Swans' academy.

[Scotland]

Any bidding system is always going to be flawed.

Ayce Cordy went at pick 14 after St Kilda bid pick 13. Had The Dogs finished one spot below St Kilda instead of one above he would have gone at pick 30.

Jack Viney was a complete farce. Melbourne at one stage had 3, 4, 14, 26 prior to any trades taking place. If GWS bid one, Viney would've gone at 3 (or been passed). He was a 5/6 prospect from memory and went at 26. Picks 4 and 14 didn't count.

Introducing a bidding system which benefits 4 clubs and not 14 others is just asking for trouble. F/S applies to everyone - even if GWS/GC won't see any benefit from it for two decades - but I think they've had a fair access to good young players so far.

 

[master bate]

So who exactly has deemed him a certain top 5 pick?

It's amazing how much a draftees value drops when it comes time for a club to actually put a top 10 or 15 pick on the player (especially a player that might need to be moving interstate and has not played a heap of games against the best under 18 talent).

Rioli was the stand out Div 2 player in his year, talked about as a top 5 pick and then went pick 12.

The difference between pick 12 and 18 is not going to give an independent panel a reason to slap on another second round pick.

Rioli rocked up to draft camp overweight and unwilling or unable to do the fitness drills. His attitude was far from first class. I doubt Heeney would do the same. And I think Melbourne would be pretty keen to draft him with a top 5 pick. Of course that's a matter of waiting and seeing but Melbourne need midfielders and he's been described as the best one of them and he would've trained under Roos would he have not?

Of course he's not certain, it's all hypotheticals.

 

[DST]

For all those Swans supporters out there. Consider:

From 2004-2010 Pick 5's:
Franklin, Pendlebury, Boak, Grant, Hurley, Cunnington, Polec

Pick 18's:
C. Wood, Bailey, Leeroy Jetta, Rance, Shuey, Tapscott, Matthew Watson
Pick 36's:
McGuane, Jake Edwards?, Alwyn Davey, Steven Browne?, Ashley Smith, Joel Houghton, Aaron Young

Now that's not large enough a sample size to get an accurate measure and it's seems 36 is a particularly bad pick. But 36 is pretty much steak knives, 18 is a 50% chance of a good player but pick 5 is almost certainly a good player and a chance of a superstar. On that small sample it looks like it's still a generous deal. To get the value of pick 5 you should probably give up pick 18 and another first round pick.

That is all dependent on a club actually wanting to out lay pick 5 for Heeney.

Sure he looks promising, but history suggests strongly that clubs do not out lay picks below a top 10 for a Div 2 kid from a developing market as they find it difficult to base rate these kids against the stronger development states of VIC, SA and WA.

It will be a pisser when the nominations come around and a club with pick 15 nominates him and the Swans outlay pick 18 only.

 

[Furn2]

No independent panel would require a club to outlay picks one and two on a un-tried 18 year old draftee, especially one that comes from a state where the kid plays Div 2 state football and no regular TAC Cup.

Barrett is a flog if he thinks it would be a possible extra 2nd round pick for Heeney, not even a untried test tube born Ablett Jnr Jnr would be worth that.

You can always not take him.

Just like the F/S rule this is just about getting bargains in the draft. Nothing to do with legacy or growing the game in NSW.

The minute the cost becomes greater than the value of the player suddenly no ones interested.

 

[master bate]

Any bidding system is always going to be flawed.

Ayce Cordy went at pick 14 after St Kilda bid pick 13. Had The Dogs finished one spot below St Kilda instead of one above he would have gone at pick 30.

Jack Viney was a complete farce. Melbourne at one stage had 3, 4, 14, 26 prior to any trades taking place. If GWS bid one, Viney would've gone at 3 (or been passed). He was a 5/6 prospect from memory and went at 26. Picks 4 and 14 didn't count.

Introducing a bidding system which benefits 4 clubs and not 14 others is just asking for trouble. F/S applies to everyone - even if GWS/GC won't see any benefit from it for two decades - but I think they've had a fair access to good young players so far.

You know the bidding's often been done by the club just in front or close to in front of the nominated clubs pick. Freo nominated Tom Mitchell at 20 and he went to Sydney at 21. If the dogs had pick 13 then the club with pick 12 probably would've nominated Cordy. The rival teams have simply worked out if the club will match the bid and then done the nomination. It's pretty much all worked out in advance.

 

[HPKS]

No it doesn't, it just means that clubs will pay a fair price for them instead of regularly having been able to get them far too cheaply.

It's not that hard to work out what they are really worth.

This year a team may nominate Heeney with pick 5 and then the panel will tell Sydney that they have to give up their first 2 picks for him if they want him and if they say yes, they get him, if they say no, whoever nominated him with pick 5 gets him with that pick. It's pretty bloody simple.

 

[Arwib]

For all those Swans supporters out there. Consider:

From 2004-2010 Pick 5's:
Franklin, Pendlebury, Boak, Grant, Hurley, Cunnington, Polec

Pick 18's:
C. Wood, Bailey, Leeroy Jetta, Rance, Shuey, Tapscott, Matthew Watson
Pick 36's:
McGuane, Jake Edwards?, Alwyn Davey, Steven Browne?, Ashley Smith, Joel Houghton, Aaron Young

Now that's not large enough a sample size to get an accurate measure and it's seems 36 is a particularly bad pick. But 36 is pretty much steak knives, 18 is a 50% chance of a good player but pick 5 is almost certainly a good player and a chance of a superstar. On that small sample it looks like it's still a generous deal. To get the value of pick 5 you should probably give up pick 18 and another first round pick.

Speak for your own club we got Reid, Hannebery, Parker, Malceski and Rampe from our current best 22 at pick 30 and beyond... we *need* those second round picks!

 

[JasRulz63]

No it was stated it would be unfair to WB n saints if F/S was extended to premierships or coaches so what about it being unfair to PA, Freo, GC or GWS or like I said is it only unfair if it's a Victorian club?

Did you even read my reply to your post? I left Freo out because they currently have access to father/son players from teams in the WAFL, so under your premiership rule I'm assuming it would premiership players of those teams. Likewise for Port who are aligned with SANFL clubs for father/son. I left out GWS/GC because they have had many advantages already.

I mentioned WB and St. Kilda because they aren't aligned to any other teams to get father/sons from, and the premiership players from those teams are unlikely to have sons of drafting age.

 

[JasRulz63]

Speak for your own club we got Reid, Hannebery, Parker, Malceski and Rampe from our current best 22 at pick 30 and beyond... we *need* those second round picks!

Given Sydney's drafting record comparing first and second round draft picks, I think they'd prefer to give up their first pick in the following draft in order to keep their second round pick this year

 

[aussierulesrules]

Ok that sounds fair. So to make it fair are the club that drafts him going to pay Sydney the time, money & effort put into this kid? When is the saints gona pay for the development of a frankston kid, when is the hawks gona pay for the development of a Longford kid or when is the kangas gona pay for the development of a Lachlan kid? This is where I have total sympathy with WCE n Freo they put a lota money into development over here in WA n get SFA.

You guys will reap the rewards of building the game in Sydney and NSW over time with increased memberships, sponsorships and so-on. It's in your best interests to develop as many from your state as possible because of all the flow-on effects that will come from it.

I'm sure you could also ask the AFL for some more assistance if you think it's still not enough though. I'd have no problem with that if it was fair-dinkum. I'm all for growing the game in these non-dominant areas, but that doesn't mean I'm OK with those teams having these huge advantages at the draft on a regular basis, so a compromise needs to be found.

 

[HPKS]

No it doesn't, it just means that clubs will pay a fair price for them instead of regularly having been able to get them far too cheaply.

It's not that hard to work out what they are really worth.

This year a team may nominate Heeney with pick 5 and then the panel will tell Sydney that they have to give up their first 2 picks for him if they want him and if they say yes, they get him, if they say no, whoever nominated him with pick 5 gets him with that pick. It's pretty bloody simple.

I'll ask again so you VFL clubs expect another club to spend a million dollars a year to develop players for you? Is that more simpler to understand.

 

[master bate]

That is all dependent on a club actually wanting to out lay pick 5 for Heeney.

Sure he looks promising, but history suggests strongly that clubs do not out lay picks below a top 10 for a Div 2 kid from a developing market as they find it difficult to base rate these kids against the stronger development states of VIC, SA and WA.

It will be a pisser when the nominations come around and a club with pick 15 nominates him and the Swans outlay pick 18 only.

Where's your proof besides Rioli (which I don't believe in anyway)?

David Armitage, Jarryd McVeigh, Nick Riewoldt. When the kid is there they've been drafted. Plus there's plenty of Tassie kids like KK last year.

If no one changes the system then no one will bid for Heeney until about pick 15 as it's simply not worth bidding in an auction you wont win. Plus why bid pick 5 on a guy and get stuck with him if the number 1 pick then drops to pick 5? That's a flaw in the bidding system as well.

If the bidding system changes and requires the bid to be matched then I'm very confident someone bids top 10 for Heeney.

 

[HPKS]

You guys will reap the rewards of building the game in Sydney and NSW over time with increased memberships, sponsorships and so-on. It's in your best interests to develop as many from your state as possible because of all the flow-on effects that will come from it.

I'm sure you could also ask the AFL for some more assistance if you think it's still not enough though. I'd have no problem with that if it was fair-dinkum. I'm all for growing the game in these non-dominant areas, but that doesn't mean I'm OK with those teams having these huge advantages at the draft on a regular basis, so a compromise needs to be found.

Yeh I know Brandon Jack is just such a massive leg up. Get a grip.

 

[aussierulesrules]

So who exactly has deemed him a certain top 5 pick?

It's amazing how much a draftees value drops when it comes time for a club to actually put a top 10 or 15 pick on the player (especially a player that might need to be moving interstate and has not played a heap of games against the best under 18 talent).

Rioli was the stand out Div 2 player in his year, talked about as a top 5 pick and then went pick 12.

The difference between pick 12 and 18 is not going to give an independent panel a reason to slap on another second round pick.

It's very, very simple. They are worth what another club bids for them (the highest pick any clubs bid). Like I said, if the highest bid is pick 5 for Heeney then that is what he is worth, because if Sydney aren't prepared to pay whatever cost the panel deems necessary, the club that bid pick 5 on him will be "stuck" with him at pick 5 (so they will have to be very sure they are prepared to pay 5 for him). If a club does end up only bidding pick 12 for him then you won't have to give up your first two picks for him. Maybe just your first and your 4th (which is a junk pick you may not even use).

 

[aussierulesrules]

Yeh I know Brandon Jack is just such a massive leg up. Get a grip.

Brandon Jack wasn't a top 5 quality pick and potential "game-changer" like Heeney, Mills and Dunkley could be. Do you realise how good those 3 could be? They are all "big bodied mids" I believe, all rated top 5 or at worst 10 and who ought to be ready to go from the start, so they could be like getting in 3 Ollie Wines' over the next two years. Gamechanging selections that will help to keep you up the top for years to come and put a lot of bums on seats and sponsorship dollars in the bank and easily cover their development costs many times over. I have a grip, thank you very much.

 

[master bate]

I'll ask again so you VFL clubs expect another club to spend a million dollars a year to develop players for you? Is that more simpler to understand.

The whole premise of this thread is that Sydney shouldn't get a draft advantage by having an academy, not just because it's unfair but as other clubs can't have an academy. Whilst the poorer clubs couldn't do it, Eddie and Pies would set up a 2 million dollar academy in Sydney if they were allowed. Probably another in Queensland as well.

If the direct draft advantage goes there will still be lots of indirect advantages (more NSW players in the system, better local league players etc) and I guess if the Swans can't afford it then they can scale it back and fight with the AFL.

 

[HPKS]

Did you even read my reply to your post? I left Freo out because they currently have access to father/son players from teams in the WAFL, so under your premiership rule I'm assuming it would premiership players of those teams. Likewise for Port who are aligned with SANFL clubs for father/son. I left out GWS/GC because they have had many advantages already.

I mentioned WB and St. Kilda because they aren't aligned to any other teams to get father/sons from, and the premiership players from those teams are unlikely to have sons of drafting age.

No teams in the wafl won an AFL premiership so we can count them out, sorry Freo. Also no port side apart from one won an afl premiership n now cause GC n GWS have had to much help they don't count. Bwahaha

 

[Simba Moyo]

The whole premise of this thread is that Sydney shouldn't get a draft advantage by having an academy, not just because it's unfair but as other clubs can't have an academy. Whilst the poorer clubs couldn't do it, Eddie and Pies would set up a 2 million dollar academy in Sydney if they were allowed. Probably another in Queensland as well.

If the direct draft advantage goes there will still be lots of indirect advantages (more NSW players in the system, better local league players etc) and I guess if the Swans can't afford it then they can scale it back and fight with the AFL.

Other clubs aren't in developing states. Also at no point should Collingwood or any other club be putting academies into these developing markets as it would hurt the branding of these clubs. It's really very simple.

 

[HPKS]

The whole premise of this thread is that Sydney shouldn't get a draft advantage by having an academy, not just because it's unfair but as other clubs can't have an academy. Whilst the poorer clubs couldn't do it, Eddie and Pies would set up a 2 million dollar academy in Sydney if they were allowed. Probably another in Queensland as well.

If the direct draft advantage goes there will still be lots of indirect advantages (more NSW players in the system, better local league players etc) and I guess if the Swans can't afford it then they can scale it back and fight with the AFL.

This I have no problem with. If any other side is prepared to put the time, money & effort in I wouldn't complain one bit. 1 mill a year is a lota money. But why didn't clubs do this with the previous system instead of cheery picking a few players?

 

[Cleric]

Every team has access to the draft equally. Every team has access to father son, although the AFL was unfair with it (see what qualifies for FS in SANFL vs WAFL). However no SA, WA or Vic teams have access to zone picks like Sydney has with its academy. If the goal of the academy is to get NSW kids in NSW teams, fine, but you pay the going rate. The goal isn't to get cheap players through academy is It?

 

[Tedeski]

My unbiased thoughts are if we get the same stadium deals that other clubs in Melbourne do (you do realise that the Bulldogs, Saints and North are effectively subsidising the purchase of Etihad stadium don't you ??) and get access to even fixturing (so we occasionally get home games at decent times against the bigger clubs) and get on prime time TV once in a while (looking at 2 years if not closer to 3 since we had a Friday night game - whether home or away), that we'll be making far more money than we are now.

And the first three clubs to go when you turn off the AFL drip will be GWS, GCS, then Brisbane. Not us sunshine....

Incorrect.
The AFL will get a better return from an investment in a non AFL state than they would from a struggling Vic club from TV rights alone.
Unfortunately thats the reality.

 

[DST]

It's very, very simple. They are worth what another club bids for them (the highest pick any clubs bid). Like I said, if the highest bid is pick 5 for Heeney then that is what he is worth, because if Sydney aren't prepared to pay whatever cost the panel deems necessary, the club that bid pick 5 on him will be "stuck" with him at pick 5 (so they will have to be very sure they are prepared to pay 5 for him). If a club does end up only bidding pick 12 for him then you won't have to give up your first two picks for him. Maybe just your first and your 4th (which is a junk pick you may not even use).

I agree with that entirely and history would suggest that when push comes to shove most of the VIC, WA and SA clubs won't take the risk on bidding at a low pick for an untried 18 year old from the Northern development states.

You may get an absolute stand out (like a Reiwoldt) but based on all reports Heeney while promising is not at that level and is definitely not a KP player that commands a premium.

When the dust settles on this, People are going to wonder what all the fuss was about as Emma Quayle has so pointed out.

 

[Tedeski]

Every team has access to the draft equally. Every team has access to father son, although the AFL was unfair with it (see what qualifies for FS in SANFL vs WAFL). However no SA, WA or Vic teams have access to zone picks like Sydney has with its academy. If the goal of the academy is to get NSW kids in NSW teams, fine, but you pay the going rate. The goal isn't to get cheap players through academy is It?

So why was this all agreed to as a great idea when the academies were thought of?

 

[master bate]

Other clubs aren't in developing states. Also at no point should Collingwood or any other club be putting academies into these developing markets as it would hurt the branding of these clubs. It's really very simple.

If the academies are about branding then it's pretty much just advertising so I don't feel sorry at all for the clubs spending 1 mil a year for no draft return. I thought the academies were primarily about growing the draft pool and growing the game at grass roots level. Any publicity of the clubs as opposed to the code is just a bonus.

This I have no problem with. If any other side is prepared to put the time, money & effort in I wouldn't complain one bit. 1 mill a year is a lota money. But why didn't clubs do this with the previous system instead of cheery picking a few players?

Because the previous system was all about cherry picking. It was a scholarship system, that's the point of scholarships. And 1 good kid per year got picked up and developed pretty much. It was just a dumb design as it only improved a few lucky kids instead of making meaningful improvement from the ground up.

 

[Furn2]

I'll ask again so you VFL clubs expect another club to spend a million dollars a year to develop players for you? Is that more simpler to understand.

The AFL contributes $250k a year to each academy and they pay $1mil of your players salary. Interestingly pretty much the exact amount they want to start taxing Hawthorn and Collingwood.

But you don't have an issue with that I'm sure.