Swans Academy and player watch

[Meg]

The knives are definitely out to slash the Swans' priority access to Academy players (see Caroline Wilson article below).

Andrew Newbold, Hawthorn President:

''I don?t want to get involved in the issue between the personalities,'' Newbold told Fairfax Media, ''but I think Eddie?s right to question this. For there to continue to be anomalies in the draft when we are contributing $1.3 million to help equalise the competition is wrong. Why wouldn?t we want a pure draft?

''I think on that issue Eddie?s right. The AFL is contributing $250,000 to each academy. That?s money all the clubs are contributing. We would love to have academies here but I completely understand that we need to find more talent in the northern states. I just think it needs to be appropriately priced.

''I would change father-son as well. They have got to be priced proportionately. That?s the basis on which we agreed to tip so much money in. We want a pure draft.''

McLachlan is understood to have told the coaches who attended his private dinner on Monday night that the AFL would change the academy bidding system and potentially that of the similar father-son mechanism.

His AFL lieutenant, Andrew Dillon, has been working all year on changes to the bidding system. One change could rule out a club taking two academy or father-son prospects in the same draft should they both be regarded as worthy of first-round picks."

Read more: Andrew Newbold urges overhaul of father-son and academy picks in drive towards equalisation

[Ludwig]

The only way to have true equalisation is to run the AFL on a socialist egalitarian system in all respects.

1. All revenue goes into a pool and is divided equally.
2. The fixture is determined by a computer program without special consideration given to blockbuster games and rivalries. No team given premium fixture dates and times.
3. The draft is run on a lottery system. No FS, academies or benefits for tanking.

Fat chance the rich Melbourne clubs would go for this. They want to keep their privileges, but take away any benefits given to other clubs. Anyway, we know it's not the best revenue generating business model.

You can just see if Collingwood or Hawthorn go through a rough period they will be crying out for priority picks and other special deals.

Just wait and see what happens it GC and GWS take a dominant position in the competition. I look forward to the day when non-Victorian teams take the top 4 spots for a prolonged period of time.

[Reggi]

That is a reasonable perspective though. Eddievhasvsaid get rid of the academies I think most people would be ok with some brakes.

[Meg]

This 'review' is clearly aimed at the Swans, not at the other three academies. It is really unfortunate (and a complete fluke of timing) that two top talent Academy players in Heeney and Mills are emerging in subsequent years plus at the same time Josh Dunkley as a possible F/S recruitment. Following on from the 2012 premiership, COLA outrage and the recruitment of Tippett and Franklin these have sent the bloodhounds out on the Swans' trail.

My view is that if the AFL changes the draft pick rules for Academy players with immediate or near-future application, then that should be challenged as a retrospective change, not least by QBE as the corporate sponsor of the Swans Academy.

In the statement Pridham put out explaining the Academy, he said that the "Academy costs the Sydney Swans in excess of $1 million per annum to run and is largely funded by donations and corporate support."

I found a 2010 QBE e-brochure (attached below) from when the Academy was established. The QBE's projected funding contribution for the first 5 years is set out on the last page. For 2014 this was expected to be $495,000 (including GST). So that suggests the Swans contribute of the order of $400 - $500,000 from donations made to the Sydney Swans Foundation. (Someone may have more accurate figures than I am assuming.) So it seems that the contributions from both the QBB and the Swans Foundation dwarf the AFL's contribution of $250,000.

In both the original QBE brochure and the current material on the Swans' website seeking Foundation donations, it refers to Academy players with appropriate talent having guaranteed access to the Sydney Swans. That has been the understanding of both the corporate sponsor and individuals in making contributions, and of the boys and their parents in making the decision to apply for and take part in the Academy.

To change that without due notice would be a breach of contract in my view.

http://www.e-brochures.com.au/sydneyswans/academy/PDF/2010_QBE_Academy_Prop_LR.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

That is a reasonable perspective though. Eddievhasvsaid get rid of the academies I think most people would be ok with some brakes.

Are you sure that Eddy has said get rid of the academies? I think what he has been saying is get rid of the priority access to Academy players - which seems to be the way the 'review' is heading.

[Meg]

Further to my comments above, I would have no disagreement if the priority access to F/S recruits were to be abolished (even if it cost the Swans access to Dunkley). It really is an 'old-boys-club' anachronism. In virtually all cases the gaining club has made no contribution to the player's development. This is quite different to the position with Academy players.

[ShockOfHair]

I do like that Newbold has linked the academy bidding to F-S, but the fact is top F-S picks turn up once every decade per club and each academy probably turns out a top 20 pick every year or so.

But what is striking as well as the naked self-interest is the collective dumbness of those running the competition. McGuire and Newbold were fine about the way the academies were set up three or four years ago. And so disinterested in them they were willing to tip in such a paltry amount (at $250,000 per academy, that's equivalent to a whopping $15k each from the 14 non-northern clubs). Back then the academies were a total non-issue. Now they're a freaking national crisis.

The only upside is that perhaps the penny may have dropped on some of these cretinous skulls such that they actually get behind the academies. If that happens, great, but it's been a pathetically tortuous path. What a way to run a railroad.

I'd love to hear Roos' view. He was the one complaining for years about the lack of an academy, and it seems that only the arrival of GWS that somehow sparked the league into action.

And thanks, Meg, for your forensic financial detective work!

[Reggi]

Us having potentially J Dunkley and C mills rnd ones is a freak event I think only should apply to academy or fs

[dimelb]

The club that paid for the system has every right to expect a benefit from it. And because of the nature of the system there will be talent remaining for other clubs. I would hope that reasonable people would see this clearly.

My main concern, like some others here, is that we may end up with a damaged system because one ratbag thinks the sky is falling.

[The Big Cat]

I think we have to read what is a possible change closely. They appear to be talking about if a club has TWO players rated as FIRST rounders. I don't think anyone at this stage rates either Dunkley or Abe Davis as first rounders. So we would pick up Davis and Dunkley lower down under this system after taking Heeney and Mills with the first round picks. I'm sure that other clubs won't inflate players values through bidding if it means they might be stuck with them if the Swans can't take them.

"His AFL lieutenant, Andrew Dillon, has been working all year on changes to the bidding system. One change could rule out a club taking two academy or father-son prospects in the same draft should they both be regarded as worthy of first-round picks. But McLachlan reiterated again in Sydney on Wednesday that the academies and their AFL funding would stay"

Read more: Andrew Newbold urges overhaul of father-son and academy picks in drive towards equalisation

[Ludwig]

Agree Meg. This would be a classic case of moving the goal posts (how appropriate) once the ball is in flight.

If they want to change the FS rules, I am fine with that. But let's make sure Dunkley gets the same treatment as Darcy Moore.

If the AFL want to develop the academy system in the northern states on their own, that's fine too. But those who are already in the system under the current arrangements and funding should be allowed to continue through the system on the same basis. Should the AFL want to assume the entire cost of all those entering the program from this point on, fantastic. Then when they reach 18 those players can nominate for the draft like everyone else. It will be a good test to see how successful the AFL is running their own program compared to the individual clubs.

If the AFL decide to go with the McGuire/Newbold plan for shrinking the game, we will see how that evolves in due course. I think the Swans will prosper in any case, but as for the other 3 northern clubs, I doubt they will succeed without a significant and unwavering long term commitment.

I think Vlad wanted his legacy to be seen as the period when AFL went national. Some want to unwind that transition to a national game.

I would equate Eddie's influence on the future of the AFL to that of the bubonic plague in 14th Century Europe. The similarities are considerable, including both are caused by animals with the intelligence of flea. The difference is that only one animal is a flea.

I also agree Meg, that the Swans and especially QBE would be up for some considerable amount of compensation for damages if the program were revised mid course.

[swanwolf]

I think the Swans were taken for suckers from the academy's very beginning as I don't believe other clubs ever had any intention of letting us benefit from the program. The favourable bidding rules were simply a scam designed to entice us to commit valuable resources finding and developing local talent. The whole time, our competitors were secretly laughing at us expend sweat and treasure, knowing the rewards would be theirs to plunder.

Timing of the rule changes is because of our success, both of our team and academy prospects. We're an easy and unsympathetic target compared to say, Brisbane at this time.

[Meg]

I'd love to hear Roos' view. He was the one complaining for years about the lack of an academy, and it seems that only the arrival of GWS that somehow sparked the league into action.

I too have been wondering if Roos would speak out (or if he has a different mindset now he is wearing a Victorian club's cap). There are two newspaper articles reproduced on page 19 of the 2010 QBE brochure I attached above. One is headed "Academy 15 years too late: Roos" and the other "Generation Lost - Roos claims AFL has blundered youth development". He certainly had a strong view then.

One point Roos made in those articles, still very relevant today, is that in the Greater Sydney area AFL is competing for talent against the other football codes where young boys and their parents know that if they are good enough they can play at the highest level in their home state. So the tie of the Academy to the Swans was seen as a key attraction for talented athletic boys to choose Australian Rules.

This must surely be a real concern for Brisbane which has lost a bunch of draftees to the 'go home' factor. Surely they must be desperate for some home-grown talent to emerge from their academy, and for Brisbane to have priority access to their recruitment at the draft.

[ernie koala]

That is a reasonable perspective though. Eddievhasvsaid get rid of the academies I think most people would be ok with some brakes.

Meg's right, Eddie hasn't said, "get rid of the academies" he has said, "keep the academies but don't give priority access of players to the clubs running the academies".....

Which is ridiculous given the academies have been run for some years by the respective clubs.

For Eddies idea of equal access to be the case, the AFL would have to pay for, and run, the academies totally, under their own banner.

Since the academies have been in existence for some years now, with most of the funding and work done by the respective clubs, the AFL is somewhat bound to honour existing arrangements.

No doubt there will be some tinkering to access, which may or may not include f/s access, but I doubt it will overly impact on the academy clubs access to players in the short to medium term.

[Meg]

Some silly suggestions about Victorian clubs forming their own academies:

"Asked if Collingwood would get an academy, McLachlan said "I'm not going to speculate on that. I've given my answer which is to focus on engagement."

McLachlan said the AFL was poised to again look at a review of the bidding system, with that likely to occur over coming weeks."

"GWS chief executive David Matthews, who worked in the national development area of the AFL for many years before joining GWS, said the fundamental issue was that NSW and Queensland supplied only a tenth of the competition's players.

"We can't say we're a national game with those sort of statistics," Matthews said.

"The overriding objective, which I know Eddie and everyone agrees with, is we've got to build the talent pool - it's got to grow.

"The academies are fundamental to the future success of the game in NSW and Queensland."

Matthews said Victoria already effectively had 12 academies in the TAC clubs.

"They are spitting out 50 to 60 per cent of the talent every year, so talent share out of Victoria isn't the issue that we're trying to address here," Matthews said.

"This isn't a Victorian issue - this is a national issue."

Read more: AFL boss supports NSW and Qld academies | Mail Online

[Bloody Hell]

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the father son rule altered maybe 10 years ago. Prior to the change you were only allowed one FS pick, but then COLLINGWOOD had 2 sons of guns in the same year - Fat Eddie kicked up a stink and the rule was changed....?

I can't recall the exact circumstances, but it was something like that.