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

[ScottH]

This article by Caroline Wilson indicates that we will be scaling back our academy investment should there be any changes to the drafting rule:

swans-threaten-to-scale-down-their-nsw-development

I'm glad to see our management team are in tune with the RWO consensus. I'm surprised that the AFL would let Eddie's attack on the Swans bring down the push to expand AFL into NSW and Queensland, but it seems more and more that they will.

History will show Eddie McGuire to be the single most destructive force to every be associated with the game.

Eddie responds:

http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/sport/afl/news/2014/7/-eddie-responds-to-sydney-swans-funding-threat/

"Last week when we bought this up and we said this (NSW Academy access) is an anomaly that could completely skew the competition and put teams out of business over the next 10-years. The Sydney Swans of course jumped up and down and said 'No this is all about the development of the game'," Eddie said on the Hot breakfast.

"This is quite staggering that they would have the boldness, the audacity, to come out one week later and says 'Nah, stuff the development this is all about us'."

[Ludwig]

You would think it would be obvious that if you set up an academy system for a sport that has limited exposure in an area you would want to give some incentive to the parents to sign their kids up to the program. Why would parents from Sydney and Brisbane put their kids in an AFL Academy when in the end, if they succeed, they can be shipped off to Perth. One of the big attractions for the parents would be that they can keep their kids close to home.

The academies are too new to estimate how prolific the player production will be in the long run. But let's say that over the near term a club with an academy can get one player per year at an advantage of moving up 10 places in the draft order, so someone like a Heeney might normally go for a pick 8, but can get drafted at pick 18. It could just as well be an estimated pick 15 goes for a pick 25. This is just a guesstimate and an average for the sake of discussion, since there really is no history to go on.

For a 500k to 1 mil. dollar investment that the clubs make to their respective academies, this seems like a very minimal return. Plus the listed players have to take time away from training and personal activities to visit the academies as part of the support program, like the Swans have all these community camps and school visits. It is hard to see how the academies can be successful without a considerable commitment from the clubs with the academies. If the meager incentive is reduced then I can't see why the clubs would not divert those funds to more productive alternatives.

There is a big advantage to having a local pool of talent to choose from. It helps negate the effects of the go home factor that Brisbane experienced last year and the Giants are likely to experience over a long period of time. I checked the list of the WCE and noted that 29 of their players are from WA. What a disadvantage it is to the northern clubs NOT to have that sort of local talent to draw from. If anything, the equalisation of available talent should be adjusted in the other direction. My suggestion would be that until there is demographic equalisation, the northern clubs should be able to prelist one academy player per year outside the draft system. This would help offset the players leaving due to the go home factor. If you take the Brisbane case, this would partially compensate them for the losses of players like Polec and Yeo.

We will see how dumb the AFL will be, or if thay can bring some sense back into this thing. When Kevin Sheedy said that McGuire had rocks in his head, I think that should apply to AFL House as a whole if they continue to move in a direction of effectively dismantling the academies.

Bringing the intelligence level down to the lowest common denominator may become known in the future as 'The McGuire Effect'.

[Jimitron5000]

Eddie is heroic (where is my sarcasm font)...clubs out of business because of the academy. Good God. Give that man a medal.
Next he will be rescuing old ladies' cats from trees and pointing out how this is something that he does for the good of Victorian football.

[Ludwig]

Eddie responds:

http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/spo...unding-threat/

Eddie will destroy the game with his mendacity and divisiveness. With all of his media clout Eddie can get those sycophants like Darcy and Molloy to lick the bosses ass as well. What a great setup Eddie has to feed his insatiable narcissism.

That parasite is sucking the life out of football. There needs to be an eradication program or the patient is going to die.

[liz]

Maybe the AFL should invite Collingwood to invest an additional $1m per annum (as well as providing players to coach and medical support) the TAC Cup competition, on the basis that if they do, they can continue to have the same access to draft players from the TAC Cup competition that they currently enjoy.

[Mug Punter]

I am now resigned to the fact that the Academy System, the best thing that has ever happened to the game in NSW, ACT and Queensland will be dismantled before it has even had a chance to succeed.

All because of a vindictive man in Melbourne and his self interest (aided by many cronies who should be equally ashamed) who has no interest in the development of the game, only of his club. And facilitated by a limp-wristed sycophant in charge of our game.

I guess we should see the fine detail but at the very least the system is going to be dismantled beyong recognition. Gill and his cronies will produce a system that provides zero benefit for the Swans in return for our funding and energy of this system.

And I bet that GWS get no penalty because they don't have F/S (and I guess that is a fair point)

So, where do we go from here? At the very least we should be requiring that the AFL fund the Academy system well beyond their current level, preferably at 100%.

I'd suggest we bank Heeney and Mills and then revert back to the old system and forget about funding the Academy at all from our own resources.

It will be anincredibly sad day for the sport in this state and all associated with the decision should be suitably ashamed of their behaviour. Never felt more disillusioned with our game....

- - - Updated - - -

You would think it would be obvious that if you set up an academy system for a sport that has limited exposure in an area you would want to give some incentive to the parents to sign their kids up to the program. Why would parents from Sydney and Brisbane put their kids in an AFL Academy when in the end, if they succeed, they can be shipped off to Perth. One of the big attractions for the parents would be that they can keep their kids close to home.

The academies are too new to estimate how prolific the player production will be in the long run. But let's say that over the near term a club with an academy can get one player per year at an advantage of moving up 10 places in the draft order, so someone like a Heeney might normally go for a pick 8, but can get drafted at pick 18. It could just as well be an estimated pick 15 goes for a pick 25. This is just a guesstimate and an average for the sake of discussion, since there really is no history to go on.

For a 500k to 1 mil. dollar investment that the clubs make to their respective academies, this seems like a very minimal return. Plus the listed players have to take time away from training and personal activities to visit the academies as part of the support program, like the Swans have all these community camps and school visits. It is hard to see how the academies can be successful without a considerable commitment from the clubs with the academies. If the meager incentive is reduced then I can't see why the clubs would not divert those funds to more productive alternatives.

There is a big advantage to having a local pool of talent to choose from. It helps negate the effects of the go home factor that Brisbane experienced last year and the Giants are likely to experience over a long period of time. I checked the list of the WCE and noted that 29 of their players are from WA. What a disadvantage it is to the northern clubs NOT to have that sort of local talent to draw from. If anything, the equalisation of available talent should be adjusted in the other direction. My suggestion would be that until there is demographic equalisation, the northern clubs should be able to prelist one academy player per year outside the draft system. This would help offset the players leaving due to the go home factor. If you take the Brisbane case, this would partially compensate them for the losses of players like Polec and Yeo.

We will see how dumb the AFL will be, or if thay can bring some sense back into this thing. When Kevin Sheedy said that McGuire had rocks in his head, I think that should apply to AFL House as a whole if they continue to move in a direction of effectively dismantling the academies.

Bringing the intelligence level down to the lowest common denominator may become known in the future as 'The McGuire Effect'.

I'm backing GWS and the Suns to be exempt from any changes. This is aimed squarely at the Swans

[Meg]

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

I don't think the intent is to dismantle the academy system beyond recognition. What seems to be in the pipeline is a revised draft bidding system for both F/S and academy players that takes into account the bidding clubs' positions at the end of the previous season.

That is not entirely unreasonable. What is unreasonable is to put any change in place with immediate effect. Investment of resources into the academies was made under an agreed set of rules. If the rules change,then clubs should be able to make future investment decisions under the new rules. It is unethical for the changes to have retrospective effect.

This is not an issue for F/S. I don't think anyone could claim that the male fecundity of AFL players has been influenced by the F/S rules.

For anyone interested, the AFL Rules as of October 2013 are attached. The club academy rules are set out in section 14, starting on page 75.

http://old.aflpa.com.au/images/uploads/AFL_Rules_-_October_2013_CURRENT.pdf

[Bloods05]

Eddie responds:

http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/spo...unding-threat/

I hope I don't offend Matt80 by saying this, but I'm afraid that (along with a great many other deficiencies) Eddie is just plain dumb.

[Ludwig]

That is not entirely unreasonable. What is unreasonable is to put any change in place with immediate effect. Investment of resources into the academies was made under an agreed set of rules. If the rules change,then clubs should be able to make future investment decisions under the new rules. It is unethical for the changes to have retrospective effect.

http://old.aflpa.com.au/images/uploa...13_CURRENT.pdf

This has always been the issue. We all accept that the rules can change, but not in reaction to a particular set of immediate circumstances that some powerful club president doesn't like.

I agree. They can change the rules, an even change the rules only for the Swans, because I recognise that GWS and GC won't have FS selections, but the AFL have to let the current rules that everyone has agreed to play out so that those who have made investments into this particular program, as opposed to other development programs, receive the benefits that might accrue. Some just can't admit that the Swans and the other northern clubs are just playing by the rules.

[Jimitron5000]

There are so many systematic inequalities in the AFL (eg mostly around the draw and also to name a couple of others location of club, football department spend) which Collingwood and other powerful Melbourne clubs utilise to their full effect. Now, when the Swans, and make no mistake this is a Swans issue not an academy in general issue, have a player in their academy who is ranked in the top few in the country for his age group, it becomes an issue that could threaten the very fabric of the game and force Melbourne clubs out of business.

Eddie is passionate about Collingwood but he consistently uses his position as a media personality (oxymoron in this case) to push his agenda driven, ill informed points of view on the basis of equalisation of the competition.

[Reggi]

Billon Mclachlan has lost control. Be interesting to see his response. Probably make or break for his career. All three of his predecessors faced similar challenges

[Meg]

Billon Mclachlan has lost control. Be interesting to see his response. Probably make or break for his career. All three of his predecessors faced similar challenges

I agree. Within a week of GMc's 'call' for hostilities between McG and Pridham to cease Eddie has again publicly defamed the Swans. If GMc does nothing he will be a lame duck for his term in the job.

[Meg]

Ha! the knight in shining armour fighting the good fight!

"New rules over the bidding system for academy stars has emerged as a key front in the AFL's equalisation battle.
Pistols are drawn at 10 paces between the four "Northern Alliance" AFL clubs north of the Murray and Victorian clubs over access to academy players, and Collingwood boss Eddie McGuire is again in the centre of the fight.

A week after Brisbane chairman Bob Sharpless declared the northern clubs would fight for increased investment, McGuire argues the Victorian case against.

"There might have only been a couple of voices last week, I think you'll hear a crescendo this week," he told Triple M radio, foreshadowing a meeting of Victorian AFL presidents to form a united front.

"It's going to be happening, I can guarantee ... it's on," he said.

Read more: Collingwood boss Eddie McGuire fights for funds, fairness in draft system

Collingwood boss Eddie McGuire fights for funds, fairness in draft system

[liz]

The biggest question that remains it that, if they are all so opposed, why have the voices of opposition been so quiet over the past 3-4 years while the Swans and other clubs have been ploughing millions of dollars into the scheme?

And the second question is how they propose development paths in the northern states should be enhanced given the abject failure of previous efforts over the past 10 years. This is especially pertinent given that just a couple of weeks ago McGuire was whingeing about how the talent pool wasn't big enough to support 18 teams in the competition.

[Ludwig]

Cut the Melbourne clubs loose. Let them go back to the VFL. The remaining 8 clubs plus Geelong and a new franchise in Tasmania can be the new AFL. It will be a much better competition without them and their antiquated provincialism.