2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[707]

Won't happen. For all it's talent base, Victoria would be feeding ten clubs which is too thin, WA & SA have two each. The latter two would trump Vic clubs by quite a margin.

The ND works fine currently, let's first see what the knee jerk Next Gen academies do to the size of the pool.

Almost time of year to start the chat about retirements, delistings, trades, upgrades and list make up now that our first, and possibly second pick, are accounted for.

[Mel_C]

Has David King had a whinge about Blakey yet? Last year he was whinging that the Father Son club should have precedence over Academies.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

[barry]

First, why?

Second, don't like the idea - seems against equalisation measures like the draft and salary cap.

Third, while it wouldn't work for us very well currently, it is a policy that could be a major advantage for us in years to come as more and more youngsters turn to footy instead of league and soccer - we have the biggest population and only one rival club in NSW (GWS)! If only for this reason, it will never happen.

The main reason for it is that it will naturally find an equilibrium of number of teams per state.

[liz]

Has David King had a whinge about Blakey yet? Last year he was whinging that the Father Son club should have precedence over Academies.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

He's lost his spot "On the Couch" this year so didn't have a chance on Monday.

He's scheduled for his regular Wednesday AFL360 spot tonight - so that might be his first chance since Nick's preference was made public.

Brad Scott's already had his whinge though.

Those who argue for FS to "take precedence" clearly haven't shifted their brains out of neutral before speaking. It is a nonsensical concept unless you make FS nomination obligatory on the player, which will never happen for oh so many reasons.

The only other interpretation is that you want sons whose fathers played AFL excluded from academy programmes that they would otherwise be eligible for. I wonder if people putting forward this argument think the exclusion should only apply to those whose fathers played at least 100 games for another club? Or any player whose father played AFL? Or was on an AFL list (without playing)? At what point does a young boy's "inevitable pathway into AFL" manifest itself?

[Meg]

Has David King had a whinge about Blakey yet? Last year he was whinging that the Father Son club should have precedence over Academies.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

So far the raging seems to be only coming from fans (mainly of North Melbourne) but I?m expecting commentators & others will take it up between now & the draft.

However I don?t understand what someone means if they say F&S should take ?precedence?. A club may wish to draft a player under F&S eligibility but the player has the right to decline. So what if Norths & Lions had ?precedence? over the Swans - Blakey would have presumably declined, the Swans would presumably then have said they would take steps to draft him - and we would be in the same position we are in now.

[Meg]

Those who argue for FS to "take precedence" clearly haven't shifted their brains out of neutral before speaking. It is a nonsensical concept unless you make FS nomination obligatory on the player, which will never happen for oh so many reasons.

The only other interpretation is that you want sons whose fathers played AFL excluded from academy programmes that they would otherwise be eligible for. I wonder if people putting forward this argument think the exclusion should only apply to those whose fathers played at least 100 games for another club? Or any player whose father played AFL? Or was on an AFL list (without playing)? At what point does a young boy's "inevitable pathway into AFL" manifest itself?

I overlapped with Liz?s post and effectively said the same thing re Liz?s first point.

Re the second point, if the Blakey recruitment becomes very controversial then I would not be surprised if following it the AFL were to introduce a new constraint on the academies that the son of a father who has played 100 games (for one club, possibly even combined for multiple clubs) is eligible to take part in a club academy but is not eligible to be drafted by the club under the academy priority rules.

The rationale could be that these players don?t need an academy to be introduced to AFL but they should not be denied the developmental opportunities an academy provides. It would roughly be in line with the club NGAs which have kids from all backgrounds participating but only those in the specified (somewhat loose) target groups are eligible to be drafted under the priority rules.

It would also prevent the Swans gaining future priority access to Longmire?s sons (should the Swans want to do so when the time comes) - which the AFL might wish to avoid.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Might make a few of you happy

Swans win battle for potential Kangaroos and Lions father-son Blakey

Yes, yes, yes, yeessssss (in Meg Ryan's voice). That's awesome!

[mcs]

I overlapped with Liz?s post and effectively said the same thing re Liz?s first point.

Re the second point, if the Blakey recruitment becomes very controversial then I would not be surprised if following it the AFL were to introduce a new constraint on the academies that the son of a father who has played 100 games (for one club, possibly even combined for multiple clubs) is eligible to take part in a club academy but is not eligible to be drafted by the club under the academy priority rules.

The rationale could be that these players don?t need an academy to be introduced to AFL but they should not be denied the developmental opportunities an academy provides. It would roughly be in line with the club NGAs which have kids from all backgrounds participating but only those in the specified (somewhat loose) target groups are eligible to be drafted under the priority rules.

It would also prevent the Swans gaining future priority access to Longmire?s sons (should the Swans want to do so when the time comes) - which the AFL might wish to avoid.

(I know why it is as it is),but I've never understood why some clubs that could clearly benefit from it haven't pushed to have the father/son rule revised tonclude some element to recognise significant off field service to a club in a major role - such as on senior coaching staff. I know its all about the 'romance of his father played for them, now his son will', but equally if a father has an established significant link to a club that isn't necessarily about just how many games he played, that could arguably be almost as strong a reason to have his kid have the option to play for that club. Just one of those things I've always wondered about...

[707]

Nick has spent almost his entire conscious life with his father in Swans attire so he naturally feels affinity for the Swans. Dad's playing career was before he can remember I'd reckon.

I do feel for North fans but they'll have a very good draft anyway including Tarryn Thomas being gifted to them.

[aguy]

I just finished reading the north forum on big footy.

It?s interesting reading no doubt. They do hate the swans. Living in Sydney i think we are a bit sheltered from the general hate that most Melbourne based fans have towards our club ( not the south fans of course). Obviously bigfooty concentrates those thoughts. But I?ve noticed it change dramatically since 2012. At 2012 grand final we had roughly even support at the mcg. And walking around Melbourne after the game I was inundated with local Melbournites offering their congratulations. I get the feeling that the goodwilll towards us has now pretty much evaporated. 2016 we had a lot of vitriol directed to us after losing.

Oh well. I do love our club. Melbourne won?t ever see that we are doing well despite the challenges of a hostile Sydney market. And they still think we get an unfair advantage from the afl. All of which we know isn?t true. They think the afl pays all of the academy expenses. They think we still have cola and they forget our trade ban for not breaking any rules

Go the bloods

[The Runner]

The sooner we get to state based drafts the better. Eg. First 2 rounds, can only select from your own state. Then what is left over is a national draft.

Well that is officially the worst idea ever. We are more likely to move towards a more free and open draft where clubs can trade picks live throughout the night and be able to have more flex on future year picks.

Regarding Blakey... I know we are getting excited with the hype he is getting. I've only seen snippets of him live, and I haven'y exactly been wow'd by them. The two youtube clips on him seem to back that up a bit - he's decent but I'm not really seeing Top 10 draft pick.
Keen to know what more educated observers think from their viewings...

[707]

We'll know more about Nick Blakey after the U18 Championships, that's assuming he gets picked to play for the Allies!

[barracuda]

I have watched Blakey extensively. I have never seen a more well prepared junior footballer, both physically and mentally.
In some ways it is the mental bit that is the most impressive. Total focus, very smart player, leader and incredibly competitive.
Basically his dad has taught him incredibly well from infancy so you get every box ticked.

[Ralph Dawg]

Does Nick Blakey qualify for Neafl this year?

[Beerman]

I'm curious about whether the nomination is optional preferential, or "all or nothing"? Can he specify the order of the clubs that he wants to go to?

For example, that the bulldogs select him at pick 4. It then goes to the Swans, who decline to match him that high in the order. However Brisbane have already used their first-round pick and might want to match. Can Nick say "Swans first, then Brisbane, then the open draft (with North receiving no special preference)".