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

[giantroo]

 

[Taylor]

Taylor can you please shed some more light on your wildly inaccurate comments on Gulden? Were you trying to imply that he was parachuted into an academy zone by his parents or something?

Bronwyn joined the Swans in 2018.

Would you like to go over the points again.

 

[.Shotties.]

Bronwyn joined the Swans in 2018.

Okay, after Errol had been in the academy for five years. That's not the reason he was in the academy as you implied.

Would you like to go over the points again.

Absolutely. What point are you trying to make? Are you trying to compare Gulden with some of the last-second signing attempts made by Victorian clubs or what?

 

[Taylor]

Okay, after Errol had been in the academy for five years. That's not the reason he was in the academy as you implied.

Absolutely. What point are you trying to make? Are you trying to compare Gulden with some of the last-second signing attempts made by Victorian clubs or what?

I'm suggesting that players who find themselves in academy zones by virtue of their parents working at the club should be excluded from academy access benefits - same with Nick Blakey.

I don't think anyone can make the case that Gulden or Blakey were new finds for AFL in the heartland of Rugby.

 

[.Shotties.]

I'm suggesting that players who find themselves in academy zones by virtue of their parents working at the club should be excluded from academy access benefits - same with Nick Blakey.

...what the **** are you talking about? Gulden wasn't in the zone because his mum worked at the Swans. She started there five years after he joined the academy. His family had lived in the area from around the time he was born.

Jesus Christ. Are you seriously claiming the reason Gulden was in the academy was because his mum worked at the Swans?

 

[Taylor]

...what the **** are you talking about? Gulden wasn't in the zone because his mum worked at the Swans. She started there five years after he joined the academy. His family had lived in the area from around the time he was born.

Jesus Christ. Are you seriously claiming the reason Gulden was in the academy was because his mum worked at the Swans?

What happens with Gulden if Bronwyn is instead offered a position back in her native Victoria, perhaps with the Blues that the family was such fans of?

 

[sydney_gws]

Wasn’t today the day they were meant to announce what is going to happen?

If the AFL running their mouth turns into nothing changing this year then it’s just been a dogs breakfast from a comms point of view

With Ned Guy involved, who knows

 

[.Shotties.]

What happens with Gulden if Bronwyn is instead offered a position back in her native Victoria, perhaps with the Blues that the family was such fans of?

This is a long way around just admitting you were wrong. Gulden being in the academy predates his mum working at the Swans. He wasn't in the academy because his mum worked there.

 

[Taylor]

This is a long way around just admitting you were wrong. Gulden being in the academy predates his mum working at the Swans. He wasn't in the academy because his mum worked there.

That he remained in the academy was because the Swans employed her.

That he was considered an academy player to boost AFL participation in rugbyland at all was an insult to the cause. The AFL may as well say it's strictly about giving the Swans access to talent.

 

[.Shotties.]

That he remained in the academy was because the Swans employed her.

No he wasn't, this is an entirely baseless statement .

That he was considered an academy player to boost AFL participation in rugbyland at all was an insult to the cause.

Hahaha. He was a sydney, born and raised, multi-sport athlete in the eastern suburbs who was in the academy from the first possible opportunity. He is exactly what the academy is for.

Jesus Christ, the waves of pure shit and invention that gets posted in relation to the academies. You've puzzled together a few half pieces of information, the majority of which was incorrect, and from there come up with some stupid, evolving theory about him only being in the academy because his mum worked for the Swans.

 

[Taylor]

No he wasn't, this is an entirely baseless statement .

Says the bloke who was so confident that Bronwyn joined the Swans after he was drafted...

 

[.Shotties.]

Says the bloke who was so confident that Bronwyn joined the Swans after he was drafted...

No, I qualified my uncertainty with that. But again, you're just making entirely baseless statements. His dad's not Victorian. His mum being employed by the club isn't the reason he joined the academy and (following the half-arsed evolution of your theory) she isn't the reason he remained in it.

 

[sydney_gws]

By limiting to 3 picks, it can be made quite fair this system, can basically force clubs to in some cases use 3 first rounders to match.
If Brisbabe had to use say picks 14,32,16 to match a bid for Ashcroft at pick 4, that would be quite fair in my view.

 

[BloodySwan]

That he remained in the academy was because the Swans employed her.

That he was considered an academy player to boost AFL participation in rugbyland at all was an insult to the cause. The AFL may as well say it's strictly about giving the Swans access to talent.

You're suggesting the Swans went out of their way to recruit the parent of a player 3 years before he is eligible to be drafted because they felt confident he would be a star? Kid was picked second round, how did so many clubs get it wrong?

Honestly if this is what you believe you're so delusional there is no point in arguing

 

[.Shotties.]

You're suggesting the Swans went out of their way to recruit the parent of a player 3 years before he is eligible to be drafted because they felt confident he would be a star?

Or that he would leave the academy after being in it for years because... his mum wasn't employed by the club?

Such a weird claim to make

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You're suggesting the Swans went out of their way to recruit the parent of a player 3 years before he is eligible to be drafted because they felt confident he would be a star? Kid was picked second round, how did so many clubs get it wrong?

Honestly if this is what you believe you're so delusional there is no point in arguing

If anything we paid significant overs for Campbell let’s be real he’s mediocre and we got a slight bargain for Gulden but clubs had nearly 2 full rounds to bid on Gulden. The props should go to the Seans for development he didn’t come to Sydney as some elite talent picked top 5.

We need to chance the point curve and it will happen.

 

[dmac_55]

Gulden entering the academy at 11 YO is too late IMO.

Can we start prelisting babies due instead. Lachie Neale

9

Lachie Neale

Age

31

Ht

178cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.0

5star

K

11.5

4star

HB

15.5

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.7

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

28.3

5star

K

13.9

5star

HB

14.4

5star

M

4.6

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

12.0

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

7.4

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

1.0

3star

CL

0.4

3star

's son should already be a part of the Brisbane Academy.

Don't worry about 11 YO's, its time to start scouting maternity wards!

 

[swuzzlebubble]

By limiting to 3 picks, it can be made quite fair this system, can basically force clubs to in some cases use 3 first rounders to match.
If Brisbabe had to use say picks 14,32,16 to match a bid for Ashcroft at pick 4, that would be quite fair in my view.

Yes I'm thinking along these lines too.
IMO they could fix the whole system just by setting the discounts based on the number of picks used.
Eg use a single pick gets the highest discount.
Two picks gets reduced or no discount.
3 picks perhaps costs a premium and 4+ either costs more or isn't allowed.

The only other thing I'd look at is not allowing clubs to trade into the draft ahead of picks they've already used for bid matching.

 

[Stamos]

Yes I'm thinking along these lines too.
IMO they could fix the whole system just by setting the discounts based on the number of picks used.
Eg use a single pick gets the highest discount.
Two picks gets reduced or no discount.
3 picks perhaps costs a premium and 4+ either costs more or isn't allowed.

The only other thing I'd look at is not allowing clubs to trade into the draft ahead of picks they've already used for bid matching.

If they get the points scale right, none of these other restrictions will be necessary.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

If they get the points scale right, none of these other restrictions will be necessary.

They could easily stifle trades if the point scale is changed too far. For every team trading back for points there's another looking to trade up to get a deal done.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

They could easily stifle trades if the point scale is changed too far. For every team trading back for points there's another looking to trade up to get a deal done.

An increase by lets say 1.5 times in the first round is more than reasonable. We don't need Read or Rogers situations from last year where late 30's and beyond were enough for top 15 picks. Take the discount down to 5% and that seems about right, there's still a bit off for development but you aren't getting a player for 2c in the dollar and that's the issue.

 

[Stamos]

They could easily stifle trades if the point scale is changed too far. For every team trading back for points there's another looking to trade up to get a deal done.

The point is making it more equitable though.

 

[mpal6]

An increase by lets say 1.5 times in the first round is more than reasonable. We don't need Read or Rogers situations from last year where late 30's and beyond were enough for top 15 picks. Take the discount down to 5% and that seems about right, there's still a bit off for development but you aren't getting a player for 2c in the dollar and that's the issue.

First round + second round would be fair.

14,16,32 suggested earlier is 2 firsts and a second - that's an 18 year old draftee not some premium player.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

The point is making it more equitable though.

Equitable is about perceptions though.
If a club matched a bid at #1 with #2 no-one would worry even with 117 points over after 20% discount. But if they turn #2 into a bunch of lower picks to match with it looks bad.
Clubs work at the pick values between themselves and there's clearly a premium for trading up.
It's the system that allows multiple picks to be combined for bid matching.

 

[Stamos]

Equitable is about perceptions though.
If a club matched a bid at #1 with #2 no-one would worry even with 117 points over after 20% discount. But if they turn #2 into a bunch of lower picks to match with it looks bad.
Clubs work at the pick values between themselves and there's clearly a premium for trading up.
It's the system that allows multiple picks to be combined for bid matching.

Yes, but the problem is that the points values have been off, so that with a trade done in order to draft a certain player picks have a certain value (ie a real world trade), which doesn't match up with trades done to maximise points to match bids.

Perfect example is the Essendon-Geelong trade done last year, #10 for #11 + #31

 

[Dangerousfield]

Can't believe the AFL is taking so long about this. They knew it was shyte several drafts ago, JUH, NDaicos, Ashcroft, Darcy all rang alarm bells but AFL did nothing. AFL knew the Gold Coast golden haul was coming the previous year but again did nothing.

Could have been (can still be) simply fixed by
steepening the points curve to extinguish any point value by pick 36
removing discount
limiting picks used to two from current draft, then any shortfall comes off next years first and that is applied regardless of who finally holds the pick, making trading that pick very difficult.

Simple solutions that are difficult to manipulate and rort.

But we're the AFL so we'll drag it out and potentially allow another heavily compromised draft to occur in 2024 with again more bargains for a handful of recently kotd clubs