News AFL to overhaul the draft, discuss changes to Academy and FS bid matching

[Lore]

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Well, it shouldn't be a surprise. This thread is a year old. The clubs knew change was coming. Pretending to be surprised is disingenuous

So rather than play by the rules clubs should make irreversible list management decisions based on rumours? Change has been spoken about for a lot longer than a year, no one knows what the changes will be or when they will be implemented, but you expect clubs to consider those changes? Dumb logic.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

So rather than play by the rules clubs should make irreversible list management decisions based on rumours? Change has been spoken about for a lot longer than a year, no one knows what the changes will be or when they will be implemented, but you expect clubs to consider those changes? Dumb logic.

All list management decisions are irreversible. Including the decision to postpone necessary change to take effect 3 trade periods after flagging the change. To say there hasn't been a long consultation period on this is basically a lie.

At the end of the day, you're talking about turning a big advantage to a few clubs into the same advantage but they pay a couple more picks.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Is that the rumoured change? If they’re going to fix the system they should do it properly.

I think they were talking about just that for this year then other changes from next year

 

[eaglespremiers]

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2024/06...k-and-confusion-with-change-on-the-cards-for/
Kane was asked when clubs and fans will have an answer on the alterations to the father-son and academy system.

“That’s another pillar of the competitive balance review, we’re looking at probably from a couple of months from now, you’ll have a good understanding of father-sons, NGA players, northern academies, player movement-wise and then the state league… national reserves conversation is something we’re working through,” she replied.

“We will make sure we get through the player movement outcomes including father-sons in the next couple of months.”

She added: “It might (impact this year’s draft)… the clubs have been on notice, we’ve been talking about this for 12 months.”

 

[eaglespremiers]

Why don’t they change the rules in a fair and appropriate way?

No one is saying the points or bidding system is perfect, just that changing it halfway through the season when clubs have already planned around the existing rules is wrong.

The rule is broken. The fair and appropriate thing to do is to rectify it immediately (should've been fixed last year TBH when Gold Coast were known early in the year that they were going to make out like bandits).
Also clubs were warned last year (see above).

It would be absolute amateur hour and extremely unfair if the AFL changed the matching process for this years draft, clubs manoeuvre their draft picks on what points to take to the drafts in the 1-2 years before the actual draft on the rules at the time.

Nonsense. The system is currently unfair and needs to be rectified.
The immediate rectification is not unfair. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.
Also, clubs were warned. If they then proceeded to trade in order to compensate for a system that they knew was on its last legs, then that's on the club.

The main supporters who seem incensed about this are Carlton, Brisbane and Richmond (to a lesser degree) supporters. The responses are obviously pretty self serving.
I'm sure if Gold Coast had any supporters then they would be equally as angry.

 

[Foucault1989]

The rule is broken. The fair and appropriate thing to do is to rectify it immediately (should've been fixed last year TBH when Gold Coast were known early in the year that they were going to make out like bandits).
Also clubs were warned last year (see above).

Nonsense. The system is currently unfair and needs to be rectified.
The immediate rectification is not unfair. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.
Also, clubs were warned. If they then proceeded to trade in order to compensate for a system that they knew was on its last legs, then that's on the club.

There's a profound difference between discussing ideas and making decisive, clear changes. No one disagrees the current system isn't cooked and needs changing, but you have to give clubs some notice of the changes. We have a system where you can trade picks from the following year so clubs are always thinking 1 - 2 years ago. Just annouce the changes from next year and it will then provide a fairer opportunity to plan for it.

It just seems ridiculous that some clubs have significantly benefited from this system for years only to pull the rug under other clubs with 2 months notice.

 

[eaglespremiers]

There's a profound difference between discussing ideas and making decisive, clear changes. No one disagrees the current system isn't cooked and needs changing, but you have to give clubs some notice of the changes. We have a system where you can trade picks from the following year so clubs are always thinking 1 - 2 years ago. Just annouce the changes from next year and it will then provide a fairer opportunity to plan for it.

It just seems ridiculous that some clubs have significantly benefited from this system for years only to pull the rug under other clubs with 2 months notice.

For the record I do feel for Carlton in this scenario because they do not have recent benefits from the system so I can understand your frustration as to the timing.
Brisbane and Gold Coast supporters really do not have any cause for complaint given how heavily they have benefitted from this (obviously there's other teams like Bulldogs and Collingwood but as they don't have elite talents available this year they are probably not likely to have an opinion).
Carlton may be caught in the crossfire but Brisbane cannot be allowed to match a bid on Ashcroft at pick 2-3 with far inferior picks. Ditto Gold Coast with Lombard at pick 5-10.
Again, Carlton have my sympathies here.

 

[GC2015]

Interesting stance from the AFL that it now looks like they are considering changes to the 2024 draft, despite some holding the belief that it was untouchable due to future pick trading in previous years. A lot has been made of the Suns' draft haul from last year, but Carlton and Brisbane are the ones that actually stand to lose the most from changes to this year's draft with both having priority access to a pair of predicted first round picks in the Camporeale twins for Carlton and Ashcroft + Marshall for Brisbane vs the one standout for the Suns this year in Lombard.

How would Carlton fans feel if they end up losing access to one of the Camporeale twins because of this priority access inequality narrative that's been pushed so hard by the Victorian media over the last 12 months? Would be a shame for Carlton IMO but you also reap what you sow when it comes to these things. If you're going to preach about equality and fairness (spoiler alert: the league will never be fair, sorry) then your club is going to eventually suffer as well because the reality is that every club in the league has some kind of advantage that at least one of the other 17 clubs doesn't have.

The AFL saw the northern academy complaints and raised the stakes to include the father-son rule. The old adage of 'be careful what you wish for' comes to mind in moments like this.

 

[Foucault1989]

For the record I do feel for Carlton in this scenario because they do not have recent benefits from the system so I can understand your frustration as to the timing.
Brisbane and Gold Coast supporters really do not have any cause for complaint given how heavily they have benefitted from this (obviously there's other teams like Bulldogs and Collingwood but as they don't have elite talents available this year they are probably not likely to have an opinion).
Carlton may be caught in the crossfire but Brisbane cannot be allowed to match a bid on Ashcroft at pick 2-3 with far inferior picks. Ditto Gold Coast with Lombard at pick 5-10.
Again, Carlton have my sympathies here.

Well yeah and I guess the difference Ben and Lucas are projected to be either in the teens or 20s picks wise, yet we'll have to pay a pick in the first and second round for access. That seems quite different from underpaying for a player projected to be top 3 in the draft.

Either way, I actually agree with the proposed changes. Clubs should be paying more for access to these young guns without discounts. My frustration is the roll-out. If the AFL announced these changes prior to last year's trade period, Carlton would have approached it differently and it would be fine.

For the record, I know I'm heavily biased. But if it was your club as well you'd feel the same. I remember in uni we learnt about this idea called "the veil of ignorance". Basically, create laws on the basis that you did not know your starting position in life - class, gender, economic status, country of birth and so forward, as that would likely shape more just laws.

In this case, if you put the "veil of ignorance" on all clubs and fans, and you didn't know if you had access to a father son in this year's draft, would you be in favour of changing the law with such short notice? No, you'd want sufficient notice to prepare and plan.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Interesting stance from the AFL that it now looks like they are considering changes to the 2024 draft, despite some holding the belief that it was untouchable due to future pick trading in previous years. A lot has been made of the Suns' draft haul from last year, but Carlton and Brisbane are the ones that actually stand to lose the most from changes to this year's draft with both having priority access to a pair of predicted first round picks in the Camporeale twins for Carlton and Ashcroft + Marshall for Brisbane vs the one standout for the Suns this year in Lombard.

How would Carlton fans feel if they end up losing access to one of the Camporeale twins because of this priority access inequality narrative that's been pushed so hard by the Victorian media over the last 12 months? Would be a shame for Carlton IMO but you also reap what you sow when it comes to these things. If you're going to preach about equality and fairness (spoiler alert: the league will never be fair, sorry) then your club is going to eventually suffer as well because the reality is that every club in the league has some kind of advantage that at least one of the other 17 clubs doesn't have.

The AFL saw the northern academy complaints and raised the stakes to include the father-son rule. The old adage of 'be careful what you wish for' comes to mind in moments like this.

Carlton has a first, a second, and futures. Greed will be the only thing stopping then taking both campo twins

 

[Foucault1989]

Carlton has a first, a second, and futures. Greed will be the only thing stopping then taking both campo twins

Coming from a Cats supporter. You've cashed in with this in the past now being a moral crusader

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Coming from a Cats supporter. You've cashed in with this in the past now being a moral crusader

Also standing to lose like 20 father sons over the next decade so not like I don't have skin in the game

 

[Foucault1989]

Also standing to lose like 20 father sons over the next decade so not like I don't have skin in the game

But luckily you'll have notice and can make long term list management decisions accordingly. We have Cody Walker in 2026. No issues, we can plan for that during the 2025 draft and trade period. But to have the whole system changed 2 months before the draft....that's amateur.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

But luckily you'll have notice and can make long term list management decisions accordingly. We have Cody Walker in 2026. No issues, we can plan for that during the 2025 draft and trade period. But to have the whole system changed 2 months before the draft....that's amateur.

Again, this thread discussing the changes is a year old

 

[bluebaggerjuls]

Again, this thread discussing the changes is a year old

Except clubs were under under the assumption that changes would not happen in 2024 according to sam Edmund. So how are clubs meant to plan for a year in advance if they dont actually know what the rules are going to be

 

[Foucault1989]

Again, this thread discussing the changes is a year old

Just because there have been discussions doesn't mean there has been any definitive outcome. Were clubs actually told there would be changes this year? Were they told what those changes would be? Were they told the value of picks or rules around matching bids?

It's just another classic AFL house make it up as we go. There is no transparency or continuity in decisions. According to what matrix were North Melbourne given priority picks? This is a professional sport, you can't just flip things on their head in a reactionary way. It's embarrassing. If this was happening to Geelong you'd be fuming.

 

[M Malice]

Well, it shouldn't be a surprise. This thread is a year old. The clubs knew change was coming. Pretending to be surprised is disingenuous

Still you can not run a recruitment department on rumour and innuendo, if it was always going to be changed this year the AFL should have made it crystal clear pre last years trade and draft periods.

AFL administration is a shambolic organisation.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Except clubs were under under the assumption that changes would not happen in 2024 according to sam Edmund. So how are clubs meant to plan for a year in advance if they dont actually know what the rules are going to be

Well that would be a bad assumption then

 

[Foucault1989]

Well that would be a bad assumption then

No it's simply not a fair process. But what else would you expect from the AFL....

 

[M Malice]

The rule is broken. The fair and appropriate thing to do is to rectify it immediately (should've been fixed last year TBH when Gold Coast were known early in the year that they were going to make out like bandits).
Also clubs were warned last year (see above).

Nonsense. The system is currently unfair and needs to be rectified.
The immediate rectification is not unfair. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.
Also, clubs were warned. If they then proceeded to trade in order to compensate for a system that they knew was on its last legs, then that's on the club.

The main supporters who seem incensed about this are Carlton, Brisbane and Richmond (to a lesser degree) supporters. The responses are obviously pretty self serving.
I'm sure if Gold Coast had any supporters then they would be equally as angry.

So we double down and "fix" unfairness with another grossly unfair decision, bizarre logic.

As I posted before I am for change just not this year, it would be ridiculous.

 

[bluebaggerjuls]

Well that would be a bad assumption then

yep they forgot to factor in that the afl is an amateur-run competition and Laura Kane is completely out of her depth.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Just because there have been discussions doesn't mean there has been any definitive outcome. Were clubs actually told there would be changes this year? Were they told what those changes would be? Were they told the value of picks or rules around matching bids?

It's just another classic AFL house make it up as we go. There is no transparency or continuity in decisions. According to what matrix were North Melbourne given priority picks? This is a professional sport, you can't just flip things on their head in a reactionary way. It's embarrassing. If this was happening to Geelong you'd be fuming.

We don't know what clubs were told last year, but I'm sure as hell not taking the word of club managers who clearly have an incentive to bend the truth in this.

I would be angry, but my anger wouldn't make me right

 

[Foucault1989]

yep they forgot to factor in that the afl is an amateur-run competition and Laura Kane is completely out of her depth.

Completely out of her depth.

What are her actual qualifications for the role?

Didn't she work at North Melbourne? Get someone like Brian Cook in that role or Brendan Gale. Someone who will make calm, sensible decisions. Not knee jerk reactions.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Still you can not run a recruitment department on rumour and innuendo, if it was always going to be changed this year the AFL should have made it crystal clear pre last years trade and draft periods.

AFL administration is a shambolic organisation.

And the only people saying it wasn't clear enough are clubs with early selections they'll still get but have to pay more for.

I'll put to the side the opinions of those with a conflict of interest for a second and present a comprehensive list of those against the changes who do not have a conflict of interest:

....

Fin

 

[Foucault1989]

We don't know what clubs were told last year, but I'm sure as hell not taking the word of club managers who clearly have an incentive to bend the truth in this.

I would be angry, but my anger wouldn't make me right

Well can we as fans get objective information about what clubs were told and the definitive time frames from the AFL? Like I'm sure they have documents outlining the ideas and implementation period. If they have, then fair play. Clubs have to suck it up. But if they haven't even you'd have to agree that stinks.