Can Sydney keep Warner and avoid more trade bans?

[.Shotties.]

When does it end, I’d suggest never.

I'd be happy for it to be wound up when the playing field is actually level. When NSW clubs have the opportunity to take home state talent (without having to reach 10+picks) in every stage of the draft I'd say we could wind them up in their current form.

Melbourne Storm get SFA. But have managed to be successful without assistance.

Ignoring their start up concessions, they literally have development clubs they can sign players directly from from the age of 17.

They also rorted the salary cap for years to keep their squad together during one of their most successful periods.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Diminishing the player Dawson was at the point of the trade to argue against a point not being made is being deliberately disingenuous.

I literally have no idea what your point is. I do not understand how the loss of pick 56 player Jordan Dawson for pick 18 supports a position of giving draft concessions to the Sydney Swans.
I never diminished Dawson as a player, I made no comment on his abilities.

 

[.Shotties.]

I literally have no idea what your point is.

Clearly.

I do not understand how the loss of pick 56 player Jordan Dawson for pick 18 supports a position of giving draft concessions to the Sydney Swans.

No one's arguing that. It's just something you made up.

My argument was that holding a squad together when it's made of mostly interstate players is more difficult than holding one together made mostly of home state players.

You brought up Horne-Francis, I assume as a way of showing that players being traded out was beneficial and I pointed out that this isn't usually how it goes.

I never diminished Dawson as a player, I made no comment on his abilities.

Describing him at the point he was traded solely as pick 56 is doing just that. It's like saying Nick Larkey for pick 25 would be a great deal as he was taken at 73.

Anyway, I don't think this is a discussion with continuing with you. You're aware there are structural biases in the competition but are against anything with directly addresses them.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Clearly.

No one's arguing that. It's just something you made up.

My argument was that holding a squad together when it's made of mostly interstate players is more difficult than holding one together made mostly of home state players.

You brought up Horne-Francis, I assume as a way of showing that players being traded out was beneficial and I pointed out that this isn't usually how it goes.


Describing him at the point he was traded solely as pick 56 is doing just that. It's like saying Nick Larkey for pick 25 would be a great deal as he was taken at 73.

Anyway, I don't think this is a discussion with continuing with you. You're aware there are structural biases in the competition but are against anything with directly addresses them.

You have not presented any cogent argument about how exactly these structural biases impact the northern clubs, or how the academies address them.
The only reason I raised JHF was because you said a loss of talent for players returning to their home states is one of those structural biases that the draft concessions supposedly address. My point is that JHF is an example of how the trade system adequately addresses that issue. You raised Dawson as a counter example, but in my view flipping pick 56 for pick 18 is probably more evidence that the system works without the need for draft concessions.

 

[.Shotties.]

You have not presented any cogent argument about how exactly these structural biases impact the northern clubs, or how the academies address them.

Yeah I have. Building and maintaining a squad made up mostly of interstate players is objectively more difficult than one of home state players. You asked how and I listed why.

The academy system in its current form allow teams which didn't previously have the consistent access to home state talent that teams in WA, SA and Victoria to have access. It's literally a direct counter balance to an inherent imbalance in the league. I've even suggested a clear end point for them.

The only reason I raised JHF was because you said a loss of talent for players returning to their home states is one of those structural biases that the draft concessions supposedly address.

Can you please quote me on this?

supposedly address. My point is that JHF is an example of how the trade system adequately addresses that issue.

Trading a player for two bites in the top five isn't usual, though. It can't be used as an example of the system working. It's far more frequent that trades do not favour the one the player has requested a trade away from.

You raised Dawson as a counter example, but in my view flipping pick 56 for pick 18 is probably more evidence that the system works without the need for draft concessions.

The Swans never traded pick 56 for pick 18. Again, you're being deliberately disingenuous about this to make your point, which isn't a good sign.

Again, would you consider trading Nick Larkey for pick 34 a win?

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Yeah I have. Building and maintaining a squad made up mostly of interstate players is objectively more difficult than one of home state players. You asked how and I listed why.

The academy system in its current form allow teams which didn't previously have the consistent access to home state talent that teams in WA, SA and Victoria to have access. It's literally a direct counter balance to an inherent imbalance in the league. I've even suggested a clear end point for them.

Can you please quote me on this?

Trading a player for two bites in the top five isn't usual, though. It can't be used as an example of the system working. It's far more frequent that trades do not favour the one the player has requested a trade away from.

The Swans never traded pick 56 for pick 18. Again, you're being deliberately disingenuous about this to make your point, which isn't a good sign.

Again, would you consider trading Nick Larkey for pick 34 a win?

This is why you said it is "objectively" more difficult for the Swans to build a list than the Crows:

Because it's easier to keep a player in a city where their social and family networks are.

This is what I took to be a reference to losing players returning to their home state.

Because there have been repeated cases of high draftees saying they don't want to leave their home state.

So the answer to this is to say more high draftees don't have to leave their home state?

Because recruiters have mentioned preferring the home state option if a choice came up between two equal players.

Source? Also, this is simply saying that if all other things are equal then go for the home-town boy/girl. It is not necessarily saying that recruiters see this as a significant consideration.

I only really responded to your first point, because it was the only point that bore any weight. But as I said before, the success of 3/4 of the northern teams suggests that it is not really much of an issue in any case. It is also an issue that affects all teams in the league, yet we only need to address it for four?

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Again, would you consider trading Nick Larkey for pick 34 a win?

Forgot to answer this - would depend entirely on the circumstances. If he is out of contract it could end up being a reality, although I suspect even then we could at least manage a first rounder.
If it eventuated, I don't think we would deserve compensation for it.

 

[.Shotties.]

Forgot to answer this - would depend entirely on the circumstances. If he is out of contract it could end up being a reality, although I suspect even then we could at least manage a first rounder.
If it eventuated, I don't think we would deserve compensation for it.

Answer the question please, would you consider losing Nick Larkey for pick 34 as flipping pick 73 for 34.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Answer the question please, would you consider losing Nick Larkey for pick 34 as flipping pick 73 for 34.

Lol, you have literally changed your question. But to answer both, yes it is flipping pick 73 for 34, that is simply a fact. No, I wouldn't consider it a win.

 

[.Shotties.]

Lol, you have literally changed your question. But to answer both, yes it is flipping pick 73 for 34, that is simply a fact. No, I wouldn't consider it a win

I don't know why you wouldn't consider it a win. It's a fact that you're simply flipping 73 to 34. Nothing more to consider.

Anyway, as mentioned earlier, this isn't worth pursuing. You think that the imbalance of access to home state isn't an issue. This is fundamentally opposed to how I see it. There's no common point to discuss this from.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

I don't know why you wouldn't consider it a win. It's a fact that you're simply flipping 73 to 34. Nothing more to consider.

Anyway, as mentioned earlier, this isn't worth pursuing. You think that the imbalance of access to home state isn't an issue. This is fundamentally opposed to how I see it. There's no common point to discuss this from.

As you wish. I think you should consider what evidence there is to support the argument that being based in a non-traditional state is such a disadvantage that it requires draft concessions as a remedy. The only example you gave of this disadvantage was what you perceive as a poor trade for Jordan Dawson.
I'm also curious to know if any Swan supporters can explain why the northern teams are so convincingly outperforming the WA/SA teams, even despite this disadvantage.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I'm also curious to know if any Swan supporters can explain why the northern teams are so convincingly outperforming the WA/SA teams, even despite this disadvantage.

Oh that’s easy. We’re simply better.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Oh that’s easy. We’re simply better.

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought. Probably don't need the draft concessions in that case.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought. Probably don't need the draft concessions in that case.

Why should we miss out on all the advantages the Victorian clubs enjoy just because we’re an incredibly good club?

 

[TiAn_]

you also get away games at your home ground against MCG tenants too

LOL 1 game a year… What a huge advantage! Definitely makes up for never, ever having a home final or playing 3-5 “home games” a year on what’s also the other team’s home ground!

Clutching at straws there.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Why should we miss out on all the advantages the Victorian clubs enjoy just because we’re an incredibly good club?

Oh of course you shouldn't. But wait, what are those advantages again? And should we do something to extend them to the WASA teams?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Oh of course you shouldn't. But wait, what are those advantages again? And should we do something to extend them to the WASA teams?

No, they’re just going through a temporary dip.

Look, the whole thing is ****ed. I’m just yanking your chain.

Only way to get a completely fair comp is to start again. Year Zero. Establish teams according to demographic analysis from the Australian Electoral Commission. Neutral grand final venue. Rolling fixture, no exceptions. Etc etc.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

No, they’re just going through a temporary dip.

Look, the whole thing is ****ed. I’m just yanking your chain.

Only way to get a completely fair comp is to start again. Year Zero. Establish teams according to demographic analysis from the Australian Electoral Commission. Neutral grand final venue. Rolling fixture, no exceptions. Etc etc.

Ha ha, I agree although I'm a bit more optimistic than you. As in I think there are solutions that don't require a scorched earth policy to the current set-up, of course it's highly unlikely that it ever happens.
The draw is fixable, the draft is fixable, free agency is fixable. The big one is the MCG grandfinal, hard to see them changing that one, but they could at least in conjunction with fixture changes try to ensure that teams get more equitable access to playing on the ground.

 

[Number37]

But so what if Dawson wanted to go home? Happens all the time, to all teams. And as far as I can tell, the Swans are travelling a lot better than the Crows right now, and for about the last 20 years. Where is the evidence that this inability to draft local talent is an impediment to success?

1/
You are making shit up.
Nobody is saying that the only way to success for Northern clubs is to have academies.
That is just plain dumb.

Kids wanting to go home is just ONE of MANY disadvantages that Northern clubs face.
ONE OF MANY.

2/
To grow the game it makes sense to have some sort of mechanism that encourages kids from non-traditional Aussie Rules states to take up the game.
That isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[Number37]

How is that relevant to what I wrote?

How many kids from Northern states are playing AFL??
Not many.
Why are you so against mechanisms to encourage kids from non-traditional AFL states into the game?

 

[Number37]

I mean really - kids don't bother with footy because there is no elite pathway? I cannot think why that would be the concern of any child under the age of about 13.
But I'm all for a pathway. I'm all for an academy system. But no, I honestly don't see why they should require the additional incentive of being able to remain in NSW/Qld to enter the pathway. It's not compatible with the draft system that we use in the AFL.

FMD.
Do you have any idea how League and Rugby recruit young kids into their elite programs?





U19/18/17/16 rep comps.


https://www.nswrl.com.au/pathways/rise-program/

The RISE Program aims to provide aspirational Community Rugby League players with the opportunity to participate in a holistic development program. Interested participants will be required to complete an online application form through MySideline. The RISE Program is open to all Community Rugby League Participants who meet the following criteria*:

Aged 13-16 year (female).
Open to all females across all sports
Aged 13-15 years old (male)
Currently registered to a Community Rugby League Club.
Have been a Community Rugby League player for a minimum of two (2) years.
Have an aspiration in Rugby League.
Willing to work hard and commit to the entirety of the RISE program.
Willing to uphold the RISE Values.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

How many kids from Northern states are playing AFL??
Not many.
Why are you so against mechanisms to encourage kids from non-traditional AFL states into the game?

Because I value an uncompromised draft more highly.
I'm also far more interested in growing the base of the sport, than focusing on the minuscule percentage of kids who go down the elite pathways. I don't know what the current state is, but post-2000 Olympics research showed that pumping money into high performance sport had no effect whatsoever on participation rates.
And nobody can identify the extent of this alleged drain of talent that would occur if academy kids entered the open draft. Isaac Heeney seems to be it, great player but I'm not losing too much sleep if he's playing for the North Sydney Bears instead.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

FMD.
Do you have any idea how League and Rugby recruit young kids into their elite programs?


View attachment 2029280


U19/18/17/16 rep comps.


https://www.nswrl.com.au/pathways/rise-program/

The RISE Program aims to provide aspirational Community Rugby League players with the opportunity to participate in a holistic development program. Interested participants will be required to complete an online application form through MySideline. The RISE Program is open to all Community Rugby League Participants who meet the following criteria*:

Aged 13-16 year (female).
Open to all females across all sports
Aged 13-15 years old (male)
Currently registered to a Community Rugby League Club.
Have been a Community Rugby League player for a minimum of two (2) years.
Have an aspiration in Rugby League.
Willing to work hard and commit to the entirety of the RISE program.
Willing to uphold the RISE Values.

Seems to confirm what I said - 13 is about the age that elite talent pathways begin

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

1/
You are making shit up.
Nobody is saying that the only way to success for Northern clubs is to have academies.
That is just plain dumb.

Kids wanting to go home is just ONE of MANY disadvantages that Northern clubs face.
ONE OF MANY.

2/
To grow the game it makes sense to have some sort of mechanism that encourages kids from non-traditional Aussie Rules states to take up the game.
That isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

1. You're the one "making shit up", I never claimed that anybody said that, I was responding to one of your coreligionists' claim that draft concessions were one way to compensate Northern clubs for the "go home" factor.
2. How many 7 year olds or their parents are rejecting footy as a pastime because they might have to move interstate if they play at the highest level?

 

[.Shotties.]

Because I value an uncompromised draft more highly.
I'm also far more interested in growing the base of the sport, than focusing on the minuscule percentage of kids who go down the elite pathways.

I'm curious, do you actually follow much of what's been happening with the academies and the flow-on effect of them in terms of participation in Sydney and NSW?

I assume since you're very interested in the grass roots of the sport you are.

I don't know what the current state is, but post-2000 Olympics research showed that pumping money into high performance sport had no effect whatsoever on participation rates.

No, but creating a talent and development pathway from one of the youngest possible age groups has had a pretty clear affect on the growth in junior ranks. A pretty positive effects from the of the hundreds of players who didn't make the AFL going back into community football as players and coaches.

And nobody can identify the extent of this alleged drain of talent that would occur if academy kids entered the open draft. Isaac Heeney seems to be it, great player but I'm not losing too much sleep if he's playing for the North Sydney Bears instead.

Good lord.