Swans' academy.

[clogged]

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

Yeah, but what you've hit on there is that the AFL is simply an entertainment product rather a proper sporting competition.

It's not the existence or stability of the Swans the AFL and their broadcast partners want. It's the success. The Swans simply do not rate in home and away games. They have minimal exposure, and get placed on one of the dead channels few people flick over to watch. Channel 7 do not pay millions of dollars a year to have Sydney outrated by Iron Chef reruns.

What both the AFL and their partners want is a Sydney side that goes deep into finals. Play in preliminaries and grand finals more often than the average club. That is where the ratings are generated - prime time viewing of the big matches.

That's why they get the cost of living allowance. That's why they get the academies. To keep them deep in finals. It isn't to protect their existence, it is to ensure their success. That's why since they were granted concessions they have missed the finals fewer times than any other club. The AFL have achieved their aim and want to continue achieving it.

Nothing to do with growing the game. If more people start watching Sydney vs Western Bulldogs in H&A that's a nice side benefit, but they don't really expect that to happen. It has everything to do with making the people at AFL house wealthier.

 

[Tedeski]

Exactly. And Sydney supporters are saying a lot of 'why are you only complaining about Heeney and Mills' and it's true. But by the same default it's only going to be a problem for guys like that. All the 3rd, 4th round and rookie pick ups that come out of the academy will either be bid on or not bid on and can fulfill all the purposes of the academies. Some will probably be bargains as well and they'll be local kids, no concerns about COLA or relocation.

It's why I'd have it.

Someone bids a first round pick: Give up a pick in the next 5
Someone bids a second round pick: Give up a pick in the next 10
Someone bids a third round pick: Give up a pick in the next 20

If someone bids pick 7 for Heeney then the swans have 5 teams to work a trade for to move from pick 18 or whatever it is back down to pick 12 to get him. Sure it puts Sydney at a bit of a weak position to negotiate but that's why they get the player for 5 picks below what another club rates him at. And no ones going to overbid a really high pick for a guy they might get lumped with unless they really rate him.

Of course it would all be easier if trading of future draft picks were allowed and maybe changing the father/son and academy rules could be a catalyst for the AFL stepping up and making that bold decision.

There is merit in many of these scenarios that people are putting up but it will only end up with the actual clubs no longer willing to put in any of their time or funding, only to find themselves battling to have a real chance of getting these kids to our club, something agreed to when formed.

When these academies were first discussed with the AFL & between club presidents, they all agreed that it was a fair way of developing kids with the potential of drafting some to our game in the future, when previously history has shown that it was unlikely to ever happen. It was also a way of encouraging our clubs to recruit from the local area which in turn would remove future go home factors & decrease the amount of non NSW players on our lists which currently stands at about 90%. It was with an eye to the future but I guess these presidents were assuming that the Swans would be be at best a 6th to 7th placed club & at worse bottoming out for years on any future ladders.

Let's face it. The sh.t has hit the fan with all this because we 'pinched' a flag in 2012 & we had the audacity to recruit Tippett & Buddy along with Derrickx, Laidler, Rampe, Lloyd, as well as losing Mummy, White, Everitt, Lamb, and the retirements of Bolton, Mattner etc. Another 8 are rookies that have been promoted.
We bring most of them in rock bottom, teach them to play our simple way & bring in a star on the big bucks yet still the 'uneducated' Vic football public on anything Swans, believe players such as DRex, Rampe, Lloyd, Laidler etc are on 500K each in their first year because of the CoLA.

Such clubs are not supposed to have success but merely provide an opponent for the 6 'privileged' super clubs in pro AFL states.

Sorry!

It is obvious that the Swans will eventually just abandon their financial investment into such academies forcing the AFL (18 clubs) to fund each & every academy as they do the under 18 comp in Victoria.
I'd have no problem with that at all. Then we can at least remove any doubt that these academies are an unfair advantage to the QLD & NSW clubs.

I repeat!
It is mind boggling that every club president agreed to these academies & it's 'benefits' to the QLD & NSW clubs in the first place if they are so concerned at our advantages. It says plenty about how poor these presidents are & have been at keeping an eye to the future, in that they agreed to such academies not all that long ago. They are now jumping at shadows.

I say that the AFL should fund each & every academy which in turn removes all doubt of any advantage.

 

[PeteSummer]

It's simple. AFL funds the academy & there are no club ties.

 

[Randy Campbell]

It's simple. AFL funds the academy & there are no club ties.

Yes it would.
But it defeats the reason it is really there.

 

[PeteSummer]

McLachlan is understood to have told the coaches who attended his private dinner on Monday night that the AFL would change the academy bidding system

Looks like Sydney will have to pay overs for Heeney. AFL has said this has been made official, changes to the bidding system.

 

[The Gong]

Read McLachlan's comments again:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...tween-swans-eddie-mcguire-20140716-ztkkh.html

The bottom line seems to be they'll continue to let the northern clubs run the academies but they'll have more stringent rules around how they draft players from the academies. Seems a bit of a half way bet.

 

[Jumparoo]

Not that

Looks like Sydney will have to pay overs for Heeney. AFL has said this has been made official, changes to the bidding system.

I have a problem with this from an equity point of view, but it just confirms to me the inmates are running the asylum. How do you have a meeting with only coaches from Victoria and agree to what they want (which is fine for them to lobby) without input or attendance from any of the non-vic coaches. It just makes it look like Gillon can be blown around by whoever speaks to him last.

With respect to the nature of the current academy bidding system, no matter how crappy it looks you can't change it this year. You can't ask a team to operate in accordance with an AFL supported system and after doing it and funding it in accordance with those rules immediately rush in and change it when finally something good comes from it. If the rules around drafting are to change then those rules must involve the AFL coming in and taking over and agreeing that they apply to all recruits into the academy that are younger than [insert age].

I can not accept that anyone would think it fair if their club did something, in accordance with the rules all the clubs agreed!!!, and then when a benefit was about to happen everyone changed the rules. This goes back to the schoolyard when someone would change the rules at the last second b/c they didn't like losing. finish the game properly and then change the rules. If 8 yr olds can do it Gillon should be able to manage it.

 

[MarkT2]

I repeat!
It is mind boggling that every club president agreed to these academies & it's 'benefits' to the QLD & NSW clubs in the first place if they are so concerned at our advantages. It says plenty about how poor these presidents are & have been at keeping an eye to the future, in that they agreed to such academies not all that long ago. They are now jumping at shadows.

When did this happen?

 

[PeteSummer]

I think Hawthorn & Collingwood are perfectly entitled to get their way with how the bidding works.

Newbold & McGuire have been on a working party at equalisation. They have always been on record that you start equalisation at the ground up by having a pure draft and a pure salary cap. Forget other things for a start, this is how you start equalisation.

If the AFL are going to tax these clubs more than any other clubs, they are totally vindicated by getting their way with bidding.

 

[The_Reaper]

Yes it would.
But it defeats the reason it is really there.

Nah. We need a GWS linked academy to grow the game in Albury.

 

[Tas]

Nah. We need a GWS linked academy to grow the game in Albury.

Greater Western & Southern NSW & ACT

 

[Magpie Ink]

It is mind boggling that every club president agreed to these academies & it's 'benefits' to the QLD & NSW clubs in the first place if they are so concerned at our advantages. It says plenty about how poor these presidents are & have been at keeping an eye to the future, in that they agreed to such academies not all that long ago. They are now jumping at shadows.

I say that the AFL should fund each & every academy which in turn removes all doubt of any advantage.

I think you'll find that the AFL pushing the equalisation agenda has put the spotlight on these sort of perceived advantages.

 

[MickyG]

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?

Read this thread and you will find the answers..

What is the purpose of the academy? To improve the quality of junior AFL so it is equal to that in AFL states.
Is it to help promote AFL in NSW? Yes
Is it to help bring NSW youth into the AFL system? Yes
Is it acceptable for the Swans to get an advantage from it that no other club has? Yes if you are a Swans supporter (ditto for GWS, GC and Brisbane). No if you are Eddie or lack informations or want your club to get every good player.
What amount of advantage is deemed fair? It was decided to give father son bidding. Now that there are some good players Eddie and that other guy want to change the rules.
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" My suggestion would be when 4/18ths of players (22%) and 4 of the first 18 are recruited from NSW and QLD.
The Swans also have father/son through South Melb, is that correct? Yes but the Swans have now been in Sydney more than 30 years so father sons like Mitchell and Dunkley are from Sydney.

 

[The 747]

Not that


I have a problem with this from an equity point of view, but it just confirms to me the inmates are running the asylum. How do you have a meeting with only coaches from Victoria and agree to what they want (which is fine for them to lobby) without input or attendance from any of the non-vic coaches. It just makes it look like Gillon can be blown around by whoever speaks to him last.

With respect to the nature of the current academy bidding system, no matter how crappy it looks you can't change it this year. You can't ask a team to operate in accordance with an AFL supported system and after doing it and funding it in accordance with those rules immediately rush in and change it when finally something good comes from it. If the rules around drafting are to change then those rules must involve the AFL coming in and taking over and agreeing that they apply to all recruits into the academy that are younger than [insert age].

I can not accept that anyone would think it fair if their club did something, in accordance with the rules all the clubs agreed!!!, and then when a benefit was about to happen everyone changed the rules. This goes back to the schoolyard when someone would change the rules at the last second b/c they didn't like losing. finish the game properly and then change the rules. If 8 yr olds can do it Gillon should be able to manage it.

I thought you were funding the academy to grow the game in NSW, not to get a cheap advantage on the rest of the comp. Are you saying you wouldn't put the development time and effort into those kids if you had to pay market value for them?

 

[Cleric]

Lets re-think the whole issue. SA and WA AFL teams pay hundreds of thousands each year to fund the Victorian TAC cup. The other AFL teams dont spend hundreds of thousands towards the SANFL and WAFL U18s comp. The AFL needs to either be fair and give money to other states jrs or the VFL needs to fund it.

 

[master bate]

Read this thread and you will find the answers..

What is the purpose of the academy? To improve the quality of junior AFL so it is equal to that in AFL states.
Is it to help promote AFL in NSW? Yes
Is it to help bring NSW youth into the AFL system? Yes
Is it acceptable for the Swans to get an advantage from it that no other club has? Yes if you are a Swans supporter (ditto for GWS, GC and Brisbane). No if you are Eddie or lack informations or want your club to get every good player.
What amount of advantage is deemed fair? It was decided to give father son bidding. Now that there are some good players Eddie and that other guy want to change the rules.
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" My suggestion would be when 4/18ths of players (22%) and 4 of the first 18 are recruited from NSW and QLD.
The Swans also have father/son through South Melb, is that correct? Yes but the Swans have now been in Sydney more than 30 years so father sons like Mitchell and Dunkley are from Sydney.

You started off so well on the first 3 points and then you lost it. Such a shame.

After Geelong got Ablett, Scarlett and Hawkins all for 3rd round picks they changed the father son rule. I bet Sydney and every other club were happy. To think that you'd wait until the Northern clubs got a first round pick cheaply every year is delusional.

And what exactly does it matter where Mitchell and Dunkley or any other father son for the Swans played?

 

[TedDougChris]

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?

I agree, although a seperate issue that has been debated elsewhere many times. The fact that Melbourne then put it's hand out last year for a PP just made the situation worse in my eyes.

I don't think any rules were broken (from a Sydney perspective) on the Tippett deal. If anything, the Veale deal involving Jade Rawlings was a far murkier deal many years ago...

 

[TedDougChris]

I think you'll find that the AFL pushing the equalisation agenda has put the spotlight on these sort of perceived advantages.

Agreed - this is not just a Sydney thing here. The AFL want to help resolve equalisation across the game. This has led to the wealthier Melbourne clubs kicking up a stink about advantages that others have, that are yet to be equalised. But let's not forget, there are a whole group of clubs in Melbourne and elsewhere that get none of the advantages that the northern clubs get, nor any of the advantages the richer Melbourne clubs do either....

 

[TedDougChris]

After Geelong got Ablett, Scarlett and Hawkins all for 3rd round picks they changed the father son rule. I bet Sydney and every other club were happy. To think that you'd wait until the Northern clubs got a first round pick cheaply every year is delusional.

Yep, can we change that rule back so we can get Libba, Wallis and Cordy all for third round picks please. That'll be two additional first round picks and a second round pick we get back. We'll take them this year too..... Thanks....

 

[grimlock]

I'm happy with the supposed proposed bidding scheme as long as one conditions is met. The club that eventually gets the Academy player (if the original club fails to come up with the requisite picks) has to financially compensate the original club for all the costs (money, time and resources) they have poured into the player over his junior career.

An independent tribunal shall be convened to determine this financial value to be held annually at Gil McLachlan's house. (Weekend at Gilly's)

This compensation scheme shall be called the Compensating our Lost Academians or CoLA for short.

 

[master bate]

Lets re-think the whole issue. SA and WA AFL teams pay hundreds of thousands each year to fund the Victorian TAC cup. The other AFL teams dont spend hundreds of thousands towards the SANFL and WAFL U18s comp. The AFL needs to either be fair and give money to other states jrs or the VFL needs to fund it.

Nice try. But I think that's a much different issue to the academies. The VFL aren't going to fund the TAC cup as they aren't directly linked. Although they are both under the AFL Victoria banner. Obviously in WA and SA the teams were set up under control of the state leagues and hence the junior funding. But if you want I'm sure your clubs could work out how to stop those payments, but they'd likely just be hit with great equalisation payments and then have that money flow back in to juniors. Of course an equal national structure is the fairest way but I wouldn't be complaining too much about funding models for SA and WA clubs. There's plenty of cash to go around to give some back to junior development particularly with the new Adelaide Oval and soon to be Perth Stadium.

 

[Jumparoo]

I thought you were funding the academy to grow the game in NSW, not to get a cheap advantage on the rest of the comp. Are you saying you wouldn't put the development time and effort into those kids if you had to pay market value for them?

your comment implies that there can't be two benefits and that they are mutually exclusive. Growing the game is great, but if that is the job and sole goal it should be funded by the AFL.

 

[TedDougChris]

I'm happy with the supposed proposed bidding scheme as long as one conditions is met. The club that eventually gets the Academy player (if the original club fails to come up with the requisite picks) has to financially compensate the original club for all the costs (money, time and resources) they have poured into the player over his junior career.

An independent tribunal shall be convened to determine this financial value to be held annually at Gil McLachlan's house. (Weekend at Gilly's)

This compensation scheme shall be called the Compensating our Lost Academians or CoLA for short.

Could have been worse, Essendons new plan is PEPSI. Persons espousing persistent systematic injections.... Can't see any issues here either....

 

[master bate]

I'm happy with the supposed proposed bidding scheme as long as one conditions is met. The club that eventually gets the Academy player (if the original club fails to come up with the requisite picks) has to financially compensate the original club for all the costs (money, time and resources) they have poured into the player over his junior career.

An independent tribunal shall be convened to determine this financial value to be held annually at Gil McLachlan's house. (Weekend at Gilly's)

This compensation scheme shall be called the Compensating our Lost Academians or CoLA for short.

500 kids in the academy. 1 mil per year to run. That's $2000 per kid per year. Kids can be in it for about 8 years right? 16,000. Too easy. Thanks for playing.

 

[PeteSummer]

I'm happy with the supposed proposed bidding scheme as long as one conditions is met. The club that eventually gets the Academy player (if the original club fails to come up with the requisite picks) has to financially compensate the original club for all the costs (money, time and resources) they have poured into the player over his junior career.

You do realise other clubs effectively fund part of your academy funding?