News Changes to Father Son/Academy Bidding

[skipper kelly]

I just want the Sydney Swans to focus on themselves and * any growth of the game in NSW.

 

[robbieando]

Dont get me wrong I think he has some valid points, I just think he has gone about it in a very strong-arm way (ala eddie) effectively blackmailing the AFL with equalisation in a public forum.

Don't blame him, he has that power to walk away which only he, Collingwood and West Coast have.

I get point 3, which is why the afl has historically been heistant to do this, as stated above it was a reaction to make the new points system fairer.

True, personally if introduced it can be an easy fix to make sure no club sells their draft future - make a rule that you can only trade a future draft pick once in a 3 year period[/quote]

Points 1-2 Whilst not as likely if the libba/wallis situation happened and they went 5-9 the dogs could trade away future picks??

Not as I understand it, they would have to go into a deficit

 

[momentbymoment]

When Eddie and his mob think of the acadamies it pretty fair to say they think about sydney sitting near the top and frame their responses accordingly.

The reality is that there are two northern clubs languishing on the bottom of the table and a third that is pretty shaky.

It's all well and good to talk about the purity of the draft, but the go home factor means that the playing field is not even and will never be even until we get the same percentage of local players in Qld and NSW as they do in VIC.

 

[Superstar swan]

I just want the Sydney Swans to focus on themselves and **** any growth of the game in NSW.

I would love that. The club should say stuff your media obligations etc.. we play on weekends and thats it as far as the afl is concerned and the rest of the time we stay to ourselves.

Really kick up a sh@# fight

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Newbold is correct this time but i don't care its all forked tongue stuff i would of given him respect had he spoken out during our trade ban like SilentHunter_ said.

 

[SilentHunter_]

Newbold is correct this time but i don't care its all forked tongue stuff i would of given him respect had he spoken out during our trade ban like SilentHunter_ said.

I think the most ****ed up thing about this was the fact that everyone knew it was wrong, stupid and blatantly unfair (and many other words). Heck even Eddie knew it was a bit too far, but they didn't give a single s**t - they were happy (wtf??) - their hate for Sydney had come to a point where they wanted to do anything and everything to make sure we fail. Equalisation my arse, talk about losing respect for the administration. It was ridiculous. But yes as regards to Newbold's argument I tend to agree with him but he still gagf as I and you have said.

 

[FreeAgent1]

I think the most stuffed up thing about this was the fact that everyone knew it was wrong, stupid and blatantly unfair (and many other words). Heck even Eddie knew it was a bit too far, but they didn't give a single s**t - they were happy (wtf??) - their hate for Sydney had come to a point where they wanted to do anything and everything to make sure we fail. Equalisation my arse, talk about losing respect for the administration. It was ridiculous. But yes as regards to Newbold's argument I tend to agree with him but he still gagf as I have said.

Pretty sure Eddie is on the council/board that decided the ban right?

 

[SilentHunter_]

Pretty sure Eddie is on the council/board that decided the ban right?

Probably, but that's not my point. He knew it was a extremely harsh but regardless pushed it through including the rest of the committee. Wonder how they would react if they had some sort of similar restriction placed on them.

 

[sataris]

I would love that. The club should say stuff your media obligations etc.. we play on weekends and thats it as far as the afl is concerned and the rest of the time we stay to ourselves.

Really kick up a sh@# fight

AFL needs a proper super league war

 

[Lakeside Swan]

I see in this morning paper that Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold has threatened the AFL that they will withdraw from any sharing of $ arrangements (read wealthy clubs giving small amounts of money to the poor clubs) if the AFL does not stop the four Northern academy clubs having the ability to dip into next years draft picks to pay for this years picks.

This is targeting us with Mills and Dunkley and targeting GWS with Hopper and Kennedy.

FFS, won't these already privileged anbd advantaged clubs in Melbourne ever stop? Wonder what Maguires view on this is?

F him. He had his chance to air his grievances, which he did, prior to the decision on F/S and academies. The decision has been made, suck it up.

 

[The Swans Blog]

I see in this morning paper that Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold has threatened the AFL that they will withdraw from any sharing of $ arrangements (read wealthy clubs giving small amounts of money to the poor clubs) if the AFL does not stop the four Northern academy clubs having the ability to dip into next years draft picks to pay for this years picks.

This is targeting us with Mills and Dunkley and targeting GWS with Hopper and Kennedy.

FFS, won't these already privileged anbd advantaged clubs in Melbourne ever stop? Wonder what Maguires view on this is?

I suggest that he follows through with it to force all 18 clubs to be involved in equalisation, rather than 3 of the largest Victorian clubs, plus the arrogant pissed off ant from a small shitty Victorian club that 'represents' the interests of everyone else. * off.

 

[Lakeside Swan]

He has raised 3 points which I feel are fair

1) If trading of future draft picks is introduced it CAN'T be two tiered - Clubs that can (the academy clubs) and clubs that can't (the other 14 clubs)
2) If a club has a F/S and/or academy player/s up for selection at the draft they can't trade that years picks in the trade period and then turn up on draft night, match bids and go into deficit. There has to be a minimum points level to enter the draft to bid and or match bids if a club does indeed trade picks during the trade period.
3) Introducing trading of future draft picks could see some clubs trade away their futures if a coach has a year left on their contract and therefore there needs to be safeguards in place to protect clubs from themselves

Who's side are you on Robbie?
1. The academy clubs can't trade future picks. They can spend them.
2. I think that would be fair enough.
3. Agreed. The other clubs need to be protected from themselves; just like the AFL did for us when they placed a trading ban on us.

 

[Lakeside Swan]

I just want the Sydney Swans to focus on themselves and **** any growth of the game in NSW.

I agree. Had the AFL not removed so much benefit for us (per $ spent) then I would say that we were duty bound to promote the game so that everyone gained a benefit but now I say F em, it's time to look after ourselves because no one else will.

 

[Ticky009]

Pretty sure Eddie is on the council/board that decided the ban right?

No. During the phasing out of COLA discussions with AFL (Gill & Evans) a Trade ban was never mentioned. Gill & Co presented the go forward plan that the Swans had viewed & approved - only the have AFL Commission 'review' it.

The AFL Commission added the Trade Ban as a last minute addition.

 

[skipper kelly]

The elephant in the room for all these equalisations talks is the additional services agreements. Only Gordon from WB has brought this up but not one journo ran with it. Wonder why Newbold and McGuire never mention ASA's?

 

[robbieando]

Who's side are you on Robbie?

The side of truth over misinformation.

1. The academy clubs can't trade future picks. They can spend them.

Thats not what Newbold is complaining about or is even suggesting why he would remove the Hawks money from equalisation for, what you typed ALL 18 clubs are currently in the same position. The AFL is suggesting introducing the ability that the academy club be able to trade their future picks during the trade period i.e. we trade our 2017 draft picks in the 2016 trade period. That is what is at issue

 

[replicant]

The side of truth over misinformation.



Thats not what Newbold is complaining about or is even suggesting why he would remove the Hawks money from equalisation for, what you typed ALL 18 clubs are currently in the same position. The AFL is suggesting introducing the ability that the academy club be able to trade their future picks during the trade period i.e. we trade our 2017 draft picks in the 2016 trade period. That is what is at issue

Is there an article on this you can link? I can't recall any proposal to allow us to trade future picks, and i'm sure the media would have been all over it. Maybe i've just mis-read the articles on this?

 

[robbieando]

The elephant in the room for all these equalisations talks is the additional services agreements. Only Gordon from WB has brought this up but not one journo ran with it. Wonder why Newbold and McGuire never mention ASA's?

Because its an equal cap available for each club to use. Its a false argument to say ASA's are unfair, when its there for media (footy show), corporate (giving vonn a car) and development (kids clinics) appearances in essence.

 

[skipper kelly]

Because its an equal cap available for each club to use. Its a false argument to say ASA's are unfair, when its there for media (footy show), corporate (giving vonn a car) and development (kids clinics) appearances in essence.

Extra ASA's above and beyond the limit can be approved at the AFL's discretion.

 

[robbieando]

Extra ASA's above and beyond the limit can be approved at the AFL's discretion.

Only three known about - Lockett, Hunt and Folou, see the patten

 

[skipper kelly]

Only three known about - Lockett, Hunt and Folou, see the patten

I do see the pattern. The AFL does not reveal who gets what. ASA'a go far beyond the marketing payments that the likes of Hunt and Falou received.

 

[RW]

Thats not what Newbold is complaining about or is even suggesting why he would remove the Hawks money from equalisation for, what you typed ALL 18 clubs are currently in the same position. The AFL is suggesting introducing the ability that the academy club be able to trade their future picks during the trade period i.e. we trade our 2017 draft picks in the 2016 trade period. That is what is at issue

Yep - I'm actually with Newbold on this one. Still, he is just looking after his club's interests. He talks about the need for a pure draft and salary cap, but only raises it when it suits Hawthorn. Don't get me wrong, I expect the same from any other club, but when these big clubs speak out, they're doing it for themselves. That's how we ended up with the trade ban, because the AFL caved in to the pressure. I don't blame him for speaking up but I'm not surprised he isn't popular on here.

It's all academic, anyway, because this won't affect our chances of getting Mills.

 

[FreeAgent1]

Yep - I'm actually with Newbold on this one. Still, he is just looking after his club's interests. He talks about the need for a pure draft and salary cap, but only raises it when it suits Hawthorn. Don't get me wrong, I expect the same from any other club, but when these big clubs speak out, they're doing it for themselves. That's how we ended up with the trade ban, because the AFL caved in to the pressure. I don't blame him for speaking up but I'm not surprised he isn't popular on here.

It's all academic, anyway, because this won't affect our chances of getting Mills.

Gerard (who i think is the most reasonable afl media person) stated tonight on 360.

"equalisation is the most important issue for the AFL and they have painstaking gone through the process step by step with clubs to make sure everyone is on board. Surely, you cant just jump ship on the first call you dont like"

 

[Lakeside Swan]

Yep - I'm actually with Newbold on this one. Still, he is just looking after his club's interests. He talks about the need for a pure draft and salary cap, but only raises it when it suits Hawthorn. Don't get me wrong, I expect the same from any other club, but when these big clubs speak out, they're doing it for themselves. That's how we ended up with the trade ban, because the AFL caved in to the pressure. I don't blame him for speaking up but I'm not surprised he isn't popular on here.

It's all academic, anyway, because this won't affect our chances of getting Mills.

I can't believe some of you are supportive of Newbolds position on this.

There will be times when academy clubs need to dip deep into their pockets to recruit the players they have invested in. As a result these clubs may need to go into debt (i.e. use next years pick/s as we may need to do if we want Mills and Dunkley).

If Newbold doesn't like it then the discount needs to be increased so they we don't need to use the following years picks. Newbold and Fat Eddie got what they wanted and now they're complaining about it. Can't get everything you want guys!

You also need to remember that this system is being forced upon us. We've invested millions into the academy players that we have and will recruit under the belief that we would be able to recruit them. The AFL has effectively pulled the rug from under our feet and made the new system retrospective. The fair thing to do would have implemented this system in 3-4 years time after most of these players we had invested in were out of the academy system.

 

[RW]

I'm not on his side, just pointing out some of the problems with the AFL's proposed system, particularly the trading of future picks as I'm not convinced it is a good move. I was against the system being changed at all, being a supporter of the academies I thought it was a stupid knee-jerk reaction. We will still be able to recruit the academy players we want. If Mills really is worth a number 1 pick, giving up a couple of extra picks isn't the end of the world.