Leave the game alone! Always ■■■■■■■ with rules, drafts, salary caps etc! Buggar of interfering flogs!
Simple answer is for nothing to change re father sons
AFL to take over academies in 2016.
means swans get Mills and Dunkley next year. i can live with that.
as long as it means that there in after all academy players are available in the draft.
And get to spend a week with every afl club etc. or if enquired about.
A contrived & complicated option to assist GWS/Gold coast teams without father sons.
is to make the respective swans / Brisbane players who played less than 100 games the option of going to GWS/Gold coast for the next ten years. This would at least give the players the option to remain in the state. and they could choose to go there & would be previously unavailable to their fathers clubs…also might give the clubs a bit more interesting history.
I dont mind tinkering with this. Doesnt bother me if teams have to pay a bit more. If that is what it takes to keep the father son rule alive then I am all for it.
I don’t care how hard or convoluted they make the academy stuff, I just think treating academy and FS players as the same thing is a terrible idea, and one that the AFL seems to have gotten away with without anybody complaining.
And really, it only keeps the rule alive if teams still err to the side of taking a FS pick. Asking a club if they value tradition enough to lose this year’s first round pick, get pushed back a few spots in the second round, and potentially have next year’s picks impacted on top of that is surely going to result in clubs just not bothering.
I agree that FS and academy picks should be treated differently. There’s a touch of romance with FS picks, which means there should be a more generous treatment of them. Fairness only really becomes an issue when a club has multiple FS options in the same year. Rather than complicate it too much I’d propose the FS bidding system remains unchanged as long as clubs nominate only one FS pick. If they select more then perhaps a more lenient points system - or an extra draft pick - can come into play.
In regards to the points system proposed it appears complex and unfair. There’s too great a gap between a top draft pick and mid range draft pick. Basically, it’s too expensive. I can’t see how the clubs could agree to that, but as they’ve got form having approved the ridiculous expansion club concessions then anything is possible.
As for the AFL taking over the academies - how does that work? If there’s no benefit to the club there’s no incentive to invest in an academy = no academies.
I agree that FS and academy picks should be treated differently. There's a touch of romance with FS picks, which means there should be a more generous treatment of them. Fairness only really becomes an issue when a club has multiple FS options in the same year. Rather than complicate it too much I'd propose the FS bidding system remains unchanged as long as clubs nominate only one FS pick. If they select more then perhaps a more lenient points system - or an extra draft pick - can come into play.In regards to the points system proposed it appears complex and unfair. There’s too great a gap between a top draft pick and mid range draft pick. Basically, it’s too expensive. I can’t see how the clubs could agree to that, but as they’ve got form having approved the ridiculous expansion club concessions then anything is possible.
As for the AFL taking over the academies - how does that work? If there’s no benefit to the club there’s no incentive to invest in an academy = no academies.
AFL already props up sydney, gold coast, GWS and Brisbane & the clubs invest in academies.
If AFL arent propping up GWS/BRisbane/GWS/Sydney, then theoretically there is money left to invest in the academies.
Yes they may not be as good as sydneys, but if it creates a pathway then a average academy is still better than no academy.
The whole thing stinks of a systems built by an accountant when you needed an top shelf micro economist. If it has the word average in its calculation I can guarantee you it’s wrong!
Same problem happened with developing the tribunal systems and they still to this day don’t get what’s wrong with it, morons.
If they let Sydney have an academy they should also bring back zones and the shenanigans around zones and being allowed to sign guys willie-nillie.
Add this to the FA picks being wedged in at random intervals, existing F/S picks, and whatever else, the draft basically means nothing for mid-range and good teams.
As a point of logic, what club X and/or Y do should not impact club Z’s picks. As it stands now, if there is FA compensation awarded because a player moves from club X (with pick 15) to club Y (with pick 25), club X gets a new pick created after pick 16. Every club after clu
ie you could end up with pick 25 & 50 as your first 2 picks, use one of those on an academy kid (as in the example above) and you might not have a pick until 80.
Bulshite idea.
People saying: “I’m ok with it as there is a romance to Father/Son picks” aren’t getting what this is actually going to do to the system.
They are taxing Father/Son picks when this system should specifically be targeting Academy selections.
The problem is with the Academy selections as they are biased towards interstate teams such as Sydney/Brisbane/Gold Coast etc.
Father/Sons are only being thrown in because the AFL knows interstate teams will cry poor about it if they are the only ones copping it.
Father/Sons are luck of the draw in the quality and quantity that you receive in any given year and yet the AFL has decided to punish them anyway, whereas Zone Selections/Academy Picks are specifically targeted as the top end talent of their state/territory and groomed by interstate clubs to fit into an AFL environment as quickly and smoothly as possible when draft eligible. They get first dibs and pick of the top end talent in their region with no consequence.
If a club so happens to get a Father/Son that is highly rated and potentially a top 5-10 pick (Joe Daniher) then tough ■■■■■■■ in my opinion. It’s luck of the draw, Academy prospects are not.
Say if this system had been implemented at the time we drafted Joe we would have had to pay through the nose for him and likely miss out on Zerrett the year after as well and potentially Salsa and/or Langford this year.
It is yet another crock by the AFL and I hope the club’s tell them to go and GF.
So if they set up a ‘draft bank’ and make these points some sort of commodity that can be carried over into the next season, does that mean teams can trade points to each other?
Team’s list Management could now be affected by ‘draft debt?’
This is farkin stupid, and I reckon some teams have had to overpay for father/son in the current system, let alone this one.
It basically kills the father /son rule.
A reply to: @Paul Peos regarding QuoteLink
So if they set up a 'draft bank' and make these points some sort of commodity that can be carried over into the next season, does that mean teams can trade points to each other?Team’s list Management could now be affected by ‘draft debt?’
This is farkin stupid, and I reckon some teams have had to overpay for father/son in the current system, let alone this one.
It basically kills the father /son rule.
Agreed.
I’m generally against ANY measure that allows a side to trade or bargain away future picks. It just puts too much temptation in the laps of under-pressure coaches and administrations. For instance, does anyone doubt for a moment that Terry Wallace, in his last trade period as Richmond coach and staring down the barrel of being sacked, wouldn’t have mortgaged the farm and traded away every future pick he possibly could in the hopes of recruiting a quick fix that would save his own skin?
And when this failed (as it of course would have, Terry Wallace being Terry Wallace…) and the Tigers booted the guy, where does that leave them? Hamstrung with a ■■■■ list full of desperate top-up gambles, and no decent picks for the next couple of years to rebuild with? Terrible position to be in. And for any of the smaller clubs who found themselves in this sort of situation - well, it could be existence-ending.
I still can’t believe to this day that someone who was such an ordinary coach and recruiter (ordinary could be deemed a generous title) is known as Terry “The List Manager” Wallace.
Imbecile of bloke.
A reply to: @Paul Peos regarding QuoteLink
This is farkin stupid, and I reckon some teams have had to overpay for father/son in the current system, let alone this one.Any examples?
Under the F/S bidding system the club with rights - at worst - have to match the round of pick that someone else will give up (and that is a binding concrete offer, AFAIK there’s no jerry rigging).
For mine it’s about the best, fairest rule the AFL have put in place, ever. So hardly surprising they’ve ■■■■ the bath with having an unlimited number of academy kids going into the same system.
AFAIK Joe (10?) and McDonald (7? 8?) are the highest F/S picks there’s been so far. Viney was way unders as only 1 or 2 clubs could make an offer to force Melbourne to use their highest pick (2), so they got him at 19 or 20.
This decision stinks of a fat organisation that has way too much power and money. The AFL are just complicating things for the sake of complicating things. Imagine if the amount of money they have spent/wasted on developing this formula was actually put into game/player development.
My view is keep it simple. Limit the number of F/S and Academy picks each club has available each year to 1 or 2. Clubs then need to decide do we give up our first round pick to get Libba or our second round pick to get Wallis etc. Once they make their selections the draft then runs its normal course.
I also agree that the draft is becoming so messy with all the compensation picks. Personally I would like to see them scrapped. THe issue is in a lot of cases Free Agency s is resulting in players moving from a club low on the ladder to one in flag contention, so they probably need to restrict or limit access to free agents if the compo picks are removed.
Ok. Everyone thinks this change is terrible. Who do we contact to make our thoughts known?
AFL will be monitoring media like this, I’m sure.
They often float “proposed” rule changes in Jan-Feb-March just to keep the fires burning.
So just to reiterate, WE THINK YOU ARE ALL IRREDEEMABLE ■■■■■.
The AFL use libba & wallis as dogs stealing the draft…but only reason dogs had poor picks is Because it was the year GWS came in.
And Libba is no more of a steal than Beams or Fyfe given where he ended up.
And being lucky having 2 father sons in the same year is not comparable to the cheating that - tigers/hawks/pies/blues did to get priority picks and get 2 top ten draft picks. Deledio/Tambling Roughead/Buddy Ellis/Dowler Thomas/Pendelbury Murphy/Kennedy
edit gold coast suns concessions
Leave the damn rule alone. They reigned it in after Geelong got Ablett with pick 138 or something, but the protections now are enough.
I think that the Victorian clubs have an advantage over the Sydneys and the Brisbanes in that players actually want to play down here (and the go home factor), so if they get an advantage with the academies (however small that is), then I don’t GAF.
Sydney’s main advantage, the COLA, has already been unwound so I consider everyone to be on a relatively even playing field. Even if it still uneven though, a change to the F/S would disadvantage Victorian clubs as well, so that wouldn’t eradicate the disparity.