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

[giantroo]

 

[sr36]

I'll give the new DVI curve a shelf life of 24 months until some big Vic club struggles to match their top 5 NGA player due to new terrible points curve system.

It's unfair and needs a change until it starts biting everyone and then it's not so unfair after all.

Have they published the curve yet?

Edit just seen it. 3 pick 15s for pick 1 is still a bargain. You wouldn't get that in trade.

 

[mpal6]

Have they published the curve yet?

They mentioned the % discount and up to which pick and some journos have put the table out there.

 

[Obeanie1]

So basically no changes this year for the teams lucky enough to benefit from the rort.

But the AFL has bought off the rest of the comp for 12 months by allowing NGA bid matching from pick 1. So back to when the Bulldogs landed JUH at pick 1 after winning the flag and making finals, on top of also landing multiple father son pick ups.

Sounds just what the AFL does. Dances around the real issue, doesn't make a decision and puts it off for another day. In the mean time it contiues to prop up the rort for its pet expansion clubs for another 12 months.

Why am I not shocked by this?

No wonder teams like Collingwood dont rate the draft.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Bulldogs landed JUH at pick 1 after winning the flag and making finals

I mean if you can't even get your facts right...

 

[Obeanie1]

I mean if you can't even get your facts right...

And what incorrect facts are those exactly?

Dogs won a flag in 2016. Landed JUH 4 years after winning the flag, they didnt bottom out to land him did they? Along with multiple father sons.

 

[Choogler]

NGA's are a rort. Name one NGA draftee that was brought into the underage system by an AFL club and nurtured through that junior pathway. They are all already in the junior pathway before clubs ever know of their existence.

All the clubs do is scour the talent pathways for kids that fit the pathetic eligibility criteria, "where were you born son"? and "where were your mum and dad born son"? then claim them.

That the son of a 250 game SANFL player can be NGA eligible just because he was born in Egypt when his M&D were on a work assignment for 12 months shows what a farce NGA's are.

Let's be clear about this, NGAs were created to appease the whinging by the big Vic clubs about northern academies. Eddie McGuire & co railroaded the AFL into the farce that is NGAs

I hope you are talking about Vic clubs because WCE through its NGA (Naitanui Foundation) have nurtured and brought many kids into the under-age pathway and I can't think of a single kid they've got for their investment.

 

[Choogler]

Some of the posts in here are so strange. It’s not like it’s the AFL’s fault that some of you chose to live in one of the most isolated major cities on the planet

Because of that the teams are going to have to travel to play where a majority of the other teams are based. You’re not owed anything by anyone because of that

Such an entitled and very Victorian comment your first one. We may live, and support teams, in a city on the other side of the country, but explain to me how, in what is supposed to be a national competition, we have to travel to other isolated cities when Collingwood and the other "big" Vic clubs NEVER travel to Tasmania. We face enough inequities as it is, why do we draw NM & Hawthorn so regularly in Tasmania? As I said, your view is nothing more than self-entitled! I'll just revel in the knowledge that without us, you probably wouldn't even have a club to support because those "big" Vic clubs (including your beloved Richmond) were on the verge of being shut down in 1986 by the Vic Corporate Regulator. It was ONLY the WCE and Brisbane Bears money that saved that from happening. Even more recently, it was only prop-up funding from the AFL that kept you lot afloat..

Saving football: New documents reveal how close the VFL came to shutting down

In 1986, the Victorian Football League came perilously close to being shut down. Thirty years on, never before seen documents reveal how close the end nearly came.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Profop]

Such an entitled and very Victorian comment your first one. We may live, and support teams, in a city on the other side of the country, but explain to me how, in what is supposed to be a national competition, we have to travel to other isolated cities when Collingwood and the other "big" Vic clubs NEVER travel to Tasmania. We face enough inequities as it is, why do we draw NM & Hawthorn so regularly in Tasmania? As I said, your view is nothing more than self-entitled! I'll just revel in the knowledge that without us, you probably wouldn't even have a club to support because those "big" Vic clubs (including your beloved Richmond) were on the verge of being shut down in 1986 by the Vic Corporate Regulator. It was ONLY the WCE and Brisbane Bears money that saved that from happening. Even more recently, it was only prop-up funding from the AFL that kept you lot afloat..

Saving football: New documents reveal how close the VFL came to shutting down

In 1986, the Victorian Football League came perilously close to being shut down. Thirty years on, never before seen documents reveal how close the end nearly came.

www.theage.com.au

I mean if you’re heading over to Melbourne anyway is the extra bit to Tassie that big of a deal?

I agree that it likely is pretty unfair but that’s more the AFL’s doing. They’re always going to focus on revenue

 

[Choogler]

I mean if you’re heading over to Melbourne anyway is the extra bit to Tassie that big of a deal?

I agree that it likely is pretty unfair but that’s more the AFL’s doing. They’re always going to focus on revenue

well why don't they send WB, StK, or Melbourne because they get pretty poor crowds in Melb anyway. 19000 at Melb v Freo not so long ago.

 

[Profop]

well why don't they send WB, StK, or Melbourne because they get pretty poor crowds in Melb anyway. 19000 at Melb v Freo not so long ago.

They do send those clubs

Saints have already played in Tassie this year

 

[dmac_55]

With NSW and QLD doing well on the weekend in U17s match can anyone remind me the rules on bid matching.

Obviously points are going to cost a lot more and make it much more difficult to match multiple bids, but I haven't been able to find the hard rules depending on ladder position. Of the top of my head:

1 if you make top 4
2 if you make top 8
unlimited if you dont?

Swans could have 3-4 first rounders in the 2025 draft. They likely only get to match 1-2.

Brisbane the same with potentially 2 first rounders.

 

[Jirik13]

With NSW and QLD doing well on the weekend in U17s match can anyone remind me the rules on bid matching.

Obviously points are going to cost a lot more and make it much more difficult to match multiple bids, but I haven't been able to find the hard rules depending on ladder position. Of the top of my head:

1 if you make top 4
2 if you make top 8
unlimited if you dont?

Swans could have 3-4 first rounders in the 2025 draft. They likely only get to match 1-2.

Brisbane the same with potentially 2 first rounders.

Correct (round one). I hope it will be the same for NGA and FS (highly doubt).

IMO, top 4 should be no match.

 

[dmac_55]

Correct (round one). I hope it will be the same for NGA and FS (highly doubt).

IMO, top 4 should be no match.

Brisbane in the 2022 draft after finishing top 4 matched:
Will Ashcroft (F/S) 2nd + Jasper Fletcher (Academy) 12th. So Father son rule must be separate to academy limits?

Just going back on that haul and the adjusted 10% discount plus only having value for the first 54 picks.

Will Ashcroft + Fletcher would require 3414 points
Brisbane traded and used for matching: 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 47, 49 = 2973 points

This is without any changes to the 'curve' which is going to be even more significant.

The AFL reported to shaving over 10,000 points in total off the DVI. Currently this is the breakdown:

1-18 = 28,600 points (likely wont shave much if any off this)
19-38 = 13,600 points
39-54 = 5,016 points
54 onwards = 1971 points - Removed

Will be very interesting how they assign these point shavings. If the majority of the 8,000 points comes from rounds 2-3 it will make it almost impossible for a club to match 2 first round bids unless they have multiple first and second round picks in that draft. It also could have an impact on any academy player drafted after pick 20 being easier to match than the current system.

End result will likely be that more future trading is included and teams with multiple academy prospects, father sons in the one year will have to decide on 'selling the farm' in order to secure their services.

 

[dmac_55]

They mentioned the % discount and up to which pick and some journos have put the table out there.

Which journos? Have they removed 10,000 points in total off the board?

It will look entirely different to current model based off what they have said on the AFL statement.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Brisbane in the 2022 draft after finishing top 4 matched:
Will Ashcroft (F/S) 2nd + Jasper Fletcher (Academy) 12th. So Father son rule must be separate to academy limits?

Just going back on that haul and the adjusted 10% discount plus only having value for the first 54 picks.

Will Ashcroft + Fletcher would require 3414 points
Brisbane traded and used for matching: 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 47, 49 = 2973 points

This is without any changes to the 'curve' which is going to be even more significant.

The AFL reported to shaving over 10,000 points in total off the DVI. Currently this is the breakdown:

1-18 = 28,600 points (likely wont shave much if any off this)
19-38 = 13,600 points
39-54 = 5,016 points
54 onwards = 1971 points - Removed

Will be very interesting how they assign these point shavings. If the majority of the 8,000 points comes from rounds 2-3 it will make it almost impossible for a club to match 2 first round bids unless they have multiple first and second round picks in that draft. It also could have an impact on any academy player drafted after pick 20 being easier to match than the current system.

End result will likely be that more future trading is included and teams with multiple academy prospects, father sons in the one year will have to decide on 'selling the farm' in order to secure their services.

You can still go into deficit can’t you?
If so I think teams will just get what points they can and accept that they will lose their first pick the following year

 

[Jirik13]

So Father son rule must be separate to academy limits?

Yeah, FS are excluded, and I highly doubt they will be included in limits.

 

[dmac_55]

You can still go into deficit can’t you?
If so I think teams will just get what points they can and accept that they will lose their first pick the following year

I would assume so.

Also deficit may be a better option that trading your future first. Because as far as I recall if your say 900 points short than your first round pick will just be downgraded until you reach the 900 points. You don't 'lose' the pick, it just gets downgraded.

Reading the press release and the media have made a big fuss about no points from pick 54 onwards. That is miniscule in comparison to the 20% reduction in total points from picks 1-53, especially if the top 10 picks are still the same points:
1: 3000 points
2: 2500
3: 2200 etc.

In summary:
Losing 10% discount on matching compared to previous years
Each pick from the second round onwards losing possibly 25%+ of its value compared to currently

If a club makes the top 8 and has 1 gun top 3 academy / FS player. Matching will drain almost your entire draft hand unless you have already gotten future picks from other clubs.

If a club makes the top 8 with 2 top 12 prospects, you probably just have to pick 1 of them. Otherwise you are likely wiping out 2 years of drafting for those 2 guys.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

What are people talking about? This has already been published:

https://mcusercontent.com/7cd32ad25c565a577b74060a9/files/00853ebd-ebff-a840-7be0-feba31347590/DVI.pdf

AFL player movement and list management changes

The AFL Commission has approved changes related to AFL Player Movement and List Management for 2024 and 2025

www.afl.com.au

Reduction from 20 to 10% and slight changes to the value of points relative to the 3000.

Matching pick 2 with pick 30 onward with consecutive picks could previously be done with effectively 30, 31, 32, 55

Now matching pick 2 with pick 30 onward can be done with pick 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 42.

If you had picks 30, 31 and 32 and 55, which previously matched pick 2, you would now additionally need pick 15.

It's a big change, and while it probably doesn't quite yet represent what pick 2 would go for in an open trade (no team, even if they had mass players requesting a trades and retirements and 12 open list spots or whatever, would elect to break up their pick 2 in the draft for picks 10, 30, 31, 32 and 55 [upgrading 15 to 10 as that's the difference between 90 and 100% of the value]), it's getting closer.

 

[GC2015]

The Dees having Mac Andrew ripped away from us will be my asterisk on our poor performances for the next 10-15 years. No club has been disadvantaged more. Pathetic AFL. Can't wait til Kane gets the boot. Why the hell is there even a discount for a father/son. She's lost the bloody plot.

I can appreciate looking for a reason as to why your club is in the state that it currently is, but if you take a step back then you'll realise these kinds of scenarios have happened to many clubs and the Dees aren't the only ones. For example:

Alex Rance was F/S eligible for West Coast up until 14 years of age when the AFL decided to double the required games from 50 to 100. The end result was Richmond drafting a player that becomes a 5x AA key defender who played 200 games and was a part of their drought breaking premiership team. Were West Coast blaming the rule change for their tumble down to 15th in 2008 and 16th in 2010?

The same thing happened with Jeremy and Mitch McGovern who were F/S eligible for Fremantle until the rule changed. I'm sure the 14th placed Dockers in 2009 could have really used a player like Jeremy McGovern if he had have remained F/S eligible for Freo. They also missed out on Jesse Motlop through the NGA rules being altered.

In 2006, the AFL announced a tweak to the F/S rule that meant SA & WA clubs could not claim F/S access to sons of SANFL or WAFL players who reached the arbitrary games criteria shortly after the 20-year period that proceeded their entry into the AFL. This meant soon to be number 1 pick Bryce Gibbs was not eligible to be F/S drafted to the Crows. Similar eligibility issues would hit Port Adelaide when they missed out on drafting players like Brad Ebert and James Borlase.

GWS missed out on Todd Marshall, Charlie Spargo and Jacob Koschitzke after years of developing them because the AFL decided to change their academy zone boundaries. Gold Coast spent five years developing Will Ashcroft through its academy program and the AFL ruled a year before his draft that the Suns did not have access to him because he moved to Victoria before his 15th birthday.

Not a rule change, but Brisbane missed out on the number 1 draft pick Marc Murphy as a F/S pick. 2005 happened to be the year that the Brisbane began their slide down the ladder and could have really used a player like Murphy to avoid the depths they fell to over the next decade. Sydney has also missed out on a few years over the years like Joe Daniher as a F/S pick.

The list of players that looked draft eligible to a particular club at one stage or another and then later weren't goes on and on. The Dees aren't the first to suffer from it and they certainly won't be the last because the AFL always reserves the right to change rules if they see fit.

 

[danster168]

I can appreciate looking for a reason as to why your club is in the state that it currently is, but if you take a step back then you'll realise these kinds of scenarios have happened to many clubs and the Dees aren't the only ones. For example:

Alex Rance was F/S eligible for West Coast up until 14 years of age when the AFL decided to double the required games from 50 to 100. The end result was Richmond drafting a player that becomes a 5x AA key defender who played 200 games and was a part of their drought breaking premiership team. Were West Coast blaming the rule change for their tumble down to 15th in 2008 and 16th in 2010?

The same thing happened with Jeremy and Mitch McGovern who were F/S eligible for Fremantle until the rule changed. I'm sure the 14th placed Dockers in 2009 could have really used a player like Jeremy McGovern if he had have remained F/S eligible for Freo. They also missed out on Jesse Motlop through the NGA rules being altered.

In 2006, the AFL announced a tweak to the F/S rule that meant SA & WA clubs could not claim F/S access to sons of SANFL or WAFL players who reached the arbitrary games criteria shortly after the 20-year period that proceeded their entry into the AFL. This meant soon to be number 1 pick Bryce Gibbs was not eligible to be F/S drafted to the Crows. Similar eligibility issues would hit Port Adelaide when they missed out on drafting players like Brad Ebert and James Borlase.

GWS missed out on Todd Marshall, Charlie Spargo and Jacob Koschitzke after years of developing them because the AFL decided to change their academy zone boundaries. Gold Coast spent five years developing Will Ashcroft through its academy program and the AFL ruled a year before his draft that the Suns did not have access to him because he moved to Victoria before his 15th birthday.

Not a rule change, but Brisbane missed out on the number 1 draft pick Marc Murphy as a F/S pick. 2005 happened to be the year that the Brisbane began their slide down the ladder and could have really used a player like Murphy to avoid the depths they fell to over the next decade. Sydney has also missed out on a few years over the years like Joe Daniher as a F/S pick.

The list of players that looked draft eligible to a particular club at one stage or another and then later weren't goes on and on. The Dees aren't the first to suffer from it and they certainly won't be the last because the AFL always reserves the right to change rules if they see fit.

I didn't know that about Alex Rance. I actually feel better reading that.

With all due respect Mac Andrew is better than Marshall, Spargo and Koschitzke.

Yeah I remember the Marc Murphy situation vividly.

But yeah, I think it's just that they changed the rules and reinstated the rules and there was only 1 club impact negatively by that rule change. and that was Melbourne. Although I'm not sure what the issue was with Sanders and North.

Like, initially when they changed the NGA rules and I knew we'd miss out on Mac Andrew I thought 'oh well, at least it's for the betterment of the competition and its integrity'. But for them to change the rules back again so quickly is a slap in the face of the Demons.

In all of your examples, they changed the rules, but I don't think they've changed the rules twice in a short amount of time.

People love to sink the boot into the demons because we've had a poor year but the reality is, if they didn't change the rules, we would've won 2 flags. It has set us back 10 years, especially with May nearing an end.

Like look at the ladder, Dogs are only top 4 material because of the father/son rule and NGA rule/ Same with the Lions. Pies wouldn't have even made the finals without their Father/son player. It's such an uneven competition with absolute no integrity that premierships don't even mean much anymore. It's just means you've been kissed the most by the NGA and Father/son rules.

 

[GC2015]

I didn't know that about Alex Rance. I actually feel better reading that.

With all due respect Mac Andrew is better than Marshall, Spargo and Koschitzke.

Yeah I remember the Marc Murphy situation vividly.

But yeah, I think it's just that they changed the rules and reinstated the rules and there was only 1 club impact negatively by that rule change. and that was Melbourne. Although I'm not sure what the issue was with Sanders and North.

Like, initially when they changed the NGA rules and I knew we'd miss out on Mac Andrew I thought 'oh well, at least it's for the betterment of the competition and its integrity'. But for them to change the rules back again so quickly is a slap in the face of the Demons.

In all of your examples, they changed the rules, but I don't think they've changed the rules twice in a short amount of time.

People love to sink the boot into the demons because we've had a poor year but the reality is, if they didn't change the rules, we would've won 2 flags. It has set us back 10 years, especially with May nearing an end.

Like look at the ladder, Dogs are only top 4 material because of the father/son rule and NGA rule/ Same with the Lions. Pies wouldn't have even made the finals without their Father/son player. It's such an uneven competition with absolute no integrity that premierships don't even mean much anymore. It's just means you've been kissed the most by the NGA and Father/son rules.

Yeah it does seem a bit silly to change the rules back after a few years, but the AFL had a decision to make in terms of reducing northern academy access or opening up more NGA access for non-northern clubs. Their conclusion was that they didn't want to undo all the hard work they'd put into the academy programs up north and that means NGA access is open again.

I don't think you can go as far as to say you would've won a second flag if the rule had not been changed. Geelong looked destined to always win in 2022 (when Mac was still incredibly young and inexperienced) and it's hard for me to believe any club other than Collingwood or Brisbane were going to win the flag last year. GWS being the one possible exception.

It sounds like you have a bigger issue with the F/S rule and I don't really blame you after what we saw last year with Darcy Moore and the Daicos boys lifting the cup. However, you're likely going to benefit from another club's hard work next year when Kalani White becomes F/S eligible for your club after spending six years developing in the Suns academy. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[dmac_55]

What are people talking about? This has already been published:

https://mcusercontent.com/7cd32ad25c565a577b74060a9/files/00853ebd-ebff-a840-7be0-feba31347590/DVI.pdf

AFL player movement and list management changes

The AFL Commission has approved changes related to AFL Player Movement and List Management for 2024 and 2025

www.afl.com.au

Reduction from 20 to 10% and slight changes to the value of points relative to the 3000.

Matching pick 2 with pick 30 onward with consecutive picks could previously be done with effectively 30, 31, 32, 55

Now matching pick 2 with pick 30 onward can be done with pick 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 42.

If you had picks 30, 31 and 32 and 55, which previously matched pick 2, you would now additionally need pick 15.

It's a big change, and while it probably doesn't quite yet represent what pick 2 would go for in an open trade (no team, even if they had mass players requesting a trades and retirements and 12 open list spots or whatever, would elect to break up their pick 2 in the draft for picks 10, 30, 31, 32 and 55 [upgrading 15 to 10 as that's the difference between 90 and 100% of the value]), it's getting closer.

Ah sorry I hadn’t found the actual new list. Thanks

 

[danster168]

Yeah it does seem a bit silly to change the rules back after a few years, but the AFL had a decision to make in terms of reducing northern academy access or opening up more NGA access for non-northern clubs. Their conclusion was that they didn't want to undo all the hard work they'd put into the academy programs up north and that means NGA access is open again.

I don't think you can go as far as to say you would've won a second flag if the rule had not been changed. Geelong looked destined to always win in 2022 (when Mac was still incredibly young and inexperienced) and it's hard for me to believe any club other than Collingwood or Brisbane were going to win the flag last year. GWS being the one possible exception.

It sounds like you have a bigger issue with the F/S rule and I don't really blame you after what we saw last year with Darcy Moore and the Daicos boys lifting the cup. However, you're likely going to benefit from another club's hard work next year when Kalani White becomes F/S eligible for your club after spending six years developing in the Suns academy. Swings and roundabouts.

Yeah I wasn't referring to 2022, but I think we would've won in 2023. We lost to the pies by a goal, despite having a lot of injuries, and I mean a lot, then throw in Brayshaw getting concussed 5 mins in, plus we kicked horrendously for goal. I fully believe that with Mac Andrew we win the flag.

Yeah, the father-son bugs me. Everything about it. Not just the access to the player but the club gets a discount! it's embarrassing. With free agency, players are moving all over the place. Joe Daniher is playing for the lions, Lachie Hunter is playing for the Dees, Tom Mitchell at Collingwood, Josh Kennedy who built his career at the Swans. I just think it's a joke.

Regarding Kalani White, it seems like he's not that good. Not a top 30 pick or anything. And the AFL will probably change the rules before we get him anyway. But the damage has been done. Mac Andrew who should be a demon, isn't. And I'll be using it as a valid excuse for as many years as Mac Andrew is dominating the comp.

 

[dmac_55]

Yeah I wasn't referring to 2022, but I think we would've won in 2023. We lost to the pies by a goal, despite having a lot of injuries, and I mean a lot, then throw in Brayshaw getting concussed 5 mins in, plus we kicked horrendously for goal. I fully believe that with Mac Andrew we win the flag.

Yeah, the father-son bugs me. Everything about it. Not just the access to the player but the club gets a discount! it's embarrassing. With free agency, players are moving all over the place. Joe Daniher is playing for the lions, Lachie Hunter is playing for the Dees, Tom Mitchell at Collingwood, Josh Kennedy who built his career at the Swans. I just think it's a joke.

Regarding Kalani White, it seems like he's not that good. Not a top 30 pick or anything. And the AFL will probably change the rules before we get him anyway. But the damage has been done. Mac Andrew who should be a demon, isn't. And I'll be using it as a valid excuse for as many years as Mac Andrew is dominating the comp.

Brisbane would have won 2023 with Will Ashcroft and Jack Payne fit for the GF!

Am I doing this right Dan?

We lost by under a goal to the pies. Also Giants lost by a goal in the prelim

 

[danster168]

Brisbane would have won 2023 with Will Ashcroft and Jack Payne fit for the GF!

Am I doing this right Dan?

We lost by under a goal to the pies. Also Giants lost by a goal in the prelim

I think Brisbane fans should be staying out of any convo's to do with F/S and Academy picks with all due respect.