Expansion QLD and NSW academies

[geelong_crazy26]

So that's a no to ACTUALLY developing areas on NSW without development pathways then?

No one's put that idea forward, although I suppose it's easier to respond to arguments you just made up rather than what was posted.

Again, to wheel back to the original reason I responded to you: not being able to access home state talent in the main draft and having limited opportunity to trade them home would severely affect a team's outcomes.

I did respond to you, you just have an entitled pov regarding Sydney accessing NSW players. You should have as much entitlement and access to players from NSW as anyone else does across the league. This is a very entitled opinion to have.

In terms of the development areas, those areas ( metro Sydney) require far larger scale investments which will benefit from a full scale AFL club involvement, not just Sydney. If Sydney wants to it can branch out to those areas you mentioned. AFL participation is no where near catching rugby in those locations

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Terrible idea.

If you want something to be run as well as possible, you don't let the AFL anywhere near it.

How do you think footy in Tasmania became a basket case?

Then it’s not a priority of the AFL. Simple. Let it go then and don’t worry about it.

We live in a competition of equal opportunity for all clubs, if anything wants to come along that changes this it can bugger off.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

So your idea is to have all 18 clubs establish their own northern academy in which they get their own portion of suburbs from Sydney and Brisbane? That's 36 separate northern academies running at the same time...

In case you're not aware, the AFL has tried this sort of stuff in the past and had very little success. Do you remember the NSW scholarship program? Every AFL club was allowed to identify junior talent from any part of NSW and sign them to their scholarship program years before they were draft eligible and could even move them interstate to incorporate them into their AFL program if they wanted to. Spoiler alert - it hardly produced any AFL talent. Tex Walker was essentially the one notable graduate from the NSW scholarship program.

I know you think you've got it figured out and opening everything up to every club is going to be better for everyone, but the truth is we've been here before and it doesn't work that way. The AFL has already tried a lot of your suggestions and none of them even came close to what we're seeing with the northern academies now. This is why the AFL continue to defend the northern academies and don't look like removing them any time soon.

Probably time to move on, bud. Just accept that your club lost the prelim to Brisbane and focus on the 2025 season

those pathway programs were run very different to academies, apples and oranges.

Absolutely! 36 academies with as much investment as possible to grow the game. Imagine the quality of draft able kids coming through the system.

Common sense is more money and investment in the areas will produce more participation and growth. Which again I don’t think you actually care about.

 

[GC2015]

those pathway programs were run very different to academies, apples and oranges.

How so? Clubs send out scouts to find juniors in that part of the state/city and if they find any that they believe are worth investing money into, they sign them up to the development program. They spent a few years developing them through their program and if everything goes well then they move them interstate/intercity to join their VFL/AFL program.

Tex Walker signed up for Adelaide's NSW scholarship program at 15 and spent the next two years playing locally in Broken Hill while also taking part in Adelaide's development program and playing rep footy for NSW. Then they moved him to Adelaide to start training with Crows AFL players and continue his development by playing the season in the SANFL. The following year he joined their AFL list.

What's the difference?

Absolutely! 36 academies with as much investment as possible to grow the game. Imagine the quality of draft able kids coming through the system.

Uh huh. Because they worked so well in the past with the scholarship program. We don't have to imagine when we've already been down this road before.

Common sense is more money and investment in the areas will produce more participation and growth. Which again I don’t think you actually care about.

It's not about common sense. It's about what works. The AFL wants results, not a flimsy theory about what should work.

I'll ask you the same question I asked the West Coast supporter who seemed just as clueless about the logistics of all this. Have you ever lived in QLD or NSW? If so, for how long and did you get involved in the local footy scene. The reason I ask is because I firmly believe you need to have lived north/east of the Barassi Line and been involved in grassroots footy up here to properly comment on this topic. If you've only ever lived in Melbourne/Geelong then you're definitely not qualified to comment on this topic. Let's see if you dodge this question like the other guy did.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

How so? Clubs send out scouts to find juniors in that part of the state/city and if they find any that they believe are worth investing money into, they sign them up to the development program. They spent a few years developing them through their program and if everything goes well then they move them interstate/intercity to join their VFL/AFL program.

Tex Walker signed up for Adelaide's NSW scholarship program at 15 and spent the next two years playing locally in Broken Hill while also taking part in Adelaide's development program and playing rep footy for NSW. Then they moved him to Adelaide to start training with Crows AFL players and continue his development by playing the season in the SANFL. The following year he joined their AFL list.

What's the difference?


Uh huh. Because they worked so well in the past with the scholarship program. We don't have to imagine when we've already been down this road before.


It's not about common sense. It's about what works. The AFL wants results, not a flimsy theory about what should work.

I'll ask you the same question I asked the West Coast supporter who seemed just as clueless about the logistics of all this. Have you ever lived in QLD or NSW? If so, for how long and did you get involved in the local footy scene. The reason I ask is because I firmly believe you need to have lived north/east of the Barassi Line and been involved in grassroots footy up here to properly comment on this topic. If you've only ever lived in Melbourne/Geelong then you're definitely not qualified to comment on this topic. Let's see if you dodge this question like the other guy did.

How so? Clubs send out scouts to find juniors in that part of the state/city and if they find any that they believe are worth investing money into, they sign them up to the development program. They spent a few years developing them through their program and if everything goes well then they move them interstate/intercity to join their VFL/AFL program.

Tex Walker signed up for Adelaide's NSW scholarship program at 15 and spent the next two years playing locally in Broken Hill while also taking part in Adelaide's development program and playing rep footy for NSW. Then they moved him to Adelaide to start training with Crows AFL players and continue his development by playing the season in the SANFL. The following year he joined their AFL list.

What's the difference?


Uh huh. Because they worked so well in the past with the scholarship program. We don't have to imagine when we've already been down this road before.


It's not about common sense. It's about what works. The AFL wants results, not a flimsy theory about what should work.

I'll ask you the same question I asked the West Coast supporter who seemed just as clueless about the logistics of all this. Have you ever lived in QLD or NSW? If so, for how long and did you get involved in the local footy scene. The reason I ask is because I firmly believe you need to have lived north/east of the Barassi Line and been involved in grassroots footy up here to properly comment on this topic. If you've only ever lived in Melbourne/Geelong then you're definitely not qualified to comment on this topic. Let's see if you dodge this question like the other guy did.

It lacked structure and development how all clubs modeled it at the time including Brisbane and Sydney who both now run successful northern academies. Very different at the time.

I am sure just like Sydney and Brisbane have, the other 14 clubs will now run them to the same standard Sydney GC etc has in the modern era.

Yes it is common sense. You just don’t want any other club getting a slice of your pie. Don’t blame you, I would be defensive of such a huge leg up also that nets my team 4-5 first round draft picks in a single season for a bunch of pick 20’s 30’s and 40’s.

 

[.Shotties.]

I did respond to you, you just have an entitled pov regarding Sydney accessing NSW players. You should have as much entitlement and access to players from NSW as anyone else does across the league. This is a very entitled opinion to have.

A bold ploy saying you responded to what I said before making something up entirely.

To repeat: even if Sydney's academy went into the open pool, they wouldn't have had the chance to draft the majority of them. Unlike Victorian teams.

In terms of the development areas, those areas ( metro Sydney) require far larger scale investments which will benefit from a full scale AFL club involvement, not just Sydney. If Sydney wants to it can branch out to those areas you mentioned. AFL participation is no where near catching rugby in those locations

The fact that you don't even know Sydney's academy zones while trying to speak authoritatively about what level of investment is needed is hilariously on-brand.

Anyway the metro areas are, comparatively to the areas I mentioned, fine. Why don't you want Geelong pouring their money into Newcastle or Wollongong?

those pathway programs were run very different to academies, apples and oranges.

Explain it then. The "lack of structure" was entirely the failing of the clubs. They tried to just skim the players they could with minimal effort, just as they would this time around.

 

[Taper]

Sure, but in this case it only had a minor influence on Brisbane winning the flag last year. The far bigger influence had to do with things that every club has access to like trading, free agency, non-academy drafting etc.

In the AFL, you've got manufactured advantages and natural advantages. The northern academies are a manufactured advantage designed to grow the game in expansion markets and even the playing field against teams that have natural advantages that don't exist for the northern teams. Geelong has several natural advantages that come from being based in a footy state / Victoria / Geelong when compared to any of the four northern clubs. As has been detailed in earlier posts in this thread.

The league will never be 100% even and fair, but the AFL are trying very hard to grow the game in QLD & NSW because they know it will pay greater long term dividends than any other area in Australia. If we ever get to a point where either northern state is regularly producing the same level of draftees as WA or SA then I think you would naturally see the northern academies wound back, but we're a long way off that.

I'm glad to know we both acknowledge the advantages given to QLD and NSW clubs in the form of academies.
The difference is I don't agree with the academies because I see them as an unfair leg up, while you agree with the academies because you see them as being necessary for growing the game in QLD and NSW.

I want to see QLD and NSW clubs being self sustainable rather than being a financial drain on the AFL.
Brisbane have a crippling debt of over $10m despite their recent run of sustained success.
West Coast on the other hand remain a financial powerhouse despite winning just 10 games in the last three years.

 

[.Shotties.]

I'm glad to know we both acknowledge the advantages given to QLD and NSW clubs in the form of academies.
The difference is I don't agree with the academies because I see them as an unfair leg up, while you agree with the academies because you see them as being necessary for growing the game in QLD and NSW.

I see them as off-setting an inherent disadvantage in the league as well.

 

[RUNVS]

In something like 13 years of the academy system Sydney have had Mills, Heeney, Blakey and Campbell as first rounders.

If I have not forgotten anyone then 4 first rounders in 13 seasons isn't a massive amount.

 

[.Shotties.]

In something like 13 years of the academy system Sydney have had Mills, Heeney, Blakey and Campbell as first rounders.

If I have not forgotten anyone then 4 first rounders in 13 seasons isn't a massive amount.

Cleary at pick 24.

 

[RUNVS]

Cleary at pick 24.

I think that is being very very very generous by calling pick 24 a first round pick, even if it technically is.

 

[.Shotties.]

I think that is being very very very generous by calling pick 24 a first round pick, even if it technically is.

Oh for sure. It's also why I don't wet the bed when people talk about about Sydney's first round pick record when we're talking about players who fall outside what would be a pure first round.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

I'm glad to know we both acknowledge the advantages given to QLD and NSW clubs in the form of academies.
The difference is I don't agree with the academies because I see them as an unfair leg up, while you agree with the academies because you see them as being necessary for growing the game in QLD and NSW.

I want to see QLD and NSW clubs being self sustainable rather than being a financial drain on the AFL.
Brisbane have a crippling debt of over $10m despite their recent run of sustained success.
West Coast on the other hand remain a financial powerhouse despite winning just 10 games in the last three years.

Now you’re gunna have a little tear because a team with a debt knocked you out of the finals. you are next level bitter aren’t you. A team who had father sons, some academy players - one taken at the premium pick of 14 and another in the 40’s and another in the 60’s, and players taken during the draft and a financial debt beat you poor little catties did they. !! I can see you in the crowd, as Rayners goal was sailing through, stamping your strange little feet and telling the other strange Geelong supporter (probably the guy that dresses up as cat) sitting next to you through tear filled eye’s that it’s just not fair. Such a sad situation- seriously just stop, it’s pathetic.

 

[Bjo187]

Brisbane have a crippling debt of over $10m despite their recent run of sustained success.

Brisbane are debt free or close to as of this year.

 

[Bjo187]

In something like 13 years of the academy system Sydney have had Mills, Heeney, Blakey and Campbell as first rounders.

If I have not forgotten anyone then 4 first rounders in 13 seasons isn't a massive amount.

I don't think that's a fair take, academy players often slide to a lot lower than their actual value, coz other clubs know there is not much point in bidding. Gulden was first round level talent.

 

[Tom14]

Brisbane are debt free or close to as of this year.

Correct. Club have chosen to keep a small amount of debt and spend some extra funds on other projects. Will easily have 70k members too I think.

 

[.Shotties.]

I don't think that's a fair take, academy players often slide to a lot lower than their actual value, coz other clubs know there is not much point in bidding. Gulden was first round level talent.

Gulden had doubts over his size and was pretty widely tipped to go second round. I also don't think with players like Hiscox getting bid on in the second round that teams had an issue forcing bids.

 

[RUNVS]

I don't think that's a fair take, academy players often slide to a lot lower than their actual value, coz other clubs know there is not much point in bidding. Gulden was first round level talent.

Clubs were too nervous to bid on Gulden due to his height. Had someone bid on him in the top 10 Sydney likely would not have had the points to take him.

 

[GC2015]

I don't think that's a fair take, academy players often slide to a lot lower than their actual value, coz other clubs know there is not much point in bidding. Gulden was first round level talent.

.Shotties. is right. Gulden's size was seen as an issue and he was considered a second round prospect going into the 2020 draft. Twomey had him going into the 20s just a few days before the draft and suggested that the Swans weren't necessarily going to match a bid if it came in the first round.

 

[Bjo187]

.Shotties. is right. Gulden's size was seen as an issue and he was considered a second round prospect going into the 2020 draft. Twomey had him going into the 20s just a few days before the draft and suggested that the Swans weren't necessarily going to match a bid if it came in the first round.

Coz twomey does his rankings on what's gonna happen in the last month or so, not on talent and where he thinks they should fall. Plus the significant majority of father sons and academy players slide lower, daicos and both ashcroft's are enough of an example of that, let alone guys outside the top 5. I watch a lot of under age footy so know the landscape.

 

[Philhawk]

I think that is being very very very generous by calling pick 24 a first round pick, even if it technically is.

Yet it is. Being gifted a first round pick every 2.5 years is absurd in an equalized competition.

 

[RUNVS]

Yet it is. Being gifted a first round pick every 2.5 years is absurd in an equalized competition.

Except it isn't being gifted a first round pick. We paid for those players, often with our first round pick.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

Brisbane are debt free or close to as of this year.

You know this bloke doesn’t actually deal with facts or reality, just going through Brisbane’s history trying to find something to whinge about and seeing if anyone will jump on board.

 

[Philhawk]

Except it isn't being gifted a first round pick. We paid for those players, often with our first round pick.

Often?

Mills was 3 picks in the 30s and 1 in the 40s.

Blakey was 2 picks in the 30s and 1 in the 40s.

Campbell was 2 picks in the 30s and 2 in the 40s

Heeney you were made to “give up” pick 18 after Melbourne bid pick 2 (while keeping all your second rounders).

Cleary you used a second round pick to match.

So remind me how you’re using first rounders often?

Complete and utter rort.

 

[MSB ROYS]

You know this bloke doesn’t actually deal with facts or reality, just going through Brisbane’s history trying to find something to whinge about and seeing if anyone will jump on board.

This sums it up.