Opinion Sydney Swans Academy and Rebuild

[Shadow89]

But you said every year. That year our next picks were in the 50s. We hardly got him for free.

Never said every year, read the post again - said it's happened more than once, that's all I said.

Have actually enjoyed this discussion this morning, so not looking to turn it into anything; just pointing that out

 

[Seedsfan]

Rightio, chances are that next best is a VIC or WA player who wants to eventually return home. You're the one being biased because you know that when you pick the next best player that you don't have to worry about keeping him. Like i said, you're very thick my dude. Look at our most recent first round draft picks who were the 'next best' as you say: Jetta, Rohan, Jones... guess what.. All wanted to return home. After them comes Ling (VIC), Rowbottom (VIC), Mcdonald(WA)... Guess what the story is going to be again. Fact of the matter we we have to open our legs to keep top end talent whilst you sit their trying to protect your privilege. Our convo ends here, I ain't arguing with someone who lacks logic.

You are borderline dribbler “90% of THe TALenT PoOL iS FRoM MElbOURne”

Let’s keep trading out our first rounder as we can get mills with a few picks in the late 20s

Learn to open both eyes if you want to discuss things outside of the swans board but this is what you get when primary school is out

 

[Number37]

Because even if you rated Campbell at 10 (which is what you said before), then Hawthorn rating him at 5 means that you don't think it's fair that you guys should have to give up all your draft collateral to pay the same price for him that Hawthorn would - am I right in saying that?

That idea gives clear incentive for clubs to bid early so as to knock academy clubs out of the top end of the draft.
North could bid pick 1, knowing that their offer will get matched. Costs Swans a bucket load. Costs North nothing.

 

[Number37]

I don't think rules would force the Swans to cheat.

But if you're putting different rules in for local and interstate talent then it shouldn't be restricting local to encourage interstate, it should be incentivising interstate with a COLA bonus for those players over the locals.

It's only illegal if you get caught.

 

[SM]

Never said every year, read the post again - said it's happened more than once, that's all I said.

Have actually enjoyed this discussion this morning, so not looking to turn it into anything; just pointing that out

Didn't you acknowledge we were going in circles and declare you were leaving the conversation yesterday?

 

[Shadow89]

That idea gives clear incentive for clubs to bid early so as to knock academy clubs out of the top end of the draft.
North could bid pick 1, knowing that their offer will get matched. Costs Swans a bucket load. Costs North nothing.

See now this is actually really interesting to me, and better helps me understand why retention is being brought up so much when discussing the drafting/academy bids and points issue. I never did actually consider that clubs could actually effectively 'sabotage' other clubs, by ranking kids higher, in order to then force said clubs to use more draft collateral.

While I would argue that this isn't really happening, given both Blakey and Green were rated as Tp 5 prospects, and were drafted both times at Pick 10, I guess I can see the other side of the coin where if this starts becoming a real issue that pisses certain Vic clubs off, then they could just bid whenever they wanted (within reason) knowing full well that if the Academy club has the points, they're gonna match it and that's one less club to compete with in the draft.

Cheers for that.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Which is what a lot of people have said.

NGA rules are now no bidding on first round picks. Do that problem solved.

So we don’t get the kids we want and put the resources into...why would we plonk millions of dollars into a programme to get a second rounder talent at best

 

[zyzzbruh]

So legitimately asking this then, you do think you should be given your academy kid outside the draft (essentially)? There's been too many sh*tfights, but this is just something I want people to answer for me, lol - without it being a jab. If you genuinely think that the weight of numbers is against you in regards to players leaving, then you genuinely think your academy kids should be guaranteed to you guys, without other clubs being able to select them? Would I be right in saying that?

Because even if you rated Campbell at 10 (which is what you said before), then Hawthorn rating him at 5 means that you don't think it's fair that you guys should have to give up all your draft collateral to pay the same price for him that Hawthorn would - am I right in saying that?

You're correct. But we ain't getting them for free. We use our next best pick, or even more picks depending on points. We could've essentially split picks and selected more players in the draft if we passed on campbell. We chose not to. We're still paying a price on top of the fact that we developed the kid. Essentially all we get for these academy kids is a pick upgrade, which i beleive is fair in bridging the gap of disadvantage. And again it's not something that happens every year. Last year we didn't have academy picks, this year we also have shit all.

 

[Shadow89]

Didn't you acknowledge we were going in circles and declare you were leaving the conversation yesterday?

Don't throw barbs, it's actually been an enjoyable conversation with a few of the posters this morning, and I actually came back into it this morning to defend you guys when it comes to equity across the drafting process - by saying F/S should be eliminated too, to that Collingwood poster.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Sorry I was more just stating the bidding inequity that existed. You're both right though that there has only been one instance - this year - where you've ended up with two bites at the cherry.

Yeah it’s an inequity. One of very very many. One we actually pay for. One that has the consequence of developing football right throughout nsw. One that teaches football to boys and girls right across nsw in a professional manner. One that develops secondary and tertiary interest in otherwise disinterested people because they “know the local kid”.

The 2020 draft happened once. In 2014 and 2016 we lost grand finals as the “home” side playing at an “away” venue.

The “inequities” are incomparable.

 

[Tristan34]

See now this is actually really interesting to me, and better helps me understand why retention is being brought up so much when discussing the drafting/academy bids and points issue. I never did actually consider that clubs could actually effectively 'sabotage' other clubs, by ranking kids higher, in order to then force said clubs to use more draft collateral.

While I would argue that this isn't really happening, given both Blakey and Green were rated as Tp 5 prospects, and were drafted both times at Pick 10, I guess I can see the other side of the coin where if this starts becoming a real issue that pisses certain Vic clubs off, then they could just bid whenever they wanted (within reason) knowing full well that if the Academy club has the points, they're gonna match it and that's one less club to compete with in the draft.

Cheers for that.

I personally think draft points for the top 10 picks needs to be increased, so teams are nervous to trade them out..

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

It's really not hard. The AFL should be paying for and operating academies in all states. Clubs should have little to no involvement.
Players are then made available to all clubs at full value through the draft. No concessions. No priority access.
Father/sons aren't the big advantage that people make them out to be. How many make it onto lists and how many end up being good? Take away the discount on f/s when matching a bid. If the player is going to be good and wants to play for his dad's old team, pay full whack or let the bidding team take them.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

That's fair enough, however, as has been said ad nauseam throughout this thread, it shouldn't entitle you to get a Top 5 kid every year from the Academy, plus your own first round draft pick - to somehow compensate for this. Otherwise, as I have repeated many times over, you're essentially saying that Campbell, Mills and Blakey should be given to you outside the draft due to your investment, and you should then just be able to use your own first round pick to pick someone else you didn't invest money into via your academy.

What I was referring to.

 

[zyzzbruh]

You are borderline dribbler “90% of THe TALenT PoOL iS FRoM MElbOURne”

Let’s keep trading out our first rounder as we can get mills with a few picks in the late 20s

Learn to open both eyes if you want to discuss things outside of the swans board but this is what you get when primary school is out

You have proven that your eyes a firmly on protecting your own privileges. I've already explained to you why getting mills with a few 20's picks is fair game in the context of VIC club advantages. See ya

 

[Shadow89]

You're correct. But we ain't getting them for free. We use our next best pick, or even more picks depending on points. We could've essentially split picks and selected more players in the draft if we passed on campbell. We chose not to. We're still paying a price on top of the fact that we developed the kid. Essentially all we get for these academy kids is a pick upgrade, which i beleive is fair in bridging the gap of disadvantage. And again it's not something that happens every year. Last year we didn't have academy picks, this year we also have sh*t all.

Cheers, I think I'm actually starting to understand your position a lot more now (all Swans supporters and Sydney/Northern clubs as a whole).

I think if we can get rid of the discount, then we could leave the bidding process as is, do the same with the F/S and it still preserves both avenues without there being as much inequity for the rest of the comp. Means you can still trade out that Pick 14 like you did for Mills, but you might not end up with say Dawson, because you needed that extra draft capital to upgrade your pick from 14 to 3 within that draft.

You're still paying far less than what any other club would to get from 14 to 3, but at least that still allows you to pick up your academy kid without having to trade players/trade future picks too (like other clubs would have to do to get a draft pick that high normally). The more I think about it, the more that seems the best way to go.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It's really not hard. The AFL should be paying for and operating academies in all states. Clubs should have little to no involvement.
Players are then made available to all clubs at full value through the draft. No concessions. No priority access.
Father/sons aren't the big advantage that people make them out to be. How many make it onto lists and how many end up being good? Take away the discount on f/s when matching a bid. If the player is going to be good and wants to play for his dad's old team, pay full whack or let the bidding team take them.

The AFL can’t do it. They know this. They fail at development.

 

[Shadow89]

What I was referring to.

Ahhh, well that sentence was basically more pointing to you getting your Top 5 ranked kid every year from the academy (it's probably every second year to be fair). Can see how it might seem like I way saying that you were getting a Top 5 kid plus your own draft pick on top, as it is poorly worded. Apologies, not what I meant.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Cheers, I think I'm actually starting to understand your position a lot more now (all Swans supporters and Sydney/Northern clubs as a whole).

I think if we can get rid of the discount, then we could leave the bidding process as is, do the same with the F/S and it still preserves both avenues without there being as much inequity for the rest of the comp. Means you can still trade out that Pick 14 like you did for Mills, but you might not end up with say Dawson, because you needed that extra draft capital to upgrade your pick from 14 to 3 within that draft.

You're still paying far less than what any other club would to get from 14 to 3, but at least that still allows you to pick up your academy kid without having to trade players/trade future picks too (like other clubs would have to do to get a draft pick that high normally). The more I think about it, the more that seems the best way to go.

We’d have missed out on Sexy Tyrone Leonardis rather than Dawson.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Cheers, I think I'm actually starting to understand your position a lot more now (all Swans supporters and Sydney/Northern clubs as a whole).

I think if we can get rid of the discount, then we could leave the bidding process as is, do the same with the F/S and it still preserves both avenues without there being as much inequity for the rest of the comp. Means you can still trade out that Pick 14 like you did for Mills, but you might not end up with say Dawson, because you needed that extra draft capital to upgrade your pick from 14 to 3 within that draft.

You're still paying far less than what any other club would to get from 14 to 3, but at least that still allows you to pick up your academy kid without having to trade players/trade future picks too (like other clubs would have to do to get a draft pick that high normally). The more I think about it, the more that seems the best way to go.

Exactly, that slight discount is what bridges the inequity we face. Some VIC fans only see it as a pure and simple advantage despite the fact they're looking down at us from a point of privilege. They seem to lack the rationale to link the two and see that it actually balances things up.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

The AFL can’t do it. They know this. They fail at development.

They have no interest in it whatsoever. They North and Hawks between them have stuffed Tassie footy and pathways. Development nowadays is via Commonwealth subsidised pte schools who give scholarships to kids with footy ability.

 

[Shadow89]

Yeah it’s an inequity. One of very very many. One we actually pay for. One that has the consequence of developing football right throughout nsw. One that teaches football to boys and girls right across nsw in a professional manner. One that develops secondary and tertiary interest in otherwise disinterested people because they “know the local kid”.

The 2020 draft happened once. In 2014 and 2016 we lost grand finals as the “home” side playing at an “away” venue.

The “inequities” are incomparable.

To be fair, we lose games every year playing as the "home" side at an "away" venue. Hell, we were wearing our away kit when we played Hawthorn on Easter Monday - even though it was our home game. We have to play Hawthorn twice a year at the 'G, but they never come here. Same with Richmond, Collingwood and Essendon - because their bases are too big to actually acquiesce to playing at our "actual" home venue.

Just because we have to take a bus, instead of a plane, doesn't mean we don't face that exact same issue too. Hell, at least the AFL allows you guys to host home finals, we don't even get that.

 

[Shadow89]

Exactly, that slight discount is what bridges the inequity we face. Some VIC fans only see it as a pure and simple advantage despite the fact they're looking down at us from a point of privilege. They seem to lack the rationale to link the two and see that it actually balances things up.

So you would agree then, that probably the most equitable thing to do, would be to scrap the discount (for father/sons as well), but leave the bidding process in place - would that be fair?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Ahhh, well that sentence was basically more pointing to you getting your Top 5 ranked kid every year from the academy (it's probably every second year to be fair). Can see how it might seem like I way saying that you were getting a Top 5 kid plus your own draft pick on top, as it is poorly worded. Apologies, not what I meant.

Ok but it’s not even every second year. Mills was 2015.

 

[Shadow89]

Ok but it’s not even every second year. Mills was 2015.

Blakey was 2018?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

To be fair, we lose games every year playing as the "home" side at an "away" venue. Hell, we were wearing our away kit when we played Hawthorn on Easter Monday - even though it was our home game. We have to play Hawthorn twice a year at the 'G, but they never come here. Same with Richmond, Collingwood and Essendon - because their bases are too big to actually acquiesce to playing at our "actual" home venue.

Just because we have to take a bus, instead of a plane, doesn't mean we don't face that exact same issue too. Hell, at least the AFL allows you guys to host home finals, we don't even get that.

I agree that should be rectified. But not by destroying the most successful youth development program in the country. Really, Geelong should have increased their stadium capacity when they redeveloped. I’m happy to play you there every week!