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

[MightyBloods]

There is a great deal of pressure from the Victorian clubs with their own agenda to strip NSW/QLD clubs of "so called" advantages. Apparently, a lot of clubs weren't happy when the original Riverina proposal was put forward, including the Swans. Draft concessions with this particular zone was felt as excessive. In any case, I agree with Liz. It was a deal agreed with investment then forth coming from that particular club. Sound familiar? Something called the Academy System. I've asked some Vic friends recently without any reference to the Academy, would you pay 7 million over 7 years to prioritise one kid (maybe 2) to have first dibs in the draft? Guess the overwhelming response? "You f...kidding"!! My response to Ed on the same matter is "Ed, you don't want to invest but you demand the interest"!

[Doctor]

Wagga specifically? Or the Riverina more generally?

I don't see how different rules for different regions is workable. Right now, the Giants have the Riverina and other areas of southern NSW in their zone and have been investing in the area accordingly. If they decide to carve out a section of the state from the academy scheme going forward, that is one thing. But the Giants should still be entitled to bid under the same system as will apply more broadly for players already in their system - certainly those draftable this year and probably for the next couple of years. I'd have thought redefining zones was a completely separate question to the draft cost.

I get that Liz but the argument is probably that areas like the Riverina weren't really in need of academies because they already have plenty of decent level junior footy and a clear pathway, and that's pretty hard to argue with. What that then means for the Giants is another argument but it's a fair point in and of itself.

[liz]

I get that Liz but the argument is probably that areas like the Riverina weren't really in need of academies because they already have plenty of decent level junior footy and a clear pathway, and that's pretty hard to argue with. What that then means for the Giants is another argument but it's a fair point in and of itself.

Fine. So strip the area out of their zone going forward if its not deemed to need it. (I'm not completely convinced that it isn't - it may not need it as badly as other parts of NSW but the number of draftees to emerge from the region over the past decade isn't that impressive. People can't keep referring back to Carey and Kelly.)

But the idea of changing the rules retrospectively irks me no end. Draft access to these players is intended to be an incentive to the clubs to invest time, know how (and money). It's not really fair to induce someone to invest and then tell them they're not entitled to the rewards afterwards.

[Ludwig]

Perhaps I should wait for the official announcement before going into a rant, but early word is that the academy and FS discount will be 20%. Under such a scenario, if Mills is bid pick 1 and we finish first, then Mills will cost all of our draft picks this year plus our first round pick from 2016 will be downgraded to pick 39. We will not be able to draft Dunkley even if we use our remaining picks from next year. So the story goes that they will cost us all of our draft picks from the next 2 years plus and established player worth around pick 20, like Tom Mitchell, for example.

If this does come to pass it will probably be worth letting Mills go and cry 'I wanna go back to Momma' after his 2 year contract is up. It's the only way to teach the out of staters not to bid on our academy boys.

The other option is to bite the bullet this time round and close the academies at year end. It's simply not worth it under such a system.

[liz]

AFL plans US-style draft days

You have to laugh at this article. I am surprised at Emma Quayle lending her name to it.

Paraphrasing, over recent seasons close to 12 academy players (per year) have been taken.

This, presumably, is based on a sample of one year. And it has to include all the players taken as rookies too.

[Untamed Snark]

Perhaps I should wait for the official announcement before going into a rant, but early word is that the academy and FS discount will be 20%. Under such a scenario, if Mills is bid pick 1 and we finish first, then Mills will cost all of our draft picks this year plus our first round pick from 2016 will be downgraded to pick 39. We will not be able to draft Dunkley even if we use our remaining picks from next year. So the story goes that they will cost us all of our draft picks from the next 2 years plus and established player worth around pick 20, like Tom Mitchell, for example.

If this does come to pass it will probably be worth letting Mills go and cry 'I wanna go back to Momma' after his 2 year contract is up. It's the only way to teach the out of staters not to bid on our academy boys.

The other option is to bite the bullet this time round and close the academies at year end. It's simply not worth it under such a system.

Wonder if we could claim compensation from the AFL?
Something along the lines of misrepresentation of intent for the academy system-claim that the AFL never had any intention of letting the northern teams have any priority or benefit from the academy despite the time, effort & money put into them?

[707]

Callum Twomey's Top 20 draft prospects just up on the AFL website. Mills and Dunkley for us, Hopper and Kennedy for GWS, Keays for Brisbane.

Should make the bidding process at the ND lively.

[Conor_Dillon]

20% is absolutely laughable.

[707]

20% is absolutely laughable.

Eddie is fuming at the generosity of 20%!

[mcs]

AFL plans US-style draft days

You have to laugh at this article. I am surprised at Emma Quayle lending her name to it.



This, presumably, is based on a sample of one year. And it has to include all the players taken as rookies too.

Especially when you consider many of those rookies were taken a long way down the draft, but not many F-S selections, based on fair value, fall outside of the 1st or 2nd rd of the draft.

[Nico]

Especially when you consider many of those rookies were taken a long way down the draft, but not many F-S selections, based on fair value, fall outside of the 1st or 2nd rd of the draft.

If IIRC Mark Evans who is overseeing this tripe was Football Manager at Hawthorn!

[dimelb]

There's a fascinating overview of the comp by a Sandgroper on Footy Almanac:

Analysis: Queuing up at the bottom in Melbourne

I LOLd at this snippet:

So it is going to make for interesting times with 3 of the big 4 Melbourne teams propping up the table for years to come, with Hawthorn set for a cameo role in the top half and none the big 4 top 4 for quite a long time.

Can?t wait to read about the extent to which this will all be due to the Sydney Academy.

[CureTheSane]

Swans have been very quiet on this as per recent history.
Tomorrow we'll see how passive and accommodating they have been.
Personally, I am prepared firstly to be pissed at the result, and then angry that the Swans didn't put up a fight.
One could almost say that Eddie's "you've only been 10 minutes", whilst self serving, arrogant, condescending, and demeaning, have well put the Swans in their place with regard to public comments on big matters.
Big fat scary Eddie kind of owned us, and by the looks of it, still owns us...

[Beerman]

The article states correctly that the AFLPA are armed with the ability to challenge the salary cap in the Supreme Court if they can't come to agreement with the AFL later this year.

And it is clear who will win that battle. In fact it is not even a battle as precedents have been made on numerous occasions. The AFL has to lose.

On what basis do you make that determination, Ludwig? Surely the CBA includes the salary cap and the players all agree to it as part of their contracts?

[Ludwig]

On what basis do you make that determination, Ludwig? Surely the CBA includes the salary cap and the players all agree to it as part of their contracts?

I haven't checked the expiration date of the CBA, but the article states that it's this year, so the CBA is what is up for renegotiation. I suppose that everything is on the table. This matter has been widely discussed over many years. Whenever there's been a court challenge to salary cap provisions it's been struck down. Sports industries have been treated the same as any other industry. The only thing keeping the salary cap in place is that all the parties agree not to challenge it in court. So far, everyone has stuck to keeping it that way.