Opinion Sydney Swans Academy and Rebuild

Academies, friend or foe

  • Support the concept don't like the concessions given to clubs

    Votes: 178 45.3%

  • Hate the concept, hate the concessions given to clubs

    Votes: 79 20.1%

  • Support the concept, support the concessions given to clubs

    Votes: 136 34.6%
  • Total voters
    393

Remove this Banner Ad

Substance said:
I don't think there is an issue currently, the academies themselves are clearly a good thing, but I think the 20% discount might be too much. That goes for F/S picks too.
Click to expand...
They are a good thing but there is also an issue of the players being exclusively available to clubs, and it has a clear solution too. All academies should be AFL run and funded and the players produced available in an open draft. As much as I love the romance of it, I also think F/S should be scrapped and the draft made as uncompromised as possible.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
It is a national competition, each club has equal access to players through the draft, they have the same salary caps to build a list. Each club has pros and cons that impact them with regards to drafting, recruiting or retaining players but every club needs to play by the same set of rules. North have had a "war chest" and trying to land big name targets for years but the perception of them being a poor club means no big players wants to go there. Should there be equalisation measures to address that too? Handing some clubs priority picks through academies is ridiculous especially when one of the main beneficiaries has had a prolonged period of success going back to the mid-90s. The Swans are already a well run, successful club, they already have a great record in recruiting or retaining players, they don't need these extra handouts to remain competitive.
Click to expand...

But the highlighted section of your post just isn't true, it hasn't been true from well before academies existed. The salary cap is the closest thing we have to equality in the AFL and even then, there are issues around the inequality of third party payments across the competition.

The every club needs to play by the same set of rules is fine if you're viewing it from the perspective of a club who is advantaged by those rules. Again, the Demons can have an academy zone in Qld or NSW no problem, you can commit the funds to developing grassroots football up here, have 3000 odd kids go through your program and then draft/rookie 13 of them like the Swans. Why aren't the Vic clubs petitioning for that do you think?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Whenever these sorts of threads pop up about a non-Victorian club having some sort of advantage I just think back to when in 2005 after 5 non vic teams had won the GF in a row the AFL commissioned a review of football to see if Victorian clubs were structurally disadvantaged...

Reckon they would ever commission the same report in reverse?...

After 15years in which Victorian teams have won 13 grand finals, not so much as a peep about interstate teams being disadvantaged
 
Demonic Ascent said:
It is a national competition, each club has equal access to players through the draft, they have the same salary caps to build a list. Each club has pros and cons that impact them with regards to drafting, recruiting or retaining players but every club needs to play by the same set of rules. North have had a "war chest" and trying to land big name targets for years but the perception of them being a poor club means no big players wants to go there. Should there be equalisation measures to address that too? Handing some clubs priority picks through academies is ridiculous especially when one of the main beneficiaries has had a prolonged period of success going back to the mid-90s. The Swans are already a well run, successful club, they already have a great record in recruiting or retaining players, they don't need these extra handouts to remain competitive.
Click to expand...
Well personally I think it's pathetic that a big strapping 19-year old can't live in a city a mere hour or two's flight from home, but the Go Home factor has been well documented and will continue to be a significant disadvantage to clubs in NSW/Qld until we start to see some serious numbers of homegrown talent coming through the ranks. You want a truly national competition, you need truly national talent coming through.
 
SBD Gonzalez said:
Well personally I think it's pathetic that a big strapping 19-year old can't live in a city a mere hour or two's flight from home, but the Go Home factor has been well documented and will continue to be a significant disadvantage to clubs in NSW/Qld until we start to see some serious numbers of homegrown talent coming through the ranks. You want a truly national competition, you need truly national talent coming through.
Click to expand...

If it's all about homegrown talent and retaining players from interstate is such an issue why did the Swans select Logan McDonald? They should've just taken Braeden Campbell with pick 4 knowing they rated him highly enough to match the bid at the next pick anyway.

It's not about homegrown talent it's about giving these clubs a leg up because the AFL can't afford to have the Swans down for a number of years rebuilding because interest in that market will decline rapidly. Ensuring these clubs are never out of contention for long is the definition of a rigged competition.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
If it's all about homegrown talent and retaining players from interstate is such an issue why did the Swans select Logan McDonald? They should've just taken Braeden Campbell with pick 4 knowing they rated him highly enough to match the bid at the next pick anyway.

It's not about homegrown talent it's about giving these clubs a leg up because the AFL can't afford to have the Swans down for a number of years rebuilding because interest in that market will decline rapidly. Ensuring these clubs are never out of contention for long is the definition of a rigged competition.
Click to expand...
Along with a bodgy fixture and a Granny at the MCG.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
If it's all about homegrown talent and retaining players from interstate is such an issue why did the Swans select Logan McDonald? They should've just taken Braeden Campbell with pick 4 knowing they rated him highly enough to match the bid at the next pick anyway.
Click to expand...

 
BloodySwan said:
Collingwood does still have that leg up. To combat it the AFL introduced the COLA but Eddie whinged until it got taken away.

The academy isn't a step up, it's a leveler.

The 4 players the Pies have poached home (Crisp, Adams, Trealor & Hoskin-Elliot) have played more games than the 12 academy players who have gone through the Swans (443 to 363).
Click to expand...

Everything that assists the Northern clubs is a 'leveler', everything else is a 'disadvantage'.

How many games have Kennedy, Franklin, Tippett, Shaw, Mattner etc. collectively played? Off the top of my head Brisbane have had 9 players from other clubs play for them just this year. Historically very few big name player join WC whether from WA or otherwise. Is that an argument for a WC academy?

These circular arguments are ridiculous. 'Woe is us we aren't a footy state we can't compete with all the advantages Vic clubs have?' 'What about Franklin and Tippett? What about having an actual home ground advantage? What about having a massive media market to yourself for 30 years? What about having all of your games on FTA? What about the AFL pumping resources into NSW?' 'Good culture'. :rolleyes:
 
Olian said:
Close down the academy immediately after producing a dozen players over 10+ years and Swans having won three games in a row.

No one complains about the academies when the Swans aren’t in the 8.
Click to expand...
That last sentence is simply not true.

I’ve been on here a while and would go on to say what kicks off the two biggest firestorms are:
- academies
- prison bars.
 
If I was Gil and said you can keep your academies as is with the following updates:
- removal of the discount
- you can only match with points from your next available pick, otherwise you go into a deficit for next year.

would you be happy?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LukeParkerno1 said:
it is an advantage for every club in Victoria, they get to prepare at home. You want to be fair, come off it. The GF isn't set in Victoria. Otherwise stop with the "I want total fairness". It's clear you want advantages not fairness when you won't get rid of those.

Player comes out and says anything about where they want to be drafted to it's an automatic ban, simple. They won't be missed.

GF goes to the highest seed.

The academies are merely to bridge that gap. As I said by all means take out the discount. You are just having an almighty whinge because you took Phillips over a KPF.
Click to expand...
Scotland said:
Everything that assists the Northern clubs is a 'leveler', everything else is a 'disadvantage'.

How many games have Kennedy, Franklin, Tippett, Shaw, Mattner etc. collectively played? Off the top of my head Brisbane have had 9 players from other clubs play for them just this year. Historically very few big name player join WC whether from WA or otherwise. Is that an argument for a WC academy?

These circular arguments are ridiculous. 'Woe is us we aren't a footy state we can't compete with all the advantages Vic clubs have?' 'What about Franklin and Tippett? What about having an actual home ground advantage? What about having a massive media market to yourself for 30 years? What about having all of your games on FTA? What about the AFL pumping resources into NSW?' 'Good culture'. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Well argued. I support academies, it enables more players to not have to move interstate, hopefully less chance of getting caught up in problems as many can live at home.
Discount of 20 % should go to 5%. I agree, you and Freo should have one as well, also only 5% discount. Vic clubs, I don't know, if they want why not. It might be hard in Vic, with players being offered incentives to move into another clubs area.
 
sydney_gws said:
Well argued. I support academies, it enables more players to not have to move interstate, hopefully less chance of getting caught up in problems as many can live at home.
Discount of 20 % should go to 5%. I agree, you and Freo should have one as well, also only 5% discount. Vic clubs, I don't know, if they want why not. It might be hard in Vic, with players being offered incentives to move into another clubs area.
Click to expand...

I support WC and I don't support special academy rules for WC (or Freo).
 
GoEaglesGoSGIO said:
Not being sarcastic here but wouldnt it make more sense to just allow the current Sydney team to take steroids?

It would be cheaper, more viable long term and it would greatly increase the talent pool overall which is the core aim here
Click to expand...

And the Eagles supporter suggests taking drugs. Colour me stunned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Can someone sum up all the reasonable solutions on how to even out the other imbalances in our game once they academies are gone or changed to be considered fair by Victorians?

I haven’t read much of the last few pages but I can only assume it’s rife with suggestions of the grand finals being played at the home ground of the highest ranking participant, ways to counteract the earning power players have living in footy states, alternative ideas to increase national participation so that the go home factor benefits every club, simplifying the fixture to eliminate marquee games that are currently given to Melbourne clubs that were big 30 years ago but largely irrelevant now etc.

Surely a well thought out discussion has taken place since I last checked and everyone wants every single inequality irradiated?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gonna post this for the umpteenth time in this thread:



I'm actually fine with academies - it just needs to be changed to mirror NGA's moving forward and an open first round, in order to prevent double dipping with Top 20 selections. Most reasonable people agree with this (including the OP), I don't why some of you are so hell-bent on trying to prove that you should be able to use discounted points to pick up your own highly rated kid, plus another on top for free - that's what makes little sense to me.

No academy points in first round, it's really that simple.

************************************************

On reviewing the thread every few days and seeing the recycled arguments that seem to get put forward, I have to say, I think it's really disingenuous to start bringing in every inequality that Sydney faces, to use as some sort of measuring stick for how we should approach the drafting system.

No-one is arguing that academies aren't good for the game (at least most aren't), but the argument that 'we invested in it therefore we should be guaranteed it' - is absolute horsesh*t to be honest.

I've said it multiple times, and engaged in interesting discussion, however, I haven't seen one person here admit that the current system essentially allows Northern clubs to bypass the draft entirely, and select their player without using their actual pick.

The biggest thing that can ever happen, is that they somehow go into deficit, at which point, they always have future picks which alleviate the point losses in the next draft. They'll always get their player - and many have actually said the quiet part out loud by saying 'we invested in them, so we want a return on our investment.'

There is no need for these players to be in the draft, because you're getting them for a whole bunch of nothing picks by accumulating value on those picks when you lump them all together - and you get your 20% discount on top. When this happens, you then of course get to draft your own player, giving you a first round draftee, plus your own 1st round draftee from the academy.

No-one knows where someone will get drafted exactly, but it should be incumbent on a club to use their first round pick, to draft their player from the academy who is rated around that mark by other clubs OR draft a different player with your first round pick - because you prefer them instead.

As I have said MULTIPLE times, you may have invested in Campbell, but you sure as hell didn't invest in McDonald. You don't deserve both, just because the system allows you to have both by 'getting ahead' of the bid. That's the problem, that's what needs to be fixed.

Invest in your academy players, but use your draft collateral to pick them up and get your return on your investment - at least for kids touted as possible first round draftees.

There's no need to bring in any other issues, as this should be the same and extended across the board to Father/Sons, NGA's and Northern Academies. The rules shouldn't just change for some but not for all, as it just opens up a whole new can of worms, wherein clubs who had planned on drafting NGA's that they had put their own time and money into, are now unable to, but clubs like Collingwood and Sydney still get their F/S and Academy picks with no issue. It's just putting a bandaid over a bullethole.

As for the go home factor, it just doesn't work when it comes to Sydney - you can't use it as an argument. You lost Tom Mitchell, but your midfield was absolutely stacked at that point, and the opportunities weren't there. You also lost Zak Jones, but he was a fringe player at best. Gary Rohan who you were probably happy to lose, and a broken Hannebery - who'll never be the same again.

On the flip side, you've attracted the game's biggest FA of all time in Buddy Franklin, Kurt Tippett when he was the next big thing, had massive interest from Joe Daniher and kept Tom Papley as a result.

****************************************************

To provide one last example of how the system just isn't right, this was your draft haul in 2015:

2015 draft picks: 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69, 72, 90, 108, 126

Those are a bunch of nothing picks, overall, and for a club without an academy player with that 20% discount, they would have netted some fringe players and maybe one or two decent kids that slotted in as role players eventually.

What did you guys end up with? Pick 3 - Callum Mills. You were also still able to use Pick 56 to draft Jordan Dawson. So after making the Grand Final and finishing with Pick 14, you get a Top 3 pick, by lumping a bunch of nothing picks together. You didn't have to use any draft collateral, you just traded your top pick down for multiple picks that gave you more academy points, and ended up with a Top 3 draftee and a current solid Best 22 player.

Also, on top of that, you were planning on drafting Josh Dunkley as a F/S, with any leftover academy points.

If you guys can't see how ridiculous this is, and how it basically allows you to bottom out for a year or two and then rebound up the ladder again while other sides languish for years on end/trade away all their draft capital for established players to stay in contention - all the while losing their chance of drafting of top kids year on year (having to make that choice), then I'm not sure what else to say. The system is broken, and the only reason you guys have rebounded so quickly, is because you had an established core, that has been rejuvenated by a new core of gun youngsters. We may have picked up Cameron, but we get to give away all our draft capital to do so - we made the choice while you guys don't have to.

If say a club like Richmond, Geelong, West Coast, Adelaide or Hawthorn tried this in recent years, the best they could hope for would be a mid to late first round pick. You guys won a flag in 2005, were competitive for years, won another flag in 2012, were in another Grand Final in 2014 and then yet another in 2016 - all the while basically making Top 8 nearly every single year. Even when you were still competing, you were still picking up players like Heeney and Mills - while using very little draft collateral to do so.

If we want a fair draft system, it needs to be equal across the board. If it requires us having longer contracts for new draftees - so be it. If it requires more AFL investment in academies, to compensate their losses/complete AFL investment, then so be it. What can't continue happening though, is a system where a club can remain competitive for so long, and then essentially revamp their list without any actual shortfall.

As many have said, Geelong's list is aging, and our era probably has a few years left at absolute best, before we enter the wilderness for a bit and have to revamp and revitalize. For you guys though, if this academy system continues, you could essentially be back in Top 4 contention with half your 22 comprised of academy players, by the time we've bottomed out - even though we've both been in contention for around the same amount of time.

As the OP said, you'll only have more kids coming through, and your picks are only going to get worse as you improve - so the disparity between being a 'lower team' that's rebuilding, and one that is a genuine contender, will only continue to grow.

How do you think it's going to look if you're taking Top 3 kids with 5 picks in the 30's, and then using your first rounder to draft another kid. You'll have a team of Top 5 kids that can play together for 10+ years, and it'll only get worse every single year. It's not hard to see why this is all actually a real problem for the entire draft system - when you look at the big picture in totality.

TL; DR - Equalize the system and allow an 'open draft' for the First Round. All bets are off after that, and take whatever Academy kids you want with a bunch of later nothing picks. Get rid of the discount, and have a system that forces you to use your first rounder on your Academy kid OR another top prospect - not end up with both due to a flawed system.

Peace.

P.S. I would love for Grand Finals to be played at other grounds, but the MCC and the AFL will never give up those rights (it's locked in 'til 2057), and it's a completely moot conversation to have. We don't even get finals at our ground lol, due to 'supporter capacity', so expecting the AFL to hand over the GF to another state when it can just use the 'biggest stadium/more fans/tradition' argument - is just an argument that will go nowhere, and ultimately has no resolution.
 
Last edited:
Shadow89 said:
Gonna post this for the umpteenth time in this thread:



I'm actually fine with academies - it just needs to be changed to mirror NGA's moving forward and an open first round, in order to prevent double dipping with Top 20 selections. Most reasonable people agree with this (including the OP), I don't why some of you are so hell-bent on trying to prove that you should be able to use discounted points to pick up your own highly rated kid, plus another on top for free - that's what makes little sense to me.

No academy points in first round, it's really that simple.

************************************************

I'll add, it's really disingenuous to start bringing in every inequality that Sydney faces, to use as some sort of measuring stick for how we should approach the drafting system.

No-one is arguing that academies aren't good for the game (at least most aren't), but the argument that 'we invested in it therefore we should be guaranteed it'- is absolute horsesh*t to be honest.

I've said it multiple times, and engaged in interesting discussion, however, I haven't seen one person here admit that the current system essentially allows Northern clubs to bypass the draft entirely, and select their player without using their actual pick.

The biggest thing that can ever happen, is that they somehow go into deficit, at which point, they always have future picks which alleviate the point losses in the next draft. They'll always get their player - and many have actually said the quiet part out loud by saying 'we invested in them, so we want a return on our investment.'

There is no need for these players to be in the draft, because you're getting them for a whole bunch of nothing picks by accumulating value on those picks when you lump them all together - and you get your 20% discount on top. When this happens, you then of course get to draft your own player, giving you a first round draftee, plus your own 1st round draftee from the academy.

No-one knows where someone will get drafted exactly, but it should be incumbent on a club to use their first round pick, to draft their player from the academy who is rated around that mark by other clubs OR draft a different player with your first round pick - because you prefer them instead.

As I have said MULTIPLE times, you may have invested in Campbell, but you sure as hell didn't invest in McDonald. You don't deserve both, just because the system allows you to have both by 'getting ahead' of the bid. That's the problem, that's what needs to be fixed.

Invest in your academy players, but use your draft collateral to pick them up and get your return on your investment - at least for kids touted as possible first round draftees.

There's no need to bring in any other issues, as this should be the same and extended across the board to Father/Sons, NGA's and Northern Academies. The rules shouldn't just change for some but not for all, as it just opens up a whole new can of worms, wherein clubs who had planned on drafting NGA's that they had put their own time and money into, are now unable to, but clubs like Collingwood and Sydney still get their F/S and Academy picks with no issue. It's just putting a bandaid over a bullethole.

As for the go home factor, it just doesn't work when it comes to Sydney - you can't use it as an argument. You lost Tom Mitchell, but your midfield was absolutely stacked at that point, and the opportunities weren't there. You also lost Zak Jones, but he was a fringe player at best. Gary Rohan who you were probably happy to lose, and a broken Hannebery - who'll never be the same again.

On the flip side, you've attracted the game's biggest FA of all time in Buddy Franklin, Kurt Tippett when he was the next big thing, had massive interest from Joe Daniher and kept Tom Papley as a result.

****************************************************

To provide one last example of how the system just isn't right, this was your draft haul in 2015:

2015 draft picks: 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69, 72, 90, 108, 126

Those are a bunch of nothing picks, overall, and for a club without an academy player with that 20% discount, they would have netted some fringe players and maybe one or two decent kids that slotted in as role players eventually.

What did you guys end up with? Pick 3 - Callum Mills. You were also still able to use Pick 56 to draft Jordan Dawson. So after making the Grand Final and finishing with Pick 14, you get a Top 3 pick, by lumping a bunch of nothing picks together. You didn't have to use any draft collateral, you just traded your top pick down for multiple picks that gave you more academy points, and ended up with a Top 3 draftee.

Also, on top of that, you were planning on drafting Josh Dunkley as a F/S, with any leftover academy points.

If you guys can't see how ridiculous this is, and how it basically allows you to bottom out for a year or two and then rebound up the ladder again while other sides languish for years on end/trade away all their draft capital for established players to stay in contention - all the while losing their chance of drafting of top kids year on year (having to make that choice), then I'm not sure what else to say. The system is broken, and the only reason you guys have rebounded so quickly, is because you had an established core, that has been rejuvenated by a new core of gun youngsters.

If say a club like Richmond, Geelong, West Coast, Adelaide or Hawthorn tried this in recent years, the best they could hope for would be a mid to late first round pick. You guys won a flag in 2005, were competitive for years, won another flag in 2012, were in another Grand Final in 2014 and then yet another in 2016 - all the while basically making Top 8 nearly every single year. Even when you were still competing, you were still picking up players like Heeney and Mills - while using very little draft collateral to do so.

If we want a fair draft system, it needs to be equal across the board. If it requires us having longer contracts for new draftees - so be it. If it requires more AFL investment in academies, to compensate their losses/complete AFL investment, then so be it. What can't continue happening though, is a system where a club can remain competitive for so long, and then essentially revamp their list without any actual shortfall.

As many have said, Geelong's list is aging, and our era probably has a few years left at best, before we enter the wilderness for a bit and have to revamp and revitalize. For you guys though, if this academy system continues, you could essentially be back in Top 4 contention with half your 22 comprised of academy players, by the time we've bottomed out - even though we've both been in contention for around the same amount of time.

As the OP said, you'll only have more kids coming through, and your picks are only going to get worse as you improve - so the disparity between being a 'lower team' that's rebuilding, and one that is a genuine contender, will only continue to grow.

How do you think it's going to look if you're taking Top 3 kids with 5 picks in the 30's, and then using your first rounder to draft another kid. You'll have a team of Top 5 kids that can play together for 10+ years, and it'll only get worse every single year. It's not hard to see why this is all actually a real problem for the entire draft system - when you look at the big picture in totality.

TL; DR - Equalize the system and allow an 'open draft' for the First Round. All bets are off after that, and take whatever Academy kids you want with a bunch of later nothing picks. Get rid of the discount, and have a system that forces you to use your first rounder on your Academy kid OR another top prospect - not end up with both due to a flawed system.

Peace.
Click to expand...

Same rules for f/s. Otherwise you are dreaming...eg -

All media fake external employment and cashies in Vic SA and WA included in the salary cap. The ATO to audit income of players moving to Vic Clubs

Kids recruited to Nthn States in the 1st round to stay at the Nthn State's behest for 12 years. The days of Vic Clubs using the Nthn States as talent developers to be eliminated.

Rationalise the number of Melbourne teams - North, Saints and Melbourne to go and establish a Tas team.
 
Last edited:
Grand Uncle Horace said:
Same rules for f/s. Otherwise you are dreaming...eg -

All media fake external employment and cashies in Vic SA and WA included in the salary cap. The ATO to audit income of players moving to Vic Clubs

Kids recruited to Nthn States in the 1st round to stay at the Nthn State's behest for 12 years. The days of Vic Clubs using the Nthn States as talent developers to be eliminated.eliminated.
Click to expand...

I said same rules for F/S, lol. I find it a little convenient that you state 'all media fake external employment and 'cashies', in VIC, WA and SA, while leaving out all the sponsor deals that come with players at the Giants and the Swans.

Should probably work the other way too shouldn't it - if you want to start auditing income of players, then players should be getting audited when they come across to NSW and QLD sides too; or does it only work one way?

Doesn't really sound like you want an equal draft system, just sounds like you want to 'make everyone else pay' to compensate for any of your perceived losses via the draft - news flash, it's a false equivalence to suggest they're even remotely connected issues.

You've lost 4-5 players to other clubs, while luring some of the biggest names across, yet you want to be able to hold kids hostage for 12 years (lol), to justify having your draft concessions altered? Do you genuinely think that's a reasonable comment to make?

Sounds like you didn't even read what I wrote, and just replied with your own premeditated feelings of aggrievement.

Really poor response.
 
juddy_Like said:
If I was Gil and said you can keep your academies as is with the following updates:
- removal of the discount
- you can only match with points from your next available pick, otherwise you go into a deficit for next year.

would you be happy?
Click to expand...
One or the other. Both become too restrictive and the academies funding will plummit.

Also needs to be same rules for father son matching too
 
Shadow89 said:
I said same rules for F/S, lol. I find it a little convenient that you state 'all media fake external employment and 'cashies', in VIC, WA and SA, while leaving out all the sponsor deals that come with players at the Giants and the Swans.

Should probably work the other way too shouldn't it - if you want to start auditing income of players, then players should be getting audited when they come across to NSW and QLD sides too; or does it only work one way?

Doesn't really sound like you want an equal draft system, just sounds like you want to 'make everyone else pay' to compensate for any of your perceived losses via the draft - news flash, it's a false equivalence to suggest they're even remotely connected issues.

You've lost 4-5 players to other clubs, while luring some of the biggest names across, yet you want to be able to hold kids hostage for 12 years (lol), to justify having your draft concessions altered? Do you genuinely think that's a reasonable comment to make?

Sounds like you didn't even read what I wrote, and just replied with your own premeditated feelings of aggrievement.

Really poor response.
Click to expand...

Was just having fun.

Brown has made the point McGuire assured him he would earn 2 to 3 times his contract if he moved to the Pies from Brisbane.

The four Northern Clubs don't have players with media deals (eg Cloke on the Footy Show coz he was a great entertainer) or cashies. The GC and Giants in particular have been pillaged by Vic Clubs including Geelong.

It is a national comp and we are not in boom times. I would have expansion teams in Worst Australia, SA and Tas and eliminate three Melbourne teams.
 
Grand Uncle Horace said:
Was just having fun.

Brown has made the point McGuire assured him he would earn 2 to 3 times his contract if he moved to the Pies from Brisbane.

The four Northern Clubs don't have players with media deals (eg Cloke on the Footy Show coz he was a great entertainer) or cashies. The GC and Giants in particular have been pillaged by Vic Clubs including Geelong.

It is a national comp and we are not in boom times. I would have expansion teams in Worst Australia, SA and Tas and eliminate three Melbourne teams.
Click to expand...

Ah fair enough. Far too early for picking up on nuance on here, lol. Apologies.

With that said I do agree on some of those points, but I've gotta highly disagree on the 'pillaged' part when it comes to us. While all and sundry from Vic have picked up Giants players, this is actually the first Giants player we've picked up. We also only ever got Ablett back from GC, and that was literally because his sister was mentally unwell and unfortunately we know what happened there.

In the case of Cameron, we gave up literally all our draft collateral to get him, so it wasn't a FA 'heist' sort of deal - we definitely had to pay through the nose in both salary and draft capital, to get him across.

I digress though, as it's not really important to the discussion.

Coniglio reportedly has media/sponsorship deals tied in with his salary, Buddy made an absolute packet just with marketing alone in Sydney, and Ablett was paid a metric sh*t ton for all the sponsorship/marquee player branding deals he got on the side. Not to mention players like Ward and Griffin when they came across to the Giants, Stevie J etc. Although the media side was not the same - paid segments and what not - I feel that has more to do with the media landscape in those rugby dominated areas - where no-one is really that interested in a bunch of AFL segments, when they just want to talk Rugby.

Agree that a national comp is probably the way forward, but still not sure how it works yet, or even if WA or SA would even want that - as it would take away their edge even more when it comes to their draft pool. That's a long way off though, lol, and a conversation that's probably for a different thread.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Sydney Swans Academy and Rebuild

Similar threads

iameviljez
Sydney Swans and a sick fan - A class act
Replies
6
Views
443
SAweagle
SAweagle
Cleric
Expansion Are FS and Academy Juniors exempt from bring taken by Tasmania?
Replies
7
Views
198
Cleric
Cleric
Taper
  • Poll
Analysis The Rebuilds of West Coast and Richmond and their Future Prospects
2 3 4 5
Replies
102
Views
4K
Freomaniac
Freomaniac
iBeng
St Kilda President Andrew Bassat tees off on the AFL draft system, specifically father/son and the Northern Academies
37 38 39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
26K
beside the seaside
beside the seaside
Strapping Young Lad
List Mgmt. “It’s a form of tanking” the Richmond rebuild
30 31 32 33 34
Replies
828
Views
27K
Grrr
G
Football Tragic
  • Poll
What's your advice to Richmond with their rebuild?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
6K
TP86
T
Cleric
  • Poll
Expansion Should Tasmania be granted a Northern States style of Academy?
Replies
19
Views
529
Sherrinator
Sherrinator
Back
Top