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

[teagueyubeauty]

100 games is a big milestone in the AFL, as at end of 2017 here are the stats




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[RPCB]

It’s the clubs responsibility to get the player to 100 games if they are very close to it. Brad Fisher played 99 senior games, 1 in his final year. Was he injured all year? No. He topped the twos goal kicking list that year.

That’s not the systems fault. That’s the clubs fault.

 

[Coona Blues]

It’s the clubs responsibility to get the player to 100 games if they are very close to it. Brad Fisher played 99 senior games, 1 in his final year. Was he injured all year? No. He topped the twos goal kicking list that year.

That’s not the systems fault. That’s the clubs fault.

Matt Kennedy and Sam Rowe say hi.

 

[RPCB]

Matt Kennedy and Sam Rowe say hi.

Tbf, I am not sure why Matt Kennedy would. He played 24 games this year and was then traded, that’s more unlucky than anything.

 

[The Bighouse]

Tbf, I am not sure why Matt Kennedy would. He played 24 games this year and was then traded, that’s more unlucky than anything.

Still stuck on 99 club AFL games for one reason or another (mostly injury).

 

[Robertio]

Wouldn’t work at all, John Lloyd played like thirty nine games and produced the Velvet Sledgehammer.
SOS played over three hundred and produced Ben…


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I think John Loyd played 29 games with us but the thing is it used to be 25 for F/S and not long before Mathew was due for the draft Collo got it change to 100 for F/S.

 

[GoBlues!]

Matt Kennedy and Sam Rowe say hi.

Yep - Matt played 7 seasons for Carlton, Rowe 6 seasons and Brad Fisher 8 seasons (1 club player).

Ridiculous metric 100games ignoring the years of service to one club.

 

[WildmanOfCarlton]

Can not get on board with this. I'm sure it's an unpopular opinion, but if anything I'd be in favour of extending it out to 150 games these days. 100 games used to be a huge achievement and a sign of longevity and servitude to a club. These days 100 games is just a check mark on the career journey that 23/24 yr olds are getting to. Players are playing longer more frequently than ever and just so-so, bang average players can clear 100 games fairly regularly. In 24 game seasons it's barely 4 seasons of football. I'm not sure that warrants legacy selections 15-20 yrs down the line.

To me the rule in philosophy was around high-level players who offered great service over a period of time having a lasting legacy at the club allowing their children to continue that legacy.

I'm pretty sure there has been some re-writing of history at the AFL, the original father/son rule didn't have any "significant or major contribution to the club" criteria. I believe it was set up for Ron Barassi, who's father was an active Melbourne player before shipping off to WW2 and being killed at Tobruk. There were some shenanigan's, with Ron living with Melbourne coach Norm Smith, rather than his mother who lived in a house zoned to another club. Interestingly Barassi Senior played 58 games for Melbourne, little Ron wouldn't have gotten to Melbourne under the current rules.

It started with no minimum and has been altered a number of times over the years. I'm sure I've heard Matthew Lloyd, say the Blues had told him they'd take him under the father/son when he was little and then they increased the number of games before that could happen. I think as long as there is a option for the player themselves to decide if they want to play for the club of their father or not, then the number could be a single game. Marc Murphy being the example of a father/son who chose to not nominate his father's club, because he knew he could stay in Melbourne and play for Carlton.

If the rule has a guiding principle or philosophy like significant contribution or legacy, then shouldn't any Premiership player automatically qualify. Should Brad Pearce's son qualify because he's dad played in the 1995 Premiership side? (I don't know if young Harry is any good, but if he is I want him to play for Carlton - whoever said it is right, this stuff does sound a bit stalkerish)

 

[GoBlues!]

If the rule has a guiding principle or philosophy like significant contribution or legacy, then shouldn't any Premiership player automatically qualify. Should Brad Pearce's son qualify because he's dad played in the 1995 Premiership side? (I don't know if young Harry is any good, but if he is I want him to play for Carlton - whoever said it is right, this stuff does sound a bit stalkerish)

Brad Fisher played 8 seasons for one club Carlton, and is a Premiership Player (NAB 2007)….. just saying.

 

[Aphrodite]

I think John Loyd played 29 games with us but the thing is it used to be 25 for F/S and not long before Mathew was due for the draft Collo got it change to 100 for F/S.

That's exactly how I remember it, and yes it was 29 games Robertio.

 

[Bletch]

F/S rule started in 1949 at 50 games qualification. In 1978, that qualification dropped to 20 games, then 1993 went back to 50. 2003 it went to the current 100 games.

Lloyd was drafted in 1994, a year after the change from 20 to 50 games.

 

[SurreyBlue]

I think John Loyd played 29 games with us but the thing is it used to be 25 for F/S and not long before Mathew was due for the draft Collo got it change to 100 for F/S.

Collo - Carlton person my a$$.

 

[Keyza]

I still can’t get my head around how someone like Andy Walkers son can be an NGA prospect? Just illogical criteria. Nonsense.

It doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

 

[RedmanWasHere]

It doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

Reminds me of Port Adelaide F/S prospect for 2027 in Tevita Rodan.

He's also an Essendon NGA prospect too.

 

[Marvin34]

It doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

Go to post #8661,explains it perfectly.

 

[SurreyBlue]

Go to post #8661,explains it perfectly.

If your father played AFL and importantly as per current rule, 100 games for a club, whether you have a first nation background or belong in a NGA zone, you should ‘only’ be eligible to be drafted by your fathers club.
That is the exclusion that needs to be made.

 

[Dramoth]

I think John Loyd played 29 games with us but the thing is it used to be 25 for F/S and not long before Mathew was due for the draft Collo got it change to 100 for F/S.

Carlton had been talking to Lloyd before the change to the rules. Looking at the commission of the day, the CEO was Oakley, the Chairman was Kennedy Sr, and Ron Evans had just joined the board the year before. Fresh off him helping to set up their salary cap infringements, draft fixing, and tax evasion system.

 

[AlecDuncan]

Reminds me of Port Adelaide F/S prospect for 2027 in Tevita Rodan.

He's also an Essendon NGA prospect too.

When do the umpires get father-son selections?

 

[Jimmyonesix]

Same. I’ve wondered how Luke hodge’s son is in the Lions academy

Same as Blakey for swans was

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Same as Blakey for swans was

Jason McCartney's boys likewise.

 

[TeamofRiddles]

It used to be 50 games. Can't see it going back.

I’m not across the new changes properly, but I think current father sons, have a 20% discount applied.

An alternative might be to load a 25 or 50% points premium where the father played 50 games.

 

[Bletch]

I’m not across the new changes properly, but I think current father sons, have a 20% discount applied.

An alternative might be to load a 25 or 50% points premium where the father played 50 games.

Yep, has been 20% discount, but is going down to 10% from next year.

A graded system of qualification is an interesting idea, as mentioned earlier by this poster:

I have been reading comments on the Father/Son rule and the Academy selections.

I love the idea of father/sons and the way it links players with the history and traditions of the club. I just want to strengthen the father/son but not give clubs a free hit at the same time.

Father/Son first:

• Any son of a player that has played senior AFL football should be eligible to be a Father/Son pick.
• There should be a grading system so that the number of games indicates the points discount awarded for Father/Sons, e.g.
• 1 – 49 games Eligible for Father/Son but club must pay a penalty of 10% extra to pick up the player. This means if they are selected by another club before being selected by the ‘home’ club then the home club can take the player but only if they pay 10% more than the pick points value. This means if the son is wanted enough then they get to their father’s club but it is no free ride.
• 50 – 99 games Eligible Father/Son club must pay the full points value for the player if that player is selected by another club before the ‘home’ club selects them.
• 100 – 149 games Eligible Father/Son club gets a 10% discount (the same as what happens in the current system).
• 150 – 199 games Eligible Father/Son club gets a 15% discount.
• 200+ games Eligible Father/Son club gets a 20% discount (the same as what it was prior to this year).
• There should be a lessening of the discount for subsequent Father/Sons in the same draft e.g. take a farfetched scenario where a club could claim 5 Father/Sons in the same draft. This is to lessen the incredible benefit of multiple Father/Sons in the same draft. Yes they should be able to do so but the discount/penalty should be reduced by 5% for each pick-up. Using the above figures, an example of the 5th Father/Son having a father who played 42 games would still be eligible for selection but at a significant penalty of 10% + 25% i.e. 35% more points than the rival clubs points selection value.

Academy players:

The concern I see with Academy players is that clubs, especially the northern ones, can easily have multiple players in the same draft year. Taking the same approach that I have taken for Father/Sons, there should be a lessening of the discount for each successive player selected. I would suggest something like a 10% discount for the first picked, 5% for the second pick, 0% for the third pick, 10% penalty for the fourth pick, 20% penalty for the fifth pick.

The clubs with Academy players will still get what they want but the lessening of the discount/addition of a penalty for additional players makes it less enticing the more players they take.

For the AFLW a similar system could be reached but will appropriate adjustments to games played etc.

More ‘out-there’ is the potential for a Grandfather/grandson rule. Would love this but think it is not the right time to bring this in as most of the expansion clubs would still not have been in place long enough to benefit. In a few years I would like to see this brought up as a possibility. I just think that often there is a family tradition of following a club because someone in the past played for the club. A grandfather/grandson rule could strengthen this bond (and given the way many AFL players intermarry probably give a few grandsons a difficult choice of several clubs to choose).

Not sure I see it happening though, I'd doubt the AFL would want to compromise the draft more than it already is. Absolutely worth discussion though. Should we also consider brother-brother? What would the qualification there be?

 

[BolshyAust]

Yep, has been 20% discount, but is going down to 10% from next year.

A graded system of qualification is an interesting idea, as mentioned earlier by this poster:

Not sure I see it happening though, I'd doubt the AFL would want to compromise the draft more than it already is. Absolutely worth discussion though. Should we also consider brother-brother? What would the qualification there be?

Brother/Brother is fraught with danger.

Cameron Cloke would have come out as a top 10 pick with younger brother Travis to come.

 

[Red_man2008]

The latest campo video the club posted is absolutely amazing.

 

[Aphrodite]

The latest campo video the club posted is absolutely amazing.

I posted it in both Ben’s & Lucas’s Player threads on Friday and here it is again

Inside Carlton | 24 hours with the Camporeales

Experience all the emotion in the Camporeale household on draft night.

www.carltonfc.com.au