Academy Beatson interview on Road to the Draft – How to stop dummy bids on Northern Academy players?

Remove this Banner Ad

Pykie

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 17, 2006
20,283
44,494
Lord's
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Leeds United
The NGA’s get peeled back.

Meanwhile can we please have the worlds smallest violin for Kinnear Beatson?

Proposing if a Northern Academy side passes on a prospect, their next pick should move up to the very next pick after the bid as compensation 😂😂 because it’s currently unfair the only option they have is to match if a team puts a bid half a round ahead of them and they have to use later picks and don’t get to double dip 😂😂

Sorry, where exactly have these dummy bids come from? Green last year that went about 6 picks after where most rated him?

How much does this man want handed to him? Heeney, Mills now Campbell? Anything else Kinnear? How about free reign for the Northern sides on the entire first round?

 

Lore

Moderator ❀
Dec 14, 2015
20,970
26,349
AFL Club
Essendon
Proposing if a Northern Academy side passes on a prospect, their next pick should move up to the very next pick after the bid as compensation 😂😂
Is that what he was saying? I read it like 6 times and I couldn't quite believe that that was what he meant. The mind boggles.

So if he chooses not to match the bid, he should essentially be able to trade places with whoever bid on his academy player? So that both the bidding and the matching clubs have the choice of Mills or Oliver/Parish/Francis/Milera/Weideman/McKay/etc?

I think that would effectively undermine the stated objectives of the entire northern academy system tbh.

Firstly, that would remove the incentive to match a bid on a northern talent you've spent time developing. You might've spent time developing a NSW midfielder but prefer a WA KPF that happens to be available at that pick, so you pass and take the WA KPF instead. Meaning that the stay home objective of the northern academies – reducing the "go home" factor by encouraging northern clubs to draft northern talent – is undermined.

Secondly, with the clubs no longer being incentivised to keep northern talent in the north, kids in Sydney may be more likely to chose NRL rather than joining Sydney's academy and risking being drafted to Perth or Adelaide. Which means the 'expanding the talent pool' objective is also undermined as a consequence.

Beyond that, they're already getting a 20% discount on market value, so when Mills is bid on at pick 3, they paid the equivalent of pick 6. If they thought Mills was worth pick 4 or pick 5 and was bid on early as a 'dummy bid' then they're still paying 1-2 picks lower value in matching him than what they thought he was worth in the first place :drunk:

They can also already ask for extensions of time to live trade to pick 4 if they want that pick, in lieu of matching the bid. If they choose to rort the system by trading into the second and third rounds and then no one wants to trade pick 4 for those picks, that's the natural consequence of the decision they've made to try and rort the system. Perhaps if they'd kept pick 14 and bundled it with their future first, they'd have a better chance of doing that trade.

Also, someone please tell me why a top 4 club should have rights to pick in the top 4 of the draft, without trading out a player, and without matching a bid on a northern academy player that they've already invested in and who wouldn't be there if not for the promise of not having to move interstate?

World's smallest violin is about right.

:drunk::drunk::drunk:
 

GUMBLETRON

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 1, 2008
13,901
15,125
NASA
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Coburg
It is utterly shameless and transparently reveals Sydney's central interest in the academy program - guaranteed access to top-end prospects.

If passing is such a poor alternative to matching an early bid, all that suggests is the cost to match is too low.

Pathetic effort from Twomey and Edwards to let that bullshit slide.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BronCrow

All Australian
Sep 20, 2019
844
539
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
Is that what he was saying? I read it like 6 times and I couldn't quite believe that that was what he meant. The mind boggles.

So if he chooses not to match the bid, he should essentially be able to trade places with whoever bid on his academy player? So that both the bidding and the matching clubs have the choice of Mills or Oliver/Parish/Francis/Milera/Weideman/McKay/etc?

I think that would effectively undermine the stated objectives of the entire northern academy system tbh.

Firstly, that would remove the incentive to match a bid on a northern talent you've spent time developing. You might've spent time developing a NSW midfielder but prefer a WA KPF that happens to be available at that pick, so you pass and take the WA KPF instead. Meaning that the stay home objective of the northern academies – reducing the "go home" factor by encouraging northern clubs to draft northern talent – is undermined.

Secondly, with the clubs no longer being incentivised to keep northern talent in the north, kids in Sydney may be more likely to chose NRL rather than joining Sydney's academy and risking being drafted to Perth or Adelaide. Which means the 'expanding the talent pool' objective is also undermined as a consequence.

Beyond that, they're already getting a 20% discount on market value, so when Mills is bid on at pick 3, they paid the equivalent of pick 6. If they thought Mills was worth pick 4 or pick 5 and was bid on early as a 'dummy bid' then they're still paying 1-2 picks lower value in matching him than what they thought he was worth in the first place :drunk:

They can also already ask for extensions of time to live trade to pick 4 if they want that pick, in lieu of matching the bid. If they choose to rort the system by trading into the second and third rounds and then no one wants to trade pick 4 for those picks, that's the natural consequence of the decision they've made to try and rort the system. Perhaps if they'd kept pick 14 and bundled it with their future first, they'd have a better chance of doing that trade.

Also, someone please tell me why a top 4 club should have rights to pick in the top 4 of the draft, without trading out a player, and without matching a bid on a northern academy player that they've already invested in and who wouldn't be there if not for the promise of not having to move interstate?

World's smallest violin is about right.

:drunk::drunk::drunk:
I am assuming from this that Beatson also wants this to apply to only Northern Academies?

I am also assuming that if they choose not to match that bid, that they would receive the next pick available, without losing any of the picks?

So if we bid on Braeden Campbell with pick 1, Kinnear Beatson is saying that they(Swans), should be able to pass on him at pick 1 but receive pick 2 without losing any of there draft points?

I actually like the Northern Academies and understand the role they play in getting kids from non aussie rules parts of the country, but this idea is nothing short of a disgrace.

PS As a good a player as Campbell promises to be, I don't think we will pick him with pick 1.
 

Shadow89

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 20, 2018
6,271
14,098
AFL Club
Geelong
Kinnear Beatson rough translation:

"We want to be able to match bids only if they don't cost us much draft collateral. If they cost us too much, we want to be able to pass on that bid and then move into the next spot in the draft order. We also want to do this without giving up any draft collateral to get there"

So basically, (hypothetically) if someone bid on Gulden at 13, they pass on him and then move up from their second round pick to pick 14...for nothing.

Yeah that wouldn't cause clubs to just trade out all their picks into the following year's draft and then pass on an academy player so they could essentially keep their picks and get a high draft pick as well, would it?

Great idea, you self-serving d*ckhead :rolleyes:🤪
 

andleanback

Premiership Player
Aug 21, 2016
3,558
2,829
AFL Club
Essendon
It is utterly shameless and transparently reveals Sydney's central interest in the academy program - guaranteed access to top-end prospects.

If passing is such a poor alternative to matching an early bid, all that suggests is the cost to match is too low.

Pathetic effort from Twomey and Edwards to let that bullshit slide.
You think those 2 would call anything out 🤣
 

r_boy

Premiership Player
Aug 12, 2007
3,746
747
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
asdf
It is utterly shameless and transparently reveals Sydney's central interest in the academy program - guaranteed access to top-end prospects.

If passing is such a poor alternative to matching an early bid, all that suggests is the cost to match is too low.

Pathetic effort from Twomey and Edwards to let that bullshit slide.
Agreed, very low integrity journalism.
 

Jordie_tackles

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 25, 2009
7,368
3,367
G-town
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
MCFC, COBC, GWFC, TFC
I wouldn’t think he is suggesting moving up for nothing, surely it is moving up with the same pick cost but choosing another player than the academy prospect.
Still blatant double dipping, and I can’t see a greater draft advantage than the scenarios he suggests,
 

Thetrader15

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 16, 2015
19,982
23,516
AFL Club
Adelaide
I couldn't quite believe what I was hearing when listening to it, "disadvantages clubs for finishing higher on the ladder", what?
I must have missed the part where he said the swans got heeney for basically nothing which was unfair so they will forfeit this years luck as a result, or they can use use more picks than they have list spots this year.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Eastcoasteagle

Club Legend
Oct 20, 2017
1,718
3,219
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Chelsea FC
The NGA’s get peeled back.

Meanwhile can we please have the worlds smallest violin for Kinnear Beatson?

Proposing if a Northern Academy side passes on a prospect, their next pick should move up to the very next pick after the bid as compensation 😂😂 because it’s currently unfair the only option they have is to match if a team puts a bid half a round ahead of them and they have to use later picks and don’t get to double dip 😂😂

Sorry, where exactly have these dummy bids come from? Green last year that went about 6 picks after where most rated him?

How much does this man want handed to him? Heeney, Mills now Campbell? Anything else Kinnear? How about free reign for the Northern sides on the entire first round?

Don't forget Blakey! Which thinking about it, was a bit of a joke. His dad was coaching in Sydney so that's the reason he was there, hardly someone that grew up in Sydney and turned a blind eye on rugby. Through his old man, he would've lived and breathed footy.
 

BronCrow

All Australian
Sep 20, 2019
844
539
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
Don't forget Blakey! Which thinking about it, was a bit of a joke. His dad was coaching in Sydney so that's the reason he was there, hardly someone that grew up in Sydney and turned a blind eye on rugby. Through his old man, he would've lived and breathed footy.
Have always thought that if you are eligible as a father son at a club you should be disqualified as an NGA. Blakey going to the Swans supports my case.

Likewise with Lachlan Johnson who qualified as an NGA at Essendon and was a father son at Brisbane. Before anyone says anything I am well aware that he was drafted as regular selection in the ND.
 

Thetrader15

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 16, 2015
19,982
23,516
AFL Club
Adelaide
Have always thought that if you are eligible as a father son at a club you should be disqualified as an NGA. Blakey going to the Swans supports my case.

Likewise with Lachlan Johnson who qualified as an NGA at Essendon and was a father son at Brisbane. Before anyone says anything I am well aware that he was drafted as regular selection in the ND.
I'd like FS to be more equitable first. It's getting there but the different rules for different teams is an issue.

Also remove the 20% discount for NGA. The 'return' clubs get for 'investing' in their academy is the option to match. That's enough advantage.

It should also be a max of 1 pick they can match with and then the balance comes from the next year's pick in the same round.
 

BronCrow

All Australian
Sep 20, 2019
844
539
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
I'd like FS to be more equitable first. It's getting there but the different rules for different teams is an issue.

Also remove the 20% discount for NGA. The 'return' clubs get for 'investing' in their academy is the option to match. That's enough advantage.

It should also be a max of 1 pick they can match with and then the balance comes from the next year's pick in the same round.
As far as the father son rule goes, when you say more equitable, are you talking about the old rule for WAFL/SANFL games?

If so, that is a rule that is almost obsolete. Outside of that, I don't how it can be more equitable. Both SA and WA teams have the same access to sons of 100 game players as every one else, only we don't have as many as we have not been around for as long. The only thing that fixes that is time. Same with GWS and GCS as well.

Agree with you about the discount. There should not be one. Being able to match for a player is enough of an advantage already, especially if they are the consensus number 1 pick.

Also think your last point is not without merit. Would make clubs think twice about matching. I suspect that idea will be rubbished on here though.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
28,081
10,480
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
It is utterly shameless and transparently reveals Sydney's central interest in the academy program - guaranteed access to top-end prospects.

If passing is such a poor alternative to matching an early bid, all that suggests is the cost to match is too low.

Pathetic effort from Twomey and Edwards to let that bullshit slide.
Try it evens up the advantages of the heartland States where there is 100+ years of junior infrastructure in place to develop players.

There should be no academies in place in WA,SA or Vic.
 
Last edited:

eastfreo75

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 11, 2011
10,196
9,055
pakenham
AFL Club
Fremantle
Very entitled.

Majority of bids come later than the player would have been picked.

Points are over valued for later picks.

Lets get rid of the discount.

The fact the Northern states can have a higher percentage of home grow talent is an enough of advantage to counter being disadvantaged not being a footy state.
 

Thetrader15

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 16, 2015
19,982
23,516
AFL Club
Adelaide
As far as the father son rule goes, when you say more equitable, are you talking about the old rule for WAFL/SANFL games?

If so, that is a rule that is almost obsolete. Outside of that, I don't how it can be more equitable. Both SA and WA teams have the same access to sons of 100 game players as every one else, only we don't have as many as we have not been around for as long. The only thing that fixes that is time. Same with GWS and GCS as well.

Agree with you about the discount. There should not be one. Being able to match for a player is enough of an advantage already, especially if they are the consensus number 1 pick.

Also think your last point is not without merit. Would make clubs think twice about matching. I suspect that idea will be rubbished on here though.
Re FS, not all teams are on a level playing field.

If the rule is 100, only games after GWS joined should count. Otherwise, they should get Tas as a region, so any players who played 100 there should be allowed to FS to GWS (or GC).

Eg. Craig Kelly 120 games since 1989, whereas GWS don't have the opportunity to have 100 ganes kids.
 

Lore

Moderator ❀
Dec 14, 2015
20,970
26,349
AFL Club
Essendon
Re FS, not all teams are on a level playing field.

If the rule is 100, only games after GWS joined should count. Otherwise, they should get Tas as a region, so any players who played 100 there should be allowed to FS to GWS (or GC).

Eg. Craig Kelly 120 games since 1989, whereas GWS don't have the opportunity to have 100 ganes kids.
GWS and GC have had academies and zone selections somewhat in lieu of father/sons that everyone else has, although Brisbane and Sydney have also benefited from the introduction of Northern Academies (partially because their own limited fields of local prospects were diluted by having to share them with the new teams I suppose).

SA and WA clubs have all been in the AFL for over 20 years now so should have the sons of 100 AFL game players coming through.
 

master bate

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 13, 2006
13,664
11,766
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
The best way to stop "dummy bids" is to not match them.

Clubs are then only going to bid when they want the player.

Shame he didn't give any examples of dummy bids, because I think more bids have been later rather than earlier.
I get the feeling Sos bidding on Henry and Green before trading out of the pick altogether was a little bit of dummy bidding. Although Carlton had been linked to Henry pretty heavily and is it a dummy bid on Green when everyone thinks it's a steal?

The Swans actually did the Giants a huge favour because the Swans bidding on Green at pick 5 was thought to be highly likely and instead he lasted all the way to pick 10.

I can't remember a single bid that has seemed like a gamble just to get a team to match. That the Crows are apparently not bidding pick 1 on JUH this year seems very odd to me. I'd do it every day of the week.
 

Remove this Banner Ad