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

[giantroo]

 

[danster168]

The whole FS thing is an absolute joke. no-one can explain to me why teams get the player at a discount. So a team gets kissed and builds a premiership list out of purely father/son picks and get access to players that they don't deserve and for some unknown reason they also get a discount. It's totally messed up.

For the academy picks they need to have like a maximum of 1 every 5 years or something so teams have to prioritise some over others.

 

[Elixuh]

Of course it has nothing to do with getting Ashcroft for 2c in the dollar this year right…

Honestly just change it this year at the very least change the curve that’s 90% of the issue

I’d have the same view regardless of whether we benefit.

 

[Obeanie1]

what part of what I said makes you say "So an MCG tenant playing a non MCG tenant has no home ground advantage?". I literally said when Melbourne play other victorian teams at the mcg there's no advantage. It's literally the 3rd time I've said it.

Well then you are wrong for the 3rd time.

Actually probably more than three times looking back at other posts.

 

[Obeanie1]

Clubs with something to lose under Academy/FS will surely lobby against it being implemented this year, while those with nothing at stake will want it brought in to weaken opposition drafting and improve access to talent.

You would assume some of Crows, Port, Carlton, Richmond, Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and GC will all want it unchanged for their own various FS/Academy/Pick reasons. That leaves a minimum 10 other clubs who would benefit from changes being brought in this year.

Clubs wont lose access to players.

The benefit just gets reduced to an acceptable level and not the current rort.

 

[danster168]

Well then you are wrong for the 3rd time.

Actually probably more than three times looking back at other posts.

So tell me. What advantage does Melbourne get over Essendon at the mcg? Or Rich, or Carlton or Collingwood? I'll wait.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I’d have the same view regardless of whether we benefit.

Clubs would still get access that’s more than enough you just won’t be able to match with junk.

 

[Jeremias]

Clubs would still get access that’s more than enough you just won’t be able to match with junk.

We all understand the changes. You don’t need to explain them again.

We’re into July now and still clubs are in the dark over changes to a system and processes they started planning for over a year ago.

It would be completely amateur to make changes for this year. Which is exactly why I suspect they’ll do it.

 

[Ashman23]

I hope the AFL put a stop to teams manipulating contracts and losing average players getting band 1 compo.

Battle to potentially land a top 5 pick for Saint Kilda?

Saints getting Ross to have a massive whinge in the media about equalisation you can see what they are angling for. They want some of that special herbs and spices to give them a leg up this year.

McKay was bad enough.

The AFL is such a dodgy organisation how it manipulates results you can just see it happening again.

Not my idea but someone else's that I thought was decent enough, compo pick for losing a player should be based on the offer the 'current' team offers.

That way, teams such as North (who by all accounts didn't offer him a contract) with McKay to the Bombers last year would've stopped the Roos from gaining pick three.

Having said that, there should be no compo pick for losing a player and no discount for matching.

 

[dinnaz]

Well if we do it properly:

FA:
#1 Remove all compensation picks. Its a farce at this point.
#2 We can apply the logic that reverse ladder position is the cornerstone of equalisation to FA by adding a "tax" based on ladder position to any FA movements. Finals teams from that year must pay an extra % on the contract. (This would need to go hand in hand with no back ending or smoothing of contracts.) Potentially even granting bottom 4 teams the ability to pay a % outside the salary cap under stringent conditions.

Something that shouldn't happen is Richmond winning a flag and then handing out a 7 million dollar back ended contract to Lynch (from the worst team in comp) without losing a player or picks.

Something along the lines of:
1st: 50%
2nd: 50%
3rd: 40%
4th: 40%
5th: 30%
6th: 30%
7th: 20%
8th: 20%
-----------------
*The actual values would need a bit of work.

 

[Profop]

I agree that there shouldn’t be compensation but top teams shouldn’t be punished for being able to manage their cap well enough to fit in talent

Plenty of teams have had it where the playing list decides to take slight unders in order to push for multiple flags and honestly I think that team over the individual should be something the AFL protects

 

[sydney_gws]

I agree that there shouldn’t be compensation but top teams shouldn’t be punished for being able to manage their cap well enough to fit in talent

Plenty of teams have had it where the playing list decides to take slight unders in order to push for multiple flags and honestly I think that team over the individual should be something the AFL protects

There will always be compensation.
Otherwise Gold Coast, GWS get to many good players taken for no compensation.
I understand the process needs improving
( in my view Free Agency means a player is free to move, but signing club has to pay something as part of the compensation).
I think at the very least compensation needs reducing, I wouldn't mind if maximum compensation was end of round1, and an end of round 2.
No compo picks less than 20 in other words.
Norths compo for McKay should have at most been picks 20, 40.

 

[Cleric]

There will always be compensation.
Otherwise Gold Coast, GWS get to many good players taken for no compensation.
I understand the process needs improving
( in my view Free Agency means a player is free to move, but signing club has to pay something as part of the compensation).
I think at the very least compensation needs reducing, I wouldn't mind if maximum compensation was end of round1, and an end of round 2.
No compo picks less than 20 in other words.
Norths compo for McKay should have at most been picks 20, 40.

If you have a system that allows a player to move clubs without having to complete a fair trade with the team he is leaving, you can't then screw them over on the value of that player.
The issue is the team getting a quality player for nothing, not the team losing them.

 

[Profop]

The teams get eight years to build an environment where the player wants to stay. They also have an amount of time to be able to organise their salary cap so they can afford market rates

If they can’t do either of those things I don’t see why they should be rewarded for a player wanting to leave

 

[dinnaz]

I agree that there shouldn’t be compensation but top teams shouldn’t be punished for being able to manage their cap well enough to fit in talent

Plenty of teams have had it where the playing list decides to take slight unders in order to push for multiple flags and honestly I think that team over the individual should be something the AFL protects

Not a punishment- more like another equalisation mechanism. Perhaps even a rolling total based on the last 3 seasons to rule out heavily penalising one off poor/good season. (A bit like the old PP system of 4 wins or less over multiple seasons)

You can still manage your cap well enough that this wont be a complete roadblock.

 

[Elite Pete]

If Carlton plays in the GF. They will still get the better Campo 10 years coke earlier then their ‘equalisation pick’ and probably the other Campo 15 picks earlier. How can you complain about that.

Lions who will probably be top 6, Will get maybe the best Kid in the draft 2 out of 3 years and 2 other top 15 picks in those drafts.


It’s a current rort and needs to be changed assp.

 

[dinnaz]

There will always be compensation.
Otherwise Gold Coast, GWS get to many good players taken for no compensation.
I understand the process needs improving
( in my view Free Agency means a player is free to move, but signing club has to pay something as part of the compensation).
I think at the very least compensation needs reducing, I wouldn't mind if maximum compensation was end of round1, and an end of round 2.
No compo picks less than 20 in other words.
Norths compo for McKay should have at most been picks 20, 40.

You do receive a sizeable chunk of salary cap as an offset. I think we are on the cusp of seeing quite a few $$$ based decisions in the future.

You can trade if you want compensation though picks. Right now the creation of free picks is essentially benefitting the receiving club who should be obliged to hand over current/future picks to get it done.

GC/GWS should make themselves an attractive place to be. Its not a new thing that a struggling club will have players move for success.

North would have paid up and tried to kept McKay if so.
Strengthening a poor team
Not gifting free players to a finals level team
If Essendon traded then they pay a price and North get compensated like that for their loss

 

[jdstorm]

If you have a system that allows a player to move clubs without having to complete a fair trade with the team he is leaving, you can't then screw them over on the value of that player.
The issue is the team getting a quality player for nothing, not the team losing them.

It costs them salary cap space. That’s meant to be the equalisation method.

 

[perplexed]

We all understand the changes. You don’t need to explain them again.

We’re into July now and still clubs are in the dark over changes to a system and processes they started planning for over a year ago.

It would be completely amateur to make changes for this year. Which is exactly why I suspect they’ll do it.

Can you give an example of a club whose planning would be significantly affected and how?

This argument seems to come mostly from self-interested Carlton fans. Whilst your club may be disadvantaged by some changes, they have seemingly done little to prepare for the Camporeale twins, so the argument doesn't seem relevant to them.

 

[Greendogg5]

The only teams that should be able to match bids inside the top 10 are gws and gold coast.

All father son (if it has to be kept at all) should be capped outside the top 10.

All other teams academy be it nga or whatever should be capped outside top 10.

Introduce a tax to match rather than the idiotic discount.

Fix the points curve as previously mentioned by others.

 

[Cleric]

It costs them salary cap space. That’s meant to be the equalisation method.

Every player on your list costs you cap space. Draftees are costing you cap space, so no need for a draft? That's such a weak argument.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Can you give an example of a club whose planning would be significantly affected and how?

This argument seems to come mostly from self-interested Carlton fans. Whilst your club may be disadvantaged by some changes, they have seemingly done little to prepare for the Camporeale twins, so the argument doesn't seem relevant to them.

Richmond loaded up on 3rd and 4th round picks that are now going to be worthless. I'm going to assume they traded for those picks expecting them to retain their value and allow them to trade up the order this year.

And of course the argument against last minute changes are coming from those who stand to be disadvantaged. Just as the arguments for the changes are coming from those who will be better off if they're brought in this year.

 

[Jeremias]

Can you give an example of a club whose planning would be significantly affected and how?

This argument seems to come mostly from self-interested Carlton fans. Whilst your club may be disadvantaged by some changes, they have seemingly done little to prepare for the Camporeale twins, so the argument doesn't seem relevant to them.

Any club that has made moves in a prior period for this draft is impacted. The degree of impact is not relevant.

Carlton is one of course. Any club that has a F/S or NGA interest in this cohort is impacted. Richmond, as KnaveyBlue identified above, another. I am sure there are others.

My opposition to this is not regarding the Camporeale twins. Some people are able to have opinions on things without looking through the specific lens of their supported club, though I do appreciate it is convenient to disregard the point...because Carlton.

Carlton will find a way to get the Camporeale twins anyway, should they wish to do so.

From a management perspective, this is a cluster **** regardless of the outcome. We're approaching mid-July and clubs are still in the dark.

 

[perplexed]

Any club that has made moves in a prior period for this draft is impacted. The degree of impact is not relevant.

Carlton is one of course. Any club that has a F/S or NGA interest in this cohort is impacted. Richmond, as KnaveyBlue identified above, another. I am sure there are others.

My opposition to this is not regarding the Camporeale twins. Some people are able to have opinions on things without looking through the specific lens of their supported club, though I do appreciate it is convenient to disregard the point...because Carlton.

Carlton will find a way to get the Camporeale twins anyway, should they wish to do so.

From a management perspective, this is a cluster **** regardless of the outcome. We're approaching mid-July and clubs are still in the dark.

But Carlton didn't make any moves. They are using this argument solely to benefit themselves.

If the AFL come up with a better system, why delay it? As long as the change is made before the end of the season, clubs will have time to adjust. The minor inconvenience for a couple of clubs of having to pay a fairer price is surely outweighed by the benefit of cleaning up a rort.

 

[sydney_gws]

Any club that has made moves in a prior period for this draft is impacted. The degree of impact is not relevant.

Carlton is one of course. Any club that has a F/S or NGA interest in this cohort is impacted. Richmond, as KnaveyBlue identified above, another. I am sure there are others.

My opposition to this is not regarding the Camporeale twins. Some people are able to have opinions on things without looking through the specific lens of their supported club, though I do appreciate it is convenient to disregard the point...because Carlton.

Carlton will find a way to get the Camporeale twins anyway, should they wish to do so.

From a management perspective, this is a cluster **** regardless of the outcome. We're approaching mid-July and clubs are still in the dark.

I guess such different views amongst the clubs causes it to be a bit difficult. I wouldny mind if they introduce the full new rules next year, but at least adjust the curve this year, and / or limit selections to 3 picks.

 

[Dangerousfield]

The teams get eight years to build an environment where the player wants to stay. They also have an amount of time to be able to organise their salary cap so they can afford market rates

If they can’t do either of those things I don’t see why they should be rewarded for a player wanting to leave

Vicbias, most of the FA player movement is within Vic or players going home to Vic