Strategy Fremantle Dockers Next Generation Academy

[freo_leo29]

My post which you replied to makes no such implication, and as happens on threads it is part of a discussion which contains my previous quoted post.

Geelong can have a team full of father and sons: I don't suggest they shouldn't. Having access to those players is a massive advantage and doesn't require an additional subsidy. Like any draft pick they are hit and miss. That's irrelevant because it is a feature of the draft.

No where do I suggest or imply removing it. That's your drum to beat. I suggest solutions to the imbalance in the AFLs system, which clearly imply keeping it.

Well your post makes no sense then? Why are you complaining how many father sons the cats have?

The post in itself makes the implication that you would not like the cats to have that many father sons and the only way for that is to change the rules

If that was never your intention then there is no need to bring up how many father sons the cats have?

There is no logical reason following that specific post to assume that you don't want the rule changed

I'll reason in that I didn't read your earlier posts but that post in a vacuum specifically implies that you don't want the cats to have that many father sons, hence needing the rule to be changed

 

[theGav56]

Well your post makes no sense then? Why are you complaining how many father sons the cats have?

The post in itself makes the implication that you would not like the cats to have that many father sons and the only way for that is to change the rules

If that was never your intention then there is no need to bring up how many father sons the cats have?

There is no logical reason following that specific post to assume that you don't want the rule changed

I'll reason in that I didn't read your earlier posts but that post in a vacuum specifically implies that you don't want the cats to have that many father sons, hence needing the rule to be changed

Geelong have benefited from FS because of the discount they are asked to pay. It enables them and any other clubs to build additional depth by getting access to other draftees because of that discount.

Brisbane just got 20% discount on pick 2 and pick 12 on top of exclusive access to those top end players. I'm not a fan of that, but it seems you are? If they had to pay full price it reduces their draft capital for other players which balances that out.

The current rules creates an imbalance, and there are ways the AFL can tweak the rules to address that, just as they did when they introduced the current rules to remedy the even bigger imbalance at the time.

The rules also clearly (and unnecessarily) benefit the original VFL clubs. That damages the integrity of the competition, and again, I have suggested a way to redress that via academies for the expansion clubs.

I'm fine with clubs having as many FS on the list as they like and don't imply anything about it. The reference to the numbers at Geelong are evidence of the existing imbalance, which I (along with many other posters) suggest rule changes which can address that.

I doubt anyone else is interested in this discussion, and I have nothing to add, so I'm out.

 

[pK75]

My two cents is the best way to fix the issue is to remove the top 40 exclusion for NGA kids but also remove the 20% points reduction, (both for academy and F/S selection) exclusive access to the player is the reason to invest in them but you have to pay full price.
They also need to tighten up the rules for who is eligible as for NGA in the first place.

The reason for the JUH rule changes was more about the fact he shouldn’t have been on the WB list in the first place given the limited time he spent in their academy than it is about the fact he went at pick one.
Likewise I have no idea how Edwards qualified for our academy, he doesn’t seem like he’s had limited access to the traditional talent pathways, so why is he in our academy?

Anyway, make it even by making everyone have to pay full points and I think you’ll get less false bids (Carlton on Henry and more recently Bulldogs on Ashcroft) as the team matching the bid would think twice if they didn’t get the 20% discount, but you’d also get continued support from clubs with players who are touted to be picked in the first (and second) rounds.

 

[freo_leo29]

Geelong have benefited from FS because of the discount they are asked to pay. It enables them and any other clubs to build additional depth by getting access to other draftees because of that discount.

Brisbane just got 20% discount on pick 2 and pick 12 on top of exclusive access to those top end players. I'm not a fan of that, but it seems you are? If they had to pay full price it reduces their draft capital for other players which balances that out.

The current rules creates an imbalance, and there are ways the AFL can tweak the rules to address that, just as they did when they introduced the current rules to remedy the even bigger imbalance at the time.

The rules also clearly (and unnecessarily) benefit the original VFL clubs. That damages the integrity of the competition, and again, I have suggested a way to redress that via academies for the expansion clubs.

I'm fine with clubs having as many FS on the list as they like and don't imply anything about it. The reference to the numbers at Geelong are evidence of the existing imbalance, which I (along with many other posters) suggest rule changes which can address that.

I doubt anyone else is interested in this discussion, and I have nothing to add, so I'm out.

I'll just add to wrap this up, I'm fine with the discount as like I've said, I actually enjoy the father son rule and think we should be allowing clubs to get these players on their list

and secondly, this is a different argument to the original post that I was replying too (the one complaining about the significant imbalance of father sons on teams lists -and the need to redress it-, not about the advantage that clubs get on top of father sons) but thats fine as you have a larger argument about the whole f/s system

I'm just a fan of it and I know it's not fair but it's a special part of our game

 

[Ysaye]

AFL website confirming today that there will be NO CHANGE in the 2022 draft to the no matching bid inside top 40 rule. Speculation that this may change in 2023 however to the top 20 only being protected.

If they do change it to Top 20 (I don't think they will unless there is a lot of pressure for Vic clubs), then Mitch Edwards would potentially be a chance to be taken by us if he is played predominantly as a ruckman for the year.

 

[Dockeroo]

If they do change it to Top 20 (I don't think they will unless there is a lot of pressure for Vic clubs), then Mitch Edwards would potentially be a chance to be taken by us if he is played predominantly as a ruckman for the year.

Got to imagine that the club doesn’t think this will happen given Reidy and Knobel were brought in this year

 

[Superkoops]

Got to imagine that the club doesn’t think this will happen given Reidy and Knobel were brought in this year

As much as sucks that we missed Motlop I’ve warmed to the idea but I don’t like uneven playing field.

I reckon though no bids in the top 40 should be reduced to top 30 for football states and increased to top 20 for non-football states. Father son the only ones reserved for top 20.

The academy program needs to retain some incentive for WA, SA and VIC.

 

[Dockernut]

More information on Isaiah Hayden pls.

The thought of the four Genius progeny coming to my club warms me old(ish) heart.

 

[Tonga Bob]

Looks like the NGA is gonna be revised again.

Clubs push for more access to own NGA talent amid review

The AFL is reviewing the Next Generation Academy program after several iterations over the years

www.afl.com.au

 

[DragoDelph]

Looks like the NGA is gonna be revised again.

Clubs push for more access to own NGA talent amid review

The AFL is reviewing the Next Generation Academy program after several iterations over the years

www.afl.com.au

Any changes would not be for the 2023 intake.

Goddamit!

 

[Tonga Bob]

Any changes would not be for the 2023 intake.

Goddamit!

Of course not.

 

[s_wd6]

Looks like the NGA is gonna be revised again.

Clubs push for more access to own NGA talent amid review

The AFL is reviewing the Next Generation Academy program after several iterations over the years

www.afl.com.au

Should’ve just stayed at top 20 for ALL players. Missing out on Motlop bc he was metro is some kinda bs.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Of course not.

Any changes would not be for the 2023 intake.

Goddamit!

Didnt we have this exact same article last year saying it wouldnt be for the 2022 intake? Just stupidly annoying

 

[Tonga Bob]

Didnt we have this exact same article last year saying it wouldnt be for the 2022 intake? Just stupidly annoying

But the clubs have provided feedback now.

Feedback!

 

[Tonga Bob]

ME: [asking the hard questions on the timeline]

 

[Bastyy]

This thread being bumped inspired me to check the Freo website, we have pictures and names for our eligible NGA players this year!!!

Few names here I don't recognise, but guys like Jacob Whan (Third Tall/Key Defender), Tamate Oakley (Small Forward, Trained with the club this off-season I believe), Jett Sibosado (Midfielder), Isaiah Hayden (General Defender) and Michael Panaia (Small Forward) are all worth watching imo

And of course Mitch Edwards, but there's about a 99% chance he ends up being drafted before we get him

 

[Tonga Bob]

This thread being bumped inspired me to check the Freo website, we have pictures and names for our eligible NGA players this year!!!

Few names here I don't recognise, but guys like Jacob Whan (Third Tall/Key Defender), Tamate Oakley (Small Forward, Trained with the club this off-season I believe), Jett Sibosado (Midfielder), Isaiah Hayden (General Defender) and Michael Panaia (Small Forward) are all worth watching imo

And of course Mitch Edwards, but there's about a 99% chance he ends up being drafted before we get him

Isaiah Hayden would be F/S yeah?

 

[Bastyy]

Isaiah Hayden would be F/S yeah?

Yep, but NGA means we can get him as Cat-B if he slips that low (which I can see happening)

 

[Tonga Bob]

And of course Mitch Edwards, but there's about a 99% chance he ends up being drafted before we get him

 

[Alfonz]

We should be getting Edwards to mysteriously disappear after he plays a few good games. Then get him to tank the combine and all his interviews.

 

[Tonga Bob]

We should be getting Edwards to mysteriously disappear after he plays a few good games. Then get him to tank the combine and all his interviews.

Two words - gap year.

 

[maccamk]

Yep, but NGA means we can get him as Cat-B if he slips that low (which I can see happening)

He qualifies as father son so the top 40 rule doesn’t apply.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Taylor]

ME: [asking the hard questions on the timeline]

Don't tempt them Frodo.

They'll change the rules to make it fairer before we see the benefit from it, so we play a decade of opponents who still benefit from the rule having pulled the ladder up behind them.

The rules need to be set and locked. Allowed to run the 18 years the draft is designed to cycle.

 

[Joao]

Even if they revised the rules, I doubt they'd revise them enough for us to get Mitch Edwards given the hype on him to date.

 

[manpurple]

I think the F/S and the NGA should be treated the same.

• 1 of either per year, rest into the draft
• 10% premium (not discount) on price, your advantage is you keep them
• no restriction on how you pay your points provided they come from the draft year (no deficit)