Is it already Killing Season 2016 (List Management) after 2 rounds

[707]

You really have to hope that teams bid for GWS academy players when they should be bid on. You only have to get a number of clubs not bothering for the said draftee end up very cheap for GWS.

They may however be a bit loath to bid just in case GWS don't match, then they are stuck with a GWS infused draftee, although if your academy team has failed to match for you, you'd be fairly pissed off!

Not sure we would do it because of the sheer number of picks available to GWS that could come back to bite us, but we are in a nice position to bid on GWS academy players, if they didn't match the draftee might not be too disappointed going to the other NSW club.

This year looms as another really interesting draft. There will be massive agitation from down south about the GWS draft haul, particularly if they go deep into Sept. GWS will be aware of this so won't chase higher picks. The danger is if the first GWS academy player bid on is after their highest pick meaning they could get a player from the general pool before their first academy player. That would have Eddie and co torching VFL headquarters.

Think GWS in their trading will aim for 2018 picks as they already have enough points this year to take all the academy players they will want, and them some!

[Mug Punter]

You really have to hope that teams bid for GWS academy players when they should be bid on. You only have to get a number of clubs not bothering for the said draftee end up very cheap for GWS.

They may however be a bit loath to bid just in case GWS don't match, then they are stuck with a GWS infused draftee, although if your academy team has failed to match for you, you'd be fairly pissed off!

Not sure we would do it because of the sheer number of picks available to GWS that could come back to bite us, but we are in a nice position to bid on GWS academy players, if they didn't match the draftee might not be too disappointed going to the other NSW club.

This year looms as another really interesting draft. There will be massive agitation from down south about the GWS draft haul, particularly if they go deep into Sept. GWS will be aware of this so won't chase higher picks. The danger is if the first GWS academy player bid on is after their highest pick meaning they could get a player from the general pool before their first academy player. That would have Eddie and co torching VFL headquarters.

Think GWS in their trading will aim for 2018 picks as they already have enough points this year to take all the academy players they will want, and them some!

I think that the Riverina issue will be resolved and to be quite honest I think this is the major final bugbear of the non-Academy clubs. The issue of gaining extra points from your trading strategy is also a fair point, all clubs should be able to trade picks as they see fit but you shouldn't get extra points from it IMO.

But I'm not sure that the Riverina changes will be made until next year so I'd expect GWS to bank as many academy kids as they can.

But having said that I really do think the VFL will get rid of the Academy discount which will really kill one of the game's best ideas off. And as I've said, we'll be OK but Brisbane should just shut up shop.

In terms of our strategy I've down a complete 180 degree turn re a KPD because I am just blown away how well AA has developed. Along with Rampe playing the KPD role on big targets. With Talia and Reid as KPD backups I'd just upgrade three rookies and take our Picks 1 and 2, though I would go for the best young KPD at Pick 1. And I'd keep Towers for sure because he will keep on getting better. Obviously Mitchell is the question mark and I think we'd take a future Round 1 Pick.

[barry]

If the AFL remove the riverina from GWS then expect GWS to be given an existing swans zone in a NSW restructure.

I dont think they should lose the riverina by the way.

[Mug Punter]

If the AFL remove the riverina from GWS then expect GWS to be given an existing swans zone in a NSW restructure.

I dont think they should lose the riverina by the way.

If that's what it takes, say the Illawarra-South Coast area, to keep the Academy System then I'd cop that.

Canberra should provide plenty of opportunity and it's an area that until the last 20 years of NSWAFL neglect has traditionally been very strong. And GWS should still have Broken Hill that is a traditional AFL area.

I think that the clubs look at Mills and Heeney and they can see how we have developed them and taken them from another sport's pathway. They see kids running around for Victorian clubs in the TAC Cup (FFS one even plays for the Northern Jets in Melbourne) and then wonder how on earth GWS can claim to have developed that talent and draft them at a discount. It's a fair question and I'd like to think I'd fair-minded enough to feel that way if the Swans had those zones.

IMO it is all about the academy system being about development in non-traditional AFL strongholds and not about a recruitment zone based on state boundaries.

The attached article is pretty fair IMO GWS' academy region is 'overkill': Hawthorn list manager - AFL.com.au

[barry]

Why keep broken hill and lose riverina?

We don't need change. We can bid for any player.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

[Mug Punter]

Reading the Age article today it would be seem that they are not looking at abandoning the discount altogether.

And, rightly or wrongly, I think that the Riverina will be stripped out for the very reason it is not a development zone.

As long as we, and other academy clubs, get the discount on our Number 1 Pick then that's fine with me. In many ways that's all we want and in reality we would never be able to afford Mills and Heeney in the same draft unless we throw away all the next years picks or trade a first rounder.

And I don't have a problem with the discount not applying if you don't have a pick in that round. If you think you have an academy kid that you'd take first round you keep your first round pick, simple as that.

It goes back to the attempt decades ago by the Swans to offer to take development responsibility of NSW-ACT in return for ONE priority pick in the Draft. And I'd also cop having no discount applied to our first rounder but us having to Draft a first rounder with an Academy kid - we would have won the last two years but will lose this year.

I suspect there will be some tinkering but FFS let's just give this system 5 years to prove it's worth.

[barry]

How many players does a zone have to produce before it is no longer a development zone ?

Isn't that a disencentive to develop it ?

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

[Bloods05]

How many players does a zone have to produce before it is no longer a development zone ?

Isn't that a disencentive to develop it ?

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

The Riverina is not a development zone. That is all.

[Mug Punter]

The Riverina is not a development zone. That is all.

+1, it's as bloody simple as that.

[Triple B]

The Riverina is not a development zone. That is all.

+1, it's as bloody simple as that.

But some parts of the Riverina are development zones of sorts. Just as many great League players have come out of Wagga and surrounding towns as AFL players. If the academy in that area means the AFL get an inside running at luring the elite talent, then that has to be a good thing.

I have no argument when it comes to Albury and towns along the Murray, that is clearly AFL territory.

[barry]

That's a cop out

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

[barry]

The "development zone" thing is just a bit of GWS bashing and playing right into the hands of mcguire and co.

It also fails because no one can define what a development zone is.

Academies were built to get NSW / QLD players into NSW/QLD teams. To overcome relocation factors, currently killing brisbane and when you look at GWS theyve already lost an AFL quality list.

[Industrial Fan]

Mug what difference does the 25% discount make anyway? It's a completely nominal discount based on a more or less arbitrary points value. I don't think it does much in our case and likewise on behalf of the kids from the Riverina.

The main things is it gives them a pathway if they want it. The 25% is pretty irrelevant and is a noisy distraction from the function of the academies

[Ludwig]

Mug what difference does the 25% discount make anyway? It's a completely nominal discount based on a more or less arbitrary points value. I don't think it does much in our case and likewise on behalf of the kids from the Riverina.

The main things is it gives them a pathway if they want it. The 25% is pretty irrelevant and is a noisy distraction from the function of the academies

First of all the discount is 20%, not 25%.

The issues surrounding the academies are complex and for the AFL it's a matter of finding the right balance between what goes into running an academy and what the club gets out of it. Furthermore, the 4 academy clubs each have their own respective particulars which makes it difficult to find a formula that encompasses the 4 as a group.

Without any discount, but allowing first access to an academy player would be of some benefit, particularly for a team that finishes high on the ladder and has a star prospect in the draft. The current bidding system was designed to make Sydney pay as much as possible for Callum Mills after the uproar over getting Heeney for what some thought was too cheap. If it were Brisbane with a Heeney and Mills in successive years, there wouldn't have been an issue.

IMO, the AFL's approach has been shortsighted and targets specific circumstances rather than taking a broad look at the issues over a long period of time. I believe the key issues for the AFL are growing the game in both participation and following in NSW and QLD, offsetting the 'go-home' excuse that allows traditional AFL clubs to target players of the academy clubs (this is not a factor for the Swans because they are an established successful club, but remains a factor for the others), and providing enough incentive for the academy clubs to develop local talent (opportunity cost of running an academy).

I agree that the Riverina zone is more of a gift zone to GWS than a true footy development zone and should probably not be part of their academy. The current GWS anomalies will work their way through the system in a few years time once their list size and salary cap concessions expire. But aside from that, I think we should leave the system alone for a few years and see what happens. The biggest benefit in the next couple of years will go to the QLD clubs who really do need it. The Swans don't have anyone special coming through in the next 2 drafts and the 'damage', if you want to call it that, is all ready done in the case of GWS.

[Industrial Fan]

20% 25% 12% no % is the same argument for me. The picks are given a nominal points value so I don't see what difference it makes in principle.

Looking at our case vs Gws, the discount applied was seen as trivial for Mills and a shortsighted move as you point out. Looking through the same lense I don't see that discount having any relevance as to whether or not Gws is entitled to the Riverina.