Sydney Swans Academy

[apuchar]

Time to cut the apron strings. Level playing field for all established clubs and move towards that as quickly as possible for the new ones. This is the most contrived and distorted competition imaginable, to the point where it is becoming farcical. There is no need for NSW academy players to go to a Sydney team, any more than it is imperative that a WA player stays in WA. The boys want a career in a sport of their choice, the AFL, and the AFL is paying for their development to give them an opportunity. They should go in the draft like any other young player or have academy access to all states (won't happen). WA, SA and VIC and the other states and territories put a lot time and effort into the development of local talent and most of it goes elsewhere. Time to get off upper-class welfare Sydney.

 

[SB70]

Time to cut the apron strings. Level playing field for all established clubs and move towards that as quickly as possible for the new ones. This is the most contrived and distorted competition imaginable, to the point where it is becoming farcical. There is no need for NSW academy players to go to a Sydney team, any more than it is imperative that a WA player stays in WA. The boys want a career in a sport of their choice, the AFL, and the AFL is paying for their development to give them an opportunity. They should go in the draft like any other young player or have academy access to all states (won't happen). WA, SA and VIC and the other states and territories put a lot time and effort into the development of local talent and most of it goes elsewhere. Time to get off upper-class welfare Sydney.

The point is that AFL is not necessarily the sport of their choice - some are being chased by multiple sports.

 

[MickyG]

I can understand wanting to develop the game in the Northern states, but not at the expense of a even playing field. I don't see why the AFL can't fund the Academies, with no club granted special access. A club like Sydney does not need any more leg-ups.

Life is not fair. There is no even playing field when you have a majority of players recruited from interstate and then a lot moving home after an initial contract. Ask any Brisbane supporter about Jared Polec. Is it fair that your team has benefited from that? I don't think so but when there is a lack of local talent there is no choice but to recruit from interstate.

I recorded the NSW vs Queensland U18s game from the other day. Nerves impacted the first quarter but after that the quality improved. I have memories of watching a few years ago and the quality has improved since then.

Foxtel had some interesting interviews that were part of it and the commentators actually did some research. Some of the interesting points:
- there was a player who is playing in an international rugby union competition in a few weeks time who may get an immediate offer to join a rugby league list. No need to wait for the draft. That's what the AFL are competing with in NSW and Queensland.
- the best team in division 2 may be competitive with the worst team in division 1 so there is a big difference between the States.
- the academies are improving skills at an important age. Players from NSW and Queensland in the past have been a few years behind those from the AFL dominant states. No wonder hardly any get drafted at 18. My conclusion from this is that there's no unfair advantage from the academies just an evening up of standards across the country so kids from NSW and Queensland are getting access to coaching at the same level as in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.

Most young athletes in NSW and Queensland are playing other sports. If the Academies can get more playing competitive AFL then everyone wins.

 

[MickyG]

... COLA is bad enough, but it is being disingenuous to claim that the players they delisted/traded were of greater value than Buddy and Kurt. Every club loses a few players at the end of a season, with the club winning a premiership there is normally an inflationary effect on the remaining players. There is a reason why premiership sides don't go on a massive recruiting splurge.

Do your research and you will find the retiring, delisted and traded players plus increase in the cap is more than what's paid to Tippett and Buddy. It's not that different to how Hawthorn afforded their additions since the 2008 flag - Burgoyne, Hale, Gibson, Gunston, Lake, McEvoy. It's called good list management.

 

[Caj]

The COLA is bad enough, but it is being disingenuous to claim that the players they delisted/traded were of greater value than Buddy and Kurt. Every club loses a few players at the end of a season, with the club winning a premiership there is normally an inflationary effect on the remaining players. There is a reason why premiership sides don't go on a massive recruiting splurge.

Not sure about end of 2012 but last offseason we lost the following:

Mumford - Top 5 ruckman in the league and would be close to leading Giants B&F
Bolton - Retired - veteran so only half of salary anyway
Everitt - Would be top 5 in Carlton's B&F this year
White - was holding down CHF at the Pies until he injured his finger
Lamb - First round draft pick who GWS value at $300k per season
Mattner - Retired during 2012

This list excludes the fringe players we lost, so whilst the full Kurt Buddy combo is probably not fully covered there is a pretty big lump of salary cap there, and is the biggest cull of a senior list seen at any club in a long time.

 

[HawkHeaven]

Do your research and you will find the retiring, delisted and traded players plus increase in the cap is more than what's paid to Tippett and Buddy. It's not that different to how Hawthorn afforded their additions since the 2008 flag - Burgoyne, Hale, Gibson, Gunston, Lake, McEvoy. It's called good list management.

Dude call it for what it really is.

Its called good list management with an extra million dollars.

Give the Hawks an extra million dollars then see how well we can really manage the list.

FFS why can't Sydney supporters not see the uneven playing field.

 

[Colonial]

Not sure about end of 2012 but last offseason we lost the following:

Mumford - Top 5 ruckman in the league and would be close to leading Giants B&F
Bolton - Retired - veteran so only half of salary anyway
Everitt - Would be top 5 in Carlton's B&F this year
White - was holding down CHF at the Pies until he injured his finger
Lamb - First round draft pick who GWS value at $300k per season
Mattner - Retired during 2012

This list excludes the fringe players we lost, so whilst the full Kurt Buddy combo is probably not fully covered there is a pretty big lump of salary cap there, and is the biggest cull of a senior list seen at any club in a long time.

By the way.. Thankyou

 

[SB70]

Dude call it for what it really is.

Its called good list management with an extra million dollars.

Give the Hawks an extra million dollars then see how well we can really manage the list.

FFS why can't Sydney supporters not see the uneven playing field.

Can you seriously look at the 2012 lists and say that Sydney bought a better list. If Sydney spent more than Hawthorn I'd say it goes a long way to proving the need for equalisation.

 

[apuchar]

The point is that AFL is not necessarily the sport of their choice - some are being chased by multiple sports.

That applies in all states.Footy had to compete against cricket for Mitch Marsh and Coniglio to name a couple. Many players also have a basketball background. And it clearly is the sport of their choice otherwise they would have played another sport. It doesn't matter if they choose the AFL because they consider it a better career path or because they love the game, they still chose the AFL and the AFL pay to give them the best opportunity to succeed in a national competition. Why that then means the best of them should go to a Sydney based club makes no sense. Moller could have stayed in Sydney but chose to go to Freo because he liked the club and it gave him a chance to have a career in the AFL. The sport of his choice. I would like nothing more than a partial zone so we can keep more WA guys in the West, but it is unlikely to happen and if it can't happen in WA where the guys have to move across the country, then it shouldn't happen in Sydney where the boy's would likely only have to move up or down the highway. Sydney and Brisbane have had many years to set-up a solid foundation and have had a disproportionate amount of success. And while I haven't followed it closely, Brisbane still appear to be getting reasonable crowds despite their recent lack of success. All clubs will lose some support when things aren't going well. Some people are fair-weather, bandwagon supporters. Welcome to the real world.

 

[SB70]

That applies in all states.Footy had to compete against cricket for Mitch Marsh and Coniglio to name a couple. Many players also have a basketball background. And it clearly is the sport of their choice otherwise they would have played another sport. It doesn't matter if they choose the AFL because they consider it a better career path or because they love the game, they still chose the AFL and the AFL pay to give them the best opportunity to succeed in a national competition. Why that then means the best of them should go to a Sydney based club makes no sense. Moller could have stayed in Sydney but chose to go to Freo because he liked the club and it gave him a chance to have a career in the AFL. The sport of his choice. I would like nothing more than a partial zone so we can keep more WA guys in the West, but it is unlikely to happen and if it can't happen in WA where the guys have to move across the country, then it shouldn't happen in Sydney where the boy's would likely only have to move up or down the highway. Sydney and Brisbane have had many years to set-up a solid foundation and have had a disproportionate amount of success. And while I haven't followed it closely, Brisbane still appear to be getting reasonable crowds despite their recent lack of success. All clubs will lose some support when things aren't going well. Some people are fair-weather, bandwagon supporters. Welcome to the real world.

I agree with most of that and pretty sure the odd kid that gets drafted wouldn't mind going anywhere as by that stage the AFL dream is alive. The battle is getting the 12-13 away from the other football codes and having a model like the academy seems to be a good start. I think the issue is finding a way to keep the academies but remove the advantage it could create.

 

[apuchar]

I agree with most of that and pretty sure the odd kid that gets drafted wouldn't mind going anywhere as by that stage the AFL dream is alive. The battle is getting the 12-13 away from the other football codes and having a model like the academy seems to be a good start. I think the issue is finding a way to keep the academies but remove the advantage it could create.

I think offering them a good career structure and the opportunity to try footy as a young boy/girl instead of rugby or soccer will see a fair few young people choose AFL. It's a great game and I'm sure the AFL can back themselves in to get more than their fair share. It takes time and we won't get them all. Seems the AFL has to compete with computer gaming as well these days. I don't have a problem with the academy in Sydney, there is a development structure of some sort in every state. The players, however, belong (for want of a better word) to the AFL, not to individual clubs.

 

[Lach72]

Have the academies. AFL control.
Access for all

 

[liz]

Dude call it for what it really is.

Its called good list management with an extra million dollars.

A million dollars that is shared amongst all players on the list in recognition of the fact that your typical Swans player pays more for the basics of living - especially rent - than his counterpart on the Hawthorn list. It is called equalisation.

 

[MickyG]

Dude call it for what it really is.

Its called good list management with an extra million dollars.

Give the Hawks an extra million dollars then see how well we can really manage the list.

FFS why can't Sydney supporters not see the uneven playing field.

FFS why can't Hawthorn supporters not see the uneven playing field (Sydney cost of living and recruitment of interstate players).

 

[Scotland]

Most young athletes in NSW and Queensland are playing other sports. If the Academies can get more playing competitive AFL then everyone wins.

Errr, everybody?

If the next Kieren Jack or whoever decides to play footy then great, but if he's off-limits to 16 or 17 clubs then what benefit is there to West Coast or Richmond or Adelaide? I mean as a footy fan I love watching Ablett and Buddy and Pendles etc. run around but I wouldn't support a system that got more players of that ilk into the comp only on the proviso my club can't access them.

Sure it's one less WA or Vic or SA kid that will be forced to go to oh so horribly expensive Sydney but if the best non-academy kid in the country will still go at pick 1, and if that's a NSW club then that's where he'll end up so...

 

[Colonial]

Aren't the rules the same as F/S?? Soooo why the hullabaloo?

 

[Tippett2Goal]

Errr, everybody?

If the next Kieren Jack or whoever decides to play footy then great, but if he's off-limits to 16 or 17 clubs then what benefit is there to West Coast or Richmond or Adelaide? I mean as a footy fan I love watching Ablett and Buddy and Pendles etc. run around but I wouldn't support a system that got more players of that ilk into the comp only on the proviso my club can't access them.

Sure it's one less WA or Vic or SA kid that will be forced to go to oh so horribly expensive Sydney but if the best non-academy kid in the country will still go at pick 1, and if that's a NSW club then that's where he'll end up so...

Except in this case the next Jack is a first round pick due to development from the academy, not a last round rookie pick, and more importantly the guys who aren't quiet as good as Jack has had some development and are now actually drafted in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, along with a heap of others from NSW/QLD. This leads to AFL having a development pathway in NSW/QLD and attracts more juniors due to the success the program has, resulting in a more competitive Junior and NEAFL competition.

This in turn creates a strong self sustaining development culture for AFL in the northern states and the Academies become obsolete as the whole system begins to function, with there no longer being any need for Academies to provide a pathway to AFL for talented juniors the system is removed.

 

[MickyG]

Errr, everybody?

If the next Kieren Jack or whoever decides to play footy then great, but if he's off-limits to 16 or 17 clubs then what benefit is there to West Coast or Richmond or Adelaide? I mean as a footy fan I love watching Ablett and Buddy and Pendles etc. run around but I wouldn't support a system that got more players of that ilk into the comp only on the proviso my club can't access them.

Sure it's one less WA or Vic or SA kid that will be forced to go to oh so horribly expensive Sydney but if the best non-academy kid in the country will still go at pick 1, and if that's a NSW club then that's where he'll end up so...

You answered your own question. The more quality players there are the better the competition is. Everyone wins.

I think the team with the wooden spoon does get two bites just as they do with father son. If GWS end up with the wooden spoon and other clubs nominate Steele with their first round pick then I think GWS would still pick up the best non Academy player with pick 1 and get Steele with their second rounder. (NB not sure if Steele is old enough for this year's draft).

If there was no Academy draft concessions, would West Coast recruiters take the risk of picking up Heeney with their pick (currently 8 and estimates put Heeney at about this pick) and then losing him to the Swans at a discount in two years time? That's what NSW and Queensland recruiters face with most of their picks. Meanwhile Port have Wyngard who told interstate recruiters not to pick him and Polec on the cheap after two years in Queensland.

 

[apuchar]

Aren't the rules the same as F/S?? Soooo why the hullabaloo?

I actually agree with some of the posters that said that the father and son selection should only be available to a club if their draft pick is within a certain number of picks from the best offer made by another club. If it isn't the club should have the option to try and trade to get a pick within that range otherwise the player goes to the highest bidder . Might be a good idea for the first round. That may make it fairer for clubs who don't have access to father and son selections yet, because they haven't been in the system for long.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Have the academies. AFL control.
Access for all

Didn't work. All clubs involved in state development didn't either. You're about the tenth person to post this and it's been explained multiple times why it didn't work.

 

[Scotland]

This in turn creates a strong self sustaining development culture for AFL in the northern states and the Academies become obsolete as the whole system begins to function, with there no longer being any need for Academies to provide a pathway to AFL for talented juniors the system is removed.

As I've said before, CoLA Mk II. 'Oh it's not an advantage, it's to make up for a disadvantage. There'll be no need for it when things are "fair"'.

My argument is not get rid of a system in 20 years after it's become a clear advantage it's to not introduce the potential advantage in the first place.

You answered your own question. The more quality players there are the better the competition is. Everyone wins.

More quality players - which one club has priority access to.

Make no mistake about it, the Sydney Swans are self-interested first and foremost. They're no different to any other club in that regard. Take away the priority access to players and the interest in having an academy disappears. It's a shame so many people actually buy the 'growing the game' spin.

The more good players on the Swans list, the better they are on field. The more NSW players on the list, the easier it is off field. The academy serves both purposes.

 

[Scotland]

Aren't the rules the same as F/S?? Soooo why the hullabaloo?

Pool of potential players is orders of magnitude larger.

F/S is also applicable to all clubs.

 

[Skippos]

Have stayed out of this thread for awhile but it's getting a little frustrating so I'm gonna have my say.

I reckon the academies in the current structure are absolutely necessary and should remain in place. That said I think anyone who tries to justify them as no significant advantage is having a laugh.

I've read in this thread a few different schools of thought

- The academies bring people into the game that wouldn't have played it without them and plenty of the blokes who played football in the eastern states would never have made it to the AFL without the academies. That's all completely true, but people (predominantly Swans supporters) are drawing the wrong conclusion.

Instead of this meaning that 'other clubs aren't effected, in fact they benefit slightly as Heeney etc. being pick 17 mean that who the Swans would have taken there instead of Heeney had the academies not existed slips to pick 18 and beyond so really the other clubs don't suffer at all' what actually happens is that 'other clubs remain the same but between one and four clubs get an advantage'

To put it simply, let's just say that the non-eastern clubs are 7/10 clubs and the eastern ones are 6/10 clubs without the academies. The academy system turns them into potentially 8/10 clubs.

The Vic/SA/WA clubs remain the same but those around them improve. By virtue of four other clubs being 'closer' to a flag and the fact that there's only one flag to win it means that the other 14 clubs are further from the flag despite remaining at the same standard. If the collective standard of the AFL improves but the majority of clubs stay the same and the improvement isn't passed on to them, then they're weaker.

Of course Heeney and Mills could be busts but given they're top 5 prospects and their chances of both being 100 game players and being elite players are considerably higher than a fella picked with 17, in general any academy selection will improve the side especially over a large sample of players as we're now beginning to approach.

So those who claim that there's no competitive advantage are absolutely clueless.

That said I'm in the boat that the competitive advantage is necessary as success in the eastern states is vital in the battle against other codes. We've been lucky in that since 2001 we've had eastern dominance in some regard without a dry spell. When Brisbane dropped off Sydney stood up and still are. Soon we'll have Gold Coast and GWS for when Sydney drop off a little. We don't really know what the effect of not having an eastern superpower is and quite frankly I don't want to. At a guess we'd have less junior registrations there instead of growth, the TV rights would be worth a good bit less and the AFL would have less money to pass on to developing the game. I'm happy to take the hit to our chances of success if it's good for the game, and having the eastern states thriving and improving is good for the game.

As an aside though, I think what's happened in Brisbane is why the academies are so necessary - they need to retain their draft selections to avoid the homesick factor and I also think that Sydney's success is a bit of an outlier as plenty of (non academy/cola) factors have fallen their way and we mightn't see it again. GC/GWS's future success will be by virtue of their draft selections, not their academies.

While I'm here though I'd just like to say that COLA is/was shit. Makes no sense to give money to compensate for a higher cost of living without taking money to compensate for a lower cost of living. Cost of living in Adelaide is much less than WA/Vic/QLD/NSW so why didn't we and Port lose cash from the cap if the AFL felt the need to introduce cost of living standardisation measures? But even then I'm not a fan of it. There's a reason Adelaide's so cheap to live in (because it's a ****ing hole and not a very likable place) just like there's a reason Sydney's so expensive. It's so expensive and yet 5 million people choose to live there? Surely it has its benefits then too, surely people, knowing that Adelaide is about half as expensive, choosing to still live in Sydney indicates that there's enough there to be worth the money? And that's what I think was missed - Sydney might be expensive but it's expensive for a reason and there are things that come with that expense you don't get elsewhere which is what made it so worthwhile. Having the COLA essentially meant that 'it'll be the same price for you to live in Sydney as Perth or Melbourne or Brisbane but you also get the benefits of being in Sydney compared to the rest' so of course players flocked there. No economic loss but plenty of social/lifestyle gain. Even without COLA there will still be players who want to go to Sydney for social reasons and are happy to sacrifice a little bit of cash. Just like there'll be players who leave for cash reasons and sacrifice the lifestyle. It'll even out.

/rant.

 

[liz]

Have stayed out of this thread for awhile but it's getting a little frustrating so I'm gonna have my say.



/rant.

For space reasons I've not requoted your whole post, but I am responding to a few points in there.

You make lots of very valid points and you make them well. Is the Academy a recruiting advantage to the four clubs involved? Yes, of course it is. My perspective is that, based on evidence over the last decade or so, the value of that advantage is minimal. The issue is being hotly debated at the moment largely due to Heeney and Mills (combined with the fact that the Swans are currently one of the stronger clubs). Evidence over the past 10 years suggests these two might be outliers in that no player from NSW has come remotely close to being drafted in the first round over that period of time. Only time will tell whether they are indeed outliers. These two were being spoken of highly at U16 level. I certainly haven't heard any discussion of names in the current U16 crop spoken of similarly. Indeed the NSW U16 squad is dominated by GWS zoned players.

The lottery nature of the National Draft after the first 10 or so picks (and even within the top 10 picks, to some degree) and the divergence in how clubs rate players after the first handful suggests that there will only be a real draft benefit where Academy players emerge who are worthy of being taken very high in the draft. By the time you get to the second and third rounds, an academy club developing and recruiting a local player really doesn't provide a major draft benefit and the whole competition should benefit from a larger pool of quality players.

I also believe that the draft (and where clubs pick in the draft) is a fairly poor indicator of success. This is partly due to the lottery nature of the draft. The 2008 draft is a great illustration of the relatively low correlation between the best players to emerge and where they were selected. Players from this draft are now well established in their careers and we've had enough time to gauge their longish term value. It was a draft that has produced quite a lot of pretty good midfielders in particular. Without getting into an argument about their relative rankings, I think most would agree that Beams, Hill, Hannebery, Sloane, Rockcliff and (maybe) Ziebell are all quality midfielders. In that group you have two top 10 picks, two mid second round picks, one 3rd round pick (or maybe 4th? - Sloane) and one who lasted all the way to the PSD.

However, the ability to develop players is also a factor. Forget Heeney and Mills for a moment as they are not part of the system yet. The current Swans team is made up of a couple of stars bought in, of whom Franklin is the most significant and just 3 players the Swans drafted in the first round - McVeigh more than a decade ago, plus Jetta and the fringe Rohan. He might not be fringe if not for his injuries. You can add in Mitchell if you like. He'd probably be in the team if not for all his injuries but he's certainly not been a factor in 2014 and wasn't in 2012 either. The core of the rest of the team comprises ex rookies (Jack, Smith, Grundy, Pyke, Rampe), a couple of players drafted in the 30s (Hannebery and Reid) and several taken later (Parker, Malceski, Goodes, ROK prior to this year). Bird's draft value is difficult to establish as an ex-scholarship player but he was passed over in the first year he was eligible to be drafted before even becoming a scholarship holder. Then there are the fringe players or rejects from other clubs (Richards, JPK, McGlynn, Shaw, Laidler). Even the youngsters currently in the team but yet to truly establish themselves are mostly off our rookie list (Jack MkII, Cunningham, Lloyd). Zac Jones is the only exception as a late first round pick from last year. The "next most llikely" playing well in our reserves side are more of the same - Biggs and Robinson (rookies), Membrey and Nankervis (3rd round picks).

Look at the lists of Hawthorn, Freo, Geelong and Collingwood and I don't think the picture would be that different. Port's list is a little differently composed, especially in the midfield where they have a lot of ex-1st round picks (Boak, Wingard, Hartlett, Polec, Wines, Ebert, Lobbe) but their success is also dependent on several diamonds in the rough in Gray, Broadbent, Jonas, Westhoff) and a pair of Richmond rejects in White and Schulz.

Compare this to the clubs who have stocked up on first round draft picks over a period of time such that they should be forming the core of very competitive sides, like Melbourne, Richmond, Carlton. I think it is pretty evident that access to high draft picks has very little to do with the ability to build and sustain a competitive team.

So while there may be something of a draft benefit to the four academy clubs, it is of pretty minor importance in the overall scheme of things.

Personally I believe that the importance of COLA has been well over stated but that issue has been done to death and I won't go into that in what has already become an overly long post. It will be gone in a couple of years, replaced with a mechanism that more transparently directs the assistance where it is most needed (and towards players who, in the most part, didn't get a choice in coming to Sydney).

 

[apuchar]

All true, but I would still take two top five draft picks over two picks around 18, every day of the week. I'd take my chances that I wouldn't stuff it up. Sydney is one of the goto clubs of the comp, you don't need any more concessions.