List Mgmt. 2024 Father Son watch MKIII. Operation Ashcroft jnr. Featuring various academy boys.

[Jivlain]

 

[Elixuh]

Any decent journo would've grilled her a lot harder on what she said . Is every club aware of this ? What exactly have you told them ? Were they all compliant , surprised ,unhappy ...?? So what is the AFL's blue print for when and how this will occur ?

I mean I know they're not Rhodes scholars but if you were a journo with a sniff for something smelly you'd be all over it.

I think it was an attempt to be tricky with wording, meaning and context which has backfired. All clubs would have known a year ago that the AFL were looking at the rules around bidding etc, which I think is what Laura would say she meant. But the context of the discussion was clearly about whether clubs knew (1) what changes the AFL was making (2) when they were going to come in. Neither of those things would have been known, otherwise you wouldn't be saying 'maybe' in mid-June.

I think the new administration has been shaky on some things where they've just needed to make a decisive decision and come out and explain it. Otherwise they, including Laura who I think is one of the better ones, have been fine.

 

[martinson]

I think it was an attempt to be tricky with wording, meaning and context which has backfired. All clubs would have known a year ago that the AFL were looking at the rules around bidding etc, which I think is what Laura would say she meant. But the context of the discussion was clearly about whether clubs knew (1) what changes the AFL was making (2) when they were going to come in. Neither of those things would have been known, otherwise you wouldn't be saying 'maybe' in mid-June.

I think the new administration has been shaky on some things where they've just needed to make a decisive decision and come out and explain it. Otherwise, they (including Laura, who I think is one of the better ones) have been fine.

If you're not conclusively committed to something and aren't sure of the potential reaction/outcome of your words , say nothing.

They'll get away with this but I really doubt that they have a preferred position themselves.

Just chucked something out there with the intent of testing the sentiment and who might be likely to ark up.

 

[Elixuh]

If you're not conclusively committed to something and aren't sure of the potential reaction/outcome of your words , say nothing.

They'll get away with this but I really doubt that they have a preferred position themselves.

Just chucked something out there with the intent of testing the sentiment and who might be likely to ark up.

They'd know that from who has academy and FS bids this year (ie those teams that have traded picks last year with a view to this year) and Richmond who loaded up on junk picks. So I doubt it was to test sentiment. I think its just inexperience/error of judgement re approach, or a combination of the two.

 

[McIvor]

What Laura said was really dumb tbh.

Sorry, but she chucks a bomb in with no explanation or detail.

Bit of a head scratcher.

Again; she’s a moron and unqualified to be the #2 at the AFL, you only need to listen to her speak and know she’s full of outbid her depth. I appreciate what you say about Dillon, but he’s not the CEO type, certainly not saying he wasn’t good at his previous role, which is where he should’ve stayed. Ben Gale would’ve made a much better CEO.

 

[McIvor]

Any decent journo would've grilled her a lot harder on what she said . Is every club aware of this ? What exactly have you told them ? Were they all compliant , surprised ,unhappy ...?? So what is the AFL's blue print for when and how this will occur ?

I mean I know they're not Rhodes scholars but if you were a journo with a sniff for something smelly you'd be all over it.

She was on MMM in Melbourne; I mean I’m not sure there was a single brain cell in that box interviewing her with the likes of Nafan Brown, Mark Howard, Brayshaw, that ex Hawk/Cat and some other brain dead drop kicks. Throw in Kane and you had all the makings of a mess of an interview.

 

[McIvor]

If you're not conclusively committed to something and aren't sure of the potential reaction/outcome of your words , say nothing.

They'll get away with this but I really doubt that they have a preferred position themselves.

Just chucked something out there with the intent of testing the sentiment and who might be likely to ark up.

Even someone like Matt Lloyd after they showed that interview said surely they can’t bring it in this year given the planning of all clubs over the past few years with respect to what picks and trades they’ve done to get themselves ready for the 24 and 25 drafts and then you have the AFL and inexperienced operators who haven’t been able to figure out the blinding obvious. You honestly couldn’t make up the incompetence of this administration in a short six months; the blind leading the blind at HQ.

 

[Elixuh]

Again; she’s a moron and unqualified to be the #2 at the AFL, you only need to listen to her speak and know she’s full of outbid her depth. I appreciate what you say about Dillon, but he’s not the CEO type, certainly not saying he wasn’t good at his previous role, which is where he should’ve stayed. Ben Gale would’ve made a much better CEO.

I feel like this is coming back to your Fagan presser issues lol. Dillon isn't a natural front office or forward facing style CEO which I think is part of the issue.

 

[RoyBoy17]

If the northern academies are for everyone's benefit then every other club can pitch in and pay for them too.

 

[McIvor]

As Tom Morris is alluding to in this interview, Kane is an out and out liar

 

[Johnny Bananas]

If the northern academies are for everyone's benefit then every other club can pitch in and pay for them too.

They really should be run by the AFL directly. We're only doing the work of academy development because the AFL are too lazy or cheap to run it themselves, and all bleating about the unfair advantage glosses over this. I'm perfectly happy to return to the days of no academies, but COLA being in place to even out the local talent advantage of the heartland states.

 

[dlanod]

They really should be run by the AFL directly. We're only doing the work of academy development because the AFL are too lazy or cheap to run it themselves, and all bleating about the unfair advantage glosses over this. I'm perfectly happy to return to the days of no academies and COLA being in place to even out the local talent advantage of the heartland states.

No no no. Not too lazy or too cheap. Too incompetent.

 

[CarterS]

Interesting to see how these potential draft changes impact us.

 

[CarterS]

What are the proposed changes? Essentially that you can't stockpile late picks to pay for an early F/S or Academy selection?

 

[briztoon]

What are the proposed changes? Essentially that you can't stockpile late picks to pay for an early F/S or Academy selection?

Getting rid of the discount, so teams have to pay full price.

This has a knock on effect for other teams trying to purchase first round picks, such as Richmond planned to, in that it becomes much more expensive and almost prohibitive. Instead of 3 or four picks in the 30’s or 40’s, you now need 3 or 4 picks in the 20’s and 30’s.


There are more possible changes. Changing the value of picks, so that points run out at pick 40, instead of 72.


Other possible changes would be lining up the northern academies with the NGA academies, in that “we” can’t match bids inside the top 40.

 

[CarterS]

Getting rid of the discount, so teams have to pay full price.

This has a knock on effect for other teams trying to purchase first round picks, such as Richmond planned to, in that it becomes much more expensive and almost prohibitive. Instead of 3 or four picks in the 30’s or 40’s, you now need 3 or 4 picks in the 20’s and 30’s.


There are more possible changes. Changing the value of picks, so that points run out at pick 40, instead of 72.


Other possible changes would be lining up the northern academies with the NGA academies, in that “we” can’t match bids inside the top 40.

This one in particular would be a big change.

 

[mpal6]

Getting rid of the discount, so teams have to pay full price.

This has a knock on effect for other teams trying to purchase first round picks, such as Richmond planned to, in that it becomes much more expensive and almost prohibitive. Instead of 3 or four picks in the 30’s or 40’s, you now need 3 or 4 picks in the 20’s and 30’s.


There are more possible changes. Changing the value of picks, so that points run out at pick 40, instead of 72.


Other possible changes would be lining up the northern academies with the NGA academies, in that “we” can’t match bids inside the top 40.

I look forward to them announcing need to retain a pick in the same round to match. I can't wait to watch that blow up on their faces when trade wise movements become extremely limited (everyone forced to hang on to their first round) and AFL are swatting flies during trade week.

 

[briztoon]

I look forward to them announcing need to retain a pick in the same round to match. I can't wait to watch that blow up on their faces when trade wise movements become extremely limited (everyone forced to hang on to their first round) and AFL are swatting flies during trade week.

So if you’re Adelaide, with a probable top 6 pick, in need of a good midfielder, with a couple right in that range, and then you also have a father son kid who projects as an undersized key forward around the mid to late first round, what are your options?

Are you allowed to match with your early second round pick, or do you have to trade back in to the late second round?

The AFL want the to keep the “romance” or tradition of father sons going, but they are going to make it harder for some clubs.

Have a high end father son kid, no worries that’s easy to work around. So to kids who project as second round prospects or later.

But kids who project as mid to late first round prospects could prove tricky for non finalist teams if the AFL brought in a rule requiring the the first pick to help match the bid be in the first round.

 

[dlanod]

So if you’re Adelaide, with a probable top 6 pick, in need of a good midfielder, with a couple right in that range, and then you also have a father son kid who projects as an undersized key forward around the mid to late first round, what are your options?

Are you allowed to match with your early second round pick, or do you have to trade back in to the late second round?

FWIW it's pretty clear that they'll do it similar to the AFLW approach which has already been defined:

“Matching a bid by a Club means using a selection in the AFLW Draft which falls within one round of the bid. For example, where a bid falls with the sixth selection of the first round (selection 1.06), the matching Club must use their next selection by the sixth selection of the second round (selection 2.06).”

They can use their early second round pick. They can even trade back to a late second round pick, as long as it's earlier than the corresponding bid pick, e.g. a bid at pick 17 means they could trade pick 24 back to pick 35 or so and match (obviously the actual numbers vary after FA compensation, etc).

 

[McIvor]

As Tom Morris is alluding to in this interview, Kane is an out and out liar

Good to hear GW and David King on SEN double down that Kane is a liar and as David King said, such a decision cannot be introduced for a minimum two years given the planning clubs have put in for future drafts.

The AFL senior management really are a bunch of clueless numpty’s.

 

[Section 5]

When this comes in and we are only guessing about when and what the changes will be.

I may be looking at it wrong, but it appears clubs in certain years will have to decide:
(a) Retain picks in the first two rounds no matter what if you have a few top academy or father son prospects like an Ashcroft
(B) Forget about getting a Dunkley type player from another club in the same year.

Is the AFL's other aim to reduce the value of players that want to move to another club.
A lot of clubs just won't have the pick capital. More so than what can be an issue now.

 

[Crusha]

Lions academy KPF Ty Gallop kicked 5 goals in the QAFL seniors over the weekend.

Ask and ye shall receive ........ well, sometimes ......

Clips of Gallop from QAFL Rnd 11 (over the weekend).

#8 for Maroochydore

 

[Nuggo]

I am sure as part of the changes it will include all of the other inequities of the game......lol.

On a side note I thought the GC academy zone was very generous at the time - perhaps zone restructuring to be more equal could be considered.

Also how many GF's has an academy assisted club won? Not many versus how many clubs with a home ground at the MCG won a flag over that time period.

 

[briztoon]

When this comes in and we are only guessing about when and what the changes will be.

I may be looking at it wrong, but it appears clubs in certain years will have to decide:
(a) Retain picks in the first two rounds no matter what if you have a few top academy or father son prospects like an Ashcroft
(B) Forget about getting a Dunkley type player from another club in the same year.

Is the AFL's other aim to reduce the value of players that want to move to another club.
A lot of clubs just won't have the pick capital. More so than what can be an issue now.

I believe the AFL’s aim is to level the playing field in regards to competitive balance.

To limit the ability of the Geelong’s or Collingwood’s or Brisbane’s of the competition to continually load up via trade and the draft and remain competitive for a decade or longer, which limits the ability for the like of St Kilda or less attractive clubs to see any success.

Ashcroft x2, Fletcher, Marshall and Annable basically rebuilds our midfield far ahead of our natural draft position, and keeps us in the finals window well into the 2030’s.

In the years we don’t have high end father sons or academy prospects, we can trade for high end non contracted players.

This also applies to the likes of Collingwood or Carlton or Geelong.


If the AFL brought in a similar bid matching process as seen in the AFLW that dlanod mentioned above, for this year, to be able to match both Ashcroft and Marshall, we would likely have to trade our future first round pick for two second round picks this year, after the Ashcroft bid, with one of those second round picks likely needing to be in top 12 picks of the second round.

This would essentially wipe out our 2024 and 2025 picks, as we’d also have match the points value of both bids with current and future picks.

This would also greatly impact our ability to potentially match a bid for Annable next year, as we would have to trade our 2026 first round pick in to 2025, and because most of our picks/points had already been wiped, we would also need to match the Annable bid with future points/picks, and that probably wipes out most of our 2026 picks, and any ability to match any 2026 academy kids, i.e the eldest Hodge boy.


We will no longer have an unlimited (sort of) well of talent to pick up for cheap. Just when our academy looks like producing a conveyor belt of talent year upon year.

 

[buttermuffs]

I feel like this is coming back to your Fagan presser issues lol. Dillon isn't a natural front office or forward facing style CEO which I think is part of the issue.

Will Levi even come to the AFL after watching a Dillon press conference?

 

[Dalions]

Sounds to me like the AFL are happy to further promote Player movement.
Happy for clubs not being able to match bids on Father Sons and Academies but also happy for them to trade for them in 2-3 years time to once again promote player movement.
Double dipping. And it all just adds to the drama and media speculation of the trade and draft periods.