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

[Elixuh]

Yeah the academies aren't about growing the talent pool, they're about growing the supporter base.

More than one thing can be true

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I didn’t read your post but got the jist of it. I’m not going to try and convince you if you think things are good the way they are re talent and that there is nothing to be gained by increasing the talent pool, especially in the non-traditional afl states.

If you're not going to read my post, why bother quoting it?

It's not a matter of being good or bad, or being gained or lost, I'm just saying "size of the talent pool" is irrelevant for the operations of a sporting competition.

The wins and losses equal the same either way. If our motivation with regard to northern academies is that it barstadises a fair competition because it doesn't distribute talent in reverse ladder order (+/- trades), the size of the talent pool is irrelavent to that, because the worst club still gets the best player.

You saying "it's fine that we have northern academies with players recruited at a massive discount draft-wise, because the talent pool is bigger" is saying "it's fine that we increase the unfairness of the competition, because we make bigger something that makes zero impact on how fair the competition is".

A bigger talent pool doesn't make the competition more fair or equalisation more effective.

 

[Elixuh]

If you're not going to read my post, why bother quoting it?

It's not a matter of being good or bad, or being gained or lost, I'm just saying "size of the talent pool" is irrelevant for the operations of a sporting competition.

The wins and losses equal the same either way. If our motivation with regard to northern academies is that it barstadises a fair competition because it doesn't distribute talent in reverse ladder order (+/- trades), the size of the talent pool is irrelavent to that, because the worst club still gets the best player.

You saying "it's fine that we have northern academies with players recruited at a massive discount draft-wise, because the talent pool is bigger" is saying "it's fine that we increase the unfairness of the competition, because we make bigger something that makes zero impact on how fair the competition is".

A bigger talent pool doesn't make the competition more fair or equalisation more effective.

The game is an entertainment product.

You’re speaking as though it’s zeros and ones on a screen.

You could replace the Western Bulldogs squad with 23 actual bulldogs and you’d still get a win and a loss. Doesn’t mean it’d be good or that it couldn’t be better.

 

[sr36]

If you're not going to read my post, why bother quoting it?

It's not a matter of being good or bad, or being gained or lost, I'm just saying "size of the talent pool" is irrelevant for the operations of a sporting competition.

The wins and losses equal the same either way. If our motivation with regard to northern academies is that it barstadises a fair competition because it doesn't distribute talent in reverse ladder order (+/- trades), the size of the talent pool is irrelavent to that, because the worst club still gets the best player.

You saying "it's fine that we have northern academies with players recruited at a massive discount draft-wise, because the talent pool is bigger" is saying "it's fine that we increase the unfairness of the competition, because we make bigger something that makes zero impact on how fair the competition is".

A bigger talent pool doesn't make the competition more fair or equalisation more effective.

it just creates further imbalance - even amongst the Northern teams or between the NGA zones. The demographic or number of eligible kids in some zones is just way more likely to produce AFL footballers than other zones. It's a crazy system particularly when you can't quickly adjust if you **** it up like is looking likely - advantages given in the draft play out over a 15 year period. Or even up to 21 years in the case of us drafting Scott Pendlebury with a concession pick.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The game is an entertainment product.

You’re speaking as though it’s zeros and ones on a screen.

You could replace the Western Bulldogs squad with 23 actual bulldogs and you’d still get a win and a loss. Doesn’t mean it’d be good or that it couldn’t be better.

It's an entertainment product precisely because fans are invested into the outcomes of the club they support because they see it as generally a meritocracy. Our club operates effectively = on field success. It's a league of largely member run clubs and we have more intense unparalleled membership and attendance numbers compared to the rest of the world's sporting competitions on that basis.

As soon as you start chipping away at the idea that the league remains largely a meritocracy, you lose the extent of the passion of the support - the reason quite literally hundreds of thousands of members across all clubs pony up hundreds of dollars per year, that provide the backbone of what makes the AFL so successful.

And your point about 23 actual Bulldogs runs true - if you actually made your argument fairly. If your argument was distributed fairly and evenly among all 18 clubs and footy became 22 + 1 bulldog per team, it would be a bit pointless, but it wouldn't change anything about how the league is run fairly. It's the fact that you're applying the rule to one team (Western Bulldogs can only be played with Bulldogs) and not the other 17 that make it unfair.

 

[WilloTree]

GC used picks across 3 drafts and picks from trading out players across 2 years.

What you talking about Willis.

That's the point.

And, every club trades players.

 

[sr36]

It's unbelievable to see how little research (none) people will do on this topic when complaining about the fairness of the draft system. As you pointed out - we, the Suns, accumulated many points over several years by trading out players/picks to make this year's draft scenario possible because we knew that it was very likely that there would be several high end bids on our academy graduates. No club could have pulled this off otherwise and we did it in years that the AFL decided to move the goal posts due to the complaints from clubs in the southern states.

The bolded made me chuckle. Over the last 3 years, you've traded out more for players than you received for players.

Your accumulation of points was a rollover from 2023 when the system enabled you to turn a year of picks into 5 first round picks and 3 future firsts. It was brilliantly done but required none of the sacrifice of value that you're suggesting.

The advantageous matching systems have enabled you in 3 years to bring in 10 first round players - 5 of them top 10, and trade in players using 3 top 10 picks and another first round pick - only 2 of those picks acquired through the loss of players.its been a rort under ridiculously advantageous rules.

The new DVI made it less pronounced, but still extremely advantageous. There's no way at all that you would have gotten close to trading the picks you held for the ones you ended up with. Not even close.

 

[WilloTree]

hahaha LOL. Why did you put Pick 4 in brackets for Ainsworth? Surely you're not suggesting that is the current worth of Ainsworth, who was a pick 4 bust. Put pick 29 in the brackets because that is what his current worth is.

Fiorini (Future 3rd) and Budarick (Pick 37). Once again, you use 'pick 2' as a reference for a spud in Lukosius. Where they went in the draft has absolutely no relevance in what they're worth now. Man, why did the Dees delist Jack billings, he was pick 3! Such a foolish argument you're making that almost deserves no response tbh.

So in total you gave up Pick 29, F3, Pick 37 and Lukosius. Spare me the 'we lost a lot' bull dust. Absolute garbage. You lost nothing.

Surprised they didn't get Paddy Dow in the off-season. He's pick 3!

 

[go_the_dockers]

Definitely not. If we are funding and spending resources running the academy, Resources which other clubs are putting into their premiership program then that would be unreasonable.

As I said, AFL just needs to fund the entire thing and then you can remove matching. Surely that is the easiest approach if the real concern is draft picks being pushed out?

Please tell the AFL to fund WA and SA development while you are at it.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It's unbelievable to see how little research (none) people will do on this topic when complaining about the fairness of the draft system. As you pointed out - we, the Suns, accumulated many points over several years by trading out players/picks to make this year's draft scenario possible because we knew that it was very likely that there would be several high end bids on our academy graduates. No club could have pulled this off otherwise and we did it in years that the AFL decided to move the goal posts due to the complaints from clubs in the southern states.

This year alone we lost best 22 players like Ainsworth (pick 4), Fiorini and Budarick to accumulate more points to match bids. Last year we traded away pick 2 Jack Lukosius to accumulate two 2025 future picks that were also used to match bids this year. We also traded away our 2026 first, second and third round picks + a 2027 pick to get more points these 2025 bids.

But people down south will still have you believe that we gave up nothing to land our academy graduates this year. Go figure.

The argument doesnt hold water because in the real world if you combined ainsworth (what he was originally picked at is irrelevant only what hes worth now), rosas, budarick fiorini etc and traded them all no one would give you a pick near the top 10 for them. Even Flanders would only have been worth one of Patterson or uwland not both.
As I've said many times the way you solve this is you bring in a rule that any bid match in r1 has to be with a pick within 5-10 spots of the bid and if you trade out your natural r1 then whichever club is not allowed to match at all (unless you trade another r1 back in).
The fact that gc were specifically allowed to trade 2 top 10 picks for petracca, trade the other picks down, and match bids they knew would be in the top 5 with 20s picks is ridiculous. Not to mention using picks without having the list spots for them.

If you change the system the way it should have been changed gc either dont trade for Petracca at all or they trade Humphrey for him because they wouldn't have been able to trade pick 8 and still bid match.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

When looking at GC You really have to work back from 2023 to see how many picks they would’ve been able to push into futures to the 2025 draft had they had to match the past bids under the new DVI. You could even go further and do it with zero discount if we are confident that will come in next season.
the competition is still paying the price from the old, even worse system.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

When looking at GC You really have to work back from 2023 to see how many picks they would’ve been able to push into futures to the 2025 draft had they had to match the past bids under the new DVI. You could even go further and do it with zero discount if we are confident that will come in next season.
the competition is still paying the price from the old, even worse system.

I mean it all layers upon each other - it goes back to their 2019 assistance package, and that adds to their overall draft hand, and they took their overall draft hand from 2019 forward year by year, bit by bit until we got to 2025 and they could cash it all in.

As an aside it makes ridiculous how the draft package is. Brisbane has now won two flags in part because the AFL gave them an assistance package, too. The lack of patience is amazing.

Once you consider all trades, all bid matching, all future picks coming and going and trading a player for a pick not being simple and three things going out for four things coming back, Gold Coast have touched something like 200 different draft picks and players since 2019 in trades. Ridiculous. Each of those 200 gives them that minute edge that they were able to get in 2025.

In essence, I don't necessarily disagree of the idea that a academy-tied player should be accessible to the club for 80/90% of the draft assets of the bidding club. That was certainly the intention when the system was introduced in 2014 in response to Sydney getting a top 3 draft pick Heeney at pick 18. (Ie, Pick 18 is worth well less than 80% of pick 3 in value).

The issue is though that clubs never actually pay 80/90% as it actually enters the real world and plays out in reality, due to a number of reasons, that effectively make the discount not 80/90% and more like, 40% (and in effect not really fixing the problem of Sydney paying 40% of the value of pick 3 via pick 18 for Heeney - you never solved the problem anyway).

These reasons include, and not limited to:

• Draft value points being inaccurate (it valued later picks way too much) to the reality of what those picks are worth
• The ability to delist and redraft players
• Even if the club with academy players creates the open list spot, they effective force the market, the 17 other clubs, to value the same large number of open list spots equally, when in reality they don't. (In other words, if you have 8 open list spots, you can use 8 picks to match the bid for 5 players. This effectively forces "the market", the 17 other clubs collectively, to accept a trade where they take on 8 more draft picks for giving up 3. However, the 17 other clubs typically don't have 5 list spots open in the draft, so they would never make that "trade" in reality. You can then top up the remaining 5 list spots after matching bids via SSP, etc)
• Future trading
• Even if DVI points curve was accurate in 2014 (it wasn't), the fact that they haven't evolved it over time to reflect that the clubs draft more accurately in general, so higher draft picks should be worth more, because you're less likely to bust on a top 10/20 draft pick than you were in 2003-2013ish era, so it becomes an outdated curve
• etc. etc. etc.

A lot of the issue stems from the fact that in 2014 when they conceived of the system - as inaccurate as the draft points were - things like future trading and SSP player selections, the idea that passing over a pick is not a disadvantage because you can invite 2 players to you pre-season training and wait and see how they go until Feb - weren't a thing, so the way that you treat the draft and points changes. But they never updated the system, until 2025, to adjust for that.

 

[tombomb]

If they remove the discount, and make it two picks max matching, then the system will be basically fair. It's not that far away with the new table.

The next step is to get rid of first round compensation for restricted free agents, and the draft will almost be perfect.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

If they remove the discount, and make it two picks max matching, then the system will be basically fair. It's not that far away with the new table.

Yes, there will still be a small advantage to teams in NSW/QLD. But it will be no different to the multiple other advantages that go back and forth around the league.

The next step is to get rid of First round compensation for restricted free agents, and the draft will almost be perfect.

The real issue now is the absolute incompetence of the AFL to allow this issue to drag on for so many years like they have. And how people directly responsible for that have gone on to bigger and better jobs.

If they remove the discount, and make it two picks max matching, then the system will be basically fair. It's not that far away with the new table.

Yes, there will still be a small advantage to teams in NSW/QLD. But it will be no different to the multiple other advantages that go back and forth around the league.

The next step is to get rid of First round compensation for restricted free agents, and the draft will almost be perfect.

The real issue now is the absolute incompetence of the AFL to allow this issue to drag on for so many years like they have. And how people directly responsible for that have gone on to bigger and better jobs.

This will start to help but they still need to close the loophole that allows teams to trade in picks live on the night that they dont have list spots for.

 

[tombomb]

This will start to help but they still need to close the loophole that allows teams to trade in picks live on the night that they dont have list spots for.

If the points table fits and you can still only use two selections to match a bid, it really shouldn't matter.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

If the points table fits and you can still only use two selections to match a bid, it really shouldn't matter.

I would still like to see them close it. The loophole is completely illogical and never should have existed in the first place.

 

[Elixuh]

This will start to help but they still need to close the loophole that allows teams to trade in picks live on the night that they dont have list spots for.

They are closing it

 

[GC2015]

Your accumulation of points was a rollover from 2023 when the system enabled you to turn a year of picks into 5 first round picks and 3 future firsts. It was brilliantly done but required none of the sacrifice of value that you're suggesting.

Fair enough. I'm of the opinion that we did lose some valuable assets in order to make this happen. Did we get more in return? Perhaps... but I think it's too early to really tell. We'll have to see if all these draftees actually live up to the hype of being first round picks or if their bids came earlier than they should've because clubs wanted to make a point by bidding on them earlier than they should have. Although Uwland and Patterson were consensus top 5 picks, it's believed amongst Suns fans that Addinsall and Murray shouldn't have been bid on with first round picks and their true value was really closer to a third round / pick 40 range. So time will tell if these kids live up to the hype of being first round picks.

If you look at the 2023 draft class as an example, none of them have really set the world on fire in their first two years in the league. Ethan Read was the only one that found himself in our finals team this year and he virtually did nothing in those games (even got subbed out). Based on the available evidence, I do think it's possible that quite a few of our academy graduates have been bid on with earlier picks than they should've been and seeing them not perform at the AFL level only further confirms that theory in my mind. There's no denying that other clubs are angry about the situation and have reason to bid earlier just to prove a point. As an example, saying we landed four first round picks this year holds a lot more weight to the uninformed footy fan than just saying we landed two first round picks.

If you change the system the way it should have been changed gc either dont trade for Petracca at all or they trade Humphrey for him because they wouldn't have been able to trade pick 8 and still bid match.

Prior to this year's trade period, it was understood that trading Flanders (pick 7) and Port Adelaide's first round pick that we secured by trading Lukosius last year (pick 8) would be enough to trade in Petracca and our other accumulated picks would be enough to match bids for Uwland + Patterson. Beyond that, we likely would've lost any other players bid on before the third round. Once the rules were confirmed, the club was motivated to keep the academy graduates beyond Uwland + Patterson so we engaged in trades for the likes of Ainsworth (pick 29), Budarick (pick 37) and Rosas (pick 51) to get enough points to match bids for Addinsall + Murray. That's essentially what happened - if you get active in the trade period over several years then you can do more when FS/NGA/NA bids occur.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Fair enough. I'm of the opinion that we did lose some valuable assets in order to make this happen. Did we get more in return? Perhaps... but I think it's too early to really tell.

Lol this feigned even-handedness is nauseating. It's ridiculous. You can't honestly think that you can convince people with the above statement.

Of course you lost some valuable assets in the sense that a single second-round pick or player worth a 'second round pick' can be considered 'valuable' if you frame it in the right way.

Did you get more in return? Of course you did. Of course there's going to be some unpredictability with future outcomes but with enough bites at the cherry you will almost certainly benefit with adding a number of high draft picks to an already good team. Perhaps a few of those draft picks will fail, perhaps even more than proportionate.

If you treat current listed players and current draft picks as assets that realise the return of future premierships, and you make the pay-off of sacrificing some of that for new (but top tier) draftees in excess of what the market should deem your existing players and draft assets, it's a trade off that every club would make.

It's principally no different than saying, well, if the Western Bulldogs were able to get all of pick 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and our second round pick in this year's draft if we traded both Marcus Bontempelli and Jordon Croft, of course we would make that swap. Even if we had to "lose the valuable asset" of Bontepmelli, Croft and a second-round pick. To question "did we get more in return, perhaps but it's too early to tell" can remain equally true if it just so happens that none of those top 5 draft picks ever becomes an All-Australian (almost certainly 1 of the 5 will, but not certain) like Bontempelli is likely to next season. Yet I can frame it as "it's too early to really tell if the 2026 top 5 will give us more in return".

 

[WilloTree]

So, GC traded in the biggest fish in the trade period, and still had 4 picks inside the top 20 including pick 2 and 5, and people still think the system isn't completely shithouse?

It's a joke guys. All GC did was expose it for the utter garbage most of us knew before and after the 'overhaul'.

 

[GC2015]

Lol this feigned even-handedness is nauseating. It's ridiculous. You can't honestly think that you can convince people with the above statement.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just sharing my opinion. It's totally fine if you disagree with my opinion.

If we skip forward a few years from now and we're holding up the cup led mostly by these academy graduates acquired under the old bidding system then it's probably fair to suggest we got more back than we gave up. As of right now, I have no idea if these kids are actually the real deal or if their draft value was inflated by other clubs who had an axe to grind. Based on the small amount of avaliable evidence to date, it looks like most of them are struggling to live up to the hype. Remember, we don't control the end value of those players, it's other clubs that dictate their value through the bidding process and if they want to bid early just to prove a point, then that's what they're going to do.

At this stage, we gave up several best 22 players over the last few years and we've only got one of these highly touted academy graduates that's actually made his way into the best 22. I'll certainly be happy if I'm wrong because I want my team to succeed, but that doesn't mean I don't have question marks in regards when the bids that were placed on them. At the very least, I'd like to see more than one of them cement a spot in our best 22!

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just sharing my opinion. It's totally fine if you disagree with my opinion.

If we skip forward a few years from now and we're holding up the cup led mostly by these academy graduates acquired under the old bidding system then it's probably fair to suggest we got more back than we gave up. As of right now, I have no idea if these kids are actually the real deal or if their draft value was inflated by other clubs who had an axe to grind. Based on the small amount of avaliable evidence to date, it looks like most of them are struggling to live up to the hype. Remember, we don't control the end value of those players, it's other clubs that dictate their value through the bidding process and if they want to bid early just to prove a point, then that's what they're going to do.

At this stage, we gave up several best 22 players over the last few years and we've only got one of these highly touted academy graduates that's actually made his way into the best 22. I'll certainly be happy if I'm wrong because I want my team to succeed, but that doesn't mean I don't have question marks in regards when the bids that were placed on them. At the very least, I'd like to see more than one of them cement a spot in our best 22!

But what you're saying is "the future is uncertain, so how can we really know if Gold Coast got an advantage, when future outcomes haven't happened yet".

Which is just a ridiculous way of framing it. We can make reasonable predictions on the future on the basis of generally true things even if there's some unbuilt certainty, like how earlier drafted players tend to have better future careers than later drafted players, even if you can't act with certainty for any given player or any given pick.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just sharing my opinion. It's totally fine if you disagree with my opinion.

If we skip forward a few years from now and we're holding up the cup led mostly by these academy graduates acquired under the old bidding system then it's probably fair to suggest we got more back than we gave up. As of right now, I have no idea if these kids are actually the real deal or if their draft value was inflated by other clubs who had an axe to grind. Based on the small amount of avaliable evidence to date, it looks like most of them are struggling to live up to the hype. Remember, we don't control the end value of those players, it's other clubs that dictate their value through the bidding process and if they want to bid early just to prove a point, then that's what they're going to do.

At this stage, we gave up several best 22 players over the last few years and we've only got one of thesehighly touted academy graduates that's actually made his way into the best 22. I'll certainly be happy if I'm wrong because I want my team to succeed, but that doesn't mean I don't have question marks in regards when the bids that were placed on them. At the very least, I'd like to see more than one of them cement a spot in our best 22!

Several best 22 players is pushing it. Bar Ainsworth they hardly were. Rosas was in the VFL, Lucosius in and out of the side, Fiorini was in and out too. I don’t blame GC…this is the AFL’s fault they could have fixed this two years ago- the changes coming in this year should have been in this year. Would have cleaned up a lot of the mess.

Hopefully the AFL get through their rather slow heads that enough is enough

 

[sydney_gws]

Agree this year wasn't as bad as 2023 with GC - the new DVI is obviously an improvement. 2023, they basically turned pick 4 into 4 first round picks including pick 3 and 9 as well as 3 future firsts. It was brilliant work but ridiculous that it could be done. They still got a steal in 2025 though. No chance of getting close to trading the picks they had to the ones they got.

To me the obvious answer is no first round matching. I think clubs would still be incentivised to invest in academies to get bargains in later rounds as well as the extra Intel they'll have and loyalty they'll get from the bargains - northern and NGA - particularly if local talent is as important as what you claim. And bump the first round salaries to reduce player hiding.

Or first round can only be matched with ladder position ( and free agency compo and traded in for players) first round picks. No trading down to generate points.

 

[sr36]

I would still like to see them close it. The loophole is completely illogical and never should have existed in the first place.

Twomey said that's going to be one of the changes. Two picks. Close that loophole. And their was a third significant change that he mentioned. But I've forgotten it.