St Kilda complain about priority draft access in Oct 2024; now set to gain priority access to a first / second round pick via their NGA access

[littlecreatures]

A body? How many what percentage of the draft ?

Do your own homework. You’ve just been provided half a dozen players which to your argument should’ve been playing NRL before academies, so whether it’s Queensland or NSW is irrelevant, so this does constitute a body of players.

 

[mighty_lions]

Do your own homework. You’ve just been provided half a dozen players which to your argument should’ve been playing NRL before academies, so whether it’s Queensland or NSW is irrelevant, so this does constitute a body of players.

Lol I have done my own homework, the answer is hardly any kid were drafted out of Queensland and the academy is helping to change that, secondly the question I asked was how many qld kids you started naming a couple of nsw! Prior to the academies what percent of Queensland kids were drafted???? It’s pretty easy to figure out consider it was either 0 or 1 in most drafts

 

[The Punter]

‘there was a time’ - lol this was a few years ago.

North is a great example! They’ve lost talent, including number 1 picks. They don’t have a functioning backline. The rest of their squad is developing nicely. These builds also take time.

Our build really started in 2014. We didn’t get off the bottom of the ladder until 2019.

That is my point again: the builds take too long now. The up and down should happen quicker. It used to happen quicker. I believe that was a good thing.

 

[EconomicDecline]

What’s your point ? 60 percent of the population comes from nsw and qld so it’s still under represented even at local level

Where's the tipping point then where these clubs should no longer have EXCLUSIVE access? When participation is the same share as population share, 60 percent as you say. Should it be 61 percent? 59 percent?

 

[mighty_lions]

Where's the tipping point then where these clubs should no longer have EXCLUSIVE access? When participation is the same share as population share, 60 percent as you say. Should it be 61 percent? 59 percent?

You are right there will hopefully be a tipping point one day, we are decades away from that to catching up to the level and the amount of Victorian kids drafted

 

[Elixuh]

That is my point again: the builds take too long now. The up and down should happen quicker. It used to happen quicker. I believe that was a good thing.

you’re looking for consistency and order in something which is random and unreliable. McCartin should be dominating the comp alongside King right now but isn’t. Drafting McCartin wasn’t the mistake but by virtue of bad luck it hasn’t worked out. That is a big gut punch to a build.

 

[Elixuh]

Where's the tipping point then where these clubs should no longer have EXCLUSIVE access? When participation is the same share as population share, 60 percent as you say. Should it be 61 percent? 59 percent?

It’s about quantity of players drafted into the AFL. Not participation. As quantity increases naturally teams will be unable to match on players.

There are players in the system now from academies, including who play for Brisbane who the Saints could have had on their list.

 

[The Punter]

you’re looking for consistency and order in something which is random and unreliable. McCartin should be dominating the comp alongside King right now but isn’t. Drafting McCartin wasn’t the mistake but by virtue of bad luck it hasn’t worked out. That is a big gut punch to a build.

From 2000-2009 every team played in a prelim. The consistency and order is achievable because it's been done before.

I don't like the "bad luck" reasons for begging for priority picks, because you end up at the judgment of the AFL and I don't like being in that place. But that is what is left. If we begged for priority picks, the arguments against St Kilda getting them would be the same ones you have listed: our inarguable mistakes. Like my arguments about the system, one doesn't preclude the other. We've drafted poorly, but McCartin (pick 1), Roberton (last full season AA squad), Koby Stevens, Longer and Pierce have all been forced from the game through no fault of ours or theirs, and our last top five pick can't run without pain in his knee. We have had bad luck, the argument against any request from St Kilda for a priority pick will be our mistakes which don't mean we have had no bad luck.

 

[EconomicDecline]

It’s about quantity of players drafted into the AFL. Not participation. As quantity increases naturally teams will be unable to match on players.

There are players in the system now from academies, including who play for Brisbane who the Saints could have had on their list.

Really? In 2023 Gold Coast took 4 players in round 1 (Picks 3, 9, 14, 26)! Every selection was a matched bid. No other team could take these players. No other GC Academy prospect was taken by any other team or GC themselves.

Exclusive access to 4 players in round 1 is fair to you, is it?

 

[Elixuh]

From 2000-2009 every team played in a prelim. The consistency and order is achievable because it's been done before.

I don't like the "bad luck" reasons for begging for priority picks, because you end up at the judgment of the AFL and I don't like being in that place. But that is what is left. If we begged for priority picks, the arguments against St Kilda getting them would be the same ones you have listed: our inarguable mistakes. Like my arguments about the system, one doesn't preclude the other. We've drafted poorly, but McCartin (pick 1), Roberton (last full season AA squad), Koby Stevens, Longer and Pierce have all been forced from the game through no fault of ours or theirs, and our last top five pick can't run without pain in his knee. We have had bad luck, the argument against any request from St Kilda for a priority pick will be our mistakes which don't mean we have had no bad luck.

I don’t think draft mistakes and bad luck should prevent a team from getting priority picks.

If a team takes The Punter at pick 3 and The Punter was a consensus top 3 or top 5 pick at the time and turns out to be a spud then that shouldn’t be held against a team. It’s just bad luck. The draft is so overrated in that sense.

The main argument against St Kilda is never truly bottoming out and playing finals as recently as two seasons ago. Only truly basket case clubs get priority picks.

 

[Elixuh]

Really? In 2023 Gold Coast took 4 players in round 1 (Picks 3, 9, 14, 26)! Every selection was a matched bid. No other team could take these players. No other GC Academy prospect was taken by any other team or GC themselves.

Exclusive access to 4 players in round 1 is fair to you, is it?

Now do every other draft since the inception of the academies!

They’re also changing the rules to prevent this.

Next question.

 

[The Punter]

I don’t think draft mistakes and bad luck should prevent a team from getting priority picks.

If a team takes The Punter at pick 3 and The Punter was a consensus top 3 or top 5 pick at the time and turns out to be a spud then that shouldn’t be held against a team. It’s just bad luck. The draft is so overrated in that sense.

The main argument against St Kilda is never truly bottoming out and playing finals as recently as two seasons ago. Only truly basket case clubs get priority picks.

And where does one truly bottoming out get a club nowadays? Not very far if you look at North or West Coast, who entered the bottom some time ago and are yet to emerge.

I also think priority picks should not be awarded on a case-by-case decision of the league. Set a bar and everyone that meets it gets a priority pick. That way we have transparency on what needs to happen (or not) to qualify for a priority pick.

Criteria to play finals: finish 8th or higher
Criteria to get a priority pick: whatever the AFL feels like at the time they receive a request

 

[Elixuh]

And where does one truly bottoming out get a club nowadays? Not very far if you look at North or West Coast, who entered the bottom some time ago and are yet to emerge.

I also think priority picks should not be awarded on a case-by-case decision of the league. Set a bar and everyone that meets it gets a priority pick. That way we have transparency on what needs to happen (or not) to qualify for a priority pick.

Criteria to play finals: finish 8th or higher
Criteria to get a priority pick: whatever the AFL feels like at the time they receive a request

They don’t want the ‘integrity’ of the competition to be jeopardised by teams actively trying to meet that criteria. Which I tend to agree with.

 

[The Punter]

They don’t want the ‘integrity’ of the competition to be jeopardised by teams actively trying to meet that criteria. Which I tend to agree with.

No one wants to see teams trying to create a situation where they lose. But it's completely overblown as an issue. The only reason you tank is to (eventually) get better. I generally think the AFL reaction to tanking was a massive overreaction.

 

[tombomb]

The AFL have just dramatically changed the points table.

If they drop the discount, it will basically be no more of an advantage than what the VIC/SA/WA clubs get with go-home factor.

Should've been fixed 15 years ago.

 

[mighty_lions]

Really? In 2023 Gold Coast took 4 players in round 1 (Picks 3, 9, 14, 26)! Every selection was a matched bid. No other team could take these players. No other GC Academy prospect was taken by any other team or GC themselves.

Exclusive access to 4 players in round 1 is fair to you, is it?

having just about all your players leave to go home sound fair to you?

 

[The Punter]

having just about all your players leave to go home sound fair to you?

He asked first.

 

[mighty_lions]

He asked first.

Sounds fair to me

 

[Elixuh]

No one wants to see teams trying to create a situation where they lose. But it's completely overblown as an issue. The only reason you tank is to (eventually) get better. I generally think the AFL reaction to tanking was a massive overreaction.

There are good commercial reasons to prevent this from happening.

Again, you’re looking for clean and objective answers (ignoring a lot of the downside impact) to questions which are anything but.

 

[The Punter]

There are good commercial reasons to prevent this from happening.

Again, you’re looking for clean and objective answers (ignoring a lot of the downside impact) to questions which are anything but.

I'm making a judgement that any downside impact on my suggestion is minimal compared to a league where teams structurally cannot climb the ladder any more.

And let's be clear about this: commercial reasons = gambling.

 

[Elixuh]

I'm making a judgement that any downside impact on my suggestion is minimal compared to a league where teams structurally cannot climb the ladder any more.

And let's be clear about this: commercial reasons = gambling.

Gambling yes.

But also..say a Collingwood gets dudded out of a spot in the finals on percentage because another team beats up on a team late in the season which is tanking to meet a criteria. It’s a terrible commercial outcome for the comp.

lol the downside impact might be minimal on the mighty Sainters, sure.

 

[The Punter]

Gambling yes.

But also..say a Collingwood gets dudded out of a spot in the finals on percentage because another team beats up on a team late in the season which is tanking to meet a criteria. It’s a terrible commercial outcome for the comp.

lol the downside impact might be minimal on the mighty Sainters, sure.

The downside impact of the system currently is more than minimal on the Saints, and other clubs.

Also, next time use another club to Collingwood. Chances they haven't had to go to Geelong or Tasmania for an away game against a Victorian opponent so I reckon they make up for that scenario in other ways. No different to running into Essendon this week with all their injuries.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

So the majority of the teams, talent and fans of the sport come from one place. I concede this creates issues, but ones that are impossible to fix. Any elimination or relocation of Victorian teams will result in fewer fans. It didn't matter so much in 1996 because Fitzroy had fewer than 8000 members. North had the smallest membership among Melbourne clubs in 2024 and had over 50,000 members.

The draft is fixable.

Yeah but how many members do North have with the way membership was counted back in 1996, or even the early 2000s. Not with the incredibly slack current way that the AFL approved just so they lord the fact that a club has 100k membership over their (the AFL's) competitors?

 

[The Punter]

Yeah but how many members do North have with the way membership was counted back in 1996, or even the early 2000s. Not with the incredibly slack current way that the AFL approved just so they lord the fact that a club has 100k membership over their (the AFL's) competitors?

I don't know.

But in 1996 Fitzroy's average home attendance was about 9500. North's this year is around 26,000. So we have other proof of the point I was making.

 

[Elixuh]

The downside impact of the system currently is more than minimal on the Saints, and other clubs.

Also, next time use another club to Collingwood. Chances they haven't had to go to Geelong or Tasmania for an away game against a Victorian opponent so I reckon they make up for that scenario in other ways. No different to running into Essendon this week with all their injuries.

Ok. It happens to St Kilda. The very next week we would be hearing from Fred Bassett about how unfair the whole thing is and that the system has to change.