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

[The Punter]

You're just making this up.

Geelong have been successful for nearly 20 years now. They had 17 players on their list with at least 100 games played for Geelong this year.

North Melbourne had six.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Geelong have been successful for nearly 20 years now. They had 17 players on their list with at least 100 games played for Geelong this year.

North Melbourne had six.

How many 100 game players did North have on their list 5 years ago champ?

 

[marcus1232]

How many 100 game players did North have on their list 5 years ago champ?

Really champing someone
I thought this was a friendly forum

 

[Dogflogger]

How many 100 game players did North have on their list 5 years ago champ?

shit teams do have a bit more player movement though, for instance we have only had 2 F/S one of which was also F/S for Carlton, if you look into our future potential father sons alot of those are also F/S for multiple clubs. Shit clubs do leak good players and good players sometimes have sons who can play.

 

[GC2015]

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

Yup. That's why I won't deny my club has benefitted recently from our academy access, just like you should acknowledge that your club benefitted recently from the F/S rule. Brisbane and Collingwood fans should also acknowledge that they've benefitted greatly from the F/S rule in recent years.

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.

The same can be said about the Suns academy until last year when outrage ensued. Footy fans only start to care when they think something is potentially hurting their club. We saw the outrage from last year lead to the academy + F/S bidding rules/point allocation changing and my club won't have access to any F/S picks for at least another decade so that's an obvious inequality that can't be fixed in the short term.

If we (the Suns) start playing finals, then we'll likely lose highly rated academy players. So there's a mechanism in place to not help a successful northern club too much through their academy access if they're already succeeding on field. The same restriction doesn't exist for the F/S rule e.g. In 2022 the Lions were able to match F/S bids for two top 12 picks in Will Ashcroft and Jaspa Fletcher when they had just competed in a prelim final against Geelong.

If both had been academy players, then the Lions wouldn't have been able to match a bid for Jaspa Fletcher and he'd most likely be a Bulldog right now because they were the ones that bid on him. Two years later, both are premiership players for the Lions, one is the Norm Smith medallist and Brisbane are about to land the best junior in the land through the F/S rule. It's undeniable that Brisbane have benefitted hugely from the F/S rule over the last few years. The same can be said about Collingwood with Moore and Daicosx2.

Funnily enough, earlier this year Carlton faced a similar situation to Brisbane in 2022 when the Camporeale twins were coming through and were highly rated at the beginning of the season. The Blues had just made a prelim at the end of last year and seemed genuinely worried that they may lose one of the Camporeale boys if the rules were altered. So they pushed hard for the rules to remain the same this year. Clubs are going to push for whatever is best for them in these situation, not what is fair.

That's ultimately why the F/S rule will probably never be abolished because there's the perpetual hope from all clubs that maybe, just maybe, their club will have a F/S prospect come through that's the best player in the draft and they can build a premiership team around them like we've seen with Daicos/Ashcroft in recent times.