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

[Nico]

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

But is there to be a sweetener for us?

The unequal nature of the AFL has got worse. Favouable draws, few interstate games, favourable game times, blockbusters that in many cases are not blockbusters, funds to underperforming Melbourne clubs, now favourable drafting rules to Melbourne clubs etc etc etc. Rotten to the core.

- - - Updated - - -

So why would the swans continue to fund the academy

Maybe we keep our powder dry until after this draft, then drop the Academy. Maybe the sweetener will be that the AFL funds the academies by the back door, and we run them. I'm filthy on this.

[Ludwig]

I think the system is an outright disgrace designed specifically to be as costly as possible to the Swans. There is no consideration for the long-term nature of developing players through the academy and the ephemeral nature of ladder position from year to year. So the effects of player development and the aspirations of the player and his family are effected by the coincidence of the team's ladder position at a time when a highly rated player happens to turn 18.

The official document uses the Isaac Heeney situation as its prime example. But it is truly disingenuous, as it includes the compensation pick received for Malceski in the calculations, which is not reflective of what the club has to fork out from its normal allocation of draft picks. I am not against a fairer system whereby a successful club pays closer to fair value, but this is over the top.

The real situation is this: If our first draft pick is 18, which may be a result of either finishing 1st of perhaps lower on the ladder but moved back places due to FA compensation, then the picture looks gloomy.

If the team with pick 1, say Carlton, bids for Mills we will have to come up with 2400 value points. Disregarding trading players out for picks, our total value points from draft pick allocations will be 1809 points, leaving us 591 points shy, which is the equivalent of pick 31. Let's say, optimistically, we can trade Craig Bird for such a pick to make up the deficit. That would mean in order to get an untried player, however highly rated, trained up for 6 years at our expense in our academy will cost us a premiership midfielder in the prime of his career and all of our 2015 draft picks. It's insane to think that there is anything remotely fair in such a system.

Furthermore, if Josh Dunkley is bid at around pick 5 or 6, a real possibility, then it will cost all of draft picks from 2015 and 2016 to get the 2 players.

If we just accept the situation and take the 2 players, then we will be effectively shut out from the draft next year, even from our own academy players, so there is really no point in continuing the academies under such a system. If we go with this strategy, I would wait until after the draft, just to see how it pans out, and if it follows the above scenario, I would close the academies. The hell with the MFL. Collingwood, with it's huge surplus can fork out some cash to keep the failing clubs afloat due to lack of development in the northern markets.

Regardless of strategy, the academy clubs should agree not to bid on each other's players.

The second strategy to play is to dare another club to bid for Mills. It goes like this: A scoop is leaked (planted) to a journo like Mark Robinson, through a third party, the so called reliable or impeccable source, perhaps even Mills' manager that the Swans are prepared to let Mills go to another club rather than part with anything more than their 1st round pick. Mills is determined to eventually play for the Swans, but they have come to an understanding that Mills might have to be 'trained up' for 2 years by another club before requesting a trade to the Swans, for which the Swans will be prepared to part with their 1st round pick in 2017, thus making it a very risky proposition to bid on Mills. If they ask Mills or the Swans about it, they simply say 'no comment' further implying that it may be true. We can even get some commentator to say what a smart strategy it is since the Swans have a packed midfield and Mills would take at least 2 years to break into the side anyway, so they might as well get senior game time into him at the expense of another club, who also take the risk of injury to the player. It is, in fact, not a bad strategy and not just a bluff. We have seen how easy it is for players to play out their initial contracts and then get to their preferred destinations at much lower draft picks (Yeo, Polec). Let this work for us this time. Let's turn the table on those that think it's okay to use the northern clubs for their training grounds. We would in fact have to be prepared to let Mills go unless he falls to around 5 or 6 places before our 1st pick.

I am so sick of us getting constantly whacked by the AFL. They, or should I say certain parties, put so much energy to knock us down. This time we need to get off the canvas and start fighting back by every means possible.

I never thought that the AFL would actually go through with such a deleterious system. I was foolish.

[Ludwig]

Statement from the club....


Club Statement - Academy Bidding System - sydneyswans.com.au

I'm very disappointed with this statement and our 'turn the cheek' attitude. We really won't know what the outcome is until after the draft. On the surface it looks like a complete capitulation, especially following the loss of Cola, the ridiculous trading ban, the special Buddy provisions and the AFL backdown on the financial equalisation tax.

Someone must be smiling now

eddie thumbs up 2.jpg

[goswannies]

They talk about the "romance" of having a son playing for the father's club.

I've always wondered why they don't have a similar bidding system for brothers.

Surely the "romance" of siblings playing together is as important as father/sons? How tragic if the Danihers, Morwoods, Cordiners, Richards (Lou & Ron) had never got the chance to play together. Now we had the Selwoods spread all over the country, only playing on the same ground in opposition colours. It's great that Ted & Xav got the chance, but that's a rarity.

[goswannies]

We should get some "draft credits" (in terms of points that can be carried over to subsequent drafts) for players who are developed in our academy but are drafted by other clubs.

[goswannies]

Furthermore, if Josh Dunkley is bid at around pick 5 or 6, a real possibility, then it will cost all of draft picks from 2015 and 2016 to get the 2 players.
If we just accept the situation and take the 2 players, then we will be effectively shut out from the draft next year, even from our own academy players, so there is really no point in continuing the academies under such a system.

Worse still, we use 2 years of draft picks on 2 players & Mills does and ACL & Dunkley, after his 2 years are up decides he's homesick.

[cherub]

That's actually a great idea, goswannies, so it has no chance of getting up. This Academy bidding system is a disaster, and totally exploits the Swans. Why is the Swans response so tepid? Why are we putting up with this? There is not enough downside for the nonAcademy clubs to withhold vexatious bids. It is way too high a price for early draft picks. The risk of injury to any one player makes the price of multiple draft picks ridiculous.

[ernie koala]

Under this new system, I would think that if we are forced to pay a top 4 to 5 price for Mills, which we probably will be, we won't be taking Dunkley.

Not because Dunkley isn't a top prospect, but because it's simply too risky to opt out of the early rounds of the next years draft.

It would put a gapping hole in the conveyer belt of our early round draft picks, and could prove extremely costly over the following seasons....

It's too risky for an untried, underage, player.

Unfortunately if Mills is bid for with a top 3 pick, the Swans would probably be better off letting him go, than giving up 4 draft picks.

Bye Bye to the academy.

I agree with Ludwig, my preferred strategy would be let Mills go in the hope of trading for him 2 years later.

Then assuming Dunkley falls past pick 8 or 9, draft him with the discount, costing us a first and maybe third round pick...

We'll then end up with both, after two years, for 2 first rounders and a third rounder....Who am I kidding, pie in the sky....we're stuffed.

[Kelpie_X]

Roll over. Good doggy!!!

[mcs]

Under this new system, I would think that if we are forced to pay a top 4 to 5 price for Mills, which we probably will be, we won't be taking Dunkley.

Not because Dunkley isn't a top prospect, but because it's simply too risky to opt out of the early rounds of the next years draft.

It would put a gapping hole in the conveyer belt of our early round draft picks, and could prove extremely costly over the following seasons....

It's too risky for an untried, underage, player.

Unfortunately if Mills is bid for with a top 3 pick, the Swans would probably be better off letting him go, than giving up 4 draft picks.

Bye Bye to the academy.

I agree with Ludwig, my preferred strategy would be let Mills go in the hope of trading for him 2 years later.

Then assuming Dunkley falls past pick 8 or 9, draft him with the discount, costing us a first and maybe third round pick...

We'll then end up with both, after two years, for 2 first rounders and a third rounder....Who am I kidding, pie in the sky....we're stuffed.

What a disgraceful outcome, as expected by a league with no foresight and being run by default by a big fat crybaby...

How ridiculous that we basically have to give up two years worth of players to get 1 1st rd pick and a father son selection, where we've spent significant money to develop that player to become good enough to be a first rd draft pick.

make no mistake, someone in the top 3 will bid for mills, guaranteed.

[Beerman]

My feeling is that the northern clubs will go to the afl with a proposal to drop or dramatically scale back the academies. (20% is a good discount but it doesn't justify a big investment).

A deal will probably then be struck for the AFL to partially fund them.

That would be a sensible solution so on second thoughts - extremely unlikely.

[mcs]

In addition, the example on the website about heeney shows how ridiculously high the points are for a pick at the top - the points at the top are far too high for what still is a risk.

We get a 20% discount for all the work put into a player like heeney - basically the equivalent of a late 2nd rd pick saved.

The club should take mills and tell the afl to fund the academy or we will shut it down.

[Ludwig]

Out of contract players are pretty much telling their clubs where they want to go. It's actually quite an advantage to have some home town boys at out of state clubs wanting to come home. We have so many good young midfielders, some will have to miss out. I'm very pleased that we signed Jones. We've got to find a spot for him. George Hewett will be a gun. I'm more interested that he stays with the club than paying out 5 draft picks for Mills (which is the most likely number). Even if we just took Dunkley it would be very difficult to find spots for them all, and I'm assuming that either Bird or Mitchell will have to be traded due to lack of opportunity for at least one (and it's looking like Bird atm).

[The Big Cat]

There is no way the Swans will let Mills go through to another club! If we have around pick 16-18 then what will we get with that? We have better luck further down. The Swans will already have a strategy to get what they want which no doubt includes Dunkley. The Victorian cellar dwellers this year all need KPP and wouldn't risk bidding for Mills and being shoved way down the order if they got him. Brisbane and GC are not going to slag on the Swans as this opens up a payback situation for future years when the Swans don't have prospect of their own. BTW, if Mills was to slip just to number 3, it has massive impacts for us.

The academy is worthwhile even if we got NO discount as it gives us first opportunity to grab any talent there. The 20% discount is a bonus in my view. I'm also sure the Swans know that there is no Heeney or Mills next year so they need to strike while the iron is hot.

[Mug Punter]

What a disgraceful outcome, as expected by a league with no foresight and being run by default by a big fat crybaby...

How ridiculous that we basically have to give up two years worth of players to get 1 1st rd pick and a father son selection, where we've spent significant money to develop that player to become good enough to be a first rd draft pick.

make no mistake, someone in the top 3 will bid for mills, guaranteed.

I still think this year is an outlier, a statistical anomaly.

The penalties are quite harsh for a top 3 pick and if we want Dunks as well we will need to trade a couple of mid list players like Bird and Towers.

I do think that there are some tangible benefits for the Swans in getting low risk picks from 20-60 in absolute certainty but I do think that with the benefits watered down so much that there is absolutely no way that the clubs should be funding this any further.

I would like to see the Northern Alliance take a strong united stand on this and I believe they may get some support from some fair minded clubs.