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

[hammer180]

I could be wrong here but wouldn't surprise me if last yr when they had their meeting about these rules, this was probably brought up.
Would have given teams 3 drafts to prepare for this as well.

 

[jumperfan]

Can I get a vibe check on which clubs are happy about the changes?

Collingwood
Brisbane
St Kilda
Freo for some reason

Geelong apparently
I would assume West Coast

 

[Mat Mann]

The new DVI does that anyway… that was the whole point of the changes they announced last year

I know it hasn't been road tested yet, but the new DVI doesn't really stop the rort, clubs are still able to sell high, buy low, multiple times, because the points system only applies to some clubs. Clubs will always want higher picks, will always be willing to buy higher picks. There is no way any team can bundle picks together ( ie. 2 2nds equals pick 16) and jump the pick order, so why do we allow it to happen with a points system?

The whole premise of a points system is counter to the pick-based system, who in their right mind is trading a top 5 pick for 4 x 30-something picks?

Then we have a discount ( 20% down to 10%), Who in buggery thought a discount for inventing picks was worthy of any discount at all? Fair would be adding a 20% loading to the points, not a discount.

Now I'm not against the current systems, but a fairer price has to be paid.

Can we limit the number of picks allowed to be used to say 2 picks instead of unlimited, a top 5 pick becomes a late 1st and early 2nd, a hell of a lot better than 3/4 picks in the 30's, and stop the 1st round being 30 picks long. Stop say GCS taking 3 kids in the top 15 with mortgaging a prior of preceding draft. As it stands, they will have taken 7 1st round kids in 4 years, without having to trade players of value or compromise future drafts, that's obscene by anyone's language.

WB gave up 3 1st round picks to trade for a pick 5/6 (Sanders), GCS have done it in 4 consecutive drafts.

The AFL being the AFL, can't make a decision based on competition fairness without being corrupted by self-interest or bias

 

[stfan]

So there will potentially be a bunch of Horne-Francis like situations where players will be pushing for trades after a year.

Evidently the romance of FS only applies to FS where the F played 100 games.

There are many FSs whose father did not make the 100 game hurdle playing for AFL Clubs. Pretty much all tend to stay with the club that recruited them if they are good enough to keep playing.

 

[Bostonian]

Evidently the romance of FS only applies to FS where the F played 100 games.

There are many FSs whose father did not make the 100 game hurdle playing for AFL Clubs. Pretty much all tend to stay with the club that recruited them if they are good enough to keep playing.

It is evident.

Those kids growing up knowing it basically guarantees them that opportunity to play for their fathers club. It's what they aim for.

The others don't grow up with that expectation.

 

[Mat Mann]

Really starting to look like the romance attached to the father-son rule could on its last legs. Out of curiosity, I went back five years to see what the league would look like if first round F/S bids weren't matched and it looked like this:

Sam Darcy - GWS
Nick Daicos - Gold Coast
Will Ashcroft - North Melbourne
Jaspa Fletcher - Bulldogs
Max Michalanney - Sydney
Jordan Croft - Sydney
Will McCabe - North Melbourne
Levi Ashcroft - Melbourne

It would certainly be a very different league if the those players ended up at the clubs that bid on them. Presumably, predicted 2026 number 1 pick Cody Walker will become the first F/S prospect that won't end up at his father's club, despite already making it clear that he wants to go there. Unless Carlton completely tank 2026 and go for the wooden spoon just to secure Walker. Otherwise, he probably ends up at Richmond (he is also NGA eligible for the Tigers), North or West Coast.

That's supposing that the clubs ahead of that actual pick don't take them, clubs seem to overlook bidding in preference of picking their guy at the very top of the draft

Daicos probably goes at pick 1
Levi easily could go at pick 2

 

[hammer180]

Really starting to look like the romance attached to the father-son rule could on its last legs. Out of curiosity, I went back five years to see what the league would look like if first round F/S bids weren't matched and it looked like this:

Not sure it is, if a team wants that player then make the trade to get that pick. Means the team who could have gotten the player will get better compensated.

 

[Lore]

I know it hasn't been road tested yet, but the new DVI doesn't really stop the rort, clubs are still able to sell high, buy low, multiple times, because the points system only applies to some clubs. Clubs will always want higher picks, will always be willing to buy higher picks. There is no way any team can bundle picks together ( ie. 2 2nds equals pick 16) and jump the pick order, so why do we allow it to happen with a points system?

The whole premise of a points system is counter to the pick-based system, who in their right mind is trading a top 5 pick for 4 x 30-something picks?

How does a club get 4x 30-something picks on draft night?

Then we have a discount ( 20% down to 10%), Who in buggery thought a discount for inventing picks was worthy of any discount at all? Fair would be adding a 20% loading to the points, not a discount.

I don’t think we need a discount for father/son, but NGA/academy clubs invest in their players pre-draft and without that investment the player would not be as well-developed on draft night (if they even went in the draft at all), so I don’t see why there shouldn’t be a fair discount on those. Also gives those clubs an incentive to keep inventing players out of thin air instead of trying to lure Vic/SA/WA kids up north and reducing the amount of quality players that the rest of us have to squabble over.

Bid matching doesn’t create picks out of thin air, it just shuffles the existing picks around. Free agency does create new picks, but this thread isn’t about free agency compensation.

Now I'm not against the current systems, but a fairer price has to be paid.

Can we limit the number of picks allowed to be used to say 2 picks instead of unlimited, a top 5 pick becomes a late 1st and early 2nd, a hell of a lot better than 3/4 picks in the 30's, and stop the 1st round being 30 picks long. Stop say GCS taking 3 kids in the top 15 with mortgaging a prior of preceding draft. As it stands, they will have taken 7 1st round kids in 4 years, without having to trade players of value or compromise future drafts, that's obscene by anyone's language.

WB gave up 3 1st round picks to trade for a pick 5/6 (Sanders), GCS have done it in 4 consecutive drafts.

The AFL being the AFL, can't make a decision based on competition fairness without being corrupted by self-interest or bias

You don’t think giving up proven best 22 players to get picks that have actual points value in order to match bids counts as a fair sacrifice?

 

[Hysteria]

Or the player eventually walks for next to nothing if they refuse to resign with the club.

Potentially leading to more players warning other clubs to don't bother bidding on them.

If they chose to leave in the early stages of their career they wouldn't be a free agent. Clubs would have to trade for them.
If they're any good, exposed form at the level and a year or 2 of development would see them be worth more than the initial draft pick they were originally picked with.

 

[txbyhull]

People pretend like FS and Academy and NGA ruin the draft. This year with the new DVI, picks in the first and second rounds will be wiped out when bidding, rather than the 40s and 50s like previously. The first round is almost impossible to be 30+ picks like some people seem to smoke the bs and think it will be. Some picks in the second round depending on the trades will go AHEAD of their natural position. People need to stop freaking out, and so does the AFL. Curve the points to value the first round more and eliminate the discount and you’ll see teams paying fair price immediately. Keep FS, Academies and NGA. If you are that desperate to stop compromising the draft then instead of giving clubs FA compensation picks, give them points to on-trade or bank for the future. Don’t add picks out of thin air.

 

[Lore]

If they're any good, exposed form at the level and a year or 2 of development would see them be worth more than the initial draft pick they were originally picked with.

That’s very rarely the case. It’s more like buying a new car from the dealership, the second you drive it out of the parking lot the value drops.

JHF and Tim Kelly are the only examples of players going home within or immediately following their draft contract where the club got more back than they spent.

The rest only increase in value after several years, peaking the year before they become an free agent, and only then exceeding their draft pick if they were drafted low and they’re either taking home league-wide accolades or happen to be a freakishly talented full grown KPP.

 

[Mat Mann]

How does a club get 4x 30-something picks on draft night?

They do what they do every year.

Let's use Essendon last year, as that's pretty straightforward.

Melbourne Essendon	to Melbourne (from Essendon) pick #9 2025 third round pick (Essendon)	to Essendon (from Melbourne) Pick #28 Pick #40 Pick #46 Pick #54 Pick #65 2025 first round pick (Melbourne)

13	Isaac Kako	Essendon	Calder Cannons	Talent League	Next Generation Academy selection (Iraqi descent), matched bid by Richmond​

PICK 13 - (Richmond bid matched using 33 and 34, gaining 60)

Surely it's not hard to see

Sold out of 1 draft, into the following (in this case, get a better pick (got lucky there), plus extra picks.

You get the player, still get a 1st round pick ( although pushed back a year ) and were able to use those extra picks to do further trades/draft players

I don’t think we need a discount for father/son, but NGA/academy clubs invest in their players pre-draft and without that investment the player would not be as well-developed on draft night (if they even went in the draft at all), so I don’t see why there shouldn’t be a fair discount on those. Also gives those clubs an incentive to keep inventing players out of thin air instead of trying to lure Vic/SA/WA kids up north and reducing the amount of quality players that the rest of us have to squabble over.

Isn't the access enough of a reward?

Bid matching doesn’t create picks out of thin air, it just shuffles the existing picks around. Free agency does create new picks, but this thread isn’t about free agency compensation.

It does, there's only 18 picks in the 1st round, how do we keep seeing close to 30 the last few years?, I'll use the same analogy, you can't hand over 3 picks in the 30's and take a kid at pick 5 if it's purely a draft based on picks. The points system undercuts the pick-based system.

You don’t think giving up proven best 22 players to get picks that have actual points value in order to match bids counts as a fair sacrifice?

it does if anyone has actually done that, but who has? not the Pies, Dogs, Brisbane, GCS, Ess or any other club using the points-based system because the cost isn't high enough for them to need to.

Brisbane has taken 2x Ashcroft's, Fletcher, Marshall and is about to get Anabell(sp), All top-end picks in the last 4 years. Who have they had to sell?

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Acadamy is a scam which needs to go and father a son should stay but with changes.
If a team non-father and son selects a father and son player, the father and son team shoukld be made to give up as many draft picks to match that bid.

 

[bulldogs201616]

As long as its the Northern Academies as well.

 

[txbyhull]

It does, there's only 18 picks in the 1st round, how do we keep seeing close to 30 the last few years?, I'll use the same analogy, you can't hand over 3 picks in the 30's and take a kid at pick 5 if it's purely a draft based on picks. The points system undercuts the pick-based system.

If people's issue is the rebuilding clubs and the top 5 bids, they need not worry anymore about the draft blowing out past 30 in the first round. Gold Coast would barely scrape enough points together off of 7, 12, and 17 alone to get 2 top 5 kids, let alone all the second round picks they would need to accrue in order to use those. I don't mind people having an issue with late first round bidding, because you're right it can be silly, Essendon wouldve used 37, 38, 39, and 45 for Kako at 13 had it been this year, which is still too cheap, however in this upcoming draft Brisbane and Gold Coast are likely to wipe out a quarter of the picks in the first 2 rounds if they match their 3 boys in the top 5.

 

[Mr Q]

I think this is simple to fix. The problem is that clubs are matching with dross picks from the lower ends of the draft.

Here's my proposal: Any points used to match the FS/Academy player (in the first round at least) MUST include a pick at or before the club's natural next pick if no picks had been traded. And you can only use that pick once of course.

So, let's take this year, with these assumptions:
- the ladder now is final
- matches get a 10% discount.
- The clubs can choose which picks they use as long as there's at least one acceptable pick.

• At pick 1 - the Eagles bid on Uwland (GC academy) - so GC need to find 2700 points
• Gold Coast's next natural pick is at 10. They still have that (1276 points), so they have to make up the other 1500 odd any way they want.
• Say now that Richmond bid on Patterson (also GC) at pick 4.
• Gold Coast now have to again match (now before 11). This year they have 6, so they can use that. But if they didn't have that, they'd now have to urgently trade with some other club to get a viable pick. Probably want to do that before draft week you'd think.

The change here is that if a club has potential high bids to match, they're not trading out of the first round, but having to trade in. And that provides some real opportunities for other clubs to game the system as well.

I'm also going to address Free Agency here. The problem with FA is that clubs can just raid and it costs them nothing at draft time (which f***s with equalisation). So instead, we put that into this system too.

• Brisbane put an offer for Oscar Allen
  12

  Oscar Allen

  Age

  26

  Ht

  196cm

  Wt

  96kg

  Pos.

  Fwd

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  9.8

  2star

  K

  6.6

  3star

  HB

  3.2

  3star

  M

  3.8

  4star

  T

  2.4

  4star

  G

  1.1

  4star

  No current season stats available

  D

  8.6

  3star

  K

  5.8

  3star

  HB

  2.8

  3star

  M

  3.8

  4star

  T

  2.0

  4star

  G

  1.2

  4star

  in that nets WC pick 2.
• Brisbane now have to find points to match pick 2 with a discount and include their next natural pick there (currently 16). That pick then evaporates from the draft. This is key, as they then have to trade back in to avoid not having a pick to match for Annable. To get Annable and Allen will require they work hard for it.
• If this was a club without a player to bid on, they would get the FA, but at the cost of weakening their draft hand.
• This makes it less palatable to raid the weakest clubs for their better players - the cost is way more

Now let's be really hypothetical, and assume that Eagles' potential F/S Charlie Banfield was rated at #5 (he's not even close to that). Someone puts in that bid, but the Eagles next natural pick is the opening pick of R2 (19), so that's the pick level they have to include. The benefit here is that low rated clubs have a much higher chance of getting the other player cheaply.

What this addresses is the benefit that top clubs have if they get F/S or Academy or FAs come in. It's equalised by them losing massively in actual draft capital. If you get two potential first round picks, you pay two first round picks.

 

[mpal6]

Can I get a vibe check on which clubs are happy about the changes?

Collingwood
Brisbane
St Kilda
Freo for some reason

Nah we are a bit meh about it.

Just have to tell our future father sons and academy players to "take it easy" going forward.

 

[mpal6]

I think this is simple to fix. The problem is that clubs are matching with dross picks from the lower ends of the draft.

Here's my proposal: Any points used to match the FS/Academy player (in the first round at least) MUST include a pick at or before the club's natural next pick if no picks had been traded. And you can only use that pick once of course.

So, let's take this year, with these assumptions:
- the ladder now is final
- matches get a 10% discount.
- The clubs can choose which picks they use as long as there's at least one acceptable pick.

• At pick 1 - the Eagles bid on Uwland (GC academy) - so GC need to find 2700 points
• Gold Coast's next natural pick is at 10. They still have that (1276 points), so they have to make up the other 1500 odd any way they want.
• Say now that Richmond bid on Patterson (also GC) at pick 4.
• Gold Coast now have to again match (now before 11). This year they have 6, so they can use that. But if they didn't have that, they'd now have to urgently trade with some other club to get a viable pick. Probably want to do that before draft week you'd think.

The change here is that if a club has potential high bids to match, they're not trading out of the first round, but having to trade in. And that provides some real opportunities for other clubs to game the system as well.

I'm also going to address Free Agency here. The problem with FA is that clubs can just raid and it costs them nothing at draft time (which f***s with equalisation). So instead, we put that into this system too.

• Brisbane put an offer for Oscar Allen in that nets WC pick 2.
• Brisbane now have to find points to match pick 2 with a discount and include their next natural pick there (currently 16). That pick then evaporates from the draft. This is key, as they then have to trade back in to avoid not having a pick to match for Annable. To get Annable and Allen will require they work hard for it.
• If this was a club without a player to bid on, they would get the FA, but at the cost of weakening their draft hand.
• This makes it less palatable to raid the weakest clubs for their better players - the cost is way more

Now let's be really hypothetical, and assume that Eagles' potential F/S Charlie Banfield was rated at #5 (he's not even close to that). Someone puts in that bid, but the Eagles next natural pick is the opening pick of R2 (19), so that's the pick level they have to include. The benefit here is that low rated clubs have a much higher chance of getting the other player cheaply.

What this addresses is the benefit that top clubs have if they get F/S or Academy or FAs come in. It's equalised by them losing massively in actual draft capital. If you get two potential first round picks, you pay two first round picks.

Bahaha you want us to offer $ and then find points too in Oscar Allen scenario ? Dreaming. We would rather do nothing in that case.

Remember top of the ladder clubs are interested in free agency coz it has the "free" aspect built in. Nothing beyond spending the cap.

 

[mpal6]

Imagine future father sons and academy players refusing to interview, tank combine testing, announcing publicly that they want to stay home.

This will be a glorious circus incoming.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Get rid of Academies .... get rid of F-S

FA and compensation stay

In 5 - 10 years time no-one will care ..... the time has come

 

[Philhawk]

Imagine future father sons and academy players refusing to interview, tank combine testing, announcing publicly that they want to stay home.

This will be a glorious circus incoming.

Fingers crossed this happens.

Would finally force the AFL to take over this charade once and for all.

 

[kreglze]

Will be interesting to see the route the Suns and others take with the academies now if this all comes to pass. The biggest incentive to run the academy has now been removed from the table. Can imagine the investment/resource may be diverted elsewhere.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Imagine future father sons and academy players refusing to interview, tank combine testing, announcing publicly that they want to stay home.

This will be a glorious circus incoming.

Already happening and has been as far back as Cyril Rioli. GWS have said publicly that their draft board looks a whole lot different to Vic clubs due to the number of mummies boys in Vic

The AFL introduced a laughable points system a decade ago that was immediately gamed by clubs. Should have had draft values downgraded as soon as they had a couple of years of pick trading data then we wouldn't have the farcical NGAs existing with their still farcical eligibility rules.

AFL asleep at the wheel, allowed one of the top clubs to accumulate a stack of absolute top end talent for bags of junk picks. Will have ladder implications for another 12 years.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Get rid of Academies .... get rid of F-S

FA and compensation stay

In 5 - 10 years time no-one will care ..... the time has come

St.Kilda going to be brave enough on draft night to back up their war of words by bidding on a few F/S, NGAs and academy lads?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Already happening and has been as far back as Cyril Rioli. GWS have said publicly that their draft board looks a whole lot different to Vic clubs due to the number of mummies boys in Vic

The AFL introduced a laughable points system a decade ago that was immediately gamed by clubs. Should have had draft values downgraded as soon as they had a couple of years of pick trading data then we wouldn't have the farcical NGAs existing with their still farcical eligibility rules.

AFL asleep at the wheel, allowed one of the top clubs to accumulate a stack of absolute top end talent for bags of junk picks. Will have ladder implications for another 12 years.

This is the most annoying thing (especially as a Carlton supporter). 99% of people could see how ridiculous the points and discount was and it took them until this season to change it. Even now the points would seem a lot fairer without the 10% discount and probably a 10% tax in the first round would make it better.