Swans' academy.

[LukeParkerno1]

Of course it will work. The NFL draft might be boring to you but it rates the pants off in the US and there's no reason why the AFL draft wouldn't here if done right. By the way there's no way any second or third round pick makes up for Essendon getting a pick 1 talent in Daniher for pick 10.

I'd have a free agency and trade week period in two weeks in early October. Then reopen the periods in November 1 week either side of the draft. No more rookie draft. Clubs can make moves during the draft and can then have a week after to work out if they want to fill their list with the kids who weren't drafted or delisted players who have stayed in shape. Don't get a ruckman in the draft? Well you can bring in the best 18 year old ruck for a week, a state league guy and Darren Jolly and then can work out who you want to sign.

The NBA free agency period has just made the NBA millions in publicity. It's as big as the season itself. You have to give the fans what they want.

Again, 9 out of 10 fans are bored to the you know whats when the draft is over! I don't care how much it makes in the US...we are a country of 21mill not 200+ million or whatever they are. It will not work, and you are stupidly changing the draft for the sake of it. Minimal changes are needed, not massive over reactions and that is what your post is. I bet you said nothing when you got Viney cheap! Did you want to change the draft then? Come on flat out, yes or no....

Stop making changes for the sake of it, no need.

 

[Jakko]

Should be 2 extra places on every clubs rookie lists for a NSW and QLD player only.

More from developing areas in the system, and fairer.

 

[MickyG]

Any bidding system is always going to be flawed.

Ayce Cordy went at pick 14 after St Kilda bid pick 13. Had The Dogs finished one spot below St Kilda instead of one above he would have gone at pick 30.

Jack Viney was a complete farce. Melbourne at one stage had 3, 4, 14, 26 prior to any trades taking place. If GWS bid one, Viney would've gone at 3 (or been passed). He was a 5/6 prospect from memory and went at 26. Picks 4 and 14 didn't count.

Introducing a bidding system which benefits 4 clubs and not 14 others is just asking for trouble. F/S applies to everyone - even if GWS/GC won't see any benefit from it for two decades - but I think they've had a fair access to good young players so far.

You know the bidding's often been done by the club just in front or close to in front of the nominated clubs pick. Freo nominated Tom Mitchell at 20 and he went to Sydney at 21. If the dogs had pick 13 then the club with pick 12 probably would've nominated Cordy. The rival teams have simply worked out if the club will match the bid and then done the nomination. It's pretty much all worked out in advance.

It's actually an informal agreement that if the recruiters think someone is round one the club with the pick immediately prior will bid. Wooden spooners are then the winners. Melbourne and GWS did a deal where this was not done so Melbourne got Viney with a second round pick. I wonder if this has anything to do with them revising the F/S and Academy bidding or if it just Eddie waking up to the Heeney, Mills and Dunkley situation? I suspect it will be three good players in two years followed by years of third or fourth round picks or rookies or maybe even none.

 

[MarkP]

Well equal better get real.

AFL to handle all memberships and equally distribute cash.

ANZAC day on rotation to all states.

Ditto grand finals.

Equalise Friday and Saturday night appearances.

All Melbourne clubs to have equal interstate travel.

Full taxation and distribution methods undertaken to ensure equal club incomes.

Should do for a start. More will undoubtedly be thought off.

Fairness and equality must never be compromised.

 

[MickyG]

Should be 2 extra places on every clubs rookie lists for a NSW and QLD player only.

More from developing areas in the system, and fairer.

Not good enough I'm afraid. Would not get used. Despite all the outrage on here the Academies are about improving the quality of coaching up to TAC Cup level. Apart from the odd player, NSW and Queensland players are two to three years behind AFL State junior level players and no one would want them.

 

[Tuco]

For all those Swans supporters out there. Consider:

From 2004-2010 Pick 5's:
Franklin, Pendlebury, Boak, Grant, Hurley, Cunnington, Polec

Pick 18's:
C. Wood, Bailey, Leeroy Jetta, Rance, Shuey, Tapscott, Matthew Watson
Pick 36's:
McGuane, Jake Edwards?, Alwyn Davey, Steven Browne?, Ashley Smith, Joel Houghton, Aaron Young

Now that's not large enough a sample size to get an accurate measure and it's seems 36 is a particularly bad pick. But 36 is pretty much steak knives, 18 is a 50% chance of a good player but pick 5 is almost certainly a good player and a chance of a superstar. On that small sample it looks like it's still a generous deal. To get the value of pick 5 you should probably give up pick 18 and another first round pick.

Yes well it depends doesn't it. Parker was pick 40 for us. Goodes was 43. 2nd and even 3rd round picks can be tremendously important. Depends on your recruiters and bit of luck that the draftee is able to develop.

If Heeney was genuinely a top 5, I'd take your point. But how many top 5 picks have ever come out of the 2nd Division I wonder? Seems to me the media can beat up a kid's potential to ridiculous levels. It'll be interesting to see what the hard nosed recruiters really think of him during the bidding process.

 

[Cleric]

Should be 2 extra places on every clubs rookie lists for a NSW and QLD player only.

More from developing areas in the system, and fairer.

What if there are more deserving talent in SA, Vic and WA that have a higher chance of making it than those Qld and NSW kids that are only allowed to be taken?

 

[Spook]

Why is it that Sydney folk think that developing the game in nsw can only be measured with nsw kids playing for Sydney or gws?

You can develop the game by getting more kids to play AFL at any level. If it's all about developing the game spend the same money developing your local league under 16s and under 18s not a prestige academy that is only about producing an elite player.

 

[The 747]

This I have no problem with. If any other side is prepared to put the time, money & effort in I wouldn't complain one bit. 1 mill a year is a lota money. But why didn't clubs do this with the previous system instead of cheery picking a few players?

I'm all for Sydney having an academy, so long as we are allowed to have an academy based with the Geelong Falcons, we would be happy to financially support them, and then we can get preferential access to those kids. That would be fair right?

 

[Cleric]

The AFL has historically been too quick to give Sydney leg ups to help them thrive. When there are other clubs that dont have the same success as the Swans and they are not given the same leg ups then it wont last long. See COLA and now this NSW zone academy.
Sydney is a healthy side with premierships and still in its prime. It has good young players coming through and some good father sons in the next few years. Im pretty sure they dont need any help. So its great they have a development academy, funded by the AFL no doubt, and having a good number of local NSW kids in their side that NSW people can affilate with is good. So you shouldnt have a problem with paying close to the market rate. Now what the market rate is cannot be decided upon by a panel, only the market can do it. What pick the other clubs are willing to give is the only way to do it.

 

[Cleric]

The AFL has historically been too quick to give Sydney leg ups to help them thrive. When there are other clubs that dont have the same success as the Swans and they are not given the same leg ups then it wont last long. See COLA and now this NSW zone academy.
Sydney is a healthy side with premierships and still in its prime. It has good young players coming through and some good father sons in the next few years. Im pretty sure they dont need any help. So its great they have a development academy, funded by the AFL no doubt, and having a good number of local NSW kids in their side that NSW people can affilate with is good. So you shouldnt have a problem with paying close to the market rate. Now what the market rate is cannot be decided upon by a panel, only the market can do it. What pick the other clubs are willing to give is the only way to do it.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

The AFL has historically been too quick to give Sydney leg ups to help them thrive. When there are other clubs that dont have the same success as the Swans and they are not given the same leg ups then it wont last long. See COLA and now this NSW zone academy.
Sydney is a healthy side with premierships and still in its prime. It has good young players coming through and some good father sons in the next few years. Im pretty sure they dont need any help. So its great they have a development academy, funded by the AFL no doubt, and having a good number of local NSW kids in their side that NSW people can affilate with is good. So you shouldnt have a problem with paying close to the market rate. Now what the market rate is cannot be decided upon by a panel, only the market can do it. What pick the other clubs are willing to give is the only way to do it.

To quick? we were thrown into a non-AFL state with nothing but a few scraps and left to fend for ourselves absolutely nothing like the what was given to GWS/GC and other starter clubs, we were given a rentention allowance to stop the bleeding of losing players to Victoria.

The Academy has only been in existence since 2011 you heard nothing about it because there was nobody of value coming out of it, its not payed by the AFL they only chip in with 250k the rest of the exorbitant cost is payed by our sponsor QBE and other Swans benefactors of course you never hear in the media how much money it actually costs us to run this thing which is over a million.

 

[MickyG]

The AFL has historically been too quick to give Sydney leg ups to help them thrive. When there are other clubs that dont have the same success as the Swans and they are not given the same leg ups then it wont last long. See COLA and now this NSW zone academy.
Sydney is a healthy side with premierships and still in its prime. It has good young players coming through and some good father sons in the next few years. Im pretty sure they dont need any help. So its great they have a development academy, funded by the AFL no doubt, and having a good number of local NSW kids in their side that NSW people can affilate with is good. So you shouldnt have a problem with paying close to the market rate. Now what the market rate is cannot be decided upon by a panel, only the market can do it. What pick the other clubs are willing to give is the only way to do it.

It's my understanding that over the past few years father son bidding occurred through an informal discussion between recruiters. If the recruit was judged a first round pick with the club with pick immediately prior would bid. It looks like this is going to get formalised through some sort of committee and if there is a big advantage then additional adjustments or picks would be included. Some of the discussion above is Heeney is worth more than pick 18 so maybe the Swans would have to use both their first and second round picks. This makes a lot of sense to me. It's outrageous that Melbourne got Viney with a second round pick. It's also outrageous that Wyngard manipulated the draft to get to Port and Darling manipulated the draft to get to Eagles and Collingwood is going to get a father son worth a high first round pick for less than that and Polec and others leave the Lions and they get less than they are worth. The draft is not perfect and never will be.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

The draft will never be anywhere near as big as it is in American sports simply because nobody knows or has really seen the players getting drafted. In America people watch them every week in college sports and all have their favourites.

 

[worthy]

I try to present a balanced argument but its pretty hard in this environment.

Agreed

 

[worthy]

It's my understanding that over the past few years father son bidding occurred through an informal discussion between recruiters. If the recruit was judged a first round pick with the club with pick immediately prior would bid. It looks like this is going to get formalised through some sort of committee and if there is a big advantage then additional adjustments or picks would be included. Some of the discussion above is Heeney is worth more than pick 18 so maybe the Swans would have to use both their first and second round picks. This makes a lot of sense to me. It's outrageous that Melbourne got Viney with a second round pick. It's also outrageous that Wyngard manipulated the draft to get to Port and Darling manipulated the draft to get to Eagles and Collingwood is going to get a father son worth a high first round pick for less than that and Polec and others leave the Lions and they get less than they are worth. The draft is not perfect and never will be.

And Bud goes to the Swans for pick 19

 

[TedDougChris]

Incorrect.
The AFL will get a better return from an investment in a non AFL state than they would from a struggling Vic club from TV rights alone.
Unfortunately thats the reality.

But we are turning off the AFL funding, so these clubs will be unsustainable within the first year. We'll be making a profit from a much better deal than we have now.... The TV distribution is equalised, remember.... Everyone will get the same, that's what you want....

 

[TedDougChris]

Well equal better get real.

AFL to handle all memberships and equally distribute cash.

ANZAC day on rotation to all states.

Ditto grand finals.

Equalise Friday and Saturday night appearances.

All Melbourne clubs to have equal interstate travel.

Full taxation and distribution methods undertaken to ensure equal club incomes.

Should do for a start. More will undoubtedly be thought off.

Fairness and equality must never be compromised.

I have no issue with this. We'll be much better off than we are now...

 

[Jumparoo]

I agree that a formal televised American style draft would get great ratings and would actually limit the back room deals because fans would be watching it live and wonder what the hell has happened when top talent drifts away from them. As for statements that "it would not work here", why wouldn't it. There is a Fox channel that shows nothing but Footy and it manages to survive. It would give it some programming during the offseason. Also, from an AFL perspective it would be great to control the media cycle for a week in Nov/Dec. It only makes the league stronger and more valuable, raising the value of each club.

What the US model has shown is that people who follow leagues can NEVER get enough information and news. Free agency and the offseason are now almost as big as the season itself. People who follow sports more and more realise that championships are won in the offseason by great trades and signings (see Sydney with Buddy). I am surprised more people do not get on their own clubs harder to be aggressive. In the end the Buddy deal may be a disaster in 9 years, but at least Sydney is trying. In a system, which I agree with, that has some form of salary limits (that are consistent) then list management is just as important as in-season coaching. Look at this board, people will follow it.

 

[The Gong]

If you guys were lowballing the Crows for a cheap draft pick then you guys should've been punished for salary cap tampering as well.

The crows got what they deserved. But you guys should've still been made to give up something for Tippett. I doubt any other club would've got Tippett for free.

Just clarify for me exactly what rule the Swans broke in the whole messy saga. You might not agree with the approach but it wasn't against any AFL regulations. Any trading on Tippett was frozen during the trade period because of Adelaide's draft tampering. Tippett then went to the PSD and we picked him up fair and square from there.

I know all about COLA but I've already had that argument too many times and its worn me down. I agree that the changes to the COLA are a good thing for the competition.

Melbourne straight out tanked to get priority picks but the AFL gave them a minor slap on the wrist because it was too politically embarrassing for them to admit that they created a situation that enticed clubs to lose games. It's all swings and roundabouts. I could bring up dozens of situations where the AFL has made unjust decisions to further their corporate plan but don't make Sydney the whipping boy for every perceived injustice.

Again what rules did Sydney break in the entire process?

 

[clogged]

TV contract (or why Sydney is really really important)

This is the hard reality: half of the revenue comes from the TV contract ($253 million per year). The truth is that each club's existence adds a different amount to the value of the contract. The club that adds the greatest value...the Sydney Swans. Of course nothing is quantifiable, but what I can tell you is that if you took Sydney out of the TV contract talks and you took St Kilda (just chosen at random) the drop in the contract value would be huge if Sydney was lost and almost nothing if St Kilda was lost. The reason being that the Victorian viewership would be unchanged by the loss of St Kilda, sad but true. Look at the best rated grand finals..no surprise the Swans were involved. What this means is that anyone who bleats about the Victorian clubs supporting the Swans needs to know that a big chunk of the money they receive is because of the existence of the Swans. This is why the AFL (as the organisation and all the clubs) needs the Swans because they are a golden goose to the broadcast rights (remember over 50% of the leagues income).

If TV rights are so valuable then why is every Sydney game on 7mate in Sydney instead of the prime time FTA channel?

 

[worthy]

JohnG, post: 34098848, member: 52622"]To quick? we were thrown into a non-AFL state with nothing but a few scraps and left to fend for ourselves absolutely nothing like the what was given to GWS/GC and other starter clubs, we were given a rentention allowance to stop the bleeding of losing players to Victoria.

No doubt it was poorly handled back then, the comp was barely a professional sport (was it even?)

The Academy has only been in existence since 2011 you heard nothing about it because there was nobody of value coming out of it, its not payed by the AFL they only chip in with 250k the rest of the exorbitant cost is payed by our sponsor QBE and other Swans benefactors of course you never hear in the media how much money it actually costs us to run this thing which is over a million.

What is the purpose of the academy?
Is it to help promote AFL in NSW?
Is it to help bring NSW youth into the AFL system?
Is it acceptable for the Swans to get an advantage from it that no other club has?
What amount of advantage is deemed fair?
When does the AFL say "whoah, may need to look at this as the Swans are getting a constant flow of very good players from this"

I understand the comment "you heard nothing about it because there was nobody of value coming out of it", the "issue" now is that the Swans are a current "powerhouse" of the AFL, struggling clubs, and those that can see where this may lead are looking at the Swans and thinking "they are already bloody powerful and the AFL are letting them have a potentially huge advantage.

The Swans also have father/son through South Melb, is that correct?

 

[nickrebellious]

Yeah just cut off all talent from Queensland and New South Wales to the rest of the country. While you're at it lets give North Melbourne and Hawthorn an Academy each in Tasmania. It'll do the same thing these other academies supposedly do in 'grow the game' and there's no realistic alternative way of doing so that'll benefit all 18 clubs apparently . Kade Kolojashnij to Hawthorn for pick 18 last year off a premiership. Yeah makes sense.

 

[Jumparoo]

If TV rights are so valuable then why is every Sydney game on 7mate in Sydney instead of the prime time FTA channel?

I have never said, Sydney (as in the city) were crazy mad for the Swans and putting them on got great ratings. All I am saying is that Sydney is the only viable franchise in the largest TV market in the country.

If you want to get Sydney to watch you need the Swans. It is not like Melbourne where a Hawthorn fan will watch Collingwood vs Essendon. It is Melbourne's rabid support across the city that diminishes the value each team brings to the contract. What is clear is that if Melbourne only had one or 2 teams then clearly in that scenario the Melbourne teams would increase in importance.

It isn't hard, the AFL could not walk into the TV channels and say our league does not have any exposure in Sydney, whereas it would not hurt them as much if they said that we are going to lose a team in Melbourne as the market is still covered.

As for the WA times, yes WA supports the AFL but due to simple geography/time zone issues they just don't appeal in the same way (to the TV exec who has to sell advertising).

Remember all this is from the prism of the TV exec. The reality is Sydney, as compared to other clubs, is not the best supported and does not have voracious fans.

Though one other thing to keep in mind also which enhances the value of the Swans is that the Swans are, generally, most popular in the richer suburbs (the Eastern suburbs/inner west/ and Mosman area) which brings the sort of viewers advertisers like (disposable cash). It is not always about number of views but who is viewing.

 

[Jumparoo]

As a follow on to the TV contract, which has clearly moved away form the academy issue, from an AFL perspective if they could pick 2 teams to appear in the grand final based purely on who will move the needle and have the highest viewership and be talked about around the whole country it has to be a Collingwood V Sydney GF. Gillon dreams nightly of that result