West Coast priority pick 2026

[Rich01]

No worries, get rid of the soft cap and we'll happily do all those things.

Absolute joke that we print money but can't spend it because it's 'unfair' to the povo clubs.

Loosening of the soft cap is a good idea.

It rewards clubs for standing on their own two feet and allows clubs that need to spend more to attract off field talent to do so. It does create a bit of an arms race, but it’s too tight at the moment.

West Coast and North would benefit from this by being able to bring in quality assistant and development coaches and I know Richmond would want to bolster their medical and conditioning dept.

 

[bzparkes]

Loosening of the soft cap is a good idea.

It rewards clubs for standing on their own two feet and allows clubs that need to spend more to attract off field talent to do so. It does create a bit of an arms race, but it’s too tight at the moment.

West Coast and North would benefit from this by being able to bring in quality assistant and development coaches and I know Richmond would want to bolster their medical and conditioning dept.

Unfortunately the AFL doesn't like this idea. WCE floated it last year, amongst other options, and the only ones the AFL were prepared to give us were the extra rookie spots and end of first round pick.

We reportedly floated other ideas such as additional soft cap space to spend on more development coaches(we already spend over the soft cap and pay the 'tax'), Starcevich's FA move not affecting our OA compo and improved academy access but the AFL didn't like any of those ideas and settled on the end of first round pick and extra rookie spots.

The requested assistance package was always going to be used to bring in mature talent, because our team was simply too young without them. There was never any intention to save the pick for the draft.

 

[Lia]

Umm yes that rule existed.

Carlton finished bottom in 2005-07

Some of that would have been caused by the salary cap penalties nerfing their 2002 and 2003 drafts though.

 

[Jirik13]

Re-builds are bloody hard and need a lot of things to go right, luck needed too.

How many top picks are needed? It's only part of equation. Down the track salary cap issues, playing minutes competition.

Development of draftees is a key. Unfortunately, it takes usually 3-5 years. How many top draftees become top players? How many draftees don't deliver due to injuries, not developing as predicted, leaving.

Most draftees stay 4-5 years but after that if team is still at bottom they will look around for success and some leave. I can only imagine in 2 years if Eagles are still at bottom, there will be Harley Reid frenzy.

Drafting home grown talent should be priority to assist retention. Discovering some talent with late, rookie picks too. Cats are great example.

Rich clubs can go over soft cap. Not point to keep 100M in the bank. Yes, just do it and get best high performance, medical staff, facilities no matter cost. I would like to know how much Eagles went over soft cap and what is the tax.

Try to attract top mature talent. Very difficult almost impossible at the bottom. Ultimately, top picks are not enough for re-build. You need to top up on the way to top. Starcevich is a good pick up but unfortunately, probably just one more concussion away from retirement.

Most importantly, get best staff. Fagan, Swann, Noble arrival at Lions was a key for their revival. Not sure Pyke is a great choice for Eagles. I could be wrong but his handling of Allen was not ideal.

As for Eagles, I watched quite closely on Sun. Best player Murdoch being with Eagles only for 2 weeks does not reflect well on the list. Some fans suggesting Archer Reid and CDT playing full time in the ruck now is also pretty damning on the list.

2nd best player was probably Yeo, despite limited time. Again it tells you Eagles have some way to go with many risks. Dev Robertson looked good, good pick up.

For sure some talented kids in but a long way to go, IMO, min 3-4 years if all goes well. Mini will do hard yards and will be probably replaced like e.g. Dew at Suns.

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

Of course they weren’t.

The system worked.

Horrible teams got a massive leg, fast leg up (like when GC were given Anderson to go with Rowell)

You are unlikely to stay shit getting the cream of the draft quickly, in groups in 2 years that it normally takes 4-5 to accumulate.

The other thing to consider is when teams got the #1 and #2 pick they often got the best two kids in the county (viewed at the time). There was no acadamies, we didn’t have a massive trend of top 5 F/S picks compromising the draft.

Consider North getting the old PP’s and taking JHF and Daicos/Sam Darcy and two of Thilthorp, JUH Phillips or Ashcroft and Sheezel in successive years in an uncompromised system

For selfish reasons, it would be a complete joke if they changed the rules now, I wouldn’t put it past them though, given what they did with NGA’s and academies.

With the Academy systems, FS, NGA, the old system makes even more sense.

I’m actually of the opinion given the inequality in the system, that the bottom 5 should just get the top 10 picks at the moment, in a snake format. Or some sort of auction format with a budget of points, for matched bids

the problem is, I wouldn't even call what gold coast got a "massive, fast leg up". Sure, they got a shitload more than any other team has since the PP rules changed (so far Brisbane, north, WC), but they were at the end of three pretty bad years. They got pick 1 2019, pick 11 2020, pick 19 2021, rookie list expanded to 10 (which I think would be an extra four spots?), had Darwin added to their academy zone, and for three years were able to simply add players from their academy directly to their list without having to go through the draft and bidding process. Massive? Yeah, sure, but it wasn't really fast - and even with all that assistance, plus five first round picks through their academy in 2023 and 2024, it still took six seasons for them to record a winning season. The old system worked because to have four or fewer wins shows just how ****ing bad you are, and at the first sign of it you got extra assistance. If you still slid the next year, you got more. I don't think there's ever been a case where a team got priority picks and then leapt into premiership contention - fastest PP pick player to get a flag is Xavier Ellis in three years, but I don't think many people are saying hawks only won in '08 because they got him in '05. And it's certainly impacting the fairness of the competition to no longer have priority picks, just look at last year and the record of the top 9 vs the bottom 9. Frankly, it's close to a miracle that finals spots and coleman medal winners haven't been decided by who plays the eagles twice in recent years.

Ultimately, the whole thing is ridiculous - we can debate all day about whether or not giving out extra first round picks is fair or unfair, but at the end of the day we have a governing body who thinks it's unfair if they're given to struggling teams regardless of their location, but perfectly fair when given to northern teams regardless of whether they're struggling or not. Can't really have any sort of meaningful discussion or change while that double standard exists at the top.

 

[Jirik13]

the problem is, I wouldn't even call what gold coast got a "massive, fast leg up". Sure, they got a shitload more than any other team has since the PP rules changed (so far Brisbane, north, WC), but they were at the end of three pretty bad years. They got pick 1 2019, pick 11 2020, pick 19 2021, rookie list expanded to 10 (which I think would be an extra four spots?), had Darwin added to their academy zone, and for three years were able to simply add players from their academy directly to their list without having to go through the draft and bidding process. Massive? Yeah, sure, but it wasn't really fast - and even with all that assistance, plus five first round picks through their academy in 2023 and 2024, it still took six seasons for them to record a winning season. The old system worked because to have four or fewer wins shows just how ****ing bad you are, and at the first sign of it you got extra assistance. If you still slid the next year, you got more. I don't think there's ever been a case where a team got priority picks and then leapt into premiership contention - fastest PP pick player to get a flag is Xavier Ellis in three years, but I don't think many people are saying hawks only won in '08 because they got him in '05. And it's certainly impacting the fairness of the competition to no longer have priority picks, just look at last year and the record of the top 9 vs the bottom 9. Frankly, it's close to a miracle that finals spots and coleman medal winners haven't been decided by who plays the eagles twice in recent years.

Ultimately, the whole thing is ridiculous - we can debate all day about whether or not giving out extra first round picks is fair or unfair, but at the end of the day we have a governing body who thinks it's unfair if they're given to struggling teams regardless of their location, but perfectly fair when given to northern teams regardless of whether they're struggling or not. Can't really have any sort of meaningful discussion or change while that double standard exists at the top.

I guess bidding changes to F/S, Northern academies, NGA will make the draft system more fair. Still plenty more issues with trade rules, compensation.

How to assist teams who are stuck at the bottom is another issue. One extra pick at end of first round is nothing. Most efficient would be extra salary cap but that's not going to happen.

I do think, Suns while struggling as an expansion team were quite a unique case. Ultimately, AFL wants expansion teams to become established and successful club. Tasmania will most probably receive a much better set up.

 

[Purple Suit]

the problem is, I wouldn't even call what gold coast got a "massive, fast leg up". Sure, they got a shitload more than any other team has since the PP rules changed (so far Brisbane, north, WC), but they were at the end of three pretty bad years. They got pick 1 2019, pick 11 2020, pick 19 2021, rookie list expanded to 10 (which I think would be an extra four spots?), had Darwin added to their academy zone, and for three years were able to simply add players from their academy directly to their list without having to go through the draft and bidding process. Massive? Yeah, sure, but it wasn't really fast - and even with all that assistance, plus five first round picks through their academy in 2023 and 2024, it still took six seasons for them to record a winning season. The old system worked because to have four or fewer wins shows just how ****ing bad you are, and at the first sign of it you got extra assistance. If you still slid the next year, you got more. I don't think there's ever been a case where a team got priority picks and then leapt into premiership contention - fastest PP pick player to get a flag is Xavier Ellis in three years, but I don't think many people are saying hawks only won in '08 because they got him in '05. And it's certainly impacting the fairness of the competition to no longer have priority picks, just look at last year and the record of the top 9 vs the bottom 9. Frankly, it's close to a miracle that finals spots and coleman medal winners haven't been decided by who plays the eagles twice in recent years.

Ultimately, the whole thing is ridiculous - we can debate all day about whether or not giving out extra first round picks is fair or unfair, but at the end of the day we have a governing body who thinks it's unfair if they're given to struggling teams regardless of their location, but perfectly fair when given to northern teams regardless of whether they're struggling or not. Can't really have any sort of meaningful discussion or change while that double standard exists at the top.

The Hawks are a good look at the future. The rules were too generous and the Hawks topped up big time before they were changed to become harder after the Melbourne tanking. The expansion teams then took all the draft picks and there was a vacuum for the up and coming contenders to top up with enough talent to prevent the Hawks Dynasty. This morphed into the Richmond Dynasty soon after.

The AFL have topped up GC and Brisbane too hard and now changed the rules just before Tassie enters to take all the talent. Good luck stopping those two teams over the next 5-6 years. Some of the talent at those two clubs should be at North and WC and they will probably lose some but it will go to the Pies and Geelong instead.

WC should get a end of 1st round pick this year and the AFL should finally fix up the academy / FS cost after the Queensland horses have bolted.

 

[Bald Headed Flog]

I'm largely against priority picks, but West Coast have faced a fairly unique situation where they are experiencing expansion-levels of compromised draft at a time they bottomed out. The Suns made a semi final, paid one of the biggest trade hauls in AFL history for a superstar player, and still managed to bring in FOUR first round picks thanks to their academy.

In 2023, West Coast's 2nd round pick ended up Pick 30. In 2024 it was Pick 30 again. Tassie is coming soon. If we want West Coast to be remotely competitive, it's time to rip the bandaid off and give them a proper package, and cut it off there. They are at unprecedented levels of shit, and won't be improving through the draft once Tassie comes in.

I'm fine with seeing them receive a pick immediately after their 1st (like Gold Coast got so they could take Anderson) plus another end of 1st round to attempt to trade for a player. We've not seen a team this bad since University, if we're going to allow rampant ****ing of the draft via northern academies and father son, then how is a priority pick for a club getting none of those benefits any issue?

At the bare minimum, they should be expanding the WA academies to the same level as the northern academies

 

[Rich01]

I'm largely against priority picks, but West Coast have faced a fairly unique situation where they are experiencing expansion-levels of compromised draft at a time they bottomed out. The Suns made a semi final, paid one of the biggest trade hauls in AFL history for a superstar player, and still managed to bring in FOUR first round picks thanks to their academy.

In 2023, West Coast's 2nd round pick ended up Pick 30. In 2024 it was Pick 30 again. Tassie is coming soon. If we want West Coast to be remotely competitive, it's time to rip the bandaid off and give them a proper package, and cut it off there. They are at unprecedented levels of shit, and won't be improving through the draft once Tassie comes in.

I'm fine with seeing them receive a pick immediately after their 1st (like Gold Coast got so they could take Anderson) plus another end of 1st round to attempt to trade for a player. We've not seen a team this bad since University, if we're going to allow rampant ****ing of the draft via northern academies and father son, then how is a priority pick for a club getting none of those benefits any issue?

At the bare minimum, they should be expanding the WA academies to the same level as the northern academies

That’s not addressing the real issue which is the compromised nature of the draft. It’s just making it worse.

 

[txbyhull]

That’s not addressing the real issue which is the compromised nature of the draft. It’s just making it worse.

An uncompromised draft would mean we’re still shit, just not 1 win shit. We might be 3 win shit

 

[Doashuey]

That’s not addressing the real issue which is the compromised nature of the draft. It’s just making it worse.

If it's a one off as suggested, then it will rectify some recent past "draft quirks" which have hindered our ability to rebuild properly through the draft.
But yes, I think an end of Rd 1 and selection after our natural first would be overly generous.

What might be a better solution that will allow teams to get some assistance without pushing other teams down the draft order is if the AFL could provide a package which includes tradable points rather than draft picks.
EG. WCE get 2000 draft points that they must trade for players. Say we trade 1300 for Warner which Sydney can use to bid on an academy player and 700 for Neill which Lions can use for a bid on their academy player (dont concern yourself with value- Im just plucking numbers for the sake of example) Sydney and Brisbane should still have to use their natural first selection plus the points provided from the trade. No other team is impacted by getting shuffled down the board, but it allows access to quality mature players for WCE without them having to sacrifice their better picks.

In any case, all of this is way too premature, let's see how the year plays out.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Honestly think soft cap space will help more than draft picks, especially next year when the academy is looking ok as an option for us to pick players up from .

For some reason we just can’t use our competitive advantages unlike well everyone else

 

[Cam Payne]

How about they just get to poach players from other clubs until they is winning again. You know a club Freo have a few blokes that could help and they already live in the same town. I mean they should look at clubs who haven't had success for a long time or never won anything first. Pretty seamless really and their fans will be happy, which is the main thing.

 

[Scotland]

I wouldn’t want my club to have to beg for draft assistance because they were so horrendously run.

Going cap in hand for charity picks shows there’s something seriously wrong with the football dept and they can’t help themselves.

Clubs need to nip this in the bud. Stop asking for charity picks to change the precedent. Have a bit of pride.

The AFL introduced the system, not the clubs. If WC or (Bris, GC, North...) don't ask, they don't get.

The reality is that the system we had prior to 2006 is the best incarnation to date.

Hawthorn 2004/5 -> flag 2008 + 2013-15
Collingwood 2005 -> flag 2010 + 2023
WC 2001 -> flag 2006 + 2018 if you want to extrapolate Judd -> Kennedy
WB 2003/04 -> prelim finalist in a strong era 2008-10
St Kilda 2000/01 -> grand finalist in a strong era 2009/10

Carlton were competitive and Melbourne & Richmond ****ed it up the first time around then built success from Cotchin, Martin, Brayshaw, Petracca etc.

The "handout" system worked because the teams at the bottom got early picks and before too long were no longer on the bottom. Which is the point, isn't it? Hawthorn picked up Franklin and Roughead in 2004 (and Lewis but that was from a trade), then Ellis and Dowler in 2005, then in 2006 they had pick 6 after winning 9 games (these days that would be 10-15) and took Mitch Thorp. After that they had pick 9 in 2009 then then their next top 10 pick wasn't until 2017. Some pretty handy players were drafted in the years they were making grand finals.

The idea that WC could be like Gold Coast in 2019 and be given pick 2 to go with pick 1 now is just silly. We've already been through the pain of being dogshit for a couple of years and have a young and inexperienced team with some top 5 picks in it. If we had another top 10 player from 2022 or 2023 then you might see a difference. Another 18 year old is really just a free kick down the track if it turns out we drafted well over the last few years.

The AFL were so focused on the optics of teams "trying to lose" that they created a comp where teams are anchored to the bottom for years at a time and top 5 picks go to teams making grand finals instead. Well done, sirs.

 

[Scotland]

Soft cap shmoft cap. You can get Michelangelo in to paint your ceiling but it's still not the Sistine Chapel.

WC currently have 14 players from the last 3 drafts plus 9 rookies. We also have Maric, Dewar and McCarthy on the main list as Cat B/MSD upgrades. and some role players from 2021/22 who have passed their rookie deals.

Compare that to the Crows (alphabetical) and they only used 7 picks in the last 3 drafts. Contending teams have different list profiles and (drumroll....) better players that in theory should be paid more.

Given the AFL mandate draftee salaries there should be more flexibility in the salary cap. If WC are paying 20 guys $100-200k a year because they have to it seems ridiculous that they also have to pay the other 20-25 enough that the TPP is 95% of Brisbane or Geelong or whoever.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Soft cap shmoft cap. You can get Michelangelo in to paint your ceiling but it's still not the Sistine Chapel.

WC currently have 14 players from the last 3 drafts plus 9 rookies. We also have Maric, Dewar and McCarthy on the main list as Cat B/MSD upgrades. and some role players from 2021/22 who have passed their rookie deals.

Compare that to the Crows (alphabetical) and they only used 7 picks in the last 3 drafts. Contending teams have different list profiles and (drumroll....) better players that in theory should be paid more.

Given the AFL mandate draftee salaries there should be more flexibility in the salary cap. If WC are paying 20 guys $100-200k a year because they have to it seems ridiculous that they also have to pay the other 20-25 enough that the TPP is 95% of Brisbane or Geelong or whoever.

The aflpa won't let them pay less which is fair enough since it's just less money going to the players overall.

But there should be much more flexibility with list spots.

Every year we see a bunch of state league players get drafted and look like they belong. Let teams have anything from 40-50 players. Then the struggling clubs can give a bunch more guys like that get a go.

Maybe 10 more guys get to chase their dreams, the standards at training probably improve with more mature players and there's less pressure to pay your good players way overs just to make the cap.

 

[Ash1337]

The aflpa won't let them pay less which is fair enough since it's just less money going to the players overall.

But there should be much more flexibility with list spots.

Every year we see a bunch of state league players get drafted and look like they belong. Let teams have anything from 40-50 players. Then the struggling clubs can give a bunch more guys like that get a go.

Maybe 10 more guys get to chase their dreams, the standards at training probably improve with more mature players and there's less pressure to pay your good players way overs just to make the cap.

The list changes they did felt reactionary because of Covid. Probably should have been looked at by now. 2 extra rookie spots specifically for mature players that haven't been in a AFL system before. There's mature players out there in the lower leagues that deserve a chance.

 

[Wojcinski]

**** the priority pick, West Coast has more AFL era premierships than all but 3 clubs. They ****ed their list, they can suffer while they fix it

 

[bzparkes]

**** the priority pick, West Coast has more AFL era premierships than all but 3 clubs. They ****ed their list, they can suffer while they fix it

True. Hopefully we can get a bunch of father sons soon and then cheat the salary cap to keep our team together.

Diamond buffet at Crown anyone?

Perhaps a couple of nights in Munich on the sponsor's dollar?

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

True. Hopefully we can get a bunch of father sons soon and then cheat the salary cap to keep our team together.

Diamond buffet at Crown anyone?

Perhaps a couple of nights in Munich on the sponsor's dollar?

Christ, it's like you didn't even read the emails. King rooms but NO Crystal Club.

 

[Obeanie1]

Loosening of the soft cap is a good idea.

It rewards clubs for standing on their own two feet and allows clubs that need to spend more to attract off field talent to do so. It does create a bit of an arms race, but it’s too tight at the moment.

West Coast and North would benefit from this by being able to bring in quality assistant and development coaches and I know Richmond would want to bolster their medical and conditioning dept.

Allowing bottom 4 sides extra soft cap allowance to spend their own money on development coaches and sports science.

Thats far to much like common sense for the AFL to endourse.

 

[Obeanie1]

**** the priority pick, West Coast has more AFL era premierships than all but 3 clubs. They ****ed their list, they can suffer while they fix it

Yep, Stuff em.

Does that mean the back to back premiers and other teams currently playing finals stop getting their assistwnce every year as well?

Happy to receive zero assistance. As long as everyone stops getting it.

Fair?

I think that's fair.

 

[ferball]

Why? Not like Richmond ever turned them down before.

Richmond were reaping the benefit of PPs 20 from years ago when they were winning GFs, in terms of players they had available because of the ongoing effects of the PPs (thru trades etc).

I'll be honest, maybe it's just me having rose coloured glasses on but I sure don't remember teams being apocalyptically awful for multiple years in a row back when those rules were in place.

Up until the GC and GWS came in the equalisation system was working fairly well. In the first 20-30 years of the AFL (ie 1990 - 2020) every team played in a GF (excluding the GC.) But the stuff around with bringing in the Suns and GC definitely messed things up at a crucial time for some clubs (ie North lol).

 

[Jirik13]

Allowing bottom 4 sides extra soft cap allowance to spend their own money on development coaches and sports science.

Thats far to much like common sense for the AFL to endourse.

Do you know how much Eagles go over soft cap and what is the tax?

 

[brutus76]

We should get some before the Whacko Weagles