2015 academy discussion thread (with some FS thrown in for good measure)

**The Big Cat** · 21st May 2015, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ludwig

Yes, it's Tippett and it's Buddy and it's Heeney and Mill and Dunkley, and it's being called out by Adam Goodes and the ongoing animosity between the two camps.

It came much earlier than all this. The "defection" of Nick Davis to Sydney and Sydney's refusal to trade Collingwood our first round pick, #5 overall (ultimately used for Jarrad McVeigh) apparently led McGuire to threaten Andrew Ireland that he would use his influence to bring down the Sydney club. His previous dislike for Ireland as a Collingwood player plus Ireland's key role in making the Lions a power (and defeating Collingwood in a GF) probably added to Eddie's paranoiac resentment of Ireland's influence and superior football strategising. Surely people don't think that the Richard Colless detestation of Eddie flowed from nothing. This feud came way before the COLA rubbish which only raised its head when we won the flag in 2012 and recruited the big boys up forward in subsequent years. Buddy's move to Sydney gave Batman McGuire a Robin in the form of Hawthorn President Newbold. Their cosy little relationship on the equalisation committee allowed this cancer within the AFL to fester and metastasise among others such as Peter Gordon. I also suspect that the McGuire/Newbold draft "anomalies" argument is a smoke screen for the bigger threat to their clubs - financial equalisation.

**barry** · 21st May 2015, 07:57 AM

An article today on realfooty trying to seperate bidding system of father son from academies... because colingwood have a father son coming up.

**Livid_Swan** · 21st May 2015, 09:24 AM

AFL ponders lowering father-son threshold

"In the unlikely event that a change to the rules came into effect this year, it would pave the way for Collingwood to secure one of the top fancies in this year's draft."

Gee what a surprise.

**liz** · 21st May 2015, 10:30 AM

Except that I doubt they will lower the threshold below 50 games, so the change won't benefit Collingwood in the way proposed.

We're probably not in a position to whinge regarding this - we do have access to two top fancies in this year's draft (and got one last year at a substantial discount).

**Ludwig** · 21st May 2015, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by liz

I don't agree with the supposition that Eddie is pushing for the FS rules to be changed to prevent the Swans drafting Dunkley. I expect that Ed would prefer the FS rules to stay as they are, or even to revert to a more beneficial (ie less costly system). Of course, all those arguing for the cost of FS picks to be lower are forgetting how loudly they cried out when Geelong was able to add Hawkins to their list and also draft Selwood in the same year, when Hawkins was touted as a top 3 pick.

I've had a rethink on this one and now believe you are right. It's actually quite a confusing situation given that Mills and Dunkley are available in the same year. I can see that if the FS rule stayed as is, then there would be a usual pre-trade-season bidding for FS, where you would expect that Dunkley would cost our 1st round pick. Then when it came to the new academy bidding system we would be out those value points and effectively start with our second round points to come up with the value points for Mills. This system would be even more onerous than the proposed combined academy FS system, and would almost certainly cost all of our picks for the next 2 years to get both players.

I don't know what the end result will be, but it doesn't seem right if we can't get one academy player and a FS player by giving up our first 4 draft picks in a given year. There has to be some limit on how much you have to pay for players that you're supposed to have some preferential access to. And as you pointed out with Geelong's good fortune at landing so many super FS picks, sometimes things just fall your way and so be it.

There seems to be a strong consensus in the footy community to leave the FS system alone. But then some accommodation would have to be made for the Swans who would pay heavily under such a split system. And if that were done, it would become even more obvious that all these rule changes were being made specifically to deal with the Mills-Dunkley scenario rather than one to bring more fairness into the system.

**barry** · 21st May 2015, 05:50 PM

Ludwig, that sounds like a plea to devise a system that will "let the swans take both players".

However, I agree, I do not like the idea of using future years draft picks. Its crazy, and dangerous.

**Markus26** · 21st May 2015, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Livid_Swan

AFL ponders lowering father-son threshold

"In the unlikely event that a change to the rules came into effect this year, it would pave the way for Collingwood to secure one of the top fancies in this year's draft."

Gee what a surprise.

I hate the fact that over the past 30 years or so Collingwood have had more FS selections than anyone else. Eddie can't cry foul when other teams get access to top talent (particularly when the northern academies have invested time + dollars). Equalisation would ban Collingwood, Carlton and Geelong from further FS selections until other teams had a fair dip in the talent pool too.

**annew** · 21st May 2015, 07:49 PM

So swans recruit Tippett and Buddy within the rules and within the salary cap, the AFL and Eddie and Co jump up and down huffing and puffing that its not fair and imply the swans cheated. Swans get banned from trading in 2014 and have restricted trading in 2015, swans recruit Heeney so they change the Academy rules. This is annoying and will affect the swans massively in years to come. Cant wait for Eddie and his minions to start complaining about GWS now they are competitive. The AFL are a cheating administration headed by Gill the Dill that appear to stupidly want the swans to fail as they are doing everything they can so that the swans cant recruit decent talent. Might as well give em what they want and go down the bottom of the ladder like the lions - then lets see how good the TV deals are.

**liz** · 21st May 2015, 08:41 PM

New bidding system for father-sons, academies - AFL.com.au

It's official. Well, nearly. Seems they still haven't worked out the finer details, like whether bidding will be live or ahead of the draft.

**Conor_Dillon** · 21st May 2015, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by liz

New bidding system for father-sons, academies - AFL.com.au

It's official. Well, nearly. Seems they still haven't worked out the finer details, like whether bidding will be live or ahead of the draft.

20% is ridiculous for the time, effort and money that we have invested in the academy system.

Best case scenario now is that both Callum and Josh remain injured for the majority of the season and therefore slide significantly down the draft pecking order. If Mills is bid for with pick 1, 2 or 3 it will make it an extremely big risk to take Dunkley as well, potentially leaving us with no first or 2nd round picks in 2016.

**DamY** · 21st May 2015, 09:02 PM

How do you think the club will play it? Touch base with other list managers and feel out if they are going to make bids? Or keep cards close to their chest and hope for the best?