News AFL to overhaul the draft, discuss changes to Academy and FS bid matching

[Lore]

 

[Sphynx]

Why are St Kilda leading the whining on fatherson? They haven't got anyone decent out of the rule, but they aren't at an inherehent disadvantage to any other club. Their players just haven't produced any decent offspring. It's a lucky dip.

If you listened to the video, he wasn't complaining about the rule.

He was complaining about being able to use bulk junk picks to match top prospects.

He was right.

The Josh Daicos and Moore graphics were poor examples.

Ashcroft, GC 2023 draft haul, JUH, Sam Darcy, Nick Daicos, Braeden Campbell are better examples.

 

[Couch Coach]

But landing first round picks when you remove the points formula that clearly distorts the value - will mean they will be harder to attain. That in effect cleanses a number of issues.

It prevents blowouts like last year - we keep pushing the first round back because of bids. When in reality - having only 18 first round picks increase their value

Expansion:
GWS coming in got picks 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15.
Gold Coast got picks 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 26, 43.
Tasmania may get the same.

Priority Picks:
2023 North One end-of-first round selection

Both these could distort your option of picks by round.

 

[Sphynx]

Easiest thing to do is make it a blanket decision on F/S, Northern and NGA academies.

Pay a pick within 10 places of the oppo bid or you lose them.
No restrictions on what round this is.

If Carlton want both Campo boys then pay up.
If Brisbane want Ashcroft (F/S) and Marshall (Academy) then pay up.

No more protecting or jumping the board without paying the price.

The rule changes fix pretty much everything.

The biggest rule being list spots having to match picks used. You can't use more picks on draft night than you have list spots open. So if you are using multiple picks to match a bid, it means you are going to have to take a selection at the end of the draft, as well as come up with the points.

In Gold Coasts example last year, they would have had to delist another 5-6 players and taken pick 76,77,78,79,80 in the draft to compensate for the points strategy they used.

I think it will be rare to see a club use more than 2 picks to match any bid now. Definitely not more than 3, I could see 3 being used on a Levi Ashcroft type, but it would mean Brisbane will have to open 2 additional list spots to list the two worst kids in the draft.

I struggle to see how Brisbane manage Ashcroft and Marshall without trading something of value or sacrificing some list depth via list spots..


All the changes are very sensible and eradicate most of the problems.

I wouldn't have changed the NGA threshold, but that will be to prevent the other clubs demanding change of the Northern Academies who get a free hit on everything.

 

[Stamos]

This points bullshit creates an uneven playing field and whilst I can respect fans of Carlton/brisbane/richmond that think it’s unfair, it’s only because you have skin in the game this year and next year when you don’t - you don’t and won’t care that it would impact another club.

Not from a Carlton point of view.
We will be much more effected in 2026 (Cody Walker) by the changing of the system than we will this year, and understand that change needs to happen.
What is unfair is the prospect of changing the system without notice after picks have already been traded.

 

[Profop]

The rule changes fix pretty much everything.

The biggest rule being list spots having to match picks used. You can't use more picks on draft night than you have list spots open. So if you are using multiple picks to match a bid, it means you are going to have to take a selection at the end of the draft, as well as come up with the points.

In Gold Coasts example last year, they would have had to delist another 5-6 players and taken pick 76,77,78,79,80 in the draft to compensate for the points strategy they used.

I think it will be rare to see a club use more than 2 picks to match any bid now. Definitely not more than 3, I could see 3 being used on a Levi Ashcroft type, but it would mean Brisbane will have to open 2 additional list spots to list the two worst kids in the draft.

I struggle to see how Brisbane manage Ashcroft and Marshall without trading something of value or sacrificing some list depth via list spots..


All the changes are very sensible and eradicate most of the problems.

I wouldn't have changed the NGA threshold, but that will be to prevent the other clubs demanding change of the Northern Academies who get a free hit on everything.

They’ll just delist and then re-rookie some of the borderline players on their list

 

[stavro#4]

Not from a Carlton point of view.
We will be much more effected in 2026 (Cody Walker) by the changing of the system than we will this year, and understand that change needs to happen.
What is unfair is the prospect of changing the system without notice after picks have already been traded.

I’m talking about the argument of changing this year or next.

Ultimately whatever system is in place will be different well in advanced of 2026

 

[stavro#4]

Expansion:
GWS coming in got picks 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15.
Gold Coast got picks 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 26, 43.
Tasmania may get the same.

Priority Picks:
2023 North One end-of-first round selection

Both these could distort your option of picks by round.

And it may in those instances.

I wasn’t saying my example could correct what’s to come for Tasmania.

On the other hand it may support them getting quality players traded to them for those first rounders to allow those clubs to take father son or academy pick players.

 

[Sphynx]

I’m talking about the argument of changing this year or next.

Ultimately whatever system is in place will be different well in advanced of 2026

The only real change overtly affecting them this year is the 40+ points value and the R1 points value index.

I think a fair compromise may be enabling clubs to trade 2026 draft picks this trade week to enable Carlton and the likes more flexibility to get their picks high enough to match.

This will root out the real intentions, if they are no longer complaining about pre-planning, it's simply getting upset about the inflated value they have to fork out. If it's not them, it's someone next year.

They can't complain about not being able to use multiple picks for bid matching, as it's currently not design to be function that way in the rules, clubs just exploit it during draft night trades like that.

 

[Sphynx]

They’ll just delist and then re-rookie some of the borderline players on their list

You still need to replace the mainlist players you have rookied with players at the back of the draft.

You also turn all those players into unrestricted free agents for life and have the potential to lose them as DFA's.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

It is fricken hilarious hearing the media and fans having a massive sook about mid season changes to Academy/FS Matching.

Where were your protests when the AFL scaled back the Giants zone to preclude us from recruiting Jarrod Brander and Charlie Spargo?? You were as quiet as Marcel Marceau then weren’t you but there is no interest like self-interest!

Where were the howls when Todd Marshall was ruled ineligible for the Giants Academy because of an alleged “registration error”?? Silent movie again…

Oh but when the obvious rort of the NGA Academy was set up, which is practically a back door mechanism to place highly talented kids with clubs was brought in, there were no cries then and heaven help us if we ever discuss Father/Son.

Most of the policies on the run against the Academies were done in the McCarthyism like fear mongering that the Giants would be unbeatable and win 5+ flags. We have won ZERO but still had our guts ripped out pretty regularly by heartland clubs.

So forgive me for not feeling much sympathy for the latest proposals. In my opinion the draft is way too compromised. Interstate clubs do need an Academy and some other help but we can’t go overboard.

Just manage that process carefully but try to reduce the compromise of the draft or just forget it and let the same 5 clubs challenge for it every season like the EPL. Then see how popular the game remains…

They have done very well to lump the F/S and Academies into one "problem" where they should be completely seperate.

All about maintaining that power.

 

[dazbroncos]

Agreed F/S and Academies should not be lumped together.

they both create advantages but in vastly different ways and time frames.

Deal with them separately.

GO Catters

 

[Purple Suit]

They have done very well to lump the F/S and Academies into one "problem" where they should be completely seperate.

All about maintaining that power.

They are similar though, both rules are not applied evenly across the competition so they are inequitable. The AFL deciding to even up one disadvantage while ignoring others and creating more each year is a window in how they run things.

 

[Sphynx]

They have done very well to lump the F/S and Academies into one "problem" where they should be completely seperate.

All about maintaining that power.

They aren't separate at all. But nice gaslighting.

Most of the Club Presidents grievances are around how clubs match bids and pay for players under the points system.

Not the access itself to the player.


Pretty much all the changes are related to this.


Academy sides will no doubt fight it as hard as clubs like Carlton, as they have the most to lose long term not being able to double dip top 10 picks or take 2-3 academy prospects for junk picks.

Unlikely Sydney would have been able to afford Campbell under this system.

The ironic thing being, it would have been Gulden the likely sacrificed player back then, as Campbell would have been the priority.

 

[buttox]

I like the changes.
Stop the rorts asap.
We want to rort for one more year because we planned our rorts last year is a pretty poor argument.
Deficit is still a thing. All players can still be got.
It's just quibbling over the price.
Pay up if you want a player others have selected with there draft pick.

 

[buttox]

The we planned for it last year argument is interesting.
Clubs I've spotted with fs and academy picks this year would be.
Carlton traded a third last year for two fourths. None of those picks have any value in the new system. Zero planned trades imo.
GC have 3 first round picks. They couldn't be better set for next year if the tried.
Brisbane have there first round pick then picks in the 50s if thats planning idk what to say
Adelaide there first is similar to were welsh is expected to go.

And the we have the weird one who has probably done the most planning of anyone
Richmond multiple picks in the second round and early thirds an argument could be made they planned for a fs they don't have

 

[Profop]

The we planned for it last year argument is interesting.
Clubs I've spotted with fs and academy picks this year would be.
Carlton traded a third last year for two fourths. None of those picks have any value in the new system. Zero planned trades imo.
GC have 3 first round picks. They couldn't be better set for next year if the tried.
Brisbane have there first round pick them icks in the 50s if that planning idk what to say
Adelaide there first is similar to were welsh is expected to go.

And the we have the weird one who has probably done the most planning of anyone
Richmond multiple picks in the second round and early fourths an argument could be made they planned for a fs they don't have

Or we saw that there were a few teams that were going to need picks and planned for that rather than a father son of our own

 

[buttox]

Or we saw that there were a few teams that were going to need picks and planned for that rather than a father son of our own

Yep I reckon you would be most effected by it of anyone.
They are pretty trash picks though it's really not a massive loss.
The other clubs claiming they planned though doesn't really pass the sniff test.
I call bs

 

[Profop]

Yep I reckon you would be most effected by it of anyone.
They are pretty trash picks though it's really not a massive loss.
The other clubs claiming they planned though doesn't really pass the sniff test.
I call bs

The points we traded in are worth pick 25 in the current system

I doubt any team would be happily giving pick 25 over to the AFL for nothing

 

[buttox]

The points we traded in are worth pick 25 in the current system

I doubt any team would be happily giving pick 25 over to the AFL for nothing

The point system is wrong. Those picks are not worth pick 25. That's the whole point of the changes.
You have picks before 40 those will still have value. The third rounders are trash picks in the real world.
That's now what they are valued at.
I mean your plan was to give carlton or Brisbane assistance getting there rort through.
You can't now that's not a total loss.

 

[BloodySwan]

I wonder if they will strip academy eligibility for father/sons.

Academies are supposedly about developing kids who wouldn’t normally be playing Australian Rules - sons of 100+ gamers don’t really fall into this category.

It's about developing kids in that area. Who their dad is is irrelevant

 

[MrBarry]

I like the changes.
Stop the rorts asap.
We want to rort for one more year because we planned our rorts last year is a pretty poor argument.
Deficit is still a thing. All players can still be got.
It's just quibbling over the price.
Pay up if you want a player others have selected with there draft pick.

It's not a poor argument at all is it? Surely anyone with an ounce of logic would announce these changes for next year ahead of this year's trade period.

 

[buttox]

It's not a poor argument at all is it? Surely anyone with an ounce of logic would announce these changes for next year ahead of this year's trade period.

I can see one club who has traded to assist these picks this year.
Richmond.
No one else has done anything.
Do it now.

 

[Profop]

The point system is wrong. Those picks are not worth pick 25. That's the whole point of the changes.
You have picks before 40 those will still have value. The third rounders are trash picks in the real world.
That's now what they are valued at.
I mean your plan was to give carlton or Brisbane assistance getting there rort through.
You can't now that's not a total loss.

I mean those picks are worth 25 in the real world. They were worth pick 25 when we traded them in and we should rightfully kick up a massive stink should that get taken away

Nothing that is in black and white clearly defined as per the rules can be called a rort

 

[Ashman23]

It's about developing kids in that area. Who their dad is is irrelevant

Really?

Huh, I thought it was to develop local talent and have a pathway for athletes and talented youth that might be drawn to other sports. (Go on, tell me a 'son of a gun' might be lost to the AFL).

But, hey, I'm sure your club is enjoying Nick Blakey running around when he would've been lost to the AFL. It's not like his dad didn't play over 350 games and win a a couple of premierships or play state of origin for Victoria. It's not like Nick wouldn't be running around as a Kangaroo right now.

 

[BloodySwan]

Really?

Huh, I thought it was to develop local talent and have a pathway for athletes and talented youth that might be drawn to other sports. (Go on, tell me a 'son of a gun' might be lost to the AFL).

But, hey, I'm sure your club is enjoying Nick Blakey running around when he would've been lost to the AFL. It's not like his dad didn't play over 350 games and win a a couple of premierships or play state of origin for Victoria. It's not like Nick wouldn't be running around as a Kangaroo right now.

The key word is develop

No one is disrupting who his dad is.

Can you give me a list of all the father Sons who have come from Sydney?

Blakey wasn't just born with talent because he came from his dad's nuttsack. He's had to actually train and work on his craft. The academies develop local talent - Blakey was local to Sydney.

If it was just genes there would be a lot more players coming from Sydney