Opinion Will Brisbane’s win finally spell the end of the Academies?

[Pies No 1]

That really is a disgrace. It should have been changed at the very latest after the Daicos/Darcy draft of 2021.

The elephant in the room here is the Premiership Team of 2024 getting the number 1 draft pick. That has been the wake up call.

Collingwood finished 17th the year they got Daicos. Yes we didn't have a top 10 pick so wouldn't have got him without the FS rule, but I think it went a bit unnoticed because we were down the bottom of the ladder anyway.

A team winning a premiership, getting the number 1 draft pick, then winning another premiership, followed by a top 3 academy pick... this is when it's getting ridiculous.

 

[paulige]

Now now. Jaspa Fletcher could have went and played NRL if it wasnt for Brisbane Lions academy

Fletcher was not an academy selection.

I don't think anyone would give a shit if the recent father sons were all average players. A bit of luck and timing has come into play.

Pretty much. As has been noted, our academy picks playing Saturday were something like 25, 42, and 61. People are conflating them with the FS picks, which are a separate issue.

That said, should Annable come in and dominate from the get go, there might be grounds to question academy/FS access for high-performing clubs, e.g. restricting top 10/first-round access.

I can see a future where the draft is undiluted for teams who miss finals - aka protect the first 10. All PP, compo come in after that. No discount on academy or F/S either, and a requirement to use at least 1 pick within X places.

 

[Bluelegs]

I believe you forgot to include all of the clubs who benefited from getting better picks than they would otherwise have had at their disposal by swapping their later picks for other team's earlier picks ... on the years you have a F/s to pay for the points were worth more than the picks and for the other club without F/s that year they reap the reward.

So there are clubs who do those trades and they do them for their own self interest ... kind of a win-win really.

The teams with academy players or father-sons are the main beneficiaries of pick swaps.

 

[Pies No 1]

Fletcher was not an academy selection.




Pretty much. As has been noted, our academy picks playing Saturday were something like 25, 42, and 61. People are conflating them with the FS picks, which are a separate issue.

That said, should Annable come in and dominate from the get go, there might be grounds to question academy/FS access for high-performing clubs, e.g. restricting top 10/first-round access.

I can see a future where the draft is undiluted for teams who miss finals - aka protect the first 10. All PP, compo come in after that. No discount on academy or F/S either, and a requirement to use at least 1 pick within X places.

Brisbane is unique in that they get Academy and FS, so double dipping. Gold Coast/GWS have no FS, and Sydney's academy doesn't seem to be as strong as the QLD ones. This is why people are getting it mixed up, because Bris has the superior access to this system over any team in the league.

 

[paulige]

Brisbane is unique in that they get Academy and FS, so double dipping. Gold Coast/GWS have no FS, and Sydney's academy doesn't seem to be as strong as the QLD ones. This is why people are getting it mixed up, because Bris has the superior access to this system over any team in the league.

Exceptionally lucky on that front, both with quality and timing, no doubt.

I wouldn’t be against removing the FS rule - though to avoid screwing over the clubs who’ve made draft plans/ traded picks in the next couple of years, it would need a ~2-3 year phase out.

That said, I also don’t mind if it’s kept - I’m in the “love the tradition” camp.

 

[Bluelegs]

Exceptionally lucky on that front, both with quality and timing, no doubt.

I wouldn’t be against removing the FS rule - though to avoid screwing over the clubs who’ve made draft plans/ traded picks in the next couple of years, it would need a ~2-3 year phase out.

That said, I also don’t mind if it’s kept - I’m in the “love the tradition” camp.

I'm fine with keeping both, although I'd prefer the AFL to run the academies with input and resources from all clubs.

Just think the discount around jumping the queue needs to go. Would rather see teams trade up to get as close to the pick they need for their player than trade back to double-dip in the draft.

 

[420]

I did breakdowns before in another thread

Brisbane Lions total current assets - 17 million
Brisbanes total non-current assets - 99.87 million
Cash - 14.1 million
AFL funding - 29.6 million

St Kildas total current assets - 2.3 million
St Kildas total non-current assets - 54.1 mill
Cash - 650,000
AFL funding - 23.7 mill

North Melbourne current assets - 11.7 million
North Melbourne non-current assets - 25 million
Cash - 2.5 million
AFL funding - 25.4 million

That's obscene

 

[Philhawk]

I did breakdowns before in another thread

Brisbane Lions total current assets - 17 million
Brisbanes total non-current assets - 99.87 million
Cash - 14.1 million
AFL funding - 29.6 million

St Kildas total current assets - 2.3 million
St Kildas total non-current assets - 54.1 mill
Cash - 650,000
AFL funding - 23.7 mill

North Melbourne current assets - 11.7 million
North Melbourne non-current assets - 25 million
Cash - 2.5 million
AFL funding - 25.4 million

And we still believe the myth that Brisbane fund their own academy?

 

[Philhawk]

I did breakdowns before in another thread

Brisbane Lions total current assets - 17 million
Brisbanes total non-current assets - 99.87 million
Cash - 14.1 million
AFL funding - 29.6 million

St Kildas total current assets - 2.3 million
St Kildas total non-current assets - 54.1 mill
Cash - 650,000
AFL funding - 23.7 mill

North Melbourne current assets - 11.7 million
North Melbourne non-current assets - 25 million
Cash - 2.5 million
AFL funding - 25.4 million

Don’t suppose you also have the Swans numbers to compare to?

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

And we still believe the myth that Brisbane fund their own academy?

The AFLW funding is the most absurd part of all from what I can see. AFL bought them training facilities for the AFLW team who went on to sell it, keep the money and just move in to the place the boys train at once it was fully developed.

The reason their AFLW team is so successful is the obscene amounts of money they have received also

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Don’t suppose you also have the Swans numbers to compare to?

Wasnt that different to other clubs like St Kilda/North . Reason being is Sydney actually paid for their own training faculties whereas Brisbane Lions got gifted training facilities from a combination of QLD/Federal govt + AFL funding .

Sydney Swans current assets - 4.8 million
Sydney Swans non-current assets - 100.8 million (training ground worth a insane amount)
Cash - 2.6 mill
AFL funding - 22.6 million

West Coast Eagles was pretty insane

West Coast Eagles current assets - 75.3 million
West Coast Eagles non-current assets - 55.6 million
Cash on hand - 10 million (62 million invested in shares)
AFL funding - 13.4 million

Idiots still up our membership fees by 5% each year too at Eagles despite 1 win for the year

 

[Elixuh]

Wait until people learn about age of assets and depreciation!

Got Nancy Drew out here cherry picking figures with no context.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Wait until people learn about age of assets and depreciation!

Got Nancy Drew out here cherry picking figures with no context.

The extra context I could add re: assets, liabilities and depreciation actually wont help your argument . Brisbane are in a much better position that way then basically any club in the league, including the Eagles even. Im actually just being generic to current day funding

For example In 2024 you sold the Brisbane AFLW facilities for 3 million dollars which was 100% paid for by the AFL and then your cash assets went from 8.7 mill to 14.9 mill.... do you have any idea what could have happened to that 3 million dollars. Im a bit at a loss to pinpoint where it went myself

 

[Elixuh]

The extra context I could add re: assets, liabilities and depreciation actually wont help your argument . Brisbane are in a much better position that way then basically any club in the league, including the Eagles even. Im actually just being generic to current day funding

In 2024 you sold the Brisbane AFLW facilities for 3 million dollars which was 100% paid for by the AFL and then your cash assets went from 8.7 mill to 14.9 mill.... do you have any idea what could have happened to that cash

Don’t the eagles have 100m cash?

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Don’t the eagles have 100m cash?

72 mill but then we get 16 mill less funding then you guys every year so the comparison is a bit off. Over the next 5-10 years at the current level of funding Brisbane will overtake West Coast in net worth which puts you in the better financial spot in the long term

True comparison is with the have and have nots. The reality is North sold games to W.A for 2.5 mill to be financially viable which worsens their chances of winning in the same year you got 4.2 mill extra and put 6.1 mill of cash right into the bank....

Its not justifiable no matter what you try

 

[Elixuh]

72 mill but then we get 16 mill less funding then you guys every year so the comparison is a bit off.

True comparison is with the have and have nots. The reality is North sold games to W.A for 2.5 mill to be financially viable which worsens their chances of winning in the same year you got 4.2 mill extra and put 6.1 mill of cash right into the bank....

Its not justifiable no matter what you try

You haven’t explained why the distributions are different, so everything you’ve said is pointless.

North is commercially unviable in a saturated market. It isn’t rocket science.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

You haven’t explained why the distributions are different, so everything you’ve said is pointless.

North is commercially unviable in a saturated market. It isn’t rocket science.

Can you explain why you need 4.2 mill cash in the bank and how that benefits the sport

Can you explain how selling the AFLW training facilities for 3 mill grows the sport also ?

 

[Elixuh]

Can you explain why you need 4.2 mill cash in the bank and how that benefits the sport

Can you explain how selling the AFLW training facilities for 3 mill grows the sport also ?

Probably for the same reason that WCE have $100m in the bank

 

[Philhawk]

Probably for the same reason that WCE have $100m in the bank

So you can’t explain it, nor why Brisbane requires so much more funding than other teams … but North is financially unviable?

 

[Elixuh]

So you can’t explain it, nor why Brisbane requires so much more funding than other teams … but North is financially unviable?

I’m not the one launching arguments about it without being able to explain the rationale behind the distributions.

I’m just saying that everything that’s been said is pointless because you can’t explain the distributions.

 

[Philhawk]

I’m not the one launching arguments about it without being able to explain the rationale behind the distributions.

I’m just saying that everything that’s been said is pointless because you can’t explain the distributions.

To bring it back to the thread topic, do you think it odd that despite the strength of Brisbane as a club both on and off the field and clearly the strength of the code in the state, do their distributions still need to be so large? Accordingly, are the academies still needed in Qld?

 

[astrowizzle]

Not at all.

But would say travel would also affect that. Plus beig able to stay at home.
And being able to easily access the GF without being a millionaire would also be good.

There is. If the northern states get the funding in the grassroots then the numbers change

We shall see.
Vic clubs won multiple back to backs and we didn’t see changes in anything.
Brisbane get a b2b and the grabbing of the pearls happens.

5 in 25 years all with concessions is utter horse shit

 

[Elixuh]

To bring it back to the thread topic, do you think it odd that despite the strength of Brisbane as a club both on and off the field and clearly the strength of the code in the state, do their distributions still need to be so large? Accordingly, are the academies still needed in Qld?

I don’t think you understand the bold. And I’m not going to bother explaining it. You need someone who supports a vfl team who lives up here to explain it.

What talent pathway do you want to replace academies with?

 

[jonnobackpocket]

Oh those poor little Victorian clubs, how will they survive. None of you muppets were having a sook when we were shit for 15 years, what’s happened??? We create a club that players want to come to, recruit well, get a coach no one else ever asked and it’s all because of the 3 academy players we win the flag. Dead set sooks- Geelong beat us 3 weeks ago- was this just a cover up so we don’t look to strong we are clever.

 

[kranky al]

A genetic lucky dip is distinctly different to a system where Queensland clubs get exclusive and subsidized access to the best players in a state which now has a higher AFL participation rate than WA, wouldn’t you think?

Where did you get that stat from - I hunted and found only this

<<<
Tasmania and the Northern Territory have witnessed the most significant increases, with participation spikes of 13% and 9%, respectively. In the Northern Territory, girls now make up over 40% of Auskick participants, and the number of junior footballers in Tasmania has increased by 9%. Queensland has also seen a 6% rise in participation, contributing to a combined total of over 120,000 participants alongside New South Wales.

Traditional football strongholds like Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia continue to show solid numbers, with 222,000, 84,500, and 64,000 participants, respectively. Women and girls now account for 20% of all community football registrations nationally, highlighting the sport’s growing inclusivity>>>

Note the bolded.

Source: https://ministryofsport.com/afl-breaks-participation-record-reflecting-strong-grassroots-growth/[/B]