GWS Gets Albury with Riverina Zone

[dimelb]

Apparently it's official - and the Vic clubs are not happy.

Greater Western Sydney look to have won the battle for Riverina with AFL set to ink new draft academy rules

[Meg]

The Riverina Zone aspect is only part of the story. More diminishing of the club benefits from investing in an academy is the big story for the Swans. Wonder what QBE will say this time (if changes go ahead)?

I hate the way the AFL makes changes which effectively have retrospective effect on investment decisions that have already been committed.

[Ludwig]

It's becoming a poor cost-benefit option. Let's get Nick Blakey on board in 2018 and then we should seriously consider dropping the academy and putting QBE's money into more productive areas.

I'd give the Giants all of NSW as their academy zone and just take their undrafted rookies, like we did with Sam Fisher, as NSW zone selection. We can also apply for an indigenous zone.

Our development team seems really strong and I would back us to develop lower draft picks into solid AFL players. The draft is becoming less important as time goes by.

[mcs]

The Riverina Zone aspect is only part of the story. More diminishing of the club benefits from investing in an academy is the big story for the Swans. Wonder what QBE will say this time (if changes go ahead)?

I hate the way the AFL makes changes which effectively have retrospective effect on investment decisions that have already been committed.

Yep more of the value of the academies gradually chipped away, while it sounds like again F/S holy cow gets left unalone, and GWS can continue on there merry way taking lots of rewards for not much effort down South.

[dimelb]

This issue is back on the agenda, possibly fuelled by Fitzpatrick's departure.

As GWS Giants academy spreads, so does rival AFL clubs' anger

[Meg]

Interesting. Pleased the Swans are making their 'displeasure' known.

But three top-20 draft picks? Whom have I forgotten? Heeney, Mills and ?.

'Not only have the Swans argued that their academy, the largest and longest-running of the northern clubs, is a clear development zone outside traditional AFL territory, but also that it has produced just three top-20 draft picks in 17 years.'

[liz]

Interesting. Pleased the Swans are making their 'displeasure' known.

But three top-20 draft picks? Whom have I forgotten? Heeney, Mills and ?.

'Not only have the Swans argued that their academy, the largest and longest-running of the northern clubs, is a clear development zone outside traditional AFL territory, but also that it has produced just three top-20 draft picks in 17 years.'

Since they refer to the academy region, rather than the academy itself, the third is presumably McVeigh.

[Meg]

Since they refer to the academy region, rather than the academy itself, the third is presumably McVeigh.

McVeigh pick 5, 2002 National Draft. Yes that fits with the 17 years part of the story. Bit opaque however (at least in this media report, probably clear in what the Swans said).

[dimelb]

What an about-turn!

GWS Giants lose Murray region as AFL re-shapes northern academy system

The story focuses on GWS's loss, and the possible reduction in numbers of players moving from the Murray region into AFL's top level. I'm inclined to think that GWS is still doing very nicely thank you, and will continue to do so for many seasons to come. As for player movements, I don't think there's anything to be worried about - there will be plenty of clubs lining up to tap into this well of talent once again. Charlie Spargo's parents may understandably be bemused and disappointed, but their son has a more realistic response.

[Meg]

GWS Gets Albury with Riverina Zone

The other academy rule change according to this report will be that "NSW and Queensland clubs finishing in the top four will only be allowed to take one academy player in the top 20 (draft picks), while clubs who finish between fifth and eighth will only have special access to two of those players."

In principle that change could affect the Swans - IF we finish in top four/eight and IF we have two or more academy draftees who fall in the top 20. In practice, to date we have not had that wealth of academy draftees in any one year.

I note however that this report suggests the change won't apply to father/son draftees (why not??) nor is there any mention of the change applying to Next Generation Academy draftees (why not??).

As I recall the original report of this proposed change to the academy rules said that it was being driven by a richness of talent coming through the Next Generation academies. As these academies have only been set up for one year, it appears this talent has fallen in the lap/s of the club/s rather than been developed by the academies.

If there are to be changes to the rules in regard to drafting of academy players, the changes should apply to ALL academy and F/S draftees.

[Mug Punter]

What an about-turn!

GWS Giants lose Murray region as AFL re-shapes northern academy system

The story focuses on GWS's loss, and the possible reduction in numbers of players moving from the Murray region into AFL's top level. I'm inclined to think that GWS is still doing very nicely thank you, and will continue to do so for many seasons to come. As for player movements, I don't think there's anything to be worried about - there will be plenty of clubs lining up to tap into this well of talent once again. Charlie Spargo's parents may understandably be bemused and disappointed, but their son has a more realistic response.

I think that this is a good decision that will take much of the heat out of the academy debate. The idea that they could use that area was ridiculous long term but it has also enabled them to be able to build the list they have now.

If this forces them to start to properly look at their Western Sydney development zone with some respect then it will be a good thing. Only 4 of the GWS U18 zone are from Sydney and that is a disgraceful statistic

[Mug Punter]

The other academy rule change according to this report will be that "NSW and Queensland clubs finishing in the top four will only be allowed to take one academy player in the top 20 (draft picks), while clubs who finish between fifth and eighth will only have special access to two of those players."

In principle that change could affect the Swans - IF we finish in top four/eight and IF we have two or more academy draftees who fall in the top 20. In practice, to date we have not had that wealth of academy draftees in any one year.

I note however that this report suggests the change won't apply to father/son draftees (why not??) nor is there any mention of the change applying to Next Generation Academy draftees (why not??).

As I recall the original report of this proposed change to the academy rules said that it was being driven by a richness of talent coming through the Next Generation academies. As these academies have only been set up for one year, it appears this talent has fallen in the lap/s of the club/s rather than been developed by the academies.

If there are to be changes to the rules in regard to drafting of academy players, the changes should apply to ALL academy and F/S draftees.

I really am sick to death of the constant tinkering with this system but to be honest all we ever wanted was access to the best Sydney kid every year. And I think in time we will regularly be producing a first rounder so we'd be letting that second one go anyway. I think the real benefits are our access to the kids who are not elite but slip into the 30s and 40s draft wise as we will get backchecked quality there.

On a practical level if I was Andrew Ireland I would reluctantly accept these changes (not like we have any choice) but with one proviso and that is if we have two first round picks then we can have two first round academy picks. So, this year we would have been able to do so due to Tom's trade.

[Joel Ridge]

I think that this is a good decision that will take much of the heat out of the academy debate. The idea that they could use that area was ridiculous long term but it has also enabled them to be able to build the list they have now.

If this forces them to start to properly look at their Western Sydney development zone with some respect then it will be a good thing. Only 4 of the GWS U18 zone are from Sydney and that is a disgraceful statistic

I think its a wise decision from the AFL. I don't think you deserve two first round academy prospects if you make top 4. You may argue that you will need to trade to pay the points, but I think two 1st round selections is too much planned and secured talent for a top 4 side.

It may be unfair to those guys, but I think the reverse academy argument of busts such as Hiscox and Davis need to be argued against the Mills and Heeney argument.

Hiscox was a poor selection by the Swans in the 2nd round and was primary done to protect the integrity of the academy. It would have been a bad look if the Swans had not matched the Fremantle bid for Hiscox and send a Glebe boy to Fremantle (although he would have loved the coffee strip and the famous Sunday sessions in Fremantle). This would have eroded confidence in the Academy and the Swans knew this and wasted the 2nd round selection. Fremantle as a top 4 competitor at the time did well to make the Swans burn a 2nd round selection.

The AFL should know that Hiscox and Davis cost more than their fair value because of the need to protect the hope of future prospects. This should offset the Heeney and Mills argument.