I think the AFL should require a matching bid to contain at least 1 pick from the same round as the original bid if the bid is in the first 2 rounds, but apart from that I am fine with their bidding system.https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/dr...t/news-story/2d62ece85436b5f2d81db6f05a70cc14
This is what the Dogs have to give up to get a father/son player.
— To match the bid, the Dogs use Pick 23 (815 points), Pick 43 (378), Pick 44 (362), Pick 45 (347) and Pick 52 (246), equating to 2148 points that is enough to cover the Giants’ bid.
— As the value of those five picks is more than the discounted Pick 2 value, the Dogs have 134 points left over. This means the last selection the Dogs used to match the Darcy bid (Pick 52) would slide back to Pick 62.
The AFL supports a charming but antiquated notion that a son should be able to play for the same team as his father. Recently they have taken steps to ensure that clubs pay a fair price for them but now I think the pendulum has swung too far.
The points system seems reasonable but the Bulldogs have to hand over 5 picks to get one player. That seems unreasonable, I think if a club took pick 23 and 4 picks between 45 and 55 to the draft there is a pretty good chance they would walk away with 2 solid players. There should be a limit on the number of picks you need to hand over for a father/son. Remember, we all like the idea of sons playing for their Dad’s club. Let’s not hold clubs to ransom for a quirky but endearing facet of our game.
The nominated club already has opportunities to benefit by trading ahead of potential bids or trading down so the pay with junk picks.