Strategy Fremantle Dockers Next Generation Academy

[Tonga Bob]

Looks like clubs are pushing to align the NGA rules with the northern rules.

Any changes won’t be until next year though.

OK so which Victorian clubs have high end NGA talent coming from next year?

 

[Tonga Bob]

Every change of the rules to "make them more fair" only increases the advantage of the clubs who already have players through the former way. Every single change increases the gap and it will take ten to fifteen years to cycle out the advantage - but who ever lets the rules sit still for that long?

The rules need to be set somewhere and then left alone to settle. All this quest for a more even draft is doing is making sure the sides who already got their players pull the ladder up behind them.

What you should be looking at is a mechanism where costs can be applied to clubs who have benefits under the old rules in order to keep that player. The same mechanism can later be used by the AFL to claw back priority pick help when they realise they've overfilled the cup.

So it's your classic 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' scenario.

 

[Taylor]

So it's your classic 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' scenario.

I think step one to changing the rules is first building a system where clubs that have already benefited have to pay a tax on those benefits to bring them into line with the rules the next club has to work through for the same outcome.

I don't want a club to pick their best player in the draft father son at pick #41, take their gun player with their top ten pick untouched and then have other clubs have to spend their top ten pick to get their own father son while either of those two are still playing.

The clubs that should be pushing most for changes to academy and father son rules are the ones who have already benefited from it - because there's no suggestion that clubs who got their advantages cheap should have to cough up draft value now to make it fair.

I don't want Fremantle to finally get to a series of high talent father son picks and the AFL has changed the rules so much that Nick Daicos is on TV saying it's not fair for some clubs to benefit from top ten Father son picks and it's good that those players are now all in the open draft right when Pav and Mundy jr are rolling through.

There have been 31 father son picks come through the draft since 2016. That doesn't include the likes of Nick Blakey who should be playing with North as a father son. An average of almost 2 for every other side in the league.

The system needs to be fair for our turn when it comes, that means not changing the rules to make it more expensive in the future - not without making those currently benefiting from cheaper rules have to tip value into the machine.

 

[Docker82]

I like how the points work now

People underestimate how much trading that has brought into the game

Clubs have picks they can target to move up the draft nowadays, I reckon it's great for the competition

This is exactly why my suggestions won't happen!

 

[Tonga Bob]

I think step one to changing the rules is first building a system where clubs that have already benefited have to pay a tax on those benefits to bring them into line with the rules the next club has to work through for the same outcome.

I don't want a club to pick their best player in the draft father son at pick #41, take their gun player with their top ten pick untouched and then have other clubs have to spend their top ten pick to get their own father son while either of those two are still playing.

The clubs that should be pushing most for changes to academy and father son rules are the ones who have already benefited from it - because there's no suggestion that clubs who got their advantages cheap should have to cough up draft value now to make it fair.

I don't want Fremantle to finally get to a series of high talent father son picks and the AFL has changed the rules so much that Nick Daicos is on TV saying it's not fair for some clubs to benefit from top ten Father son picks and it's good that those players are now all in the open draft right when Pav and Mundy jr are rolling through.

There have been 31 father son picks come through the draft since 2016. That doesn't include the likes of Nick Blakey who should be playing with North as a father son. An average of almost 2 for every other side in the league.

The system needs to be fair for our turn when it comes, that means not changing the rules to make it more expensive in the future - not without making those currently benefiting from cheaper rules have to tip value into the machine.

Look I'm intrigued with your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Just think the AFL will be pushing sh*t uphill trying to bring in changes that take from the already benefited clubs (ie: everyone apart from WA/SA clubs). It's hard enough implementing rules that give to those clubs that don't get much from the current draft concessions.

 

[Taylor]

Look I'm intrigued with your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Just think the AFL will be pushing sh*t uphill trying to bring in changes that take from the already benefited clubs (ie: everyone apart from WA/SA clubs). It's hard enough implementing rules that give to those clubs that don't get much from the current draft concessions.

I agree, but we have a problem of interference from the power controlling every couple of years because when it's someone's turn to suffer or their turn to win there are bulk complaints.

The draft is built such that the best talent is accessed by the worst performers, it's supposed to be a self regulatory churn where, on average a club is at the bottom roughly as much as they are at the top and over about 18 years it all evens out. But the AFL just couldn't let it sit for two decades without helping the clubs at the bottom.

The AFL pours more into the teams at the bottom to try and launch them back up the table, but it takes a while for those players to develop and they keep pouring. Those perks stick with the club for a decade or more with no means of pulling them back.

I think the solution is to have every club issued Father Son/Academy points, separate from the draft, every season. Everyone gets 400 points a year and just banks them. Clubs can trade them but when the time comes at the draft to match a bid it can only be with those points - no draft picks can be used, they either have the points in the bank or they don't.

No pick access points, can match a bid from pick one.

... and the evening up point? The points will be calculated back to 2005 (last current player draft year) and the points that would have been used for current father sons/academy players deducted. Some clubs will have had some academy players also chew up their points - but most clubs will get a surplus of points to use this season however they want.

No discounts, no restrictions - just 400 points per year to spend, trade or bank. After banking your points for 5 years you can match a bid at pick four. You can trade your draft picks for the academy points if you need one before hand.

Clubs that have a lot of father sons and academy players will have less points now, they might even be in deficit. Clubs that haven't had much success from those yet will in surplus.

Consider that if it came in this year the Dogs would need to cough up quite a lot, let's pretend they are 1200 points in deficit, so they buy Fremantle's 1200 point surplus for a pick in the 30s in a trade for Henry.

 

[Tonga Bob]

I agree, but we have a problem of interference from the power controlling every couple of years because when it's someone's turn to suffer or their turn to win there are bulk complaints.

The draft is built such that the best talent is accessed by the worst performers, it's supposed to be a self regulatory churn where, on average a club is at the bottom roughly as much as they are at the top and over about 18 years it all evens out. But the AFL just couldn't let it sit for two decades without helping the clubs at the bottom.

The AFL pours more into the teams at the bottom to try and launch them back up the table, but it takes a while for those players to develop and they keep pouring. Those perks stick with the club for a decade or more with no means of pulling them back.

I think the solution is to have every club issued Father Son/Academy points, separate from the draft, every season. Everyone gets 400 points a year and just banks them. Clubs can trade them but when the time comes at the draft to match a bid it can only be with those points - no draft picks can be used, they either have the points in the bank or they don't.

No pick access points, can match a bid from pick one.

... and the evening up point? The points will be calculated back to 2005 (last current player draft year) and the points that would have been used for current father sons/academy players deducted. Some clubs will have had some academy players also chew up their points - but most clubs will get a surplus of points to use this season however they want.

No discounts, no restrictions - just 400 points per year to spend, trade or bank. After banking your points for 5 years you can match a bid at pick four. You can trade your draft picks for the academy points if you need one before hand.

Clubs that have a lot of father sons and academy players will have less points now, they might even be in deficit. Clubs that haven't had much success from those yet will in surplus.

Consider that if it came in this year the Dogs would need to cough up quite a lot, let's pretend they are 1200 points in deficit, so they buy Fremantle's 1200 point surplus for a pick in the 30s in a trade for Henry.

That's so crazy that it just might work.

 

[arsesmart]

I agree, but we have a problem of interference from the power controlling every couple of years because when it's someone's turn to suffer or their turn to win there are bulk complaints.

The draft is built such that the best talent is accessed by the worst performers, it's supposed to be a self regulatory churn where, on average a club is at the bottom roughly as much as they are at the top and over about 18 years it all evens out. But the AFL just couldn't let it sit for two decades without helping the clubs at the bottom.

The AFL pours more into the teams at the bottom to try and launch them back up the table, but it takes a while for those players to develop and they keep pouring. Those perks stick with the club for a decade or more with no means of pulling them back.

I think the solution is to have every club issued Father Son/Academy points, separate from the draft, every season. Everyone gets 400 points a year and just banks them. Clubs can trade them but when the time comes at the draft to match a bid it can only be with those points - no draft picks can be used, they either have the points in the bank or they don't.

No pick access points, can match a bid from pick one.

... and the evening up point? The points will be calculated back to 2005 (last current player draft year) and the points that would have been used for current father sons/academy players deducted. Some clubs will have had some academy players also chew up their points - but most clubs will get a surplus of points to use this season however they want.

No discounts, no restrictions - just 400 points per year to spend, trade or bank. After banking your points for 5 years you can match a bid at pick four. You can trade your draft picks for the academy points if you need one before hand.

Clubs that have a lot of father sons and academy players will have less points now, they might even be in deficit. Clubs that haven't had much success from those yet will in surplus.

Consider that if it came in this year the Dogs would need to cough up quite a lot, let's pretend they are 1200 points in deficit, so they buy Fremantle's 1200 point surplus for a pick in the 30s in a trade for Henry.

Good idea. Last year I posted near on same idea, although allow trading them may muddy the waters too much and dilute their purpose.

One way you could retrospectively add an equalisation measure of sorts is to have a F/S credit points system, where you get X amount of points in your account which you can use to get F/S selections.

The amount of points in a clubs account would be tied to how many current F/S selections they currently have on the list. Maybe even include F/S selections over the past decade. You could also tie in recent ladder position (and premierships) as well.

So something like 100 F/S points needs to be added to draft capital to get a top 5 draftee, 50 points for 6-10, 25 points 11-20 etc etc. Without the F/S points you need to generate greater draft capital to secure the F/S picks.

Buffering inequities, while still allowing the core of what is valuable about Father/Son. Gives targeted flexibility.

 

[freo_leo29]

This is exactly why my suggestions won't happen!

Yep, AFL will love the amount of trading that it has unlocked

As it stands, every season there are a couple of first rounders and second rounders up for grabs for clubs to trade in


This unlocks player trades as you'll let a player go for a third if you have plans to bundle it up for a good pick

Same thing for futures etc

It just really opens up the draft


EDIT: It just adds value to all picks of the draft (atleast til the 5th round), clubs used to value all the picks in the same order, now different cubs have different targets etc

 

[Tonga Bob]

Weird that the NGA eligibility rules may be relaxed next year and Collingwood having three potentially eligible NGA draftees aye? Sure it's merely coincidence.

Key back market thins, clubs eye big man, Giant's future uncertain

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

 

[ilikepotatoes]

Weird that the NGA eligibility rules may be relaxed next year and Collingwood having three potentially eligible NGA draftees aye? Sure it's merely coincidence.

Key back market thins, clubs eye big man, Giant's future uncertain

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

View attachment 1809400

Just after we lose access to Motlop and likely Edwards.

Nothing to see here.

 

[Purple Suit]

Just after we lose access to Motlop and likely Edwards.

Nothing to see here.

I curious what's Edwards background is to qualify for the next gen academy?

 

[Alfonz]

I curious what's Edwards background is to qualify for the next gen academy?

Good question. But if he isn't indigenous, all he needs is one parent to be born overseas. Mitch Owens for example was eligible because his mother was born in Japan.

 

[s_wd6]

I curious what's Edwards background is to qualify for the next gen academy?

I feel like I remember reading somewhere recently that he was indigenous but I’m not 100% sure. Article could’ve been talking about one of the other players mentioned

 

[Tonga Bob]

They're gonna make the NGA & father-son rules worse for us now aren't they???

AFL seeks club ideas on Indigenous talent, Academy systems

The League's competitive balance review is in full swing and clubs have been asked to get creative

www.afl.com.au

 

[Jezzitizle]

They're gonna make the NGA & father-son rules worse for us now aren't they???

AFL seeks club ideas on Indigenous talent, Academy systems

The League's competitive balance review is in full swing and clubs have been asked to get creative

www.afl.com.au

View attachment 1895914

Gotta say I don’t have much faith the club will advocate in our best interests here, or maybe I should say it’ll be tame and not what you’d hope for from a club that hasn’t won a flag, and should be making sure we aren’t at a competitive disadvantage.

If anyone has a contact at the club, good time to reach out!

 

[Taylor]

I'd be interested to see which clubs input is about their own prospects and which clubs are focused on not seeing other clubs get an advantage, because I suspect that the Victorian clubs are quite worried about WA and SA clubs accessing local Indigenous talent with priority access bid matching.

 

[Purple Suit]

I'd be interested to see which clubs input is about their own prospects and which clubs are focused on not seeing other clubs get an advantage, because I suspect that the Victorian clubs are quite worried about WA and SA clubs accessing local Indigenous talent with priority access bid matching.

Both states are currently at some pretty big disadvantages and haven't got much besides the initial concessions to 3/4 teams. You'd think 25 years of being stitched up on F/S could be forgiven if they just let us match bids for local indigenous talent till we win a flag.

Henry, Western & Benning are the only ones we've picked up recently off the top of my head and none have worked out for us anyway. Not sure what the AFL are worried about as the outcome will be more resources into identifying young talent and trying to nurture it, therefore more indigenous players. They could even cap our number at 1 per draft, as long as it's the best one and the rest might get picked up by other teams.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I'd be interested to see which clubs input is about their own prospects and which clubs are focused on not seeing other clubs get an advantage, because I suspect that the Victorian clubs are quite worried about WA and SA clubs accessing local Indigenous talent with priority access bid matching.

After 14 premierships in 16 years, they are concerned non vic clubs may win 50% of flags.

Both states are currently at some pretty big disadvantages and haven't got much besides the initial concessions to 3/4 teams. You'd think 25 years of being stitched up on F/S could be forgiven if they just let us match bids for local indigenous talent till we win a flag.

Henry, Western & Benning are the only ones we've picked up recently off the top of my head and none have worked out for us anyway. Not sure what the AFL are worried about as the outcome will be more resources into identifying young talent and trying to nurture it, therefore more indigenous players. They could even cap our number at 1 per draft, as long as it's the best one and the rest might get picked up by other teams.

The last deal cost the crows Rankine, us Motlop, Eagles the younger Cameron plus a few more I am sure.

 

[Dump Truck]

Both states are currently at some pretty big disadvantages and haven't got much besides the initial concessions to 3/4 teams. You'd think 25 years of being stitched up on F/S could be forgiven if they just let us match bids for local indigenous talent till we win a flag.

Henry, Western & Benning are the only ones we've picked up recently off the top of my head and none have worked out for us anyway. Not sure what the AFL are worried about as the outcome will be more resources into identifying young talent and trying to nurture it, therefore more indigenous players. They could even cap our number at 1 per draft, as long as it's the best one and the rest might get picked up by other teams.

The annoying thing about Henry was it was one of the few times the old rules actually advantaged us. Turns out Walker will probably be the best and we didn't get him until a pick in the 50s.

 

[Taylor]

When you remember that WC exists to provide the AFL revenue, Fremantle exists to prevent WC having a monopoly on state talent and sponsorship opportunities and the SA clubs are quite the same then it makes everything easier to understand.

The AFL don't owe us a premiership, we are lucky to even get to play in their league and clubs like Collingwood have propped up the AFL for decades before we even existed and their fans deserve some reward for that.

...

But they do worry about making sure the Eastern state's access to our junior talent isn't compromised. And that's fair. The AFL pays for the junior competition in the east, so we shouldn't get access to their players - but over here WC pays a considerable proportion of the money the WAFC has to use each year - they really should get a free shot at picking a player they paid to send through the system

I keep slipping into sarcasm.

 

[Dump Truck]

When you remember that WC exists to provide the AFL revenue, Fremantle exists to prevent WC having a monopoly on state talent and sponsorship opportunities and the SA clubs are quite the same then it makes everything easier to understand.

The AFL don't owe us a premiership, we are lucky to even get to play in their league and clubs like Collingwood have propped up the AFL for decades before we even existed and their fans deserve some reward for that.

...

But they do worry about making sure the Eastern state's access to our junior talent isn't compromised. And that's fair. The AFL pays for the junior competition in the east, so we shouldn't get access to their players - but over here WC pays a considerable proportion of the money the WAFC has to use each year - they really should get a free shot at picking a player they paid to send through the system

I keep slipping into sarcasm.

Did we get Moller from the same system the Crows got Tex Walker? Or is that completely wrong and I've mixed up a bunch of random things?
I seem to recall the AFL used to run the NSW academies?

 

[Taylor]

Did we get Moller from the same system the Crows got Tex Walker? Or is that completely wrong and I've mixed up a bunch of random things?
I seem to recall the AFL used to run the NSW academies?

That's correct, same process

 

[Dump Truck]

That's correct, same process

By memory, did anyone else hit gold from that system?

 

[Taylor]

By memory, did anyone else hit gold from that system?

Will Langford at Hawthorn was alright