Roast Corrupt AFL Looking To Change F/S Bidding Rules

[Rory Walkerfield]

THE AFC HAS TO FIGHT THIS ALL THE WAY… PARTICULARLY GIVEN THERE WAS NO THOUGHT OF THESE CHANGES FOR ASHCROFT OR DAICOS, BUT NOW WELSH IS ON THE HORIZON…

Reid 'open-minded', change flagged for bidding system, Hawk to re-sign

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

LEAGUE FLAGS CHANGES TO BIDDING SYSTEM​

THE AFL has flagged a series of potential changes to its draft bidding system, but has warned that an overarching umbrella structure for bids on both father-son and academy players remains unlikely.

Speaking on Gettable this week, the AFL's CEO elect Andrew Dillon revealed that the League continues to examine ways in which it can refine the draft's bidding process.

Currently there are three different sets of bidding rules depending on whether clubs elect to place them on father-son prospects, Northern Academy graduates or Next Generation Academy (NGA) players.

Clubs can currently match father-son bids anywhere in the draft, but can only match NGA bids outside the top 40 selections. There are also a host of intricacies for Northern Academy players, such as clubs only being able to match two top-20 bids if they play finals that season.


But the League is set to continue tying up any loose ends within its bidding process, including whether clubs can match first-round bids on father-son prospects with a host of later selections.

"They are really different, a father-son versus a Northern Academy versus a Next Generation Academy. They're all in for different reasons. Having specifics around each of those three is really important for us," Dillon told Gettable.

"What I'd like to look at is that our clubs are really good at, 'You write a rule, we're going to work out what's the best way we can – not exploit the rule – but do what we're doing within the rules?'

"When we first brought in the bidding system, we had the hidden picks where clubs were aggregating heaps of picks. We moved to change that. Sometimes, people look at it and say, 'How can you pick up a player in the early part of the draft by matching (a bid) with picks in the 40s?' Again, as we evolve, that's something to look at. We're taking feedback from clubs all the time on it." – Riley Beveridge

 

[adelaidecrows]

THE AFC HAS TO FIGHT THIS ALL THE WAY… PARTICULARLY GIVEN THERE WAS NO THOUGHT OF THESE CHANGES FOR ASHCROFT OR DAICOS, BUT NOW WELSH IS ON THE HORIZON…

Reid 'open-minded', change flagged for bidding system, Hawk to re-sign

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

LEAGUE FLAGS CHANGES TO BIDDING SYSTEM​

THE AFL has flagged a series of potential changes to its draft bidding system, but has warned that an overarching umbrella structure for bids on both father-son and academy players remains unlikely.

Speaking on Gettable this week, the AFL's CEO elect Andrew Dillon revealed that the League continues to examine ways in which it can refine the draft's bidding process.

Currently there are three different sets of bidding rules depending on whether clubs elect to place them on father-son prospects, Northern Academy graduates or Next Generation Academy (NGA) players.

Clubs can currently match father-son bids anywhere in the draft, but can only match NGA bids outside the top 40 selections. There are also a host of intricacies for Northern Academy players, such as clubs only being able to match two top-20 bids if they play finals that season.


But the League is set to continue tying up any loose ends within its bidding process, including whether clubs can match first-round bids on father-son prospects with a host of later selections.

"They are really different, a father-son versus a Northern Academy versus a Next Generation Academy. They're all in for different reasons. Having specifics around each of those three is really important for us," Dillon told Gettable.

"What I'd like to look at is that our clubs are really good at, 'You write a rule, we're going to work out what's the best way we can – not exploit the rule – but do what we're doing within the rules?'

"When we first brought in the bidding system, we had the hidden picks where clubs were aggregating heaps of picks. We moved to change that. Sometimes, people look at it and say, 'How can you pick up a player in the early part of the draft by matching (a bid) with picks in the 40s?' Again, as we evolve, that's something to look at. We're taking feedback from clubs all the time on it." – Riley Beveridge

I dont think its an issue. What they probably dont want is a club to bid a high first rounder for a F/S and the nominated club just pays it off with a 2nd rounder and a slide down the draft. Most clubs get their ducks in a row for a F/S well in advance and bank the points. We dont even know if Welsh will even nominate yet for F/S.

 

[FR0GGY]

Father/son is a great thing for clubs/tradition it would be dumb to make it so you couldn’t match a bid.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

I dont think its an issue. What they probably dont want is a club to bid a high first rounder for a F/S and the nominated club just pays it off with a 2nd rounder and a slide down the draft. Most clubs get their ducks in a row for a F/S well in advance and bank the points. We dont even know if Welsh will even nominate yet for F/S.

What? Of course Welsh will nominate for AFC as a F/S!

And this is about a fair and consistent playing field over the years.

 

[adelaidecrows]

What? Of course Welsh will nominate for AFC as a F/S!

And this is about a fair and consistent playing field over the years.

I agree however, at some point the AFL needs to tidy up unfair advantages. The issue is F/S dont drop for every club very often at all. So its unfair regardless. If it was my choice id remove it all together as it makes a mockery of creating a fair playing field. Plus what..you saying they can tidy up loose ends after Welsh? At the end of the day don't panic. Its only a proposal right now and we dont really have any information to go on.

 

[FR0GGY]

I agree however, at some point the AFL needs to tidy up unfair advantages. The issue is F/S dont drop for every club very often at all. So its unfair regardless. If it was my choice id remove it all together as it makes a mockery of creating a fair playing field. Plus what..you saying they can tidy up loose ends after Welsh? At the end of the day don't panic. Its only a proposal right now and we dont really have any information to go on.

As you said it doesn’t happen very often.
Let clubs just have their father sons.
Lists aren’t fair, umpiring is not fair, the fixture is not fair, the afl is not fair

 

[GrommoT]

Father/son is a great thing for clubs/tradition it would be dumb to make it so you couldn’t match a bid.

I imagine they're looking to make clubs use a r1 pick to match a r1 bid on a FS prospect.

 

[Peter Doherty]

I imagine they're looking to make clubs use a r1 pick to match a r1 bid on a FS prospect.

On the surface, it looks like we pay a fairer price (if Welsh is a first round prospect).

Scratch a little deeper and it means the decision to match a bid and continue the f/s tradition is really up in the air.

Do we use a first rounder on a forward?

Under the current system the decision to draft him is a no brainer.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

As you said it doesn’t happen very often.
Let clubs just have their father sons.
Lists aren’t fair, umpiring is not fair, the fixture is not fair, the afl is not fair

 

[AFC3000]

Wanting our turn at some free high picks aside, what I'd want from a Father/Son system is that clubs should be able to take all of their eligible sons but should have to pay fairly for them.

I don't want clubs to win premierships because they have a handful of former players that had children at the same time.

I also don't think that paying a handful of low draft picks for a top 10 pick is fair. There is no way a club with pick 3 would ever trade that for a handful players picked 30-100. I'd rather 1 great A+ player on our list than any 3 of our C or B grade players for example.

That said I also don't like the idea that a club could miss out on the best, most special Father/Sons because they are slightly too good (first round) and can't be matched, we potentially then start seeing clubs hiding players and all of that and you know we'd get caught.

Same goes with academies, what's the point of investing if you can only ever take the ones that aren't that good?

I think something like you can only use picks in the same round or next round as the bid you are matching would be ok. Maybe one of those picks has to be in the same round or something and picks in the next round to make up points to get very close.

But then add some flexibility and force clubs to identify the talent earlier or pay next year too, like they can pay across last year, this year or next year.

If we've got 15 this year, a father son expected to go top 3 next year, forfeit pick 15, bank the points for next year, if we don't end up using the points because the player drops off or doesn't nominate then we are refunded an end of first round pick that must be used.

I obviously haven't thought this through but the general idea is clubs should have to pay, but also they shouldn't be forced to miss out.

 

[WeeBlake]

View attachment 1724541

Sums it up perfectly

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

As you said it doesn’t happen very often.
Let clubs just have their father sons.
Lists aren’t fair, umpiring is not fair, the fixture is not fair, the afl is not fair

This is the point.

It feels very convenient that Brisbane, Collingwood, WB walked away with top 5 F/S picks in Ashcroft, Daicos and Darcy in the past 2 years! No mention of rule changes prior to those drafts.

 

[WeeBlake]

Unfair in our favour:-
Genuine 85% home crowd advantage for 40% of H&A games

Unfair not in our favour:-
Where to start?!

 

[NSolis]

Aren't these rules tweaked in some way or another most years? I remember last year people on this board freaking out and talking about conspiracies against the Crows because the NGA rules were changed in a way that made it harder for us to match bids for Isaac Keeler, who was destined to be a star the AFL was trying to rob us of. Turns out we didn't even want him, he went in the 40s and is currently playing VFL.

Let's just wait and see what actually happens before assuming the change is going to even be to Adelaide's disadvantage.

 

[1970crow]

What? Of course Welsh will nominate for AFC as a F/S!

And this is about a fair and consistent playing field over the years.

I think it's commonsense to review the bidding rules. Getting a pick 1 for a couple of seconds and sliding back a few spots in next year's draft is a bit over the top. Hope any change comes after Welsh though and we get him nice and early with a second and 3 thirds.

 

[WeeBlake]

Unfair in Collingwood’s favour
Marquee games
FTA games
No travel
Most games at home ground
GF always at home ground
Massive media coverage means players have bigger profiles and therefore more $$ in endorsements, therefore can save on cap therefore advantaged in recruitment/trades/fa
Away H&A games moved to home ground for crowd ($$) reasons eg v Geelong
Even away finals v eg Geelong, Bulldogs at home ground for crowd ($$) reasons
Not reqd to have genuine clash strip
Prison bars (!)

Unfair not in Collingwood’s favour
<crickets>

 

[Mr_Moogle]

AFL big mad about us getting Max.

 

[Scorpus]

They'll change the rules to disadvantage us then the second Collingwood has a top tier F/S coming through they'll change it back

 

[Brasher]

Wouldn't be surprised if the intent of reviewing the current process isn't being driven from closer to home.

There would be a number of Melbourne clubs looking at Collingwood and noting that among their best players are 3 F/S and a priority pick. Collingwood went from a bottom club and having to execute a salary purge to now being the best performing team in the competition. Must piss off a lot of teams who are forever on the rebuild cycle or who have bottomed out and can't get there hands on the best talent.

 

[Jarman3]

Unfair in Collingwood’s favour
Marquee games
FTA games
No travel
Most games at home ground
GF always at home ground
Massive media coverage means players have bigger profiles and therefore more $$ in endorsements, therefore can save on cap therefore advantaged in recruitment/trades/fa
Away H&A games moved to home ground for crowd ($$) reasons eg v Geelong
Even away finals v eg Geelong, Bulldogs at home ground for crowd ($$) reasons
Not reqd to have genuine clash strip
Prison bars (!)

Unfair not in Collingwood’s favour
<crickets>

Don't forget the little detail of them getting Nick Daicos with picks 38, 40, 42 and 44 while the AFL will change the rules to ensure we have to pay a first rounder for Tyler Welsh.

 

[1970crow]

Unfair in Collingwood’s favour
Marquee games
FTA games
No travel
Most games at home ground
GF always at home ground
Massive media coverage means players have bigger profiles and therefore more $$ in endorsements, therefore can save on cap therefore advantaged in recruitment/trades/fa
Away H&A games moved to home ground for crowd ($$) reasons eg v Geelong
Even away finals v eg Geelong, Bulldogs at home ground for crowd ($$) reasons
Not reqd to have genuine clash strip
Prison bars (!)

Unfair not in Collingwood’s favour
<crickets>

There's enough money in the system that inequities can be ironed out. How does a club with a smaller supporter base attract more members and sponsorship $ if they don't get an equal share of prime time. What the AFL has done is centralise the vast portion of income which centralises power. They've added clubs that rely entirely on their largesse and they keep numerous clubs below the poverty line so that they can control them. They are a hideous organisation that places veneer above substance. That the AFL endorses a yes vote at the referendum is enough reason to vote no. They have absolutely zero moral compass.

 

[Brasher]

Worst thing about using these lower round picks is that whilst they are given some nominal points value for the purpose of trades, many times these picks will never actually get used anyway. So the real value is zero.

I don't like the F/S, Academy or priority pick concept (although, surprisingly, I am coming around to it now that the Crows can use it their advantage...go figure?). If a Daicos is destined to be a Pie I'm sure he could find his way home after serving a year or two somewhere else....at least it gives the team that selected him a chance to parlay the selection into greater draft capital.

 

[1970crow]

Wouldn't be surprised if the intent of reviewing the current process isn't being driven from closer to home.

There would be a number of Melbourne clubs looking at Collingwood and noting that among their best players are 3 F/S and a priority pick. Collingwood went from a bottom club and having to execute a salary purge to now being the best performing team in the competition. Must piss off a lot of teams who are forever on the rebuild cycle or who have bottomed out and can't get there hands on the best talent.

I still reckon they're a bit overrated and have been spluttering along. If the GF was at a neutral venue, they wouldn't deserve favouritism. That said, there's really no standout side this year, woukdnt ge surprised to see a Vic side win it from the bottom half of the 8.

 

[Samcro24]

I don't care if they tighten up the rules, but give a couple of seasons notice ffs.

That way there's still a fair bit of uncertainty over how good the f/s sons on the horizon are. Otherwise it just reeks of chopping and changing to suit/disadvantage certain clubs. (like us)

Or of course they could just leave it so that it evens out over time, and everyone gets a star or two on the cheap.

 

[1970crow]

Worst thing about using these lower round picks is that whilst they are given some nominal points value for the purpose of trades, many times these picks will never actually get used anyway. So the real value is zero.

I don't like the F/S, Academy or priority pick concept (although, surprisingly, I am coming around to it now that the Crows can use it their advantage...go figure?). If a Daicos is destined to be a Pie I'm sure he could find his way home after serving a year or two somewhere else....at least it gives the team that selected him a chance to parlay the selection into greater draft capital.

there is a cost though because the list spot needs to be vacant on draft night to use the picks. So if you use 5 picks to get number 1 then you're adding 4 players to the list with very late picks. So it has an impact on the total value of your list.