News AFL to overhaul draft on father-sons, academy picks

[WilloTree]

Because with a bit of fairness and ingenuity we can have both with only minimal compromise to the draft?

We have to make teams pay full price but if they do it’s fantastic for fans.

Where they’ve gone wrong is trying to make every father son go to their fathers club regardless of value.

Why would you want father/son with minimal compromise to the draft, when you can have father/son with ZERO compromise to the draft?

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

No academy or NGA picks in the first round. Bring NGA back from 40 to the start of the second round.

Remove the 20% discount and have to use a pick within 9 places of the bid.

Pick 1 trumps everything. If the club holding pick 1 wants to use it on a F/S pick, they can and it can’t be matched. They’ve earned the right holding pick 1 to get the best player in the draft.

Aside from pick 1, F/S can be bid on anywhere in the draft but requires a pick within the 9 again to match.

 

[Noidnadroj]

It doesn’t need to be complicated at all. Just scrap the discount and tell clubs they can only use top-30 picks for any player bid on in the top-20. Outside the top-20 they can use any picks, but still no discount.

Then a pick-1 bid would require 16,17 and 18. Pick 2 would require for example 13, 28 and 29.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[The Educator]

No academy or NGA picks in the first round. Bring NGA back from 40 to the start of the second round.

Remove the 20% discount and have to use a pick within 9 places of the bid.

Pick 1 trumps everything. If the club holding pick 1 wants to use it on a F/S pick, they can and it can’t be matched. They’ve earned the right holding pick 1 to get the best player in the draft.

Aside from pick 1, F/S can be bid on anywhere in the draft but requires a pick within the 9 again to match.

Not sure how much thought went into writing that line

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Not sure how much thought went into writing that line

That’s only because you’re assuming that if you earn something it must be a positive reward, whereby holding pick 1 is due to being the worst team.

The definition of earned is to receive or be given something based on an activity.

Getting pick 1 based on being last means you have earned that pick due to the activity of being last regardless of if it is overall seen as a negative. They are entitled to it.

So yes, thought did go into it.

 

[Elixuh]

West Coast already indirectly fund it. We'd happily change some of the accounting for better access

By virtue of every team receiving funding from the AFL, every team indirectly funds every thing every other team in the league does. Old money bags wce over here.

 

[HairyO]

Long overdue. I'm fed up with the AFL giving clubs an unfair advantage at the draft. There needs to be rule brought in that moving forward, no club should have 5 first round draft picks.

Agreed. Roos should get no 1st round pick for the next 4 years.

GCS get no 1st round pick for the next 2 years.

 

[Saab NLAW]

Its quite telling that this change only comes after a non vic club made out like bandits.

All the other times a vic club has benefitted from academy picks ( Jamarra, that nm kid) and father son picks ( how long do you have?) And the system hasnt changed, but it changes after this year is emblematic of where the AFL is at.

Cool story bro

The AFL changed the NGA rules in Mac Andrew's year, meaning Melbourne weren't able to match the offer.

But feel free to continue make shit up if it helps your imaginary argument

 

[Saab NLAW]

Under what I proposed in my post you quoted you wouldn’t get direct access to the talent. You would contribute to funding the academies and then there is equal access through the draft. To put it in simple terms for you, hawthorn contribute to funding the academies but get no material benefit other than the knowledge they are growing the talent pool for the league.

VFL clubs have been given the opportunity to develop their own academies in the northern markets requiring investment in infrastructure and ongoing investment yet none have done so. Wonder why.

The funny thing is that you actually believe that all the other clubs can have their own academy if they want one.

Hope the changes happen and clubs like Brisbane and Sydney are forced to pay real value for elite talent

 

[Saab NLAW]

They just told us they conducted a review on FA compensation.

They told us they won't tell us what was in the review but trust them because they did an awesome job on the review. Was absolutely brilliant they said. Greatest review ever.
Very Albanese

Edited for accuracy, scarily accurate considering recent event lol

 

[Saab NLAW]

Thanks for proving my point that a vic club got the lick of the ice cream but the non vic clubs didnt.

Which is complete and utter crap

 

[Farang83150]

By virtue of every team receiving funding from the AFL, every team indirectly funds every thing every other team in the league does. Old money bags wce over here.

Keep telling yourself that

 

[the harry]

By virtue of every team receiving funding from the AFL, every team indirectly funds every thing every other team in the league does. Old money bags wce over here.

I would just draw a line at the average to determine who is being funded and who is funding? It's a disproportionate distribution, which I think is personally a good thing for the health of the competition. But don't make out that your club is forgoing or missing out by directing the funding towards NGA.

In theory, of you didn't fund your NGA, you would need less funding from the AFL.

 

[master bate]

Why would you want father/son with minimal compromise to the draft, when you can have father/son with ZERO compromise to the draft?

Because you simply can't have it with no compromise and expect teams to be able to trade up to the sons if they go in the first round. It's not father/son at all if teams have to trade in exactly ahead of every single pick that would be used to draft their player. To have a father son rule at all is going to require some form of draft compromise. You can go no discount, or 20% overs and you have to have a pick within 5 and top 5 picks are exempt from father/son. Plenty you can do that makes the compromise very minimal but at least ensures fair value.

But you can't just expect teams to be able to pull picks from thin air if no one else wants to deal. Cal Twomey's breakdown of the moves and non moves made on draft night show just how hard it is to move even 3 spots around the middle of the first round. Half the league wanted Curtin and GWS only dealt with Adelaide because it kept them in the draft range they wanted. And that was for pick 8.

If Curtin was an Eagles father son despite offering a heck of a deal they couldn't get up to get him.

Melbourne have tried everything the last 2 years to get a top 5 pick so they can replace Luke Jackson with quality for quality. Forget about Harley Reid obviously, but if Bailey Humphrey last year or Duursma or Nick Watson this year were father sons the Dees couldn't get either of them despite offers of 3 firsts for the Bear and pick 7 plus a future first to get the guys this year.

 

[WilloTree]

Because you simply can't have it with no compromise and expect teams to be able to trade up to the sons if they go in the first round. It's not father/son at all if teams have to trade in exactly ahead of every single pick that would be used to draft their player.

Actually, that's exactly what you can have. Clubs can acquire picks from trading draft picks, future picks, players and salary space. If there is a player you really want on your list - draft him.

To have a father son rule at all is going to require some form of draft compromise. You can go no discount, or 20% overs and you have to have a pick within 5 and top 5 picks are exempt from father/son. Plenty you can do that makes the compromise very minimal but at least ensures fair value.

The player doesn't stop being someone's son because the AFL don't have a shithouse rule about it. He can still play for his dad's team. Even if the club doesn't get their act together and draft him then he can ask for a trade after 12 months. It's really not the end of the world. If fact, it's a better story.

But you can't just expect teams to be able to pull picks from thin air if no one else wants to deal. Cal Twomey's breakdown of the moves and non moves made on draft night show just how hard it is to move even 3 spots around the middle of the first round. Half the league wanted Curtin and GWS only dealt with Adelaide because it kept them in the draft range they wanted. And that was for pick 8.

No one is saying from thin air. You trade for them.

If Curtin was an Eagles father son despite offering a heck of a deal they couldn't get up to get him.

Good example. Eagles had pick 1. Use that. They also had a valuable F1 AND some players with top 5 pick value. It's not rocket science.

Melbourne have tried everything the last 2 years to get a top 5 pick so they can replace Luke Jackson with quality for quality. Forget about Harley Reid obviously, but if Bailey Humphrey last year or Duursma or Nick Watson this year were father sons the Dees couldn't get either of them despite offers of 3 firsts for the Bear and pick 7 plus a future first to get the guys this year.

Are they offering enough to get one? Obviously not. Plenty of other teams have traded top 5 picks.

If they are offering enough and clubs won't deal with them, maybe there's another issue. In Melbourne's case I'd look at how they operate. They rheemed Freo on the Jackson deal, and payed massive unders in the Langdon deal. Seems they want a Kings ransom if someone leaves, but don't pay fair value when they trade someone in. That shit will come back at you. No rocket science here either.

People are over complicating a very simple resolution.

Get rid of it.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Agreed. Roos should get no 1st round pick for the next 4 years.

GCS get no 1st round pick for the next 2 years.

I’d watch it if i were you. If there was any club that deserved to have their draft picks removed this year then it was your club for bringing the league into disrepute, unfairly impacting the operations of two other clubs, and affecting the wellbeing of multiple current and former employees (and their families) from the wider AFL industry.

 

[WilloTree]

Does anyone know if any other league/s have a father/son rule?

Might be interesting to see how they do it.

 

[rye]

between the continual equating of the NGA's / father sons and the northern academies as if they are even remotely comparable to the consistent refusal to examine the academy system within the broader equity of the AFL competition its hard to come to any other conclusion than most of the people wanting to gut the northern academies itt are either arguing in bad faith or willfully ignorant

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

B
I
N
G
O

A hint is the 2 people who are actually spearheading this change which is long overdue but why not open discussion to all CEO/Coaches instead of just listening to 2?

The issue Vic (and Wa) clubs have with the Northern State academies is having those clubs pay a fairer price for them

The Suns got 4 first round picks from their academy for basically one first round pick (pick 5) that they downgrade traded with the Dogs, that is the main crux of the issue, not the academies themselves.

 

[GC2015]

Does anyone know if any other league/s have a father/son rule?

Might be interesting to see how they do it.

The NRL has a father-son rule for State of Origin e.g. Cooper Cronk currently lives in Sydney because he works for Fox. His son was born in Sydney and is likely to grow up there due to Cronk's media commitments. If the son ends up being good enough to play SoO when he's older then he will only be eligible to represent Queensland because his father played for the Maroons. I believe a player's father only has to play one State of Origin game for his son to be eligible.

Similar to the AFL father-son rule where another state/club can spend lots of money developing a player and then he just ends up picking his father's club in another state when the draft rolls around. Bailey Scott was an example of that where he spent six years in the Suns academy and chose to go father-son to North Melbourne in his draft year. We'll probably see the same thing play out with Boston Everitt (St Kilda) and Kalani White (Melbourne) over the next two years. Even Will Ashcroft (Brisbane) spent four years in the Suns academy.

So yeah. The father-son rule is undermining the northern academies to some degree and other clubs are benefitting after having spent little to no money on the player's development. Nick Blakey is probably the one example of it going the other way but that surely had a lot to do with his father being a long-time Swans employee at the time. We've also seen recent examples of players who are both father-son AND academy eligible for a club with Jasper Fletcher (Brisbane) and Indhi Kirk (Sydney) both falling into that category.

 

[Mat Mann]

Victorian clubs are trying to distract from the fact they've won 15 of the last 17 premierships, have inherent advantages in the fixture (the bigger Victorian clubs especially), off-field endorsements, higher proportion of their lists from their home state, less travel and the Grand Final being played at the MCG.

I often see this and wonder how those poor interstate clubs even manage to survive

I mean 2 teams in Sydney and they can't attract sponsors? WC struggles every year to balance the books?
the fact every team outside VIC has home team games telecast weekly vs Melbournes 3 fta slots, some VIC teams struggle to be on FTA more than a handful of times each year, let alone every week. Imagine that selling point to sponsors.

off-field endorsements - tbh not sure what you are referring to here but I can assure you WC or Adelaide can attract the same things as say Hawthorne or Essendon can.

inherent advantages in the fixture - what like playing 12 opponents who would largely play at your home ground once a year? yeah, I get the travel, but you are already guaranteed to play GC twice like the 2 Sydney teams do and WA teams and Adel teams play each other twice each year.
unless somehow you intend to remove Vic Club's right to host home games, what is the alternative?

we played 14 games at Marvel despite sharing that ground with 4 other teams, twice at the MCG (we hosted one vs an MCG tenant), with Port and Freo the only teams we didn't have to travel for, I don't see any inherent fixture bias

you always leave out the advantage of playing home finals at your home venue, that last time my club got a home final at our home ground was 12 years ago, for our only home final at our home ground despite making 2 grand finals since we were forced to move to Docklands. forced to play on the MCG for just the 3rd time that year.

and it's never mentioned how much more interstate clubs receive from stadiums vs Vic clubs, Docklands is by far the worst by a long way despite the AFL owning it.

 

[HairyO]

I’d watch it if i were you. If there was any club that deserved to have their draft picks removed this year then it was your club for bringing the league into disrepute, unfairly impacting the operations of two other clubs, and affecting the wellbeing of multiple current and former employees (and their families) from the wider AFL industry.

Essendon were given pick 1 after being done for doping.

By AFL logic we should have been rewarded not punished.

 

[philthy05]

Why the hell is everyone making it so complicated?


The main issue is that teams are matching bids on high calibre players with a bunch of late picks bundled together.


All that needs to happen to make it fair and stop that from happening is to make a rule that only picks in the round and following round of the bid can be used

Ie 1st round bid only 1st and 2nd rounders can be used to match.

Stops teams using a glut of picks in the 50’s on gun players

Bid in the 2nd round can be matched with 2nd and 3rd round picks and so on.


It’s simple, easy to enforce, allows teams to still take players , and is fairer for all involved.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Sure…just rolling this around the mouth like fine wine.

Daicos for three picks after 35 or whatever it was
Gold Coast get to trade into the next year and get first round picks while picking up 4 first round kids for nothing picks.

Few years later, Jack Pav and Finn Mundy are good enough to get drafted and we have to give up two first rounders…with no possibility of trading into next year

Hmm tasty

Well if you keep whinging about the system, of course it's going to change, but here you are whinging before it even changes.

 

[JasRulz63]

I often see this and wonder how those poor interstate clubs even manage to survive

I mean 2 teams in Sydney and they can't attract sponsors? WC struggles every year to balance the books?
the fact every team outside VIC has home team games telecast weekly vs Melbournes 3 fta slots, some VIC teams struggle to be on FTA more than a handful of times each year, let alone every week. Imagine that selling point to sponsors.

off-field endorsements - tbh not sure what you are referring to here but I can assure you WC or Adelaide can attract the same things as say Hawthorne or Essendon can.

inherent advantages in the fixture - what like playing 12 opponents who would largely play at your home ground once a year? yeah, I get the travel, but you are already guaranteed to play GC twice like the 2 Sydney teams do and WA teams and Adel teams play each other twice each year.
unless somehow you intend to remove Vic Club's right to host home games, what is the alternative?

we played 14 games at Marvel despite sharing that ground with 4 other teams, twice at the MCG (we hosted one vs an MCG tenant), with Port and Freo the only teams we didn't have to travel for, I don't see any inherent fixture bias

you always leave out the advantage of playing home finals at your home venue, that last time my club got a home final at our home ground was 12 years ago, for our only home final at our home ground despite making 2 grand finals since we were forced to move to Docklands. forced to play on the MCG for just the 3rd time that year.

and it's never mentioned how much more interstate clubs receive from stadiums vs Vic clubs, Docklands is by far the worst by a long way despite the AFL owning it.

I would do a full reply to this but I feel like it will take this thread too far off topic, and most of it has been covered elsewhere.

I will say however that I think the small Victorian clubs cop a rough deal as well. Big Victorian clubs make up the majority of the 15 Victorian winners of the last 17 premierships.