Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 67

Thread: Father/Son Vs Academy Choices

  1. #1

    Father/Son Vs Academy Choices

    On 'On the Couch' last night David King says he thinks the F/S should have preference over the Academy.
    I am not surprised at this as he is referring to Nick Blakey (and someone else who is in the Lions Academy I think) who are eligible for F/S for the Kangaroos but also as Academy picks.

    Gerard says he thinks that the boys should be able to nominate whichever they would prefer, as is the case where a boy is eligible for 2 clubs under F/S.

    A typical Vic centric view from David as he refers to the 'romance' of F/S.

  2. #2
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    melbourne
    Posts
    447
    King like Edie does not think that Victorian clubs have academies. They do its called the TAC Cup competition. Sure the players are not tied to clubs but they do get specialized training and exposure to the right way to go about being an AFL footballer and the Vic clubs don't have to pay anything for this not like the Northern clubs who foot most of their academy bills.
    And I am a Victorian

  3. #3
    My understanding is that clubs have rights over players that graduate from their academies (provided they meet the relevant qualification criteria). If that's right, then I think it should apply exactly the same to father-son picks. Otherwise why give them a place in the academy? To have the rule as David King might like it could possibly deprive those kids the options of going through academies. Most kids that the academies invest in never make it. When they do, the club has the right to the return on their investment.

  4. #4
    Sounds like we will have to suffer another year of bleating from south of the border as we did with Isaac and Callum. Nick will have to endure being the 'face of the academy' story this year. Is he even eligible for the draft this year?

  5. #5
    Travelling Swannie!! mcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,990
    Quote Originally Posted by YvonneH View Post
    Sounds like we will have to suffer another year of bleating from south of the border as we did with Isaac and Callum. Nick will have to endure being the 'face of the academy' story this year. Is he even eligible for the draft this year?
    Next year Yvonne.

    I think players should, within reason, be able to choose which route they want to take - although clearly a strong argument can be made that if they are in an academy towards the end (in particular their draft year), where the club in question is paying a lot of money for their development, then the academy club in question should get first dibs.

    It is an absolute nonsense however what King is suggesting - why should who you are born to (the bollocks 'romance' factor) rule over where/who has paid for your development. But his hidden agenda here is not very hidden at all.....
    "You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."

  6. #6
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,492
    It's impossible, under the current rules, to given priority to the FS access because it's entirely optional for players. If there is a rule (as we have speculated) that academy players don't have the option of declining to be nominated by their host club, the best that King can argue for is that a player in Blakey's position is given the option of opting out of academy nomination if he is also eligible for father son selection. But that can't mean he has to accept FS nomination, given it's optional.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by mcs View Post
    Next year Yvonne.

    I think players should, within reason, be able to choose which route they want to take - although clearly a strong argument can be made that if they are in an academy towards the end (in particular their draft year), where the club in question is paying a lot of money for their development, then the academy club in question should get first dibs.

    It is an absolute nonsense however what King is suggesting - why should who you are born to (the bollocks 'romance' factor) rule over where/who has paid for your development. But his hidden agenda here is not very hidden at all.....
    So that gives the AFL time to change the rules again.

  8. #8
    There are a few things to this.

    1. It's still utterly rediculous that media personalities are mouthpieces for clubs. Whether that be King for Norf, Eddie for Collingwood, Roos for Sydney, Dunstall for Hawthorn, Brown for Brisbane, Darcey for the bravedogs or Watson for the drug cheats etc if you want to spout you biased drivel get out of the media and join the club board of your relevant club or in Eddies case retire from one or the other.
    2. F/S players should only ever be eligible for that club if they have had guidance/training/mentoring from that club.Dunkley should never had been eligible for Sydney because we had basically put nothing into this players development.
    3. The AFL gets caught out like this to often for a so called professional organisation. It is to reactive to emotive discussion with the outcome being to much knee jerk reaction.
    4. I can see non northern clubs arguments with this as it basically cancels out F/S players of non northern clubs that are in northern academies. You fix it by saying also if a player has a son that has played the required number of games for a club he is also eligible to be part of the NGA where he lives. But has the same requirements as the NA's. So for example Marc Murphy would have been also eligible to join Collingwoods NGA if he had lived and been part of their academy for 5 years.
    5. It's deplorable that the requirement is 100 games for F/S. Was 100 picked because it's was a nice round even number pfft. It's should be either 66 or 88 as this says you have played 3-4 full seasons, also a coaches son should be eligible after 132 or 176 games again 3-4 full seasons, also why isn't captains sons and premierships players sons eligible as they have contributed hugely to their club. Brian Lake played in 3 consecutive premiership sides for Hawthorn but his sons are not eligible. What a f%€{en joke. Also Murray Rance captained the Eagles but Alex was not eligible for WCE, another joke.
    6. Sadly you will never hear any of what I've said in the media as its a boys club driven "back in my day". Ffs we still hear about Dermies disco days, wtf calls it disco anymore it's called a club.

  9. #9
    On the veteran's list
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Swans Heartland
    Posts
    1,397
    It used to be 50 games but the SA and WA clubs said that gave too many options to ex-VFL clubs when the new clubs had no history.

  10. #10
    Travelling Swannie!! mcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,990
    Quote Originally Posted by YvonneH View Post
    So that gives the AFL time to change the rules again.
    Of course - hence why the campaign around Nick Blakey is starting so early. I fully expect we are going to get bent over yet again by the VFL mafia on this one as well.
    "You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by mcs View Post
    Of course - hence why the campaign around Nick Blakey is starting so early. I fully expect we are going to get bent over yet again by the VFL mafia on this one as well.
    This is where I hope the club gets on the front foot and points out basically every argument from norf is exactly why Tarryn Thomas should not be eligible for Norfs NGA. Plus also I think it's time also to talk to the Lions just like what everyone knows happened with Dunkley. Also if Norf want Jones and Jones wants to go there you ask for Norfs 2018 first rounder. Let's see how they try to get Thomas & Blakey with no first rounder. Just like on the field our club sometimes is just to nice. Time to fight fire with fire.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Cat View Post
    It used to be 50 games but the SA and WA clubs said that gave too many options to ex-VFL clubs when the new clubs had no history.
    Imo I disagree. The requirements for those 2 clubs used to be laughable if it wasn't true.

    Father–son rule - Wikipedia

    Ebert was not eligible for Ports F/S selection but still was drafted as a F/S. Does anyone seriously believe no1 in the AFL or at a rival club knew this? Of course someone knew. I believe it was kept quiet because everyone knew it was blatantly obvious how skewed the rules were to Victorian clubs.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... 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