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

[Ludwig]

If the current system stands, and we finish 2nd, and assume that each player gets bid for in their current respective ranking, which is #1 and #8, then Mills alone will cost us all of our first 4 draft picks this year and our 2nd round draft pick for 2016. Dunkley will cost us our 1st and 3rd picks from next year. So the 2 are likely to cost all of our draft picks for the next 2 years. If Collingwood have a very poor year, which is likely, and finish 16th or 15th, it wouldn't surprise me if they bid for Dunkley just to stick it to us. Then we wouldn't have enough credit to draft Dunkley even using all of our next year's picks.

Whatever the quality of Mills, I don't think it's right that one player should cost 5 draft picks. I think there should be a maximum such that a club should be able to get their 1st 2 'special access' picks, whether academy or FS, by using no more than the first 4 picks in a given year, and shouldn't have to trade in draft picks or use future year picks.

As I have mentioned before, the value table is unfairly graded in a way that targets the Swans in 2015 due to the foreknowledge that we will have access to 2 top 10 draft picks. And this is the point that irks me.

To give another example of how ridiculous it is, 2 x Zak Jones (2 pick 15s) plus George Hewitt would not be enough to secure Callum Mills under this system.

I am not one to believe in fate, but I hope Eddie McGuire does, because it seems that his chickens are coming home to roost.

[Meg]

As I have mentioned before, the value table is unfairly graded in a way that targets the Swans in 2015 due to the foreknowledge that we will have access to 2 top 10 draft picks. And this is the point that irks me..

Totally agree, It seems as if all the attention has been on the % discounts while accepting a value table which has been created in a non-transparent manner, based on dubious assumptions and arithmetic, and with hard-to-believe outcomes.

[chalbilto]

If the current system stands, and we finish 2nd, and assume that each player gets bid for in their current respective ranking, which is #1 and #8, then Mills alone will cost us all of our first 4 draft picks this year and our 2nd round draft pick for 2016. Dunkley will cost us our 1st and 3rd picks from next year. So the 2 are likely to cost all of our draft picks for the next 2 years. If Collingwood have a very poor year, which is likely, and finish 16th or 15th, it wouldn't surprise me if they bid for Dunkley just to stick it to us. Then we wouldn't have enough credit to draft Dunkley even using all of our next year's picks.

Whatever the quality of Mills, I don't think it's right that one player should cost 5 draft picks. I think there should be a maximum such that a club should be able to get their 1st 2 'special access' picks, whether academy or FS, by using no more than the first 4 picks in a given year, and shouldn't have to trade in draft picks or use future year picks.

As I have mentioned before, the value table is unfairly graded in a way that targets the Swans in 2015 due to the foreknowledge that we will have access to 2 top 10 draft picks. And this is the point that irks me.

To give another example of how ridiculous it is, 2 x Zak Jones (2 pick 15s) plus George Hewitt would not be enough to secure Callum Mills under this system.

I am not one to believe in fate, but I hope Eddie McGuire does, because it seems that his chickens are coming home to roost.

What would the outcome be if we were Premiers?

[Ludwig]

What would the outcome be if we were Premiers?

Not considering that the outcome is likely to be worse due to compensation picks for FAs, all the allocated value picks for the 1st place club will equal 1726 value points, enough to get pick #3. We could most likely get both Mills and Dunkley by using all of our first 4 picks for each of the next 2 years if Dunkley is not bid higher than 8th.

We can only hope that our accountants have gone through these kinds of scenarios and fight like hell to make sure we are not subjected to such a farce.

Not directly related to the academies, but Andrew Ireland has contradicted Gillon McLaughlin by saying that the Swans were never consulted about the trade ban before it was presented to them. What a disgrace the current AFL management are. Bring back Vlad.

[Meg]

Interesting that Ireland has said "Our view is that the father/son system should mirror that of the academy." I suspect that is with one eye on trying to have a chance of getting Dunkley as well as Mills and the other eye on the politics with the non-academy clubs. In itself it's not logical as a lot more work and money goes into the development of an academy player than the son of a past player.

[DamY]

Interesting that Ireland has said "Our view is that the father/son system should mirror that of the academy." I suspect that is with one eye on trying to have a chance of getting Dunkley as well as Mills and the other eye on the politics with the non-academy clubs. In itself it's not logical as a lot more work and money goes into the development of an academy player than the son of a past player.

Yeah I understand your point of view regarding the additional investment of academy players versus father/son, but I think to protect the "sanctity" or romance of the father/son concept and to incentivise clubs to maintain the idea, is the reason why the 15% discount is insufficient (and I believe 25% is insufficient for the academy discount, I think it should be in the range of 40-50% due to the investment). I'm happy with it at 25% but I think academy should be more.

[Matt80]

Yeah I understand your point of view regarding the additional investment of academy players versus father/son, but I think to protect the "sanctity" or romance of the father/son concept and to incentivise clubs to maintain the idea, is the reason why the 15% discount is insufficient (and I believe 25% is insufficient for the academy discount, I think it should be in the range of 40-50% due to the investment). I'm happy with it at 25% but I think academy should be more.

Are there any big prospects coming in the year after Mills or Dunkley? If not the Swans have to find a way to get the decision delayed so that no implementation happens at the end of 2015. Getting those two guys in the first and 2nd rounds would be great!

[S.S. Bleeder]

Are there any big prospects coming in the year after Mills or Dunkley? If not the Swans have to find a way to get the decision delayed so that no implementation happens at the end of 2015. Getting those two guys in the first and 2nd rounds would be great!

No. There are no potentially elite players in the next couple of years. Apparently, there are some potential guns beyond that though.

[Jimitron5000]

Regardless of what it costs us I think we will take both Mills and Dunkley. Two elite talents don't come along like for one club too often and you have to take them while you can.
Any further additions to our list this year (and possibly next) will be upgrades from the rookie list making the rookie draft super important.

[liz]

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-draft-meet-the-new-faces-of-new-south-wales-20150407-1mg7jj.html

Here's an article from Quayle about Hopper, a highly rated Giants academy prospect. Oh, and a bloke called Mills too.

[chalbilto]

Lets hope that the recruiters rate Hopper and others above Mills.

[Matt80]

Lets hope that the recruiters rate Hopper and others above Mills.

It's good news if Hopper is a star. The new academy regulations will impact GWS, which is the organisation the AFL most wants to succeed. The AFL may blink on hurting the academy system if the regulations negatively impact GWS.

[chalbilto]

It's good news if Hopper is a star. The new academy regulations will impact GWS, which is the organisation the AFL most wants to succeed. The AFL may blink on hurting the academy system if the regulations negatively impact GWS.

Whilst I agree with you post, I don't think that Eddie is going to let up. All he cares for is Collingwood and will do and say anything for the benefit of his club to the detriment of the other clubs. The Commission should show some fortitude and stand up to him. I don't have a lot of faith in Gillon, he appears to be a puppet.

[jono2707]

The fact that Hopper, a Riverina boy, goes to the GWS 'Academy' in Wagga, and is now at boarding school in Victoria, is a poor example of how and why the Academy system should exist - I thought it was meant to be for AFL teams in 'non-AFL' areas to develop young sportsmen and provide opportunities for these players to have a pathway to the game that wouldn't exist. I don't see how this fits for this Hopper kid as it does for Heeney and Mills.

Makes a bit of a mockery of the system and leaves it somewhat open to attack from those who seek to have the benefits of the academy system to be diluted.

[Ludwig]

The fact that Hopper, a Riverina boy, goes to the GWS 'Academy' in Wagga, and is now at boarding school in Victoria, is a poor example of how and why the Academy system should exist - I thought it was meant to be for AFL teams in 'non-AFL' areas to develop young sportsmen and provide opportunities for these players to have a pathway to the game that wouldn't exist. I don't see how this fits for this Hopper kid as it does for Heeney and Mills.

Makes a bit of a mockery of the system and leaves it somewhat open to attack from those who seek to have the benefits of the academy system to be diluted.

Whether it's the academies or the COLA, anything that benefits the Northern clubs will be open to attack. And these were intentional benefits to help these clubs offset disadvantages, like the loss of players due to the go home factor. From a broader perspective, the AFL would like to build a larger player pool and fan base in the non traditional states.

We see that the AFL is quick to tack away these benefits once they believe it is detrimental to their traditional heartland clubs and their fans.