Tweet
Good point Matt. The strength in the academy is that it encourages the NSW and Qld youth to make the jump from other sports (especially NRL and soccer) that would have allowed them to stay in their home state. Removing this incentive will have a negative impact on the academies. I just hope the Swans don't pay too much for their academy players.
-
-
The academies are a pathway to the AFL for NSW and Qld youngsters - they are not the only pathway, but they're very important. They should not be seen as a pathway solely to the Swans, Giants, Lions or Suns. Whilst we stump up the $$$'s to keep them running we should have first dibs on players, but in this era of professionalism players of all codes would know that they may need to be willing to relocate at any time.
Also, there's nothing stopping a club trading a former academy player in future if that's deemed best for the club. Players would be aware of that if they're raised to be professionals, which is what the academies should be doing.Comment
-
Interesting that the poll on the afl website asking, 'Should northern clubs retain their rights to Academy players?', is at the moment 63% 'Yes, they need them'!!
Comment
-
Alert, all RWOers visit the site and boost the percentage even higher!!Comment
-
New proposed system.
If we want Mills and Dunkley it looks like we are going to have to trade players for some draft picks.Comment
-
Thanks for that. Interesting ... and it sucks! Swans should propose Collingwood develop an academy so they can try & develop their own gap toothed, mullet wearing little chicks of their own, then they might discourage this ridiculous Northern State bashing. What's the bet that when Collingwood have a whole bunch of FS potentials coming through at the same time, they want it changed back so they can get the lot of them?New proposed system.
If we want Mills and Dunkley it looks like we are going to have to trade players for some draft picks.Comment
-
We may even have to trade players just to draft Mills and forget about Dunkley if it's strickly based on this points system.New proposed system.
If we want Mills and Dunkley it looks like we are going to have to trade players for some draft picks.
If someone bids pick 1 (2250 pts with 25% discsount) or pick 2 (1888 pts) and our first pick is #18, etc. then the total points we have available from all our picks is only 1726. So we potentially wouldn't have enough available to get either one.
If you can give up every draft pick you have and still not be able to get an academy player that you put 8 years into, then something is not right. It appears that the system was specifically designed so we get shafted out of getting Mills and Dunkley.
The AFL supplement showing the calculations for what it would have taken to get Heeney is distortion because it should have shown that we could not have gotten Heeney except for the FA compensation we got for Malceski. So in effect Heeney would have cost us all our draft picks plus Malceski and we couldn't have gotten either Hiscox or Davis.
We'll have to wait to see what the final version is, but I think this one may be worth going to court over. It hardly seems worth continuing with the academy with this system. I think QBE has a good case as well, as do the parents of these kids who invested a lot to get them a local club. It cost $5 million dollars and pick 18 to get one player, Isaac Heeney. Talk about rorting the system.
Maybe the 4 northern clubs should quit the AFL and start their own league. I'm getting sick of whole lot of them anyway.Last edited by Ludwig; 27 January 2015, 07:55 PM.Comment
-
What a dogs breakfast of a proposed system! Talk about compkex and clearly aimed at screwing over the northern clubs pumping the $$$$ into player development.
Seems the afl wants to ramp up the entertainment value of draft night by ramping up the potential for gamesmanship between teams."You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."Comment
-
And shut the academy down for a year because we'll be short on points that second year to pick up anyone because of the points overdue from the previous year.
I might just be for a break away comp ... the NVAFL (Non-Victorian AFL). Sydney, GW$, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Eagles, Freo, Port (in their prison bar jumper ... stuff you Chins Maguire!), Crows, NT Thunder (can't be worse than the Dees or Dogs) & the Roos who relocate to Tassie.
Then the NVAFL could play the AFL Premier for the Champions of Australia Cup.
See how the AFL cope without non-Victiran money!
PS I'm a Victorian but very pissed at the AFL, Chins & Hawthorn.Comment
-
Great! We can use all our draft picks for the next 2 years to get the pair.
This system was specifically designed to screw the Swans. Don't tell me that #1 pick is worth more than picks 17, 18 and 19 combined. Notice how the curve sharply dips down to the point around where our 1st pick is likely to be this season, so that it effectively costs 3 2014 Isaac Heeneys to get 1 2015 Callum Mills. And notice that later round picks and rookie picks are valued at zero, as if players like Dean Cox, Brett Kirk, Michael Barlow and Matt Priddis never existed.
There were plenty of other methodologies to produce a similar kind of value system. But they chose the one that most highly values elite players by choosing salaries, instead of something like games played. I'm sure they played with a lot of alternative systems until they found the one where the Swans would have to pay the most.
We haven't heard the last of this. (Well, at least from me that is.)Comment
-
I already found one anomaly in the system:
For example, the Swans sit with pick #17 in the draft. Someone bids pick 16 for Mills and the Swans counter by using pick 17. Under the present system the Swans would just relinquish pick 17. Under the proposed system it would cost the Swans 800 points net of the 25% discount from which the value of pick 17, 1025 pts. would be applied, leaving over 225 pts. to which the Swans would be granted pick #54. See Ayce Cordy example for illustration. So the Swans would actually get an additional late 3rd round pick under this system for the given scenario.Comment
-
Or a new system where if say Melbourne want to bid pick 2 or 3 for Heeney, the Swans can say OK, take him for our pick 17 and we will take your pick 2 or 3???
This way we are compensated what another club thinks one of our players are worth and they get to keep the player they wanted.
A fair and open system which would encourage trading between clubs!doof-doofComment
-
I think it's time for the Swans to play hardball on this one. Sydney and QBE have put several million into the academy under the current system. If the AFL are going to now move the goal posts so that other clubs get a greater benefit then they need to refund this cost to us and QBE. I'd like to see the Swans walk away from the academy until this is resolved to our satisfaction. I know this won't be easy and it will be messy but it is necessary so that the AFL realise the consequences of this direction.
What p1553s me off is that when Geelong, etc got all of their great F/S selections for a third rounder no one was concerned, yet now that we are going to benefit it's a rort. If this is put in place I think we should tank like Hawthorn, Collingwood, etc so we get our men. Most clubs have done it. Our problem is that we are to good for it to be realistic.Last edited by S.S. Bleeder; 27 January 2015, 09:56 PM.Comment
Comment