussion - do you think?

North had pick 1 and traded it due to the JHF trade. It likely changes everything if the best kid in the draft is open to them and that then impacts the JHF trade.

The issue now compared to 20 years ago, is that there are players who are now not in the open draft pool and they can only be taken by say Brisbane via academy - which never existed in the mid 2000s. Also during this period you had the priority pick rule to help rebuild clubs quicker. Which no longer exists.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The problem statement is cost to acquire and access to talent.

The FRP method does nothing to equalise either issue. It only equalises the double dipping loophole clubs have taken advantage of.

It doesn’t release more talent back to the open draft. It doesn’t provide a fairer cost to acquire. It just slides picks back and creates deficits.

Give you a hint no system will be 'fair' despite the whinging from the rooftops. I do like how the clubs whinging the most haven't looked internally, perhaps not blowing first rounders would be a start. I don't know what everyone wants, complete fairness will never happen, not so long as Vic clubs won't give up any of their advantages, don't pretend there aren't advantages, even for a smaller Vic club. Luckily we have a leader now that will try his best to be the fairest for everyone. May not even change it if it works well this year

 

[stavro#4]

Give you a hint no system will be 'fair' despite the whinging from the rooftops. I do like how the clubs whinging the most haven't looked internally, perhaps not blowing first rounders would be a start. I don't know what everyone wants, complete fairness will never happen, not so long as Vic clubs won't give up any of their advantages, don't pretend there aren't advantages, even for a smaller Vic club. Luckily we have a leader now that will try his best to be the fairest for everyone. May not even change it if it works well this year

What exactly is not fair about the 5 pick rule?

 

[Elixuh]

North had pick 1 and traded it due to the JHF trade. It likely changes everything if the best kid in the draft is open to them and that then impacts the JHF trade.

The issue now compared to 20 years ago, is that there are players who are now not in the open draft pool and they can only be taken by say Brisbane via academy - which never existed in the mid 2000s. Also during this period you had the priority pick rule to help rebuild clubs quicker. Which no longer exists.

Yeah, cool so just fantasy land stuff as arguments for your position.

But what if Will was a spud and went pick 40? It likely changes everything. See I can do that too!

So only academies are the issue and not father-son, now? You need to pick a lane.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

What exactly is not fair about the 5 pick rule?

It is impossible, and clubs won't do it (you try trading up to lets say pick 7 this year, impossible), make it 18 and it's fine, or here is an idea can we wait to see this year in actual practice and then we can slightly alter it if need be

 

[stavro#4]

Yeah, cool so just fantasy land stuff as arguments for your position.

But what if Will was a spud and went pick 40? It likely changes everything. See I can do that too!

So only academies are the issue and not father-son, now? You need to pick a lane.

You seemingly aren’t great at understanding the impacts these decision make to clubs trading and list management.

Irrelevant if Will is a spud.

He was the best rated kid in that draft. North would have loved him at pick 1.

Father son and academies have both been the issue. The saints have lobbied again both and it seems based on Cal Twomeys news on Friday that both will be impacted.

My argument to the fix is to allow for both but ensure a pick within 5 of the bid is required to match as opposed to what the AFL has lobbied which looks like a blanket ban in the top 5/10/entire first round.

 

[stavro#4]

It is impossible, and clubs won't do it (you try trading up to lets say pick 7 this year, impossible), make it 18 and it's fine, or here is an idea can we wait to see this year in actual practice and then we can slightly alter it if need be

How is it impossible? Twomey predicts the top 10+ picks every year. You think clubs can’t prepare themselves?

That’s part of paying fair, if you need to get pick 5 - PAY UP FOR IT.

And you can’t wait for this draft to occur. Because it impacts changes another 12 months which impacts other clubs next time as opposed to potentially your own. There is never going to be a good time to make changes. So they should be made asap.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

How is it impossible? Twomey predicts the top 10+ picks every year. You think clubs can’t prepare themselves?

That’s part of paying fair, if you need to get pick 5 - PAY UP FOR IT.

And you can’t wait for this draft to occur. Because it impacts changes another 12 months which impacts other clubs next time as opposed to potentially your own. There is never going to be a good time to make changes. So they should be made asap.

There is paying up for it, there is also paying TWICE what it's worth and that's at best.

I assume you are onboard with cutting back the Melbourne advantages right? Okay lets start with the Grand Final? You fine with hosting at the highest seed's ground? you fine with EQUAL travel for every side? You want to take away from the academies but not once have you been dialling back these advantages, and that's without even talking about F/A which is easier for big Melb sides. The farce with the F/A is worse than the academy, F/S and NGA. Fix that first!

 

[mpal6]

It's impractical to have to get a selection within 5, if it's 18 then I'll be more onboard but everyone whinged when that was basically the system the first time round. They are over complicating a very simple thing which is so typical of the AFL.

I prefer mine to all these number crunching to be honest.

You match only a single first round academy/NGA in a year. Also, as part of matching, you are giving up rights to match any first round father/son academy nga in the following year. Clubs can still keep their natural or traded first round pick in the following year and go ahead select from open draft pool in the year they cant match. If an academy player naturally fall to their pick and they select him in open pool - that's fine too.

Now youre forcing clubs to make a choice which year they want to match first round academy or NGA.

This is only for first round bid match - no limit from second round onwards.

 

[Blackas87]

It’s not just about a club staying up.

It’s about the bottom clubs not getting access to the adequate talent. Which is the issue with the mentioned pick slide proposal.

It’s fair to all clubs if you have to acquire a pick within 5. Because it ensures a value is paid to acquire the talent and if not possible - then that player is eligible to be drafted by the bottom clubs.

Problem with having a pick within 5 means a club with a pick within 5 must be willing to trade it out for what you’ve got.

It’s a hard ask. The academies were set up to have more local talent playing at club close to their homes to avoid player exodus due to go home factor.

You’re expecting Gold Coast to trade with one of only 5 clubs that may not be willing to trade their pick when we don’t even know where the player will have a bid placed on, for whatever Gold Coast are willing to give up that those 5 clubs aren’t interested in.

This is a tall ask.

 

[mpal6]

There is paying up for it, there is also paying TWICE what it's worth and that's at best.

I assume you are onboard with cutting back the Melbourne advantages right? Okay lets start with the Grand Final? You fine with hosting at the highest seed's ground? you fine with EQUAL travel for every side? You want to take away from the academies but not once have you been dialling back these advantages, and that's without even talking about F/A which is easier for big Melb sides. The farce with the F/A is worse than the academy, F/S and NGA. Fix that first!

Exactly. Bolded bit gives me the shits with these proposals the most.

Just because you have a privilege to match, that doesn't mean its worth twice the pick value. Its almost like a proven players trade worth and these posters are calling it as fair value.

 

[Blackas87]

The problem statement is cost to acquire and access to talent.

The FRP method does nothing to equalise either issue. It only equalises the double dipping loophole clubs have taken advantage of.

It doesn’t release more talent back to the open draft. It doesn’t provide a fairer cost to acquire. It just slides picks back and creates deficits.

But moving back in following drafts means you are missing out on higher talent, leaving more talent to other clubs.

 

[Elixuh]

You seemingly aren’t great at understanding the impacts these decision make to clubs trading and list management.

Irrelevant if Will is a spud.

He was the best rated kid in that draft. North would have loved him at pick 1.

Father son and academies have both been the issue. The saints have lobbied again both and it seems based on Cal Twomeys news on Friday that both will be impacted.

My argument to the fix is to allow for both but ensure a pick within 5 of the bid is required to match as opposed to what the AFL has lobbied which looks like a blanket ban in the top 5/10/entire first round.

You're concocting rationale's and fantasy land narratives about the motivations of clubs with no evidence to back up your assertions and asking us to accept these things as fact (lol). Just a long list of 'what ifs' as though that is a credible way to make an argument.

They manufactured an extra first round pick. I'd hazard a guess and say North thought it was a wise list decision at the time. Especially as it allowed them to get 2 of 3 guys they rated highly as opposed to one. That is all from doing a quick 60 second google search.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I prefer mine to all these number crunching to be honest.

You match only a single first round academy/NGA in a year. Also, as part of matching, you are giving up rights to match any first round father/son academy nga in the following year. Clubs can still keep their natural or traded first round pick in the following year and go ahead select from open draft pool in the year they cant match. If an academy player naturally fall to their pick and they select him in open pool - that's fine too.

Now youre forcing clubs to make a choice which year they want to match first round academy or NGA.

This is only for first round bid match - no limit from second round onwards.

Only change I'd make to yours is the club gets to choose which year of a first round they can't match within a 3 year period. So for instance lets use mine okay we match Max King okay, we are then asked which year 2026-2028 do we wish to forfeit our first round selection.

 

[stavro#4]

You're concocting rationale's and fantasy land narratives about the motivations of clubs with no evidence to back up your assertions and asking us to accept these things as fact (lol). Just a long list of 'what ifs' as though that is a credible way to make an argument.

They manufactured an extra first round pick. I'd hazard a guess and say North thought it was a wise list decision at the time. Especially as it allowed them to get 2 of 3 guys they rated highly as opposed to one. That is all from doing a quick 60 second google search.

They manufactured an extra first round pick because there wasn’t a clear #1 pick outside of Ashcroft…. Who they bid on at pick 2

But moving back in following drafts means you are missing out on higher talent, leaving more talent to other clubs.

Unless you have another first round pick, say via compo and you can push that back.

Which is what you said.

So fair value is never paid. You just create a deficit that you can keep sliding back until you get to a draft and decided you have no interest (let’s say this year) and clear your deficit.

It doesn’t allow top talent back to struggling clubs and it doesn’t equate to say Brisbane giving up anything significant

First pick can move up by matching, 2nd pick can move back making up the difference

 

[mpal6]

Only change I'd make to yours is the club gets to choose which year of a first round they can't match within a 3 year period. So for instance lets use mine okay we match Max King okay, we are then asked which year 2026-2028 do we wish to forfeit our first round selection.

That's fair too. You are conceding a future year where prospects are unclear. Could be good, could be bust so its a fair lottery at that point.

 

[mpal6]

Problem with having a pick within 5 means a club with a pick within 5 must be willing to trade it out for what you’ve got.

It’s a hard ask. The academies were set up to have more local talent playing at club close to their homes to avoid player exodus due to go home factor.

You’re expecting Gold Coast to trade with one of only 5 clubs that may not be willing to trade their pick when we don’t even know where the player will have a bid placed on, for whatever Gold Coast are willing to give up that those 5 clubs aren’t interested in.

This is a tall ask.

It's not a hard ask, it's a ask setup to fail from the get go. Who in their right mind won't ask for a ransom from a club who are desperately looking for a pick within 5 of where the bid is made. Everyone holding those 5 picks will of course !!

9/10 times it'll fail to the point clubs will give up. but that's what the poster wants anyway.

 

[mpal6]

You seemingly aren’t great at understanding the impacts these decision make to clubs trading and list management.

Irrelevant if Will is a spud.

He was the best rated kid in that draft. North would have loved him at pick 1.

Father son and academies have both been the issue. The saints have lobbied again both and it seems based on Cal Twomeys news on Friday that both will be impacted.

My argument to the fix is to allow for both but ensure a pick within 5 of the bid is required to match as opposed to what the AFL has lobbied which looks like a blanket ban in the top 5/10/entire first round.

That's a BS argument - whether or not Will turns out good / spud totally matters coz you're asking the club to mortgage their future and more just for the privilege of matching a bid for a player.

You know what, I hope Saints decimate father son as part of this exercise. It'll be great to watch this one go and then kids of Montagna, Riewoldt etc pop up as good prospects. The cries then will be deafening

 

[stavro#4]

It's not a hard ask, it's a ask setup to fail from the get go. Who in their right mind won't ask for a ransom from a club who are desperately looking for a pick within 5 of where the bid is made. Everyone holding those 5 picks will of course !!

9/10 times it'll fail to the point clubs will give up. but that's what the poster wants anyway.

No, I want fair value paid.

All other alternatives very much avoid this crucial point.

Not a single fan of an academy or beneficiary of father sons wants the Rort to stop.

Which is why it will be so much worse for you if the AFLs blanket approach occurs.

 

[stavro#4]

That's a BS argument - whether or not Will turns out good / spud totally matters coz you're asking the club to mortgage their future and more just for the privilege of matching a bid for a player.

You know what, I hope Saints decimate father son as part of this exercise. It'll be great to watch this one go and then kids of Montagna, Riewoldt etc pop up as good prospects. The cries then will be deafening

Mortgaging your future is exactly what you would be doing to acquire the pick to land will.

That’s entirely the point of this discussion.

Ensuring fair value is paid by clubs acquiring father sons and academies.

Pick 18 or multiple random picks based on DVI isn’t the fix.

Hence why the afl is now considering a black et approach to the first 5/10/entire first round.

 

[mpal6]

No, I want fair value paid.

All other alternatives very much avoid this crucial point.

Not a single fan of an academy or beneficiary of father sons wants the Rort to stop.

Which is why it will be so much worse for you if the AFLs blanket approach occurs.

What's fair value anyway? what's fair value if you happen to take Tom McCartin mortgaging 2 draft values worth of points and then he goes bust with concussions.

There is fair value and there is outrageous value which is what most of them are suggesting here. Oh take 2 years worth of firsts, trade your players, pillage your list to get within 5 picks - it's just looney town ideas for a brand new draft prospect who may or may not be successful in the end. He could be Daicos, Ashcroft or he could be Jack Watts.

 

[mpal6]

Mortgaging your future is exactly what you would be doing to acquire the pick to land will.

That’s entirely the point of this discussion.

Ensuring fair value is paid by clubs acquiring father sons and academies.

Pick 18 or multiple random picks based on DVI isn’t the fix.

Hence why the afl is now considering a black et approach to the first 5/10/entire first round.

No it's not. It's the same father son system which every single club has benefited from. We struck gold 3/3 in recent years in Ashrcrofts, Fletcher after 20 years of nothing prior to that and you want a knee jerk change.

I wonder why you didn't make any noise when Daicoses, Darcy, Libba, Cloke etc where all getting funneled through to Vic clubs. Why is this such a big issue now I wonder.