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

[Stamos]

If that's the market value that's fine, unfortunately and it's not just your club, but we are all doing it okay....we are getting top tier talents for 2 cents in the dollar. It's completely wrecking what was a great event the draft. This year will be farcical

If they had had the 2025 rules & DVI for the past 10 years instead of the ridiculous undervalued system that they had, then I doubt many would be complaining at all.

It's just a massive knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I haven't complained about anything.

You made an assumption post about northern academy kids training with the AFL team.

I corrected that assumption, explaining that is not the case for the large majority of academy kids, that most train with the academy. The few that do train and play with the AFL team or VFL team, do so on the same level as the kids in the national academy training with Victorian, South Australian and West Australian based teams, or CTL kids playing VFL after the national championships have finished.

Which ones get to play with the AFL or VFL team, is it chance / where they live?

The northern clubs fund the travel and accommodation of the academy teams when they travel to play in the academy series and against the CTL teams.

As Freo and WC fund essentially all of WA footy, they do the same.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

They've overdone it. It will be too hard to get picks for a #1 player unless you finish bottom 4.

They will run this for a few years and then relax it again when a Collingwood has a player available.

 

[mpal6]

They've overdone it. It will be too hard to get picks for a #1 player unless you finish bottom 4.

They will run this for a few years and then relax it again when a Collingwood has a player available.

Pretty much, rinse n repeat.
Happened to Melbourne with Mac Andrew and bang NGA for everybody 2 years later.

 

[go_the_dockers]

They've overdone it. It will be too hard to get picks for a #1 player unless you finish bottom 4.

They will run this for a few years and then relax it again when a Collingwood has a player available.

Good. That is how it should be.

 

[briztoon]

Which ones get to play with the AFL or VFL team, is it chance / where they live?

I already explained this, twice.

Any kid who is a member of the National Academy team. They train with the AFL team during preseason, the same as all National Academy kids around Australia.

Who plays with the VFL team post National Championships is purely up to the club.

As Freo and WC fund essentially all of WA footy, they do the same.

 

[melanChronic]

I'm looking forward to the discussion on trading players completely flipping. Ridiculously, it's always been, "picks have no value for us this year, because we have x who will be bid on" which should be completely against the whole idea of accessing elite talent.

Now teams will have to actually trade players to get to the top of the draft - you know, how it's SUPPOSED to have always worked

Agree that it's been necessary for a long time to stop the rort, and they've done nothing for ages even when it's been a clear farce.

The only thing that has made it tolerable as a fan of a club that hasn't had any top end FS/NGA is that eventually our lick of the rort will come around, and now they are pulling the rug just as that time comes around (surprise surprise).

They really need to compensate all clubs that haven't benefited from the joke DVI system before 2025. Give every club a pool of points inversely proportionate to the amount they benefited. These points can only be used to help with bids and don't expire.

Should be relatively simple to calculate the points differential between the pre-2025 DVI and the new DVI for all picks used to match bids in the last 10 years (or whenever the points system started). Let's say without calculating it that it's Brisbane who have the largest points differential (and let that be X).

Then every other club gets (X-Y) points, where Y is the points differential for the club in question.

 

[briztoon]

If Butters leaves Port, then Port probably don't have a problem matching a bid for Cochrane.

Carlton are set for a top 10 compensation pick, so they'll probably and trade it for a future first as well.

 

[mpal6]

Yes you do, don't claim otherwise when you want the system to remain the same. You are trying to want to match top 5 talents with selections in the 20's or whatever. That's not even close to being 'reasonable'. I get why you'd want it, and I'd take the rort as a Sydney fan too, but it's not right and you know it.

I was fine with new DVI points - it hasn't even been road tested yet and AFL caves to another knee jerk.

 

[rumoursofwinter]

I think people are underestimating the change to the draft value index. That's understandable as the system hasn't even started yet.

The rules haven't been released yet probably because the afl are still trying to work them out. I just dont see how clubs get 5 minutes to try and sort a trade with live bidding and the value of draft picks changing on the night.

On face value the new system is going to encourage collusion and tanking.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

No it won't Port have next years first lets say for arguments sake pick 4-6, then their future 1 (which they could flip to Tassie for a bounty), and their 2028 first in their pocket. It actually won't affect clubs outside the 8. It will affect clubs contending where it makes it ultra hard but it's meant to be. Port and Carlton will have plenty of capital. Carlton can easily send one of their picks this year to next.

Clubs and mine included forced the AFL's hand in this, if there wasn't an underlining thing of rorting the draft to the nth degree we wouldn't have to put this in place.

So Carlton who are rubbish now, don't get to take a top player this year, just in case there's a really early bid on a father-son player next year? And you're trying to claim its not going to affect them? When the picks that can be used to match are very limited in scope, then all of the clubs looking to match a bid are trading for the same picks. Which is going to make them cost even more.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Agree that it's been necessary for a long time to stop the rort, and they've done nothing for ages even when it's been a clear farce.

The only thing that has made it tolerable as a fan of a club that hasn't had any top end FS/NGA is that eventually our lick of the rort will come around, and now they are pulling the rug just as that time comes around (surprise surprise).

They really need to compensate all clubs that haven't benefited from the joke DVI system before 2025. Give every club a pool of points inversely proportionate to the amount they benefited. These points can only be used to help with bids and don't expire.

Should be relatively simple to calculate the points differential between the pre-2025 DVI and the new DVI for all picks used to match bids in the last 10 years (or whenever the points system started). Let's say without calculating it that it's Brisbane who have the largest points differential (and let that be X).

Then every other club gets (X-Y) points, where Y is the points differential for the club in question.

I am 100% on board with a grandfathering of the rule for clubs that haven't benefited its just unfortunately absolutely no chance of happening as we all know.

 

[mpal6]

I think people are underestimating the change to the draft value index. That's understandable as the system hasn't even started yet.

The rules haven't been released yet probably because the afl are still trying to work them out. I just dont see how clubs get 5 minutes to try and sort a trade with live bidding and the value of draft picks changing on the night.

On face value the new system is going to encourage collusion and tanking.

It's easier to collude rather than try to go around begging for a first on draft night. See north Melbourne how long it took for them to get Whitlock pick. The club needs ridiculous forward planning in terms of trading players for a potential new one - or just collude and tank.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

If Butters leaves Port, then Port probably don't have a problem matching a bid for Cochrane.

Carlton are set for a top 10 compensation pick, so they'll probably and trade it for a future first as well.

If Butters leaves Port, its going to be to a top side, who are going to be providing Port with some late first round picks. Now when you are stuck with having to match a top 5 player with less picks, Port is going to have to find a low ranked club that can provide them with an earlier pick for the few late ones (which are also bound to be pushed out by band 1 free agency compensation).

And we're now saying the cost for being able to get in to an Academy kid is having to trade out a top 5 player in the comp? And we're thinking that "fair value"?

 

[mpal6]

If Butters leaves Port, its going to be to a top side, who are going to be providing Port with some late first round picks. Now when you are stuck with having to match a top 5 player with less picks, Port is going to have to find a low ranked club that can provide them with an earlier pick for the few late ones (which are also bound to be pushed out by band 1 free agency compensation).

And we're now saying the cost for being able to get in to an Academy kid is having to trade out a top 5 player in the comp? And we're thinking that "fair value"?

Haha, ridiculous isn't it. Proven top liner has to be traded and you "MAY" get some picks which "MAY or MAY NOT" still get you the 0 game high potential draftee.

In this flawed logic, Butters will be worth pick 10 18 future first and new draftee if pick 1 will be worth more ! Amazing system !

 

[Shagga is all Class]

That's the crux of the issue - draft is not equal in the first place when vic kids can stay home or refuse to get drafted elsewhere etc. I understand the utopian view of draft being equal for all, but it never was or never will be. The noise wasn't there when it was footy heartland clubs were benefiting - either via kids staying home or either via players getting traded back from GWS, GC to Victoria etc. It was considered good for the game.

Once these fringe clubs who were previously chained to watching high draft picks go back home but now have started getting their own draftees in their own backyard, the sky's falling argument has taken hold of the narrative.

Oh you can have an academy, but you can't have something that's too good that at times it outperforms the Victorian

The Jarman brothers were not Victorian but I take your point, the refusal rule was changed 30 odd years ago and recently was extended to 3 years.

Darren refused to go to Melbourne as well.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I was fine with new DVI points - it hasn't even been road tested yet and AFL caves to another knee jerk.

It didn’t go far enough that was the problem a couple of late teens picks shouldn’t equal a top 5 one

 

[SC_Power]

One thing I’ll say is it’s a bit unfair to port Adelaide these changes being brought in so suddenly. They don’t have a first this year to trade into next year and will need picks in 2027 for zemes and salopek so won’t be able to pull picks from 2027 to help match for dougie. They probably don’t trade this years pick if they had known what changes would happen

Someone gets it, thank you. It’s precisely why we submitted a request for changes to be phased in over time, because you plan a number of years in advance based on what you see coming through 14/15yo level.

How can we get you onto the AFL board?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So Carlton who are rubbish now, don't get to take a top player this year, just in case there's a really early bid on a father-son player next year? And you're trying to claim its not going to affect them? When the picks that can be used to match are very limited in scope, then all of the clubs looking to match a bid are trading for the same picks. Which is going to make them cost even more.

They still get to take a top player And get access to Walker next year if they are smart they can get another solid second on top of it. It’s plenty of access

 

[Lach72]

Agree that it's been necessary for a long time to stop the rort, and they've done nothing for ages even when it's been a clear farce.

The only thing that has made it tolerable as a fan of a club that hasn't had any top end FS/NGA is that eventually our lick of the rort will come around, and now they are pulling the rug just as that time comes around (surprise surprise).

They really need to compensate all clubs that haven't benefited from the joke DVI system before 2025. Give every club a pool of points inversely proportionate to the amount they benefited. These points can only be used to help with bids and don't expire.

Should be relatively simple to calculate the points differential between the pre-2025 DVI and the new DVI for all picks used to match bids in the last 10 years (or whenever the points system started). Let's say without calculating it that it's Brisbane who have the largest points differential (and let that be X).

Then every other club gets (X-Y) points, where Y is the points differential for the club in question.

What I’ve been arguing for.

This change bakes in the inequalities, possibly for the next 15 years.

As a club that has had neither FS or decent academy picks (Liam Henry is not decent and should’ve been a second bar SOS being a complete campaigner), and who got **** all given to us at startup I hate these changes without some context of past players.

Geelong, Collingwood, Sydney Brisbane etc get premierships from their lick of the rort ice creams while we get told to suck it up and be more like Brisbane…can’t wait until Gold Coast get one before us. Going to party like it’s 1995

 

[Lach72]

Why are Gold Coast trying to push their picks in to the future?

I believe you're just making up a b.s. rumour, to drive a sh!t narrative.

Why wouldn’t they?
Of they can get the players in and get a future first why wouldn’t they?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Incredible how clubs with possible future top tier players are complaining about missing out on those players.

It's not as if you're missing out on top tier talent completely. If your pick 5 or whatever can't match a pick 1 talent .... you still get to add that pick 5 talent to your list. Yet people are carrying on that by missing out of a potentially future tied player, they miss out on all talent altogether. Wild, isn't it.

 

[mpal6]

It didn’t go far enough that was the problem a couple of late teens picks shouldn’t equal a top 5 one

As other posters have said - you can't trade a player against their will to a bottom club. So player goes to a top club, you get a teens pick and more late picks. That's where it'll start.

If you are arguing I have to trade 2 top players for 2 teens pick, and then add my own teens pick to get to top 5 - well that's a terrible one-sided act under the guise of fairness and equality.

 

[SC_Power]

Agree that it's been necessary for a long time to stop the rort, and they've done nothing for ages even when it's been a clear farce.

The only thing that has made it tolerable as a fan of a club that hasn't had any top end FS/NGA is that eventually our lick of the rort will come around, and now they are pulling the rug just as that time comes around (surprise surprise).

They really need to compensate all clubs that haven't benefited from the joke DVI system before 2025. Give every club a pool of points inversely proportionate to the amount they benefited. These points can only be used to help with bids and don't expire.

Should be relatively simple to calculate the points differential between the pre-2025 DVI and the new DVI for all picks used to match bids in the last 10 years (or whenever the points system started). Let's say without calculating it that it's Brisbane who have the largest points differential (and let that be X).

Then every other club gets (X-Y) points, where Y is the points differential for the club in question.

Or just retrospectively penalise teams based on current rules. Should have needed two first round picks instead of 5 fourth round picks? Well now you get those fourth round picks back and you lose first rounders for two years.

Wouldn’t that be fun? And no doubt unfair. Just the sort of thing the AFL would do actually.

 

[mpal6]

Incredible how clubs with possible future top tier players are complaining about missing out on those players.

It's not as if you're missing out on top tier talent completely. If your pick 5 or whatever can't match a pick 1 talent .... you still get to add that pick 5 talent to your list. Yet people are carrying on that by missing out of a potentially future tied player, they miss out on all talent altogether. Wild, isn't it.

The complaint is fair when a congo list of victoria based kids refuse to leave the state and suddenly West Coast is picking in 8 and 12 instead of a sheezel or a wardlaw. It's not just a no.5 pick, you're potentially forcing that club to slide down further than they need to, to find a new player who may or may not stay.