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

[Mug Punter]

If the system is changed as mooted then the Swans should not have to spend a cent on them and their AFL funding should be increased.

After all, it's not likely that we weren't successful before.

I am more than happy for Academy picks requiring a first and second round draft pick if Father-Son is also changed. Fat chance of the happening though when the Pies look at getting Darcy Moore.

Also the top 5 rating is so completely a matter of opinion anyway....

End of the day we'll still get Heeney and Mills

[Mel_C]

Matt the problem I have with your suggestion is what if a club that has an early pick bids for the academy player just so that we have to use more than one pick?

[wolftone57]

What has been QBEs contribution to the Academy over 5 years since its inception?

What has been QBEs contribution to the Academy over 5 years since its inception?

I don?t think QBEs contribution to the Academy would have warranted an expensive Court case if the rules were changed. If they put in $2.5 mill over 5 years then why would you spend over 1 million dollars on a Court Case when there are slight modifications to the drafting rules? We are not talking about a Telstra / NBN battle worth over $200 million in payments

My Son does a sports program called ?Jungle Sports? where QBE have their name on the uniforms and signs. This is a grass roots branding initiative for QBE just like the Swans Academy.

The AFL will argue that QBE have achieved their brand recognition objectives in the Swans Academy regardless of modifications to the drafting rules.

I think you miss the point the AFL would lose as they guaranteed they academy system the way it is and to change it without notice would be a breach of contract. QBE could argue that it does now damage it's brand as a major sponsor of the Sydney Swans as the players from the Academy will no longer get to play for the Swans or nobody can guarantee any player will ever get to the Swans. So the AFL will have to step very carefully before changing the rules as they guaranteed the rules before the academies were set up so the clubs would finance them. Why would we be bothered to finance the academies if we got no benefit from them? Wghy would QBE bother either as they are the Swans major sponsor not Collingwood, Essendon. Carlton or the VFL (It is not the AFL it is the VFL as all the Victorian sides get priority). Every time the VFL sides say jump the so called AFL jumps. I hope both Swannies & QBE sue the backsides off them. If these rules go through the Northern clubs should close the academies down and tell the AFL to get @@@@@@!

[wolftone57]

Yeah that's the bit I think needs to be sorted out. It does have a sense of being changed halfway through the game.

But 2015 seems at least sufficiently prospective and not retrospective.

Anyway what do I know.

I think you are forgetting something. The AFL & therefore the other clubs are not paying for the academies, we & QBE are. If they all were to put their money where their mouths are then they could get level picks but until then the rules should stay the same. It is about development and who develops. In Victoria the schools system, paid for by the AFL, not the clubs, develops most young footballers. In NSW & Qld the schools system is NRL or Rugby Union so we need a different system.

Let me be very clear THE AFL PAYS FOR THE VICTORIAN SCHOOLS SYSTEM IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE VICTORIAN EDUCATION DEPT! NO CLUB PAYS ANYTHING AND THE MONEY COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE DEVELOPMENT FUND. They don't bother mentioning that do they!!!!@

[joemoore12]

Well said, Wolftone. Amazing how such important factual information is being conveniently left out of the debate....

[Xie Shan]

The issue, Melbournehammer, is that the clubs all agreed to set up the academies under one set of rules, and now that there is a chance the Swans might get a bit of luck, they want to change those rules. Worse still, we are being accused of cheating, and by Eddie McGuire of all people.

You can argue the rights and wrongs of the academy rules, but you don't change them just because a top side has a year or two where it gains an advantage from them. If, say, Hawthorn or (dare I say it) Collingwood had a year or two in which they got a couple of potential top-10 father-son picks, would that be reason enough to change those rules? Of course not.

The academies exist to increase the AFL talent pool. The clubs decided in their wisdom to tie them to the 4 northern clubs, to ask those clubs to contribute to their financing, and in return to offer them first dibs on one player a year. That was the deal. You don't change it as soon as it yields a result.

That is exactly right, perfectly put.

[Mug Punter]

The following is the proposed Matt80 solution to the academy drafting rules.

For argument sake assume the Swans have pick 18.

If an Academy or F/S player is bid for by an opposition club, the following conditions apply:

- If there is a draft position differential of under 8 picks then the host club only gives up the next available round pick. For example Heeney is bid for at pick 11 and the Swans use pick 18 to secure him.

-If there is a draft position differential of between 8 and 16 picks then the host club will give up their next available round pick and their next available pick two rounds later. For example Heeney is bid for at pick 6. There is a differential of 12 places, meaning that the Swans will need to give up their first round and their 3rd round to secure him.

- If there is a draft differential of plus 16 then the host club will give up their next available draft pick and the next draft pick in the following round. For example Heeney is bid for at pick 1. There is a differential of 17 places, meaning that the Swans will need to give up their 1st and 2nd round picks to secure him.

- If a club bids in the first round for an oppositions Academy player and secures him, then that club will pay $250,000 to the Academy of the players origin. The $250,000 will be funded as an independent payment out of that clubs salary cap for the following season. The payment is contingent on the host club not cutting any of their own investment in the Academy as a result of the payment for the first round player.

- If a club bids in the 2nd round for an oppositions Academy player and secures him, then the club will pay $100,000 to the Academy of the players origin. The $100,000 will be funded as an independent payment out of that clubs salary cap for the following season.

Picks in the 3rd or latter rounds don't incur compensation.

I think this system is fair to both parties. If a club is getting a draft steal of more than 7 places then they have to give up more than the next pick.

If an opposition club wants and bids for an Academy player then there is some form of monetary compensation to the host academy.

What do you think?

I think your idea is monumentally stupid.

Impossible to decipher and even harder to implement. Relies on subjective judgements on player values that are impossible to implement without it being abused.

The solution is simple. If the AFL want the Academy system to thrive then the clubs need to be able to derive some benefit from it from time to time in return for the massive amounts they contribute, money that (as pointed out by many posters) Melbourne clubs do not pay.

It's easy

(1) Decide how many picks each club is eligible under the Academy System - I'd even cop the Swans getting one and other clubs getting more if their end of season placings is used as the guide.
(2) At the start of each round the Northern Clubs are able to nominate a player still available as their Academy pick, that player is not available for other clubs provided the player agrees to go to the Swans
(3) If the club elects a F/S for that round then they lose the Academy choice

So, if we have Heeney as our first rounder and Abe is taken at 18 then we lose him. If he is available after Round 1 then if we have two picks under the Academy System then we can also draft him.

As already stated, we have yet to have a player drafted out of our academies yet you want the most convoluted system know to man to fix it.

[liz]

I love how Newbold observed how the AFL is contributing something financially towards the academies and used this as justification as to why there should be no priority access. How much will the AFL (directly and indirectly) and numerous other organisations contribute towards the development of Darcy Moore? And how much money (or even time and effort) will Collingwood contribute?

The strongest argument against the academies is that the option to have one is only open to a handful of clubs. So rather than knock something down that shows very early signs of being a positive thing, why not come up with a parallel scheme whereby other clubs, if they wish, can adopt other parts of the country where the junior development needs a boost.

Or if clubs really object to the whole idea, why not voice that when the scheme is first set up, rather than four years down the track. It's this last point that I find the most intensely irritating.

[Mug Punter]

I love how Newbold observed how the AFL is contributing something financially towards the academies and used this as justification as to why there should be no priority access. How much will the AFL (directly and indirectly) and numerous other organisations contribute towards the development of Darcy Moore? And how much money (or even time and effort) will Collingwood contribute?

The strongest argument against the academies is that the option to have one is only open to a handful of clubs. So rather than knock something down that shows very early signs of being a positive thing, why not come up with a parallel scheme whereby other clubs, if they wish, can adopt other parts of the country where the junior development needs a boost.

Or if clubs really object to the whole idea, why not voice that when the scheme is first set up, rather than four years down the track. It's this last point that I find the most intensely irritating.

The argument against this is that Victoria, SA and WA do not need these incentives.

We're making this about the Swans but it's not really, it's about the development of the game. And I do believe that there needs to be a career path to the local clubs to sell the idea to talented young players.

If we cannot get any benefit out of it then don't make us wear the cost of running it and we'll just go back to the old days when we've had to recruit from interstate.

The complete irony of all of this is that the fundamental reason why we are so strong at the moment (List management, Rookie development etc) will be completely unaffected by any changes. But it WILL hurt the Lions, GWS and Suns - by playing the man Eddie is hurting the game and it's why he is such a turd...

[ernie koala]

Another pathetic set up on his show tonight...(I hang my head in shame and have told myself ...don't watch it, lifes too short.)

Poor excuse for a human...Derm...Reading from a script I presume, says " Gee Sydney just have every good player, it's frightening" ...

To which Eddie quickly chimes in,"not yet they don't, still got the kids to come, seriously", he says shaking his head.

He reminds me of that obnoxious singing bass my young daughter had on her bedroom wall years ago....It just never shut up. Looked a bit like him too.

Ironically it sung the song..'Don't worry, be happy', every time you entered the room. It would make an excellent gift for Eddie.

[barry]

The following is my solution to the drafting rules:

No change.

Good call. The academy hasnt unfairly assisted anyone yet.

[Matt80]

Matt the problem I have with your suggestion is what if a club that has an early pick bids for the academy player just so that we have to use more than one pick?

You need to have the bid mechanism so you can assess a players real value. An independent panel won't do that. Reggi has expertly made this point.

An opposition club with an early pick may well bid for a player to force the Swans to pay. That club has to ready for the Swans to say okay you can take that player. What happens if Heeney was not the player they really wanted with the early pick and they were not prepared for the Swans to let him pass through. It would be a disaster for a club to not get the early pick they really wanted in trying to screw with the Swans.

I think a media conference from the Swans before the bidding process stating that they are prepared to let Heeney go if he is too expensive will have opposition clubs thinking twice about applying a Swans screwing strategy.

Interviews with Heeney by opposition clubs will also demonstrate that Heeney is Red and White through and through with a preference for Sydney as a lifestyle destination.