Swans' academy.

[Spook]

I think it's got something to do with the bit where the Swans run the Academy at their own expense. We're not in the business of developing teenagers for everybody else in the competition, last time I checked.

Do you realise that what you just sated is against the afl rules for all other the Vic, as & wa clubs?

 

[CharlieG]

Lol, at your own expense, your kidding right? I think you just totally agreed with Eddie. So collingwood a profit goes to the AFL who then pass it onto Sydney to have their own academy while Collingwood are. It allowed to have an academy.

Have you bothered to investigate how the Swans Academy is funded, or are you just making stuff up out of complete ignorance?

(Hint: I already know the answer.)

 

[CharlieG]

Do you realise that what you just sated is against the afl rules for all other the Vic, as & wa clubs?

Yes.

Insofar as there are no fewer than 30 elite development programs in Victoria, SA and WA, I don't really have a problem with that.

 

[Spook]

What we should ALL want is a decent flow of AFL players coming out of NSW to begin with. There are 24 in the entire AFL and about half of them come from traditional Australian rules footy areas in Southern NSW.

The ironic thing is this wouldn't be an issue now if the NSW/ACT Rams hadn't been forced out of the TAC Cup right at the time in which they were starting to turn up a semi-respectable number of AFL-quality players. Of course, it also wouldn't be an issue if the Swans weren't flying and if Isaac Heeney couldn't play, but getting people to be honest about the real source of their angst is next to impossible.

I totally agree but what the hell has that hot to do with Sydney getting preferential drafting of them?
Meanwhile Sydney spend all their money on Tippett and franklin

 

[Bonz]

Agreed. I mentioned this earlier, but no-one supporting Sydney has bothered to answer the question. Are we growing the game in NSW, or just the Swans ??

Each club in NSW or QLD has their own zones for their academy that is the reason why Heeney is with the Swans and a player such as Steele is with the Giants.

 

[TedDougChris]

The game in NSW and QLD. You do know the Giants, Lions and Suns have an academy each as well don't you?? Its not a Swans only thing, but I guess that wouldn't suit your point

Er, read the previous post I made... And answer that.... How the hell did you become a mod if you can't bloody read....

 

[robbieando]

Correct

Not correct

The Swans (and the Giants/Suns/Lions) have their own academy and if they decide they want to draft anyone from their academy they must put them up for bidding so the other 17 other clubs can set the price in terms of where the player/s will go draft pick wise. If there is a bid, the Swans decide to match the bid or not in line with the process for Father Son bidding. If the Swans (and the Giants/Suns/Lions) don't put a player up for the bidding process then that player is entered into the National Draft.

But what's the truth in the way of the lie

 

[Bloods]

Yes I agree, but why can't anyone draft from the academy then? Why do Sydney get a preference? I don't mind if they were down the bottom of the ladder but a flag in the last 2 years and top of the ladder and then get a preference? The drafting preference is the point NOT the academy itself. Don't you see the difference?

We get preference because we've developed them. I think you need to do some research on how it is actually run and funded.

The drafting element could probably be reviewed. Do you think the F/S rule should be too?

 

[FuManchu]

What we should ALL want is a decent flow of AFL players coming out of NSW to begin with. There are 24 in the entire AFL and about half of them come from traditional Australian rules footy areas in Southern NSW.

The ironic thing is this wouldn't be an issue now if the NSW/ACT Rams hadn't been forced out of the TAC Cup right at the time in which they were starting to turn up a semi-respectable number of AFL-quality players. Of course, it also wouldn't be an issue if the Swans weren't flying and if Isaac Heeney couldn't play, but getting people to be honest about the real source of their angst is next to impossible.

The non traditional footballing states claim they are behind the 8 ball, when in reality you are in a situation quite a few Vic clubs would love to be in. Your survival is guaranteed, teams like the dogs and saints aren't. And as we have seen, the AFL is quite prepared to use clubs like these to further their push to take the game to all points of Australia: Fitzroy and Sth melb and very nearly Nth.

So, if these clubs cycle near the bottom of the ladder more than others, then a Wayne Carey type from NSW should be made available to them so they can have a greater possibility of sustained success just as Nth did in the 90's. Because without him at Nth, who is to say we wouldnt be talking about the Gold Coast Kangaroos right now and if we were, the comp would be a lot poorer than what it is now without Nth.

So, whilst clubs like The Swans, the Lions, GWS and The Sun's existance is pretty much guaranteed by the AFL, then the other clubs should be able to draft without any limitations. Its not as if the AFL havent found ways to 'gift' flags to 2 of these clubs with a little bit of social engineering anyway.

 

[master bate]

That seems fair enough. If a few sides have academies, then all sides should have them.
The AFL need to get serious about equalisation or just come clean on the matter.

Where are the academies though? Poor teams aren't going to be subsidised for AFL academies in NSW. Plus the yield isn't high enough. Imagine having 1/18th of NSW and/or QLD to work with. You'd pay 1mil per year and not get much return.

Then all of a sudden the WA teams make a play for the Kimberleys as there are as many kids there capable of playing AFL but missing out due to disadvantage as in NSW/QLD. The SA teams would then make a case for inland Australia and to base academies out of Alice Springs so they can get 16 year old Liam Jurrah's out of communities hopefully before they hit trouble.

4 academies are bad enough. It's a slippery slope to approve more.

 

[TedDougChris]

Each club in NSW or QLD has their own zones for their academy that is the reason why Heeney is with the Swans and a player such as Steele is with the Giants.

I know. I posted earlier, that should the academies of the individual clubs be merged, then the talent taken by either GWS/Sydney (or GCS/Brisbane) on a reverse ladder order. This would stop clubs trying to shift players (as happened in the old Victorian zones, and as seems to occur around State of Origin time in RL) and also allow more resources to be shared and expenditure reduced.

It would also help the problems GWS have with a much bigger player in the market, as who would want to play for GWS compared to the Swans.

 

[Spook]

Yes.

Insofar as there are no fewer than 30 elite development programs in Victoria, SA and WA, I don't really have a problem with that.

And Sydney can draft from those equally to all other clubs. Why can't other clubs then equally draft from Sydney's academy to keep it fair?

As I said I totally agree with the academies, it's the preferential drafting that is unfair

 

[FuManchu]

We get preference because we've developed them. I think you need to do some research on how it is actually run and funded.

The drafting element could probably be reviewed. Do you think the F/S rule should be too?

Whose choice was it to establish an academy? Were you told it was compulsory?

Are you saying you don't have access to sons of Swans and Sth Melb players if they choose to be available to the Swans under the father son rule?

 

[CharlieG]

And Sydney can draft from those equally to all other clubs. Why can't other clubs then equally draft from Sydney's academy to keep it fair?

As I said I totally agree with the academies, it's the preferential drafting that is unfair

Right, because we're supposed to fund these things, put six years of development into teenagers and then watch them go and play for other clubs.

One simple question. Why should we?

 

[Spook]

Where are the academies though? Poor teams aren't going to be subsidised for AFL academies in NSW. Plus the yield isn't high enough. Imagine having 1/18th of NSW and/or QLD to work with. You'd pay 1mil per year and not get much return.

Then all of a sudden the WA teams make a play for the Kimberleys as there are as many kids there capable of playing AFL but missing out due to disadvantage as in NSW/QLD. The SA teams would then make a case for inland Australia and to base academies out of Alice Springs so they can get 16 year old Liam Jurrah's out of communities hopefully before they hit trouble.

4 academies are bad enough. It's a slippery slope to approve more.

Mate the Kimberley's have a very good academy,in Clontarf. Works well and has ok funding. A mate of mine is a coach there and he has never winged about funding, even though it could be better.

 

[TedDougChris]

We get preference because we've developed them. I think you need to do some research on how it is actually run and funded.

The drafting element could probably be reviewed. Do you think the F/S rule should be too?

This is the way the old Vic zones went, we got preference because they were from our zone.

Personally, I don't have an issue with the academy setup in NSW and QLD - it's a good concept. But I think it should be an AFL funded thing, with the benefits available to all clubs in that state - not specific clubs only. To my mind, that only works if there is a bidding system between the clubs in that state and there is a single academy, jointly supported and managed.

 

[TedDougChris]

Whose choice was it to establish an academy? Were you told it was compulsory?

Are you saying you don't have access to sons of Swans and Sth Melb players if they choose to be available to the Swans under the father son rule?

Yes, some clubs get a F/S rule AND an academy - AND COLA - but these clubs are seriously disadvantage compared to a club like the Dogs..... Who would kill for some semblence of fairness and equality in the competition.....

 

[CharlieG]

This is the way the old Vic zones went, we got preference because they were from our zone.

Personally, I don't have an issue with the academy setup in NSW and QLD - it's a good concept. But I think it should be an AFL funded thing, with the benefits available to all clubs in that state - not specific clubs only. To my mind, that only works if there is a bidding system between the clubs in that state and there is a single academy, jointly supported and managed.

And I'm fine with that. But I would repeat my point that this used to exist with the NSW/ACT Rams and it got nobbled because AFL Vic didn't want to have kids having to travel to play.

 

[FuManchu]

Right, because we're supposed to fund these things, put six years of development into teenagers and then watch them go and play for other clubs.

One simple question. Why should we?

Who forced Sydney to do it? Are you saying not one cent of AFL money goes into it?

 

[I am Jack]

Where are the academies though? Poor teams aren't going to be subsidised for AFL academies in NSW. Plus the yield isn't high enough. Imagine having 1/18th of NSW and/or QLD to work with. You'd pay 1mil per year and not get much return.

Then all of a sudden the WA teams make a play for the Kimberleys as there are as many kids there capable of playing AFL but missing out due to disadvantage as in NSW/QLD. The SA teams would then make a case for inland Australia and to base academies out of Alice Springs so they can get 16 year old Liam Jurrah's out of communities hopefully before they hit trouble.

4 academies are bad enough. It's a slippery slope to approve more.

All or none for the clubs.

But, I'd rather the AFL run their own academies.

 

[Spook]

Right, because we're supposed to fund these things, put six years of development into teenagers and then watch them go and play for other clubs.

One simple question. Why should we?

Wtf? You just don't see it do you?
So who funds the WA development groups then, the EAGLES AND DOCKERS you goose. Yes that right the WAFC does and they get ALL their funding from the 2 clubs who licences they own. Are you really that ignorant that you thing Sydney fund everything them selves and then afl fund everyone else?

So why don't the eagles and dockers get priority over all their under 18 squad then as they fund the whole program?

 

[CharlieG]

Wtf? You just don't see it do you?
So who funds the WA development groups then, the. EAGLES AND DOCKERS you goose. Yes that right the WAFC does and they get ALL their funding from the 2 clubs who licences they own. Are you really that ignorant that you thing Sydney fund everything them selves and ten afl fund everyone else?

So why don't the eagles and dockers get priority over all their under 18 squad then as they fund the whole program?

Last time I checked, there's no shortage of players coming into the AFL system from WA.

And unless you drop the abuse that's the last time I'll bother engaging with you, mate.

 

[Spook]

Right, because we're supposed to fund these things, put six years of development into teenagers and then watch them go and play for other clubs.

One simple question. Why should we?

So why can't other clubs do the same then? That is all Eddie is asking for.

 

[Marlin01]

You don't see a difference between academies in football heartland to academies in non-football states? It's an entirely different situation.

The academies wouldn't recruit from or even have to be located in the footy heartlands. The Eagles could have The Kimberley for example.

 

[TedDougChris]

And I'm fine with that. But I would repeat my point that this used to exist with the NSW/ACT Rams and it got nobbled because AFL Vic didn't want to have kids having to travel to play.

I think we need to really look closely at how we want the game to grow. And that direction needs to come from the top of the AFL and be supported by the clubs. If it's in the best interests of the competition to develop the NSW kids through competition with the Vic kids and QLD kids, so be it...