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

[paulige]

But that’s entirely my point. If you are a good club you attract regardless of where you are.

This is like those Saints fans complaining that “just because we’ve made mistakes drafting doesn’t mean we can’t whinge about academies as well”.

Just because a northern club is capable of being good at times (in our case through extraordinarily elite hiring/drafting/recruiting) doesn’t mean the academies aren’t necessary. The two can be simultaneously true. No one is arguing that the academies must exist or else all northern clubs will be total basket cases all of the time.

As has been pointed out ad nauseam it helps address the massive inequity of a lack of QLD/NSW talent in the draft pool. An inequity the Saints would not understand (and quite clearly do not).

 

[Elixuh]

so why the discount, why the stupid jump the que with 3 picks in the 40's equals a top 5 pick, yes the points curve was adjusted and discount lowered, but its still all there. Why does a F/S get a discount at all????

happy to concede the player, but not the cost. It should cost a fortune to jump from 14 to 5, and if you can't, or deem it too expensive, then lure the kid home if you can in 3 years, got 3 kids in the 1st round, it absolutely should not be possible to get them all, 7 frdp's in 3 years is obscene. 3 top 5 picks in 3 years when you playing in prelims and GF's again makes a mockery of the premise of the draft.

Good morning Mr Mat Mann, the AFL is changing what we pay so that we pay a fairer price. That price shouldn’t be unattainable as we need to be rewarded for expending the resources available to us funding the academy.

Adelaide would argue that having Ben Keays and Mitch Hinge in their side has been of great benefit to them. Funded by the Brisbane Lions. This isn’t a charity for the rest of the comp alone. The Lions need to be the primary beneficiaries of some of this talent and rewarded for operating and funding it.

 

[WillHayward]

This is the problem with this thread. Saints posters can’t even accept the basic proposition that if you take away academies the draft is still unequal for interstate, especially northern clubs.

Having to cross talent off your draft board because they won’t move interstate makes it inherently unfair.

I understand why the saints don’t care about that but it’s also part of the reason why academies exist and will continue to exist.

The fundamental reason northern academies exist is not about fairness.

The reason is that the national fertility rate is 1.61 and unless the AFL grow the player pool then the competition will rapidly demise.

The only realistic way to grow the player pool is new players in NSW and Qld

That's the core reason why the academies exist.

The whole draft fair/unfair thing is really downstream .

This is why saints fans crapping on about the draft fair/unfair is a total waste of time and just white noise.

 

[WillHayward]

Why is having ‘high quality talent ‘ from your own state’s h a thing. It’s not like Sydney had a problem recruiting or keeping good players from other states, or attracting others from other states. Tbh I think the point is overstated. It’s far more important to have a strong culture and club then have ‘players’ drafted from your own state’s h.

Furthermore, the idea that someone from your state is the solution is false. I mean the states I. Australia are quite large. It’s not like Rowan Marshall from Portland in Victoria is more/less likely to stay in Victoria.
I think your premise is false.

My initial post was in response to people who bemoan st kilda’s past recruiting errors and not knowing that recruiting team has shifted multiple times since then and that it now has the very recruiter who chose Bont Chad Warner etc.

Emphasising that it is not one or the other.

But the errors are still there.

SOS has an emotional grievance and axe to grind with Carlton F.C.
This is a conflict of interest. He shouldn't be making decisions involving Carlton. He's compromised. This is basic corporate governance.


So the club is still not being run professionally.

Youve learnt absolutely nothing.

Every new regime comes along and says they are more professional than the last lost but they aren't. It's the same shit.

 

[Ads734]

This is like those Saints fans complaining that “just because we’ve made mistakes drafting doesn’t mean we can’t whinge about academies as well”.

Just because a northern club is capable of being good at times (in our case through extraordinarily elite hiring/drafting/recruiting) doesn’t mean the academies aren’t necessary. The two can be simultaneously true. No one is arguing that the academies must exist or else all northern clubs will be total basket cases all of the time.

As has been pointed out ad nauseam it helps address the massive inequity of a lack of QLD/NSW talent in the draft pool. An inequity the Saints would not understand (and quite clearly do not).

No it’s not the same thing. The point of the draft is that it’s equal. Or it used to be. Northern clubs were not basket cases before the acadamies though. Lions went on a three peat IIRC. Swans had one of the best cultures in the comp. Sorry but I still think is a misconception.

 

[Ads734]

But the errors are still there.

SOS has an emotional grievance and axe to grind with Carlton F.C.
This is a conflict of interest. He shouldn't be making decisions involving Carlton. He's compromised. This is basic corporate governance.


So the club is still not being run professionally.

Youve learnt absolutely nothing.

Every new regime comes along and says they are more professional than the last lost but they aren't. It's the same shit.

Right we’ve learnt nothing …. Ok thanks. This is so stupid. What would you like the saints to do please advise.

 

[WillHayward]

Right we’ve learnt nothing …. Ok thanks. This is so stupid. What would you like the saints to do please advise.

Just basic corporate governance

Decision makers should remove themselves from a decision when they have a clear conflict of interest.

SOS shouldn't be making decisions involving Carlton and should remove himself from discussions about Carlton players.

It's all pretty basic.

 

[Ads734]

Just basic corporate governance

Decision makers should remove themselves from a decision when they have a clear conflict of interest.

SOS shouldn't be making decisions involving Carlton and should remove himself from discussions about Carlton players.

It's all pretty basic.

I’m not sure it is.
Disclosure first.
Then the decision is made.

But keep going talking rubbish mate.

Even so how do you know he hasn’t ?

 

[WillHayward]

I’m not sure it is.
Disclosure first.
Then the decision is made.

But keep going talking rubbish mate.

Even so how do you know he hasn’t ?

I've got it.

Saints die hard fan two commandments:

1. Defend absolutely every single decision the club ever makes.
2. When things go wrong (time and time again) blame external factors.

 

[GC2015]

I've got it.

Saints die hard fan two commandments:

1. Defend absolutely every single decision the club ever makes.
2. When things go wrong (time and time again) blame external factors.

What's that Einstein quote about the definition of insanity? Saints fans don't seem to want change because they just keep doing the same thing over and over. Seems like they just want to wallow in self-pity and blame everyone else for their problems.

 

[paulige]

No it’s not the same thing. The point of the draft is that it’s equal. Or it used to be. Northern clubs were not basket cases before the acadamies though. Lions went on a three peat IIRC. Swans had one of the best cultures in the comp. Sorry but I still think is a misconception.

This is the whole argument - it was not equal before - northern clubs had to draft very, very differently, and with less freedom. If you cannot acknowledge that this was at least some form of an issue, then we are all wasting our energy here.

The Lions and Swans had success, with the retention allowance / COLA in place, which offset the draft disadvantages they faced.

 

[Philhawk]

The fundamental reason northern academies exist is not about fairness.

The reason is that the national fertility rate is 1.61 and unless the AFL grow the player pool then the competition will rapidly demise.

The only realistic way to grow the player pool is new players in NSW and Qld

That's the core reason why the academies exist.

The whole draft fair/unfair thing is really downstream .

This is why saints fans crapping on about the draft fair/unfair is a total waste of time and just white noise.

This has to be my favorite new one.

Academies are needed due to the national fertility rate.

 

[Philhawk]

I've got it.

Saints die hard fan two commandments:

1. Defend absolutely every single decision the club ever makes.
2. When things go wrong (time and time again) blame external factors.

Let’s play this game.

Academy defenders fall into two commandments:

1. Claim academies are crucial for the betterment of the game

2. When pressed why the AFL can’t just run it, backtrack from previous altruistic claim and furiously claim it just wouldn’t be possible, like asking to send someone to Mars in levels of difficulty.

 

[WillHayward]

Let’s play this game.

Academy defenders fall into two commandments:

1. Claim academies are crucial for the betterment of the game

2. When pressed why the AFL can’t just run it, backtrack from previous altruistic claim and furiously claim it just wouldn’t be possible, like asking to send someone to Mars in levels of difficulty.

Not even sure what you are talking about

Not sure anyone gives two shits about 2. I certainly don't.

And 1 isn't about "betterment". It's about survival.
With a fertility rate of 1.61 the afl would become extinct unless the AFL can get more players from Qld and NSW. It's just plain arithmetic.

 

[WillHayward]

This has to be my favorite new one.

Academies are needed due to the national fertility rate.

Yes. That's right.
Anyone who doesn't understand this is thick as a pig shit and I'll guarantee this is a BIG issue inside AFL house .

 

[WillHayward]

Chronology of a Troll

Interestingly the Saints sat out of the mid season draft, despite Cordy and King being out for the season.

On 28 May 2025, the Gold Coast Suns used picks 7 and 14 to seemingly troll the Saints a mere 3 days after the infamous "Nepo babies" comment made by Ross Lyon.

With pick 7 they drafted former Saint tall defender Oscar Adams (delisted by Saints).

With pick 14 they drafted 198cm forward and Moorabbin local lad Caleb Lewis (overlooked by Saints).

St Kilda really are their own worst enemy if one of these two players ends up any good.

Update:

Adams has already played in the Suns AFL side

Lewis kicked 4 goals in the VFL today against Collingwood.

 

[Elixuh]

Let’s play this game.

Academy defenders fall into two commandments:

1. Claim academies are crucial for the betterment of the game

2. When pressed why the AFL can’t just run it, backtrack from previous altruistic claim and furiously claim it just wouldn’t be possible, like asking to send someone to Mars in levels of difficulty.

The academies don’t have to serve only one purpose. Surely you can’t understand this, no?

 

[Mat Mann]

Good morning Mr Mat Mann, the AFL is changing what we pay so that we pay a fairer price. That price shouldn’t be unattainable as we need to be rewarded for expending the resources available to us funding the academy.

Adelaide would argue that having Ben Keays and Mitch Hinge in their side has been of great benefit to them. Funded by the Brisbane Lions. This isn’t a charity for the rest of the comp alone. The Lions need to be the primary beneficiaries of some of this talent and rewarded for operating and funding it.

No.
Pies Carlton Essendon Richmond hawks, Could all outspend you easily IF they were allowed to
Both WA clubs. Possibly both SA clubs

The reward is the access. Not a cost reduction for a self serving act

Beside we all know and it’s been clearly pointed out that the AFL contributes funds these programs
The bigger issue is the practice of trading out high picks for junk and also into the following year, the double dipping in the first round when clubs that need that talent get screwed over

I already acknowledged the points curve change and the discount change. IMO, it’s not enough, why a discount at all if clubs are going to keep the trading out of high picks into the following year

It’s the AFL playing favorites and my club and supporters has had enough

 

[.Shotties.]

2. When pressed why the AFL can’t just run it, backtrack from previous altruistic claim and furiously claim it just wouldn’t be possible, like asking to send someone to Mars in levels of difficulty.

I mean, the AFL screwed it in two seperate attempts, the clubs themselves did **** all when they had the chance through the NSW scholarship program, why on earth would it work this time?

 

[.Shotties.]

No.
Pies Carlton Essendon Richmond hawks, Could all outspend you easily IF they were allowed to
Both WA clubs. Possibly both SA clubs

What did those clubs do when they had the chance to go in and spend then draft the fruits of their work for a rookie pick? **** all, the same they do with the NGAs, put in the bare minimum and skim what they could from the top.

 

[mighty_lions]

so why the discount, why the stupid jump the que with 3 picks in the 40's equals a top 5 pick, yes the points curve was adjusted and discount lowered, but its still all there. Why does a F/S get a discount at all????

happy to concede the player, but not the cost. It should cost a fortune to jump from 14 to 5, and if you can't, or deem it too expensive, then lure the kid home if you can in 3 years, got 3 kids in the 1st round, it absolutely should not be possible to get them all, 7 frdp's in 3 years is obscene. 3 top 5 picks in 3 years when you playing in prelims and GF's again makes a mockery of the premise of the draft.

You just make up bs, 3 picks in the 40's does not equate to a top pick 5, pick 5 = 1795........40,41,42 = 660

not to mention when we have multiple picks its from trading our first round pick to begin with, so obviously some one thought it was worth trading for

The discount is so marginal and everyone gets it anyway and has nothing to do with st kildas issues

 

[Mat Mann]

What did those clubs do when they had the chance to go in and spend then draft the fruits of their work for a rookie pick? **** all, the same they do with the NGAs, put in the bare minimum and skim what they could from the top

Academies and NGA is the same rort. Skim off the top echelon of player. GCS has the eligibility criteria on their site. Rep team is the minimum qualification, not really any different.

I’m not sure who you’re talking about. But just because you are allowed to spend the money shouldn’t mean you get a reward on top of the access to the player, the access is the reward.

The NGA’s are tightly controlled by the afl on what clubs are allowed to spend. And it’s a fraction of the academies

The nga’s are there solely to appease those clubs not in qld and nsw, it’s as much as a problem as acedemies

F/S the same, I see both sides, I like the idea, but why a discount. The access is the reward. What Brisbane x2 pies and dogs paid for top 5 picks is ludicrous.

 

[.Shotties.]

Academies and NGA is the same rort. Skim off the top echelon of player.

No they're not. One is THE development pathway between club and state, the other just plucks kids out of pre-existing pathways.


****ing clueless some of you are. Hundreds of players across the state every year in the Swans zone of places like the Hunter Valley and Shoalhaven and you call it skimming

GCS has the eligibility criteria on their site. Rep team is the minimum qualification, not really any different.

Thats for the final year's rep squad, not the academy as a whole. Kind of hard to have their performance in the Suns' 16s teams as a requirement for their u14s and lower academy isn't it?

I’m not sure who you’re talking about. But just because you are allowed to spend the money shouldn’t mean you get a reward on top of the access to the player, the access is the reward.

The NGA’s are tightly controlled by the afl on what clubs are allowed to spend. And it’s a fraction of the academies

Citation please.

The nga’s are there solely to appease those clubs not in qld and nsw, it’s as much as a problem as acedemies

Its worse, because it's just clubs birth certificate hunting and skimming players who are already in talent pathways.

 

[Mat Mann]

You just make up bs, 3 picks in the 40's does not equate to a top pick 5, pick 5 = 1795........40,41,42 = 660

not to mention when we have multiple picks its from trading our first round pick to begin with, so obviously some one thought it was worth trading for

The discount is so marginal and everyone gets it anyway and has nothing to do with st kildas issues

You think trading out pick 20 and others for Levi at 5 and Marshall at 25 is a sacrifice. ANY club would gladly draft out of every pick if it meant securing 1 or 2 extra high end kids, just because clubs trade for the pick (20). Is because they always want to trade up, not down like the academy/fs/nga rort.


Making stuff up? Here’s fact. I know you’ll argue semantics but it doesn’t change fact, a bundle of pick 40’s will NEVER equal to top 5 pick. Even on the curve to be implemented this year, no club in the comp will ever trade out of a 1st round pick for a bundle of 2nd, 3rd rounders, NONE.

2025 point explained

If the new DVI was in play in 2025, the Lions would have needed 1616 points to match a bid on Ashcroft at pick No.5 (1795 points minus a 10 per cent discount). To use four picks to match that bid, it would have required the Lions to give up picks 29, 30, 34 and 35, which are much more valuable picks than the 40, 42, 43 and 46 they gave up this year.

PICK 5 - So the issue that had fans fuming last night, was that Melbourne made a bid for Ashcroft with their Pick 5, and Brisbane was able to match the bid with picks 40, 42, 43 and 46.
PICK 4 -Father–son selection (son of Peter Daicos), matched bid by Gold Coast, used picks 38, 40, 42, 44
PICK 2 - Father–son selection (son of Luke Darcy), matched bid by Greater Western Sydney, used picks 34, 42, 43, 44, 45
PICK 2 - To match the bid for Will Ashcroft, Brisbane used picks 34, 35, 38, 40 and 41, getting back 41, 82, 84 and 86.

 

[Elixuh]

No.
Pies Carlton Essendon Richmond hawks, Could all outspend you easily IF they were allowed to
Both WA clubs. Possibly both SA clubs

The reward is the access. Not a cost reduction for a self serving act

Beside we all know and it’s been clearly pointed out that the AFL contributes funds these programs
The bigger issue is the practice of trading out high picks for junk and also into the following year, the double dipping in the first round when clubs that need that talent get screwed over

I already acknowledged the points curve change and the discount change. IMO, it’s not enough, why a discount at all if clubs are going to keep the trading out of high picks into the following year

It’s the AFL playing favorites and my club and supporters has had enough

I’d be more than happy for other AFL clubs to have academies if they’re so good. Why do clubs like St Kilda go straight to abolishing rather than asking for their own academy in Qld or NSW?

You can fund an academy with your own resources in the same way the Lions do.