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

[Lore]

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

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.

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.

80% of the comp is on the Eastern side of Australia, it makes a lot of things easier and more desireable, do you agree on this? WA clubs have a lot of disadvantages, you are so stubborn on accepting the idea we are disadvantaged by a lot of things. I still find it so strange that the idea we get complete access to indigenous talent while you keep everything as it is was such a non-starter for you.

I will continue to be fine so long as all bidding is fixed to make clubs actually pay a price for their linked players. Somehow, the system is arguably worse than when you could just match Heeney with pick 18

 

[Ehswan]

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?

Heres a little bit of evidence.
In the last ten or so years.
From the back line
Backs . Newman Allir Biggs
Hb. Jetta Sphanger z.jones
C . Hewett Mitchell Dawson
Hf. Membrey Rohan hannerbery
F. Cameron Nankervis everitt
Rucks. Mumford bird .
7 turned into premiership players..
2 current captains.
Not all for the reasons argued did they leave.
Show me any club besides gws or gold coast who have a list like that.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Heres a little bit of evidence.
In the last ten or so years.
From the back line
Backs . Newman Allir Biggs
Hb. Jetta Sphanger z.jones
C . Hewett Mitchell Dawson
Hf. Membrey Rohan hannerbery
F. Cameron Nankervis everitt
Rucks. Mumford bird .
7 turned into premiership players..
2 current captains.
Not all for the reasons argued did they leave.
Show me any club besides gws or gold coast who have a list like that.

Is this players lost? I think you are talking to a supporter of the wrong club for this argument

 

[Ehswan]

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.

Every club can attract talent with money or other enticements
Not every club can entice HOME

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.

I wouldn't have thought so. Current academy premiership players. Zero for any club. Opposed to Shaw , Cloke Daicos Daicos Moore.
Ablett ablett Scarlett Hawkins .

I guess we obviously won't agree but here's my solution.
Scrap all f/s and academy picks.
Any traded player back to home state incurs 20 percent loading to their salary cap. Any top 20 draft pick returning to their home state incurs 20 percent negative loading on their first pick the following season. Aside from trade to the club losing the pick.
Example.
Brayden Cambell is draftedto Hawthorn at pick 5.
Wants to go home to Sydney . Swans paying Campbell 300,000 .
360, 000 is counted in cap.
If it is in the first 4 years Sydney go back 4 places in the following years first round. Still have to do a trade with Hawthorn

 

[.Shotties.]

80% of the comp is on the Eastern side of Australia, it makes a lot of things easier and more desireable, do you agree on this?

Absolutely. However I think that's more than ourweight by not being based in a football city, being low down on the choice of sports played by juniors, competing with sports who can sign players from 15 without a draft, a much lower level of access to football-tied opportunities for players (especially those who aren't stars), having to build lists from mostly interstate players and having to bring in most of your coaches from interstate (which blows up the off-field cap).

WA clubs have a lot of disadvantages, you are so stubborn on accepting the idea we are disadvantaged by a lot of things.

Distance and increased travel is absolutely a disadvantage faced by the WA teams. I've never denied it.

I still find it so strange that the idea we get complete access to indigenous talent while you keep everything as it is was such a non-starter for you.

Which indigenous talent have you actually brought through from areas where there were no pathways? I saw Fremantle fans losing their minds at not getting Shannon Motlop for Christ's sake.

I will continue to be fine so long as all bidding is fixed to make clubs actually pay a price for their linked players. Somehow, the system is arguably worse than when you could just match Heeney with pick 18

Yeah, I have no issue with the discount being removed, I just find this 'leg up' stuff hilariously inaccurate.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Absolutely. Not being based in a football city, being low down on the choice of sports played by juniors, competing with sports who can sign players from 15 without a draft, much lower level of access to football-tied opportunities for players, especially those who aren't stars, having to build lists from mostly interstate players and having to bring in most of your coaches from interstate (which blows up the off-field cap).

Distance and increased travel is absolutely a disadvantage faced by the WA teams. I've never denied it.

Which indigenous talent have you actually brought through from areas where there were no pathways? I saw Fremantle fans losing their minds at not getting Shannon Motlop for Christ's sake.

Yeah, I have no issue with the discount being removed, I just find this 'leg up' stuff hilariously inaccurate.

I've been one of the few Freo supporters previously saying getting Motlop would have been a bit ridiculous but my frustration at every Eastern state team having some kind of advantage had me wanting something to even the playing field a little bit. My frustration has gotten worse seeing what the bidding system has become which is nothing but a giant rort in talent acquisition.

I dont pretend the access would be anything other than giving WA and SA clubs a bit of a leg up but I think the results historically suggest these clubs could use a bit of help. It wont happen anyway

The irony of the bidding system possibly getting fixed is that the only player we benefitted from getting out of the current system was bid on like 10+ places higher than anyone expected (thanks Carlton) and then ****ed off anyway. So if they fix it we get we are still disadvantaged until the GC players just drafted for basically free and Naicos are out of the AFL. The sooner it's fixed the sooner we are closer to some kind of fairness in list building though

 

[CatToTheFuture]

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.

We haven't had a decent father son come through the draft in the last 17 years.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Every club can attract talent with money or other enticements
Not every club can entice HOME

I wouldn't have thought so. Current academy premiership players. Zero for any club. Opposed to Shaw , Cloke Daicos Daicos Moore.
Ablett ablett Scarlett Hawkins .

I guess we obviously won't agree but here's my solution.
Scrap all f/s and academy picks.
Any traded player back to home state incurs 20 percent loading to their salary cap. Any top 20 draft pick returning to their home state incurs 20 percent negative loading on their first pick the following season. Aside from trade to the club losing the pick.
Example.
Brayden Cambell is draftedto Hawthorn at pick 5.
Wants to go home to Sydney . Swans paying Campbell 300,000 .
360, 000 is counted in cap.
If it is in the first 4 years Sydney go back 4 places in the following years first round. Still have to do a trade with Hawthorn

I think that’s the way forward a 100% pure draft

No club has dibs on any player

What will likely happen is academy players and father sons will request trades at some point so they eventually end up there but the draft remains fair

 

[sr36]

Every club can attract talent with money or other enticements
Not every club can entice HOME

I wouldn't have thought so. Current academy premiership players. Zero for any club. Opposed to Shaw , Cloke Daicos Daicos Moore.
Ablett ablett Scarlett Hawkins .

I guess we obviously won't agree but here's my solution.
Scrap all f/s and academy picks.
Any traded player back to home state incurs 20 percent loading to their salary cap. Any top 20 draft pick returning to their home state incurs 20 percent negative loading on their first pick the following season. Aside from trade to the club losing the pick.
Example.
Brayden Cambell is draftedto Hawthorn at pick 5.
Wants to go home to Sydney . Swans paying Campbell 300,000 .
360, 000 is counted in cap.
If it is in the first 4 years Sydney go back 4 places in the following years first round. Still have to do a trade with Hawthorn

Right. So Daniher, Cameron, Dunkley, Neale move to Brisbane - no problem no penalty - we're only counting go home - even if the player is really moving back to Melbourne for money?

 

[briztoon]

Yep, I don't think many people would argue against changing the rules on the edges.

Change the value of points to picks to better represent the currency of actual trades, remove or decrease the 20% discount, understand that the right to match, the go-home factor and the inside information that the club can provide (Sydney obviously knew more than other clubs how good Gulden was gonna be, whether they 'hid' him is up for debate) provide an advantage to the club anwyay.

It's a far different debate though than suggesting that these clubs don't deserve some sort of priority access to these players carte blanche.

lol Gulden wasn't hidden. Was a star of the U18 carnival. Everyone who follows the draft had him as a top 15 to 20 prospect. On talent alone, he was rated significantly higher, but he was also short. The question was always, how would clubs weigh up his talent versus his height.

 

[jdstorm]

What the AFL need to decide on is if they want a draft model or an academy model as they are two very different philosophies

They clearly like the draft for the media attention, but aside from that it has no real value. Given they compromise it for F/S players and academy picks and handouts every year.

If they want to grow the game moving to an academy model makes more sense. If they believe the grass roots are strong enough/saturated then they should have a draft with no concessions

 

[Dogflogger]

What the AFL need to decide on is if they want a draft model or an academy model as they are two very different philosophies

They clearly like the draft for the media attention, but aside from that it has no real value. Given they compromise it for F/S players and academy picks and handouts every year.

If they want to grow the game moving to an academy model makes more sense. If they believe the grass roots are strong enough/saturated then they should have a draft with no concessions

Maybe they could use drafting zones and rotate them every couple years to make it fair lol.

 

[jdstorm]

Maybe they could use drafting zones and rotate them every couple years to make it fair lol.

Personally I’d probably go Local Academies and International draft.

I wonder how many FS players would actually make it through the system if academies weren’t incentivised to be nepotistic

I would look to use the new TV deal to expand into the Caribbean, Africa and India.

build a legitimate 6 team comp in each of those regions

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

What the AFL need to decide on is if they want a draft model or an academy model as they are two very different philosophies

They clearly like the draft for the media attention, but aside from that it has no real value. Given they compromise it for F/S players and academy picks and handouts every year.

If they want to grow the game moving to an academy model makes more sense. If they believe the grass roots are strong enough/saturated then they should have a draft with no concessions

Both can work… Rules just need to be clearer. No son of GUN should be available via academy. It is just wrong and taking the Mickey out of the system.

 

[sydney_gws]

Both can work… Rules just need to be clearer. No son of GUN should be available via academy. It is just wrong and taking the Mickey out of the system.

I agree. I really think adjusting points curve, limit to 2 picks to match ( if not can use future firsts only to make up the deficit, limited to 3 firsts).
So if Brisbane win the flag 2024,2025,2026
and ashcroft is bid on at 1, Brisbane pay with 18, 2025 pick 18, 2026 pick 18 ( perhaps if excess points it gets pushed back to pick 50).
Brisbane is not allowed to trade any of those picks down, otherwise they can't match for ashcroft.
Even if somebody offered them 20,21,22 for 18,2025r1 they could not use picks 20,21,22 to match as that is 3 non first round picks.
If they think ashcroft slides to pick 8 say, then they could if points allow it trade 18,2025r3 for 23,24 and match with 23,24.
But a risky trade for them.

 

[Ehswan]

Right. So Daniher, Cameron, Dunkley, Neale move to Brisbane - no problem no penalty - we're only counting go home - even if the player is really moving back to Melbourne for money?

It would count for Cameron. I believe he was originally from qld.

It wouldn't just be Melbourne. It would be every state.
If Queensland or Sydney are producing players that get drafted to other states..as is the outcry now and academy and f/s picks are scrapped , it would be an even system.
If the gold coast academy picks from last year were ti end up across the competition and then wanted to return home.
...it would be even for everyone

 

[sr36]

It would count for Cameron. I believe he was originally from qld.

It wouldn't just be Melbourne. It would be every state.
If Queensland or Sydney are producing players that get drafted to other states..as is the outcry now and academy and f/s picks are scrapped , it would be an even system.
If the gold coast academy picks from last year were ti end up across the competition and then wanted to return home.
...it would be even for everyone

I don't think that Cameron was from Qld, but not really relevant.

Ok. So you've levelled state of origin stuff. What are you going to do about the fact that Sydney, Brisbane and the Gold Coast are much more attractive destinations for most blokes in their twenties than Freo or wherever they're going to be based in Tassie?

What are you going to do about the increasing number attracted to the Northern States as they want to get away from the media frenzy and public spotlight wherever they go?

What are you going to do about the increased attractiveness of the top clubs.

Or are we only going to look at the one thing that disadvantages Sydney in terms of recruitment and retention and ignore everything that advantages them.

As far as I can see, the recruiting and retention equation is going pretty well for Sydney and Brisbane. It's Freo that are the big concern. Tassie will almost certainly be at a big disadvantage.

 

[Ehswan]

I don't think that Cameron was from Qld, but not really relevant.

Ok. So you've levelled state of origin stuff. What are you going to do about the fact that Sydney, Brisbane and the Gold Coast are much more attractive destinations for most blokes in their twenties than Freo or wherever they're going to be based in Tassie?

What are you going to do about the increasing number attracted to the Northern States as they want to get away from the media frenzy and public spotlight wherever they go?

What are you going to do about the increased attractiveness of the top clubs.

Or are we only going to look at the one thing that disadvantages Sydney in terms of recruitment and retention and ignore everything that advantages them.

As far as I can see, the recruiting and retention equation is going pretty well for Sydney and Brisbane. It's Freo that are the big concern. Tassie will almost certainly be at a big disadvantage.

That is for everyone across the board.
It would make it more costly for the poacher to any of the clubs.
If Freo or Tassie are trying to retain players and any of the clubs trying to lure players home ( Qld Sydney Melbourne) the cost is higher. At the moment there is no hurdle of any kind.
I also don't agree that young players are falling over themselves to get to those state...hence the whole discussion

 

[sr36]

That is for everyone across the board.
It would make it more costly for the poacher to any of the clubs.
If Freo or Tassie are trying to retain players and any of the clubs trying to lure players home ( Qld Sydney Melbourne) the cost is higher. At the moment there is no hurdle of any kind.
I also don't agree that young players are falling over themselves to get to those state...hence the whole discussion

I'd argue that this discussion is because Sydney fans want to try to justify and keep a very clear recruiting advantage in the draft. There's actually no evidence that Sydney and Brisbane are disadvantaged overall by the range of different factors that result in players leaving their club and moving to a new one. They've been net winners if anything. You're just focussed on one of those factors as that one factor probably disadvantages your club and you're ignoring the factors that advantage your club.

 

[Ehswan]

I'd argue that this discussion is because Sydney fans want to try to justify and keep a very clear recruiting advantage in the draft. There's actually no evidence that Sydney and Brisbane are disadvantaged overall by the range of different factors that result in players leaving their club and moving to a new one. They've been net winners if anything. You're just focussed on one of those factors as that one factor probably disadvantages your club and you're ignoring the factors that advantage your club.

It doesn't sound like you have offered any alternative systems. The system in place now , is what everyone is arguing for and against for in this thread.
Do you have an alternative solution ?
Your club is the current biggest beneficiary of an imbalanced system.

 

[sr36]

It doesn't sound like you have offered any alternative systems. The system in place now , is what everyone is arguing for and against for in this thread.
Do you have an alternative solution ?
Your club is the current biggest beneficiary of an imbalanced system.

I like both the Northern academy for growing the game and the father son for nostalgia. To me they've just got to get the price right for matching these guys - be it Daicos or Heeney.

In terms of location based retention or recruiting advantages, I think the Northern clubs will do well - desirable locations and what they lose in go home they'll gain in blokes wanting out of the footy state bubbles - I think that'll just become a bigger and bigger recruiting factor and is probably already what has resulted in Brissy and Sydney having done well in terms of recruitment. It's the Western states, Tassie and the pauper Vic clubs (due to competing with 10 other clubs) who I think are at a location disadvantage. No idea how you'd address that if you chose to.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I'd argue that this discussion is because Sydney fans want to try to justify and keep a very clear recruiting advantage in the draft. There's actually no evidence that Sydney and Brisbane are disadvantaged overall by the range of different factors that result in players leaving their club and moving to a new one. They've been net winners if anything. You're just focussed on one of those factors as that one factor probably disadvantages your club and you're ignoring the factors that advantage your club.

Just like the Vic clubs want to keep there father son, less travel, more marquee slots, home grand final advantages which have led to Vic teams winning most grand finals in the last 20 years.

Which of those will you give up?

Why do you need them?

 

[sr36]

Just like the Vic clubs want to keep there father son, less travel, more marquee slots, home grand final advantages which have led to Vic teams winning most grand finals in the last 20 years.

Which of those will you give up?

Why do you need them?

What are you proposing to change the travel situation? I don't think we should have neutral venues for the regular season. Plus regular season results haven't been skewed to Vic, so the more games with a home ground advantage probably balances that out anyway.

I couldn't care less about marquee slots.

Father son is getting close to a level playing field due to most of the non-vic teams having been in the comp long enough. But if you get the matching price right it won't be an issue - same with the academies. You'll still get the advantage of greater knowledge of the recruit.

Vics recent dominance has only been premierships - looking at other metrics, making finals, top 4, bottom 4 - there hasn't been Vic dominance. Perhaps it's the MCG GF, perhaps it's just been luck. However I'd have no qualms if the GF was played in a neutral state.

Watch the next 20 years, as the academy concessions play out. It won't just be significant over-representation in terms of Premierships, it'll be finals and top 4 as well - plus serious under-representation in the bottom 4. It's an advantage that's built in and too large.

 

[go_the_dockers]

What are you proposing to change the travel situation? I don't think we should have neutral venues for the regular season. Plus regular season results haven't been skewed to Vic, so the more games with a home ground advantage probably balances that out anyway.

I couldn't care less about marquee slots.

Father son is getting close to a level playing field due to most of the non-vic teams having been in the comp long enough. But if you get the matching price right it won't be an issue - same with the academies. You'll still get the advantage of greater knowledge of the recruit.

Vics recent dominance has only been premierships - looking at other metrics, making finals, top 4, bottom 4 - there hasn't been Vic dominance. Perhaps it's the MCG GF, perhaps it's just been luck. However I'd have no qualms if the GF was played in a neutral state.

Watch the next 20 years, as the academy concessions play out. It won't just be significant over-representation in terms of Premierships, it'll be finals and top 4 as well - plus serious under-representation in the bottom 4. It's an advantage that's built in and too large.

Some of the advantages Vic teams gets are hard to stop, but it doesn't mean you should forget they are there.

Brilliant, I look forward to Collingwood playing 10 Sunday games, 2 FTA games all year with no complaints.




The only thing that really matters is GF victories, in reality what else matters. I don't see people doing a 10 year reunion for making a Grand final or winning 10 matches in a row.



The vic teams are always worried about the 5 flags the NSW and QLD sides will win, but in reality they win few. GWS were meant to win 5 in a row, but did not win any.

In reality, the SA and WA clubs need some advantages to counter the advantages the Vic, NSW and QLD sides get.

 

[sr36]

Some of the advantages Vic teams gets are hard to stop, but it doesn't mean you should forget they are there.

Brilliant, I look forward to Collingwood playing 10 Sunday games, 2 FTA games all year with no complaints.




The only thing that really matters is GF victories, in reality what else matters. I don't see people doing a 10 year reunion for making a Grand final or winning 10 matches in a row.



The vic teams are always worried about the 5 flags the NSW and QLD sides will win, but in reality they win few. GWS were meant to win 5 in a row, but did not win any.

In reality, the SA and WA clubs need some advantages to counter the advantages the Vic, NSW and QLD sides get.

I'm not Premiership only, so don't agree with you regarding it's flag or bust. 2002, 2018 and 2022 were wonderful years to be a Pies fan. We had an incredible ride in those years despite the agonising September defeats. Lions, GWS and Carlton had a great ride last year. Port have had so much success in their local comp that their supporters wouldn't know what a good ride is and won't be happy until they eventually come to terms with not expecting the flag.

I haven't looked ahead at this year's fixture, but am expecting to see a fair few Sunday twilight games later on in the year like last year, as it's a timeslot the networks think can become a winner - as everyone's at home. Night games for the Pies early to get people back into watching the footy at the beginning of a new season and then growth options for the Pies later on in the year. It is what it is. Pies draw a crowd. TV rights bankroll the game. But I don't care when we play. And don't see how it's such a big advantage in a comp with a salary cap, a footy spend cap and which distributes more of the TV rights money to the poorer clubs who need it.

I agree with the last paragraph, except the Vic club part is too universal. North, Saints, Melbourne and Doggies arent in an advantageous position.