AFL changes bidding/points rule

[Maltopia]

Draft 'loophole' to remain despite some clubs' concerns - AFL.com.au

This is BS. If Sydney trades pick 15 for three lower picks that are worth more points which are then used up for an academy player what is wrong with that?

The other clubs were prepared to pay "overs" (in points) to acquire our number 15 and go up the draft order.

When we use up our lower bids to pay for an academy player, guess what? The other clubs all move up three spots with their draft picks.

The changes make it so much harder to get more points, the only way to do it is to up trade your highest three picks.

This is just more crap from Melbourne clubs, especially Hawthorn (named in this article) to protect their own success to the detriment of growing the game nationally.

[Steve]

The way this issue was/is being reported is borderline disgraceful - influenced by the negative propaganda that surrounds the academy system.

'Loophole' has the connotation there is an unfair advantage being exploited for significant gain - in reality it is only a minor points benefit being achieved, and clearly these trades only happen if the other club get something out of it as well (ie. not an unfair or lopsided trade).

Hawthorn and Collingwood lead the pack who express their 'concerns' with what northern clubs have done in 'trading down' their picks - yet last year they both participated in such trades when they thought they could get a benefit from it.

The whole argument that 'clubs are trading away their first and second round picks but using the points they get to bid for top 5 players and that's not right' is just illogical - those clubs ARE effectively using those picks by trading them away.

It's like saying you start with a $100 note, and then swap that with someone for 2 x $50 notes plus a $2 coin, because they really like the look of a $100 note and throw in that $2 just as a sweetener to make it worth your while.

But then you go to buy something that is worth $98 dollars and you're told they only accept $100 notes. Why does it matter what denominations you have use if you're still paying the 'advertised price'?

[i'm-uninformed2]

Did we expect anything else from Eddie's puppets,Gil and Fitzpatrick?

[Danzar]

The way this issue was/is being reported is borderline disgraceful - influenced by the negative propaganda that surrounds the academy system.

'Loophole' has the connotation there is an unfair advantage being exploited for significant gain - in reality it is only a minor points benefit being achieved, and clearly these trades only happen if the other club get something out of it as well (ie. not an unfair or lopsided trade).

Hawthorn and Collingwood lead the pack who express their 'concerns' with what northern clubs have done in 'trading down' their picks - yet last year they both participated in such trades when they thought they could get a benefit from it.

The whole argument that 'clubs are trading away their first and second round picks but using the points they get to bid for top 5 players and that's not right' is just illogical - those clubs ARE effectively using those picks by trading them away.

It's like saying you start with a $100 note, and then swap that with someone for 2 x $50 notes plus a $2 coin, because they really like the look of a $100 note and throw in that $2 just as a sweetener to make it worth your while.

But then you go to buy something that is worth $98 dollars and you're told they only accept $100 notes. Why does it matter what denominations you have use if you're still paying the 'advertised price'?

Spot on.

There's a heap of weasel words in the AFL's write up. They've shut down the pathway we took to get Heeney and Mills, and to avoid scrutiny or responsibility, have created this fictional loophole they have pretended to keep open.

We secured our Academy players amid an unfair trade ban mind you, with the Academy paid for by us.

Time to kick arse Swannies, on the pitch, in September. @@@@ them.

[Ludwig]

It doesn't effect us this year, but this is a total disaster for the academy system. I can think of so many scenarios that would ruin the draft for academy players expecting to reach their club.

Here is just one simple example. ---

You have 2 academy players you would like to take. So called experts rate one player around pick 3 or 4 and the other around pick 20.
You trade out players to move up the draft to acquire the points you probably will need, going to the draft with picks 5, 20, 45 and 60 for 3283 points.
At the draft no one bids on your first academy player so you are effectively forced to use pick 5 for the player and lose the discount.
On the next pick, pick 6, a bid comes for your next player who was rated much lower, but still a good player. You need to use all your remaining picks to get that player, or pass and get you next pick at 20 for a non academy player.
So you take your academy player, using all your remaining picks and then forced to take 2 players at the end of the draft.
Instead of actually receiving a discount for academy players, you not only don't get a discount, but lose your 3rd and 4th round picks.
So trying to plan to get an academy player to the club that has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop, the club ends up losing draft position.
There actually becomes a premium to get your academy players, not a discount, because if you want to draft an academy player you have to trade up to be sure of getting the player to your club, as there are a limited number of picks you have to get your player. It may become very difficult to even trade yourself into any reasonable position. Other clubs, knowing your dilemma and perhaps not liking the academy system, may not trade with you or force you to give up more than is fair value. You may be willing to trade Tom Mitchell to get a high pick to draft a Callum Mills, but maybe the best you could get for Tom is pick 20.

It takes a long time to write up a scenario, so I won't do another one. but this system sucks. It is no longer worth having the academy. I would just drop it. GC and Brisbane are screwed. They will be forced to overpay if they want to keep the local players they've developed or take out of state players and have them leave the club to go home.

Nice going AFL. You might as well close up shop in Queensland. There goes the northern states talent pool that was just beginning to feed good players into the AFL system. You were heading toward making footy a national sport, but you blew it.

[linko]

^^^^ what he said

[dimelb]

A quote from the article on the AFL site:
"We didn't like it. Any system that promotes or encourages academy clubs to move out of the first round and nearly out of the second round and still have access to a top-five player is a flawed system, in my view," [Hawthorn's list manager Graham] Wright said.

"It's the system we've got and we have to work in it, and people were able to manipulate that system and get some good results for themselves. But there was a lot of clubs that were disadvantaged by that actually happening."

Wright and/or other list managers and/or the AFL need to spell out the meaning of this statement by being specific about the disadvantage he claims. I suspect that the real so-called disadvantage is that the Northern clubs have preferential access to the players they have paid for via their academies. Surely the AFL must see that the 20% discount per se may not be sufficient to land the wanted player, which is why the trading for points took place. Several posters on this forum have frequently said these advantages are needed to grow the game, and we are saying it again. It is past time for the AFL to ask themselves how serious they are about growing the game outside Victoria.

And the AFL needs to restore the retention allowance for the Queensland clubs.

[ScottH]

A quote from the article on the AFL site:
"We didn't like it. Any system that promotes or encourages academy clubs to move out of the first round and nearly out of the second round and still have access to a top-five player is a flawed system, in my view," [Hawthorn's list manager Graham] Wright said.

"It's the system we've got and we have to work in it, and people were able to manipulate that system and get some good results for themselves. But there was a lot of clubs that were disadvantaged by that actually happening."

Wright and/or other list managers and/or the AFL need to spell out the meaning of this statement by being specific about the disadvantage he claims. I suspect that the real so-called disadvantage is that the Northern clubs have preferential access to the players they have paid for via their academies. Surely the AFL must see that the 20% discount per se may not be sufficient to land the wanted player, which is why the trading for points took place. Several posters on this forum have frequently said these advantages are needed to grow the game, and we are saying it again. It is past time for the AFL to ask themselves how serious they are about growing the game outside Victoria.

And the AFL needs to restore the retention allowance for the Queensland clubs.

Definitely.
The expansion in QLD hasn't been the success story they hoped it would be.
It will also be interesting to see what happens to GWS once they lose all their "extras" in the coming years.

[Mug Punter]

For crying out loud had anyone here actually read the article?

There's absolutely no reason for the hysterics on here. The only thing that has been banned is phantom bids and rightly so. You can only use picks for points if that pick is actually available for use at the draft. So, if Brisbane has six spots on their list and trade to get 8 picks they can only use the points on the first 6. It's behaviour being banned that was designed purely and simply to exploit the system, Brisbane exploited a loophole in the system (and it was a loophole, why else would you trade for a draft pick you can never use) and it has been closed.

There's no change to the discount which is the main, if not only issue.

And despite the article giving the impression it was considered there is no change to trading picks to get more points. You can trade backwards still on an unlimited basis as long as there are no phantom picks though I suspect that was because this was due more to the Vic/WA/SA clubs liking the fact that they can get an extra first round pick by bundling second rounders up.

Even if they had adopted the most extreme option, that of allowing clubs to trade backwards but requiring they keep a first round pick, we would have avoiding Ludwig's situation by trading our Pick for late first rounder and a second rounder.

All this change does is take out some unintended behaviours that were not in the spirit of the system.

I suggest we all take a deep breath, read up about how the system actually works and read the article properly. I'm totally against the watering down of the academy system but this is a minor tweak at worst and one that is totally justified.

- - - Updated - - -

Definitely.
The expansion in QLD hasn't been the success story they hoped it would be.
It will also be interesting to see what happens to GWS once they lose all their "extras" in the coming years.

Couldn't agree more but this minor change does nothing to affect this

[Mug Punter]

It doesn't effect us this year, but this is a total disaster for the academy system. I can think of so many scenarios that would ruin the draft for academy players expecting to reach their club.

Here is just one simple example. ---

You have 2 academy players you would like to take. So called experts rate one player around pick 3 or 4 and the other around pick 20.
You trade out players to move up the draft to acquire the points you probably will need, going to the draft with picks 5, 20, 45 and 60 for 3283 points.
At the draft no one bids on your first academy player so you are effectively forced to use pick 5 for the player and lose the discount.
On the next pick, pick 6, a bid comes for your next player who was rated much lower, but still a good player. You need to use all your remaining picks to get that player, or pass and get you next pick at 20 for a non academy player.
So you take your academy player, using all your remaining picks and then forced to take 2 players at the end of the draft.
Instead of actually receiving a discount for academy players, you not only don't get a discount, but lose your 3rd and 4th round picks.
So trying to plan to get an academy player to the club that has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop, the club ends up losing draft position.
There actually becomes a premium to get your academy players, not a discount, because if you want to draft an academy player you have to trade up to be sure of getting the player to your club, as there are a limited number of picks you have to get your player. It may become very difficult to even trade yourself into any reasonable position. Other clubs, knowing your dilemma and perhaps not liking the academy system, may not trade with you or force you to give up more than is fair value. You may be willing to trade Tom Mitchell to get a high pick to draft a Callum Mills, but maybe the best you could get for Tom is pick 20.

It takes a long time to write up a scenario, so I won't do another one. but this system sucks. It is no longer worth having the academy. I would just drop it. GC and Brisbane are screwed. They will be forced to overpay if they want to keep the local players they've developed or take out of state players and have them leave the club to go home.

Nice going AFL. You might as well close up shop in Queensland. There goes the northern states talent pool that was just beginning to feed good players into the AFL system. You were heading toward making footy a national sport, but you blew it.

Your scenario is an issue that needs to be covered now, that's why clubs will trade back their early picks. And there's nothing stopping this happening still

You trade Pick 5 (1,878 points) for Pick 17 (1,025 points) and Pick 26 (729 points) which still leave you with a first round pick and picks 17,20,26,45,60 and go from there, assuming you have five spots on the list.

You can do that now and you'd be able to do that even if they made the changes they didn't.

[Ludwig]

Maybe I don't fully understand the change the AFL has made, but I have reread it and it comes out the same to me. I think there is room to maneuver with the variable list sizes of 38 to 40. It is also not that complicated to work through 1 desired academy selection, such as what we've had with Mills and Heeney. But it becomes quite complex if you are in the situation GWS find themselves, having 5 highly rated academy players and lots of possible listed player movements. It must be a nightmare trying to manage their situation this year.

Perhaps the AFL intended to have GWS lose player value this year because they realise that they went overboard on their concessions. As I said in my previous post, I think the Queensland clubs will be the ones to suffer most from this change in the long run, as out of state players simply don't want to go there. They don't need to have things become even more difficult for them. Brisbane has lost a huge amount of draft value in recent times due to player movements.

One good strategy to counter the change, looking long term, is to go light on draft picks in years with good academy players and load up for the following year, carry a deficit into the next year and pay for it then when the exact value point cost is known. Then you can get full value for the discount. It's easier to pay for picks when you already know the value point cost as opposed to trying to anticipate where they will be bid for.

On a more specific matter to this draft, I think we should try to exploit the GWS situation by targeting Jeremy Finlayson, as the Giants may be looking to open list places so they can carry more value points to the draft to pay for their high academy picks. I'm sure there is a lot I haven't thought about and will look forward to the GWS reaction and other scenarios as the this rule change is digested.

[0918330512]

Maybe I don't fully understand the change the AFL has made, but I have reread it and it comes out the same to me. I think there is room to maneuver with the variable list sizes of 38 to 40. It is also not that complicated to work through 1 desired academy selection, such as what we've had with Mills and Heeney. But it becomes quite complex if you are in the situation GWS find themselves, having 5 highly rated academy players and lots of possible listed player movements. It must be a nightmare trying to manage their situation this year.

Perhaps the AFL intended to have GWS lose player value this year because they realise that they went overboard on their concessions. As I said in my previous post, I think the Queensland clubs will be the ones to suffer most from this change in the long run, as out of state players simply don't want to go there. They don't need to have things become even more difficult for them. Brisbane has lost a huge amount of draft value in recent times due to player movements.

One good strategy to counter the change, looking long term, is to go light on draft picks in years with good academy players and load up for the following year, carry a deficit into the next year and pay for it then when the exact value point cost is known. Then you can get full value for the discount. It's easier to pay for picks when you already know the value point cost as opposed to trying to anticipate where they will be bid for.

On a more specific matter to this draft, I think we should try to exploit the GWS situation by targeting Jeremy Finlayson, as the Giants may be looking to open list places so they can carry more value points to the draft to pay for their high academy picks. I'm sure there is a lot I haven't thought about and will look forward to the GWS reaction and other scenarios as the this rule change is digested.

If GWS gave to release top end talent to clear their list a little or accomodate players who want out (for opportunities or to return home), can they be traded for future high end draft picks that can be stockpiled for use in securing future academy players?

[Mug Punter]

Maybe I don't fully understand the change the AFL has made, but I have reread it and it comes out the same to me. I think there is room to maneuver with the variable list sizes of 38 to 40. It is also not that complicated to work through 1 desired academy selection, such as what we've had with Mills and Heeney. But it becomes quite complex if you are in the situation GWS find themselves, having 5 highly rated academy players and lots of possible listed player movements. It must be a nightmare trying to manage their situation this year.

Perhaps the AFL intended to have GWS lose player value this year because they realise that they went overboard on their concessions. As I said in my previous post, I think the Queensland clubs will be the ones to suffer most from this change in the long run, as out of state players simply don't want to go there. They don't need to have things become even more difficult for them. Brisbane has lost a huge amount of draft value in recent times due to player movements.

One good strategy to counter the change, looking long term, is to go light on draft picks in years with good academy players and load up for the following year, carry a deficit into the next year and pay for it then when the exact value point cost is known. Then you can get full value for the discount. It's easier to pay for picks when you already know the value point cost as opposed to trying to anticipate where they will be bid for.

On a more specific matter to this draft, I think we should try to exploit the GWS situation by targeting Jeremy Finlayson, as the Giants may be looking to open list places so they can carry more value points to the draft to pay for their high academy picks. I'm sure there is a lot I haven't thought about and will look forward to the GWS reaction and other scenarios as the this rule change is digested.

To be fair Ludwig it is rather confusing.

I think the overall strategy for Northern Clubs is that when they have an academy pick that is likely a first rounder that they will trade back their first rounder and absorb the points from later picks, that way they don't "lose points". And I think that suits Melbourne clubs as they get to trade up to a second first rounder. If they make academy clubs keep a first round pick that makes the strategy harder but still possible and any academy picks that go to the second round and beyond have a fixed discount of 197 points so there is no issue there.

The way that the system is designed is that once GWS fall into a normal pattern that most academy clubs will be able to draft at most one gun priority unless they wish to go into deficit or trade a gun layer for a first round pick. We kind of showed that last year, after Mills went we pretty much had speculative picks. Not that he wasn't worth it.

The key is that the discount is not lost and I think the AFL have been wise in tying it into to the F/S system as it makes it harder to unravel as Melbourne clubs do mine this system quite well, especially Collingwood.

I suspect there will be no real adverse reaction as the system is still pretty much intact. The next battleground is bound to be the GWS zone and that's a separate argument imo but the danger is that they'll use it to attack the entire academy system.

Agree re Finlayson. This and 2017 be the final years GWS will be able to exploit this system fully as their expanded list size gets trimmed back to the standard list size in 2018.

[Mug Punter]

If GWS gave to release top end talent to clear their list a little or accomodate players who want out (for opportunities or to return home), can they be traded for future high end draft picks that can be stockpiled for use in securing future academy players?

Absolutely but they could equally just draft first rounders. With the depth of talent they have they'll be able to do that for a few years yet I'd say.

This year they have three first round picks and two second rounders. If they get pick in the 20s for C-Mac they should be able to comfortable afford all their kids. Then they probably get a future first rounders for Marchbank, WHE and Steele. Plus whatever they get for Lobb next year if he wants out. It will tail off eventually but not for a few years

[Prt]

The changes relate to the academy selections - do they also apply to the father son selections - I have found no reference to father/sons in the commentary.