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

[The Big Cat]

The small print is quite significant and I think this is what the Swans had argued for. The discount will be 20% for the first round only. Thereafter it is pegged at 197 points (the pick 18 discount). This means the discount will become a greater and greater percentage as we move further down the order. By pick 56 the discount is 100%. For picks after we would get the player plus accrue carry over points.

The other thing is that all our picks remain live but if we use their points value they are moved to the back of the draft. Let's see how good Kinnear Beatson is!

[Ludwig]

In the broad sense it probably is a fair system for most circumstances. It will have no negative impact on the Lions or GC and probably minimal impact on the Giants who already have loads of talent. Over the long run as teams move up and down the ladder it will be beneficial to the northern clubs.

What has always bothered me was that major rule changes were made specifically targeting a situation where it was seen that the Swans were getting too many draft bargains at a time when they were one of the top clubs. The whole point value scaling was designed just to make sure the Swans paid heavily for being in a too much of a fortuitous situation for some to bear.

It just seems that whenever the Swans get themselves into a good situation, the AFL come up with a ruling to punish us in some way.

We will get over this one too. But surely if we stay up at the top of the ladder their will more rulings to come.

8185ZEvXt5L._SL1500_.jpg

Here's a photo of Garry Rohan trying out the new AFL imposed ankle weights that will be required to be worn by Rohan, Jetta and Hiscox because the Swans have an unfair speed advantage over Collingwood, who don't have any player capable of running them down from behind.

[dimelb]

Some random thoughts after reading the thread and some of the AFL material:

1. As said by Mug Punter, the decision has been taken in response to an anomalous situation and the AFL has acted in haste when they should have let the existing system run a bit longer. It is almost a certainty that time would level out the anomalies.

2. As The Big Cat pointed out, it is still possible for the club to get the player they want. I would add that the terms are not unfair in principle, with the proviso that clubs with shorter AFL histories need something to balance the lack of father/son picks. Not us so much as, say, Adelaide and Port where locals from an earlier generation have ended up with the bigger Melbourne clubs and those clubs get the F/S picks.

3. I like Ludwig's suggestion that some other club can do the developing for us. The only problem with that is that (I think) the player has to go into the draft and can't come straight to the Swans.

4. When we have to take a given number of players from the draft we have to drop others to make room. I can envisage that there may well be years when, because we can't trade in numbers, we get to keep on the list a player or players we'd rather keep. Think of it as the Internal Ludwig Gambit.

5. If the AFL gets serious about equalisation they will need to revisit the free agency situation. It can't be allowed to benefit only the successful clubs, and the wealthier clubs should (in my view) be obliged to put in more - anything to avoid the EPL situation.

6. I don't in the least blame the Swans for the statement they have issued. A boardroom tantrum would produce only negative results; a better alternative is to establish more contacts with the non-Victorian clubs, especially of course the Northern clubs and apply pressure inside the existing structure. It will take longer but the results will be better and last longer.

[DamY]

If the AFL fund the academies, then the other clubs will feel that they should have equal access to the players as well. If that is the case, then they should fully fund the academies and remove the discounts and just have an open market. And then hopefully in a few years the go-home factor will come into play

[CureTheSane]

So swans recruit Tippett and Buddy within the rules and within the salary cap, the AFL and Eddie and Co jump up and down huffing and puffing that its not fair and imply the swans cheated. Swans get banned from trading in 2014 and have restricted trading in 2015, swans recruit Heeney so they change the Academy rules. This is annoying and will affect the swans massively in years to come. Cant wait for Eddie and his minions to start complaining about GWS now they are competitive. The AFL are a cheating administration headed by Gill the Dill that appear to stupidly want the swans to fail as they are doing everything they can so that the swans cant recruit decent talent. Might as well give em what they want and go down the bottom of the ladder like the lions - then lets see how good the TV deals are.

Yep yep yep and yep

[CureTheSane]

Wow we really told them!!!....

The clubs response was weaker and more timid than even I could imagine.
Doesn't sound like too much of the proposal was run by the Swans given that they still needed a lot of time to read through it.
Also sounds like it won't affect the investment in the academies.

Hope everyone is on board with the Swans paying for the development of players for all of the clubs....

[nomae]

If the AFL fund the academies, then the other clubs will feel that they should have equal access to the players as well. If that is the case, then they should fully fund the academies and remove the discounts and just have an open market. And then hopefully in a few years the go-home factor will come into play

This. There is now nowhere near as much incentive for the Swans to run the academy. Hand funding over to the AFL.

[Conor_Dillon]

It would cost the AFL almost double what it costs us to run the academies given that we already have the facilities and staff in place. There's no way the big Victorian clubs will allow this to happen whilst they're being forced to give money to the struggling clubs in the name of equalisation.

[Jimitron5000]

Wow, I bet the AFL is reeling over the statement the club issued.
My thoughts:
20% for time and effort to develop an academy player is laughable. Having said that I am happy with the idea that clubs pair a fair price for talent. We have done ok recently with Heeney and Mitchell being drafted well below market rate.
If we draft both Mills and Dunkley we can expect to see some good Swans players wearing other colours next year.
The rookie draft is going to be unbelievably important for us
I hope there are some gems in the academy that no one else knows about that can be bought on the uber-cheap.

Really disappointed with the clubs response. Perhaps they know something we don't.

[jono2707]

Maybe we will just suck it up after all.

Look at the 2011 draft - we got Tom Mitchell as a f/s selection. We got no one else of note in that draft (Lockyer at 43 and Alex Brown 61) plus rookie promotions and rookie listers. Whilst I haven't done the sums, if taking Mitchell had costed us the other picks in that draft, we'd still be better off having snared him. And he was touted as a top 5 talent.

Obviously this won't be the case in other years but if we need to bite the bullet and take Mills and Dunkley at the behest of drafting later down the order, maybe we should. In the coming few years we won't have the same top end talent coming through f/s or academy (by the looks of things) so it won't be much of an issue.

Maybe this is the club's approach, and hence the reason for the tepid press release.....

As an aside, if we draft fewer players as a result of this scoring system, doesn't that reduce the overall number of young players coming in to the AFL? Kind of counter-productive I would have thought?

[707]

We need to stop focussing on what Mills and Dunkley will cost us this year for two reasons.

They may in fact slide down the order a little and not derail our 2016 recruiting.

If they are as good as touted, then adding two talents like that to an already top flight and relatively young midfield will make us a powerhouse for 6-7 years at least.

The big win in the proposed system is fixing the discount at pick 18 level. I haven't done the spreadsheet yet but it means we are getting real bargains from the start of the second round. In normal years this is where our academy players are likely to be.

The bigger discount on R2+ players brings upgrades to later picks. The dynamics of it all are hugely complicated and I trust the club to work out all the nuances to our advantage.

So forget what Mills and Dunkley will cost, focus on the appreciable benefits of later picks, some of which will come free with the big discount. This is why the clubs response seems limp, they know the real bonuses of the new system.

[mcs]

We need to stop focussing on what Mills and Dunkley will cost us this year for two reasons.

They may in fact slide down the order a little and not derail our 2016 recruiting.

If they are as good as touted, then adding two talents like that to an already top flight and relatively young midfield will make us a powerhouse for 6-7 years at least.

The big win in the proposed system is fixing the discount at pick 18 level. I haven't done the spreadsheet yet but it means we are getting real bargains from the start of the second round. In normal years this is where our academy players are likely to be.

The bigger discount on R2+ players brings upgrades to later picks. The dynamics of it all are hugely complicated and I trust the club to work out all the nuances to our advantage.

So forget what Mills and Dunkley will cost, focus on the appreciable benefits of later picks, some of which will come free with the big discount. This is why the clubs response seems limp, they know the real bonuses of the new system.

That pick 18 discount rate is something I had missed first time around, and is a good win for the academy clubs.

[DamY]

It would cost the AFL almost double what it costs us to run the academies given that we already have the facilities and staff in place. There's no way the big Victorian clubs will allow this to happen whilst they're being forced to give money to the struggling clubs in the name of equalisation.

Well the "southern" clubs can stump up or shut up. Pay your way or get off the bus, simple. If they want access, pay for it! These are players that a) would either not be available or b) leave other players in the pool for them to pick. They need to just get over it, it's pretty much the best way forward. What about Eddie's Collingwood Academy he proposed for NSW? Go and do it and stop picking on the Swans. They have enough money to do it, they just can't be bothered

[Reggi]

This is a rubbish outcome.

[liz]

What about Eddie's Collingwood Academy he proposed for NSW? Go and do it and stop picking on the Swans. They have enough money to do it, they just can't be bothered

He would if he were allowed. The AFL won't allow other clubs to set up academies in NSW and Queensland. That is one of the more reasonable gripes of other clubs.