AFLW Official - Bombers, Hawks, Power, Swans all to enter AFLW from 2022-23 onwards.

[The_Wookie]

The AFL is expected to finally embrace an 18-team AFLW competition for the 2022-23 season when it announces expansion plans at midday on Thursday.
The league has not yet informed those four teams - Essendon, Port Adelaide, Sydney and Hawthorn - that they will be in the competition next year.

But the Herald Sun understands the AFL will make the declaration that every team will have its own women’s side for a 2022-23 competition that will start at the end of next year.

The four teams put in detailed submissions which were assessed by the AFL Commission at its two-day meeting last week.

And while there will be significant concerns about the dilution of talent in coming seasons the reality is the league cannot continue holding out sides like Hawthorn, who have battled for years to gain entry to the AFLW.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

 

[TheTassieHawk]

I understand Abbey Dowrick from Subiaco may have signed with Port Adelaide

Both Abbey and her sister McKenzie were playing SANFLW this season, and McKenzie was a late addition to the Crows squad for the AFLW 2022 Summer/Autumn season.

 

[Great8]

 

[Teen Wolf]

Galway star Áine McDonagh set for AFLW move

McDonagh will become the first Irish AFLW Hawk.

www.the42.ie

At this stage it looks like the first 18-team season will feature 18 Irish players, that we know of.

Apparently there's a couple more still to be reported, which may or may not include one returning post-break.

 

[CrowdedHouse]

Will the last player to leave Footscray please turn off the lights before they go...

 

[Teen Wolf]

AFLW Latest News - AFL.com.au/aflw

Latest breaking AFLW news from the official website of the Australian Football League.

www.womens.afl

Not only does that evade the specifics of the player rating system, it also omits the crucial detail about what happens when a club has more players that want to leave as an expansion signing than what is allowed.

In other words: Carlton can only lose 3. But if Prespakis, Gee & two others wish to join an expansion team, which one has to seek a trade? (I know there was a rule in previous phases about players returning to their home state getting free agency preference, or something, but that only scratches the surface).

[EDIT: This article would indicate it's merely a first come, first served]

That aside, there are two glaring errors with the new rules, right off the bat:

1) Different rules for the top and bottom seven, when anybody who's watched the last two seasons would know the gulf is between the top six and bottom eight.

2) Bottom-half teams can still lose 3 players via expansion and/or their first round draft pick--ought to be a maximum of 2 for them (4 for GWS), and they shouldn't have to be of a certain value for those clubs to retain their 1st rounder.

 

[Stan Judkins]

AFLW Latest News - AFL.com.au/aflw

Latest breaking AFLW news from the official website of the Australian Football League.

www.womens.afl

Not only does that evade the specifics of the player rating system, it also omits the crucial detail about what happens when a club has more players that want to leave as an expansion signing than what is allowed.

In other words: Carlton can only lose 3. But if Prespakis, Gee & two others wish to join an expansion team, which one has to seek a trade? (I know there was a rule in previous phases about players returning to their home state getting free agency preference, or something, but that only scratches the surface).

[EDIT: This article would indicate it's merely a first come, first served]

That aside, there are two glaring errors with the new rules, right off the bat:

1) Different rules for the top and bottom seven, when anybody who's watched the last two seasons would know the gulf is between the top six and bottom eight.

2) Bottom-half teams can still lose 3 players via expansion and/or their first round draft pick--ought to be a maximum of 2 for them (4 for GWS), and they shouldn't have to be of a certain value for those clubs to retain their 1st rounder.

well i don't suppose the AFL will release how many points are allocated for
age,
payment tier,
career games
awards they might have won

i doubt it, secret sauce type stuff yeah ?

this is BS, well run teams that players don't want to leave get penalized ?
it wasn't like this last 2 expansion periods

 

[Vacuous Space]

1) Different rules for the top and bottom seven, when anybody who's watched the last two seasons would know the gulf is between the top six and bottom eight.

Also, why go back two seasons? The top-6 and the bottom-8 have been the same teams the past two years. If their goal was to exclude the Bulldogs (which is how it appears), they could have done that using this year's ladder.

Adding in last year's ladder is a pointless exercise. I assume they think it gives the whole process more legitimacy, but the Bulldogs are only ahead of Carlton over that period because of a draw. Carlton have the better percentage. I'm sure Dogs fans would be surprised to hear they can lose two more players in addition to Toogood and Lochland because they've been too successful over the last two years.

2) Bottom-half teams can still lose 3 players via expansion and/or their first round draft pick--ought to be a maximum of 2 for them (4 for GWS), and they shouldn't have to be of a certain value for those clubs to retain their 1st rounder.

It seems like it's going to be harder for the bottom teams to hit the point total to start with. They have worse players with less achievements to their name. Is TLR enough for the Saints to keep pick 10? If Richmond lose their pick, what happens to the Egan deal? It seems incomprehensible to me that they don't want the bottom teams to be getting better.

Hopefully either I'm misunderstanding something or the article is wrong, somehow.

 

[cmndstab]

I understand they don't want to release the exact formula, but it would be nice to get some kind of ballpark figure for what a player is worth. For instance the Crows lost Phillips. Is she worth 4 points? 2 points? 10 points? We don't have the slightest idea. What about Mules? Three premierships and very young, but likely in the bottom tier. How does that compare to Phillips who also has three premierships plus a bunch of other awards and would be top tier or near it, but is right near the end of her career?

Also is it the tier they are in at the new club, or the tier they were in before?

 

[cmndstab]

Also, why go back two seasons? The top-6 and the bottom-8 have been the same teams the past two years. If their goal was to exclude the Bulldogs (which is how it appears), they could have done that using this year's ladder.

Adding in last year's ladder is a pointless exercise. I assume they think it gives the whole process more legitimacy, but the Bulldogs are only ahead of Carlton over that period because of a draw. Carlton have the better percentage. I'm sure Dogs fans would be surprised to hear they can lose two more players in addition to Toogood and Lochland because they've been too successful over the last two years.


It seems like it's going to be harder for the bottom teams to hit the point total to start with. They have worse players with less achievements to their name. Is TLR enough for the Saints to keep pick 10? If Richmond lose their pick, what happens to the Egan deal? It seems incomprehensible to me that they don't want the bottom teams to be getting better.

Hopefully either I'm misunderstanding something or the article is wrong, somehow.

They also have more to lose since their picks are higher. Presumably the AFL has some plan to handle this that they're leaving as opaque as possible, like usual.

 

[Teen Wolf]

It seems like it's going to be harder for the bottom teams to hit the point total to start with. They have worse players with less achievements to their name.

Another reason it's harder for the bottom-half to reach the 28 points is because they can't lose as many players as the top-half.

Last year there was a draft rule that fell into the So Bad It Must Be Misreported/Poorly Explained category, and it turned out that it was in fact misreported/poorly explained. So there's always hope.

I understand they don't want to release the exact formula, but it would be nice to get some kind of ballpark figure for what a player is worth. For instance the Crows lost Phillips. Is she worth 4 points? 2 points? 10 points? We don't have the slightest idea. What about Mules? Three premierships and very young, but likely in the bottom tier. How does that compare to Phillips who also has three premierships plus a bunch of other awards and would be top tier or near it, but is right near the end of her career?

Also is it the tier they are in at the new club, or the tier they were in before?

The article mentions "awards" as a factor, which would seem to me a very different thing from premierships. If we are to take what's reported at face value, Phillips would obviously be worth a minimum of 14 points.

 

[Stan Judkins]

Also is it the tier they are in at the new club, or the tier they were in before?

Both ?

They also have more to lose since their picks are higher. Presumably the AFL has some plan to handle this that they're leaving as opaque as possible, like usual.

haha, wishful thinking

so for instance Carlton would be over the 28 point threshold, but their compo is they get to keep the 1st Rd pick they're already had ???
and WC, Saints, Cats, GC & Tigers might lose their 1st Rd's ???
ATM you could throw in Demons, Pie's, Kangas as well

 

[DragoDelph]

Would be awfully cruel if we kept our first round pick, while WC lost theirs.

 

[Vacuous Space]

Another reason it's harder for the bottom-half to reach the 28 points is because they can't lose as many players as the top-half.

Well, it looks like St Kilda's three are going to be Lucas-Rodd, Phillips and Vogt. If that's enough to get to 28 points, it should be a mere formality for most teams.

 

[Vacuous Space]

Would be awfully cruel if we kept our first round pick, while WC lost theirs.

They wouldn't dare...

Oh God, would they dare?

 

[cmndstab]

The article mentions "awards" as a factor, which would seem to me a very different thing from premierships. If we are to take what's reported at face value, Phillips would obviously be worth a minimum of 14 points.

I mean, you say "obviously" but is it obvious? Has the AFL given any indication as to how many players they expect a club to actually lose before they get to keep their first round pick?

Edit: Ah, I see the comment you mean about two top players being sufficient to meet 28 points. That's good at least, although in Phillips' case she is 37 years old so that is likely to knock her point value down a bit.

 

[CrowdedHouse]

Bombers go BANG!

Five more announced for our AFLW list

Five more to don the sash

Five more players commit in another coup for the Bombers' AFLW program.

www.essendonfc.com.au

 

[cmndstab]

so for instance Carlton would be over the 28 point threshold, but their compo is they get to keep the 1st Rd pick they're already had ???
and WC, Saints, Cats, GC & Tigers might lose their 1st Rd's ???
ATM you could throw in Demons, Pie's, Kangas as well

Forget about compo, the AFL won't be compensation clubs for losing players. They will only be punishing those that don't lose enough.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Which club has been affected least so far?

Tigers? Only lost 1 I think

 

[Teen Wolf]

Well, it looks like St Kilda's three are going to be Lucas-Rodd, Phillips and Vogt. If that's enough to get to 28 points, it should be a mere formality for most teams.

Don't know why a range of factors need to be considered, could've just gone: player on Tier 1 at new team = 28 points, Tier 2 = 21 points, Tier 3 = 14 points, Tier 4 = 7 points.

I mean, you say "obviously" but is it obvious? Has the AFL given any indication as to how many players they expect a club to actually lose before they get to keep their first round pick?

I'm not going by what the AFL have said, I'm going by the article which says:

1) Each player in the competition has been assigned a points value which is calculated based on age, payment tier, career games and any awards they might have won

2) a club can reach that 28-point threshold by only losing a couple of highly rated players

Taking the article at face value, to me, means the age/tier/games/awards are equally weighted (since the article doesn't say otherwise). It would therefore stand to reason Phillips would qualify as a highly rated player, meaning she must be worth at least 14 points (since 28 divided a couple, i.e. two, obviously equals 14).

Would be awfully cruel if we kept our first round pick, while WC lost theirs.

They will at least get a first round pick for Bowen from Geelong... unless Geelong lose theirs (and if that's actually where she wants to go etc etc).

 

[DragoDelph]

 

[Stan Judkins]

Which club has been affected least so far?

Tigers? Only lost 1 I think

yep 1 player, we are ****ed bye, bye Rd 1 pick

 

[Munga]

All I want to know is will St Kilda receive the priority pick everyone agreed they "deserved" for they're performance last season?
And does Lucas-Rodd, Phillips and Vogt make up 28 points? If not, we can't afford to lose our first round pick, that's just mental. So can we throw in a fourth player like the top seven teams can, if they want to move to an expansion team?
Lucas-Rodd fell a single vote short of our B&F, I hope that doesn't come back to bite! (Falling short of 28 points). I'd rather lose a fourth and 26th ranked player on our list just to keep our first round pick!

 

[Stan Judkins]

Forget about compo, the AFL won't be compensation clubs for losing players. They will only be punishing those that don't lose enough.

well i guess we'll find out which clubs will be punished before the start of the trade period next Tuesday

 

[Biggie]

Would be awfully cruel if we kept our first round pick, while WC lost theirs.

Ahaha.

This wont be happening

 

[Stan Judkins]

All I want to know is will St Kilda receive the priority pick everyone agreed they "deserved" for they're performance last season?
And does Lucas-Rodd, Phillips and Vogt make up 28 points? If not, we can't afford to lose our first round pick, that's just mental. So can we throw in a fourth player like the top seven teams can, if they want to move to an expansion team?
Lucas-Rodd fell a single vote short of our B&F, I hope that doesn't come back to bite! (Falling short of 28 points). I'd rather lose a fourth and 26th ranked player on our list just to keep our first round pick!

So can we throw in a fourth player like the top seven teams can, if they want to move to an expansion team?
i believe you can't, as after your quota of 3, anymore players have to be traded for by the expansion clubs

as for will St Kilda receive the priority pick, i'd be worried whether you keep your existing 1st round pick
so you'd hope Lucas-Rodd, Phillips and Vogt make up 28 points