AFL - Terrible Ideas, Too Many Ideas, No Idea…

Like a slave auction?

1 Like

Well they would auction the picks first to make it more palatable.

One step away.

It would remove “easy/tough” draws and tanking for draft selections.

I think it would be a much more entertaining and equitable way of getting talent to clubs.

For the “ no idea” column:

1 Like

Need advice, urgently!

Currently sitting in a Sth Yarra restaurant & Gil McLachlan has just walked in & sat down 1 table away.

His back is towards me.

What should I do?

1 Like

You know what to do!!



(just joking, please don’t arrest me)

Ask him if he brought the coke.


Make him an offer he can’t refuse…

Have you seen the final scene of The Sopranos?


Order something that will cause your rankest fart.

I know what @dingus would do.


FFS Just in time for Bewick in 2025

AFL to overhaul draft on father-sons, academy picks

The AFL will overhaul the national draft to force clubs to pay a fairer market rate to secure father-son or academy players.

AFL head of football Laura Kane wrote to all clubs in October before the national draft, putting them on notice of the plan to review the system. The review of the draft – and a call for suggested changes – will be a top agenda item at a meeting between the AFL and club general managers of football on Thursday.

Two senior AFL sources who could not be quoted because of the confidentiality of discussions said the review was being conducted with an intent to make changes that would make the system fairer.

The problem of the current points system was brought into sharp focus this year due to five players being taken by the northern academies and two father-sons being selected the Bulldogs and Hawthorn in what became a bloated first round that stretched out to 29 picks. There were only 64 players taken in total in last week’s national draft.

Veteran administrator Geoff Walsh, who has been hired part-time by the AFL, will oversee the draft review as part of a broader competitive balance review the league committed to in the latest collective bargaining agreement.

With clubs having already traded 2024 picks it is doubtful any changes would be introduced before next year’s draft.

The points system, or the draft value index, assigns a value to selections, with pick No.1 having the highest value and decreasing onwards.

Routinely clubs with highly rated academy or father-son prospects can secure more points to match bids on the player by trading one early pick and getting multiple later picks in return.

Thus, when Collingwood matched a bid for Nick Daicos at pick 4 two years ago they used picks 38, 40, 42 and 44 to achieve the required points. The Bulldogs did similarly with Sam Darcy that year when he was chosen at No. 2, and a year earlier when Jamarra Ugle-Hagan was bid on at pick one.

Similarly, Gold Coast, who began this year’s trade period with pick No. 4, were able to move that selection and ultimately secure sufficient points to match bids on four academy players in the first round.

As part of the review the AFL will also revisit an option put forward by Collingwood’s head of football Graham Wright and Geelong’s then list manager Stephen Wells at the time the points system was devised.

Under the arrangement, if a bid comes for a father-son or academy player in round one, a club would have to use a first-round pick to match. If the club had bids on two players in the opening round, they would need to use two first-round picks, either by trading for an extra selection or by using their future first-rounder.

This alternative scenario required that a club matching a bid on a player would have to use a pick no more than nine selections (half a round) later than when a bid arrived. If, for example, a bid came for a player at pick two and the club didn’t have a first-round selection until pick 15, they would need to trade up the order to obtain a pick no later than 11. Or the club would need to use pick 15 and their second-round pick.

The Wright-Wells alternative was not pitched as a solution, but rather as framework from which a system could be fine-tuned.

A source with knowledge of another scenario, who did not wish to be named as they had not made the suggestion, said another option was to keep the basic points system but only allow clubs to use the points attached to two draft picks to match any bid on a player.

The AFL does not want to change academy rules, the priority access for the northern academies or father-son rules, but wants to simplify the system and require clubs to use picks closer to the initial bid.

Brisbane Lions CEO Greg Swann warned the AFL against overreacting to this year’s “freakish” draft when Gold Coast had four academy players in the opening round.

Under current rules, clubs outside Queensland and NSW cannot match bids on next generation academy players if a bid comes for them inside the first 40. The NSW and Queensland teams however can match bids on their academy players no matter when they come on draft night.

“The Vics will whinge and carry on so they’ll put pressure on,” Swann said on SEN. “But this is a little bit of an anomaly and people are carrying on a bit much just because of one draft.”

Of course

Fairness would be allowing all clubs to exploit the rules as they are currently once and then making them play by the new rules they bring in. otherwise certain clubs have been given an advantage that other clubs will never receive.


What did we give up for Daniher as a FS?

ADD pick 10.

New rule will ban all father sons with initials KB from being able to be picked up by their father’s club.


What makes you think the AwFL has any interest at all in this quaint notion of fairness?

If it had any sense of fairness, it would have given us some compensation for being made the scapegoat to cover up for all those PED-taking teams that won flags.

Just get rid of the 20% discount and it will be fine as is

1 Like


more tweaking of a duct-taped-together-system for no other reason than “the vibes are off”

it really ought to be this simple, but clubs have absolutely no incentive to agree to it because of how it will directly affect their next 2-3 years of drafting. which is a completely reasonable stance for them to take

He’s only away for 12 months.