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

[Maybe Tomorrow]

I don’t mind if we lose a player or two, fairness should be the no1 thing. Clubs should pay fair value not junk. All clubs have got away with it and I don’t blame the clubs it’s the afl that have caused this

Why is "fairness" the goal with the draft but not other parts of the AFL?

 

[danster168]

Why is "fairness" the goal with the draft but not other parts of the AFL?

fairness isn't the goal of the draft. The AFL have made that abundantly clear.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

fairness isn't the goal of the draft. The AFL have made that abundantly clear.

Do you think they see it as an equalisation measure then?

 

[danster168]

Do you think they see it as an equalisation measure then?

nup. I think they just see it as a way to bring young kids into the system. Nothing more.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Why is "fairness" the goal with the draft but not other parts of the AFL?

I have never said otherwise including travel etc. make it as fair as possible for everyone simple

 

[sr36]

The fix will never be singular like that in my view. As much as we kept getting a leg up in father son, academy - our turnaround from feeder club changed when we fixed the foundation by bringing Fagan, Noble, Swann in to revamp the program in 2016. That's the start of our turnaround along with Fagan bringing in Hodge which made the youngsters build a collective bond - rest are all incremental benefits.

There's a lot made out of a location disadvantage, but your captain was hazing new recruits and they left. Your culture was ****ed. And you're right, they turned around the culture and guess what, a lot of Southerners like living in Southern Qld - who could have imagined that ...

 

[mpal6]

There's a lot made out of a location disadvantage, but your captain was hazing new recruits and they left. Your culture was ****ed. And you're right, they turned around the culture and guess what, a lot of Southerners like living in Southern Qld - who could have imagined that ...

Southerners living in southern QLD is something that took hold post-covid. Still doesn't change the fact that there is lack of grass roots infra / system for AFL in QLD. Gold coast is starting to change a bit but Brisbane and Northern QLD areas are still lacking, private school boards blocking AFL as a sport in their system etc. Long way to go.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

The key mistake here is the weird assumption that the AFL or any rulemaker is expecting clubs to pay 'market value'.

If that was the expectation, then there is no point in having a system - as market value is determined by the draft and the order the names are read out.

Once you put to bed the stupid assumption that it should be market value, you can accept that the system is improving.

Even 'fair value' is a misonomer as thats really another way of saying 'market value'.

The point of the system is ensuring a F/S or Academy player can get to their aligned club, but ensuring that club now has to give up something in return (rather than the Tom Hawkins situation) - there is no system where that can be market value or fair value, other than just having no system at all.

If you would like clubs to retain the ability to get the F/S or Academy talent (which is a concept I personally don't mind, despite being a long suffering Sainter) then the system simply needs to be designed to at least make them have to work hard to match a bid, or a series of bids. Eg. the Lions didn't do enough to get themselves into a position to match a bid on Prindable (assuming they wanted to?)

2 for 14, 18, 24 (Uwland)

So Uwland went for 2 first rounders and an early second rounder. I personally think thats pretty fair. Sure, I doubt many clubs would accept 14,18 and 24 for Pick 2 (maybe a few would?) but I think its still a pretty high price for an 18 year old kid.

5 for 24, 29, 31, 32 (Patterson)

So Patterson went for the princely sum of 4 x 2nd round picks. Thats still a pretty high price. If you traded a 4th year player for 4 x 2nd rounders, they would have wanted to have a good first 50 games of AFL footy.

Probably slightly unders, but hardly daylight robbery

17 for 31, 32 (Murray)

a late first round pick, matched with 2 mid range 2nd rounders. Again, probably slightly unders - but not robbery either.

Pick 17 in 2023 was James Leake, in 2022 it was Max Michalanney and in 2021 it was Tom Brown.

I reckon if any club came along and offered Picks 31 and 32 for them, their respective clubs would consider taking the deal (except the Crows to be fair)

18 for 39, 40, 44, 46 (Addinsal).

This one is probably one that shouldn't have got through, but I don't think those picks actually do add up to enough points do they? Didn't they go into a points deficit for 2026 to match this?

The stupid assumption is that clubs shouldn't pay market value. Market value and how the trades would operate in a real world situation is exactly what should determine the price paid.

 

[sr36]

Southerners living in southern QLD is something that took hold post-covid. Still doesn't change the fact that there is lack of grass roots infra / system for AFL in QLD. Gold coast is starting to change a bit but Brisbane and Northern QLD areas are still lacking, private school boards blocking AFL as a sport in their system etc. Long way to go.

It's accelerated, but Vics have been moving to Qld for decades. It's long been an attractive destination. Not so attractive when your captain is bullying you though.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Disagree.

This year was a progress in right direction. Some clubs did not match bids. Suns were a special case. There were preparing for it for several years and did pay decent price. It's not like they got those kids for nothing. No picks next year.

I have no problems with new rules coming. I suspect some clubs will have and are pushing back. Those rules were originally supposed to be announced before trade, then before draft, then this Dec and we are still waiting. Yes, AFL is a terrible organisation.

Decent price is with all due respect to you flat out wrong.
If it was decent price you would see plenty of non academy examples where picks in the top 5 or 6 get traded for 2 late 1sts or 3 or 4 2nds. You very very rarely do. Hence the price paid is nowhere near 'decent'. Decent is what it would cost to buy that pick in a non academy situation which isn't happening. The changes next year will help but they dont go far enough.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The stupid assumption is that clubs shouldn't pay market value. Market value and how the trades would operate in a real world situation is exactly what should determine the price paid.

Yep look at the second one a bunch of mid second rounders equaling pick 5? Come off it. Nowhere near it

 

[rye]

Decent price is with all due respect to you flat out wrong.
If it was decent price you would see plenty of non academy examples where picks in the top 5 or 6 get traded for 2 late 1sts or 3 or 4 2nds. You very very rarely do. Hence the price paid is nowhere near 'decent'. Decent is what it would cost to buy that pick in a non academy situation which isn't happening. The changes next year will help but they dont go far enough.

are you seriously suggesting that the price to buy a pick that entitles you to any player still on the board is comparable to the price one ought to pay for a specific player?

the situations are not comparable.

 

[sr36]

The key mistake here is the weird assumption that the AFL or any rulemaker is expecting clubs to pay 'market value'.

If that was the expectation, then there is no point in having a system - as market value is determined by the draft and the order the names are read out.

Once you put to bed the stupid assumption that it should be market value, you can accept that the system is improving.

Even 'fair value' is a misonomer as thats really another way of saying 'market value'.

The point of the system is ensuring a F/S or Academy player can get to their aligned club, but ensuring that club now has to give up something in return (rather than the Tom Hawkins situation) - there is no system where that can be market value or fair value, other than just having no system at all.

If you would like clubs to retain the ability to get the F/S or Academy talent (which is a concept I personally don't mind, despite being a long suffering Sainter) then the system simply needs to be designed to at least make them have to work hard to match a bid, or a series of bids. Eg. the Lions didn't do enough to get themselves into a position to match a bid on Prindable (assuming they wanted to?)

2 for 14, 18, 24 (Uwland)

So Uwland went for 2 first rounders and an early second rounder. I personally think thats pretty fair. Sure, I doubt many clubs would accept 14,18 and 24 for Pick 2 (maybe a few would?) but I think its still a pretty high price for an 18 year old kid.

5 for 24, 29, 31, 32 (Patterson)

So Patterson went for the princely sum of 4 x 2nd round picks. Thats still a pretty high price. If you traded a 4th year player for 4 x 2nd rounders, they would have wanted to have a good first 50 games of AFL footy.

Probably slightly unders, but hardly daylight robbery

17 for 31, 32 (Murray)

a late first round pick, matched with 2 mid range 2nd rounders. Again, probably slightly unders - but not robbery either.

Pick 17 in 2023 was James Leake, in 2022 it was Max Michalanney and in 2021 it was Tom Brown.

I reckon if any club came along and offered Picks 31 and 32 for them, their respective clubs would consider taking the deal (except the Crows to be fair)

18 for 39, 40, 44, 46 (Addinsal).

This one is probably one that shouldn't have got through, but I don't think those picks actually do add up to enough points do they? Didn't they go into a points deficit for 2026 to match this?

They're all way unders. The bloke who once had the job to advantage Brisbane convinced the Northern fans of a massive disadvantage. He is now cutting the advantage even further than it's already been cut now that he works for the AFL and has the interests of the comp at heart.

You're not doing this, but the funny thing is that Northern club fans are still regurgitating the arguments of Swan - even though he's clearly showing what he thinks of the system and the arguments he used to put forward.

 

[sr36]

are you seriously suggesting that the price to buy a pick that entitles you to any player still on the board is comparable to the price one ought to pay for a specific player?

the situations are not comparable.

That's how non points in-draft trading works. You trade up to draft a specific player. And it's much better as everyone else doesn't move back in the draft.

 

[sr36]

Just need to put up with the Lions and Suns dominating the comp for the next 5 years.

At least my club isn't contending and is rebuilding. Would be ropeable if these nepo clubs knocked my side out in finals.

I don't think you get the time frames of the draft. Gold Coast are getting these draft hauls when you're getting the youngsters you're hoping to lift you.

Gold Coast haven't got much yet from their recent matching hauls. 5 years time is when the advantage will only just be kicking in - with most of a decade of advantage to follow after that.

 

[sr36]

lol. we literally won a flag and had 2x top 4 finishes with no help from the afl. In fact, the opposite. The afl ripping players like Mac Andrew from our academy. Hilarious hearing about 'woah is me' from an essendon fan. Kako and Nguyen ain't moving the needle mate.

The draft is a system that gave you a heap of help from the AFL. You were given so many early picks that you eventually put a very good team together. Viney as a father son helped too.

 

[danster168]

The draft is a system that gave you a heap of help from the AFL. You were given so many early picks that you eventually put a very good team together. Viney as a father son helped too.

tell me. how did we get those high picks? did we get them from finishing high on the ladder or did we get them by wasting full seasons near the bottom of the ladder?

We got early picks the fair way. not by getting them for free from the afl aka Brisbane, Gold Coast, dogs, etc.

 

[sr36]

tell me. how did we get those high picks? did we get them from finishing high on the ladder or did we get them by wasting full seasons near the bottom of the ladder?

We got early picks the fair way. not by getting them for free from the afl aka Brisbane, Gold Coast, dogs, etc.

You got them for free from the AFL. You were given advantages for being a very poor team. I like the draft, and equalisation. But let's not pretend you earn the advantages you are given in the draft when you're a struggling team. They're purely an equalisation measure - and it's certainly not a perfect equalisation measure.

 

[briztoon]

dees lost Hogan, Luke Jackson, Mcvee, Mac Andrew, p)

1) You never had Mac Andrew.

2) So you lost 3 players over 7 years, and think that somehow equates to the talent drain GC experienced every year for the similar period.

The year you lost Hogan, GC lost May (to the Dees), Lynch to the premiers, Jack Scrimshaw, Aaron Hall and Jarryd Lyons.

 

[briztoon]

If you bothered finding out you would already know the Eagles and Dockers are owned by the WAFL and pay millions every year into running state football in WA including junior development.

Recent draft results suggest both clubs are doing a sh!thouse job on WA junior development.

And then on top of that spends millions on the Naitanui NGA academy.

Can you prove this?

Freo does the same with their NGA academy.

Not the same full state zone academy benefits enjoyed by expansion clubs.

If you arent an eligible for NGA any side can select the player.

What are the Eagles doing with rumoured $100m in the bank?

 

[briztoon]

I don't think you get the time frames of the draft.

lol that was established on the West Coast board back in 2022/23.

Gold Coast are getting these draft hauls when you're getting the youngsters you're hoping to lift you.

Gold Coast haven't got much yet from their recent matching hauls. 5 years time is when the advantage will only just be kicking in - with most of a decade of advantage to follow after that.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

are you seriously suggesting that the price to buy a pick that entitles you to any player still on the board is comparable to the price one ought to pay for a specific player?

the situations are not comparable.

Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting. You will never 100 % get it right in every case but with top 10 bids in particular the price to match the bid should be equivalent to what it would actually cost to buy that pick in the market in a non academy transaction. No one is ever trading their pick 2 for 14 18 and 24 so you should never be able to match a top 5 bid at such a low price.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting. You will never 100 % get it right in every case but with top 10 bids in particular the price to match the bid should be equivalent to what it would actually cost to buy that pick in the market in a non academy transaction. No one is ever trading their pick 2 for 14 18 and 24 so you should never be able to match a top 5 bid at such a low price.

The pick 2 one I’m relatively okay with, it’s the other ones especially the 3rd and 4th…and the biggest joke of it all they still had points left over!

The pick 5 one is farcical you can claim they had x first rounders before and whatever bottom line they used none to match that bid basically. On what planet would any club accept what they paid in a trade for pick 5?

This actually isn’t hard.

2 picks, and a maximum deficit up to your first pick used. No discount in first 30 picks.

 

[briztoon]

Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting. You will never 100 % get it right in every case but with top 10 bids in particular the price to match the bid should be equivalent to what it would actually cost to buy that pick in the market in a non academy transaction. No one is ever trading their pick 2 for 14 18 and 24 so you should never be able to match a top 5 bid at such a low price.

West Coast practically did. Twice.