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

[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.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Remove the points discount on F/S

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

How about if only premiership players sons or grand sons were eligible for F/S, no matter how many games they’ve played, rather than 100 games for any player.

That way you tie the son to a club that their dad/Grandfather has a serious legacy with, and you probably more than half the number of eligible father sons that could compromise drafts?

 

[Purple Suit]

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.

All they did was make it even after having teams on different rules for so long. Teams are going to rort it though & it won’t be even as zoning cannot be, that’s what the draft is suppose to be for but they have screwed it up.

 

[LordLucifer]

This St.Kilda bloke has opened up two seperate discussions - the shiteness of the Saints & the draft & trade system.

I have made my opinion known about the Saints themselves so won't go back over it. However, I do agree that the draft & trade system needs a complete overhaul.

Here is something I posted a while back and it will solve all of the problems everyone has been speaking about :

REVISED AFL TRADE & DRAFT STRUCTURE

NATIONAL DRAFT POINTS VALUES​

EQUALISATION ROUND

(for all non-finalists only from the year prior in reverse ladder finishing position)

EQ.1 - 5000

EQ.2 - 4750

EQ.3 - 4512

EQ.4 - 4286

EQ.5 - 4072

EQ.6 - 3868

EQ.7 - 3675

EQ.8 - 3491

EQ.9 - 3317

EQ.10 - 3151


ROUND ONE

R1.1 - 2993

R1.2 - 2844

R1.3 - 2566

R1.4 - 2438

R1.5 - 2316

R1.6 - 2200

R1.7 - 2090

R1.8 - 1986

R1.9 - 1886

R1.10 - 1792

R1.11 - 1702

R1.12 - 1676

R1.13 - 1536

R1.14 - 1459

R1.15 - 1386

R1.16 - 1317

R1.17 - 1251

R1.18 - 1181


ROUND TWO

R2.1 - 1129

R2.2 - 1073

R2.3 - 1019

R2.4 - 968

R2.5 - 920

R2.6 - 874

R2.7 - 830

R2.8 - 788

R2.9 - 749

R2.10 - 711

R2.11 - 676

R2.12 - 642

R2.13 - 610

R2.14 - 579

R2.15 - 550

R2.16 - 523

R2.17 - 497

R2.18 - 472


ROUND THREE

R3.1 - 448

R3.2 - 426

R3.3 - 404

R3.4 - 384

R3.5 - 365

R3.6 - 347

R3.7 - 329

R3.8 - 313

R3.9 - 297

R3.10 - 282

R3.11 - 268

R3.12 - 255

R3.13 - 242

R3.14 - 230

R3.15 - 218

R3.16 - 207

R3.17 - 197

R3.18 - 187


ROUND FOUR

R4.1 - 178

R4.2 - 169

R4.3 - 160

R4.4 - 152

R4.5 - 145

R4.6 - 137

R4.7 - 131

R4.8 - 124

R4.9 - 118

R4.10 - 112

R4.11 - 106

R4.12 - 101

R4.13 - 96

R4.14 - 91

R4.15 - 86

R4.16 - 82

R4.17 - 78

R4.18 - 74


ROUND FIVE

R5.1 - 70

R5.2 - 67

R5.3 - 63

R5.4 - 60

R5.5 - 57

R5.6 - 54

R5.7 - 52

R5.8 - 49

R5.9 - 46

R5.10 - 44

R5.11 - 42

R5.12 - 40

R5.13 - 38

R5.14 - 36

R5.15 - 34

R5.16 - 32

R5.17 - 29

R5.18 - 28


ROUND SIX

R6.1 - 26

R6.2 - 25

R6.3 - 24

R6.4 - 23

R6.5 - 22

R6.6 - 21

R6.7 - 20

R6.8 - 19

R6.9 - 18

R6.10 - 17

R6.11 - 16

R6.12 - 15

R6.13 - 15

R6.14 - 13

R6.15 - 12

R6.16 - 10

R6.17 - 9

R6.18 - 8


OTHER

* no discounts for father-son or academy choices

* free agency compensation picks permanently scrapped

* priority picks and any other assistance picks permanently scrapped

* father-son qualification reduced to 1-game

* player nominates club of choice if father played for more than one club

* primary list is reduced to a maximum of 40 players only

* rookie list is scrapped permanently

* any player who is being paid above the median AFL salary figure can be traded to another club without their consent

 

[Elixuh]

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.

It was actually a little cotton-on salary cap joke, but I see that one went over your head

 

[bradfisher14]

He was right about one thing: St. Kilda's "role is meant to be to just make up the numbers."

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

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.

it's impossible for it to be fair.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

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

Because there is no net benefit to the comp, or the game because of it.

 

[caloschwaby]

He was right about one thing: St. Kilda's "role is meant to be to just make up the numbers."

It quite literally was as part of inclusion into the VFL from VFA - the rich clubs needed a solid club that captured the geographic inner SE/bayside area of Melbourne and St Kilda fit the bill without pissing Sth Melbourne off too much

 

[WilloTree]

the father son rule is the same for everyone.....GWS and Gold Coast have the disadvantage only

No it's not.

The same for everybody would mean 18 father-sons in the draft all of equal talent spread across the 18 clubs.

 

[oak79]

How about if only premiership players sons or grand sons were eligible for F/S, no matter how many games they’ve played, rather than 100 games for any player.

That way you tie the son to a club that their dad/Grandfather has a serious legacy with, and you probably more than half the number of eligible father sons that could compromise drafts?

Terrible idea. You are massively disadvantage teams like Freo, Saints, Melb, Dogs etc that rarely if ever win premierships

 

[GenericUsername202]

He can cry all he wants, but Father Son selections and academy's will never leave the AFL system. The league has a huge talentpool issue, and taking away access to northern players would be detrimental to the league. There also has to be a discount to the northern clubs in terms of academy selection because they deserve it through the time and effort they spent developing these players. The idea that a club like Brisbane spending money and man hours on a player only for him to leave for a victorian club is absolutely laughable. The argument should be just how much should we pay for these players. You have to remember these are players who would have never been in the AFL system if it wasn't for clubs like Brisbane, etc. So again, he's free to moan like a child all he wants, but a president at a club like St Kilda will have absolutely no pull in this discussion. Especially in terms of Father Son selections, because Victorian clubs would want to protect that as well.

 

[werdna78]

Because there is no net benefit to the comp, or the game because of it.

There is a benefit though for the AFL, with Brisbane getting both Ashcrofts.

More eyeballs from Queensland with the Lions being successful.

Just like Collingwood with the Daicos brothers.

 

[mighty_lions]

No it's not.

The same for everybody would mean 18 father-sons in the draft all of equal talent spread across the 18 clubs.

no, with that logic the draft isn't fair, the rules for father son are equal and the same for everyone