List Mgmt. NGA, Father son watch

[KeaysyInTheBowlsy]

The metro zone is currently not eligible for NGA but the AFL are thinking of changing eligibility around metro zones in SA being included.

Is Port District not Metro Zone? This is why it's confusing

 

[ABAB]

Don't think the AFL will change the rule for next year when there's potentially a top 2 pick in the mix.

 

[Mutineer]

All a bit confusing to me! But power to them. Hopefully we can get a little gift at some point too. Maybe Jim Michalanney can go around again?

Unfortunately Max's brother Jack Michalanney who was draft eligible last year looks to have given up on his AFL dream rotating between Norwood Reserves and Rostrevor OC this season.

 

[jo172]

Suspect the great irony is that the AFL is finally going to get serious about NGA for next draft in not letting them get selected in the first round

 

[ams4crows]

Is Port District not Metro Zone? This is why it's confusing

Yes, but the AFL is thinking of changing the rule to include the metro zone this year which would mean next year He would be eligible

 

[PeterSalt]

We, the crows and 2 WA clubs have had limited access to metro indigenous kids since 2019 draft ie after pick 40. But that has changed from the 2025 draft. See explanation below.

Before that 2019 draft there was no access to metro indigenous kids for the 4 WA and SA clubs. That's why in 2018 Port or the crows couldn't take Rankine. He played for West Adelaide which is in our NGA zoned aligned SANFL club. We wouldn't have had access after the 2019 changes in the 2019 draft because he was a top 40 pick.

That continued for every draft between 2019 and 2024, but because of the outcry over Ugle Hagan going at pick 1 and Bulldogs using 6 picks between picks 29 and 54 to match the bid to draft him, the rules were changed in 2021 so that NO CLUB had access rights to NGA kids be they indigenous - country or metro kids or multicultural - country of metro kids. The 2021 draft was picks 1 to 20, and 2022, 23 and 24 drafts was picks 1-40.

So this made everyone equal, but it had the usual AFL unintended consequences for some NGA kids.

Its why Melbourne lost Mac Andrew who met all the multicultural NGA requirements but GC selected him at pick 5 in 2021 and Melbourne lost out. If he was born 12 months earlier or 3 years later, Melbourne would have had rights to him.

Hawthorn took Cam Mackenzie at pick 7 in 2022 draft and he was part of St Kilda's NGA, and qualified as an NGA because he had one parent born in Africa - his father in South Africa,

St Kilda's took Lance Collard at pick 28 at 2023 draft and he was part of West Coast's NGA, is indigenous and grew up around North Beach in metro Perth and played for Subi. West Coast did consider moving draft picks to draft him in the 20's, before Saints picked him see THIS LINK.

Collingwood took at pick 37 Tew Jiath at 2023 draft and was part of Hawthorn's NGA and he has African heritage.

I missed the metro changes to WA and SA clubs because when I read the 2019 and 2022 rules there was no delineation between SA and WA clubs and Vic clubs. The differences were in the unpublished Guidelines, which the clubs have access to.

So I forgot about the picks 1 to 40 no access as no kids we have looked at post Lachie Jones in 2020 - a country zoned WWT kid, have been considered a top 40 pick, and incorrectly post the 2019 changes, I just said we don't get access to metro zoned indigenous kids. My previous bad - several times over.



That's why the rule was introduced in the first place that WA and SA clubs have no access to metro indigenous kids because of trying to have equal numbers in the draft pool per club in each of these 3 states.

But when the AFL in February 2016 allocated all of Northern Territory - outside the metro Darwin area - to 5 Victorian clubs - Essenedon, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Collingwood and Geelong, it made a mockery of this numbers smoothing exercise.

Gold Coast picked up the Darwin zone in 2019 as part of there many concessions after another rubbish season.

Bottom line for anyone bothering to read this - the club and the Cochranes wouldn't be going thru this exercise if the rules weren't changed in that 2nd August 2024 announcement making big changes to the various list management rules, and giving Port a chance to get access to Dougie via the NGA matching bid rules, re his aboriginality and residence requirements.

The metro zone is currently not eligible for NGA but the AFL are thinking of changing eligibility around metro zones in SA being included.

Glenelg is aligned to the Crows via SANFL zones

Is Port District not Metro Zone? This is why it's confusing

Might be worth having a read of the post above from RussellEbertHandball (thanks)

Seems the rules around drafting metro kids changes this draft if they are a part of a clubs NGA.

Basically, in regard to Cochrane, Port aren't waiting for the AFL to rule on the zoning of metro areas. They are waiting to see if the AFL recognise his status as a part of their NGA

Seems likely it's only a formality now. Also, AFL .. who knows

There is more info in there to read if you follow the post forwards or backwards

 

[Velvet George]

The metro zone is currently not eligible for NGA but the AFL are thinking of changing eligibility around metro zones in SA being included.

So instead of making the draft less compromised they want to make it more compromised.

Then they have concerns about teams stuck down the bottom. No shit, a shit load of good picks are going father son or academy.

They have to scrap both for the first round if they are serious.

 

[Mostyn]

The AFL has denied a few NGA requests recently - Sanders to NM, Ollie Greeves to Hawthorn.

Cochrane will be interesting. There's such a big push to stop the top of the draft being so compromised that the politics might be against them

 

[WeeBlake]

The AFL has denied a few NGA requests recently - Sanders to NM, Ollie Greeves to Hawthorn.

Cochrane will be interesting. There's such a big push to stop the top of the draft being so compromised that the politics might be against them

Yeah it could go either way. They are also worried about Aboriginal draft numbers, so they might also like to claim a victory for their NGA programs by letting him go to Port through theirs.

 

[radiojake]

I know we got Borlase through a bullshit mechanism but these ****en academies that are full of kids whose parents played top level footy is actually ****ing stupid

I get the argument for Isaac Heeney

5

Isaac Heeney

Age

30

Ht

185cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

7.7

5star

M

4.9

5star

T

4.1

5star

CL

2.2

4star

D

14.3

3star

K

8.8

4star

HB

5.5

3star

M

4.8

4star

T

2.5

3star

CL

0.8

3star

D

10.4

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.4

4star

CL

0.8

3star

- he said himself without the academy he would have played rugby - that's what these academies are for - getting kids from backgrounds that wouldn't have had the pathway to get to the AFL without it

Borlase / Cochrane / Blakey / kids from elite Melbourne high schools who have a parent who immigrated here 35 years ago ??? GET THE **** OUT

 

[jo172]

Luke Hodge's lad in Brisbane's academy, Jesse White

Jesse White

Age

38

Ht

196cm

Wt

102kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.3

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

3.9

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.8

4star

G

1.2

4star

No current season stats available

D

6.8

2star

K

3.6

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.4

3star

's in Gold Coast, weird one where Jason McCartney

Jason Mccartney

Age

52

Ht

191cm

Wt

95kg

Pos.

D/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.7

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

3.5

3star

M

3.6

4star

T

0.8

3star

No current season stats available

D

10.0

3star

K

5.8

3star

HB

4.2

4star

M

3.8

4star

T

0.6

3star

's is currently in Sydney's ...

The whole thing is a particularly silly rort and everyone knows it. Problem is everyone wants to shut the door behind them just after they get their gun.

 

[Cromulant]

Luke Hodge's lad in Brisbane's academy, Jesse White's in Gold Coast, weird one where Jason McCartney's is currently in Sydney's ...

The whole thing is a particularly silly rort and everyone knows it. Problem is everyone wants to shut the door behind them just after they get their gun.

Jeff White I believe.

Jesse's is more likely to be at an Adelaide club since he lives here.

 

[jo172]

Jeff White I believe.

Jesse's is more likely to be at an Adelaide club since he lives here.

Yes my bad

 

[WeeBlake]

If they have to keep father-sons, and I have no doubt they will, the rules should be:
1. No discount
2. Points only from the round the player is taken. If a player is taken at pick 1, you pay the points from your first round picks over the next however many years it takes you to have enough points. You can’t pay with points from second round or later rounds. You carry over the deficit into the next year. Eg if a premier gets a pick 1 father son, and they win the the next year as well, it is going to be a long time before they ever get a first round pick again. As it should be.

 

[bigman]

Three things need to be said.

Firstly currently the metro areas areas are not part of any NGA zone. This could change of course to make the draft fairer for all teams - particularly those in SA and WA but make the draft even more compromised.

Secondly as i understand it Central District is currently part of our NGA area so if rules are to be followed Cochrane should play for us if any draft rules alter - there should be no argument here. If rules are to be exploited to allow a player to move into another area of the metro area simply to play for the team of their choice this should not be allowed.

Thirdly Cochrane's father did not play 100 games for Port so they have no right to him under the father son rule.

Any attempted changes to the rules by Port Power to gain an unfair advantage should be argued strongly against by the AFC and all other teams in the AFL

 

[Vader]

If they have to keep father-sons, and I have no doubt they will, the rules should be:
1. No discount
2. Points only from the round the player is taken. If a player is taken at pick 1, you pay the points from your first round picks over the next however many years it takes you to have enough points. You can’t pay with points from second round or later rounds. You carry over the deficit into the next year. Eg if a premier gets a pick 1 father son, and they win the the next year as well, it is going to be a long time before they ever get a first round pick again. As it should be.

What if the F/S bid comes in at pick 18 - the last pick in the 1st round? How is a club supposed to match under those conditions, if the matching pick needs to come from the same round?

I agree that clubs shouldn't be able to use picks 30+ after the bid (e.g. pick 31+ to match a bid for pick 1), maybe even 20+ after the bid, but restricting bid matches to picks in the same round has consequences which you don't appear to have thought through.

 

[DJ75]

Three things need to be said.

Firstly currently the metro areas areas are not part of any NGA zone. This could change of course to make the draft fairer for all teams - particularly those in SA and WA but make the draft even more compromised.

Secondly as i understand it Central District is currently part of our NGA area so if rules are to be followed Cochrane should play for us if any draft rules alter - there should be no argument here. If rules are to be exploited to allow a player to move into another area of the metro area simply to play for the team of their choice this should not be allowed.

Thirdly Cochrane's father did not play 100 games for Port so they have no right to him under the father son rule.

Any attempted changes to the rules by Port Power to gain an unfair advantage should be argued strongly against by the AFC and all other teams in the AFL

I hope we are willing to go scorched Earth on this one. We should not let our main rival get a leg up through a very dodgy manipulation of the rules.
If he's eligible, then he is eligible for us. Great.
There is no way he is eligible for Port. Let's see how they change their tune when that happens.

 

[PeterSalt]

There's going be bucket loads of tears on here if the AFL allow Cochrane to be aligned with ports NGA

 

[119others]

Might be worth having a read of the post above from RussellEbertHandball (thanks)

Seems the rules around drafting metro kids changes this draft if they are a part of a clubs NGA.

Basically, in regard to Cochrane, Port aren't waiting for the AFL to rule on the zoning of metro areas. They are waiting to see if the AFL recognise his status as a part of their NGA

Seems likely it's only a formality now. Also, AFL .. who knows

There is more info in there to read if you follow the post forwards or backwards

for Crows to get NWM, we hope like hell Cochrane is going to Power

 

[Velvet George]

I know we got Borlase through a bullshit mechanism but these ****en academies that are full of kids whose parents played top level footy is actually ****ing stupid

I get the argument for Isaac Heeney - he said himself without the academy he would have played rugby - that's what these academies are for - getting kids from backgrounds that wouldn't have had the pathway to get to the AFL without it

Borlase / Cochrane / Blakey / kids from elite Melbourne high schools who have a parent who immigrated here 35 years ago ??? GET THE **** OUT

And then they scratch their heads when we’ve got a top 9 v bottom 9, 2 months before the season has ended, teams stuck at the bottom.

The draft is so compromised the bottom teams get screwed missing out on the best pick whilst the premier gets gifted another top player.

The whole system is a joke and typical of the AFL.

Remove all bullshit from the 1st round. You want your father son, trade up for him.

 

[jo172]

I tend to think the above is the right answer. Just strip NGAs and Father/Sons from the first round and keep them for the lower ones.

It's the Daicos/Darcy/Ashcroft where the number one-five pick ends up at an already good side that's preposterous.

 

[crows dude]

What if the F/S bid comes in at pick 18 - the last pick in the 1st round? How is a club supposed to match under those conditions, if the matching pick needs to come from the same round?

I agree that clubs shouldn't be able to use picks 30+ after the bid (e.g. pick 31+ to match a bid for pick 1), maybe even 20+ after the bid, but restricting bid matches to picks in the same round has consequences which you don't appear to have thought through.

AS he said. They have to use their first round pick the following year. Cant use 2nd third round picks

 

[Carn The Texan]

Secondly as i understand it Central District is currently part of our NGA area so if rules are to be followed Cochrane should play for us if any draft rules alter - there should be no argument here. If rules are to be exploited to allow a player to move into another area of the metro area simply to play for the team of their choice this should not be allowed.

I think it's been suggested already here that he lives in a Port academy area but plays for Centrals as a father son type deal - so would probably be Port academy based on home location.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Anyone who is a half back flanker is a winger, and vice versa. Wing is a position to put your excess outside players, or as a development role for your soon-to-be inside midfielders.

oversimplification. Wing is a harder role than hbf

 

[cmndstab]

My suggestion for fixing this is:

Step 1: Make it so the numbers actually match the value of the picks. This is a work in progress.
Step 2: Set it up so that matching a bid necessarily means you will lose the closest pick of higher or equal value in the following year, and then you will get compensated with a single (later) pick for the difference, rounding down to the nearest pick value. Or, if you don't have a pick of equal or higher value next year, then you lose your first pick and the deficit accrues until the following season.
Step 3: You are not allowed to trade out any current or future first-round selections if you are in deficit.

You still get the romance of F/S and the practicality of academy picks, and the clubs getting them even get the benefit of offloading the cost until the following year. But it prevents the garbage about bundling together a half-dozen nothing picks and claiming that's equal to a single pick. And it also prevents clubs from just trading away their future picks each year to avoid paying the piper.


Alternatively: You are only allowed to match picks bid at a certain round if you either (a) still have your original pick at that round or higher in-tact for next year, and (b) have traded in another club's future pick in an earlier round. So if you want to retain the right to match a bid in the first round, don't trade away next year's first rounder.