St Kilda President Andrew Bassat tees off on the AFL draft system, specifically father/son and the Northern Academies

[Saint believer]

The issue isn’t the access. It’s the cost.

Imagine actually needing to pay the equivalent cost for Libba West JUH Darcy & Croft etc

And what did Geelong pay for drafting Hawkins and Ablett jr?

A long standing fort that has suited the AFL.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Elixuh]

And that's the thing...the only fair approach is for the AFL to run the academies and yet if they are given them, it will be a fleck up.

If a club is developing and running the academies, then absolutely they need to be rewarded. They need to pay a little more than a bag of chips though for what are top 5 (if not #1) draft picks. And yet the AFL is asleep at the wheel.

Same goes for father / son picks.

Yeah it’s why we have the club run system. Because when the AFL ran them it failed and was a disaster.

Agree that we need to get rewarded by access but also pay a reasonable cost. Which is where we are headed with the changes next year - which is why the St Kilda B&F outburst is so bizarre.

 

[Toump Ass]

The irony of course is that the league first introduced the father son rule to help Melbourne get Ron Barrassi.

Who cares what the league did as an amateur competiton 100 years ago? It's a professional sport now.

 

[The Nostradamus]

And that's the thing...the only fair approach is for the AFL to run the academies and yet if they are given them, it will be a fleck up.

If a club is developing and running the academies, then absolutely they need to be rewarded. They need to pay a little more than a bag of chips though for what are top 5 (if not #1) draft picks. And yet the AFL is asleep at the wheel.

Same goes for father / son picks.

I’d like to think the afl should be better prepared to run it again now

Give it back to them to trial it so the draft is less compromised for a few years

 

[paulige]

Clubs don’t get a discount for academy or F/S .

In order to match in the first two rounds you need to be within 10 picks of the selection. Easy

Do this, pretty much. Though maybe keep a small discount for Academy picks as incentive for clubs to continue to invest heavily in their development.

“Access” to a F/S player should be the only benefit though - the discount makes no sense IMO.

Some combination of 0% discount, and needing to use at least one pick within some arbitrary distance of the bid (let’s say 10) as part of the payment. E.g. if Ashcroft attracts a bid at 1, we need to come up with Pick 10 + others, at a minimum.

Maintains the beauty of the cross-generational family connections within clubs, which I think is a beautiful thing unique to our game, while not compromising the draft.


While we’re equalising things though, perhaps we can talk about which state gets to host the GF each year…

Daresay if the Lions were first seed and playing the Saints, Bassat wouldn’t be campaigning for it to be at the Gabba.

 

[Elixuh]

If I were Bassat I’d be more concerned about the clubs in my direct market who rort the salary cap every year through sponsorships and make the Melbourne market uncompetitive for clubs like St Kilda. Eddie was about to tell us all about it two years ago before Lloyd went full Essendon nuff. I guarantee the St Kilda players aren’t being topped up and made whole by these types of deals on the large part.

But maybe Bassat hasn’t Cotton-on’d to this reality.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I would have a lot more respect for him if he came out guns blazing about Daicos after Pies won the premiership last year.

He's picking and choosing when to channel his moral outrage too. Brisbane is a much easier target compared to taking on Collingwood.

I think he's been on this campaign for a while now.


I completely understand that the fixture cannot be fair. I understand the commercial significance of giving handouts to the 'big clubs' in terms of their fixturing. I get it.

I even get that finals must be played at the MCG due to the contract they have in place.

There's plenty of stuff that is shit in terms of the damage it causes to the integrity of the competition - but if you take a step back, you can almost always see why they do it. Even if you don't agree, you can see why. 5 day breaks, travel, Friday night timeslots, home ground advantages, etc. whilst horribly unfair and advantage certain clubs significantly - the commercial gain for the game justifies it. I get it.

But when you have so much stuff that rips apart the integrity and fairness of the comp that you can't avoid, why choose to add another nonsensical one that offers absolutely zero net gain to the sport?

It's borderline offensive in terms of its stupidity.

 

[bergholt]

Five different flag winners in the past five years.

Climate and weather are different tho

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Access” to a F/S player should be the only benefit though - the discount makes no sense IMO.

I ask again, why should there be any benefit?

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Andrew Bassat isn’t necessarily wrong with the point he makes in regards to how cheap it is for academy, next gen and father sons. Especially if they’re talented, to clubs, whom may be top 8 sides.

But the way he’s gone about this and his presentation of his point was very poorly spoken.

Came across like blaming all of St Kildas problems on this system, even coupling it with it benefiting wealthy clubs, which is at the fault of no one’s bar his and his clubs.

Financially strong clubs don’t get a benefit that isn’t of their own merit, so instead of complaining, build success and make a change to become that, plenty have done it before and many more will do it.

To mention all of this as if they didn’t mess up many first round picks which have cost them in the past and present, is a laughable stand point. Their own recruiting and development has been a big factor.

Then you have the outstanding club culture, of not inviting a player to the B&F who is departing the club, despite finishing third and being a massive part of St Kilda for the last 5 years.

Sounded so much of a victim mindset, you don’t hear this from other clubs, even if they agree with his point. Poorly spoken and with many holes.

Absolutely laughable the way it’s been portrayed, could’ve been done way better, if you wanted to go down that route.

 

[bergholt]

I think it is a diversion from how poor the Saints season was after making finals last year, rather than admit to the members the club has been poor at list management over the last decade.

The members don't need the club to admit that publicly, we can recite the **** ups in way more detail than you can

 

[Sentinel]

And what did Geelong pay for drafting Hawkins and Ablett jr?

A long standing fort that has suited the AFL.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I don't think it's particularly relevant to point towards Hawkins or Ablett jnr given they were part of the system which has changed twice since. They were however absolute freebies (particularly Hawkins who some rated as the best of his draft and they got him at 41).

On the post you're responding to, Libba was matched at 40 (using pick 41 to get him) and West at pick 26 (using pick 30 to get him). Slightly cheaper but certainly not howlers - later bid matching in the 2nd round onwards aren't the issue at hand.

It's more complicated for JUH and Croft, but to acquire the picks used to land Darcy at pick 2, the Bulldogs gave up pick 17, pick 75, a future 3rd plus Pat Lipinski and Lewis Young. Clearly not free but definitely cheap and exactly what Bassat refers to - effectively a late first rounder plus 4 late round 3+ picks (or equivalent to) for pick 2. This is similar to Collingwood for Daicos, Brisbane for Ashcroft etc (again all more complicated to work out exactly, but along these lines).

And the biggest impact with such high picks is that often in recent times they allow higher placed clubs to jump into the draft earlier than clubs finishing towards the bottom of the ladder, whilst not giving up huge draft capital to do so.

 

[Elixuh]

Andrew Bassat isn’t necessarily wrong with the point he makes in regards to how cheap it is for academy, next gen and father sons. Especially if they’re talented, to clubs, whom may be top 8 sides.

But the way he’s gone about this and his presentation of his point was very poorly spoken.

Came across like blaming all of St Kildas problems on this system, even coupling it with it benefiting wealthy clubs, which is at the fault of no one’s bar his and his clubs.

Financially strong clubs don’t get a benefit that isn’t of their own merit, so instead of complaining, build success and make a change to become that, plenty have done it before and many more will do it.

To mention all of this as if they didn’t mess up many first round picks which have cost them in the past and present, is a laughable stand point. Their own recruiting and development has been a big factor.

Then you have the outstanding club culture, of not inviting a player to the B&F who is departing the club, despite finishing third and being a massive part of St Kilda for the last 5 years.

Sounded so much of a victim mindset, you don’t hear this from other clubs, even if they agree with his point. Poorly spoken and with many holes.

Absolutely laughable the way it’s been portrayed, could’ve been done way better, if you wanted to go down that route.

He doesn’t actually raise NGAs because that is something St Kilda can benefit from.

 

[paulige]

I ask again, why should there be any benefit?

I explained why I thought so in my comment.

I’ve never complained about F/S, as I believe it’s a great concept - it’s currently (and historically) not been implemented fairly, though.

 

[Nvent]

Andrew Bassat isn’t necessarily wrong with the point he makes in regards to how cheap it is for academy, next gen and father sons. Especially if they’re talented, to clubs, whom may be top 8 sides.

But the way he’s gone about this and his presentation of his point was very poorly spoken.

Came across like blaming all of St Kildas problems on this system, even coupling it with it benefiting wealthy clubs, which is at the fault of no one’s bar his and his clubs.

Financially strong clubs don’t get a benefit that isn’t of their own merit, so instead of complaining, build success and make a change to become that, plenty have done it before and many more will do it.

To mention all of this as if they didn’t mess up many first round picks which have cost them in the past and present, is a laughable stand point. Their own recruiting and development has been a big factor.

Then you have the outstanding club culture, of not inviting a player to the B&F who is departing the club, despite finishing third and being a massive part of St Kilda for the last 5 years.

Sounded so much of a victim mindset, you don’t hear this from other clubs, even if they agree with his point. Poorly spoken and with many holes.

Absolutely laughable the way it’s been portrayed, could’ve been done way better, if you wanted to go down that route.

Thats not necessarily true though in regard to wealthy clubs doing it off their own bat is it. The AFL has set up a majority of clubs with favorable fixturing and full exposure.

A lot of the clubs are chasing arse as a result.

 

[paulige]

If I were Bassat I’d be more concerned about the clubs in my direct market who rort the salary cap every year through sponsorships and make the Melbourne market uncompetitive for clubs like St Kilda. Eddie was about to tell us all about it two years ago before Lloyd went full Essendon nuff. I guarantee the St Kilda players aren’t being topped up and made whole by these types of deals on the large part.

But maybe Bassat hasn’t Cotton-on’d to this reality.

“But won’t people be upset if we rort the salary cap?”

“No no, we won’t call it rorting the cap, we’ll call it something nice. Like ‘auxiliary sponsorship’!”

 

[Gethelred]

The point here - I feel - is being missed.

That Bassat is correct when he attacks F-S and the academies is not really relevant to what he's doing by attacking them, publicly, at the BNF and - allegedly - in conversation with AFL commissioners. The point of what he's done - which will do genuine reputational damage to his St Kilda regime at AFL house, which is not really very good for business - is to sell a story to the fanbase and draw attention away from the way this year has gone.

Of the Victorian sides, the two most in the gun for the AFL trying to force relocation are Nth and St Kilda; due to a lack of fans in the former case and both a lack of fans and a lack of a home in the latter. St Kilda cannot afford a period at the bottom without a membership base that is strident and passionate enough to buy memberships, make their intention to kick up a massive stink if any of that sort of chat begins or the vultures start to circle. They have two options at present with where their list sits: to begin to rebuild now - hard - or to try and reset by offloading a few and getting in some older quality and some more young kids. **** up the latter, and you're in for more hurt that if you'd just chosen to rebuild in the first place.

That's what Carlton tried to do with their list post 2011. Look where we were inside 5 seasons.

So, the messaging is galvanising, them vs us stuff. It's what passes for clever media manipulation within AFL circles, but there's real danger to it: the AFL hold grudges at head office. Pick a fight with them, hold something over them, they're going to get you in reply. Correspondingly, work with them - alongside them, the way your Hawthorns of the world do - and you'll reap the benefits.

The choice to swim against the tide is all very well and good - a lot of people fall for an underdog story - but there's a reason most don't try it.

It's also not at all a professional thing to do, but that's a different conversation.

 

[Mat Mann]

Most non-vfl teams are just sick of the same tired routine. We sit back and watch over decades as the VFL clubs are advantaged by these rules far and above any non-vfl team.

As soon as a non-vfl team gets a lick of the ice cream a club like St Kilda comes out and is critical of it. It’s a tired routine. Where were these criticisms when teams like the Pies and Doggies were getting F/S year on year?

What Bassat is upset about is St Kilda being a small club doesn’t get the same advantages as the big VFL clubs and wants a lick of that ice cream. But he can’t outright say that so just a waits until a non-vfl club is advantaged by a rule and tees off. It’s pathetic.

you talk about VFL teams like we are equal

Saints played 7 different venues in like 9 games, made to break the AFL's own travel policies in back to back interstate games off incredibly short break, had 5 homes games at round 13, played your team off 2 byes before we had 1
made more money from 1 MCG home game than we did the rest of the year at Marvel

upset we don't have advantages, FFS we don't even live in the same hemisphere as some other Vic clubs.
Again you seem to think this is a whinge about Brisbane, it's not, Brisbane is just another extreme example of the current rules being out of whack with the aims of the draft. Its the same outcry that was raised when Pies got Daicos, When GCS got 4 top 25 picks the same outcry that was brought up when Dogs took Jamara.

 

[werdna78]

I think he's been on this campaign for a while now.


I completely understand that the fixture cannot be fair. I understand the commercial significance of giving handouts to the 'big clubs' in terms of their fixturing. I get it.

I even get that finals must be played at the MCG due to the contract they have in place.

There's plenty of stuff that is shit in terms of the damage it causes to the integrity of the competition - but if you take a step back, you can almost always see why they do it. Even if you don't agree, you can see why. 5 day breaks, travel, Friday night timeslots, home ground advantages, etc. whilst horribly unfair and advantage certain clubs significantly - the commercial gain for the game justifies it. I get it.

But when you have so much stuff that rips apart the integrity and fairness of the comp that you can't avoid, why choose to add another nonsensical one that offers absolutely zero net gain to the sport?

It's borderline offensive in terms of its stupidity.

I lean more the other way. IMO if have you so many inbuilt inequities like you state above, why not have the others.

And if you change the draft rules to make it "fairer" for all clubs.

Why not look at giving all non-Victorian clubs, an extra home game a year, as compensation for the travel they do and Victorian teams don't.

 

[Mat Mann]

I don't think it's particularly relevant to point towards Hawkins or Ablett jnr given they were part of the system which has changed twice since. They were however absolute freebies (particularly Hawkins who some rated as the best of his draft and they got him at 41).

On the post you're responding to, Libba was matched at 40 (using pick 41 to get him) and West at pick 26 (using pick 30 to get him). Slightly cheaper but certainly not howlers - later bid matching in the 2nd round onwards aren't the issue at hand.

It's more complicated for JUH and Croft, but to acquire the picks used to land Darcy at pick 2, the Bulldogs gave up pick 17, pick 75, a future 3rd plus Pat Lipinski and Lewis Young. Clearly not free but definitely cheap and exactly what Bassat refers to - effectively a late first rounder plus 4 late round 3+ picks (or equivalent to) for pick 2. This is similar to Collingwood for Daicos, Brisbane for Ashcroft etc (again all more complicated to work out exactly, but along these lines).

And the biggest impact with such high picks is that often in recent times they allow higher placed clubs to jump into the draft earlier than clubs finishing towards the bottom of the ladder, whilst not giving up huge draft capital to do so.

the other part missed and I'll use GCS here is they sold pick 6 at an inflated cost, were able to get their 4 top 25 picks (all at a discount), and still strengthen their 2024 draft hand.

The double and often triple dipping involved in these types of academies is just as big a concern than the access and subsequent lower cost

 

[Elixuh]

you talk about VFL teams like we are equal

Saints played 7 different venues in like 9 games, made to break the AFL's own travel policies in back to back interstate games off incredibly short break, had 5 homes games at round 13, played your team off 2 byes before we had 1
made more money from 1 MCG home game than we did the rest of the year at Marvel

upset we don't have advantages, FFS we don't even live in the same hemisphere as some other Vic clubs.
Again you seem to think this is a whinge about Brisbane, it's not, Brisbane is just another extreme example of the current rules being out of whack with the aims of the draft. Its the same outcry that was raised when Pies got Daicos, When GCS got 4 top 25 picks the same outcry that was brought up when Dogs took Jamara.

My main point has been St Kilda are a small club that don’t get any of the VFL advantages that the big clubs get, aside from less travel compared to non-vfl teams. The other clubs in your direct market have a far greater bearing on making the game uncompetitive for St Kilda than academies do. For every academy player we take that may not have otherwise been drafted, there is likely a vic draftee that gets taken by a vic club that would otherwise be taken by a club like Brisbane.

 

[Mat Mann]

He doesn’t actually raise NGAs because that is something St Kilda can benefit from.

he doesn't have to because father/son and Academy are now tied to the same bidding and matching system.
also we didn't get any benefit when we weren't able to take Cam McKenzie(pick 7) in the top 40 2 years ago.

 

[100action]

Remove the points discount on F/S

Limit F/S to only Hall of Fame players rather than 100 gamers

 

[Elixuh]

he doesn't have to because father/son and Academy are now tied to the same bidding and matching system.
also we didn't get any benefit when we weren't able to take Cam McKenzie(pick 7) in the top 40 2 years ago.

No, the question would be why did the AFL introduce these ridiculous NGA rules? But it isn’t in his interests to raise it because St Kilda can benefit.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

If I were Bassat I’d be more concerned about the clubs in my direct market who rort the salary cap every year through sponsorships and make the Melbourne market uncompetitive for clubs like St Kilda. Eddie was about to tell us all about it two years ago before Lloyd went full Essendon nuff. I guarantee the St Kilda players aren’t being topped up and made whole by these types of deals on the large part.

But maybe Bassat hasn’t Cotton-on’d to this reality.

Yes, yes, a self-made billionaire is clueless to the out-of-salary-cap rorts going on.
Surprised you have time for Big Footy alongside your efforts in splitting the atom.