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

[threenewpadlocks]

That's the free agency rules at present, it seems you're upset about rules and wanting the receiving club to overpay for the privilege of acquiring a free agent. That'll work against incentivizing a club to acquire a player via free agency.

I don't see it changing as this is effectively the way now players are maximizing their earning potential. The one big contract in their prime age is the reward that the incumbent club is refusing to provide them. TDK is a very good example.

AFLPA will never allow to burden the arrangement by penalizing the recipient club - in the process diluting the number of suitors who'll be vying for free agent player services.

If I bring it back to Lions example - if Lions are forced to trade for Oscar Allen, we'd rather explore our trade options further with players like Mitch Lewis instead. We won't be actively pursuing Allen if it'll cost us both in $$$ and draft picks.

The whole point of free agency is freedom of player movement (West Coast cannot dictate or have any influence over where Allen plays the following year), not in terms of acquisition cost or freedom of free recruits by clubs.

If Lions were to force to give up their first round pick in an Allen free agency acquisition, they would value Allen's value less (as you have to take away the value of a 1st rounder from him), and they would elect to offer Allen a slightly lower contract to find the equilibrium to how they value the 1st rounder, and Allen would still have the free agency freedom of movement decision to go to the Lions or accept another contract at a club elsewhere. As the Lions would have slightly more salary cap room they would redistribute that in other ways. Allen may not take that contract and yes you do trade with Lewis. But you don't have an inherent right to acquire free agents for free, because the whole compensation is made up.

The AFLPA wanted free agency as the logic was the freedom of movement and contract selection. Allen is equally as free to field contract offers from all 18 clubs as he was irrespective of whatever compensation system the AFL deems.

 

[Mr Q]

That's the free agency rules at present, it seems you're upset about rules and wanting the receiving club to overpay for the privilege of acquiring a free agent. That'll work against incentivizing a club to acquire a player via free agency.

Right now, as an Eagles fan, I'm quite fine with the idea of getting #2 for Allen. Good for us, and by the time we're a contender, well Brisbane won't be. I wish Allen all the best, and may he be a Lions Premiership player.

But if my proposal was adopted and reduces the incentive for top clubs to raid bottom clubs for free agents, then that's exactly what I want to see.

If you want an equal competition - and Brisbane really want that in the long term - then you can't have systems where the top teams can raid the bottom teams with impunity. Free agency as it stands is anti-equalisation, because the recipient club gets to stay out of the compensation.

 

[longdonkey]

For mine, it's simple. The biggest way a club builds a list is through the draft. 80% (completely made up percentage but you get it) of a drafts value is in the first round. I want clubs success to be based on merit. From elite being at talent ID and development, not because some dad got his sperm infused with that shit they give babies in The Boys and played for a footy club, is from overseas or lives in NSW or QLD. Free Agency and draft manipulation are incompatible together in a remotely equitable competition as both dramatically favour contending teams.

My only worry is that the AFL is moronic and weak and will reverse it in two years, ****ing a bunch of clubs out of access to a kid that now everyone has access to again.

And that is exactly is what is going to happen, because that is the entire reason they are doing it.
Any reasonable organisation would alter the rules to make it fair. Not the AFL, they want to nuke the building to kill a couple rats.

 

[Lore]

yeah, sure no probs

2021 - Sam Darcy pick 2
2021 - Nick Daicos pick 4
2022 - Will Ashcroft pick 2
2022 - Jaspa Fletcher pick 12
2022 - Max Michalanney pick 17
2023 - Jordan Croft - pick 15
2024 - Levi Ashcroft pick 5

2023 also had Will McCabe to Hawks for pick 19 but i didn't include him.

Does it correlate with an increasing number of players getting to 100 games? Obviously there’s more players now than there were in the past too but that doesn’t mean they all got to 100 games with one club.

 

[Coach_Required]

Does it correlate with an increasing number of players getting to 100 games? Obviously there’s more players now than there were in the past too but that doesn’t mean they all got to 100 games with one club.

Id have to look, but it's why i only went back about 10 years. GWS & Gold Coast who can't be included obviously.

 

[mpal6]

The whole point of free agency is freedom of player movement (West Coast cannot dictate or have any influence over where Allen plays the following year), not in terms of acquisition cost or freedom of free recruits by clubs.

If Lions were to force to give up their first round pick in an Allen free agency acquisition, they would value Allen's value less (as you have to take away the value of a 1st rounder from him), and they would elect to offer Allen a slightly lower contract to find the equilibrium to how they value the 1st rounder, and Allen would still have the free agency freedom of movement decision to go to the Lions or accept another contract at a club elsewhere. As the Lions would have slightly more salary cap room they would redistribute that in other ways. Allen may not take that contract and yes you do trade with Lewis. But you don't have an inherent right to acquire free agents for free, because the whole compensation is made up.

The AFLPA wanted free agency as the logic was the freedom of movement and contract selection. Allen is equally as free to field contract offers from all 18 clubs as he was irrespective of whatever compensation system the AFL deems.

The bit missing in your post is it won't be just Lions offering a lesser contract to balance against the trade value - it'll be every club trying to do the same. It in turn limits the earning potential of the player who is trying to score his one big contract that'll help him ride off to retirement. Hence it won't work from individual player and AFLPA perspective.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

And that is exactly is what is going to happen, because that is the entire reason they are doing it.
Any reasonable organisation would alter the rules to make it fair. Not the AFL, they want to nuke the building to kill a couple rats.

I'm not big into conspiracy theories so dont subscribe to the AFL doing this just so that Port, Essendon and Carlton get screwed. I believe this is altering the rules to be fair(er), this just needs to be stuck to for at least 10 years and not kneejerked back in 2.

 

[RUNVS]

Are there any genuine reasons as to why it's a bad thing outside "everyone else got theirs, I want mine?"

• Academies will still continue if they are locked out of the first round, the benefits are still massive and it hasnt stopped NGAs continuing. More kids from your state is a good thing regardless of where they are drafted
• We already have heaps of Vic kids "strongly advising" they dont be picked up so much so that non-Vics have to have different draft boards. If it goes the other way a bit, who cares, at least it's equal
• Yes, the clubs that have benefitted from it so much already will have a leg up lasting 10 years. Doing it now is still 1 day close to fixing a massive issue then doing it tomorrow.

Fair criticism is the AFL is a micky mouse organisation that hasnt even seen the effect of their points changes yet and a blanket first round ban is a lazy way to do it but it still seems the main argument against it is "I want my turn"

I doubt Sydney will be putting in half the money to the academy under the new rules, in fact there is a good chance the academy will disappear entirely.

Sydney only have 1 player in the side who was an academy player selected outside the first round, and 1 player in 12 years just does not make the academy system worth it, not for the money that needs to be put in.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I doubt Sydney will be putting in half the money to the academy under the new rules, in fact there is a good chance the academy will disappear entirely.

Sydney only have 1 player in the side who was an academy player selected outside the first round, and 1 player in 12 years just does not make the academy system worth it, not for the money that needs to be put in.

Sorry, there is not a chance it disappears entirely and I seriously doubt the funding changes but I'm more than happy to find out

 

[Lore]

Id have to look, but it's why i only went back about 10 years. GWS & Gold Coast who can't be included obviously.

I’m also wondering if the numbers were depressed while GC and GWS had all the first round picks for a couple of years, they probably weren’t wasting their time scouting kids they couldn’t draft. But if you go back before 2014 or so the bidding system was different and was done pre draft, and prior to that you also had the third round rule… Which makes me want to go and find all the father sons that ever played AFL but the project gets bigger the more I think about it.

Surely it increases proportionally to the size of the league though, with a 20-30 year delay

 

[RUNVS]

Sorry, there is not a chance it disappears entirely and I seriously doubt the funding changes but I'm more than happy to find out

What is the incentive for the Swans to continue it though? Is pumping in millions and only getting 1 player in 12 years really worth it?

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

What is the incentive for the Swans to continue it though? Is pumping in millions and only getting 1 player in 12 years really worth it?

More kids from the state is a good thing, wherever they are drafted. If that means you have to trade them back then so be it. If Sydney decide to stop funding it and the AFL steps in to cover it or do it themselves, that also doesnt bother me. I dont believe for a second this will mean the end of AFL academies

 

[GenericUsername202]

What is the incentive for the Swans to continue it though? Is pumping in millions and only getting 1 player in 12 years really worth it?

There is no incentives. The AFL will effectively kill the talent pool and the popularity of the sport in NSW and QLD. This decision will shoot themselves in the foot and years down the line they will only regret it more.

 

[RUNVS]

More kids from the state is a good thing, wherever they are drafted. If that means you have to trade them back then so be it. If Sydney decide to stop funding it and the AFL steps in to cover it or do it themselves, that also doesnt bother me. I dont believe for a second this will mean the end of AFL academies

Yes it is a good thing, but the Swans are not running the academy as a charity. They are pouring millions in because it is a benefit to the Swans, without that benefit then putting that money in is a waste of resources, resources that could be put elsewhere in attempting to win a flag.

 

[MPMonkeys]

There is no incentives. The AFL will effectively kill the talent pool and the popularity of the sport in NSW and QLD. This decision will shoot themselves in the foot and years down the line they will only regret it more.

Rubbish - there have always been players that have come from Qld and NSW, way before academies were in place.

 

[Lore]

More kids from the state is a good thing, wherever they are drafted. If that means you have to trade them back then so be it. If Sydney decide to stop funding it and the AFL steps in to cover it or do it themselves, that also doesnt bother me. I dont believe for a second this will mean the end of AFL academies

The AFL is unlikely to volunteer money for an academy when they can get clubs to pay for it with a bit of strategic inequality… also because they’re more effective when tied to a club (which is why we have academies instead of scholarships in the first place).

 

[RUNVS]

Rubbish - there have always been players that have come from Qld and NSW, way before academies were in place.

Yes, but considerably less. Look at what the Gold Coast academy is producing now. That sort of success would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The bit missing in your post is it won't be just Lions offering a lesser contract to balance against the trade value - it'll be every club trying to do the same. It in turn limits the earning potential of the player who is trying to score his one big contract that'll help him ride off to retirement. Hence it won't work from individual player and AFLPA perspective.

The salary cap remains the same, the entire AFL playing unit earns the same money, because winning teams will still pay right up to the salary cap? Brisbane uses that free money to retain a player you drafted yourself before they hit free agency and they'll be less likely to leave and the benefit to Brisbane remains the same in terms of being able to use the salary cap to have good footballers.

 

[longdonkey]

I'm not big into conspiracy theories so dont subscribe to the AFL doing this just so that Port, Essendon and Carlton get screwed. I believe this is altering the rules to be fair(er), this just needs to be stuck to for at least 10 years and not kneejerked back in 2.

I don't see any point to changing the rules except that. Why do you change that rule while leaving free agency exactly the way it is.
The answer is when you pick up any player out of any mechanism other than drafting the club should be given a bill of the number of points that they need to shed by giving away draft picks. This would be done by the choice of the paying club but has no discounts. If its free agency those picks go to the losing club.

I'm happy with fairness despite the past 20 years being distinctly unfair - where was this conversation 20 years ago.

 

[GenericUsername202]

Rubbish - there have always been players that have come from Qld and NSW, way before academies were in place.

The difference is the players coming out of QLD and NSW are arguably better than those from VIC/SA/WA. Whereas, before the academies, they were far behind. There's no pathways up here and the academies are the reason why they have caught up

 

[longdonkey]

yeah, sure no probs

2021 - Sam Darcy pick 2
2021 - Nick Daicos pick 4
2022 - Will Ashcroft pick 2
2022 - Jaspa Fletcher pick 12
2022 - Max Michalanney pick 17
2023 - Jordan Croft - pick 15
2024 - Levi Ashcroft pick 5

2023 also had Will McCabe to Hawks for pick 19 but i didn't include him.

The increase in numbers of father/sons in the first round has happened for 2 reasons.

1. There are more clubs that now have access to father/son picks so the pool is bigger.
2. Most father/sons are nurtured from a young age in the academy system or at least training in the off season. The clubs know what they are going to get and are already somewhat in the "system".

4/8 of your list is non-vic . 20 years ago it would have been 95% Victorian.

 

[Bostonian]

Yes, but considerably less. Look at what the Gold Coast academy is producing now. That sort of success would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

All paid for by the other clubs though.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Yes it is a good thing, but the Swans are not running the academy as a charity. They are pouring millions in because it is a benefit to the Swans, without that benefit then putting that money in is a waste of resources, resources that could be put elsewhere in attempting to win a flag.

Yeah, sure, more than happy for AFL to subsidize instead or run it themselves. Problem solved no?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yeah, sure, more than happy for AFL to subsidize instead or run it themselves. Problem solved no?

But without a lack of completely true financial and management (the appointing of directors of the board) independence from the AFL, they in effect already are for the four northern clubs. That is completely missed by people who like to claim that the academies are independent from the AFL. I would argue that the operations of (especially) GWS and GC in its entirety are not independent from the AFL either.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I don't see any point to changing the rules except that. Why do you change that rule while leaving free agency exactly the way it is.
The answer is when you pick up any player out of any mechanism other than drafting the club should be given a bill of the number of points that they need to shed by giving away draft picks. This would be done by the choice of the losing club but has no discounts. If its free agency those picks go to the losing club.

I'm happy with fairness despite the past 20 years being distinctly unfair - where was this conversation 20 years ago.

They're changing the rules because several clubs seem to be making it their life mission to change the rules. Nothing to do with specifically screwing over some clubs.

There are other ways to do this, some have merit, some dont and I dont even think a complete blanket ban is the right way to go but I am adamant the top of the draft is for shit clubs unless a contending club loses a 25 year old superstar.

Honestly, Carlton and Port will likely be low enough next year they can get Walker and Cochrane with their top pick anyway through a bit of "I'm not ****ing leaving" draft conversations. I'll be fine with this as it will require full use of their top 10 pick and they wont be a contending side.

This conversation should have been had 20 years ago