Official Club Stuff Carlton Academy - Next Gen & Father/Son/Daughter Discussion

[swuzzlebubble]

No paying for a kid at Pick 18 with a raft of late picks.

This only matters if it costs much less than pick 18 to get those late picks. If they fix the points value table it's sorted.

The current pick values are based off some study of the average career salary for players from each draft pick. Doesn't translate to whether 2 latter picks are worth a higher one etc.

 

[blueboy25]

Hard to believe a group of execs could sit around a table and think this is the logical way forward.

AFL has been running for years like a dictatorship. Probably why so many poor decisions are made. Clubs afraid or unwilling to strongly challenge or criticise AFL house. A select few just doing what they want and not feeling answerable to anybody. Everybody else just falls in line.

Hopefully the club goes hard at the AFL if they do make those changes this year.

This is where the experience of Brian Cook comes in. He won't be in the press yelling and screaming about (e Maguire style) but will be doing what it takes to make sure things get sorted.

 

[Blue__Balls]

This only matters if it costs much less than pick 18 to get those late picks. If they fix the points value table it's sorted.

The current pick values are based off some study of the average career salary for players from each draft pick. Doesn't translate to whether 2 latter picks are worth a higher one etc.

Yeah, but that's where I think 0 points from 40 onwards is actually OK.

Factoring in compo picks and the like, it's basically the first two rounds. So rather than saying "you need to have a pick in the same round" or "you need to have a pick within 10 spots", which are just as, if not even more challenging (ie. bid at Pick 18, no way to match?), the zero value third round and onwards approach allows a little bit of flexibility (ie. you can still get a highly rated kid using a handful of second rounders), but limits the ability for clubs with those kids to pay for them by collecting late draft picks that other sides don't even intend to use. I think it'll artificially inflate the value of second rounders, too, which is a good thing - less supply of "late" picks for clubs to deal for means the clubs with those picks can demand a higher price.

I also think that if the outcome is that some teams may need to draft their father/son or academy kid with their own selection, that that's a good outcome too.

Hypothetically, we come into this off-season with our current draft hand. We can't trade up into the second round because nobody wants or needs our three fourth rounders. Gets to our first pick, and nobody has bid on Ben, but we know he's around the mark, and our next pick at 37ish holds minimal value. I think if that forces us to draft Ben ourselves so we don't miss out on him, then it's perfectly fine. We're not and shouldn't be guaranteed the right to draft an extra kid before him just because he's a father/son.

 

[Sector 7G]

Yeah, but that's where I think 0 points from 40 onwards is actually OK.

Factoring in compo picks and the like, it's basically the first two rounds. So rather than saying "you need to have a pick in the same round" or "you need to have a pick within 10 spots", which are just as, if not even more challenging (ie. bid at Pick 18, no way to match?), the zero value third round and onwards approach allows a little bit of flexibility (ie. you can still get a highly rated kid using a handful of second rounders), but limits the ability for clubs with those kids to pay for them by collecting late draft picks that other sides don't even intend to use. I think it'll artificially inflate the value of second rounders, too, which is a good thing - less supply of "late" picks for clubs to deal for means the clubs with those picks can demand a higher price.

I also think that if the outcome is that some teams may need to draft their father/son or academy kid with their own selection, that that's a good outcome too.

Hypothetically, we come into this off-season with our current draft hand. We can't trade up into the second round because nobody wants or needs our three fourth rounders. Gets to our first pick, and nobody has bid on Ben, but we know he's around the mark, and our next pick at 37ish holds minimal value. I think if that forces us to draft Ben ourselves so we don't miss out on him, then it's perfectly fine. We're not and shouldn't be guaranteed the right to draft an extra kid before him just because he's a father/son.

Just get Lucas to do an Ollie Henry and get him for less in 2 years when he is out of contract.

 

[Aphrodite]

Kane is a genuine imbecile.

She is way out of her depth.

Amateur hour!

 

[LanceRomance]

Wonder where these changes are coming from?
I suspect gws and gcs and the new tassie team have raised it

 

[DamoESP]

Wonder where these changes are coming from?
I suspect gws and gcs and the new tassie team have raised it

TBF I think it was quite a few Vic teams that have complained in the past with Sydney/GWS/GC getting access to a raft of players from their Next Generation Academies.

End of the day the current system does need to change to be fairer for all, its just the timing of it that I can't agree with, changing the point system for picks in this years draft when clubs have already made trades is just mind blowing. Announce the changes now for the 2025 draft onwards. That way no team that has already traded picks for this years draft is compromised, and everyone is on an even playing field for 2025. Problem solved.

 

[Sector 7G]

TBF I think it was quite a few Vic teams that have complained in the past with Sydney/GWS/GC getting access to a raft of players from their Next Generation Academies

GCS getting 4 first round picks last year was the straw the broke the camels back. Clearly the points system isn't working if that can happen.

However People do forget that GCS gave away 2 first round picks for nothing (a little licence here as Sharp cost GCS a future first to get him as a second rounder) who have both been outstanding for their new clubs.

 

[noobermensch]

Lucas was the high possession man for the game, working his backside off up and down his wing and getting heavily involved in general play. His decision making with ball in hand was a little more conservative than in previous games, and while you'd occasionally like to see him bite off a more damaging option, he was tidy and helped to surge his team forward with linking run.

 

[RAPPA]

Time to move on Laura Disdain

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Changing the points system this year for FS and Academy players...

Clubs have been on notice? Yeah probably on notice that changes are coming, but not for this year...

She seems to be too emotionally driven rather than logically driven and that is bad news for this game.

Just like changing the htb rule after the last completed training sessions and applying it that very weekend... isn't it surprising that pretty much every commentator has talked up this rule change... again I'll ask, if you have one arm free, how are you supposed to legally dispose of the ball? Paying htb despite no prior just because one arm is free is seeing players hesitate to pick the ball up when there's an opponent near them.

Then there are the obvious ones not being paid... Daicos has got away with at least 3 of them... but apparently this is a great rule change... well it cost her team on the weekend lmfao ... then again, she probably prefers the Pies cement a top 4 spot... bring more numbers in...

 

[FlowersByIrene]

The thing I don't get is why the desire to rush it through? A big part of Kane's job is managing relationships with the clubs. Impacted clubs will be seething and unimpacted clubs will be questioning the AFLs competence. Won't be winning brownie points with anyone because nobody actually expected it to be this year. Fans and media included

And for what benefit. A few clubs pay more for players this year. In the scheme of things that won't change competitive balance, but it does kill any chance of being able to smoothly manage the change.

Even if you dismiss the fact that's it's grossly unfair, I just struggle to see the benefit to AFL house. They've done everything right to this point. Given notice, got everyone's input, no doubt put together a snazzy new system. Now they blow it?

The only logic I can draw is she wants to make a big spash? All she'd be doing in showing everyone she's a moron and validating those that suggested she was a token appointment.

Also, it's not just clubs that have players that are affected. Richmond for example stocked up on 2nd and 3rd rounders, so they could trade up with clubs that needed to match bids.

She's probably getting pressure from those clubs who have benefited in the past but aren't set to benefit now. Like Collingwood.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Wonder where these changes are coming from?
I suspect gws and gcs and the new tassie team have raised it

GCS are by far the biggest beneficiary of this system.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

GCS getting 4 first round picks last year was the straw the broke the camels back. Clearly the points system isn't working if that can happen.

However People do forget that GCS gave away 2 first round picks for nothing (a little licence here as Sharp cost GCS a future first to get him as a second rounder) who have both been outstanding for their new clubs.

That's to do with their poor cap management. They were close to a $1m over the salary cap (even with Rankine gone) and needed to clear Bowes off their decks for free. Sharp they just didn't respect.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Changing the points system this year for FS and Academy players...

Clubs have been on notice? Yeah probably on notice that changes are coming, but not for this year...

She seems to be too emotionally driven rather than logically driven and that is bad news for this game.

Just like changing the htb rule after the last completed training sessions and applying it that very weekend... isn't it surprising that pretty much every commentator has talked up this rule change... again I'll ask, if you have one arm free, how are you supposed to legally dispose of the ball? Paying htb despite no prior just because one arm is free is seeing players hesitate to pick the ball up when there's an opponent near them.

Then there are the obvious ones not being paid... Daicos has got away with at least 3 of them... but apparently this is a great rule change... well it cost her team on the weekend lmfao ... then again, she probably prefers the Pies cement a top 4 spot... bring more numbers in...

I'm hesitant to say this given she is a woman and women can be criticised unfairly for being too emotional. I think the more correct statement is that she's just not very smart. She got her degree out of a cereal box, spent one year in the legal system where she would have learnt nothing except how important she could be then went to North Melbourne (an elite commercial organisation clearly) and has now been appointed the heir apparent to the AFL suit section seemingly for how she ticks off on the identity politics game. It's embarassing by the AFL really, there are plenty of other highly capable women in the AFL circles, but Kane is not one.

 

[Coach_Required]

I come in peace, old foe.

Laura Kane is an utter disgrace, I hope our big clubs can come together on this issue and call her out for that absolute BS she sprouted in the commentary box about clubs knowing the rules would change.

Mass march and protest to AFL house, pitch forks at the ready.

She is a ****ing joke.

 

[Blue__Balls]

GCS getting 4 first round picks last year was the straw the broke the camels back. Clearly the points system isn't working if that can happen.

However People do forget that GCS gave away 2 first round picks for nothing (a little licence here as Sharp cost GCS a future first to get him as a second rounder) who have both been outstanding for their new clubs.

The issue there wasn't necessarily the points system - it's the lack of regulation around live pick trades on draft night.

Can only come into the draft with as many picks as you have available list spots....but then you can do this:



Could just as easily expand the existing rule.
- Can only hold as many draft picks as you have remaining available list spots - if in the course of the draft you obtain additional picks, you lose picks to accommodate them, starting with the latest.

So in the above example, GC would do the first trade, lose 27 and whatever their last pick at that stage was, and replace them with 40 and 42. Then in the next trade they lose 24 and their last three live picks for 30, 50, 54 and 65, etc.

That in itself would have prevented Gold Coast turning 3 picks into 9, and in doing so turning 1953 points into 2625.

 

[Jimmyonesix]

Wonder where these changes are coming from?
I suspect gws and gcs and the new tassie team have raised it

Don't know why they have access to academy players that in all reality other clubs are paying for them to groom then take for free --

 

[Stamos]

The issue there wasn't necessarily the points system - it's the lack of regulation around live pick trades on draft night.

Can only come into the draft with as many picks as you have available list spots....but then you can do this:

View attachment 2022280

Could just as easily expand the existing rule.
- Can only hold as many draft picks as you have remaining available list spots - if in the course of the draft you obtain additional picks, you lose picks to accommodate them, starting with the latest.

So in the above example, GC would do the first trade, lose 27 and whatever their last pick at that stage was, and replace them with 40 and 42. Then in the next trade they lose 24 and their last three live picks for 30, 50, 54 and 65, etc.

That in itself would have prevented Gold Coast turning 3 picks into 9, and in doing so turning 1953 points into 2625.

I don't think they need to make that restriction, the problem is with the points curve, not the trading.
Fix the points value curve, and almost all the problems are instantly solved.

 

[Blue__Balls]

I don't think they need to make that restriction, the problem is with the points curve, not the trading.
Fix the points value curve, and almost all the problems are instantly solved.

Yeah, a few different ways to skin the cat, that's for sure....as long as you don't decide to do it after clubs have completed a bunch of trades on the basis of the existing system

 

[TwiggleyFanClub]

If they were to give a hard start date and gave clubs more than1 full season to prepare or go with a plan B then that would be ok.
But as Twomey said, clubs make plans for draft picks for future players, and the sort of plans clubs have been able to make for years. Just knocking it on the head if/when/how they feel like on a couple of months' notice is terrible management.

 

[Gingerbread man]

I just hope the rumor about needing to retain a pick in the same round a player is bid on isn't true. It's just super dumb. What if you use your pick for that round, then a player is bid on? Do you need to find a way back into that round? What if the bid comes at the end of the first round and the club that holds that pick won't trade with you? You could have a 1st rounder at pick 4 and your player gets bid on at 18. You don't know exactly when a bid will come so you can't prepare for it.

I didn't believe this was a genuine possibility despite being promoted by some boneheads in the media, because it made no sense. But now with Kanes comments around timing I have less faith.

The points system is actually pretty good and importantly flexible. Only issue is the points allocated to picks. Early picks need to be weighted higher, and later picks need to be weighted lower. Do that and cap the amount of 1st round bids teams can match in a year (or say a rolling 3-year period), and it solves pretty much any problem anyone has with the bidding system. Anything else is just making it needlessly complicated.

more importantly what if there are twins that get drafted in the same round

 

[BlueJet]

He lived in Sydney from age 6 until he was drafted and was in Sydney’s academy for years, there’s no stealing involved.

All father sons or academy players get to choose if they want to go to their respective clubs.

Blakey chose Sydney. He didn’t do anything not afforded to other players in the same situation.

Sure.
My viewpoint is that players that are F/S eligible should not also be eligible to join academies.
It defeats the stated point of these groups, which is to make inroads with under-represented communities & regions.
Were Walker, Johnson or Blakey ever likely to not play Aussie rules?
Trying to claim these players is taking the absolute piss IMO.

 

[kreuze_missile]

If the AFL wants to make the sport as fair as possible then the changes Laura Kane wants to make are 100% necessary.

The only reason to have father/sons is to preserve family history. Clubs that don't have this history are greatly disadvantaged. There's also a massive luck element to this whole system. I like the history element and would like to see this retained.. but only if the mechanic is changed so clubs have to pay true market value (i.e. no discount).

The academies have to go. If the AFL wants to keep them to foster talent development in non-football states that's fine. But no team should have preferred access to any player based on their postcode. In practice, this system has led to clubs like Sydney never bottoming out, ever. Gold Coast are about to go on a tear because of it. It is a joke and has to go ASAP.

The only problem I have with what Laura Kane is trying to do is the timing.

Clubs need more notice. Trades were made in last year's draft for this one. Feel free to make the announcement now - but the rules become effective from the 2025 or 2026 draft onwards. However, I have to admit that if Carlton weren't going to be negatively impacted by the changes happening now I would care a lot less.

If Laura Kane does anything that stops the Campo and Walker boys from coming to Carlton I'll be so mad that I may post on Bigfooty about it a few times and then get over it.

That is until I see one of our father/sons playing for another club. Pictures like this make me sick.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Sure.
My viewpoint is that players that are F/S eligible should not also be eligible to join academies.
It defeats the stated point of these groups, which is to make inroads with under-represented communities & regions.
Were Walker, Johnson or Blakey ever likely to not play Aussie rules?
Trying to claim these players is taking the absolute piss IMO.

Exactly what my point was. The academies are about growing the game and outreach. Not smuggling guns