Andrew Newbold urges overhaul of father-son and academy picks in drive towards equalisation

[Bulldog4life]

Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold has backed Collingwood’s Eddie McGuire in raising misgivings over the AFL academies in Sydney and southern Queensland, and urged the league to work towards a ''‘pure draft''.

As AFL boss Gillon McLachlan admitted some disappointment in the bitter personal stoush between McGuire and Sydney’s Andrew Pridham, Newbold called for an overhaul of both the academy and the father-son bidding system.

''I don’t want to get involved in the issue between the personalities,'' Newbold told Fairfax Media, ''but I think Eddie’s right to question this. For there to continue to be anomalies in the draft when we are contributing $1.3 million to help equalise the competition is wrong. Why wouldn’t we want a pure draft?

''I think on that issue Eddie’s right. The AFL is contributing $250,000 to each academy. That’s money all the clubs are contributing. We would love to have academies here but I completely understand that we need to find more talent in the northern states. I just think it needs to be appropriately priced.


''I would change father-son as well. They have got to be priced proportionately. That’s the basis on which we agreed to tip so much money in. We want a pure draft.''

McLachlan is understood to have told the coaches who attended his private dinner on Monday night that the AFL would change the academy bidding system and potentially that of the similar father-son mechanism.

His AFL lieutenant, Andrew Dillon, has been working all year on changes to the bidding system. One change could rule out a club taking two academy or father-son prospects in the same draft should they both be regarded as worthy of first-round picks. But McLachlan reiterated again in Sydney on Wednesday that the academies and their AFL funding would stay.

Newbold said he shared McGuire’s misgiving that Sydney’s academy jet Isaac Heeney – touted as a top-three national draft prospect – could be taken by Sydney at between pick No. 18 or No. 20 should the Swans win the premiership. Next year, the Swans' academy has another highly rated prospect in Callum Mills.

However Collingwood could also be advantageously placed should its on-field prospects improve given that Peter Moore’s son Darcy is regarded by some experts as a top-five pick. Currently the rule governing both academies and father-son states that should another club attempt to gain that player and nominate a certain round pick the club which holds the rights to that player must give up its next available pick.

The new AFL CEO’s comments followed further equalisation talks on Monday attended by both McGuire and Newbold in which both working party presidents urged McLachlan to fix the compromised draft and the academy bidding system.

In the past 17 years, just 10 players from NSW have been drafted, most by Greater Western Sydney as list-build bonuses.

McGuire’s inference that the Swans were ''hiding'' talented academy players so antagonised Sydney coach John Longmire that he withdrew from any role in the International Rules team of which McGuire has been appointed chef de mission.

Sydney chairman Pridham described McGuire as the ''Clive Palmer of the AFL'' and McGuire in turn questioned Pridham’s experience and knowledge of football.

''The personalities are not something I’m keen to buy into,''’ said Newbold. ''But there are some genuine issues here. I acknowledge the right of the players to introduce free agency but I’ve always said if you are at the bottom of the cycle it’s going to hurt you. Look at Melbourne. To attract Chris Dawes from Collingwood they had to overpay him.

''Geelong is well-governed, they recruit and self-develop well. But now they could get James Frawley and why wouldn’t he want to move into their system? The horse has bolted with free agency but it clearly benefits the wealthy clubs and the top players at a time we are trying to equalise the competition.''





Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/andrew-newbold-urges-overhaul-of-fatherson-and-academy-picks-in-drive-towards-equalisation-20140716-ztrzf.html#ixzz386kMIlob



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/andrew-newbold-urges-overhaul-of-fatherson-and-academy-picks-in-drive-towards-equalisation-20140716-ztrzf.html#ixzz386kDXjIv

[bulldogtragic]

So Eddie and Newbold don't have father sons this year I take it???...

[Bulldog4life]

So Eddie and Newbold don't have father sons this year I take it???...

Actually Eddie's team does. Darcy Moore.

[FrediKanoute]

Leave it alone. The tinkering causes more inequities than the actual F&S does. At the end of the day playing 100 games and having your son(s) qualify happens to a relatively small number of people. Yes there have been out and out stars (ie Garry Ablett, Jobe Watson) that have given the club a boost, but isn't that what we want?

Personally I would be sick if LIbba and Wallis had gone to other clubs. Similarly I couldn't imagine Westy or Johnno's kids playing anywhere else. If Sydney have an advantage so be it. 20 years ago they were a shambles, worse than Melbourne and whilst it may seem unfair, the salary cap will even things out because even though they have an inflated cap they can't keep them all.

[chef]

So Eddie and Newbold don't have father sons this year I take it???...

Collingwood have a FS and Sydney have a academy player to bid on.

[soupman]

Collingwood have a FS and Sydney have a academy player to bid on.

Newbold is Hawthorns president btw.

This is one rule which I don't think compromises equality too much. It applies equally across all clubs (I believe the newer clubs get rights to state league sons or something), and adds so much to supporters attachment to players and the "romance" of the game. The bidding system isn't perfect, but it is pretty fair and if a team lucks out by having a top 5 pick get to pick 15, or two sons in one year then so be it.

[Greystache]

I take it someone had to explain to Newbold what an academy was, and what a Father-Son selection was, and what the draft is, hence his delay in responding to the issue.

Now that he's familiar with the concepts he feels he should make a stand for the greater good of the world.

[Murphy'sLore]

The father-son rule is just about the last vestige of tribal romance left in the game. How about we equalise the compromised fixture before we worry about ironing out a couple of father-son selections each year?

[Dancin' Douggy]

I love the father son rule. LOVE IT.

[Webby]

The F/S Rule is fine on its own. The only issue is, of course, that it applies to each club inequitably. Obviously clubs like us, Richmond, Carlton etc. are simply eligible to recruit any kid whose father played 100 or more games for us. Pretty simple...

However, what about GWS and Gold Coast? They're obviously disadvantaged by having no past players! What about Brisbane? They've got double the volume of fathers (via both Fitzroy and Bears players) from whom to nab sons.. Port were an easy solution - being that they joined as a traditional club, but when Adelaide came in, they were obviously disadvantaged.

With Adelaide, the AFL gave them over-compensation by allowing them to take any ex-SANFL player's son (since rescinded, but it did advantage them). Ditto West Coast, I believe.

Therefore, allowing GC and GWS to run academies as compo for a lack of F/S availability makes some sense. It's potentially skewed a bit towards over-compo, but they probably have to give them something as a square up. It's difficult to argue against that.

However, how the fk the AFL justifies allowing Sydney and Brisbane to also jump on the academy gravy train is beyond me. This is where McGuire has a point. How can there be two clubs out there who have BOTH an academy AND Father Son privileges?? In Brisbane's case two father/son clubs and an academy..

The simple answer is that the AFL prioritises having powerful Sydney and Brisbane clubs ahead of all other clubs in the competition. It's part of a commercial objective to grow TV ratings and crowds in the two most important growth cities. The COLA is another thinly veiled fix to ensure a big leg up.

It's a corporate decision. Simple as that. The deck's been stacked for years. Compromised drafts have allowed a distraction in recent times, but the rub of the green has been brushed for the Swans. I'm very very pleased to see the powerful Melbourne native clubs beginning to beat the jungle drums. We should get behind them on this one because it's a disgrace.

[LostDoggy]

The F/S Rule is fine on its own. The only issue is, of course, that it applies to each club inequitably. Obviously clubs like us, Richmond, Carlton etc. are simply eligible to recruit any kid whose father played 100 or more games for us. Pretty simple...

However, what about GWS and Gold Coast? They're obviously disadvantaged by having no past players! What about Brisbane? They've got double the volume of fathers (via both Fitzroy and Bears players) from whom to nab sons.. Port were an easy solution - being that they joined as a traditional club, but when Adelaide came in, they were obviously disadvantaged.

With Adelaide, the AFL gave them over-compensation by allowing them to take any ex-SANFL player's son (since rescinded, but it did advantage them). Ditto West Coast, I believe.

Therefore, allowing GC and GWS to run academies as compo for a lack of F/S availability makes some sense. It's potentially skewed a bit towards over-compo, but they probably have to give them something as a square up. It's difficult to argue against that.

However, how the fk the AFL justifies allowing Sydney and Brisbane to also jump on the academy gravy train is beyond me. This is where McGuire has a point. How can there be two clubs out there who have BOTH an academy AND Father Son privileges?? In Brisbane's case two father/son clubs and an academy..

The simple answer is that the AFL prioritises having powerful Sydney and Brisbane clubs ahead of all other clubs in the competition. It's part of a commercial objective to grow TV ratings and crowds in the two most important growth cities. The COLA is another thinly veiled fix to ensure a big leg up.

It's a corporate decision. Simple as that. The deck's been stacked for years. Compromised drafts have allowed a distraction in recent times, but the rub of the green has been brushed for the Swans. I'm very very pleased to see the powerful Melbourne native clubs beginning to beat the jungle drums. We should get behind them on this one because it's a disgrace.

Agree 100% Webby. Emma Qualye wrote a fluff bit about this in the Age last week. She and the Swans website (yeah i know) said that the academy is funded via donations and corporate sponsorship - must have left out the bit about the AFL funding $250k towards it if true....

The reason i don't like it is for example:

2015 Draft year:

Swans finish 1st, have an academy player rated very highly (like Heeney) and a father son also rated very high in the draft. They essentially get the academy player and the F/S for pick 18 and pick 36. This is NOT the same as say when we got Libba and Wallis as they were both F/S selections, whereas the Academy teams in Brisbane and Sydney have a a double dip from both the F/S and Academy. Syd and Bris have as much chance of exploiting the F/S as basically any other club due to their South and Fitzroy alignments.

They're not hiding players - they don't have to.

[Twodogs]

I will go postal if they get rid of the F/S rule.

Medieval.

[soupman]

I understand the reasoning for having the academies, part of the AFL's plan to take over the world is to get as many NSW/QLDers into the league as possible and the academies must help that.

So the AFL should either stop them being affiliated with specific clubs and fund it similar to the TAC competition, or give every club an equal zone within which to develop talent.

And the academy draft rules should be assessed separately to father son.

[LostDoggy]

I understand the reasoning for having the academies, part of the AFL's plan to take over the world is to get as many NSW/QLDers into the league as possible and the academies must help that.

So the AFL should either stop them being affiliated with specific clubs and fund it similar to the TAC competition, or give every club an equal zone within which to develop talent.

And the academy draft rules should be assessed separately to father son.

It seems simple. The AFL funds the academies. There's no alignment. The kids play for QLD/Rams. The picks of the crop go to the draft like all other states. The Northern sides fill their respective NEAFL sides with AFL aspirants like other sides do. hell, i know that clubs liek the Swans put time/staff resources into the academies - so bill the AFL for it. At least they'd be earning their money unlike with the COLA bullshit.

[Happy Days]

The F/S Rule is fine on its own. The only issue is, of course, that it applies to each club inequitably. Obviously clubs like us, Richmond, Carlton etc. are simply eligible to recruit any kid whose father played 100 or more games for us. Pretty simple...

However, what about GWS and Gold Coast? They're obviously disadvantaged by having no past players! What about Brisbane? They've got double the volume of fathers (via both Fitzroy and Bears players) from whom to nab sons.. Port were an easy solution - being that they joined as a traditional club, but when Adelaide came in, they were obviously disadvantaged.


GWS and Gold Coast already got every first round pick for like 20 drafts, access to the best underage players they could find, expanded list sizes, and the ability to poach players from other clubs with their gigantic salary caps. They don't need father son, they already have enough toys.

The academy systems are most definitely bullshit and need to go.

[bornadog]

GWS and Gold Coast already got every first round pick for like 20 drafts, access to the best underage players they could find, expanded list sizes, and the ability to poach players from other clubs with their gigantic salary caps. They don't need father son, they already have enough toys.

The academy systems are most definitely bullshit and need to go.

This ^^^^

[westdog54]

It seems simple. The AFL funds the academies. There's no alignment. The kids play for QLD/Rams. The picks of the crop go to the draft like all other states. The Northern sides fill their respective NEAFL sides with AFL aspirants like other sides do. hell, i know that clubs liek the Swans put time/staff resources into the academies - so bill the AFL for it. At least they'd be earning their money unlike with the COLA bullshit.

Sorry to derail but the first line of your post reminded me of this from Team America


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erTN58xt-jo

[Webby]

GWS and Gold Coast already got every first round pick for like 20 drafts

The academy systems are most definitely bullshit and need to go.

Well, they got them for four or five drafts apiece, didn't they? I honestly think that going about it that way was a mistake by the AFL because it kind of floated them as wooden spooners, but makes them a force in years to come. The way they did it with the Bears was actually the way to go. They were immediately okay, but the non-football people calling the shots and instability at the top meant that they struggled.

The Bears model (ie setting up with mature players) along with AFL backing,good facilities and management would've been the way to go. They're then reasonably competitive at the get-go and can work towards earning a premiership like everyone else.

As it is, they've concocted two teams that went 2 & 20 or thereabouts in their first year and have sucked funding as they build. What's more, they monopolised drafts, meaning that clubs like Melbourne and ourselves were fkd over.

However, all that being said, GWS and GC will not necessarily win flags as everyone thinks. They've got a pretty good 6-7 years ahead of them (as do we), however they'll be disadvantaged by no F/S access for 25+ years. So fro that viewpoint, the concept is semi-justifiable... Note I say SEMI-Justifiable. Ie still cheeky, but you can at least see some justification.

However how they justify the Swans and Lions being included in that is beyond me. In fact it's borderline insulting. The AFL must think we're all stupid..!

This kind of manipulation by the AFL brings an air of futility to supporters of clubs like ours. Sometimes one feels like a mug for turning up to see if we can beat a loaded deck. The AFL wonder why crowds are falling. I'd suggests they bring back some integrity to the comp.

However. If you want to keep F/S, fact is, GCS and GWS need to be given something as a evener. Anyone looking objectively at our competition would have to raise an eyebrow, otherwise. I like F/S too, but the more I think of it, the more I think that the cleanest thing is just a pure draft.. No F/S, no academies, no BS. Just a pure, transparent draft.

[LostDoggy]

Thanks WD54, nice to start the day with a laugh. Will have to watch that movie again.

As for the Northern Acadamies, just another hurdle in front of us winning a GF. Will be more sweeter when we do it. Sydney are now my number 1 hated side, well equal with the injectors and the under the table brown paper baggers (or should that be blue paper baggers).

[Twodogs]

It's not like the F/S turns out champion after champion either. For every little Libba there is a David Round.

[Maddog37]

Andrew Newbold strikes me as an elitist who would do anything to maintain the Hawks position as a power club. I cannot wait for the wheel to turn. I hate the Hawks with a passion and you just know that their supporters will leave like rats from a sinking ship when they hit tough times.

Arrogant pricks.

[Greystache]

Andrew Newbold strikes me as an elitist who would do anything to maintain the Hawks position as a power club. I cannot wait for the wheel to turn. I hate the Hawks with a passion and you just know that their supporters will leave like rats from a sinking ship when they hit tough times.

Arrogant pricks.

Every time I hear this moron speak it reminds me of this


http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834520b4b69e2017d3c1f6b42970c-pi