News AFL to overhaul the draft, discuss changes to Academy and FS bid matching

[Lore]

 

[sr36]

You don't need an academy if you can recruit/ draft out of your own backyard.
You are not paying a premium to keep interstate players 'Happy ' being away from home. How many players do Collingwood etc lose to the return home factor compared to Northern clubs. Collingwood weren't at the top when they had treloar returning. Carlton weren't at the top when they were getting gws players or nearly getting papley or docherty or all the other names they have. Losing players to go home is far more prominent than any other measure if list losses. Equality is never going to be Equal.
MCG grand finals. Days afforded to particular clubs.
The outrage would be massive from the traditional football states if they were drafting and developing top end talent ,only to see them walk just before their prime at a discounted draft pick exchange ..

I keep hearing this sort of stuff, but Sydney and Brissy still look to me like net gainers from recruitment over the last 20 years. Brissy had that go home patch but have more than compensated since. And I've got no idea what Sydney fans are on about.

Carlton's poaching? The rumoured contracts were always huge, but they had a s**t enough list that they could afford it because they were a bottom club - it's how the salary cap helps equalise things and gets teams moving off the bottom.

The big net losers over that time - two start up clubs and a club from a traditional footy state. Where's Freos equalising draft concessions - they're actually a club that gets smacked by poaching. Perhaps an extra top 10 pick every couple of years, regardless of ladder position? Brisbane and Sydney? Line up what you've recruited against what you've lost.

 

[Ehswan]

I don't put the Suns in the same position as the Swans, Lions and GWS who have all made grand finals recently, are playing finals AND have lists overflowing with talent. Suns list is overflowing with talent and are about to gain the rewards from that.

You can shove your 'Northern States' argument. Its no longer relevant and total BS. Lions, Swans and GWS haven't suffered for years in attracting talent and are three of the best sides in the comp now. And success breeds success, that's why Grundy, Jordan AND Adams all moved to the Swans in the Northern states. Its why Dunckley, Daniher and Neale moved to the Lions in the Northern states.

Welfare assistance is for a struggling person or individual. NOT for clubs making grand finals. Your Suns can keep getting it until they start making grand finals. This is the point. Teams making finals and grand finals should not get assistance..........they don't need it.

I think you are missing the point again.
This is not about who can attract players for multiple reasons ie money or success or whatever other.

That will be irregular for All clubs.
Want won't be is that a percentage of drafted players will always want to return home.
If you have a decent percentage of your list DRAFTED from their home state. You will be less affected by this year after year after year.
Let's compare West coast or Collingwood to Swans players leaving to their home state in the last dozen years.
It makes for good reading.

All clubs CAN poach players...equally.
Not all clubs can entice players Home.
Unequal

 

[Dangerousfield]

Vicbias to the fore in a lot of these posts.

Go homers from northern clubs have played a large part in a number of recent Vic clubs success.

Only idiots don't accept the fact that Vic clubs draft substantially bigger percentage of home boys than other states can draft, particularly the NRL dominated northern states. Northern academies have lost some very promising talent over the years to the NRL clubs who give them contracts from as young as 16 I'm told. No draft mechanism for a local boy to have to navigate up north.

 

[Ehswan]

I keep hearing this sort of stuff, but Sydney and Brissy still look to me like net gainers from recruitment over the last 20 years. Brissy had that go home patch but have more than compensated since. And I've got no idea what Sydney fans are on about.

Carlton's poaching? The rumoured contracts were always huge, but they had a s**t enough list that they could afford it.

As I said to the other poster that keeps talking about recruiting players.
EVERY club is allowed to entice players with big contracts or team success etc.
Four clubs DON'T have the ability to Entice players Home ( the biggest reason for players to change clubs) As there is no players to entice back to the Northern States

 

[.Shotties.]

What a dumb arguement.

Go list the QUALITY players who have move to Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sydney over the past 5 to 10 years. Those clubs have now become destination clubs. Especially the Lions and Swans who are recent grand finalists.

Then go look at what QUALITY has moved to WA.

So your point is massively outdated and incorrect in the current day.

Okay,:
Callum Sinclair, Michael Talia, Ryan Clarke, Jackson Thurlow, Lewis Taylor, Kaiden Brand, Aaron Francis, Tom Hickey, James Jordon, Brodie Grundy, and Taylor Adams
Vs.

Elliot Yeo, Lewis Jetta, Jack Redden, Tim Kelly, Alex Witherden, Sam Mitchell and Drew Petrie.

 

[Obeanie1]

I think you are missing the point again.
This is not about who can attract players for multiple reasons ie money or success or whatever other.

That will be irregular for All clubs.
Want won't be is that a percentage of drafted players will always want to return home.
If you have a decent percentage of your list DRAFTED from their home state. You will be less affected by this year after year after year.
Let's compare West coast or Collingwood to Swans players leaving to their home state in the last dozen years.
It makes for good reading.

All clubs CAN poach players...equally.
Not all clubs can entice players Home.
Unequal

You are totally wrong.

The Eastern seaboard is where 95% of player movement occurs. Players don't want to travel and the additional travel for WA sides reduces the length of careers and earnings. That's a fact.

As for what happened 10 years ago. It doesn't matter. Circumstances change. Do YOU understand this?

Teams improve and get better. Especially with 12 years of welfare.

This AFL welfare assistance should be reduced when the teams don't need it any more.

Do you not get that?

Stop living in the past over a decade ago and look at today mate. The teams playing in grand finals don't need welfare from the AFL.

And teams struggling at the bottom of the ladder for years should not be continually disadvantaged by the AFL assisting teams playing in grand finals.

Seriously. Do you not get that?

It's like taking food off a poor starving person and giving it to an obese entitled rich person. And saying its OK because 12 years ago we were starving so it's all OK.

That's how dumb your arguement is mate.

 

[Ehswan]

You are totally wrong.

The Eastern seaboard is where 95% of player movement occurs. Players don't want to travel and the additional travel for WA sides reduces the length of careers and earnings. That's a fact.

As for what happened 10 years ago. It doesn't matter. Circumstances change. Do YOU understand this?

Teams improve and get better. Especially with 12 years of welfare.

This AFL welfare assistance should be reduced when the teams don't need it any more.

Do you not get that?

Stop living in the past over a decade ago and look at today mate. The teams playing in grand finals don't need welfare from the AFL.

And teams struggling at the bottom of the ladder for years should not be continually disadvantaged by the AFL assisting teams playing in grand finals.

Seriously. Do you not get that?

It's like taking food off a poor starving person and giving it to an obese entitled rich person. And saying its OK because 12 years ago we were starving so it's all OK.

That's how dumb your arguement is mate.

Relax champ. By getting more aggressive each post isn't making your points any better.

 

[Obeanie1]

As I said to the other poster that keeps talking about recruiting players.
EVERY club is allowed to entice players with big contracts or team success etc.
Four clubs DON'T have the ability to Entice players Home ( the biggest reason for players to change clubs) As there is no players to entice back to the Northern States

BS. Stop living in the past.

Charlie Cameron........went home.

With any decent kid who wants to play AFL being forced into Northern academies not many will be leaving so hell that's one reason why they don't come back.....if they are any good they can't leave the Northern states.

Meanwhile many players ARE being enticed to the Northern states. And top shelf ones always have such as Hall, Franklin, Daniher, Dunckley, Witts, Neale, Weller, Grundy, Adams, Scully, Jordan Jones, Shaw brothers and everyone is rooting for and expects Dusty to move north next.

Has any gun Victorian player ever moved to a WA club in the past 20 years? Feel free to name one.

Players are lining up to move to the Northern states to get out of the Melbourne fish bowl.

Top players from interstate are NOW re-signing not leaving. King, Lucocous, Anderson, Rowell and even fringe players like Dev Robertson are difficult to prie out.

Times have changed. The welfare hasn't.

 

[sr36]

As I said to the other poster that keeps talking about recruiting players.
EVERY club is allowed to entice players with big contracts or team success etc.
Four clubs DON'T have the ability to Entice players Home ( the biggest reason for players to change clubs) As there is no players to entice back to the Northern States

I don't get the point. Sydney and Brisbane need compensation for issues regarding recruitment despite their neutral at worst records of recruitment from and to other clubs. I'd actually say that their ins exceed their outs. Overall in terms of recruitment there isn't actually a record that shows this worse recruiting predicament, but lets give them extra recruiting concessions. Because of go home factor ...

We could balance the go home factor concessions with climate factor draft punishments. Away from the media frenzy draft punishments. Beautiful city draft punishments.

In what industry does Sydney struggle to attract and keep young well paid professionals - doesn't look like it's AFL to me - where's the evidence?

 

[Obeanie1]

Relax champ. By getting more aggressive each post isn't making your points any better.

Listing the facts does get my temper going. Like when we all found out the AFL was also bankrolling the Swans COLA rort. Yep got pretty pissed off like everyone else did.

Not much has changed there.

Trot off and enjoy the welfare cheque champ.

 

[sr36]

You are totally wrong.

The Eastern seaboard is where 95% of player movement occurs. Players don't want to travel and the additional travel for WA sides reduces the length of careers and earnings. That's a fact.

As for what happened 10 years ago. It doesn't matter. Circumstances change. Do YOU understand this?

Teams improve and get better. Especially with 12 years of welfare.

This AFL welfare assistance should be reduced when the teams don't need it any more.

Do you not get that?

Stop living in the past over a decade ago and look at today mate. The teams playing in grand finals don't need welfare from the AFL.

And teams struggling at the bottom of the ladder for years should not be continually disadvantaged by the AFL assisting teams playing in grand finals.

Seriously. Do you not get that?

It's like taking food off a poor starving person and giving it to an obese entitled rich person. And saying its OK because 12 years ago we were starving so it's all OK.

That's how dumb your arguement is mate.

I'm glad it's not just me thinking this. It's nonsense. Sydney and Brisbane needing concessions because those cities struggle to attract Victorians who want to live there? Pure fiction.

The argument for concessions due to recruiting and retention disadvantage would have the concessions going to Freo, both from actual recruiting data and logic.

GC lost a heap because they were a shambles and GWS because they had more talented kids than they could afford to keep. It's not because of location. Those places are really attractive for Vics. Tassie will lose a heap too. It's a start up issue. The thing with Tassie though is what is going to keep them there. Small population.Less local players than NSW or Qld. Less attractive a destination for cashed up blokes in their 20s. What ongoing concessions do the current Northern concession fans think they should get for their entire existence

 

[.Shotties.]

As I've said to posters previously, have your club build their list from 90% interstate players for 30 years and then you get an academy in Newcastle, The Tweed and Shoalhaven (Sydney) or the west and northern suburbs of Brisbane and the Sunshine coast.

Who's making that deal?

 

[.Shotties.]

Listing the facts does get my temper going. Like when we all found out the AFL was also bankrolling the Swans COLA rort.

Dude, the AFL pays all player salaries. "We all found out". Jesus Christ

 

[Ehswan]

Listing the facts does get my temper going. Like when we all found out the AFL was also bankrolling the Swans COLA rort. Yep got pretty pissed off like everyone else did.

Not much has changed there.

Trot off and enjoy the welfare cheque champ.

I thought we weren't going back in time

 

[Dangerousfield]

I'm glad it's not just me thinking this. It's nonsense. Sydney and Brisbane needing concessions because those cities struggle to attract Victorians who want to live there? Pure fiction.

The argument for concessions due to recruiting and retention disadvantage would have the concessions going to Freo, both from actual recruiting data and logic.

GC lost a heap because they were a shambles and GWS because they had more talented kids than they could afford to keep. It's not because of location. Those places are really attractive for Vics. Tassie will lose a heap too. It's a start up issue. The thing with Tassie though is what is going to keep them there. Small population.Less local players than NSW. Less attractive a destination for Vics. What ongoing concessions do the current concession fans think they should get for the rest of their existence

What about the numerous Vic draftees who make it quite clear they don't want to be drafted out of Victoria. No Vic clubs start every draft with names crossed through like the non Vic clubs do - FACT!

 

[sr36]

What about the numerous Vic draftees who make it quite clear they don't want to be drafted out of Victoria. No Vic clubs start every draft with names crossed through like the non Vic clubs do - FACT!

Yeah they do. All the northern state players and some of the WA ones. Not many croweaters would be crossed off. And then there's 11 Vic clubs competing for those who don't want to leave but aren't good enough for a club to draft them anyway... Arguments like this seem to view Victoria as one club.

I'm not sure why you're arguing though. SA clubs are a loser in the draft concessions and recruitment game. It's not non Vic Vs Vic. It's 18 clubs competing and 4 get a big leg up with draft concessions. 10 get a leg up with. GF venue. Some have location disadvantages or size disadvantages. That's the game.

 

[.Shotties.]

Some have location disadvantages

Yeah, like having to build and maintain a list from 90% interstate players.

 

[Ehswan]

I'm glad it's not just me thinking this. It's nonsense. Sydney and Brisbane needing concessions because those cities struggle to attract Victorians who want to live there? Pure fiction.

The argument for concessions due to recruiting and retention disadvantage would have the concessions going to Freo, both from actual recruiting data and logic.

GC lost a heap because they were a shambles and GWS because they had more talented kids than they could afford to keep. It's not because of location. Those places are really attractive for Vics. Tassie will lose a heap too. It's a start up issue. The thing with Tassie though is what is going to keep them there. Small population.Less local players than NSW or Qld. Less attractive a destination for cashed up blokes in their 20s. What ongoing concessions do the current Northern concession fans think they should get for their entire existence

How can you possibly put up arguments like this when you and Geelong are the biggest beneficiaries of compromised draft picks Currently and in the past.
For no other reason than tradition.
I'll say it again.
It's not about attracting players ......
It's losing them to HOME state. More players return Home than for any other reason.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Yeah, like having to build and maintain a list from 90% interstate players.

Doesnt seem too big a disadvantage given the players leaving the Northern clubs is pretty small (particularly Sydney). Dont think its worse than any of the SA or WA teams

 

[Ehswan]

Doesnt seem too big a disadvantage given the players leaving the Northern clubs is pretty small (particularly Sydney). Dont think its worse than any of the SA or WA teams

Wa teams are going to try to entice Home at least 5 players from swans in the next year or two.
The other way 0.. yep zero.
Swans have to try to retain .. McDonald wa. Hayward sa, Florent and Rowbottom vic Gulden nsw. Among many others at seasons end. The only one I'd be sure of keeping is Gulden.
Would be great to have that assurance with 60 percent of your list. You may even be able to pay them less because they are at home

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Wa teams are going to try to entice Home at least 5 players from swans in the next year or two.
The other way 0.. yep zero.
Swans have to try to retain .. McDonald wa. Hayward sa, Florent and Rowbottom vic Gulden nsw. Among many others at seasons end. The only one I'd be sure of keeping is Gulden.
Would be great to have that assurance with 60 percent of your list. You may even be able to pay them less because they are at home

Lets wait and see which players we get (if any) and which players Sydney fail to get (if any). It might feel like that to Swans supporters but actual evidence suggests you have little problem keeping talent and little problem putting together and keeping an elite list. Not only are you one of the most successful clubs in the comp, you lose very little talent.

What is the evidence it's a meaningful disadvantage while being based in NSW and QLD?

 

[.Shotties.]

Doesnt seem too big a disadvantage given the players leaving the Northern clubs is pretty small (particularly Sydney). Dont think its worse than any of the SA or WA teams

So you'd happily forgo the WA players on your list for the next 30 odd years, bar a few WA rookies or third rounders?

Success despite an disadvantage isn't evidence it doesn't exist. No club in the country would forgo home-city talent to the extent Sydney and Brisbane had to for decades.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

So you'd happily forgo the WA players on your list for the next 30 odd years, bar a few WA rookies or third rounders?

Success despite an disadvantage isn't evidence it doesn't exist. No club in the country would forgo home-city talent to the extent Sydney and Brisbane had to for decades.

No, because our geographical disadvantage is far greater. If I could move 80% of the comp to Geraldton and Bunbury, become one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in while letting my players live in relative obscurity so they dont have to cop what Hogan copped and Harley Reid is copping, I'd be comfortable with that trade given I apparently get very cheap top 10 picks every few years.

And like Obeanie1 said (look who you've made me start agreeing with and liking), the decades are irrelevant, it's 2024. Things have changed

 

[sr36]

How can you possibly put up arguments like this when you and Geelong are the biggest beneficiaries of compromised draft picks Currently and in the past.
For no other reason than tradition.
I'll say it again.
It's not about attracting players ......
It's losing them to HOME state. More players return Home than for any other reason.

So you losing a player to home state is awful but you attracting a player for a different reason is irrelevant. That club who loses them just cops it, but you deserve compensation over and above the trade because it's this special go home category? No extra compensation for Freo losing Neale - not go home. Makes no sense to me.

The father son matching rules are equally bullshit. They're the same stupid rule. Nick Daicos for 4 junk picks - ridiculous. The difference is that now all but 2 clubs are in a similar boat for FS. The advantage will come down to luck - not an in-built mechanism. Fix up the matching and give those two teams an advantage so they can get occasional luck - but Brisbane and Sydney get both.

P.S. current Sydney team are already as big a beneficiary as Collingwood and Geelong with more almost certain to come to go well past them.

 

[.Shotties.]

No, because our geographical disadvantage is far greater. If I could move 80% of the comp to Geraldton and Bunbury, become one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in while letting my players live in relative obscurity so they dont have to cop what Hogan copped and Harley Reid is copping, I'd be comfortable with that trade given I apparently get very cheap top 10 picks every few years.

I didn't realise 80% of the competition was based in The Shoalhaven and Mid-North Coast here. If you're going to start listing other hypotheticals, then you need to list things like a complete lack of junior systems in the city, football being a third (or fourth) choice sport for participation and extremely limited opportunites related to football. No playing country football for solid pay or local businesses helping line players pockets, especially those outside the top handful.

Anyway, the short answer is you wouldn't take on those circumstances.

And like Obeanie1 said (look who you've made me start agreeing with and liking), the decades are irrelevant

No, they're not, for the reasons I outlined last time you tried to argue this. What I'm discussing is how things were without the academies. Even IF we assume that every academy player still got to the AFL if they didn't exist, the Swans would have had the ability to draft Campbell with their picks. Maybe Gulden if they reached over a round. The lack of access to talent would still be a current issue.