If this system stays, the academy benefit to the Swans has definitely been diminished. As a result we would have to dramatically reduce our financial investment in the academy or drop it all together. I would imagine that QBE would be like minded. Also, if the benefit has been reduced, the Swans and QBE should be entitled to financial compensation from the AFL. This depend of course on the wording of the initial agreement.
I think the Swans should throw everything at getting Mills and Dunkley. Even if it means no other selections below 100 for the next two years. I would prefer to have two players that will be certainly guns rather than 8 potentially good players. There are no potentail guns coing through the academy at the moment so we need to make the most of it.
Overall the system isn't a bad idea (in theory). The issue I have with it is;
1) That the points allocated to the top few selections in the draft is too high. The top of the J curve needs to be flattened out a little.
2) The timing of it is clear aimed at the Swans. It wasn't an issue when Geelong were recruiting Ablett, etc, Of course in the past few decades Collingwood has benefitted most from the F/S system;
Collingwood 12, Geelong 11, Carlton 8 and Western Bulldogs 7 and nothing was done to them.
It's also occurred to me that having the F/S selections included in the draft should remove the likelihood of opposition clubs making false bids. If another gun player is available will they take the chance to miss out on them by bidding for a F/S selection? I just hope we get additional time to consider our options in this situation.
Ps. MAKE SURE YOU ALL VOTE ON OUR RIGHTS ON THE ACADEMY PLAYERS VIA THE AFL WEBSITE. Will the AFL's new bidding system be fairer? - AFL.com.au
Bookmarks