Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 226

Thread: 'Sweeping changes' to Academy and Father/Son bidding system

  1. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold is another one leading the move along with Eddie. Here's an article from last year about what Kevin Sheedy thinks of him:

    2013-02-26/sheedy-blasts-newbloke

    The presidents of the 2 richest clubs who have overall the most advantages in the AFL are taking aim at clubs trying to attain a broader level of equalisation. The Swans, like Brisbane a decade ago, have reached a high level of on field success that these blokes want to put an end to. Eddie has already succeeded in destroying Brisbane and now these 2 are working on the Swans.

    In a radio interview (Listen Here) Newbold talks about how the Western Bulldogs will be disadvantaged by the Swans academy access to players like Heeney. This is completely disingenuous since the Bulldogs will be in line for something around a pick six, so will get someone the equal of a Heeney in any case. Last year the Bulldogs got Bontempelli with pick 4 and Stringer with pick 5 and McCrae with pick 6 the previous year.

    So what are we talking about here. It is Hawthorn and Sydney that will be getting draft picks in the 15 to 18 range this year. Perhaps with Heeney will will get a top 10 pick, like a Bontempelli or a Jimmy Toumpas (hopefully not), while the Hawks will 'only' get someone like a Zak Jones or a Luke Dunstan. Is that what all this fuss is about? The Swans and their sponsors are putting in $750k a year so we can get access to a Jimmy Toumpas instead of a Zak Jones?

    But the richest Melbourne clubs have this obsession with the Swans success. Eddie was hurt because Brisbane knocked off Collingwood in the GF and the Goodes incident exposed him as a thoughtless racist. Newbold simply has no idea and just follows Eddie's lead.

    Paul Roos commented yesterday that these clubs with academies were just following the rules. Every club get to vote in the rules, so why are a few going off their heads when someone is just following the rules? If the rules let you get a steal in a Travis Cloke or a Darcy Moore, then the rules are fine, but once the Swans are in line to get a 'Jimmy Toumpas' they go stark raving mad crying 'Foul'.

    I see this as a matter of principle that has to fought to the bitter end by the Swans and the other clubs disadvantaged by the rich Melbourne clubs. It's whether Eddie is going to dictate the AFL agenda or are we going to get some equity in the league where clubs other than Collingwood can get a good run without being shot down with some targeted rule change to bring them back in line. This a typical racist attitude particularly prevalent in the U.S. when racists want to put 'Uppity Negroes' back in their place. To Eddie, we are the being too uppity for his liking and have to be brought back to our rightful place in AFL society.
    Yes!!!!

    Eddie is a bully and Melbourne clubs have allowed him to get away with it. When that happens, a bully turns into a tyrant.

    It is time to make a stand.

    We have power in this fight. The AFL wants the big bucks that a national TV competition can deliver.

    Bring it on !!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt80 View Post
    I have no insider knowledge, I?m just a pundit.

    Having seen QBE sponsoring ?Jungle Sports? which my son is involved in, you can assume that the QBE marketing department has a ?grassroots sports marketing strategy?.

    QBE are sponsoring the Swans Academy because it fits nicely with their ?grassroots sports marketing strategy? and they can see a return on investment from this exposure. If the Swans opt out and the AFL steps in to run the academy, why would QBE automatically opt out? They would assess the AFLs proposal and see whether the return on Investment will be there when the AFL steps in. The AFL would also make QBE a great offer to continue their support.

    I don?t believe QBE are in lock step with Andrew Pildrim. They will assess each opportunity as appropriate as all good businesses do.

    If the AFL waters down the Academy?s recruitment advantages, then the Swans will lose their incentive to focus and invest in the academy.
    If the Swans face losing their recruitment advantages, I?m sure Pildrim will be down at AFL house, flaunting the option of the Swans pulling the plug and explaining how that action will detriment the AFL game in NSW. He will explain that the Swans have no choice and that the AFL will need to provide an extra X amount of investment if the AFL still wants the academy?s to run.

    Meg, if the AFL takes away the recruitment advantages of the Academy then the Swans ?political objectives? will be to fight Eddie, Newbold and the AFL using the grass roots welfare of the game in NSW as the battleground.
    The Swans are a very good brand and their star is on the rise.

    The AFL has a very poor brand image and Eddie is determined to drag it lower. I am pretty sure QBE knows the difference.

  2. #26
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    3,268
    The issue here for the AFL is, how to limit Sydney's advantage in drafting without killing the goose that is starting to lay golden eggs. The big picture for them is still to grow grassroots participation and more NSW/Qld draftees.

    If we've run the academy for 5 years at our and the sponsors expense expecting to get a return, then the AFL change the rules then we and our sponsors should be entitled to a full return of monies expended plus interest because we will have spent that money in good faith.

    That is common business law. So the AFL would need to be taking over the costs and running of all four academies plus hand over all that compensation money to the four northern clubs as well.

    I don't think it will be a killer blow otherwise the AFL faces the above scenario.

  3. #27
    Opti-pessi-misti
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Way down south
    Posts
    870
    The only thing 707, is that the Swans can still have first pick from its Academy players, the proposed changes 'just' mean that they will have to pay dearly in draft picks for them eg picks one and two for Isaac Heeney. The return is still there.

  4. #28
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,994
    What if!

    The AFL change the rules so the Swans think they are giving up too much to draft Heeney. Heeney says I am not going to the club he gets drafted by (lets say Collingwood), stating a restraint of trade in that the Swans developed and nurtured him for a number of years, and he was always under the belief he would be drafted by them (apprenticeship). He also states that if the Academy didn't exist he would have played rugby league. He now considers his position and opts to go to the NRL.

    - - - Updated - - -

    No one mentions that the other clubs have a shot at the next best out of the Academy.

  5. #29
    Suspended by the MRP
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,802
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    The issue here for the AFL is, how to limit Sydney's advantage in drafting without killing the goose that is starting to lay golden eggs. The big picture for them is still to grow grassroots participation and more NSW/Qld draftees.

    If we've run the academy for 5 years at our and the sponsors expense expecting to get a return, then the AFL change the rules then we and our sponsors should be entitled to a full return of monies expended plus interest because we will have spent that money in good faith.

    That is common business law. So the AFL would need to be taking over the costs and running of all four academies plus hand over all that compensation money to the four northern clubs as well.

    I don't think it will be a killer blow otherwise the AFL faces the above scenario.
    Your above analysis is sound, but there is no way that the AFL will refund the Swans and QBE five years of sponsorship and the Swans five years of investment in the event the academy drafting rules are changed.

    The Swans and QBE might ask, but the AFL will say no. The AFL would have had a clause in the original academy inception contract that states that the academy drafting rules can be changed at the AFLs discretion. The AFLs legal people are good operators.

    QBE are a sponsor and have received the grass roots brand recognition that their sponsorship deal gave to them. It could be argued that QBE have received increased exposure from the wider AFL Community as a result of the Academy demate.

  6. #30
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,994
    The Roos kid. If IIRC he was a product of the academy. So why did we bother to carry him when we did not have a chance to recruit him under the father/son rule. Why didn't we just say to Roosy; "mate thanks for the cup in 2012, but shouldn't your son be in the Lions Academy so he can be developed in their mould."

    Why didn't we as club take the selfish road, you know, the same road Eddie takes.

  7. #31
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt80 View Post
    It could be argued that QBE have received increased exposure from the wider AFL Community as a result of the Academy demate.
    No it couldn't. I haven't read a single article that has referred to the Academy by its correct name, that is the 'QBE Sydney Swans Academy', nor any reference to QBE as the major sponsor of the Academy. And there is ignorance of QBE's role in every online discussion of the Academy that I have read. Indeed many people seem to think the AFL funds the academies.

    So zilch return from this kerfuffle for QBE. If I were their Sponsorship/Marketing manager I would be extremely annoyed about the way this issue is being handled, which is quite disrespectful of their significant contribution to date.

  8. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Dillon View Post
    Damian Barrett on the Footy Show reporting changes that are almost certain with regards to the Academy and Father/Son bidding systems.

    In brief, he is saying an independent panel will judge the worth of a potential academy or f/s player. If they deem this player is a top 5 talent and for example Sydney have pick 18, then we would have to give up our first AND second round pick for this player.

    These changes are said to be happening this year. Personally I think this is a complete disgrace. Completely sick of Eddie getting his way. They didn't mention how it would work with Sydney having two fall into this category in next years draft. I guess we'd have to give up our first 4 picks?
    This would be an effective dismantling of the Academy System before it has even started to bear fruit.

    IF it happens then expect all out war between the Northern States and the AFL. I would not even rule out a legal challenge to the entire draft system should this occur...

  9. #33
    On the Rookie List tasmania60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    i a house
    Posts
    276
    Agree about sponsors another premiership brands looking better and better !

  10. #34
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    3,268
    So if we let Heeney go to the draft, where would he get picked up? I bet not top 5. Would any club use their top pick on a kid that is clearly red and white through and through and a homesickness candidate after two years?

    So who do you reckon would be the first to draft him?

    Still reckon the AFL won't want to risk losing the academies, will set them back a generation in NSW & Qld, NRL will play it for all it's worth, maybe never to actually get AFL traction again north of the Murray.

  11. #35
    There is nothing independent about the AFL so who they put on an independent panel will be very interesting - maybe the same people that saw Jack Watts as a No 1 pick

  12. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    So if we let Heeney go to the draft, where would he get picked up? I bet not top 5. Would any club use their top pick on a kid that is clearly red and white through and through and a homesickness candidate after two years?

    So who do you reckon would be the first to draft him?

    Still reckon the AFL won't want to risk losing the academies, will set them back a generation in NSW & Qld, NRL will play it for all it's worth, maybe never to actually get AFL traction again north of the Murray.
    I think that the Northern Alliance would do whatever it takes if such a scandalous proposal was adopted (fwiw I can't see the AFL being so stupid, probably just poor journalism). I think they would go the restraint of trade route and that would open a can of worms the AFL has avoided for years with its cozy little Melbourne cartel running the game.

    It's just too insane to counter. We'll be lucky if we produce an Isaac Heeny once every 5 years, even if we get Mills next year it is clearly an aberration historically. Let's say we get a player at 18 instead of 5, it will even out at about a 1-2 draft placing concession over 5 years in return for $3-4M. Hardly a bargain for us.

    IF this happens I expect the fallout to be absolutely immense.....

Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO