News NGA changes for 2019?

[Taylor]

Brisbane can't afford to run an academy and without it there's no local talent. The AFL has made it really easy to move clubs which has increased the importance of having a significant portion of your list being locals. The drafting system will always be broken while player movement is so easy and there's an uneven amount of talent produced in each state as well as opportunities for third party deals, etc.

But you can't buy the talent you want. Brisbane spent half a decade trying to buy an experienced forward and they couldn't. While every year just about Hawthorn picks up a gun from another team.

The AFL and other clubs agree on this, hence the academy system we currently have. Even Eddie McGuire has stopped whinging about it.

The only different salary cap situation Brisbane has operated under has been a larger cap, and they made four grand finals in that period.

The salary cap situation I am talking about is no minimum cap spend. That has not been in place. That will allow you to buy the talent you want. Comparing situations in the past to that is not possible as it hasn't happened before.

There is no point paying massive overs to your players when you don't have stars just because the AFL requires you to spend 95% of the cap. As soon as you start having the stars taking more the younger players ask where their share is, they want a payrise.

Young sides like Freo, Brisbane, Carlton etc shouldn't be paying 95% of their cap. It should be much less. Then they have a multi-million dollar hole in their salary cap to fill, they can buy gun players from top sides.

 

[jackess]

The only different salary cap situation Brisbane has operated under has been a larger cap, and they made four grand finals in that period.

The salary cap situation I am talking about is no minimum cap spend. That has not been in place. That will allow you to buy the talent you want. Comparing situations in the past to that is not possible as it hasn't happened before.

There is no point paying massive overs to your players when you don't have stars just because the AFL requires you to spend 95% of the cap. As soon as you start having the stars taking more the younger players ask where their share is, they want a payrise.

Young sides like Freo, Brisbane, Carlton etc shouldn't be paying 95% of their cap. It should be much less. Then they have a multi-million dollar hole in their salary cap to fill, they can buy gun players from top sides.

Why can't they do this with the current situation?

 

[Suma Magic]

The only different salary cap situation Brisbane has operated under has been a larger cap, and they made four grand finals in that period.

The salary cap situation I am talking about is no minimum cap spend. That has not been in place. That will allow you to buy the talent you want. Comparing situations in the past to that is not possible as it hasn't happened before.

There is no point paying massive overs to your players when you don't have stars just because the AFL requires you to spend 95% of the cap. As soon as you start having the stars taking more the younger players ask where their share is, they want a payrise.

Young sides like Freo, Brisbane, Carlton etc shouldn't be paying 95% of their cap. It should be much less. Then they have a multi-million dollar hole in their salary cap to fill, they can buy gun players from top sides.

You can synthetically lower the floor by front-loading. Means you can then spend much more than the cap in later years. Only problem is if you never actually get a list good enough to then over-spend.

 

[Taylor]

Why can't they do this with the current situation?

Because they have to spend 95% of their cap each year.

If you are spending 40% of your cap and decide to go after a gun for next season then you can renegotiate with your existing players to extend and restructure their deals so they get $2,000,000 straight up in the current year and $100,000 for the next three years. Now you're spending 20% of your cap next season and offer Patrick Cripps $8,000,000 in the first year for 2019 and $650,000 for the next four years after. It works out to over $2,000,000 a year but it's the filling of the salary cap hole that allows it.

You can't do that when the best you can move is $600,000

 

[Taylor]

You can synthetically lower the floor by front-loading. Means you can then spend much more than the cap in later years. Only problem is if you never actually get a list good enough to then over-spend.

It is a big risk. You end up in a situation where you've had to pay your young players more than they are worth and when their contract comes around for renewal they expect a raise. When you're giving them their market value or a touch more then they get the same offer to play at home, you lose them.

 

[BloodySwan]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/indigenous-academy-backlash-20180620-p4zmq3.html

Considering the Crows have three kids coming through in 2019 and 2020 that could well go in the first round, I dont know why they would agree with this.

Unless the Northern states lose access to their academies in this same way, it should never ge agreed to.

The SA & WA clubs should have full NGA access to their states and not have some areas blocked out. The only thing the current state entices is for the clubs to relocate families should they have a potential future gun. Completely understand the angst the elders would be facing from areas outside the NGA zones

 

[jackess]

Because they have to spend 95% of their cap each year.

If you are spending 40% of your cap and decide to go after a gun for next season then you can renegotiate with your existing players to extend and restructure their deals so they get $2,000,000 straight up in the current year and $100,000 for the next three years. Now you're spending 20% of your cap next season and offer Patrick Cripps $8,000,000 in the first year for 2019 and $650,000 for the next four years after. It works out to over $2,000,000 a year but it's the filling of the salary cap hole that allows it.

You can't do that when the best you can move is $600,000

Then how did Sydney free up the cash for Buddy's 9 year deal?

We've traded out Redden, Rockliff and Hanley recently on big deals as well as guys like Aish, Leuenberger and Schache who all would have been on decent deals. We've had cap to spend without giving someone 8mil

Also, this helps other clubs poach players from you. What would be stopping Saints doing this to poach McCluggage from us?

We see more trades involving players leaving bottom teams to play in more successful teams like Rockliff last year.

 

[Taylor]

Then how did Sydney free up the cash for Buddy's 9 year deal?

We've traded out Redden, Rockliff and Hanley recently on big deals as well as guys like Aish, Leuenberger and Schache who all would have been on decent deals. We've had cap to spend without giving someone 8mil

Also, this helps other clubs poach players from you. What would be stopping Saints doing this to poach McCluggage from us?

We see more trades involving players leaving bottom teams to play in more successful teams like Rockliff last year.

This is very simple language here so I don't mean to offend if it sounds like I'm being condescending.

Sydney has been running with the minimum players on the senior list for a while, there is a minimum of a 38 players on a senior list. They choose to do this because it put the two extra players from the 40 max onto their rookie list, hugely reducing the cost of them on their cap.

Sydney structured it's deal so that the money for Franklin was mostly outside it's current contract book period. They, like most clubs, have the majority of their contracts ending within the next three seasons. So most of their current players are out of contract by the end of the season after next. That means the last six years of Franklin's deal had him as the first page in their contract book, everything else would be fitting around it. That's where the majority of his money is in the deal.

It isn't so much fitting Franklin's money into the cap, it's fitting the re-contracting of their other players around that already existing deal.

..

Now, of course it allows your players to be poached too if there is no minimum cap spend. It is up to all clubs to create a culture and atmosphere of retention.

Brisbane has still had to spend 95% of it's cap regardless of the players it has lost.

 

[Suma Magic]

It is a big risk. You end up in a situation where you've had to pay your young players more than they are worth and when their contract comes around for renewal they expect a raise. When you're giving them their market value or a touch more then they get the same offer to play at home, you lose them.

You aren't paying them any more than they are worth. You are paying their worth but just front-loading it. So you're not actually paying 95% of the cap, you're paying less. Then you aren't limited to paying 105% of the cap, because a lot of wages for that year are already paid.

The second risk (to what I pointed out in my first post) to this strategy is that if players want to leave, you have already paid them in advance. So they may want to go to a team which will pay them a normal salary, but you want to keep them because you will only be paying them less than they are worth from that point on.

 

[jackess]

This is very simple language here so I don't mean to offend if it sounds like I'm being condescending.

Sydney has been running with the minimum players on the senior list for a while, there is a minimum of a 38 players on a senior list. They choose to do this because it put the two extra players from the 40 max onto their rookie list, hugely reducing the cost of them on their cap.

Sydney structured it's deal so that the money for Franklin was mostly outside it's current contract book period. They, like most clubs, have the majority of their contracts ending within the next three seasons. So most of their current players are out of contract by the end of the season after next. That means the last six years of Franklin's deal had him as the first page in their contract book, everything else would be fitting around it. That's where the majority of his money is in the deal.

It isn't so much fitting Franklin's money into the cap, it's fitting the re-contracting of their other players around that already existing deal.

..

Now, of course it allows your players to be poached too if there is no minimum cap spend. It is up to all clubs to create a culture and atmosphere of retention.

Brisbane has still had to spend 95% of it's cap regardless of the players it has lost.

Huge? Given rookies can be paid any salary. Even on base salary it'd be what $50k each? That pays for Buddy to play 2 or 3 games each year.

So if Sydney can find a million a year to get Buddy why do the bottom clubs without as many gun players need to the ridiculous things you suggested to free up cash to poach players?

Do you not think that helping a club to draft talented locals so they have a group to build around helps them build a culture rather than having to draft interstate players who will leave at first opportunity? Or overlook interstate players to draft less talented players that are more likely to stay?

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Huge? Given rookies can be paid any salary. Even on base salary it'd be what $50k each? That pays for Buddy to play 2 or 3 games each year.

So if Sydney can find a million a year to get Buddy why do the bottom clubs without as many gun players need to the ridiculous things you suggested to free up cash to poach players?

I think you’ll find Sydney heavily back-ended Buddy’s contract to fit him in, they should start to see the effects of this soon (although they are very well run and may not). In 2013 no Sydney player would have been contracted to 2017 and beyond so they had free reign to offer whatever in those years.

There is nothing stopping Brisbane from offering Lynch 600k up until 2022 and then 1.6m from then on in a 9 year deal.

 

[jackess]

I think you’ll find Sydney heavily back-ended Buddy’s contract to fit him in, they should start to see the effects of this soon (although they are very well run and may not). In 2013 no Sydney player would have been contracted to 2017 and beyond so they had free reign to offer whatever in those years.

There is nothing stopping Brisbane from offering Lynch 600k up until 2022 and then 1.6m from then on in a 9 year deal.

Brisbane knows full well how back ended deals can come back to bite you. I think (hope) they've learnt their lesson.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Brisbane knows full well how back ended deals can come back to bite you. I think (hope) they've learnt their lesson.

I agree Brisbane shouldn’t be looking to back end a big name, especially when Hipwood, McLuggage, Berry, Rayner would be coming into their prime at the peak of any deal.

I’m just pointing out how Sydney did it. It looks like McVeigh will be squeezed out and it wouldn’t surprise me if another valuable player leaves, however they fill these voids very well with rookies and state leaguers.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I hope this is true .

It was embarrassing that SA and WA clubs are the only clubs that do not get access to all indigenous players .

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I get the argument about the Zones for indigenous players, and that it seems unsustainable.

The logic that it has to be under the same rules as the Northern academies is nonsense though, they were set up for a completely different purpose. Ie that the game is relatively weak in the Northern states and development pathways are necessary.
Giving advantageous access to strong ckubs in SA and WA isn't going to happen without restrictions. They do have to rewarded for effort invested in the Academies though.
There are restrictions on the Northern Clubs if the club finishes in the top 4 only one top 10 pick can be matched.
Maybe something like that instead of no advantage in the top 30 which seems harsh. Maybe one top 10 pick and a couple more to 30 max.

If anyone thinks that's outrageous bear in mind our academy has helped 16 youngsters to a debut, 5 for other clubs.

 

[briztoon]

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.

If you believe NSW and QLD will start producing even an equal level of talent to W.A. or S.A in 25 years time, then you really do not understand the sporting land scape in the Northern States. It would take the demise of Rugby League for the northern states to start producing the same quality and depth of AFL players.

The academies aren't playing in a vacuum. AFL, despite the number of kids and girls/women registered in NSW and QLD, are the poor cousin behind soccer, rugby union and rugby league. These kids aren't just playing, they're playing every sport, and being lost to AFL by the time they start high school, because there's more money and opportunities in the other sports and football codes.

Next year will see AFL introduced to some of the Private Schools in QLD for the first time. It's played in very few public schools. There isn't the infrastructure outside of the local AFL clubs and AFL academies to keep top end kids in the sport.

 

[briztoon]

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

Answered this above. The kids aren't playing AFL exclusively, they're playing every other sport and football code as well. If you added up the numbers of registered AFL, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Touch Football and Soccer players in QLD, it's greater than the actual population.

Also, having a much milder winter, more people are sports orientated during winter up here than down south. I can't remember the figures now, but our registered figures are boosted by the high participation rates in Auskick* and rapid growth of womens football up here. *I question the Auskick participation rates, because I wonder if the AFL counts kids multiple times, i.e. do they count each kid by name regardless of how many Auskick programs they register in. An Auskick season is 6 weeks, and one is run each term. One kid could sign up each term to play Auskick and be counted 4 times.

The talented kids are lost to AFL because there is more money and opportunities in the other football codes and other sports. AFL is played in very few public schools, and next year will the first year some of the private schools will introduce AFL in to their sporting curriculum.

This gets repeated adnuseum on here and even by our own head of academy in a recent interview. It's hard for academies to keep kids, because they have school sports commitments that take priority, or they have other club sports priorities, the Academies can't compete with the money thrown at the kids by the NRL clubs, because the NRL clubs can sign kids to contracts while they are still at school.

 

[briztoon]

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?

Each club has gained access to a kid now in their NGA academy who was part of the national set up at younger ages and before the NGA clubs were introduced. The vic clubs aren't introducing the game to new communities or people. They've filled their academies with kids who were already playing the game and weren't going to be lost to the sport. And in the process gained access to top tier talent, simply because those kids meet the criteria of either having one parent being born over seas or being of aboriginal decent, even though they were already playing the sport, at the highest level available to them at that age.

Out of curiosity, simply because I don't know which kid you're talking about, which kid in a Northern Academy has a brother currently playing AFL?

You do know we don't have TAC cup clubs up here, so the academies are the elite pathways to AFL. It's not like the kid has much of an option.

 

[Joao]

Fyfe went to your club for less than what he's worth.

Already Callum Mills despite being bid on at pick 3 probably isn't worth a top 3 pick if you re-did that draft.

And you can't just bundle up 3rd rounders anymore they closed that loophole and to do that to get Mills Sydney traded back from pick 14 and didn't have a second selection until pick 56.

Other clubs like the Saints and North actually benefited in the from Sydney and Brisbane trading back down the draft for more points.

What the actual ****? Fyfe went at 20 because he got passed over 19 times and then on the 20th time he got selected. That's it. We didn't get anything special there. Holy **** you argue some ****.

What has Mill's performance to date got to do with it? So what you are saying is that because sometimes the recruiters get it wrong you guys should get cheaper players in case he turns out a spud? You make no ****ing sense. Why not have the AFL just take your two worst players and swap them with the two best from other clubs every season?

Yes you can bundle them, you just have to have enough list spots for your picks.

I am so happy for North and Saints. What about the other 15 clubs who were disadvantaged?

The point I'm making is people are exaggerating the impact on the discount because they overrate the draft.

If the impact of the discount is so insignificant then why do you need it?

 

[jackess]

So 2 NGAs in the top 20 (and 2 more if the all of SA and WA were covered) and 1 northern academy. Also 2 father sons to Victorian clubs.

But it's the northern clubs getting an unfair advantage

 

[Pykie]

So 2 NGAs in the top 20 (and 2 more if the all of SA and WA were covered) and 1 northern academy. Also 2 father sons to Victorian clubs.

But it's the northern clubs getting an unfair advantage

Convenient year to pick.


1 Northern Academy?

I count two with Nick Blakey and Bailey Scott.

 

[jackess]

Convenient year to pick.

Bailey Scott is eligible for Brisbane, has he been added?

Suns. As well as father son at Geelong and North I think. Not in Twomeys top 20.

But it looks like Collingwood and North after this year will have as many first round academy selections as Brisbane and the Suns.

 

[Taylor]

So 2 NGAs in the top 20 (and 2 more if the all of SA and WA were covered) and 1 northern academy. Also 2 father sons to Victorian clubs.

But it's the northern clubs getting an unfair advantage

Twomey has always rated the academy and NGA players higher in his top 20s.

It's a psychological thing. The names are known, they are familiar and are recognised more often during conversation, so they sound more frequently mentioned even if they aren't.

Long story short, Cal has rated academy players higher than their eventual standing forever and most of it is because they have a much higher profile than the player standing next to them.

 

[jackess]

Twomey has always rated the academy and NGA players higher in his top 20s.

It's a psychological thing. The names are known, they are familiar and are recognised more often during conversation, so they sound more frequently mentioned even if they aren't.

Long story short, Cal has rated academy players higher than their eventual standing forever and most of it is because they have a much higher profile than the player standing next to them.

Quaynor also made the all australian team so I don't think top 20 is a stretch.

 

[go_the_dockers]

The only different salary cap situation Brisbane has operated under has been a larger cap, and they made four grand finals in that period.

The salary cap situation I am talking about is no minimum cap spend. That has not been in place. That will allow you to buy the talent you want. Comparing situations in the past to that is not possible as it hasn't happened before.

There is no point paying massive overs to your players when you don't have stars just because the AFL requires you to spend 95% of the cap. As soon as you start having the stars taking more the younger players ask where their share is, they want a payrise.

Young sides like Freo, Brisbane, Carlton etc shouldn't be paying 95% of their cap. It should be much less. Then they have a multi-million dollar hole in their salary cap to fill, they can buy gun players from top sides.

That would work if you could bank that amount over 4 or 5 years.