Opinion Sydney Swans Academy and Rebuild

[Mr Meeseeks]

Spargo is a 4th generation AFL/VFL player, it's bullshit to say he's playing AFL because of the academy system.

Even if he was, the argument that player x wouldn't be playing footy is a good reason to keep the ludicrous advantage gained from the academies is so stupid.

As though the AFL would be a rabble if Isaac Heeney decided not to play afl! (Despite him picking up a footy before he was 12)

I've read fans from academy clubs unironically say that the other clubs should all be thanking them for the academies, it's such laughably arrogant spin.


Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

 

[lionbear]

Yes that is indeed how the points system works. This isn't new. Otherwise you're saying that the Swans/Lions/etc. develop players and then if they aren't s**t enough to have the right draft pick then they aren't allowed to compete with clubs to draft them.

Read my original post, I have no issue getting the academy kids, but dont get Logan McDonald as well.

 

[SM]

Massive leg up. AFL can't have them out of the 8 for long.

If the AFL could control who made the 8 do you really think the Suns would still be yet to play Finals?

 

[SM]

Read my original post, I have no issue getting the academy kids, but dont get Logan McDonald as well.

But we got Logan because we used other picks to tally up to the required points.

 

[Kwality]

No, they're not.

Melbourne is already a bigger city than Sydney - the sad losers count everything between Merimbula and Byron Bay to pump up their numbers.

Melbourne population growth is back on track.

Real world is Sydney runs from Wollongong to Newcastle & back to the Blue Mountains FWIW, in Aussie Rules terms its smaller than Perth, not WA.

 

[Back One Out]

The AFL doesn't give a crap about the game beyond the TV revenues. It is no wonder that southern & western fans think the academies are a rort just because their clubs don't have first dibs on kids who have been developed in these academies.
Let's remind ourselves again, the VFL went broke & without Northern clubs, there isn't the money to sustain the whims of the Victorian clubs, half of whom can't even make ends meet.
TV $$$$$ courtesy of the NOrthern clubs allows particularly Victorian clubs to survive.
In return, Northern clubs want to develop their own talent by giving kids in their states a pathway to the top.
It isn't unreasonable to expect some concessions for doing that job.

Can we please stop peddling this myth about how the VFL went broke?

It's not true. The VFL never went broke. A number of clubs were in debt due to the escalating cost of huge transfer fees. VFL clubs were competing against each other in a virtual "arms race" to sign players and they were subsidising WAFL and SANFL clubs to the tune of $1 million per player in today's money. 50% of clubs were being run by egotistical high-fliers who were desperate to win the flag and didn't care how irresponsibly they mismanaged the books. It was spend, spend, spend, spend... and be damned the consequences! Let the next president deal with the debts.

This was before the VFL reduced the number of grounds and the associated ground maintenance expenses. Before the Under 19's were phased out (also lowering costs.) More importantly, it was before the VFL made the game a TV product with live telecasts of all matches. Channel 7 paid the VFL a pittance to screen Saturday night replays, especially compared to what they pay now for the free-to-air TV rights.

Back in those days, all clubs played at 2pm on Saturday afternoon at suburban grounds in front of crowds of 15,000-25,000. No live TV coverage. Club membership levels ranged from 6,000 to 12,000 and there were hardly any corporate boxes compared to today. It was another world. A different time. Almost 40 years ago, for f**k's sake!


-----------------------------------------------------


From 1982, the Swans became the Sunday arvo team that everybody watched live-on-television. Not Sydney people, mind you. Victorians. The Swans were a TV team then and they're a TV team now. Your club only exists because 500,000 Victorian couch potatoes will happily tune in to see how many goals Buddy will kick (or Big Bad Barry before him, or Plugger back in the 90's, or Capper in the 80's)

Nobody will stay tuned if Hawthorn, Collingwood or Carlton belts the Swans by 100 points (like they did in the early 90's). Why else do you think the AFL gives constant leg-ups to the Swans and to the other northern clubs? It's all about ensuring Channel 7 have decent games they can beam into the living rooms of Victorian households (and WA/SA). That's where the market is. Not in NSW, where the AFL gets beaten in the ratings by Seinfeld reruns.

Growth of the game, my arse. You live in fantasyland. Wake up!

Anyway, I don't mean to burst your bubble about the importance of the Sydney market. I just think it's laughable this myth that VFL football was unsustainable and required the $5 million license fees from Eagles, Bears and Crows to "bail them out". The truth is the VFL aggressively expanded into Sydney, Perth, Brisbane and then Adelaide in order to maintain its supremacy as the number 1 football competition in the country. Rather than allow the likes of John Elliott & other big business cronies to organise a national "Superleague" national comp with breakaway clubs such as Carlton, Collingwood, Norwood, Port, South Fremantle and Claremont, the VFL got in first and cannibalised the other football leagues and forever maintained their market dominance.

I can understand why people from SA and WA hated to see the decline of their local competitions. I fully sympathise with them.
But it was a good strategic move by the VFL to expand and go national and increase their revenues.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

If the AFL could control who made the 8 do you really think the Suns would still be yet to play Finals?

You're using LOGIC to respond to a conspiracy theory???!!!

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Even if he was, the argument that player x wouldn't be playing footy is a good reason to keep the ludicrous advantage gained from the academies is so stupid.

As though the AFL would be a rabble if Isaac Heeney decided not to play afl! (Despite him picking up a footy before he was 12)

I've read fans from academy clubs unironically say that the other clubs should all be thanking them for the academies, it's such laughably arrogant spin.


Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Do you want a national competition or not? Clearly not.

 

[Number37]

Can we please stop peddling this myth about how the VFL went broke?

It's not true. The VFL never went broke. A number of clubs were in debt due to the escalating cost of huge transfer fees. VFL clubs were competing against each other in a virtual "arms race" to sign players and they were subsidising WAFL and SANFL clubs to the tune of $1 million per player in today's money. 50% of clubs were being run by egotistical high-fliers who were desperate to win the flag and didn't care how irresponsibly they mismanaged the books. It was spend, spend, spend, spend... and be damned the consequences! Let the next president deal with the debts.

This was before the VFL reduced the number of grounds and the associated ground maintenance expenses. Before the Under 19's and Reserve Grades were phased out (also lowering costs.) More importantly, it was before the VFL made the game a TV product with live telecasts of all matches. Channel 7 paid the VFL a pittance compared to what they pay now for the free-to-air TV rights.

Back in those days, all clubs played at 2pm on Saturday afternoon at suburban grounds in front of crowds of 15,000-25,000. Club membership levels ranged from 6,000 to 12,000 and there were hardly any corporate boxes compared to today.

From 1982, the Swans became the Sunday arvo team that everybody watched live-on-television. Not Sydney people, mind you. Victorians. The Swans were a TV team then and they're a TV team now. You only exist because 500,000 Victorian couch potatoes will tune in to see how many goals Buddy will kick (or Big Bad Barry before him, or Plugger back in the 90's, or Capper in the 80's)

Nobody will stay tuned if Hawthorn, Collingwood or Carlton belts the Swans by 100 points (like they did in the early 90's). Why else do you think the AFL gives constant leg-ups to the Swans and the other Northern clubs. It's all about ensuring Channel 7 have decent games they can beam into the living rooms of Victorian households (and WA/SA). That's where the market is. Not in NSW, where the AFL gets beaten in the ratings by Seinfeld reruns. Growth of the game, my arse. You live in fantasyland. Wake up!

Anyway, I don't mean to burst your bubble about the importance of the Sydney market. I just think it's laughable this myth that VFL football was unsustainable and required the $5 million license fees from Eagles, Bears and Crows to "bail them out". The truth is the VFL aggressively expanded into Sydney, Perth, Brisbane and then Adelaide in order to maintain its supremacy as the number 1 football competition in the country. Rather than allow the likes of John Elliott to organise a "Superleague" and breakaway from the VFL and form a national comp, the VFL got in first and cannibalised the other football leagues and forever maintained their market dominance. I can understand why people from Perth and Adelaide might've hated that, but it was a good strategic move by the VFL.

Do you really think that the VFL would have become the AFL if the VFL had enough money to sustain itself?
Of course not.
What you described above is a Ponzi scheme.
VFL ran out of money and had to find a way to attract new money. Again, textbook Ponzi scheme.
We still hear this "Big 4 Victorian club" rhetoric like it means something.
The only people that care about the Big 4 clubs are Victorians, nobody else cares.
To get the big $$$ for TV rights you have to have an audience that is MUCH more than just people who would watch anyway ie not just Victorians.

Every 5 years some, or all, Victorian clubs are in some sort of crisis.
Drugs, tanking, coaching merry go round, board coups, coterie influence.

It has turned the AFL into something like WWE.
It is all scripted.
The AFL gets the result it wants by manipulating the players, the clubs, the umps, the grounds, the TV, the media.
The AFL owns most of the AFL media and sells whatever narrative it wants.

That Vics swallow the AFL's BS isn't surprising.
They're telling you what you want to hear.

 

[Scotland]

From 1982, the Swans became the Sunday arvo team that everybody watched live-on-television. Not Sydney people, mind you. Victorians. The Swans were a TV team then and they're a TV team now. Your club only exists because 500,000 Victorian couch potatoes will happily tune in to see how many goals Buddy will kick (or Big Bad Barry before him, or Plugger back in the 90's, or Capper in the 80's)

Nobody will stay tuned if Hawthorn, Collingwood or Carlton belts the Swans by 100 points (like they did in the early 90's). Why else do you think the AFL gives constant leg-ups to the Swans and to the other northern clubs? It's all about ensuring Channel 7 have decent games they can beam into the living rooms of Victorian households (and WA/SA). That's where the market is. Not in NSW, where the AFL gets beaten in the ratings by Seinfeld reruns.

Growth of the game, my arse. You live in fantasyland. Wake up!

Anyway, I don't mean to burst your bubble about the importance of the Sydney market. I just think it's laughable this myth that VFL football was unsustainable and required the $5 million license fees from Eagles, Bears and Crows to "bail them out". The truth is the VFL aggressively expanded into Sydney, Perth, Brisbane and then Adelaide in order to maintain its supremacy as the number 1 football competition in the country. Rather than allow the likes of John Elliott & other big business cronies to organise a national "Superleague" national comp with breakaway clubs such as Carlton, Collingwood, Norwood, Port, South Fremantle and Claremont, the VFL got in first and cannibalised the other football leagues and forever maintained their market dominance.

I can understand why people from SA and WA hated to see the decline of their local competitions. I fully sympathise with them.
But it was a good strategic move by the VFL to expand and go national and increase their revenues.

I don't necessarily agree with all of this but that's OK. The way the VFL handled our entry was a long way from a strategic move.

Anyway, what's laughable is that Swans fans can sit there with straight faces like the VFL/AFL haven't been sinking money into NSW for 4 decades.

 

[SM]

Can we please stop peddling this myth about how the VFL went broke?

It's not true. The VFL never went broke. A number of clubs were in debt due to the escalating cost of huge transfer fees. VFL clubs were competing against each other in a virtual "arms race" to sign players and they were subsidising WAFL and SANFL clubs to the tune of $1 million per player in today's money. 50% of clubs were being run by egotistical high-fliers who were desperate to win the flag and didn't care how irresponsibly they mismanaged the books. It was spend, spend, spend, spend... and be damned the consequences! Let the next president deal with the debts.

This was before the VFL reduced the number of grounds and the associated ground maintenance expenses. Before the Under 19's were phased out (also lowering costs.) More importantly, it was before the VFL made the game a TV product with live telecasts of all matches. Channel 7 paid the VFL a pittance to screen Saturday night replays, especially compared to what they pay now for the free-to-air TV rights.

Back in those days, all clubs played at 2pm on Saturday afternoon at suburban grounds in front of crowds of 15,000-25,000. No live TV coverage. Club membership levels ranged from 6,000 to 12,000 and there were hardly any corporate boxes compared to today. It was another world. A different time. Almost 40 years ago, for f**k's sake!


-----------------------------------------------------


From 1982, the Swans became the Sunday arvo team that everybody watched live-on-television. Not Sydney people, mind you. Victorians. The Swans were a TV team then and they're a TV team now. Your club only exists because 500,000 Victorian couch potatoes will happily tune in to see how many goals Buddy will kick (or Big Bad Barry before him, or Plugger back in the 90's, or Capper in the 80's)

Nobody will stay tuned if Hawthorn, Collingwood or Carlton belts the Swans by 100 points (like they did in the early 90's). Why else do you think the AFL gives constant leg-ups to the Swans and to the other northern clubs? It's all about ensuring Channel 7 have decent games they can beam into the living rooms of Victorian households (and WA/SA). That's where the market is. Not in NSW, where the AFL gets beaten in the ratings by Seinfeld reruns.

Growth of the game, my arse. You live in fantasyland. Wake up!

Anyway, I don't mean to burst your bubble about the importance of the Sydney market. I just think it's laughable this myth that VFL football was unsustainable and required the $5 million license fees from Eagles, Bears and Crows to "bail them out". The truth is the VFL aggressively expanded into Sydney, Perth, Brisbane and then Adelaide in order to maintain its supremacy as the number 1 football competition in the country. Rather than allow the likes of John Elliott & other big business cronies to organise a national "Superleague" national comp with breakaway clubs such as Carlton, Collingwood, Norwood, Port, South Fremantle and Claremont, the VFL got in first and cannibalised the other football leagues and forever maintained their market dominance.

I can understand why people from SA and WA hated to see the decline of their local competitions. I fully sympathise with them.
But it was a good strategic move by the VFL to expand and go national and increase their revenues.

This has to be one of the biggest loads of idiotic rubbish I've ever read.

Armchair team which is why 46k attended on Sunday.

 

[Scotland]

Even if he was, the argument that player x wouldn't be playing footy is a good reason to keep the ludicrous advantage gained from the academies is so stupid.

As though the AFL would be a rabble if Isaac Heeney decided not to play afl! (Despite him picking up a footy before he was 12)

I've read fans from academy clubs unironically say that the other clubs should all be thanking them for the academies, it's such laughably arrogant spin.

Swans fans have become a parody.

Top draft picks aren't that valuable, clubs get them all the time and players often don't turn out to be stars. A team that finishes top and makes the Grand Final then wins 16 games isn't advantaged by getting picks 2 and 3 for cents on the dollar. But don't dare suggest removing that non advantage...

I actually agree that getting more NSW and Qld players into the system is a good thing. They are underdeveloped markets as far as AFL footballers go. But there's currently no benefit to anyone except the teams that develop said players. The second Braeden Campbell wasn't picked in the top 3 you knew Sydney were going to pick anyone except him because all they need to do to get him is sacrifice later picks. Not an advantage though because he's not getting a regular game at 20 years old. Chad Warner is better and he was pick 39.

 

[MrSwans]

I don't necessarily agree with all of this but that's OK. The way the VFL handled our entry was a long way from a strategic move.

Anyway, what's laughable is that Swans fans can sit there with straight faces like the VFL/AFL haven't been sinking money into NSW for 4 decades.

Where do you get your information from?​

Sydney and GWS based on my readings earlier this year has received less from the AFL than both QLD teams and the top two or three Victorian teams as a whole.

The Swans are not even in the top 5 highest funded teams over the past decade!
I’m new to this so would like to know if I am allowed to paste excerpts from ’Melbourne media’ as proof?
Rather than just making comments without checking the facts?

 

[BloodySwan]

Where do you get your information from?​

Sydney and GWS based on my readings earlier this year has received less from the AFL than both QLD teams and the top two or three Victorian teams as a whole.

The Swans are not even in the top 5 highest funded teams over the past decade!
I’m new to this so would like to know if I am allowed to paste excerpts from ’Melbourne media’ as proof?
Rather than just making comments without checking the facts?

No one likes your facts here. Only terrible one liners allowed

 

[MF]

Where do you get your information from?​

Sydney and GWS based on my readings earlier this year has received less from the AFL than both QLD teams and the top two or three Victorian teams as a whole.

The Swans are not even in the top 5 highest funded teams over the past decade!
I’m new to this so would like to know if I am allowed to paste excerpts from ’Melbourne media’ as proof?
Rather than just making comments without checking the facts?

Excerpts are fine.

 

[SM]

Swans fans have become a parody.

Top draft picks aren't that valuable, clubs get them all the time and players often don't turn out to be stars. A team that finishes top and makes the Grand Final then wins 16 games isn't advantaged by getting picks 2 and 3 for cents on the dollar. But don't dare suggest removing that non advantage...

I actually agree that getting more NSW and Qld players into the system is a good thing. They are underdeveloped markets as far as AFL footballers go. But there's currently no benefit to anyone except the teams that develop said players. The second Braeden Campbell wasn't picked in the top 3 you knew Sydney were going to pick anyone except him because all they need to do to get him is sacrifice later picks. Not an advantage though because he's not getting a regular game at 20 years old. Chad Warner is better and he was pick 39.

If the Lions had pick 2 this year and Ashcroft didn't go pick 1 would they select him at pick 2 or take someone else and match a bid later in the round? How is father son any different in that respect?

 

[Syd]

If the Lions had pick 2 this year and Ashcroft didn't go pick 1 would they select him at pick 2 or take someone else and match a bid later in the round? How is father son any different in that respect?

2020 Draft saw Western Bulldogs get access to the #1 Pick due to NGA (despite finishing 7th that year)



2021 Draft saw Western Bulldogs get Darcy by matching bid at Pick #2 (GWS bid using pick acquired from Collingwood), despite being Grand Finalists

Collingwood matched Pick #4 for Daicos with picks starting from #36 as they had traded earlier picks

No outcry about depriving bottom finishing clubs



Add the vast majority of Priority Picks granted have been to Melbourne(Vic) clubs, but again no outcry over 'compromised drafts' then.



IF you want a truly level Draft,

• Remove ALL draft concessions including Father\Son,
• Remove ALL future use of Priority picks,
• Remove NGA "Academies
• Get the AFL to fully fund\staff\operate all 4 Northern Academies

Also Remove trading of Future Picks to prevent forward compromise of draft so the #1 Pick is available to the #18 placed Team and can only be used or traded in that year.

BUT the AFL has proven woefully inadequate\inept\negligent\disinterested in growing the game in the Northern (non AFL states), so getting the AFL to run the Northern Academies is akin to abandonment of the development of the game and its future in NSW and QLD IMO.

 

[smish]

Look at what Paul Roos did at Melbourne.
Instilled a work hard ethic, 2 years later they win the flag.

Paul Roos will forever be the biggest fraud in football history.

 

[RUNVS]

Paul Roos will forever be the biggest fraud in football history.

Huh? He turned two bad clubs into premiership winning clubs in only a few years.

 

[JyeDye]

If the Lions had pick 2 this year and Ashcroft didn't go pick 1 would they select him at pick 2 or take someone else and match a bid later in the round? How is father son any different in that respect?

I would say most people who have issues with Academy would also have issues with father son selections if it didn't benefit their teams. The whole points system is a joke, why is there even a 20% discount on those picks.

GWS used pick 2 on two different kids and couldn't get either. How is that fair? Love to see all the father son selections GWS have access to. North / Eagles both won't get the obvious number 1 pick this year but a top 4 side does. Defeats the whole purpose of the draft.

The whole draft points system needs to be changed. I understand why academies get priority on players but no one with a straight face can tell me that bundling up 5 picks in the 40s is worth pick 5.

 

[SM]

I would say most people who have issues with Academy would also have issues with father son selections if it didn't benefit their teams. The whole points system is a joke, why is there even a 20% discount on those picks.

GWS used pick 2 on two different kids and couldn't get either. How is that fair? Love to see all the father son selections GWS have access to. North / Eagles both won't get the obvious number 1 pick this year but a top 4 side does. Defeats the whole purpose of the draft.

The whole draft points system needs to be changed. I understand why academies get priority on players but no one with a straight face can tell me that bundling up 5 picks in the 40s is worth pick 5.

I don't really see a difference between bundling up picks to get pick 5 and bundling up a player and a few picks and trading it to another club for a better pick. It's the same principle it's just removing the trade element. Every other club then benefits as they move up the order with those picks having been sacrificed. I take your point about on the face of it 10 picks in the 80s (as an extreme example) doesn't equal a pick in the 20s (or whatever the maths is) but there's never going to be an exact science.

 

[smish]

Huh? He turned two bad clubs into premiership winning clubs in only a few years.

Roos has played/coached a total of 624 VFL/AFL games for a grand total of........... 1 premiership. Even taking his AFL paid Melbourne stint that's still 558 games for.......... 1 premiership.

Sydney weren't a "bad" team before Roos took over, they were a finals side.

Not sure if an AFL bail out and 5x first round draft picks before leaving is responsibility for Melbourne being a premiership winning side.

Roos may have been a good player and a decent coach, but the carrying on that he's some football messiah that will fix any troubled team is just daft.

Are we going to ignore that he recommended David Noble as North's coach? His "consultancy" there hasn't exactly set the world on fire.

 

[JyeDye]

I don't really see a difference between bundling up picks to get pick 5 and bundling up a player and a few picks and trading it to another club for a better pick. It's the same principle it's just removing the trade element. Every other club then benefits as they move up the order with those picks having been sacrificed. I take your point about on the face of it 10 picks in the 80s (as an extreme example) doesn't equal a pick in the 20s (or whatever the maths is) but there's never going to be an exact science.

The difference is the other teams actually accept those trades. Do you think GWS is accepting those picks if it was a trade offer for either Darcy or Daicos? I know it won't ever be completely accurate, and I may be misinformed but how often do clubs actually not match the bids of top 10 selections with those picks? They use them every time because it is always worth it, the points should be either increased for those top picks or decreased for the mid to lower picks so the clubs matching bids actually have to decide if it's worth it.

 

[Fabab]

Some amount of sooking on here,is it school holiday time in vic and Wa ?

 

[BloodySwan]

Roos has played/coached a total of 624 VFL/AFL games for a grand total of........... 1 premiership. Even taking his AFL paid Melbourne stint that's still 558 games for.......... 1 premiership.

Sydney weren't a "bad" team before Roos took over, they were a finals side.

Not sure if an AFL bail out and 5x first round draft picks before leaving is responsibility for Melbourne being a premiership winning side.

Roos may have been a good player and a decent coach, but the carrying on that he's some football messiah that will fix any troubled team is just daft.

Are we going to ignore that he recommended David Noble as North's coach? His "consultancy" there hasn't exactly set the world on fire.

Please continue to tell Swans fans about their own clubs history

Been a member since '96. Supporting them for a lot longer. Swans under Roos vs before was night and day, just revision of history to claim he didn't impact both clubs.

He instilled a culture in the Swans which continues today. Done the same at Melbourne