List Mgmt. Future Father Son prospects

Remove this Banner Ad

Any chance of of draft year lol
Tried to compile a list based on what ever information I could find. If anyone could fill in the rest of the gaps, feel free to assist.

Jackson Archer (2021) ✅
Darby Scott (2021) :crossmark:
Jai Makepeace (2021/22) :crossmark:
Thomas Longmire (2021/22):crossmark:

Dylan Makepeace (2022) :crossmark:
Cooper Harvey (2022) ✅

Byron Pickett Jnr (2023) :crossmark:
Lucas Rocca (2023) :crossmark:
Billy Longmire (2023) :crossmark:

Ryder Makepeace (2024) :crossmark:
Will Crocker (2024) :crossmark:
Lucas McCartney (2024) :crossmark:
River Stevens (2024)

2025
Zach Fairley (2025)
Kayde Pickett (2025)
Owen Simpson (2025)
Archer Grant (2025)
Kai Schwass (2025)

2026
Sam Harris (2026)
Aiden McCartney (2026)

2027-
Marcus Rocca (2027-2028)
Sasha Demetriou (2027-2028)
Suede Makepeace (2027-2028)
James Rock TBC
Jack Petrie (2028)
Conor Rawlings (2029)
Hudson Harvey (2030)
Thomas Colbert (~2031)
Noah McMahon (2031)
Ryder Hansen (2031)
Lenny Firrito (2031)
Mason Sinclair (2032)
Lachlan Goldstein (2033)
Max Firrito (2034)
Xavier Cunnington (2034)
Sebastian Gibson (2034)
Jude Swallow (2035)
Cohen Thomas (2035)
Sonny Sinclair (2037)
Flynn Thompson (2037)
Carter Carey (2037)
Charlie Goldstein (2039)
Kobe Cunnington (2039)
Laker Hansen (2030+)
[Unknown name] Hansen (2030+)
[Unknown name] Colbert (2032+)


Ineligible
-------------------------------------
Tyler Welsh (2024) - Son of Scott
Tom Cochrane (2024) - Son of Stuart
Jagger Mooney (2025) - Son of Cameron
Dougie Cochrane (2026) - Son of Stuart
Kody Lecras (2026) - Son of Brent
Ethan Abraham - Son of Winnie
Gary Abraham - Son of Winnie
[Unknown name] Abraham - Son of Winnie
Elijah Anderson (2030) - Son of Jed
Jasiah Anderson (2031) - Son of Jed
Archer Harvey (2025) - Son of Shane
Jett Harvey (2028) - Son of Shane
Slater Harvey (2031) - Son of Shane
Louis Thompson (2021) - Son of Nathan
Benjamin Thompson (2023) - Son of Nathan
Jude Dal Santo (2033)
Hendrix Daw (2037)
Isaiah Hall (2038)
Riley Polec (2038)
 
Last edited:
My whole point is just that sons of professional footballers should not qualify for academies.
So because he’s the son of a former player he gets to rot playing sub standard junior football in Sydney?

The issue is actually around whether someone who is F/S eligible should be able to be selected by the Academy club and if so, what they have to pay through the draft.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So because he’s the son of a former player he gets to rot playing sub standard junior football in Sydney?

The issue is actually around whether someone who is F/S eligible should be able to be selected by the Academy club and if so, what they have to pay through the draft.

No, they would still be able to play in the academy system, but they wouldn’t be able to select him. Just like the southern academies, which can’t select anyone good enough to be a top 40 pick
 
I wonder if there'll ever be an appetite for broadening the father-son qualification criteria. In my opinion, the arbitrary 100-game limit is too restrictive and, well, arbitrary. I mean, what really is the difference between 99 and 100 games? There are many other measures of a player's contribution to a club.

Take Matthew Capuano, for example. A two-time North Melbourne premiership player who, because of injuries, only played 82 games for the club. He's one of only a handful of players to win a premiership at North - never mind two - but were he to produce a generational talent of a son, he wouldn't be FS eligible.

Laidley is another; only 99 games, but a premiership, and 149 more as coach. But ineligible.

I really think premierships and Brownlows at the very least should count, and probably games coached, too. I'd say B&Fs as well, but I guess that could be rorted.
 
I wonder if there'll ever be an appetite for broadening the father-son qualification criteria. In my opinion, the arbitrary 100-game limit is too restrictive and, well, arbitrary. I mean, what really is the difference between 99 and 100 games? There are many other measures of a player's contribution to a club.

Take Matthew Capuano, for example. A two-time North Melbourne premiership player who, because of injuries, only played 82 games for the club. He's one of only a handful of players to win a premiership at North - never mind two - but were he to produce a generational talent of a son, he wouldn't be FS eligible.

Laidley is another; only 99 games, but a premiership, and 149 more as coach. But ineligible.

I really think premierships and Brownlows at the very least should count, and probably games coached, too. I'd say B&Fs as well, but I guess that could be rorted.


Before I climb down from my soapbox, here's how I'd do it. Make it a points system; instead of 100 games, it's 100 points, scored something like this:

1 game = 1 point
Premiership = 75 points
Brownlow = 50 points
Norm Smith Medal = 50 points
Best and Fairest = 20 points
All-Australian = 20 points

Something like that, anyway.
 
I wonder if there'll ever be an appetite for broadening the father-son qualification criteria. In my opinion, the arbitrary 100-game limit is too restrictive and, well, arbitrary. I mean, what really is the difference between 99 and 100 games? There are many other measures of a player's contribution to a club.

Take Matthew Capuano, for example. A two-time North Melbourne premiership player who, because of injuries, only played 82 games for the club. He's one of only a handful of players to win a premiership at North - never mind two - but were he to produce a generational talent of a son, he wouldn't be FS eligible.

Laidley is another; only 99 games, but a premiership, and 149 more as coach. But ineligible.

I really think premierships and Brownlows at the very least should count, and probably games coached, too. I'd say B&Fs as well, but I guess that could be rorted.
Years on the list maybe?
 
I wonder if there'll ever be an appetite for broadening the father-son qualification criteria. In my opinion, the arbitrary 100-game limit is too restrictive and, well, arbitrary. I mean, what really is the difference between 99 and 100 games? There are many other measures of a player's contribution to a club.

Take Matthew Capuano, for example. A two-time North Melbourne premiership player who, because of injuries, only played 82 games for the club. He's one of only a handful of players to win a premiership at North - never mind two - but were he to produce a generational talent of a son, he wouldn't be FS eligible.

Laidley is another; only 99 games, but a premiership, and 149 more as coach. But ineligible.

I really think premierships and Brownlows at the very least should count, and probably games coached, too. I'd say B&Fs as well, but I guess that could be rorted.
The pre-requisite should be whether their parent's name is on a locker.
 
I wonder if there'll ever be an appetite for broadening the father-son qualification criteria. In my opinion, the arbitrary 100-game limit is too restrictive and, well, arbitrary. I mean, what really is the difference between 99 and 100 games? There are many other measures of a player's contribution to a club.

Take Matthew Capuano, for example. A two-time North Melbourne premiership player who, because of injuries, only played 82 games for the club. He's one of only a handful of players to win a premiership at North - never mind two - but were he to produce a generational talent of a son, he wouldn't be FS eligible.

Laidley is another; only 99 games, but a premiership, and 149 more as coach. But ineligible.

I really think premierships and Brownlows at the very least should count, and probably games coached, too. I'd say B&Fs as well, but I guess that could be rorted.
Great points. I think premiership player should definitely be automatic inclusion/availability. 100 games is too high IMO. Many very good players play less than 100 games for a club. Should be 50 games or something like 5 years on a list.
Academies taking players whose father played for another club is an absolute rort.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Great points. I think premiership player should definitely be automatic inclusion/availability. 100 games is too high IMO. Many very good players play less than 100 games for a club. Should be 50 games or something like 5 years on a list.
Academies taking players whose father played for another club is an absolute rort.
I agree, but I also see the counter argument, that having more players who are eligible to be drafted as father-son players would more heavily compromise the already highly compromised draft.
 
I have the opposite view, and think the whole FS thing should be scrapped, and not have added eligibility options. I'll be in the minority with this opinion. But it does compromise the system when you can trade 5 rubbish picks for points to equal a first rounder.

Do other sports have a similar rule?
 
I have the opposite view, and think the whole FS thing should be scrapped, and not have added eligibility options. I'll be in the minority with this opinion. But it does compromise the system when you can trade 5 rubbish picks for points to equal a first rounder.

Do other sports have a similar rule?

Yep, scrap the lot and have a clean draft.
 
I have the opposite view, and think the whole FS thing should be scrapped, and not have added eligibility options. I'll be in the minority with this opinion. But it does compromise the system when you can trade 5 rubbish picks for points to equal a first rounder.

Do other sports have a similar rule?
I'm with you.



On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. Future Father Son prospects

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top