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

[giantroo]

 

[Greendogg5]

It should be a penalty, not a discount.

An absolute massive one.

It should be costing Brisbane 2-3 drafts worth of their top picks to match Ashcroft.

In fact, an appropriate system should have been such that they have absolutely no way of recruiting Levi unless they traded 1 or 2 players of genuine value, as their future capital would have already been exhausted by Will. I.E a Raynor, McCluggage, Bailey etc.

Especially when factoring in clubs are able to get early access, early training, early sports science involvement.

That is where clubs need to pay for it, not be discounted.

Is it a modern miracle of probability that the top 5 of the draft keeps being populated by children of former AFL players or Academy prospects, all about 0.1% of the registered footballers of the age group around the country? No, they have an inherent advantage over another prospect during their development, not only because of their parents likely knowledge of the game, probable genetics, but also very early access to AFL facilities because of the payoff to AFL clubs for this investment.

Spot on. I totally agree

 

[Membling]

It should be a penalty, not a discount.

An absolute massive one.

It should be costing Brisbane 2-3 drafts worth of their top picks to match Ashcroft.

In fact, an appropriate system should have been such that they have absolutely no way of recruiting Levi unless they traded 1 or 2 players of genuine value, as their future capital would have already been exhausted by Will. I.E a Raynor, McCluggage, Bailey etc.

Especially when factoring in clubs are able to get early access, early training, early sports science involvement.

That is where clubs need to pay for it, not be discounted.

Is it a modern miracle of probability that the top 5 of the draft keeps being populated by children of former AFL players or Academy prospects, all about 0.1% of the registered footballers of the age group around the country? No, they have an inherent advantage over another prospect during their development, not only because of their parents likely knowledge of the game, probable genetics, but also very early access to AFL facilities because of the payoff to AFL clubs for this investment.

Which complete disincentivises the investment in the region...

Ideally you have evey club given an area in QLD and NSW to run an academy. Evens up the access issue and continues investment in the region which has been making inroads over the last 5 years.

Previously, there was sweet FA coming out bar the occassional southport, border or Riverina products.

But hey, lets just try what was done before and expect a different result

 

[jdstorm]

Which complete disincentivises the investment in the region...

Ideally you have evey club given an area in QLD and NSW to run an academy. Evens up the access issue and continues investment in the region which has been making inroads over the last 5 years.

Previously, there was sweet FA coming out bar the occassional southport, border or Riverina products.

But hey, lets just try what was done before and expect a different result

No it doesn’t it just means clubs pay a fair rate for elite talent.

The incentive is exclusive access to elite talent and that will always be desirable

 

[Membling]

No it doesn’t it just means clubs pay a fair rate for elite talent.

The incentive is exclusive access to elite talent and that will always be desirable

It kinda does as the clubs have to fund the academies themselves.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It kinda does as the clubs have to fund the academies themselves.

What does this really mean in the context in particular of GWS and Gold Coast both getting additional funding above their TV entitlements as they would go broke if they had to rely on their own home match ticketing and merchandise etc. sales, and also, there's no constitutional independence from the AFL? The members of those clubs can hardly call for a board spill to not run the academy because of the cost of doing so, if they were so inclined.

 

[jdstorm]

It kinda does as the clubs have to fund the academies themselves.

I get clubs having a sook if other clubs would get these players that they were developing…

But under this system they aren’t. No club will stop developing players if they can have exclusive access it just means they would have to pay an equivalent price to trading up for the pick.

Clubs can sook about it but they’d gladly accept it as long as it ensures that they get to retain any elite junior they develop

 

[Membling]

I get clubs having a sook if other clubs would get these players that they were developing…

But under this system they aren’t. No club will stop developing players if they can have exclusive access it just means they would have to pay an equivalent price to trading up for the pick.

Clubs can sook about it but they’d gladly accept it as long as it ensures that they get to retain any elite junior they develop

Hence why in my orginal post it is putting forward to allow all clubs have an academy in a qld/nsw region.

If you increase the cost to develop players within a region, it is likely to have flow on effects of funding through either the targetting and developing of specific players or shrink the flow of funding into programs.

The wholesale "increase cost" for academies I get. It would be far more prudent to open up the regions in qld/nsw and allow all clubs to develop academies in region. Once critical mass is reached, then AFL house can fund it.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

I get clubs having a sook if other clubs would get these players that they were developing…

But under this system they aren’t. No club will stop developing players if they can have exclusive access it just means they would have to pay an equivalent price to trading up for the pick.

Clubs can sook about it but they’d gladly accept it as long as it ensures that they get to retain any elite junior they develop

Players are going to start spilling over into the rest of the league soon. The Suns have 4 players that could go top 30 next year (plus White going to Melbourne as a F/S), very unlikely they will be able to match them all. Obviously they will pick off the one they see as the best player, but there will still be quality players going to other clubs.

 

[Ashman23]

Players are going to start spilling over into the rest of the league soon. The Suns have 4 players that could go top 30 next year (plus White going to Melbourne as a F/S), very unlikely they will be able to match them all. Obviously they will pick off the one they see as the best player, but there will still be quality players going to other clubs.

I hope you're right and this makes for a good argument that all clubs therefore should be allowed an academy in some form as it would produce higher quality draftees and a higher quality of total players in the league and a better product on the field.

 

[Profop]

I hope you're right and this makes for a good argument that all clubs therefore should be allowed an academy in some form as it would produce higher quality draftees and a higher quality of total players in the league and a better product on the field.

I mean Hawthorn is currently getting benefit in a small way from Brisbane’s academy in Chol

 

[melanChronic]

It should be a penalty, not a discount.

An absolute massive one.

It should be costing Brisbane 2-3 drafts worth of their top picks to match Ashcroft.

In fact, an appropriate system should have been such that they have absolutely no way of recruiting Levi unless they traded 1 or 2 players of genuine value, as their future capital would have already been exhausted by Will. I.E a Raynor, McCluggage, Bailey etc.

Especially when factoring in clubs are able to get early access, early training, early sports science involvement.

That is where clubs need to pay for it, not be discounted.

Is it a modern miracle of probability that the top 5 of the draft keeps being populated by children of former AFL players or Academy prospects, all about 0.1% of the registered footballers of the age group around the country? No, they have an inherent advantage over another prospect during their development, not only because of their parents likely knowledge of the game, probable genetics, but also very early access to AFL facilities because of the payoff to AFL clubs for this investment.

This is a great call.

I would have the premium shift depending on how close the spent pick is to the bid, i.e. if you can pay for a player bid on at pick 5 with pick 10, then the extra points required are less than if your first pick to match with is 35.

Encourage clubs to hold or trade into picks near the player's worth rather than actively encouraging them to avoid holding picks within range of a bid.

 

[mpal6]

Oh we love gifting you titles due to stupidity. See Blake Caracalla in the 2000s

Doesn’t make this academy stuff any less crap.

But the 2 no.1s you are referring to are not academy though. They're father son.

 

[mpal6]

How many players going to line up in this years GF have come out of Sydney or Brisbanes academy’s?

For Brisbane
Jack Payne - pick 54
Harris Andrews - pick 61 (old academy matching system)
Eric Hipwood - pick 14

Payne and Andrews were more potential than solid top players in draft year.

We were more lucky with father sons like Ashcroft, Fletcher than from academy.

 

[mpal6]

Change the points the first step.

Then get rid of the discount.

Then get rid of going into negative for the year after.

Then get rid of academies.

Then get rid of FS.

Or you know.

Just have a normal draft.

As soon as you say get rid of father son, there'll be pushback as usual.

I've always voted for a pure draft or at least pure first round which is where all the angst seems to be.