Toast Cat Academies - Geelong/Hampton and East Arnhem

Remove this Banner Ad

I hardly see how this compromises the drafting/recruiting system.

Those thinking we just get 'first dibs' on anyone from the Geelong region is pretty inaccurate.

It will affect less than 5% of all drafted players - probably on the lesser side.

We still have to set up the academy anyway - who knows, some clubs might not.

Under the plan unveiled to clubs on Tuesday, they will be given the chance to invest in specific regions to attract youngsters from diverse backgrounds and indigenous heritage to play AFL and develop elite talent within those areas.

The plan is part of an AFL push to ensure the game continues to attract and foster the development of players regardless of their background or location.

Those clubs will set up 'Next Generation' AFL Academies for boys and girls aged 11-18 using club brands with the aiming of increasing the talent pool.

Clubs will identify and attract talented youngsters into regional squads to prepare them for the talent pathway program that players start at 16.

If a club develops a young Australian from an Asian or African background and wants to draft them, then they will receive a discount on a basis similar to the current bidding system. Clubs will be able to apply for draft discounts on other youngsters from non-English speaking backgrounds if they develop the player in a similar manner.

For indigenous players from under-represented areas such as the Pilbara, incentives will also exist for clubs to develop and nurture talent in those areas.

The AFL believes the draft bidding system will stop clubs from trying to exploit the system by enticing talent to move into their areas.

My initial thought was the last line (bolded) and how that would be handled.
 
I don't think it's a crazy as people say that zones will come back in. Just look at the clubs this year, you can't continually just get good kids without giving up a lot of points. It would work. It just makes it all very strategic. It's not free, you have to bid. You can rearrange points not gain them. The value could be in the 2nd tier players.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The zoning only applies to disadvantaged and marginalized groups / hardships.

It does not mean we get all player rights from the Falcons ... As good as that would be..

Go Catters
 
The thing that I could see happening with zones is something like if a player hasn't been selected in the National or Pre-Season drafts, they can be preselected by their "zoned" club in the Rookie Draft. That way there isn't a great deal of an advantage by taking players from your zone but you still can consistently take players from your zone.

The lack of clarity on the information says to me that it will be bigger/different than people are suggesting and may in the future involve more than just certain types of players.

If it went large scale and they applied no discount (which is what I think would happen eventually), I'm not sure that teams would take all players available as they would be forced to be selective. In 2015, from Geelong, Darcy Parish went 5 (1878 pts), Charlie Curnow went 12 (1268 pts), Tom Doedee went 17 (1025 pts) and Rhys Mathieson went 39 (446 pts). That is a total of 4617 points. For example, if Geelong finished 9th (and assuming no major trades), they would get pick 10 (1395 pts), 28 (677 pts), 46 (331 pts), 64 (101 pts). Hence, they would only have 2467 pts. Hence, they have a major deficit (2150 pts) heading into next year.

The actual cost of getting Parish, Curnow, Doedee and Mathieson would be all the picks for 2015 plus (assuming same ladder position) 2016's 1st and 2ndplus 46 sliding back to 52. That means IMO Geelong get the benefit of local and academy guys but it still costs them a lot. Its not really a free lunch and I think this stops them bidding on other players in 2016 under current rules.

I wonder in that situation whether Geelong only take the first two which reduces the deficit by 1471 to 679 pts which means in 2016 pick 10 slides to 27 and nothing else is effected in 2016. Its interesting and I don't think zones are as damaging to the draft as people think as the bidding system kind of evens it all out.
 
Am I reading it wrong? Or is it also targeting players from non football backgrounds? Does it mean that those players could still be signed as cat b rookies?
If so that's a good option developing players like Blicavs and Luxford for a longer time you could even still let them play their other sport as Geelong have done. But if/when they did decide to concentrate on footy they'd be more advanced in footy fitness and knowledge.
But it gains a lot more risk if they have to be signed to the main list or rookie list through the draft.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Arnhem land is this:
Arnhem_Land_Map_w480.jpg


We've been given the Top End of the NT, effectively. Arnhem Land is only a part of that. Essendon has been given Melville Island, and this island is not referred to as "West Arnhem Land". Some of you really have no idea about Australian geography do you.
 
Are you guys talking about "Byton" :D
 
So apart from Christensen have their been (m)any indigenous players from the Falcons? I'm guessing not since they have given Geelong part of NT as well.
My thinking on the NT is that Dees aside it's been given to clubs that can support academies financially. Cats, Hawks, Pies and Bombers. You can't risk Norf, Saints or Dogs looking after such important areas.

That aside I think it's a great idea. Play well and you might end up at an AFL club - rookie rules etc
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Toast Cat Academies - Geelong/Hampton and East Arnhem

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top