AFL changes academy rules and shafts Giants and Swans

[rb4x]

The AFL has decided to totally change the academy rules that will really hurt the Giants and the Swans. Top four teams which I expect will include both the Giants and the Swans will be limited to just one academy pick. As well the Giants have lost the Albury region from their academy. I think losing Albury is justified but I disagree with top four and top eight teams being limited in how many academy picks they can have. Last year the Swans did not have an academy pick but in another year they might want two It averages out and takes away much of the incentive for the Northern Clubs to run the academies. Not so much of a problem for Lions and Suns this year who I don't expect to make top eight but in the future who knows.


Giants lose access to top talent in academy overhaul - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-20/giants-lose-access-to-top-talent-in-academy-overhaul)

[Mug Punter]

The AFL has decided to totally change the academy rules that will really hurt the Giants and the Swans. Top four teams which I expect will include both the Giants and the Swans will be limited to just one academy pick. As well the Giants have lost the Albury region from their academy. I think losing Albury is justified but I disagree with top four and top eight teams being limited in how many academy picks they can have. Last year the Swans did not have an academy pick but in another year they might want two It averages out and takes away much of the incentive for the Northern Clubs to run the academies. Not so much of a problem for Lions and Suns this year who I don't expect to make top eight but in the future who knows.


Giants lose access to top talent in academy overhaul - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-20/giants-lose-access-to-top-talent-in-academy-overhaul)

We are not limited to one academy pick if you read the article carefully.

The limitation is on Top 20 picks and only if we are in the Top 4 (not top 8 as you state). We still get access to the number one elite kid like Isaac and Callum and we still get access to fully reference checked local talent in the 20s onwards at a discount. As the pipeline of talent starts to flow I think the impact on us will be lower than we think.

I think there is still benefit in the system but I imagine the Swans will take a more pragmatic approach going forward re funding.

Hopefully we are now at the end game with any tinkering and we can have certainty going forward.

[Joel Ridge]

Just to clarify, I believe if you are top 4 then you are limited to one 1st round academy pick. Much of the below part of my post is pulled from the general topic thread, but I thought is was relevant to this thread.

I think its a wise decision from the AFL. I don't think you deserve two first round academy prospects if you make top 4. You may argue that you will need to trade to pay the points, but I think two 1st round selections is too much planned and secured talent for a top 4 side.

It may be unfair to those guys, but I think the reverse academy argument of busts such as Hiscox and Davis need to be argued against the Mills and Heeney argument.

Hiscox was a poor selection by the Swans in the 2nd round and was primary done to protect the integrity of the academy. It would have been a bad look if the Swans had not matched the Fremantle bid for Hiscox and send a Glebe boy to Fremantle (although he would have loved the coffee strip and the famous Sunday sessions in Fremantle). This would have eroded confidence in the Academy and the Swans knew this and wasted the 2nd round selection. Fremantle as a top 4 competitor at the time did well to make the Swans burn a 2nd round selection.

The AFL should know that Hiscox and Davis cost more than their fair value because of the need to protect the hope of future prospects. This should offset the Heeney and Mills argument.

I don't think the Swans will scale back their investment in the academy. To me, apart from a Heeney and Mills you get every now and then, the academy is a brilliant grassroots marketing initiative for the Swans. It helps the membership drive as family, friends and associates of Academy players get behind the Swans. The Swans would have someone looking at the return on investment in the academy in terms of increasing memberships and they would know the number.

[crackedactor]

Just to clarify, I believe if you are top 4 then you are limited to one 1st round academy pick. Much of the below part of my post is pulled from the general topic thread, but I thought is was relevant to this thread.

I think its a wise decision from the AFL. I don't think you deserve two first round academy prospects if you make top 4. You may argue that you will need to trade to pay the points, but I think two 1st round selections is too much planned and secured talent for a top 4 side.

It may be unfair to those guys, but I think the reverse academy argument of busts such as Hiscox and Davis need to be argued against the Mills and Heeney argument.

Hiscox was a poor selection by the Swans in the 2nd round and was primary done to protect the integrity of the academy. It would have been a bad look if the Swans had not matched the Fremantle bid for Hiscox and send a Glebe boy to Fremantle (although he would have loved the coffee strip and the famous Sunday sessions in Fremantle). This would have eroded confidence in the Academy and the Swans knew this and wasted the 2nd round selection. Fremantle as a top 4 competitor at the time did well to make the Swans burn a 2nd round selection.

The AFL should know that Hiscox and Davis cost more than their fair value because of the need to protect the hope of future prospects. This should offset the Heeney and Mills argument.

I don't think the Swans will scale back their investment in the academy. To me, apart from a Heeney and Mills you get every now and then, the academy is a brilliant grassroots marketing initiative for the Swans. It helps the membership drive as family, friends and associates of Academy players get behind the Swans. The Swans would have someone looking at the return on investment in the academy in terms of increasing memberships and they would know the number.

Very Good summary of the academy. Just having one selection is not such a bad thing. Don't forget the majority of kids in NSW still play Rugby. The Heeney and Mills situation is abnormal and it may be another 10 years before we get a quality player from the academy.

[liz]

Very Good summary of the academy. Just having one selection is not such a bad thing. Don't forget the majority of kids in NSW still play Rugby. The Heeney and Mills situation is abnormal and it may be another 10 years before we get a quality player from the academy.

I doubt it will be 10 years (2018 is my guess, unless FS politics derails his availability) but I agree that the club getting Heeney and Mills in successive years is far from the current "normal". For the Swans, at least. The Giants' zone has proved to be so rich that they have picked up a stream of under-20 draft picks in the last couple of seasons, and the pipeline doesn't look to be slowing down. Even the removal of part of the zone won't entirely stem the flow.

I am passionately supportive of the NSW and Queensland academies and what they are trying to achieve. And there does need to be some incentive to the four clubs to continue to invest their time into these schemes. But there needs to be a balance with the aims of draft equalisation (unless one is against the whole concept of draft equalisation). It would be a massive advantage to have access to players of Heeney and Mills' calibre every year (even without a draft discount). While it is some way off before that happens, it should be expected that, if the participation numbers are sustained, one or two of the best dozen players each year will start to consistently emerge from the major population centres along the NSW coast. I don't think that limiting the Swans to matching a bid for just one of these very best players each year is that unreasonable in the context of the entire competition and the draft.

[S.S. Bleeder]

The AFL is making these rules up on the run. Just because GWS had a great year last year (largely because they had the Riverina), they are imposing this penalty on us, Brisbane and GCS. What if we go several years without an academy selection in the first round and then there are two in the one year? It's also unfair that they are doing this whilst leaving the father/son selections alone. They are supposed to be treated the same as the academy selections.

[barry]

This sounds like a solution to a perceived problem rather than an actual problem. GWS havent had many players at all from the contentious area of the riverina (murray river towns), but have quite a few from towns further north which are at best 50/50 AFL league. ie exactly what academies are for.

GWS must be widely successful as all their start-up concessions are being pulled back ahead of time.

Also stupid that a team cant "bank" picks. If it hasnt taken a top20 academy kid for a few years and then 2 come up in a top 4 year, they should be able to take both. Guns are still as rare as hens teeth.

[jono2707]

Very Good summary of the academy. Just having one selection is not such a bad thing. Don't forget the majority of kids in NSW still play Rugby. The Heeney and Mills situation is abnormal and it may be another 10 years before we get a quality player from the academy.

Not correct - the majority of kids in NSW play soccer, followed by league. Rugby and AFL are somewhere after that (not sure in which order).

Anyway taking away GWS's access to a well developed AFL region had to happen, especially given the benefits they were reaping for very little effort. Bit of a bummer that we and the other clubs were collateral damage re the academies but there shouldn't be too great an impact in reality.

[707]

Sensible decision by the AFL but over 12 months late in making the changes. They should have made the changes before the last draft where GWS gamed the system to get Toranto at pick 2 before their first academy player needed to be bid on. I think this what what ultimately forced the AFL to act, albeit under extreme pressure from Eddie and his running mates, last year GWS should have been using their first pick on Setterfield, not taking a Vic draftee.

I like the level of access being tied to ladder position and it should ensure the northern teams become more locally sourced over time which is a good thing.

Don't think we will change anything as getting priority access to draftees you know absolutely thoroughly is invaluable. Just think how much effort goes into interviewing draftees, parents, school teachers, junior coaches for players you won't get to draft because they were picked before your turn, that's wasted resource and effort. We don't need to do anywhere near that level of research for academy players, and if you know you have a R1 tied to you, there's a swag of R1 picks you don't need to do work on that year.

If these changes were in place from the start would things have been different for us? No, we just would have paid more for Heeney, as we should have. So good changes, just overdue. Will take the heat right out of northern academy whinging.

[Ludwig]

I'm okay with the new rules limiting 1st round academy selections, with one exception. I think there should be some flexibility to cover 2 high draft picks in a single year when there were none in the previous year. For example, if the Swans don't have any 1 round academy players in this coming draft year, we could still match bids on on Blakey and Close in 2018, if they both happen to receive bids in the first round and we finish top 4. I further think that we should be able to bid on 2 players in a given year if we are willing to forfeit our right to a first round bid in the following year. In this way, we can only get 2 first round academy players in any 2 successive years.

If we had the situation of a Mills and Heeney both coming through in the same year, it would be a pity to lose either one. But I think it would be fair if we forfeited out right to get another one in the following year, or forgo a top pick in a prior year. It's a small point, but one that clears up a circumstantial anomaly.

[Meg]

I'm also ok with the new rules (although frustrated by the constant tinkering apparently without discussion with the Swans). However I'm annoyed that it appears that the rules for F/S selections and drafting from the Next Generation Academies (NGAs) have been left unchanged. I suspect the latter, in particular, will provide some exceptional talent, and possibly in the near future.

I also note that GWS has been allowed to have continued access to Next Generation talent from the Albury/Murray area, so therefore presumably under the unchanged drafting rules.

So (hypothetically) if the Swans develop two boys from multicultural backgrounds into exceptional prospects through our academy, and they both become eligible in the same draft, the Swans are subject to the new tougher drafting rules. But if (say) the Crows bring forward two exceptional prospects from their NGA (not out of the question given their zone and the immigration patterns into Adelaide) then they have access to both under the more relaxed rules.

This only makes sense if the intent is to give the NGAs a few years to develop and then make the rules the same as those for the northern academies. However I haven't read anything to say that is the case.

[Mug Punter]

I'm also ok with the new rules (although frustrated by the constant tinkering apparently without discussion with the Swans). However I'm annoyed that it appears that the rules for F/S selections and drafting from the Next Generation Academies (NGAs) have been left unchanged. I suspect the latter, in particular, will provide some exceptional talent, and possibly in the near future.

I also note that GWS has been allowed to have continued access to Next Generation talent from the Albury/Murray area, so therefore presumably under the unchanged drafting rules.

So (hypothetically) if the Swans develop two boys from multicultural backgrounds into exceptional prospects through our academy, and they both become eligible in the same draft, the Swans are subject to the new tougher drafting rules. But if (say) the Crows bring forward two exceptional prospects from their NGA (not out of the question given their zone and the immigration patterns into Adelaide) then they have access to both under the more relaxed rules.

This only makes sense if the intent is to give the NGAs a few years to develop and then make the rules the same as those for the northern academies. However I haven't read anything to say that is the case.

I am able to accept these changes but surely we can just leave the system unchanged for a period now.

All the Swans have ever really asked for was one priority pick from NSW and we still effectively have that. And if the "problem" arises where we miss out on a first rounder because we have too many then that is just something we need to cop for the good of the game. The ultimate situation would be that Sydney produces so many AFL standard players that the Academy system is not required at all but I think we are a good 15 years away minimum from that.

I agree with Ludwig that I'd like some flexibility, in fact I'd like it matched to how many top 20 picks we have in the draft order. Whether that can be negotiated is doubtful.

Finally re GWS, for those with no sense of geography they have only lost the Murray/Albury area and not Riverina. The two are not the same. I watched Gill on AFL 360 and I was impressed with him actually. he just said that from a big picture strategic point of view he didn't see how concessions could apply to kids who already had an existing pathway via an elite Victorian competition (i.e. the Murray Bushrangers in the TAC Cup) and he said frankly he wondered why it was ever allowed in the first case. It does not affect the Riverina so GWS still have a golden patch, who knows they might start giving a damn about the game in Western Sydney.

I just hope this whole debate can now be put to rest but I suspect you'll hear the squealing any time we recruit anyone good, just waiting for the dirty shin-boners to have a cow when we select Nick Blakey

[707]

I'm quite prepared for the furore IF Nick Blakey nominates the Swans rather than Norf.

I know Fitzmuppet has left the Commission but wouldn't surprise me to see the VFL do some last minute tinkering IF it appears that Nick Blakey will be putting us first on his ballot paper.

[liz]

I'm quite prepared for the furore IF Nick Blakey nominates the Swans rather than Norf.

I know Fitzmuppet has left the Commission but wouldn't surprise me to see the VFL do some last minute tinkering IF it appears that Nick Blakey will be putting us first on his ballot paper.

If Blakey wants to join the Swans (and he may well prefer to play at a club where his father isn't a coach), there's nought the AFL can do. Even if he weren't in the academy, he's under no obligation to agree to join North (or Brisbane - don't forget he's eligible for both clubs under the FS rules).

Furthermore, my understanding is that players in the final year of an academy programme can't refuse to join the parent club if nominated. The idea is that they had the choice whether or not to sign up for the academy programme. You don't get to choose who your father played for.

If he wants to join North or the Lions, he can pull out of the academy programme, or the Swans may show flexibility out of respect for John. But the AFL can have no say in the matter. Not that it will stop the whinging from over the border...

[Meg]

But if North draft Blakey as F/S they would do so under easier draft rules compared with those the Swans would be under drafting him as an academy talent (my earlier complaint).

(This is hypothetical as it would only be an issue if either/both clubs finished in top four/eight and if North had more than one F/S or the Swans had more than one academy prospect. The North position in particular is unlikely. But it does illustrate the point.)

[mcs]

I doubt it will be 10 years (2018 is my guess, unless FS politics derails his availability) but I agree that the club getting Heeney and Mills in successive years is far from the current "normal". For the Swans, at least. The Giants' zone has proved to be so rich that they have picked up a stream of under-20 draft picks in the last couple of seasons, and the pipeline doesn't look to be slowing down. Even the removal of part of the zone won't entirely stem the flow.

I am passionately supportive of the NSW and Queensland academies and what they are trying to achieve. And there does need to be some incentive to the four clubs to continue to invest their time into these schemes. But there needs to be a balance with the aims of draft equalisation (unless one is against the whole concept of draft equalisation). It would be a massive advantage to have access to players of Heeney and Mills' calibre every year (even without a draft discount). While it is some way off before that happens, it should be expected that, if the participation numbers are sustained, one or two of the best dozen players each year will start to consistently emerge from the major population centres along the NSW coast. I don't think that limiting the Swans to matching a bid for just one of these very best players each year is that unreasonable in the context of the entire competition and the draft.

As always Liz, you hit the nail on the head. That is exactly my view as well.

I hate the short-termism of the VFL clubs in particular 'what's in it for us - they are just rorting the system (GWS zone issue aside)' - when clearly there is an issue, at the current time, that NSW and QLD are not contributing anywhere near the amount of AFL quality players coming through than they should I saw a stat today - just 14 players were drafted from NSW in the period 2004-2014, and 7 of them were compulsory GWS zone selections. That is from an area with roughly a third of the country's population. That alone should be ample evidence to suggest the need for a lot better efforts to develop the talent pool in those areas -and the academies can take a leading role.

But if the AFL wants clubs to fund and run them - then they should get incentives to do so. When we get to a point that a Heeney or Mills is rolling off the production line every year, its either time for limits to be placed (As the afl appears to be doing) or for the AFL to take control of the academies, fund and run them, and the players to go into the draft pool. But its a long way off that point as it is.

[Velour&Ruffles]

Hopefully we are now at the end game with any tinkering and we can have certainty going forward.

And bloated Magpie presidents might fly.

[mcs]

I watched Gill on AFL 360 and I was impressed with him actually. he just said that from a big picture strategic point of view he didn't see how concessions could apply to kids who already had an existing pathway via an elite Victorian competition (i.e. the Murray Bushrangers in the TAC Cup) and he said frankly he wondered why it was ever allowed in the first case. It does not affect the Riverina so GWS still have a golden patch, who knows they might start giving a damn about the game in Western Sydney.

I just hope this whole debate can now be put to rest but I suspect you'll hear the squealing any time we recruit anyone good, just waiting for the dirty shin-boners to have a cow when we select Nick Blakey

That is exactly the point we've all been making about the GWS zone stuff down there - where there are already established pathways, it makes no sense for GWS to have concessions. Where their academy is doing the job as it should and developing talent independently itself, in areas without pathways, then it makes every sense to get concessions.

I also agree we will hear squealing every time we pick up anyway good, or indeed GWS does - and the shinboners will cry like a bunch of 4 years olds if Blakey ends up coming through our academy.

[jono2707]

I also agree we will hear squealing every time we pick up anyway good, or indeed GWS does - and the shinboners will cry like a bunch of 4 years olds if Blakey ends up coming through our academy.

As would we if the eligible son of say a Nick Malceski ended up playing for the Suns instead of us...

[mcs]

As would we if the eligible son of say a Nick Malceski ended up playing for the Suns instead of us...

If Malceski is still coaching at the suns t rhat stage and his kid comes through their academy, i would have no problem with it - as malceski would have given the suns just as much service (in a different role) to the suns as he gave to us.

[Mug Punter]

There's still real benefits from this system for us and I think we can now hope that the academy system has some certainty. But I would add that if I was at the Swans I'd be saying to Gill, "we accept the changes and the way the system is now but if you water it down anymore then we'd be expecting the AFL to fund the program in full".

As an example, based on finishing fourth, which is where we have been roughly for a while we could get the current equivalent picks 10, 25, 39 and 56. That's arguably better than what we got the last draft ( 11, 21, 45 and 48) and we had to trade away Tom Mitchell to get to those picks.

Of course there will be a real squeeze should Nick Blakey be as good as many of us predict. Let's say he is rated top 5 and goes at Number 4. In that instance if we finished 4th we'd get picks 4, 39, 56 and 57. The only time we'd go into a points deficit would be if he went at number 1.

There are also the other benefits already mentioned. All kids are in a pretty demanding football programme for four years, any ratbags will be weeded out. It would pretty hard to fool the club that long.

Plus there is the community engagement factor which I also think is massively understated

[Boddo]

The one thing I've picked up this week is how much talent would go through the draft as a next generation academy pick in previous years. Just one example is Jason Johannisen who would have went through the Fremantle academy. There is a lot more. Just as an exercise when watching games pick out players and look at who they could possibly go to via the afl website. It's a massive change. I think Adam Goodes would have been in the Bulldogs academy

[liz]

The one thing I've picked up this week is how much talent would go through the draft as a next generation academy pick in previous years. Just one example is Jason Johannisen who would have went through the Fremantle academy. There is a lot more. Just as an exercise when watching games pick out players and look at who they could possibly go to via the afl website. It's a massive change. I think Adam Goodes would have been in the Bulldogs academy

The AFL has created a bit of a problem for itself in respect of the Next Generation academies with its rationale for taking the Albury and Murray regions away from GWS. Gil's argument was that players in these areas already have access to existing talent pathway development programmes via the TAC Cup. It's hard to see how they can then justify giving the southern clubs priority access to players from a multicultural background who live in non-remote parts of those states, since these players also have access to established talent development pathways.

I am all for attracting those from non-traditional backgrounds to take up the game but I am not sure that an academy system that overlaps, geographically, with existing infrastructure is defendable. I also suspect (though haven't done an exercise to support this assertion) that if you lined up an All-Stars multicultural team against a NSW SOO team from current AFL playing stocks, the multicultural team would win quite comfortably (especially if you exclude NSW players from the regions now taken out of the Giants' academy zone).

[Meg]

Like Boddo above, I suspect NGAs are going to allow non-Northern State clubs to draft highly talented players who didn't need academy assistance to be attracted to play AFL or to develop to a top prospect (because of the areas in which they live and the schools they attend).

As long as NGAs also do bring some kids into AFL whom otherwise might never have played the game, then that is the 'price' the competition has to wear. But clubs will then need to stop complaining about the Swans academy!

[Boddo]

The AFL has created a bit of a problem for itself in respect of the Next Generation academies with its rationale for taking the Albury and Murray regions away from GWS. Gil's argument was that players in these areas already have access to existing talent pathway development programmes via the TAC Cup. It's hard to see how they can then justify giving the southern clubs priority access to players from a multicultural background who live in non-remote parts of those states, since these players also have access to established talent development pathways.

I am all for attracting those from non-traditional backgrounds to take up the game but I am not sure that an academy system that overlaps, geographically, with existing infrastructure is defendable. I also suspect (though haven't done an exercise to support this assertion) that if you lined up an All-Stars multicultural team against a NSW SOO team from current AFL playing stocks, the multicultural team would win quite comfortably (especially if you exclude NSW players from the regions now taken out of the Giants' academy zone).

Best example of this is the highly rated Tarryn Thomas from Tasmania. Aboriginal boy who already has a pathway and is allowed in the norf next gen academy due to his aboriginal heritage. Why is he allowed in the academy when their is a pathway already there and why is he eligible being from a large city and the WA clubs can't allow aboriginal juniors from their large city. Tarryn is expected to go top 10 easy. Google him and you'll see exactly what I'm saying.

[Boddo]

I should have added Tarryn is draftable in Blakeys year next year

[707]

Best example of this is the highly rated Tarryn Thomas from Tasmania. Aboriginal boy who already has a pathway and is allowed in the norf next gen academy due to his aboriginal heritage. Why is he allowed in the academy when their is a pathway already there and why is he eligible being from a large city and the WA clubs can't allow aboriginal juniors from their large city. Tarryn is expected to go top 10 easy. Google him and you'll see exactly what I'm saying.
He's allowed because the VFL clubs whinged long and hard about the northern academies, that's the only reason.

It was a pity that Heeney and Mills came along so early in the academy but what was really bad was the huge advantage GWS got which magnified the perceived advantage to northern clubs.

VFL as always caved in to pressure from the noisy power brokers in Victoria and we now have the situation that a whole lot of kids already with pathways will get funnelled into Vic clubs.

Tarryn Thomas a possible top 20 pick for Norf next year, same year as Nick Blakey will be a top 20? Looks like a free kick for Norf who will have done bugger all to develop either player! Over to you VFL!

[Mug Punter]

He's allowed because the VFL clubs whinged long and hard about the northern academies, that's the only reason.

It was a pity that Heeney and Mills came along so early in the academy but what was really bad was the huge advantage GWS got which magnified the perceived advantage to northern clubs.

VFL as always caved in to pressure from the noisy power brokers in Victoria and we now have the situation that a whole lot of kids already with pathways will get funnelled into Vic clubs.

Tarryn Thomas a possible top 20 pick for Norf next year, same year as Nick Blakey will be a top 20? Looks like a free kick for Norf who will have done bugger all to develop either player! Over to you VFL!

I think that's an overly emotional view tbh.

I think it's fair enough for the kid in question to be allowed to decide, certainly the F/S should not over-ride the academy.

Whilst the academies surely benefit the F/S kids I'd suggest those kids would be draft prospects wherever they grew up due to a combination of parental involvement and genetics. My understanding is that kids need to reside in the academy region for five years to be eligible (it's why Gold Coast couldn't select Mav Weller) and that is fair enough to.

But if you look at the situation where a kid come to Sydney at the beginning of Year 8 then he can have some pretty strong ties and football education in place already that relate to his father's club.

Also in the instances where the father is a coach at the academy club the young lad may prefer to make his own way and not be coached by his father.

Having said all that, I'd be pretty confident Nick Blakey is locked in to select the Swans and no nominate for F/S. He's been in Sydney for over 10 years, has played all his junior footy here, all his schooling and is a Sydney boy through and through.

If he chose Norf I'd be gutted and disappointed but ultimately I'd respect his decision.

[Meg]

We've been discussing the Blakey situation over on the Under 18s thread. Several of us believe that under current rules academy draft rights take priority over F/S. If we are correct , if Swans want to draft Blakey, and Swans match any bid for him on draft night, then Blakey can't opt for North under F/S instead.

However I know the media are continuing to report that Blakey will have a choice.

[Boddo]

707 the VFL clubs were so worried about the big bad northern clubs that they totally misread the situation & now they have given a massive leg to the 2 WA clubs, another example is petresvki-seeton. And they'll be a lot more like him.

- - - Updated - - -

Meg the media in regards to AFL are very Melbourne centric they will push this lie to sell more papers n drive up the hysteria to sell even more newspapers

[TheGong]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the next generation academies. Clubs can only select players from these academies as category B rookies. This means that players need to be overlooked in the national and preseason drafts before they can be selected from the academies.

This is different to the Swans academy selections who can be selected in the national draft.

There is next to no chance of a Petrovski-Seton being drafted as a category B rookie.

[Meg]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the next generation academies. Clubs can only select players from these academies as category B rookies. This means that players need to be overlooked in the national and preseason drafts before they can be selected from the academies.

This is different to the Swans academy selections who can be selected in the national draft.

There is next to no chance of a Petrovski-Seton being drafted as a category B rookie.

No, that's not correct. You are confusing two aspects of the rules re drafting from NGAs.

The original announcement and ongoing intent is that the draft rules will be the same as those of the northern academies, to start from the 2017 draft. Then in July 2016 the AFL announced that clubs could use the category B rookie draft option at the 2016 draft. As the article at the attached link says, that is expected to be a one-off circumstance.

I don't know if any club used that option in the last draft.

"The next generation academies, which were announced earlier this year, have seen every club (outside of the four northern clubs) allocated different regions to develop multicultural and indigenous talent."

"If the talent is deemed good enough to be picked by a club in their respective draft season, they will be up for grabs under the points-based academy and father-son bidding system on draft night."

"Originally the AFL had planned to fully introduce the next generation academy system for next year's draft, with the category B option for this year's prospects considered likely to be a 'one-off' in 2016."


Academy rules tweaked for overlooked talent - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-07-27/academy-rules-tweaked-to-give-overlooked-talent-another-chance)

[Boddo]

Gong it's the 2017 draft that the next gen academies are exactly like the northern academies in regards to drafting, I used SPS as another example of how NGA will change the draft into the future. The overlooking cat B/rookie thing was only for the 2016 draft. I know this because as my son as he gets older will be eligible for Freo's next gen academy so I contacted FFC to confirm most of what I wrote.

[Meg]

This is the original announcement in February 2016 re Next Generation Academies.

"If a club develops a young Australian from an Asian or African background and wants to draft them, then they will receive a discount on a basis similar to the current bidding system. Clubs will be able to apply for draft discounts on other youngsters from non-English speaking backgrounds if they develop the player in a similar manner."

"For indigenous players from under-represented areas such as the Pilbara, incentives will also exist for clubs to develop and nurture talent in those areas."

Victorian clubs handed AFL funding for academies - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-03/victorian-clubs-handed-afl-funding-for-academies)

[S.S. Bleeder]

Best example of this is the highly rated Tarryn Thomas from Tasmania. Aboriginal boy who already has a pathway and is allowed in the norf next gen academy due to his aboriginal heritage. Why is he allowed in the academy when their is a pathway already there and why is he eligible being from a large city and the WA clubs can't allow aboriginal juniors from their large city. Tarryn is expected to go top 10 easy. Google him and you'll see exactly what I'm saying.

Isn't it funny how we are banned from having two first round draft picks from our academy, yet the southern states aren't? Part of the reason the academies were started was to reduce the go-home factor because we were at a significant disadvantage to all the other clubs in AFL states. Now every club has an academy yet the NSW and Qld clubs are the only ones with this restriction. We are now back at the point of being disadvantaged again.

[Boddo]

Isn't it funny how we are banned from having two first round draft picks from our academy, yet the southern states aren't? Part of the reason the academies were started was to reduce the go-home factor because we were at a significant disadvantage to all the other clubs in AFL states. Now every club has an academy yet the NSW and Qld clubs are the only ones with this restriction. We are now back at the point of being disadvantaged again.

The stupid thing about the 2 1st round draft pick thing is that it does not include F/S. So again it punishes GWS & GC even more as its not possible atm for them to have a F/S. So hyperthetically norf could finish 1st next year & take Blakey/Thomas in the first round. But GWS/GC would not be aloud if finishing in the top 4 to match 2 first round academy players. Double standards. I'll also add if Shayden Close was a 1st round pick from our academy next year we would not be allowed to take him & Blakey but the issue that sticks in my mind is that Close is aboriginal so realistically he should be classed as a NGA pick just like Tarryn Thomas from norf.

[Meg]

The stupid thing about the 2 1st round draft pick thing is that it does not include F/S. So again it punishes GWS & GC even more as its not possible atm for them to have a F/S. So hyperthetically norf could finish 1st next year & take Blakey/Thomas in the first round. But GWS/GC would not be aloud if finishing in the top 4 to match 2 first round academy players. Double standards. I'll also add if Shayden Close was a 1st round pick from our academy next year we would not be allowed to take him & Blakey but the issue that sticks in my mind is that Close is aboriginal so realistically he should be classed as a NGA pick just like Tarryn Thomas from norf.

I totally agree about the double standards that will apply if the AFL doesn't enforce the new draft limitations according to ladder position on NGAs and F/S.

Boddo's example of Shayden Close illustrates this perfectly. If Close came through a NGA in (say) Victoria no rule limitation would apply. But as he is coming through the Swans academy, his drafting would be subject to the rule limitation (subject to Swans' final ladder position).

[Boddo]

I totally agree about the double standards that will apply if the AFL doesn't enforce the new draft limitations according to ladder position on NGAs and F/S.

Boddo's example of Shayden Close illustrates this perfectly. If Close came through a NGA in (say) Victoria no rule limitation would apply. But as he is coming through the Swans academy, his drafting would be subject to the rule limitation (subject to Swans' final ladder position).

It looks more and more like we are re-living the past. Just like in the old VFL zoning days it is becoming obvious that the whole situation is being manipulated by some club heavyweights. People complain about the old zoning but if anyone can remember the zones were supposed to be rotated but in the end were not due to some club delegates refusing to play by the rules. Which relegated clubs like South, Melbourne n St Kilda to the cellar for decades.

[Nico]

It looks more and more like we are re-living the past. Just like in the old VFL zoning days it is becoming obvious that the whole situation is being manipulated by some club heavyweights. People complain about the old zoning but if anyone can remember the zones were supposed to be rotated but in the end were not due to some club delegates refusing to play by the rules. Which relegated clubs like South, Melbourne n St Kilda to the cellar for decades.

Yep, Carlton always had the lucrative Bendigo region. Add that to their Form 4 manipulation, paying gun interstate players to stand out their signed on term with another club and a fat Elliot cheque book and they stayed up for years through stealth. I for one hope they stay in cellar for years.

[Boddo]

Yep, Carlton always had the lucrative Bendigo region. Add that to their Form 4 manipulation, paying gun interstate players to stand out their signed on term with another club and a fat Elliot cheque book and they stayed up for years through stealth. I for one hope they stay in cellar for years.

You can add Hawthorn to that. Took over an area that St Kilda had n it turned into a goldmine. No coincidence that st kilda fell down the ladder after the sixties n hawthorn rose up it rapidly.

[Industrial Fan]

Yep, Carlton always had the lucrative Bendigo region. Add that to their Form 4 manipulation, paying gun interstate players to stand out their signed on term with another club and a fat Elliot cheque book and they stayed up for years through stealth. I for one hope they stay in cellar for years.Hey Nico,

Can you educate me on the form 4 manipulation you speak of please?

[Boddo]

Hey Nico,

Can you educate me on the form 4 manipulation you speak of please?

I think Nico is talking about the threat that would be made by various clubs of a player standing out of of footy for a year if they didn't approve of a clearance. As an example Richmond suggested Sam Newman do this so Geelong would agree to clear him to the Tigers. Geelong never flinched n Newman stayed a cat for life. I read somewhere a while back that Carlton encouraged Naley & Motley to wait out Sydney's hold on them after the 80 & 81 draft so that they could then sign both of them which they did. Like I said I read it somewhere n can't remember where so it could be wrong.

[Boddo]

I must add I contacted 2UE in regards to Tarryn Thomas last year and hope they have kept the information so that we atleast have someone in the media to rebuff the BS coming out of Melbourne when next years hysteria in regards to Blakey starts.

[Meg]

Thanks Boddo, I hadn't heard of Tarryn Thomas so followed your suggestion and googled him. He sounds like a VERY good prospect for North.

No Cookies | The Mercury (http://www.themercury.com.au/sport/afl/tarryn-thomas-a-natural-afl-talent-already-being-compared-to-the-games-modern-greats/news-story/50d20133cf3e04d311e9c55db0e072c9)

[Boddo]

Thanks Boddo, I hadn't heard of Tarryn Thomas so followed your suggestion and googled him. He sounds like a VERY good prospect for North.

No Cookies | The Mercury (http://www.themercury.com.au/sport/afl/tarryn-thomas-a-natural-afl-talent-already-being-compared-to-the-games-modern-greats/news-story/50d20133cf3e04d311e9c55db0e072c9)

Meg I only know about him cause I have family there n low n behold every single argument about academies applies to Tarryn. But I bet you won't hear much about him next year it'll be the Blakey show come draft time. Like I said I contacted 2UE last year due to the talk back about AFL they have on Fridays so that we atleast get some type of balanced reporting come draft time next year.

[barracuda]

SWANS ACADEMY Vs NORTHERN TERRITORY

This Saturday in Darwin.

[Boddo]

SWANS ACADEMY Vs NORTHERN TERRITORY

This Saturday in Darwin.

Great work cuda with all the information & updates you have been providing. Do you see any changes to the side this week? Also is their a live stream?

[barracuda]

Great work cuda with all the information & updates you have been providing. Do you see any changes to the side this week? Also is their a live stream?

There are a couple of changes to rest players. Mikey Carroll is being rested as is Adam Kinash. Some of the 19 year olds are being cycled through with Jake Brown and Jarrod Osborne being rested and Jarrod Deep and Harry Carr coming in.

The young swans are being excellently managed pretty much to AFL standard with full use of GPS, recovery and video reviews. It is an amazing experience for the young players to experience a fully professional approach, and they love Jarrod Crouch as a coach.

The coverage by the AFL of the Div 2 competition is nothing short of disgraceful. A couple of articles focusing on the big names, and they don't even update the website for the scores. Forget live streaming. It will be totally different for the Div 1 comp.

[Boddo]

There are a couple of changes to rest players. Mikey Carroll is being rested as is Adam Kinash. Some of the 19 year olds are being cycled through with Jake Brown and Jarrod Osborne being rested and Jarrod Deep and Harry Carr coming in.

The young swans are being excellently managed pretty much to AFL standard with full use of GPS, recovery and video reviews. It is an amazing experience for the young players to experience a fully professional approach, and they love Jarrod Crouch as a coach.

The coverage by the AFL of the Div 2 competition is nothing short of disgraceful. A couple of articles focusing on the big names, and they don't even update the website for the scores. Forget live streaming. It will be totally different for the Div 1 comp.

Your doing an excellent job keeping us up to date. It's laughable in a so called professional competition that we have to rely on good people like yourself to inform us of what's happening. Could you give us any info on Deep & Carr?

[bloodspirit]

Thanks very much, Barracuda, for all the insights you are providing into the Academy and Academy players. Gold.

[barracuda]

Your doing an excellent job keeping us up to date. It's laughable in a so called professional competition that we have to rely on good people like yourself to inform us of what's happening. Could you give us any info on Deep & Carr?

Thanks, I am passionate about promoting the academy and the kids. Deep and Carr are both NEAFL Development Squad and so are 19 year olds that the swans still have academy rights over. This means they did pre-season with the seniors and will play either NEAFL, Under 18 swans or their local prems side during the year. The swans believe they have the potential to be drafted. It is worth remembering that the swans have rights for three years over academy players provided they nominate in their draft year. (Ben Davis failed to nominate hence last year when he was 19 the swans had no academy rights). Accordingly if they think players could develop later they hang on to them. Even after the NDS year they will also hang on to them for a further year by placing them with the Sydney Uni NEAFL side. Pretty awesome I think.

[Boddo]

Thanks, I am passionate about promoting the academy and the kids. Deep and Carr are both NEAFL Development Squad and so are 19 year olds that the swans still have academy rights over. This means they did pre-season with the seniors and will play either NEAFL, Under 18 swans or their local prems side during the year. The swans believe they have the potential to be drafted. It is worth remembering that the swans have rights for three years over academy players provided they nominate in their draft year. (Ben Davis failed to nominate hence last year when he was 19 the swans had no academy rights). Accordingly if they think players could develop later they hang on to them. Even after the NDS year they will also hang on to them for a further year by placing them with the Sydney Uni NEAFL side. Pretty awesome I think.

The Ben Davis non nomination was a surprising one. Was it just an administration oversight or at the time did Sydney think he would never make it to be draftable?

[Mug Punter]

Thanks, I am passionate about promoting the academy and the kids. Deep and Carr are both NEAFL Development Squad and so are 19 year olds that the swans still have academy rights over. This means they did pre-season with the seniors and will play either NEAFL, Under 18 swans or their local prems side during the year. The swans believe they have the potential to be drafted. It is worth remembering that the swans have rights for three years over academy players provided they nominate in their draft year. (Ben Davis failed to nominate hence last year when he was 19 the swans had no academy rights). Accordingly if they think players could develop later they hang on to them. Even after the NDS year they will also hang on to them for a further year by placing them with the Sydney Uni NEAFL side. Pretty awesome I think.

I think the rights to draft beyond the draft year is an incredible advantage. In many ways the draft age is ridiculously young and I am sure many players fall through the net, become disheartened and give up on the sport. And I think our program takes a longer term view - sure some elite players will be drafted but we don't make the draft year the be all and end all. Players know this and they have the security that they can decide to concentrate on the HSC if they want and make the year after where they really concentrate on footy.

I am also really excited about the long term benefits on the local comp. Even allowing for guys that drop out or get drafted I'd say that at least 15 graduates from this squad will find their way into the local system. Initially it will be to Sydney Uni or the NDS but Sydney Uni, as hard as they may try, cannot take everyone and the NDS squads only have a year or two before they "throw the kids back". Within 10 years I can see 100+ academy graduates playing first grade in Sydney football, 100 players schooled in an AFL System for 6-8 years.

In time it has to have a profoundly positive impact on the SFL.

On that note though I do think that the academy system could carve out a two tier comp at the local level if GWS do not step up to the plate. The academy system will see the likes of UNSW, St George, Manly, North Shore and Penno really benefiting in time and Sydney Uni will also benefit as many academy kids will go to the institution, directly or with the lure of scholarships.

The other three SFL clubs will be at a distinct disadvantage if GWS don't also step up and develop locally. And the real western Sydney clubs (Parramatta, Blacktown, Hawkesbury, Camden and what is left of Campbelltown) who are already struggling will find it even harder to compete at the elite level. It's easy to see an East-West divide at the local level.

UTS has no juniors at all which is why I think their long term future is as a Div 2 powerhouse. Wests have poor demographics and this year cannot even field a stand alone U19s. Baulko juniors and parents must be absolutely spewing that their kids feed into the GWS Academy instead of the better funded and more professional Swans outfit.

We live in interesting times.

[Boddo]

Just to add to what I was posting earlier in regards to how the draft will change with the NGA's I have added a link in regards to players from multicultural backgrounds or born overseas

VFL/AFL players with international backgrounds - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VFL/AFL_players_with_international_backgrounds)

[Boddo]

Just to add I've found this in regards to indigenous players listed from last year

AFL Community: Current AFL Players (http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/index.php?id=790)

And this is the recruiting zones for each club

http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/index.php?id=1942

Also remember that the WA clubs are unable to list players of indigenous decent in their metro areas. ATM I'm unsure in regards to SA clubs placing indigenous players in their NGA.

[Meg]

Thanks for an interesting link Boddo. Just to clarify though, only some of those players would have been eligible to come through the NGA pathway. These are the NGA criteria:

"A player has to meet several forms of approval before being ticked off as being eligible to join a club under the next generation academy rules."

"As well as residing in a certain club's region, to be eligible the player must be born or have one parent born in Asia or Africa; be of Indigenous background residing in a remote region; or have both parents born in a non-English speaking country (not Asia or Africa)."

Academy rules tweaked for overlooked talent - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-07-27/academy-rules-tweaked-to-give-overlooked-talent-another-chance)

[Boddo]

Thanks for an interesting link Boddo. Just to clarify though, only some of those players would have been eligible to come through the NGA pathway. These are the NGA criteria:

"A player has to meet several forms of approval before being ticked off as being eligible to join a club under the next generation academy rules."

"As well as residing in a certain club's region, to be eligible the player must be born or have one parent born in Asia or Africa; be of Indigenous background residing in a remote region; or have both parents born in a non-English speaking country (not Asia or Africa)."

Academy rules tweaked for overlooked talent - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-07-27/academy-rules-tweaked-to-give-overlooked-talent-another-chance)

Fully agree that only some would qualify. I've read this article before and have contacted a number of people with not much help. What is non-English speaking? They don't speak it in that country at all? which is highly unlikely. so I ask what about if Nic Nat comes from the half of Fiji that only has English as a 2nd language? And lastly I do not believe the remote area thing one bit as I've pointed out with Thomas from tassie. Tasmania is not a remote area.

[liz]

Thanks for an interesting link Boddo. Just to clarify though, only some of those players would have been eligible to come through the NGA pathway. These are the NGA criteria:

"A player has to meet several forms of approval before being ticked off as being eligible to join a club under the next generation academy rules."

"As well as residing in a certain club's region, to be eligible the player must be born or have one parent born in Asia or Africa; be of Indigenous background residing in a remote region; or have both parents born in a non-English speaking country (not Asia or Africa)."

Academy rules tweaked for overlooked talent - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-07-27/academy-rules-tweaked-to-give-overlooked-talent-another-chance)

Some of those rules are arbitrary at best, especially the non-English speaking criterion. Asia and Africa are already carved out as areas where immigrants don't have a long tradition of participating in AFL. But there is a rich history of migration from parts of southern Europe to Australia, and especially to Melbourne. So if a kid has two parents who've come over from Greece or Italy, they qualify but not if the parents have come from the UK.

[Mug Punter]

I know we all love an anti-AFL rant but I do think we are a bit OTT re the NGA pathways.

The main thing to remember is that there is no priority for NGA players who get selected at the National Draft, it just allows priority onto the rookie list, so the example of the indigenous kid in Tasmania is not relevant in the slightest if he goes top 10, Norf will have no priority access to him at all.

The benefits of the Academies as opposed to the NGA are like chalk and cheese and so they should be given our investment. I think the limited benefits will also mean that there will limited meaningful investment into the NGAs. But surely their intention is good in trying to diversify the AFL.

We've got enough to worry about with the VFL without getting our knickers in a know over things that aren't really an issue

- - - Updated - - -


The Ben Davis non nomination was a surprising one. Was it just an administration oversight or at the time did Sydney think he would never make it to be draftable?

I've read/heard the Swans didn't really rate him, think it may have even been Barracuda if this parish that described him as a bully and cheapshot merchant in the Academy environment, not a good look...

He'll need a better work ethic than his big brother that's for sure

[Boddo]

I know we all love an anti-AFL rant but I do think we are a bit OTT re the NGA pathways.

The main thing to remember is that there is no priority for NGA players who get selected at the National Draft, it just allows priority onto the rookie list, so the example of the indigenous kid in Tasmania is not relevant in the slightest if he goes top 10, Norf will have no priority access to him at all.

The benefits of the Academies as opposed to the NGA are like chalk and cheese and so they should be given our investment. I think the limited benefits will also mean that there will limited meaningful investment into the NGAs. But surely their intention is good in trying to diversify the AFL.

We've got enough to worry about with the VFL without getting our knickers in a know over things that aren't really an issue

- - - Updated - - -



I've read/heard the Swans didn't really rate him, think it may have even been Barracuda if this parish that described him as a bully and cheapshot merchant in the Academy environment, not a good look...

He'll need a better work ethic than his big brother that's for sure

Hi MP I probably have come across like I'm anti NGA but I'm honestly not. I just find it very frustrating that it's not consistent e.g. Indigenous players can be part of the Tasmanian/norf academy & the Perth teams can't have indigenous players from Perth in their academy. And that we keep hearing the screams of unfairness from certain club administrators but it's perfectly OK for a player with a pathway from a traditional footy city to be in academy or the talk that the Riverina shouldn't be part of an academy but it's ok to have the Tiwi islands in an academy - an area that has produced 3 Norm Smith medalists. I'd just love to see some consistency from the AFL but I'm not holding my breath. One thing that I love about academies & a few older posters might notice is that how enjoyable it is to track the development of a young player that will probably end at your club e.g. Blakey, Close, Heeney, Mills etc it feels like the old U19 days of keeping an eye on your younger players coming up through the ranks.

[Pmcc2911]

There are a couple of changes to rest players. Mikey Carroll is being rested as is Adam Kinash. Some of the 19 year olds are being cycled through with Jake Brown and Jarrod Osborne being rested and Jarrod Deep and Harry Carr coming in.

The young swans are being excellently managed pretty much to AFL standard with full use of GPS, recovery and video reviews. It is an amazing experience for the young players to experience a fully professional approach, and they love Jarrod Crouch as a coach.

The coverage by the AFL of the Div 2 competition is nothing short of disgraceful. A couple of articles focusing on the big names, and they don't even update the website for the scores. Forget live streaming. It will be totally different for the Div 1 comp.

You cant even find a team list on line.

[Boddo]

I know we all love an anti-AFL rant but I do think we are a bit OTT re the NGA pathways.

The main thing to remember is that there is no priority for NGA players who get selected at the National Draft, it just allows priority onto the rookie list, so the example of the indigenous kid in Tasmania is not relevant in the slightest if he goes top 10, Norf will have no priority access to him at all.

The benefits of the Academies as opposed to the NGA are like chalk and cheese and so they should be given our investment. I think the limited benefits will also mean that there will limited meaningful investment into the NGAs. But surely their intention is good in trying to diversify the AFL.

We've got enough to worry about with the VFL without getting our knickers in a know over things that aren't really an issue

- - - Updated - - -



I've read/heard the Swans didn't really rate him, think it may have even been Barracuda if this parish that described him as a bully and cheapshot merchant in the Academy environment, not a good look...

He'll need a better work ethic than his big brother that's for sure

In regards to the NGA rookie selection you are talking about as stated previously this all changes this year. Last year if not selected in the ND they could be put on your rookie list but from this year the bidding is exactly like the northern academies. SO yes Norf can match any bid on him next year.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-07-27/academy-rules-tweaked-to-give-overlooked-talent-another-chance

[Meg]

I know we all love an anti-AFL rant but I do think we are a bit OTT re the NGA pathways.

The main thing to remember is that there is no priority for NGA players who get selected at the National Draft, it just allows priority onto the rookie list, so the example of the indigenous kid in Tasmania is not relevant in the slightest if he goes top 10, Norf will have no priority access to him at all.

The benefits of the Academies as opposed to the NGA are like chalk and cheese and so they should be given our investment. I think the limited benefits will also mean that there will limited meaningful investment into the NGAs. But surely their intention is good in trying to diversify the AFL.

MP, that's not correct. Have a read of the links I posted at comments 32 and 34 of this thread. Clubs WILL have priority bidding rights over players who come through their NGAs.

In fact it seems that the NGA draft rules will be MORE advantageous than those of the northern academies as there has been no announcement that the new 'final ladder position' limitation will apply to them.

[Meg]

Here's another article (from 12 months ago) which throws more light on the NGAs and the associated draft rules. (The article is specifically about the allocation of the zones in WA and SA but the principles apply across all NGAs.)

Note that for priority draft access a player must have participated in an NGA program for 3 years. So I'm not sure that any would be eligible until the 2018 draft at the earliest (?).

"Under the rules, for a club to be eligible to access a prospect at draft age, the player must have fully participated in the club's academy program for a minimum of three years before being drafted."

"Players of Asian or African heritage (who were born in an Asian or African country or have at least one parent born in an Asian or African country) will be automatically able to join a club under bidding rules."

Note also that clubs can/are encouraged to include kids (including girls) from all backgrounds in their NGAs - but only the designated target groups will be eligible for priority drafting under the bidding rules.

West Coast are already lobbying for this aspect to be changed as they have priority draft access to indigenous NGA players only from the Pilbara area, but claim they should have access to any indigenous player from their broader zoned area who comes through their NGA.

""While boys and girls from all backgrounds will participate in the academies, clubs will only receive draft concessions for players who are under-represented in the AFL."

"The WA clubs will divide the WAFL club regions and also have a slice of remote areas of the state, while the South Australian clubs will split the SANFL club areas as well as regional indigenous zones."

SA, WA clubs get indigenous, multicultural zones - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-12/sa-and-wa-clubs-get-their-indigenous-and-multicultural-zones)

Note to mods: I suggest the topic of Next Generation Academies will become increasingly important. Perhaps a designated thread would be worthwhile and the various contributions relating to NGAs in this thread (and the Under 18s thread) could be moved?

[Boddo]

It should also be pointed out that Port Adelaide has had an indigenous academy for a number of years now so will be well prepared in running an academy unlike a lot of other clubs that will go through some teething problems I'd imagine. The 2 WA sides will borrow a lot off the indigenous academy run by Gerard Neesham I'd imagine. Your suggestion of a NGA thread is a great idea.

[Meg]

Note to mods: I suggest the topic of Next Generation Academies will become increasingly important. Perhaps a designated thread would be worthwhile and the various contributions relating to NGAs in this thread (and the Under 18s thread) could be moved?

Mods, if you do set up a new NGA thread please put it in the 'RWO Swans Chat' forum as the topic has many comparisons with the Swans Academy.

[Mug Punter]

MP, that's not correct. Have a read of the links I posted at comments 32 and 34 of this thread. Clubs WILL have priority bidding rights over players who come through their NGAs.

In fact it seems that the NGA draft rules will be MORE advantageous than those of the northern academies as there has been no announcement that the new 'final ladder position' limitation will apply to them.

I stand corrected! The article I read was clearly outdated.

So, am I right in saying that NGA players will be subject to the same points system but that they don't have the limit on first rounders that the academies have if there is a top 4 finish?

Any NGA kids from our academy should be subject to exactly the same regime as for other clubs.

I agree with the NGA in principle though. AFL has like one Asian player and really is not representative of the wider community, I'd support anything that gets kids from no traditional backgrounds playing the game,

[Meg]

I stand corrected! The article I read was clearly outdated.

So, am I right in saying that NGA players will be subject to the same points system but that they don't have the limit on first rounders that the academies have if there is a top 4 finish?

Any NGA kids from our academy should be subject to exactly the same regime as for other clubs.

I agree with the NGA in principle though. AFL has like one Asian player and really is not representative of the wider community, I'd support anything that gets kids from no traditional backgrounds playing the game,

Q.1 yes Q.2 it appears so as the announcement re limits on first rounders etc. only referred to the northern academies with no mention of the NGAs or F/S drafting. I said earlier that this implies the same player (eg Blakey) could be drafted under different rules according to the club that drafted him (Swans as an academy pick, North or Lions as a F/S).

I don't object to the NGAs in principle but they should have exactly the same drafting rules as the northern academies and the AFL should resist clubs lobbying to turn them into quasi zones.

[Boddo]

I stand corrected! The article I read was clearly outdated.

So, am I right in saying that NGA players will be subject to the same points system but that they don't have the limit on first rounders that the academies have if there is a top 4 finish?

Any NGA kids from our academy should be subject to exactly the same regime as for other clubs.

I agree with the NGA in principle though. AFL has like one Asian player and really is not representative of the wider community, I'd support anything that gets kids from no traditional backgrounds playing the game,

While I fully agree in regards to your Asian comment I disagree with the way their rules have been setup. If the aim is to get Asian families involved it's a great idea but not the only one parent thing. My son is eligible when old enough to become a member of the freo academy. My wife is from Asia & moved here when she was 16, i was born n breed in Australia, i played footy, I have an uncle that played state footy, he has a brother from a previous marriage that has no different upbringing when it comes to Aussie rules but is ineligible for a NGA due to his mother being born here. Atleast they should tell it like it is. Setup to appease the Victorian administrators in regards to the northern academies.

[Boddo]

In regards to the Kimberly.

https://thewest.com.au/news/australia/kimberley-talent-spills-over-ng-ya-130384


It's Freo's NGA zone area

[Boddo]

Ethan Penrith is part of Carlton's NGA

Knightmare's AFL draft wrap Ethan Penrith making strides (http://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/19072469/knightmare-afl-draft-wrap-ethan-penrith-making-strides)

Some say possible 1st or 2nd round pick.