News NGA changes for 2019?

[briztoon]

It's arguable that all of the players coming through the academy system so far aren't the intended targets of the system long term anyway. Those players aren't even in high school yet.

Er, we've had kids drafted to our club from our academy who have been in the academy since they were 12 years old. Which kids or academies are you talking about? We've also had kids we have been poached from other sports because our club academy recruiters have attended other sporting events to i.d kids who could have the physical profile to play AFL.

Our academy has also lost top end talent to other sports, such as Kalyn Ponga who went to Rugby League because it offers greater opportunities to QLD kids than what AFL does.

 

[jackess]

I’ve been firmly opposed to the large discounts and distorted points system since day 1.

I don’t mind academies so long as there is no draft advantage.

The problem is that there is already a draft advantage for clubs that are located where football is the main sport and they produce more quality footballers and get perks like third party deals.

You're draft advantage is getting Elliot Yeo back on the cheap.

Look at Freo have done with Matera, Hamling, Kersten, Bennell, McCarthy, etc.

 

[Joao]

Look at Freo have done with Matera, Hamling, Kersten, Bennell, McCarthy, etc.

Eh? McCarthy is the only one in that list remotely relevant to academy talk.

Matera has had his injury and off field issues and I don't think GC really cared if he left. Add to that, he has been there since the start so it is not like he packed up and left at first opportunity.

Hamling got offered more coin and was from a Vic club anyway. Most of them have no problems keeping interstate talent.

Kersten would probably have been delisted if we didn't trade him in. Also a Vic club.

Bennell had his papers stamped by GC.

McCarthy - depending on whether you believe the 700k firgures or just the homesick stuff this one is plausible. To counter it, we lost Weller to "homesickness" anyway. The fact that we reamed GC at the trade table is neither here nor there.

 

[Taylor]

Er, we've had kids drafted to our club from our academy who have been in the academy since they were 12 years old. Which kids or academies are you talking about? We've also had kids we have been poached from other sports because our club academy recruiters have attended other sporting events to i.d kids who could have the physical profile to play AFL.

Our academy has also lost top end talent to other sports, such as Kalyn Ponga who went to Rugby League because it offers greater opportunities to QLD kids than what AFL does.

The target for the academy isn't the players starting straight up, they are to promote the game to kids who were picking their sport - which happens nearly a generation after the academy starts.

It's a super long play and there is nothing wrong with that. The intermediate returns are added bonus. In twenty years, if they have done their job, then the Lions, Suns, Swans and Giants should have their entire draft needs each year met by local talent - which will be when the advantage is doing it's job. No more players leaving to go home.

The WA position is similar, we just produce more talent currently so more of it is drafted away. The Eagles pay for the WAFC to support the Colts system here, the AFL provides about $114,000 a year for it compared to just the Eagles millions, yet they are freely drafted to Eastern clubs. So we have many, many levels of equal in the AFL.

 

[Taylor]

Eh? McCarthy is the only one in that list remotely relevant to academy talk.

Matera has had his injury and off field issues and I don't think GC really cared if he left. Add to that, he has been there since the start so it is not like he packed up and left at first opportunity.

Hamling got offered more coin and was from a Vic club anyway. Most of them have no problems keeping interstate talent.

Kersten would probably have been delisted if we didn't trade him in. Also a Vic club.

Bennell had his papers stamped by GC.

McCarthy - depending on whether you believe the 700k firgures or just the homesick stuff this one is plausible.

Hamling is either a gun premiership fullback or a tall delisted by Geelong and the Bulldogs - all in the space of a month of football after an opening through injury. There but for the grace of God.. etc

What he represents is an indigenous player who would have been available to Fremantle as an academy player.

..all while we ignore that Eric Hipwood is going to be a gun, far superior player.

 

[jackess]

Eh? McCarthy is the only one in that list remotely relevant to academy talk.

Matera has had his injury and off field issues and I don't think GC really cared if he left. Add to that, he has been there since the start so it is not like he packed up and left at first opportunity.

Hamling got offered more coin and was from a Vic club anyway. Most of them have no problems keeping interstate talent.

Kersten would probably have been delisted if we didn't trade him in. Also a Vic club.

Bennell had his papers stamped by GC.

McCarthy - depending on whether you believe the 700k firgures or just the homesick stuff this one is plausible. To counter it, we lost Weller to "homesickness" anyway. The fact that we reamed GC at the trade table is neither here nor there.

You still don't get it do you? That's where you get your discount on local talent. Also, the ones that are known to have reasons to go home pre-draft.

It was a lot more difficult for Brisbane to get this discount before the academies where very few decent footballers were coming out of Queensland.

This was a big part of why the academies are required for the northern clubs. The part you ignore because it doesn't suit your argument.

 

[Squiba]

Prime is example currently in the u16's I believe is Borlase, son of former port Adelaide player. He is in our NGA due to zoning and the fact he was born overseas. He doesn't need an academy to stay in footy, at all.

The whole academy system is out of kilter. If anything, extra list spots (say 5) should be available to NGA players and held outside the salary cap.

They can be upgraded with a late pick in future drafts if they come on, or they play immediately just as rookies are able to now.

Make it available to academy prospects picked after 40 and you then are promoting those players staying in the system, as well as truley elite development.

 

[Cleric]

Except in NSW & QLD the vast majority of Aboriginals play or support rugby league, not AFL, you know like the vast majority of the NSW & QLD general populations.

That's the bit that you guys seem to struggle with. It's fine saying the QLD and NSW academies have whole States to draw talent from, but the reality is that we don't, because the vast majority of those kids and their families don't even give AFL a look in.

When you look at the kids that have graduated to the AFL ranks at the two QLD clubs, only three kids have come from families that weren't originally from AFL states and moved to QLD when their kids were young, and one of those kids is already out of the system. Sh!t, at the Lions one of our academy kids grandfather played with one of our recent Victorian draftees grandfather at Geelong, and their families used to visit each other, before one family moved up to QLD for better job opportunities.

However, both NSW and Qld have more registered Aussie rules players in both competition and programs than SA does.
So that doesn't fly.

 

[Pykie]

Because we've already seen the NGA concept bastardised by the Victorian clubs already (looking at you Collingwood, North Melbourne and Western Bulldogs especially) and gaming the system by adding NGA "recruits" to their club who have been playing AFL since they were little kids.

Yes NGA academies are supposed to offer opportunities to kids that wouldn't already have them, or draw kids in that wouldn't already be playing AFL. Just by being born or raised in Victoria, SA, or WA, kids are exposed to AFL as the number one football code. If they are good enough, they make it through the system such as Tarryn Thomas, or Isaac Quaynor, or Bhuku Khamis. Or Isaac Rankine, because Isaac Rankine would automatically fall in to one of the SA clubs NGA academy if they were allowed to pick city based Aboriginal kids, so to Ian Hill in WA.

That's the concern. Not that the SA or WA clubs will increase the player pool, but rather have priority access to the top end talent that would make it regardless if the NGA system existed or not.

Just like the Vic clubs are doing now, by cherry picking the top end talent the existed already, and drawing them in to their academies, because the kids meet the criteria. Hell, there is one kid in one Vic academy whose mother is white South African, emigrated to Australia when she was 3, (note that is mother who emigrated to Australia when she was 3, not the son who will be drafted this year) and as such, the kid meets the NGA criteria of having one parent born on the continent of Africa.

Rigging the system much....

In what way have North, Collingwood and the Dog's bastardised the NGA concept?


Every single one of your criticisms can be labelled at the Northern academies. How is it any different to bastardising the father son rule or having a brother of a current AFL player in a Northern academy?

 

[Peel67skin]

However, both NSW and Qld have more registered Aussie rules players in both competition and programs than SA does.
So that doesn't fly.

Read Squiba opinion , academy set up is more for kids outside top 40 to get drafted, regardless of how many register AusseA rules players . F/S and Talented academy kids should be open to everybody if they are at top 25 .

 

[Cleric]

Read Squiba opinion , academy set up is more for kids outside top 40 to get drafted, regardless of how many register AusseA rules players . F/S and Talented academy kids should be open to everybody if they are at top 25 .

No its not. The academy is set up get more migrant and indigenous kids into the system.

 

[jackess]

Apparently the Rioli retirement might open up enough cap space for the Hawks to get Lynch and Sloane. In addition to Mitchell, O'Meara, McEvoy, Frawley, Gunston, Burgoyne, Impey and others.

If you think the academies are the biggest issue hurting equalisation then you're focusing on the wrong thing.

 

[Peel67skin]

No its not. The academy is set up get more migrant and indigenous kids into the system.

Having Open Top 30 draft you still get migrant and indigenous kids into academy system isn't it .

 

[Suma Magic]

The problem is that there is already a draft advantage for clubs that are located where football is the main sport and they produce more quality footballers and get perks like third party deals.

You're draft advantage is getting Elliot Yeo back on the cheap.

Look at Freo have done with Matera, Hamling, Kersten, Bennell, McCarthy, etc.

If you think that qld and nsw clubs should get discounted draft picks to make up for other inequities then let’s agree to disagree.

 

[jackess]

If you think that qld and nsw clubs should get discounted draft picks to make up for other inequities then let’s agree to disagree.

I think they should but only as a short term solution for those states not producing enough talent. Once it gets to a similar level to WA and SA then the discount gets removed. As it's getting closer the discount could actually be reduced.

 

[Taylor]

Read Squiba opinion , academy set up is more for kids outside top 40 to get drafted, regardless of how many register AusseA rules players . F/S and Talented academy kids should be open to everybody if they are at top 25 .

It defeats the purpose of father-son and academy programs to have the players within them open to selection for other clubs at any draft range. Some players will be highly rated, others won't. The purpose of them is to keep family links to clubs and keep local talent local. Having the academy players leave a NSW or QLD state because they are too good to stay is a massive low blow to the NSW and QLD teams. All they need to do is pay value and most of the value is taken from their ability to draft VIC/WA/SA talent anyway to pay for players who aren't going to play anywhere else.

If there is going to be a system where academy selection after a cut off point is different, then make it that academy players that aren't bid on before #30 can go straight onto the list. Stop the waste of time. Just add them to the list as soon as pick #29 happens and none of them are picked. Done, they are on the squad list if the club chooses to pick them. Those picks in the draft ahead can be where the player is taken and all other clubs move up the board.

Apparently the Rioli retirement might open up enough cap space for the Hawks to get Lynch and Sloane. In addition to Mitchell, O'Meara, McEvoy, Frawley, Gunston, Burgoyne, Impey and others.

If you think the academies are the biggest issue hurting equalisation then you're focusing on the wrong thing.

You are creating a false equivalency here. Hawthorn has lost significant talent that they paid for and has replaced them. They have to spend their salary cap on someone.

That Brisbane is required to spend 95% of it's cap on it's list is the problem, not Hawthorn.

 

[jackess]

It defeats the purpose of father-son and academy programs to have the players within them open to selection for other clubs at any draft range. Some players will be highly rated, others won't. The purpose of them is to keep family links to clubs and keep local talent local. Having the academy players leave a NSW or QLD state because they are too good to stay is a massive low blow to the NSW and QLD teams. All they need to do is pay value and most of the value is taken from their ability to draft VIC/WA/SA talent anyway to pay for players who aren't going to play anywhere else.

If there is going to be a system where academy selection after a cut off point is different, then make it that academy players that aren't bid on before #30 can go straight onto the list. Stop the waste of time. Just add them to the list as soon as pick #29 happens and none of them are picked. Done, they are on the squad list if the club chooses to pick them. Those picks in the draft ahead can be where the player is taken and all other clubs move up the board.



You are creating a false equivalency here. Hawthorn has lost significant talent that they paid for and has replaced them. They have to spend their salary cap on someone.

That Brisbane is required to spend 95% of it's cap on it's list is the problem, not Hawthorn.

What do you think Brisbane's chances of attracting half as much talent as Hawthorn has? Next to nil despite having the same salary cap.

So we have to go to the draft and draft from interstate and then lose those players.

One rule for all clubs doesn't work in this competition.

Also what talent has Hawthorn lost? Buddy for half his career and Kennedy who was surplus to requirements. Hardly equals out.

 

[Anzacday]

That Brisbane is required to spend 95% of it's cap on it's list is the problem, not Hawthorn.

Had that exact conversation, (about Carlton) with a Blues supporter at our game.

 

[Taylor]

What do you think Brisbane's chances of attracting half as much talent as Hawthorn has? Next to nil despite having the same salary cap.

So we have to go to the draft and draft from interstate and then lose those players.

One rule for all clubs doesn't work in this competition.

Also what talent has Hawthorn lost? Buddy for half his career and Kennedy who was surplus to requirements. Hardly equals out.

Just off the top of my head: Franklin, Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Gibson - those are the guys who have had their salary shifted to the new players.

O'Meara is a WA lad who was in QLD and moved to Hawthorn.

 

[Taylor]

Had that exact conversation, (about Carlton) with a Blues supporter at our game.

Yes. If they could spend as little as they want then they could buy as much interstate talent as they wanted.

Being able to throw $6,000,000 in the first year at someone will allow them to attract the players.

 

[jackess]

Just off the top of my head: Franklin, Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Gibson - those are the guys who have had their salary shifted to the new players.

O'Meara is a WA lad who was in QLD and moved to Hawthorn.

The salary cup shouldn't be there to ensure that strong squads stay strong. It should be there to equalise the squads and clearly it doesn't work.

I know O'Meara is from Geraldton

 

[Taylor]

The salary cup shouldn't be there to ensure that strong squads stay strong. It should be there to equalise the squads and clearly it doesn't work.

I know O'Meara is from Geraldton

Oh it's working. West Coast could buy any player they wanted with their multi-million operating profit every year if it wasn't working.

The salary cap is there to protect the small clubs from the bigger ones, not to bring the small ones up to the level of the bigger ones. In fact, if the cap was doubled it would sent some clubs broke.

Brisbane needs to be able to spend as little of it's cap as it wants, then when it comes to attracting talent they don't need to lose a handful of quality players, they just spend the money they hadn't allocated.

You've got about $600,000 of salary cap you don't have to spend, that's about the wiggle room you have to draw in new talent and pay increases to existing. If you had $6,000,000 a year unspent you could draw over Andrew Gaff for $6,000,000 in year one, $3,000,000 in year two and then $700,000 in the third to fifth years. You can replace Andrew Gaff with any interstate player including Nathan Fyfe. You could literally buy them.

The salary cap is protecting Brisbane from losing it's players to West Coast, Adelaide, Collingwood, to a lesser extent Fremantle but if you didn't have a minimum spend you could structure it to buy anyone.

 

[jackess]

Oh it's working. West Coast could buy any player they wanted with their multi-million operating profit every year if it wasn't working.

The salary cap is there to protect the small clubs from the bigger ones, not to bring the small ones up to the level of the bigger ones. In fact, if the cap was doubled it would sent some clubs broke.

Brisbane needs to be able to spend as little of it's cap as it wants, then when it comes to attracting talent they don't need to lose a handful of quality players, they just spend the money they hadn't allocated.

You've got about $600,000 of salary cap you don't have to spend, that's about the wiggle room you have to draw in new talent and pay increases to existing. If you had $6,000,000 a year unspent you could draw over Andrew Gaff for $6,000,000 in year one, $3,000,000 in year two and then $700,000 in the third to fifth years. You can replace Andrew Gaff with any interstate player including Nathan Fyfe. You could literally buy them.

The salary cap is protecting Brisbane from losing it's players to West Coast, Adelaide, Collingwood, to a lesser extent Fremantle but if you didn't have a minimum spend you could structure it to buy anyone.

It's very clear you support one of the big clubs. How has the salary cap helped the Suns attract any decent footballers?

How many struggling clubs have attracted big name free agents?

 

[Joao]

You still don't get it do you? That's where you get your discount on local talent. Also, the ones that are known to have reasons to go home pre-draft.

It was a lot more difficult for Brisbane to get this discount before the academies where very few decent footballers were coming out of Queensland.

This was a big part of why the academies are required for the northern clubs. The part you ignore because it doesn't suit your argument.

In what way did we get a discount on any of those players on account of them being from WA? We payed the same thing any club would for a player in that position. You can't just arbitrarily decide that we got a discount because it suits your narrative. You need some proof.

McCarthy we got a discount on because he sat out a year. We offered 2 firsts the year before which is nothing like a discount
Kersten was getting delisted.
Bennell has well publicised issues with both off field and injury.
Matera was injury prone and thoroughly inconsistent
Hamling had played 20 games at the time in 4 years

I have no problem with the academy, especially in QLD (I live here, I know what it is like). I do have a problem with any club getting a discount along with priority access. To be fair, at the moment you guys aren't exploiting it, but the Sydney situation is a joke.

 

[Peel67skin]

It defeats the purpose of father-son and academy programs to have the players within them open to selection for other clubs at any draft range. Some players will be highly rated, others won't. The purpose of them is to keep family links to clubs and keep local talent local. Having the academy players leave a NSW or QLD state because they are too good to stay is a massive low blow to the NSW and QLD teams. All they need to do is pay value and most of the value is taken from their ability to draft VIC/WA/SA talent anyway to pay for players who aren't going to play anywhere else.

If there is going to be a system where academy selection after a cut off point is different, then make it that academy players that aren't bid on before #30 can go straight onto the list. Stop the waste of time. Just add them to the list as soon as pick #29 happens and none of them are picked. Done, they are on the squad list if the club chooses to pick them. Those picks in the draft ahead can be where the player is taken and all other clubs move up the board.

I am happy with this suggestion too .