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

[GC2015]

scrimshaw, Aaron hall and Lyons? LOL, elite! All whilst being gifted Mac Andrew from our Academy. Mac Andrew is worth more than those 3 players combined so still a massive net gain.

That's such a poor way of describing what really happened. Four clubs drafted players before the Suns selected Mac Andrew. He wasn't gifted to anyone - he just became available to everyone and the Suns happened to be the club that drafted him first, but it's important to point out that multiple other clubs the opportunity to draft him before the Suns did. It'd be like saying Port Adelaide were gifted Todd Marshall because he was removed from GWS's academy in his draft year. What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

 

[danster168]

That's such a poor way of describing what really happened. Four clubs drafted players before the Suns selected Mac Andrew. He wasn't gifted to anyone - he just became available to everyone and the Suns happened to be the club that drafted him first, but it's important to point out that multiple other clubs the opportunity to draft him before the Suns did. It'd be like saying Port Adelaide were gifted Todd Marshall because he was removed from GWS's academy in his draft year. What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

When a bank is robbed, does the bank manager care about how the stolen money was divided up?

 

[GC2015]

When a bank is robbed, does the bank manager care about how the stolen money was divided up?

The AFL had no way of knowing that Mac Andrew would still be available once it came to the Suns' pick 5. He could've just as easily ended up at a club like North if they had rated him a little higher. Would you push the narrative that North had been gifted Mac if they had chosen to draft him instead?

Also, your statement still applies to the Todd Marshall example. GWS could make the exact same argument that the AFL 'robbed' them of access to Marshall because they changed the rules in his draft year and Port Adelaide happened to be the beneficiary. Have you seen any GWS fans complain about this for years after it occurred like you have? The answer is no.

There's lots of other examples of rules changing and clubs losing access to players on short notice like Jesse Motlop for Fremantle in the same draft as Mac Andrew, West Coast losing F/S access to Alex Rance because the games threshold was increased, Brisbane losing access to Nick Riewoldt because they removed the Gold Coast from their zone, Adelaide losing F/S access to Bryce Gibbs when the AFL chose to exclude games played after 1990.

Melbourne isn't the only club to have gone through this, but some Dees fans seem to carry on like they're the only ones.

 

[danster168]

The AFL had no way of knowing that Mac Andrew would still be available once it came to the Suns' pick 5. He could've just as easily ended up at a club like North if they had rated him a little higher. Would you push the narrative that North had been gifted Mac if they had chosen to draft him instead?

Also, your statement still applies to the Todd Marshall example. GWS could make the exact same argument that the AFL 'robbed' them of access to Marshall because they changed the rules in his draft year and Port Adelaide happened to be the beneficiary. Have you seen any GWS fans complain about this for years after it occurred like you have? The answer is no.

There's lots of other examples of rules changing and clubs losing access to players on short notice like Jesse Motlop for Fremantle in the same draft as Mac Andrew, West Coast losing F/S access to Alex Rance because the games threshold was increased, Brisbane losing access to Nick Riewoldt because they removed the Gold Coast from their zone, Adelaide losing F/S access to Bryce Gibbs when the AFL chose to exclude games played after 1990.

Melbourne isn't the only club to have gone through this, but some Dees fans seem to carry on like they're the only ones.

Marshall ain't no Mac Andrew. Also, the AFL purposefully changed the rules for the 2nd time, after the Dees academy got raided, just to rub salt into the wounds. That didn't happen in the Marshall situation. So that's different. You should be across this if you're going to try to compare them.

In all of your examples, the rules were changed, but they weren't then changed back soon after just to disadvantage the club even further. So none of them are remotely the same. In the WCE and Rance example, it's like increasing the games threshold so they miss out on Rance and then the following season decreasing it again. Clear corruption against the Dees and it's been going on for years.

They also made sure Islanders weren't included in the NGA stuff because the Dees had options in this space and waited until the draft cleared before announcing that they will be moving forward. It's blatant

 

[GC2015]

Marshall ain't no Mac Andrew. Also, the AFL purposefully changed the rules for the 2nd time, after the Dees academy got raided, just to rub salt into the wounds. That didn't happen in the Marshall situation. So that's different. You should be across this if you're going to try to compare them.

Gee whiz. You really do have victim mentality, huh?

The Marshall example is exactly the same. He was a member of GWS's academy for years and the AFL purposefully changed the rules to hurt the Giants by altering their zone access after complaints from other clubs. Even if you don't rate Marshall on the same level as Andrew, there's still the examples of rules changing and clubs losing access to superstars like Rance, Riewoldt and Gibbs.

In 1999, Eddie McGuire led the charge for Vic clubs to complain about Brisbane's zone access to prospective pick 1 Riewoldt and the rules changed. Then the Lions used the F/S rule to nab Jonathan Brown after his father played 51 games for Fitzroy and the Vic clubs got mad again so they successfully campaigned to increase the F/S threshold from 50 to 100 games, which saw West Coast lose F/S access to Alex Rance after his father played 57 games for the Eagles and Fremantle lost F/S access to Jeremy + Mitch McGovern after their father played 63 games for the Dockers.

It's also assumed that Carlton (having succesfully convinced Marc Murphy to forego his Brisbane F/S access the year before) pushed the AFL to further tweak the father-son rule in 2006 when it became obvious that Bryce Gibbs was the likely number 1 pick. That rule change made Gibbs ineligible to join the Crows under the F/S rule when it was previously believed that they would get access to Gibbs. So as you can see, there's plenty of examples of the AFL changing rules on short notice and costing clubs access to really good players. Melbourne's not the first and they won't be the last.

 

[Jirik13]

Mac illustrates what was wrong with NGA and I suspect still is. He should never be a member of NGA. He was already happily part of development system in Victoria. By his own admission, he visited Demons once per week.

Cancel NGA, set up academies in all states except Victoria (use current youth system) and run them by AFL with players going directly to draft. Problem solved. Yet, I suspect whinging to continue about something else.

In reality, I guess probably only 4-5 teams would survive without AFL contributions. In early years, those contributions for Suns were not far off for some Victoria teams (North, Saints, Demons).


Yet, a lot people carry on like their team is great and suffers because of some other teams. Virtually, every team can come up with some unfair, unequal parameters of competition.

 

[danster168]

Gee whiz. You really do have victim mentality, huh?

The Marshall example is exactly the same. He was a member of GWS's academy for years and the AFL purposefully changed the rules to hurt the Giants by altering their zone access after complaints from other clubs. Even if you don't rate Marshall on the same level as Andrew, there's still the examples of rules changing and clubs losing access to superstars like Rance, Riewoldt and Gibbs.

In 1999, Eddie McGuire led the charge for Vic clubs to complain about Brisbane's zone access to prospective pick 1 Riewoldt and the rules changed. Then the Lions used the F/S rule to nab Jonathan Brown after his father played 51 games for Fitzroy and the Vic clubs got mad again so they successfully campaigned to increase the F/S threshold from 50 to 100 games, which saw West Coast lose F/S access to Alex Rance after his father played 57 games for the Eagles and Fremantle lost F/S access to Jeremy + Mitch McGovern after their father played 63 games for the Dockers.

It's also assumed that Carlton (having succesfully convinced Marc Murphy to forego his Brisbane F/S access the year before) pushed the AFL to further tweak the father-son rule in 2006 when it became obvious that Bryce Gibbs was the likely number 1 pick. That rule change made Gibbs ineligible to join the Crows under the F/S rule when it was previously believed that they would get access to Gibbs. So as you can see, there's plenty of examples of the AFL changing rules on short notice and costing clubs access to really good players. Melbourne's not the first and they won't be the last.

wait, can you go back to the Marshall example. Did the AFL then change the zone access rules back again soon after Marshall was chosen by Port Adelaide?

It's not the changing of the rules that I have an issue with, it's the changing them twice which makes the Mac Andrew thing unique and completely and utterly corrupt. If the same thing happened with Marshall then fair play, but I'll await for confirmation on that.

 

[GC2015]

wait, can you go back to the Marshall example. Did the AFL then change the zone access rules back again soon after Marshall was chosen by Port Adelaide?

It's not the changing of the rules that I have an issue with, it's the changing them twice which makes the Mac Andrew thing unique and completely and utterly corrupt. If the same thing happened with Marshall then fair play, but I'll await for confirmation on that.

With that very specific example of the NGA rules changing and then changing back a few years later, then no the Marshall example doesn't apply. However, what you're referring to did happen to other clubs in terms of losing players that were in their academy and were lost due to a bid in the first two rounds and would be NGA available if they were coming through now - Adelaide lost access to Leek Aleer and Ashton Moir, Fremantle lost access to Jesse Motlop, Hawthorn lost access to Tew Jiath (CJ's brother). I know you're just going to say those players aren't on the same level as Mac Andrew, but the fact is other clubs did lose access to players that they put years into developing and I'm sure a club like Adelaide would love to have a player like Leek Aleer on their list right now. So Melbourne is not unique in that sense.

Did the bid for Mac Andrew come through before any other cancelled NGA bids? Yes. Was Mac Andrew the only NGA player lost because of the rule change? No.

 

[danster168]

With that very specific example of the NGA rules changing and then changing back a few years later, then no the Marshall example doesn't apply. However, what you're referring to did happen to other clubs in terms of losing players that were in their academy and were lost due to a bid in the first two rounds and would be NGA available if they were coming through now - Adelaide lost access to Leek Aleer and Ashton Moir, Fremantle lost access to Jesse Motlop, Hawthorn lost access to Tew Jiath (CJ's brother). I know you're just going to say those players aren't on the same level as Mac Andrew, but the fact is other clubs did lose access to players that they put years into developing and I'm sure a club like Adelaide would love to have a player like Leek Aleer on their list right now. So Melbourne is not unique in that sense.

Did the bid for Mac Andrew come through before any other cancelled NGA bids? Yes. Was Mac Andrew the only NGA player lost because of the rule change? No.

yeah and that's my point. the afl have purposefully ripped off Melbourne. It's been purposeful and corrupt. It's the changing back of the rules for the 2nd time that made that clear.

And yes, like you said, those other players are all scrubs compared to highly rated prospect like Mac Andrew. The AFL waited a full year knowing that the Dogs had access to Ugle-Hagan, they waited until after they got him before changing the rule. Same thing with the Ashcroft boys. The AFL proactively chose to gift those clubs highly rated academy/f-s players before changing the rules but at the same time purposely ensured that the dees would not get their only highly rated NGA for 20 years and further disadvantage them by snapping the rules back to the original rules almost immediately after to ensure that all the other clubs could get their academy players.

Changing the rules and then changing it immediately after we missed out on Mac Andrew should've gone to the courts. An absolute disgrace that has cost us arguably an extra flag. This has not happened in any of the examples you provided. It's unique. I believe it's 100% full corruption and that was further made clear by changing the rules allowing Islanders to be included but they wanted to wait until after the Dees Islander's draft was over before allowing it.

A strong club should've sued the AFL or sought compensation. Because 1 pick like that has 10-15 year implications. And that's obvious because you basically sort the afl ladder by Father/son and academy picks and it directly aligns to the actual ladder.

I 100% believe that the AFL waited until they knew that Kalani White was a rookie prospect before allowing him to go to the Dees, otherwise they would've changed the f/s rules this year or done a deal privately to ensure that he went to the Suns. The AFL are absolute corrupt.

 

[eastfreo75]

yeah and that's my point. the afl have purposefully ripped off Melbourne. It's been purposeful and corrupt. It's the changing back of the rules for the 2nd time that made that clear.

And yes, like you said, those other players are all scrubs compared to highly rated prospect like Mac Andrew. The AFL waited a full year knowing that the Dogs had access to Ugle-Hagan, they waited until after they got him before changing the rule. Same thing with the Ashcroft boys. The AFL proactively chose to gift those clubs highly rated academy/f-s players before changing the rules but at the same time purposely ensured that the dees would not get their only highly rated NGA for 20 years and further disadvantage them by snapping the rules back to the original rules almost immediately after to ensure that all the other clubs could get their academy players.

Changing the rules and then changing it immediately after we missed out on Mac Andrew should've gone to the courts. An absolute disgrace that has cost us arguably an extra flag. This has not happened in any of the examples you provided. It's unique. I believe it's 100% full corruption and that was further made clear by changing the rules allowing Islanders to be included but they wanted to wait until after the Dees Islander's draft was over before allowing it.

A strong club should've sued the AFL or sought compensation. Because 1 pick like that has 10-15 year implications. And that's obvious because you basically sort the afl ladder by Father/son and academy picks and it directly aligns to the actual ladder.

I 100% believe that the AFL waited until they knew that Kalani White was a rookie prospect before allowing him to go to the Dees, otherwise they would've changed the f/s rules this year or done a deal privately to ensure that he went to the Suns. The AFL are absolute corrupt.

Changes seem to always benefit the Northern State teams (which are owned by the AFL).

Zippy Fish was in the Fremantle's NGA program, and the Dockers wasn't allowed to nominate her. Fish went to Sydney.

Tomorrow Gold Coast will have 5 or 6 first round pick academy picks, Giants were given a high first round draft pick, Collingwood was gifted a early second round pick, Lions will get an early first round academy pick and same with Sydney.

 

[Dogflogger]

yeah and that's my point. the afl have purposefully ripped off Melbourne. It's been purposeful and corrupt. It's the changing back of the rules for the 2nd time that made that clear.

And yes, like you said, those other players are all scrubs compared to highly rated prospect like Mac Andrew. The AFL waited a full year knowing that the Dogs had access to Ugle-Hagan, they waited until after they got him before changing the rule. Same thing with the Ashcroft boys. The AFL proactively chose to gift those clubs highly rated academy/f-s players before changing the rules but at the same time purposely ensured that the dees would not get their only highly rated NGA for 20 years and further disadvantage them by snapping the rules back to the original rules almost immediately after to ensure that all the other clubs could get their academy players.

Changing the rules and then changing it immediately after we missed out on Mac Andrew should've gone to the courts. An absolute disgrace that has cost us arguably an extra flag. This has not happened in any of the examples you provided. It's unique. I believe it's 100% full corruption and that was further made clear by changing the rules allowing Islanders to be included but they wanted to wait until after the Dees Islander's draft was over before allowing it.

A strong club should've sued the AFL or sought compensation. Because 1 pick like that has 10-15 year implications. And that's obvious because you basically sort the afl ladder by Father/son and academy picks and it directly aligns to the actual ladder.

I 100% believe that the AFL waited until they knew that Kalani White was a rookie prospect before allowing him to go to the Dees, otherwise they would've changed the f/s rules this year or done a deal privately to ensure that he went to the Suns. The AFL are absolute corrupt.

you are right. if mac andrews was in Collingwoods academy or a northen academy program the rule would have been changed ahead of them drafting him. The AFL are so predictible in their greediness.

 

[Lore]

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

Just the nebulous concept of competition integrity, where teams theoretically walk onto the ground with an equal shot at the grand final when all the advantages and disadvantages across various domains are taken into account, not including injuries.

 

[tombomb]

I think there are a few small things left to do and it would basically be a fair system.

• Limit the picks you can use to match a bid to two.
• Remove the discount.
• If you have a parent who has played AFL/AFLW (and maybe state league as well), you can't be bid on/matched in the first round as an NGA or Northern Academy player.
• Remove first round compensation for restricted free agents. Or raise the threshold so high for a 1st round pick that it only captures completely disproportionate offers like TDK.

I don't see any strong logical argument against any of those things.