Opinion Is father-son access going to heavily dictate the next decade of premiers?

[GC2015]

But who cares some of them are just discounted duds that get picked down low in the draft so it all evens out

The irony is not lost on me when I see a Hawthorn supporter trying to convince everyone that the F/S rule is not that advantageous when his club drafted two of them last year and one was a first round pick. People either don't know what's going on or they are purposely choosing to ignore the truth that 7 of the last 15 F/S picks in the ND were first round picks and we're about to see a 4th top 4 F/S pick in the last 4 years when Levi Ashcroft gets drafted to Brisbane.

You can try to write it off as a few strong years for F/S prospects and that it'll eventually even out, but guess what? Early predictions have Collingwood F/S prospect Thomas McGuane as a top 5 pick in the 2025 draft and Carlton F/S prospect Cody Walker is also seen as a probable top 5 pick in the 2026 draft. This is going to continue and the evidence is going to keep mounting.

 

[Viceregal]

So if I am reading concept right:

- father son is designed to embrace, enhance and encourage going forward long term and generational support in a world where loyalty is an ever more flakey concept... that would be a tick.

- all clubs have (or will have over time) equal access to this ... also a tick

- all clubs have equal opportunity even if equity in outcome is not guaranteed... also a tick (you can't force genetics (or shouldn't)

- clubs with father son prospects are starting their training earlier on top of their potentially positive and footy friendly home environment and this is also open to every club ... also a tick

- some clubs do their best to encourage their players to remember their time with them fondly and others ban their best and fairest from the annual awards night ... again this is each club's choice so also a tick

- does it affect the draft order? Of course it does ... as do priority picks, academy matches, compensation picks, trading, concessional picks for new teams (I well remember coming second last our first pick was 8 and last got 6 with the rest being GWS picks), pity picks (eg North, Saints) but again swings and roundabouts (I am sure the Saints fans were delighted when Carlton lost their pick 1 and 2 and they picked up Goddard) ... again affects everyone

- some have no club and don't see the point ... all good but the vast majority of AFL fandom are tribal and that is the demographic this caters to and since the rule was there when you started following I have same sympathy I do for the folks who buy a cheap house under an airport flight path and then complain how the noise is unfair.

- Claim it is unprofessional / amateur... how about we revisit this after we have a fair fixture, transparent rules and umpiring, fair access to time slots, transparent reimbursement of players, unbiased commentary and media, playing GF at higher team's home ground, transparent rules for compensation etc etc etc

So will F/s affect premierships going forward? Most likely yes but it is only one factor ... adding Will Ashcroft to the Brisbane team in 2016 would not have won us a flag just like North's priority picks didn't catapult them up the ladder and the Gold Coast GWS didn't share next 10 flags as some catastrophised would happen...

As long as it is applied to everybody I am fine with it and equally happy even when it ends up unequally distributed!

 

[Cleansweep17]

So if I am reading concept right:

- father son is designed to embrace, enhance and encourage going forward long term and generational support in a world where loyalty is an ever more flakey concept... that would be a tick.

- all clubs have (or will have over time) equal access to this ... also a tick

- all clubs have equal opportunity even if equity in outcome is not guaranteed... also a tick (you can't force genetics (or shouldn't)

- clubs with father son prospects are starting their training earlier on top of their potentially positive and footy friendly home environment and this is also open to every club ... also a tick

- some clubs do their best to encourage their players to remember their time with them fondly and others ban their best and fairest from the annual awards night ... again this is each club's choice so also a tick

- does it affect the draft order? Of course it does ... as do priority picks, academy matches, compensation picks, trading, concessional picks for new teams (I well remember coming second last our first pick was 8 and last got 6 with the rest being GWS picks), pity picks (eg North, Saints) but again swings and roundabouts (I am sure the Saints fans were delighted when Carlton lost their pick 1 and 2 and they picked up Goddard) ... again affects everyone

- some have no club and don't see the point ... all good but the vast majority of AFL fandom are tribal and that is the demographic this caters to and since the rule was there when you started following I have same sympathy I do for the folks who buy a cheap house under an airport flight path and then complain how the noise is unfair.

- Claim it is unprofessional / amateur... how about we revisit this after we have a fair fixture, transparent rules and umpiring, fair access to time slots, transparent reimbursement of players, unbiased commentary and media, playing GF at higher team's home ground, transparent rules for compensation etc etc etc

So will F/s affect premierships going forward? Most likely yes but it is only one factor ... adding Will Ashcroft to the Brisbane team in 2016 would not have won us a flag just like North's priority picks didn't catapult them up the ladder and the Gold Coast GWS didn't share next 10 flags as some catastrophised would happen...

As long as it is applied to everybody I am fine with it and equally happy even when it ends up unequally distributed!

As long as there isn’t a discount when bidding it’s fine. I think it’s currently 80% draft point value or something to match.

And we don’t want the automatic get with pick 40 days in the 2000s again. Gross.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

The irony is not lost on me when I see a Hawthorn supporter trying to convince everyone that the F/S rule is not that advantageous when his club drafted two of them last year and one was a first round pick. People either don't know what's going on or they are purposely choosing to ignore the truth that 7 of the last 15 F/S picks in the ND were first round picks and we're about to see a 4th top 4 F/S pick in the last 4 years when Levi Ashcroft gets drafted to Brisbane.

You can try to write it off as a few strong years for F/S prospects and that it'll eventually even out, but guess what? Early predictions have Collingwood F/S prospect Thomas McGuane as a top 5 pick in the 2025 draft and Carlton F/S prospect Cody Walker is also seen as a probable top 5 pick in the 2026 draft. This is going to continue and the evidence is going to keep mounting.

McGuane won't go close to top 5 so don't need to worry about that next year. Walker looks every bit a Daicos type talent so far but a long way to go

 

[rye]

Right, but the point of the thread is that the father-son rule appears to have become more advantageous these days than it ever was in the past and whether that will heavily dictate the next decade of premierships. It's undeniable that Nick Daicos, Darcy Moore and Will Ashcroft had a big say in the two premierships that have been won since this thread was started.

So what's changed? It appears that some clubs are putting a lot more time/resources into the development of their F/S prospects and are getting early access to develop them (training wise) thanks to the AFL relaxing their rules. It's kind of like the NGAs when we started seeing top 10 picks coming through after the AFL chose to incentivise the development of those players for clubs.

more advantageous than when players like brown, watson, scarlett, shaw (x2) and hawkins got drafted for a packet of chips?

seriously?

since the advent of the draft, there has been 26 players taken under the father / son rule to play more than 100 games. that averages out to less than one top father / son prospect annually. in terms of things impacting the equality of the afl competition it would rank well down the list for anyone who looks at it with perspective.

 

[GC2015]

McGuane won't go close to top 5 so don't need to worry about that next year. Walker looks every bit a Daicos type talent so far but a long way to go

Wouldn't be so sure about McGuane. He'll get the opportunity to train with the Pies this off season and there's no doubt he'll learn a thing or two from the likes of Nick Daicos. McGuane is currently viewed as a first round talent and I think there's every chance he could rocket into the top 10 calculations. Anyway, Cody Walker does seem the safer bet in that sense.

more advantageous than when players like brown, watson, scarlett, shaw (x2) and hawkins got drafted for a packet of chips?

seriously?

How many of those were considered top 4 picks leading into the draft? I know Hawkins was the consensus number 1 pick and that's why the rule changed. I also know Ablett was seen as a late first rounder/early second rounder.

I'd be surprised if you could show me 4 consecutive years in which F/S picks that were considered top 4 talents were drafted to their respective teams, because that's what we're seeing at the moment.

since the advent of the draft, there has been 26 players taken under the father / son rule to play more than 100 games. that averages out to less than one top father / son prospect annually. in terms of things impacting the equality of the afl competition it would rank well down the list for anyone who looks at it with perspective.

Funny how people just extend the timeline to make their point. Do you think Nick Daicos is going to reach 100 games? How about Will Ashcrtoft? Levi Ashcroft? Sam Darcy? These are all essentially guaranteed 100+ game F/S players drafted in the last 4 years and will likely end up closer to 300 games when it's all said and done. You might say, what about the other F/S picks over the last few years? I'm reasonably confident that players like Jaspa Fletcher, Jase Burgoyne, Max Michalanney, Jackson Archer, Calsher Dear etc will also reach 100 games before their careers come to an end. Basically, I'm suggesting that the majority of F/S picks that were drafted in the last 4 years will play over 100 AFL games.

Jason Cloke not reaching 100 AFL games when his career came to an end in 2006 has zero bearing on the quality of F/S prospects we're seeing in the draft these days. Times have changed and looking back on the history of F/S players isn't a fair reflection on what we're seeing now.

 

[Dogflogger]

So if I am reading concept right:

- father son is designed to embrace, enhance and encourage going forward long term and generational support in a world where loyalty is an ever more flakey concept... that would be a tick.

- all clubs have (or will have over time) equal access to this ... also a tick

- all clubs have equal opportunity even if equity in outcome is not guaranteed... also a tick (you can't force genetics (or shouldn't)

- clubs with father son prospects are starting their training earlier on top of their potentially positive and footy friendly home environment and this is also open to every club ... also a tick

- some clubs do their best to encourage their players to remember their time with them fondly and others ban their best and fairest from the annual awards night ... again this is each club's choice so also a tick

- does it affect the draft order? Of course it does ... as do priority picks, academy matches, compensation picks, trading, concessional picks for new teams (I well remember coming second last our first pick was 8 and last got 6 with the rest being GWS picks), pity picks (eg North, Saints) but again swings and roundabouts (I am sure the Saints fans were delighted when Carlton lost their pick 1 and 2 and they picked up Goddard) ... again affects everyone

- some have no club and don't see the point ... all good but the vast majority of AFL fandom are tribal and that is the demographic this caters to and since the rule was there when you started following I have same sympathy I do for the folks who buy a cheap house under an airport flight path and then complain how the noise is unfair.

- Claim it is unprofessional / amateur... how about we revisit this after we have a fair fixture, transparent rules and umpiring, fair access to time slots, transparent reimbursement of players, unbiased commentary and media, playing GF at higher team's home ground, transparent rules for compensation etc etc etc

So will F/s affect premierships going forward? Most likely yes but it is only one factor ... adding Will Ashcroft to the Brisbane team in 2016 would not have won us a flag just like North's priority picks didn't catapult them up the ladder and the Gold Coast GWS didn't share next 10 flags as some catastrophised would happen...

As long as it is applied to everybody I am fine with it and equally happy even when it ends up unequally distributed!

They could easily just have a sliding discount so teams like Collingwood who have 15 f/s over 30 years stops getting a discount for a period and teams like freo can at least get one cheap father son. I think that would stop people complaining about the same teams getting multiple hits in a short period. but they way they change it we will be complaing till daicos and ashcroft retire. i just stopped complaing about Hawkins lol.

 

[The Punter]

In all the supportive posts, no addressing the fact that no compensation is paid to the club having access taken away from them.

Richmond have pick 1. If Brisbane want access to Ashcroft, they should compensate Richmond per mutual agreement between the two clubs.

 

[Viceregal]

In all the supportive posts, no addressing the fact that no compensation is paid to the club having access taken away from them.

Richmond have pick 1. If Brisbane want access to Ashcroft, they should compensate Richmond per mutual agreement between the two clubs.

I read an article the other day talking about the top three draft prospects and Levi wasn't one of them ... you keep wanting to have Richmond compensated when there is no guarantee that they would even be the ones to pick him.

If you brought in some kind of compensation for the club whose bid is matched then you would be artificially inflating the value of the F/s and I could easily see a club bid on every possible F/s / Academy player until someone doesn't match and stacking up the whatever reward you think that they should be receiving...

 

[Hollow Knight]

In all the supportive posts, no addressing the fact that no compensation is paid to the club having access taken away from them.

Richmond have pick 1. If Brisbane want access to Ashcroft, they should compensate Richmond per mutual agreement between the two clubs.

We did

 

[The Punter]

I read an article the other day talking about the top three draft prospects and Levi wasn't one of them ... you keep wanting to have Richmond compensated when there is no guarantee that they would even be the ones to pick him.

If you brought in some kind of compensation for the club whose bid is matched then you would be artificially inflating the value of the F/s and I could easily see a club bid on every possible F/s / Academy player until someone doesn't match and stacking up the whatever reward you think that they should be receiving...

So say it isn't Ashcroft Brisbane really want, it's someone else and Brisbane come to the conclusion they are going to need the #1 pick to get that player. What would they then have to trade to Richmond? That's the fair price.

If Brisbane don't think Richmond will take Ashcroft at #1 that's fine, then what will it take to get the pick that will get Ashcroft? That's the fair price.

Richmond have the first pick as they finished last. They should be able to pick whomever they want. That's how the draft meets its sole objective: to send the best talent to the worst team as a way of equitably providing opportunity for all teams to win premierships as much as is possible.

But the point you raise in your second paragraph is a valid one, which is another reason the rule cannot be made to be fair and should just be abolished altogether.

 

[Toffee Lion]

I do find it funny that it's only an issue when the F/S is actually a good player. No one cares when they're a dud pick up in the later picks or not even worthy of selection at all (Casey Voss).

End of the day, the player also has the say. Levi could have easily decided that he'd rather go into the draft (Ala Marc Murphy) but opted for the Lions.

If there is any change to F/S, it's getting rid of the discount and that's it. To do away with it completely is just rubbish.

 

[The Punter]

I do find it funny that it's only an issue when the F/S is actually a good player. No one cares when they're a dud pick up in the later picks or not even worthy of selection at all (Casey Voss).

End of the day, the player also has the say. Levi could have easily decided that he'd rather go into the draft (Ala Marc Murphy) but opted for the Lions.

If there is any change to F/S, it's getting rid of the discount and that's it. To do away with it completely is just rubbish.

When they are a dud pick up, it is usually with a late pick and every club has had the chance to pick them up already.

Brisbane shouldn't have access to a top five pick this year unless they trade for that pick. They just won the premiership.

Also, not for nothing, if Will Collins had won the Norm Smith in a Brisbane premiership, you would have been just as happy with winning it. Not a single person barracks for their club because of the father-son rule, but it is unarguably affecting premierships. All three Collingwood All-Australians in their Premiership year (otherwise known as the captain, the best Brownlow poller and the best and fairest) were all father-sons. Everyone knew Nick Daicos was one of the best two players in that draft going in and only Collingwood had access to him. If they had pick 2 and used it (they traded it away because they knew they wouldn't need it) to pick Nick Daicos after Port Adelaide passed on him, that would have been fair.

What does it add: very little.

What does it subtract: the very idea of why a league has a draft.

 

[HairyO]

The irony is not lost on me when I see a Hawthorn supporter trying to convince everyone that the F/S rule is not that advantageous when his club drafted two of them last year and one was a first round pick. People either don't know what's going on or they are purposely choosing to ignore the truth that 7 of the last 15 F/S picks in the ND were first round picks and we're about to see a 4th top 4 F/S pick in the last 4 years when Levi Ashcroft gets drafted to Brisbane.

You can try to write it off as a few strong years for F/S prospects and that it'll eventually even out, but guess what? Early predictions have Collingwood F/S prospect Thomas McGuane as a top 5 pick in the 2025 draft and Carlton F/S prospect Cody Walker is also seen as a probable top 5 pick in the 2026 draft. This is going to continue and the evidence is going to keep mounting.

13 clubs had a chance. Roos used their 3rd pick on him. The idea that McCabe is an example of a broken F/S system is ridiculous.

As for Dear, he was pick 56 and everyone had multiple chances.

Just a ridiculous set of flawed statements.

Lions will get 2 x 1st picks in 3 years. Pies got Daicos for a bunch of rubbish picks. Darcy was a steal.

Etc. Etc.

 

[Hollow Knight]

What does it add: very little.

What does it subtract: the very idea of why a league has a draft.

We're well and truly in subjective opinion territory because I think it adds quite a lot and subtracts very little. shrug

I love the romance of it. It feels right to me that the children of Robert Harvey, Nick Riewoldt or Lenny Hayes should play for the Saints.

It's a self-correcting problem too. In the long run, statistically clubs should all get father-sons coming through, and secondly, if it really is holding certain clubs back, those clubs will receive higher draft picks over time than the clubs who are advantaged by it.

The rubber bands will always do their thing, and will be more effective once the discount is reduced next year. I'm hoping that will be the end most of the moaning.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

We're well and truly in subjective opinion territory because I think it adds quite a lot and subtracts very little. shrug

It's a self-correcting problem too. In the long run, statistically clubs should all get father-sons coming through, and secondly, if it really is holding certain clubs back, those clubs will receive higher draft picks over time than the clubs who are advantaged by it.

Nah. The draft is the only consistent pathway for shit teams to get elite talent but that is the not the case for good teams.

Good teams getting propped up by elite f/s and academies, helps them stay more desirable locations for elite talent to request trades and F/A to. And having that excess salary cap space hasn't seemed to assist the bad teams sway talent.

 

[The Punter]

Also, more successful teams are more likely to have 100 game players which is the father-son threshold. So it entrenches disadvantage.

 

[Toffee Lion]

Nah. The draft is the only consistent pathway for shit teams to get elite talent but that is the not the case for good teams.

Good teams getting propped up by elite f/s and academies, helps them stay more desirable locations for elite talent to request trades and F/A to. And having that excess salary cap space hasn't seemed to assist the bad teams sway talent.

The draft is not "consistent". We had many high end picks come to the Lions only to seek trades back to their respective states, something that benefits VIC clubs quite heavily in the long run. The academies help in that regard.

Father Son is just spin the wheel and see where your luck lands. Either you're a St.Kilda and end up with nothing apparently or you're a Collingwood and benefit for years. Who's to say in 15-20 years it's not reversed, it's just genetics & luck.

I'll still stand by my point that if the AFL wants to remove discounts, fair play. Anything else is just reactionary.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

The draft is not "consistent". We had many high end picks come to the Lions only to seek trades back to their respective states, something that benefits VIC clubs quite heavily in the long run. The academies help in that regard.

Father Son is just spin the wheel and see where your luck lands. Either you're a St.Kilda and end up with nothing apparently or you're a Collingwood and benefit for years. Who's to say in 15-20 years it's not reversed, it's just genetics & luck.

I'll still stand by my point that if the AFL wants to remove discounts, fair play. Anything else is just reactionary.

You've had more stars leave their clubs for you in the last 6 years than Saints and Kangaroos have combined in the last 20.

Not one player that has left you has been a bigger loss than Jason Horne Francis. This is the reality of football where ever you are from. Why should we throw out the rebuilding mechanism because of it?

Who cares if it's reversed in 20 years, the legitimacy of those premierships will also be compromised.

The rule itself is reactionary to the drive for nepotism.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Also, more successful teams are more likely to have 100 game players which is the father-son threshold. So it entrenches disadvantage.

On what basis are they more likely to have 100 game players? 100 games is not a high bar.

 

[GC2015]

13 clubs had a chance. Roos used their 3rd pick on him. The idea that McCabe is an example of a broken F/S system is ridiculous.

As for Dear, he was pick 56 and everyone had multiple chances.

Just a ridiculous set of flawed statements.

Lions will get 2 x 1st picks in 3 years. Pies got Daicos for a bunch of rubbish picks. Darcy was a steal.

Etc. Etc.

Obviously Brisbane and Collingwood have benefitted more from the F/S rule than Hawthorn, but that doesn't mean the Hawks haven't benefitted. Had McCabe not been so highly rated then your natural second pick would have been something like pick 35. The F/S rule allowed your club to move up the draft order approximately 15 spots and that's what happens when we see highly rated F/S or academy players coming through.

I'm not going to deny that my club benefitted from the academy access last year, just like you shouldn't deny that your club benefitted from F/S access last year.

 

[HairyO]

Obviously Brisbane and Collingwood have benefitted more from the F/S rule than Hawthorn, but that doesn't mean the Hawks haven't benefitted. Had McCabe not been so highly rated then your natural second pick would have been something like pick 35. The F/S rule allowed your club to move up the draft order approximately 15 spots and that's what happens when we see highly rated F/S or academy players coming through.

I'm not going to deny that my club benefitted from the academy access last year, just like you shouldn't deny that your club benefitted from F/S access last year.

Yeah this is exactly like GCS getting 3 players in the first 20 with only a single late 1st round pick.

Hawks have hardly any F/S or NGA and none were heavily sought after by other clubs.

No rational person is using our history of evidence of how bad the rules are.

 

[Dogflogger]

The draft is not "consistent". We had many high end picks come to the Lions only to seek trades back to their respective states, something that benefits VIC clubs quite heavily in the long run. The academies help in that regard.

Father Son is just spin the wheel and see where your luck lands. Either you're a St.Kilda and end up with nothing apparently or you're a Collingwood and benefit for years. Who's to say in 15-20 years it's not reversed, it's just genetics & luck.

I'll still stand by my point that if the AFL wants to remove discounts, fair play. Anything else is just reactionary.

shame fans don't live for a thousand years to see it all even out.

 

[The Punter]

On what basis are they more likely to have 100 game players? 100 games is not a high bar.

Teams that win more games have less turnover on their lists. Bad teams turnover their lists at a higher rate, meaning fewer players who get to 100 games with a club.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Teams that win more games have less turnover on their lists. Bad teams turnover their lists at a higher rate, meaning fewer players who get to 100 games with a club.

You're just making this up.