Strategy Draft assistance 2023 [Twomey: NMFC get #19 in 2023, x2 end of 1st rd picks in 2024, and x2 extra rookie list spots in 2024; no Sanders/#11]

Remove this Banner Ad

giantroo said:
From the senile old fool that thought the Bombers were a chance for the flag this year:

"North Melbourne has the worst list in the competition. It’s won one game this season against a decimated West Coast team, basically a West Australian Football League side, in round 2, but Dr Hood thinks the club is in “good shape”."

So no issues asking for whatever assistance we can get then?
Click to expand...
To think Richmond lost to >>>>See bold print above ^^.🤣🤣🤣
 
I don't mind a system like this that was posted by Ants on the Club Focus - North Melbourne 2022 - Should they get a priority pick? page.

'Now, I also think the AFL should choose a middle ground. Bring back automatic priority picks, but dilute their value. I would allow the bottom 6 teams to have priority picks 19-24. So the team finishing 18th has picks #1, #19, #25, the team finishing 13th has picks #6, #24, #30, the team finishing 12th has picks #7, #31, and the team finishing 1st has picks #18 and #42. This removes ambiguity, gives teams the ability to speed up returning up the ladder, but isn't a huge boost that totally distorts the draft. Outside of maybe fighting for 13th vs. 12th nobody should tank over this. Nowadays usually teams up to 12 are fighting for finals until late in the season, so it shouldn't be an issue. Doing this would mean this "should they/shouldn't they" discussion would be removed.'

A few little parameters around it and it would work well.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

roos 10 said:
I think pick 11 pp 19 pp
And 2 state league players as two extra rookies
Fair
So we really got CCJ for free and get pick 11 pp and 2 state league players
Click to expand...
Need extra list space to make that work.
 
the Ziebull said:
geelong got very lucky with father sons and the old rules, getting ablett and hawkins for nothing amongst others
Click to expand...
Exactly. Good luck to them that their father sons came through at the time the rules were that way, but to get Scarlett, Hawkins and Ablett x2 while also keeping their first round picks is almost the equivalent of PPs. The draft they got GA jr at pick 40, they also took Bartel at 7, Kelly at 17 and Johnson at 24. Fair play to them for picking the eyes out of the draft, but no way under later rules they would have had those 3 picks and also Ablett.
 
Harris 10 said:
It does, but you have to start the process. If the answer becomes no then so be it.
However, Amarfio should never have raised it in the Noble presser.
Click to expand...

Why not? It's become a weight of public opinion exercise with other clubs and their lapdog journalist supporters pushing back. The AFL won't make the decision based entirely on fairness. They will be swayed by public mood. We need to air our position and argue it articulately for the public to hear.
 
Too Many Hyphens said:
Why not? It's become a weight of public opinion exercise with other clubs and their lapdog journalist supporters pushing back. The AFL won't make the decision based entirely on fairness. They will be swayed by public mood. We need to air our position and argue it articulately for the public to hear.
Click to expand...

The AFL will do what they want
 
Only Forwards said:
I’m not sure we should be lectured to by west coast supporters as to the legitimacy of need of a PP. THey got one 2 years after a flag for a bloke who is still on their list so that can take a big step back and STFU.

In 2019 Gold Coast got half the f***ing world. of the back of a preceding 3 years of:

19 - 3/22
18 - 4/22
17 - 6/22

Our last 3 years have gotten us:
22 - 3*/17
21 - 4.5/22
20 - 3/17

When I say they got the world. Specifically in terms of draft concessions they got
19 - pick 1
20 - pick 11
21 - Pick 19 (later recinded)

On top of that they had the ability to NGA any indigenous talent out of Darwin for 3 years. THe ability to pre-sign academy players. and finally an increased Rookie

We wouldn't be asking for anywhere near that despite being worse over the short term than they were.

In an objective industry where fair was a thing we'd be getting a start of first PP without question.
Click to expand...
Even if we were to win 1 or 2 more games this year, we'd still be worse than GC over the three years preceding their assistance bonanza. From a step away it wouldn't seem entirely unreasonable to be expecting exactly the same, but we all know the reality of the AFL and instead we are constantly being told we either don't deserve or don't need anything at all!

The last assistance you mentioned, Darwin NGA, pre-listing and increased rookie list, is massively overlooked as an advantage. They have been able to sign a few options and see who develops, this year it looks like they may have one with Joel Jeffrey, with a tighter list they may have had to chose between him and someone else, not to mention also spend draft capital to get him.

The other point on list space gets me when we are constantly being told how we sabotaged our list by delisting too many experienced players. The advantage of having more list space is enormous. We have a couple of delisted players end up on another team's list and suddenly we should have kept them. I'm in no way suggesting we haven't made plenty of blunders in our list management, but the reality of keeping those players, is less list spaces. I am yet to hear any of the patronising 'experts' who keep telling us we should have kept Froggy or Wood or whoever, who we should have delisted or not drafted instead.

Who knows, a couple fewer list spaces available last year, maybe we take one less draft pick, maybe that's Paul Curtis we don't draft. Maybe a young player like Bailey Scott is the one who is delisted the year before they kick on. A restricted list makes this balancing act very hard to judge, particularly in a rebuild. It could be argued with hindsight, we maybe cut a bit too hard, but a couple of extra rookie spots to play with, like a certain QLD team were given and it becomes little easier to have both.
 
The mitigating factor when it comes to comparing our win-loss record with Gold Coast is that the priority picks and draft concessions granted to Gold Coast were also justified due to their recent poor record of player retention. Well, now we have every dog reporter insisting that JHF, TT and Cam Zurhaar are all out the door as soon as their contracts are over (or sooner if they can manage it). I'd be suggesting to the AFL that if this is allowed to happen, there will be an inevitable impact on team performance and further player retention challenges. Therefore, the AFL and other clubs can save themselves from having to provide several more tranches of priority picks by offering up pre-emptive solutions now. Pick 1 this year and pick 11 next year should suffice.
 
If the Eagles finish last and North finish 17th does this automatically mean that our application for a PP will be rejected? Or do other circumstances come into effect..
 
kool kangas said:
If the Eagles finish last and North finish 17th does this automatically mean that our application for a PP will be rejected? Or do other circumstances come into effect..
Click to expand...
The AFL will make it up as they see fit.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kool kangas said:
If the Eagles finish last and North finish 17th does this automatically mean that our application for a PP will be rejected? Or do other circumstances come into effect..
Click to expand...
PP is based on previous 3 years performance. There is no formula. They literally decide on case by case basis. Will be very interesting on our approach. Do we go softly softly or go hard in terms of discussions?

Further to this, when will we find out what/if PP is provided?
 
bengrina said:
PP is based on previous 3 years performance. There is no formula. They literally decide on case by case basis. Will be very interesting on our approach. Do we go softly softly or go hard in terms of discussions?

Further to this, when will we find out what/if PP is provided?
Click to expand...
Usually around late September/ early October


September 30 - GC - 2019 - Draft bonanza: Suns get top picks, second-rounder, Darwin zone, more
September 25 - Blues and GC - 2018 - AFL hands out assistance provisions to Carlton and Gold Coast - 3AW
October 5 - Lions - 2016 - AFL grants struggling Lions a priority pick
 
blackshadow said:
The AFL will make it up as they see fit.
Click to expand...

Pete Holmes Reaction GIF by CBS
 




Paradox at the heart of priority pick system​


Daniel Cherny



It has been a decade since the priority pick system was overhauled by the AFL but, writes DANIEL CHERNY, clear issues remain.

It has been a decade since the AFL changed its controversial priority pick rules to eliminate a wins-based threshold from the system.

Brock McLean’s infamous “Blind Freddy” interview on Fox Footy in July 2012 was the catalyst for the tanking investigation which ultimately led to a $500,000 fine for Melbourne and suspensions to Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly for acting in a manner “prejudicial to the interests of the AFL”. But, by that point, the carrot dangled in front of the Demons in 2009 (yielding Jack Trengove as a bonus to Tom Scully), and several clubs before then, had already been removed.

The AFL, with the support of its 18 clubs, had made the call at the start of 2012 to remove the rule, which had already been tightened in 2006 after Collingwood had managed to double-up with Dale Thomas and Scott Pendlebury in the top five of the 2005 draft barely two years after making the grand final.

The old rules provided plenty of fodder for media, but thankfully is a thing of the quite distant past. Late season victories by lower-ranked sides can now be wholesomely enjoyed by fans without having to practice cognitive dissonance that an extra win now would cost you a bonus junior star in the draft come November.

But the mechanism was not scrapped entirely.

The league retained its powers to award help to struggling clubs.

“The rule provides that the provision of special assistance is ultimately a matter for the [AFL] commission’s discretion and will be awarded only in exceptional circumstances. The decision will be based on a club’s on-field performance in recent years and any other matter the commission regards as relevant,” reads the explanation on the AFL website, with the added rider that the league uses a formula to help shape its view on whether a club is eligible for special assistance.

That recipe is secret, and with good reason. Like the free agency compensation scheme, the minutiae must be a mystery to clubs, lest it become an invitation to rort the system, the very threat which eradicating the old scheme aimed to ward off.

What remains a curious element of the new system is that the clubs in the mix for special assistance still play an active role in potentially receiving help.
While the league’s description of the rule makes no overt mention of any application process, it has become de rigueur for clubs to apply in order to receive.
The latest club to do so is North Melbourne, a move flagged by chief executive Ben Amarfio at the press conference to announce coach David Noble’s departure last week. And on the face of it, North have a compelling case for at least some help.

The Roos, despite their shock win over Richmond last week, remained at the foot of the ladder, having won just seven of their past 54 matches dating back to early in the 2020 season.

The club hasn’t made the finals since 2016, and hasn’t reached a grand final since 1999.

The circumstances are comparable to those of Brisbane in 2016, a year in which the Lions received an extra pick at the end of the first round. That is one of four instances of a club receiving assistance under the new scheme. Gold Coast and Carlton both received priority access to mature-age talent in 2018, but the headline act is the Suns’ suite of concessions the following season. Most notably they received pick No. 1, allowing them to recruit Oakleigh Chargers guns and best mates Matt Rowell and Noah Anderson together. There is a school of thought that North could and should receive the same style of freebie to secure Oakleigh pair George Wardlaw and Elijah Tsatas in a similar manner.

If North get help, particularly if it is generous, rival clubs will bleat. Of course they will. This is a competition after all and assisting one club in the draft necessitates that others are adversely impacted. Some more than others, and Adelaide for one are likely to be aggrieved given their rebuild has in theory coincided with that of the Kangaroos.

But this column is not about whether North should get a handout.

There are compelling arguments both ways; the Roos’ recent record is horrid but also self-inflicted, although to varying degrees any early draft picks are the fruit of poor performance in the AFL’s socialist system.

The point here is to ponder: why do North have to apply?

If the AFL has complete discretion and a formula, what extra information will they receive by the Kangaroos initiating a process. Is there some sort of glossy PowerPoint presentation that will convince the commission of whether North should get a selection? Will the club need to make promises as to how it will use any help it receives?

While the AFL is often criticised for its opacity, it is fair enough on this topic. As noted earlier, there is no appetite for manipulation. But why not just have an independent sub-committee that sits down at the end of every season and decides whether a club should be given help? If the whole point is to avoid manipulation, why allow the club itself to get involved in the process?

Asking for a priority pick is a bit like putting your football department into voluntary administration. You have to acknowledge that you are in a bad way, at least in part because of your own doing, and explain to the AFL how extra help will make you better. There is almost a shaming component to it.

Perhaps this serves as a disincentive. Maybe that is what the AFL want after all?

Melbourne (2014), Carlton (2015) and Brisbane (2015) all had requests for special assistance knocked back. St Kilda (2019) also toyed with the idea of pushing for a priority pick after a raft of misfortune coupled with bad decisions.

The Blues’ response to missing out in 2015 is instructive.

“In the absence of defined criteria it was obviously worth asking the question, and I believe that‘s what our members would expect,” then Carlton chief executive Steven Trigg said at the time.

“When we met with the AFL commission in July regarding our plans for the future, our broad discussions included the merits of a priority pick based on a number of considerations beyond our current ladder position.

“I want to be very clear in saying that we are prepared to put in the hard work required to build Carlton back up, but if some assistance was there to help accelerate that process, then we needed to explore the opportunity.”

Effectively Trigg was saying that, given the chance to ask the question, it was incumbent that the club asked the question.

So North, too, would be mad not to come to the league cap in hand. But it places the Roos in a weird position where they are simultaneously trying to provide hope to fans at an extremely low ebb of the club’s history while also needing to argue a case that they are in dire enough straits that they need special help.

It led to a bizarre juxtaposition last week when president Sonja Hood spoke of the club’s “great list,” a phrase she subsequently dialled back in a 3AW interview, minutes removed from Amarfio declaring North would ask for special assistance.

Then on Saturday the Roos upset top-eight side Richmond, sparking jubilant scenes from players, administrators and fans alike. And then a couple of days later North were arguing to the AFL about how bad a spot they are in.

Gillon McLachlan is a collaborative leader. He likes to take, or at least to be seen to take, the clubs along the journey. It has been a strength of his. But sometimes the AFL needs to know when to take control. If a decision is discretionary, it is worth asking why the league needs to allow itself to be swayed by the debating skills of administrators who should be talking their club up, not down.

Clubs don’t need to apply for compensation picks for free agents, so why should they do so here?
 
The Kangaroos also met the AFL on Monday to discuss the process they will need to follow in applying for draft assistance which may come in the form of a priority pick or other methods that may give them the mechanisms to fill some gaps in their list which is mainly related to a lack of experience.

Opposition clubs are open to North Melbourne receiving some assistance to ensure their competitiveness under a new coach but are wary of them getting further picks at the top end of the draft given they will have their third pick inside the top three in three seasons at this year’s national draft.

The club still has several key players out of contract at the end of this year including Cameron Zurhaar, Curtis Taylor, Bailey Scott, Jed Anderson and Todd Goldstein. The Kangaroos are confident they will have fruitful discussions with several players once they get a sense of the direction the club is heading in 2023.

www.theage.com.au

Geoff Walsh to present feedback to North Melbourne board

Experienced football administrator Geoff Walsh has completed his information gathering process at the Kangaroos as the club looks to reshape itself in the midst of a horror season.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au
 
 
 
Harris 10 said:
He's right, making clubs beg for them helps nobody.
Click to expand...
If they are going to have complicated systems, then it should be automatic based on a threshold which makes it easier for clubs, opposition, officials and fans to know what the heck is going on and plan according.

3 seasons bottom 4. Average percentage sub 55%: pp19

4 seasons bottom 4. Average percentage sub 55%: pp11

4 seasons bottom 4 including 2 spoons. Average percentage sub 55%: pick after first selection.

Set the rules, make it standardised, eff off this discretionary bull crap which can be and has been rorted.
 
FootySmartSimpson said:
If they are going to have complicated systems, then it should be automatic based on a threshold which makes it easier for clubs, opposition, officials and fans to know what the heck is going on and plan according.

3 seasons bottom 4. Average percentage sub 55%: pp19

4 seasons bottom 4. Average percentage sub 55%: pp11

4 seasons bottom 4 including 2 spoons. Average percentage sub 55%: pick after first selection.

Set the rules, make it standardised, eff off this discretionary bull crap which can be and has been rorted.
Click to expand...
Needs to be on a case by case basis. The AFL know what they're doing even if the media/fans don't. There's too many extenuating circumstances outside of just performance on field.
 
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Strategy Draft assistance 2023 [Twomey: NMFC get #19 in 2023, x2 end of 1st rd picks in 2024, and x2 extra rookie list spots in 2024; no Sanders/#11]

Similar threads

Gasometer
Game Day 2024 Brownlow - AFL & Nmfc
17 18 19 20 21
Replies
505
Views
12K
Krakouer Bonar
Krakouer Bonar
Gasometer
Review 2024 Nmfc Highlights amongst the Lowlights
Replies
17
Views
463
leighlee13
leighlee13
Blightys Barrel
  • Poll
List Mgmt. 18 player contracts expire at the end of 2024. Pick your 10 to remain.
Replies
11
Views
1K
danj
danj
CharlieMortdecai
North Melbourne Round 2 draft selection 2024 (currently 25)
Replies
3
Views
303
The Nostradamus
The Nostradamus
Flawed Genius
Preview Changes and pre match discussion vs Hawthorn in last round of 2024
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
253
Views
12K
franjon
franjon
Daniltchenko You Beauty
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2024 Trade & List Management Thread - Part 3
407 408 409 410 411
Replies
10K
Views
467K
DuckYeah
DuckYeah
Daniltchenko You Beauty
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2024 Trade & List Management Thread - Part II
396 397 398 399 400
Replies
10K
Views
479K
Twangler
T

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top