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

[Legs Akimbo]

Yet another example AFL managed high farce. Gillon was to a bad start before he started and this doesn't give me confidence in his leadership credentials. Seems to sway in the wind, where the wind is the flatulence emanating from eddie's arse.

[Untamed Snark]

We now seem to have a bidding system on what the bidding system should be. According to this story we might have to give up THREE picks to get Heeney.

"The bidding system ? which also applies to players who fall under the father-son criteria ? is being reviewed by the AFL. The league?s general counsel, Andrew Dillon, will have his revision of the system completed and announced soon. It is likely the revamped rules will see a club that is good enough to win the premiership, has an academy and has the best talent will need to give up not just selection 18 but perhaps as many as three draft picks to secure Numero Uno."

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Wow.
That rule doesn't seem to be aimed at a specific club at all!
Realistically how often would that situation arise?

[DeadlyAkkuret]

"Any team that is based in a city that ends with the letter y and wears red and white and has a F/S nomination that might be a bit good after a season where they played a bit good and yeah....so any team who meets that totally random criteria has to give up three picks. Ok? Yep meeting over"

[MomentByMoment]

The AFL are governed by the powers that be and most of them reside in Victoria.

They want the big bucks that come from a national competition but (just as importantly) they want to keep their hands on the levers of power.

NSW represents the biggest potential shift in that power structure. If the Academies are successful and AFL blossoms here, that creates a power inbalance that they are worried about.

Therefore the policy towards Sydney will always be conflicted. It's not about equity. It is about power and how to limit the reach of Sydney.

[Meg]

I beg to differ, Meg. QBE get a lot of branding out of the Swans being on TV - in particular, the finals. They get a lot of mileage out of being associated with a winning team. It is definitely in their best financial interest to ensure that the Swans have every advantage, and therefore their academy investment helps to mitigate against the Swans missing the finals. It is their way of taking out insurance

It is a smart move by QBE to invest in the Academy in order to maximise their investment into the Swans.

Dossier, you've misunderstood my point. I was responding to Matt80's suggestion that It could be said that QBE has got an ADDITIONAL return on their Swans Academy investment (effectively free publicity) from the current debate.

I am saying that QBE's significant financial contribution to the Academy over the last 5 years is never mentioned or acknowledged by all those now attacking the Academy set up. But it should be as QBE have invested in the Academy under an agreed set of rules that so many now seem hell-bent on changing with immediate effect.

Part of the return that QBE is entitled to expect from their last 5 years financial investment is that any player who graduates from the Academy in the next couple of years, who is good enough to be drafted, should be playing AFL wearing a jumper with the QBE logo on it.

If the draft bidding rules are to be changed they should only apply to players who enter the Academy after the rule change.

I completely agree that more generally QBE gets a lot of branding from the various parts of their Swans's sponsorship, including the Academy, and that it is a smart commercial investment.

[goswannies]

I completely agree that more generally QBE gets a lot of branding from the various parts of their Swans's sponsorship, including the Academy, and that it is a smart commercial investment.

They get $1400 annually out of me in premiums because of their association

[Reggi]

We now seem to have a bidding system on what the bidding system should be. According to this story we might have to give up THREE picks to get Heeney.

"The bidding system ? which also applies to players who fall under the father-son criteria ? is being reviewed by the AFL. The league?s general counsel, Andrew Dillon, will have his revision of the system completed and announced soon. It is likely the revamped rules will see a club that is good enough to win the premiership, has an academy and has the best talent will need to give up not just selection 18 but perhaps as many as three draft picks to secure Numero Uno."

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

It is always good when companies let the work experience kid have a go. Lawyers are terrible at understanding economic problems. That solution is unworkable.

Four aspects determine price. The quality of the asset/ player. The relative scarcity, needs, and the risk aversion. If there are a 'panel of experts' can you get a refund when history proves them wrong?

The draft place should be determined by the market. I.e a club makes it's determination on the above. Anything else is subjective rubbish and will cause consternation for years. Being the best player in a draft or ranked 10th is not what determines a players value or price it is a combination of the above, not some experts wank

- - - Updated - - -

"The bidding system ? which also applies to players who fall under the father-son criteria ? is being reviewed by the AFL. The league?s general counsel, Andrew Dillon, will have his revision of the system completed and announced soon. It is likely the revamped rules will see a club that is good enough to win the premiership, has an academy and has the best talent will need to give up not just selection 18 but perhaps as many as three draft picks to secure Numero Uno."

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

It is always good when companies let the work experience kid have a go. Lawyers are terrible at understanding economic problems. That solution is unworkable.

Four aspects determine price. The quality of the asset/ player. The relative scarcity, needs, and the risk aversion. If there are a 'panel of experts' can you get a refund when history proves them wrong?

The draft place should be determined by the market. I.e a club makes it's determination on the above. Anything else is subjective rubbish and will cause consternation for years. Being the best player in a draft or ranked 10th is not what determines a players value or price it is a combination of the above, not some experts wank

[Ludwig]

IMO if they change the rules to suit these unique circumstances they might as well change the name of the league from the AFL to the McFL. And they can do that will very big capital F:

We can all run around with a big McFL on the jumpers, because that's what it will become.

Anyway, as long as they let us get Dunkley and the academy boys it probably won't matter how many picks we have to give up. We have plenty of rookies to elevate and can just fill the roster with new ones.

[Mug Punter]

Read today that the Swans Academy has been in operation for three and a half years. I that time it has produced two players that have played senior football.

TWO!!!

And of those two, BJ and Cunningham, NO-ONE (including us) drafted them and they came up via our rookie programme.

So we get the FIRST draftee (or two including Abe but he's not the issue here) from the system in FOUR YEARS and because he is quite good the whole thing is dismantled.

It is utterly and totally insane which is why I cannot see this happening.

Any changes will hurt three clubs than can ill afford it and that is why I believe any changes beyond limiting it to two and being either/or with F/S will result in outright open warfare and a probable legal challenge.

I get the feeling the club is at absolute tipping point about all this and rightly so....

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Wasn't Harry was from the Giants academy, not the Swans?

[sharp9]

We now seem to have a bidding system on what the bidding system should be. According to this story we might have to give up THREE picks to get Heeney.

"The bidding system ? which also applies to players who fall under the father-son criteria ? is being reviewed by the AFL. The league?s general counsel, Andrew Dillon, will have his revision of the system completed and announced soon. It is likely the revamped rules will see a club that is good enough to win the premiership, has an academy and has the best talent will need to give up not just selection 18 but perhaps as many as three draft picks to secure Numero Uno."

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Can you please quote the relevant bits as one can't read this unless a subscriber.

[sharp9]

Wasn't Harry was from the Giants academy, not the Swans?

Yes - but the point is that no-one rated him worthy of spot on the senior list. We got him as a NSW rookie, meaning he was ours BEFORE the real rookie draft started.

While we are on the hypocrite Eddie Maguire -
Heath Shaw draft pick #48(!!!!!!!!!!!) for a definite first round pick who became an All Australian (???)
Travis Cloke draft pick #39(!!!!!!!!!!!) yes you heard that right pick #39 for the player who would have gone number 1 (ahead of Deledio, Roughead, Griffin and Franklin)

[Melbournehammer]

Honestly I feel like I have missed something here. Can someone please explain to me why we are all so hot under the collar ? We are obviously getting a small, possibly even minor advantage with the academy system. Why are we pretending otherwise ? We might get pick ten with pick eighteen. Wouldn't you be frustrated if you were other clubs ? If Geelong got the pick of the Geelong falcons every year would we be blas? or concerned ??

I would be rope able if we were being accused of cheating or squirreling players away and cheating. But we aren't we are being accused of having an unfair advantage - and yes it's one they created but really I fail to see the issue.

I hope we get mills dunkley heeney. It would be great. But if not someone else will come and I will get behind them

[ernie koala]

Honestly I feel like I have missed something here. Can someone please explain to me why we are all so hot under the collar ? We are obviously getting a small, possibly even minor advantage with the academy system. Why are we pretending otherwise ? We might get pick ten with pick eighteen. Wouldn't you be frustrated if you were other clubs ? If Geelong got the pick of the Geelong falcons every year would we be blas? or concerned ??

I would be rope able if we were being accused of cheating or squirreling players away and cheating. But we aren't we are being accused of having an unfair advantage - and yes it's one they created but really I fail to see the issue.

I hope we get mills dunkley heeney. It would be great. But if not someone else will come and I will get behind them

McGuire actually did accuse the Swans of hiding players away.

But I generally agree with you. It is an advantage over other clubs, and I would be unimpressed if other clubs had it over us.

What I don't like is it appears the goal posts are being moved, with little warning, and little or no consultation with the northern clubs involved.

[giant]

Read today that the Swans Academy has been in operation for three and a half years. I that time it has produced two players that have played senior football.

TWO!!!

And of those two, BJ and Cunningham, NO-ONE (including us) drafted them and they came up via our rookie programme.

So we get the FIRST draftee (or two including Abe but he's not the issue here) from the system in FOUR YEARS and because he is quite good the whole thing is dismantled.

It is utterly and totally insane which is why I cannot see this happening.

Any changes will hurt three clubs than can ill afford it and that is why I believe any changes beyond limiting it to two and being either/or with F/S will result in outright open warfare and a probable legal challenge.

I get the feeling the club is at absolute tipping point about all this and rightly so....

That's essentially the nub of it - the other states are quite happy for us to have, manage and pay for these academies - just as long as they aren't successful.