The Academies - 2016

[Colonial]

Supporters from your club are sounding more and more like a pack of fat kids who want to increase disability payments because they are so hungry for more hamburgers... The number of draft picks the AFL has orchestrated, yes yes at the agreement of the clubs including mine, more than compensates GWS for any players moving back home. I'm yet to hear one coherent argument that explains why the AFL can't run the academies as they stand today for the benefit of all clubs. It's patently ridiculous.

No it doesnt. What good are picks that your clubs gave us if they all go home


Makes no sense.

It is amusing that you consider us babies and yet its you guys crying over the academies. Oh well.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Very true but not on the level of the north.
Your club is based in the heartland. You wouldnt know.

I wouldn't know what it's like to have another clubs captain say they want out to come to my club either.

 

[Colonial]

I wouldn't know what it's like to have another clubs captain say they want out to come to my club either.

You mean the retirement fund we get accused of?

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

Ryan Griffen, Dayne Beams, Allen Christensen - it's not one way traffic. Clubs get something back in a trade as well it's not like they're leaving as free agents.

I agree there is an issue with player retention in the expansion states but I don't think the academies (in their current form at least) are the way to go about solving it.

The ledger of Ins and Outs would still be outweighed IMO

Player retention is a huge problem, and having to rely on interstate talent is the biggest issue, then how else to address this then be giving priority access with incentives to grow the game locally.

Brisbane and Melbourne have had the same lack of success lately, and yet you haven't lost no where near the talent we have. The main reasons are that you're in the heartland of football and don't rely on interstate players, the academies are an equalisation for this

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Supporters from your club are sounding more and more like a pack of fat kids who want to increase disability payments because they are so hungry for more hamburgers... The number of draft picks the AFL has orchestrated, yes yes at the agreement of the clubs including mine, more than compensates GWS for any players moving back home. I'm yet to hear one coherent argument that explains why the AFL can't run the academies as they stand today for the benefit of all clubs. It's patently ridiculous.

Exactly, they were given so many picks initially that they should be able to manage their assets without the need for further leg ups. Treloar leaves which is a blow - but they get two first rounders back (including what could be a top 5 pick this year). Boyd leaves - they get a club captain and pick no. 6. If any others leave they will get something back, they're not leaving as free agents.

And look at the players they have re-signed who didn't move back to their home states. Shiel, Coniglio, Cameron, Greene, Whitfield, Hoskin-Elliott, Smith, Buntine - doesn't seem to be that big a problem with player retention, no more than any other club.

 

[dlanod]

I'm yet to hear one coherent argument that explains why the AFL can't run the academies as they stand today for the benefit of all clubs. It's patently ridiculous.

I'm assuming, as phrased, you're arguing the AFL runs it but the priority access for the northern clubs gets removed? In which case you're not trying very hard to hear coherent arguments. Maybe you're not even bothering? There's plenty in this thread, including one on the previous page:

1. Develop hometown talent and give first access to them for the teams in non traditional footy areas so they can have a more sustainable and equitable ratio of hometown and interstate players.

This is far and away the single most important reason these academies came into being

Here's another one:

NRL and Super Rugby clubs can sign teenage talent and result in a pathway directly to said hometown club. That's what the AFL is competing with up here. The academy system provides a compelling alternative and removing the clubs' involvement guts that.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The ledger of Ins and Outs would still be outweighed IMO

Player retention is a huge problem, and having to rely on interstate talent is the biggest issue, then how else to address this then be giving priority access with incentives to grow the game locally.

Brisbane and Melbourne have had the same lack of success lately, and yet you haven't lost no where near the talent we have. The main reasons are that you're in the heartland of football and don't rely on interstate players, the academies are an equalisation for this

Over the last 5 years we've lost Scully, Rivers, Frawley, Clark, Toumpas, Howe and could potentially lose Hogan who is seen to be one of the most promising KPF's in the comp. Maybe Brisbane have been losing players because of Voss and the culture/environment up there rather than players just wanting to go home.

As above, GWS has signed plenty of promising young players with clubs from their home states chasing them over the last couple of years - there doesn't really seem to be a big issue with player retention, certainly not as big as is being made out. Gold Coast haven't seemed to have lost many players and Sydney seem to be a destination club rather than the opposite. Seems like its just a Brisbane problem retaining players.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

NRL and Super Rugby clubs can sign teenage talent and result in a pathway directly to said hometown club. That's what the AFL is competing with up here. The academy system provides a compelling alternative and removing the clubs' involvement guts that.

Do you see the academies as an ongoing necessity or something that is just an interim measure? How long do you foresee clubs requiring priority access to players through the academies?

Did anyone else see this on the AFL website today?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-...shes-for-wideranging-tasmanian-academy-access

Now this is just a North proposal, but it's just getting ridiculous. Might as well scrap the draft altogether if this gets up.

 

[dlanod]

Do you see the academies as an ongoing necessity or something that is just an interim measure? How long do you foresee clubs requiring priority access to players through the academies?

I think they should become the responsibility of the AFL once they become a self-sustaining pipeline of talent. I think that'll be in five to ten years. Once that's met, the northern clubs should have no troubles recruiting local talent on its own merits similar to how the Victorian, SA and WA clubs do today. Given the multicultural academies for other clubs, I imagine the club-run academies would retract to meet that same criteria.

Did anyone else see this on the AFL website today?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-...shes-for-wideranging-tasmanian-academy-access

Now this is just a North proposal, but it's just getting ridiculous. Might as well scrap the draft altogether if this gets up.

No, hadn't seen that. Big aims there! If North relocated into Tasmania and split the state with another team, I think that'd be on par with the other academies - local, with a maximum population of about 250k in AFL-centric areas. But they've already taken the relocation off the table...

 

[grouse mate]

I don't mind that it gives teams a chance to trade into a higher pick.

[snip]

Should be a rule that teams can only use picks in the round following the round the bid was placed. Ie , a first round bid means points can only be matched by a combination of 1st and/or 2nd round picks. A bid in 2nd can be matched with 2nd and/or 3rds and so on.

If the team wont be able to acquire the picks in trade then it comes out of their next years picks if they really want the player that bad.

If your rule came in, academy clubs wouldnt be trading out their higher pick for 2 later ones.

 

[grouse mate]

If hopper wants to board and play tac over gws academy then that is his decision but it shouldn't be both.

He was on a scholarship. http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/co...b/news-story/cd3c5cd20c5f16e837bb59c0df36b5a2

Jacob joined the College as a boarder on a scholarship from Leeton at the start of 2014, and quickly won the respect of his peers and staff.

Also won this one as a result of being in the academy. http://www.gwsgiants.com.au/news/2015-04-17/hopper-awarded-scholarship

PM CAPITAL GIANTS Academy member and top-rated draft pick Jacob Hopper has been awarded the Carbine Club of NSW Sports Development Scholarship at a lunch in Sydney.

Hopper, 18, hails from Leeton in southern NSW and has been a member of the PM CAPITAL GIANTS Academy program since its inception in 2011.

Hopper flew to Sydney with his parents James and Deanna and was presented with his scholarship by GIANTS board member Paul Moore at the Four Seasons Hotel in Sydney.

"It's an honour to receive this award," Hopper said.

“My time in the PM CAPITAL GIANTS Academy has been great so far and I feel like my football has really developed over the last few years.

 

[Cleric]

I'll be sure to remember this next time someone mentions Hogan going back west.

Adelaide has lost more player to homesickness than Sydney, so without a doubt we deserve to have first option on all SA talent.

 

[philthy05]

If your rule came in, academy clubs wouldnt be trading out their higher pick for 2 later ones.

Yes they could. Teams will still see value in trading out say a pick 13 for two second rounders if the 2nd rounders have a greater point rating. Team gets points , other teams gets a chance at a higher pick if that's what they are looking for. As I said if it limited point matching to the round the bid comes in and the following round. These teams with academies still have a reason and possible avenue to trade down to get more points , but doesn't mess around with picks and points that have no value in trades.

My argument is that these late late picks hold next to no value in trades but in the bidding process 2 4th rounders can close the gap between a teens pick and a top five pick.

As I understand it the rules state that the next pick in the order must be used to make up the points.

So if a team has picks 13 , 34, and 55 and 62 that pick 34 must be used first.

However the team could trade out that pick 34 for something of value or a pick next year and those normally worthless 4th rounders make up the difference. It just shows it can be manipulated in a way that isn't in line with what it is meant to do.

either adjust those late picks to have much less value , cap the amount of picks used in matching a bid or do my suggesting re rounds bid on.

 

[philthy05]

He was on a scholarship. http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/co...b/news-story/cd3c5cd20c5f16e837bb59c0df36b5a2



Also won this one as a result of being in the academy. http://www.gwsgiants.com.au/news/2015-04-17/hopper-awarded-scholarship

None of that negates my argument.

 

[Turbocat]

Well this thread will solve and convince... yeah right.

Id say most on BF would not be as familiar with the intricacies of what each club goes thru , each have their own set of issues and we tend to look it thru our own biased eyes. The comp is not setup to be fair... it will never be purely equal , its punch and counter punch , its set and adjust. Petition and and lobby and create a consensus. Rarely is it unanimous.

Big picture...all clubs would like the idea of more players being added to the draft pool , where it gets all tied up is when the few get much more access to high end talent than the many. Its burns watching one club get an advantage over another club. Whether its zones or Father Sons or Salary Cap ... most want to aim for a relative equal playing field while redressing each of the clubs more personal , urgent handicaps.

When Geelong was having a good run with Father Sons... those who couldn't get access to FS's screamed about equity and the system changed. The intent was good , to pay homage to the history of the game etc. but anyone who doesn't think clubs take a practical approach to it need only look at FS's being passed up and not now being drafted. Stewart at GWS is one that springs to mind.

The latest advantage that now comes under scrutiny is the academies. Whether GWS have worked hard or not , whether they have lucked out or not.. the flow of talent is now getting to a tipping point. Especially when on top of the setup concessions. Whether that is good or bad will probably depend on which eye you look at the issue with. GWS advantages were there for a reason. The AFL didn't want a basket case and the the clubs agreed with memories of Brisbane Bears and Freo's long setup time. What they now see is something a whole lot different than what they thought would happen or was told would be the case. GWS have a glut of talent unlike any club has ever had , and to now see the Academies kids coming in is just too much for the majority to cop. If not now , it most certainly would not last past a Premiership and most think that is almost a formality. The AFL are apparently introducing a more stringent approach to documenting how much the GWS have contributed to the kids coming thru. Kids like Marshall (apparently late to the system) would not qualify.

There is no convincing or right or wrong , there is just what the majority want. And when the majority say the Northern Academies are delivering too much of an advantage it will change. ..just like with Father Son.

 

[philthy05]

When Geelong was having a good run with Father Sons... those who couldn't get access to FS's screamed about equity and the system changed. The intent was good , to pay homage to the history of the game etc. but anyone who doesn't think clubs take a practical approach to it need only look at FS's being passed up and not now being drafted. Stewart at GWS is one that springs to mind..

The old f/s rule was a joke and it took way too long to fix it. No reason it should have taken that long to come up with a smarter a fairer solution that actually fit what the rule was intended to do. If anything it shows you have to really campaign for change because the afl has shown not only will they not get things right first go but that they will not address it unless it becomes apparent they need to.

Also , not sure what you are talking about with the stewert thing ? How has the new f/s rules hurt anyone ?

If the pies wanted stewert they could have drafted him. One of the parties obviously wasn't interested.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-...father-unhappy-with-magpies-fatherson-process

In fact if you read this article the pies didn't talk to stewert all year then told him at draft camp they were not taking him as a f/s. They would have had no idea that gws would bid on him at that time. So it came down to pies just not interested.

 

[iBeng]

Interesting, AFL reportedly hasnt said yes or no at this stage:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-29/kangas-tassie-academy-a-possibility-says-lethlean

THE AFL hasn't ruled out allowing North Melbourne priority access to all junior football talent from across Tasmania.

It follows AFL.com.au's revelations the Kangaroos are pushing to establish a state-wide academy – effectively taking ownership of Tasmania as a zone, similar to the academies in the northern states.

"That's a really futuristic approach from North about access to players," AFL game development general manager Simon Lethlean said in Hobart on Friday.

Match preview: North Melbourne v Western Bulldogs

Lethlean was in Tasmania for meetings on Friday, which included talks with state government officials about North's future presence at Hobart's Blundstone Arena.

Kangaroos chief executive Carl Dilena confirmed this week his club is on the verge of signing a five-year deal to play three home games a season in the Tasmanian capital.

While in Hobart, Lethlean unveiled Robert Auld, the brother of AFL operations executive Travis, as the new AFL Tasmania chief executive.

Auld, 46, comes to the job after a 15-year tenure in senior management at brewing giant Lion (formally Lion Nathan.)

"What I would say is that as part of the North Melbourne renewal they're keen to be the club and the brand that supports the academy down here, especially the multi-cultural and indigenous parts of our academy programs," Lethlean said.

"There's a separate talent academy pathway for Rob to have with the Tasmanian football community about setting up the best pathways for your talent.

"If it can be with North as the partner then so be it, that's a real positive for football."

 

[Turbocat]

The old f/s rule was a joke and it took way too long to fix it. No reason it should have taken that long to come up with a smarter a fairer solution that actually fit what the rule was intended to do. If anything it shows you have to really campaign for change because the afl has shown not only will they not get things right first go but that they will not address it unless it becomes apparent they need to.

Also , not sure what you are talking about with the stewert thing ? How has the new f/s rules hurt anyone ?

If the pies wanted stewert they could have drafted him. One of the parties obviously wasn't interested.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-...father-unhappy-with-magpies-fatherson-process

In fact if you read this article the pies didn't talk to stewert all year then told him at draft camp they were not taking him as a f/s. They would have had no idea that gws would bid on him at that time. So it came down to pies just not interested.

My point is clubs are far more selective with FS now. When it was a bargain , it easy to say yes , I will take you with a R3 pick for eg. Now clubs weigh up the emotion very carefully against cost. The player wanted to go to the Pies but they were not confident of getting him for a price they valued him at.

 

[BigCat2]

For those saying the northern clubs don't need assistance, try understanding the difference between equity and equality.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Excellent, the AFL continues to try to do further damage to the integrity of the game.

 

[loki04]

Yep as soon as the permanently make it their home base then it will be ok with me!

 

[The King!]

Yep as soon as the permanently make it their home base then it will be ok with me!

Surely not even then

Will be outrage

 

[Turbocat]

For those saying the northern clubs don't need assistance, try understanding the difference between equity and equality.

Northern starts at the Vic border I suppose. Id suspect you would get a different response to Northern starting at the NSW border.

Equity the quality of being fair and impartial.. Equality the state of being equal in status , rights or opportunities.

So the former is the role of the AFL commission , the latter is is the demand of all the clubs..
maybe one to also throw in is Equivalence.. the quality or state of being alike : the quality or state of having the same value, function, meaning

Id say every team has the same function... all club exist to serve their supporters by winning Premierships. If one is given too many advantages then the core reason for being in the comp is devoid , it prevents others from having a reasonable chance of equivalence.

As I said before its not really about fair or impartial its about majority. If the majority say one club is getting an unfair leg up it will eventually be discontinued.

 

[Fat Tony!]

What a joke! Brayshaw was on The Footy Show complaining about the GWS academy last night.

 

[philthy05]

My point is clubs are far more selective with FS now. When it was a bargain , it easy to say yes , I will take you with a R3 pick for eg. Now clubs weigh up the emotion very carefully against cost. The player wanted to go to the Pies but they were not confident of getting him for a price they valued him at.

No team has declined to match because they have been outbid

Pies told stewert they weren't going to select him well before the draft according to his father. That is not the behaviour of a team who is worried they won't be able to select a f/s because of bidding , that is a team not interested in a player. Your claim teams are backing away from selecting father sons is bullshit and I challenge you to point out one example. Pies not confident in getting stewert for the price they valued him at? I already quoted an article where his father stated they didn't even speak to him a year before the draft and told him they wouldn't be drafting him long before they could have known where a bid would come.

The current father son rules are a huge improvement over the farce they used to be.