Father - Son Bidding

derkd · Joined: 29 May 2013

I read with some interest the changes currently under consideration by the AFL regarding Farther-Son and Academy talent.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-07/fatherson-bidding-changes

Is it just me or does it strike me as grossly unfair that sides should have to pay more for something, really, that is pure chance. You can't orchestrate this sort of talent ...you couldn't demand that say the Daniher's to give birth to a talented son as some sort of 'rort' to the system. It is pure luck, and while i don't have an issue with the bidding system if the kid is talented enough...why should clubs be pushed into throwing all the eggs into one basket in the form of first and potently second round picks ?

In the same way that alright, Sydney might land a prodigiously talented kid in this years draft....but they put the time and money into this kid. If not for Sydney's accedmy can we even prove that he would have stayed in the system and would be where he is now?

This just strikes me as the AFL meddling with something that is not an issue....The Dog's got two father son picks in the one draft......great, now how many Premerships has that won them? ....So my question is where is the unfair advantage that has to be stomped out?

Wokko · Come and take it. Joined: 04 Oct 2005

What a pile of horseshit. Let the market decide the value of a player though the bidding process and if a team gets 2 F/S in a year, then so be it. They're just adamant about this 'equal' competition that it's leading to stupidity like this.

Of course they want to find 'fair value' when it's the Pies getting a top prospect through father/son.

"AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan said there was still a chance the system could be introduced for the 2014 NAB AFL Draft."

Piss off.

jackcass · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Location: Bendigo

Entire issue has arisen because Sydney and Brisbane get a double dip. Not only do they get access to F/S prospects, they get access to Academy kids in their respective States. I can understand expansion clubs like GWS and GCS getting access to these Academy kids, they don't have F/S prospects in their immediate futures but the Sydney and Brisbane access is just a rort too far. Leave the F/S alone, fix the rort, no need to f@&% up the entire thing.

Breadcrawl · Joined: 14 Oct 2007

It's the Darcy Moore rule.

Unscrupulous bastards

Dave The Man · Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 3:33 pm

Little Wonder · Joined: 16 Oct 2012 Location: Kerang & Stawell

Bucks5 · Nicky D - Parting the red sea Joined: 23 Mar 2002

That system will kill the chances of a highly talented Father/Son pick from going to their desired club for two reasons.

How many clubs will gamble a First and Second round pick for an unproven player? These are very high stakes. It's not like you can have your picks refunded if the player wasn't as talented as the formula predicts.

..And why would a club pay full (or potentially above) market price on a F/S pick instead of drafting for a specific need? Any club wanting to be a serious premiership contender should put more weight on addressing a weakness over carrying on a family tradition.

Damien · Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:18 pm

I think any of the clubs who have a hot prospect like us should push for this to be delayed and reviewed post-season purely out of self interest. Why the rush on this anyway. Let's hope Moore is a gun and any pick that we end up using will end up a bargain.

Dave The Man · Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:54 pm

Dave The Man · Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:58 pm

jackcass · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Location: Bendigo

jackcass · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Location: Bendigo

Dave The Man · Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:52 pm

AN_Inkling · Joined: 06 Oct 2007

I'm going to buck the vibe of this thread and say that I think this is a sensible proposal, provided they're looking at evening out the bumps at each end - a bottom team that gets the two best players in the draft, a top team that gets a top player with pick 18, or the advantage of having multiple father/sons in the one year - rather than making teams pay an absolutely fair price. If the "discounts" are generous enough, most picks around the middle should remain unchanged.

I think the changes are absolutely necessary for academy players. This is a potential continual source of quality players (35 will be nominated this year), whereas father/sons come along infrequently for each club. Making a change to the academy system also requires a change to father/son, given that the academy basically replaces this system for new clubs.

Put it this way: if Carlton finished bottom and were able to take Kernahan jr, the projected number 1 pick as well as the number 2 pick in the second round, I'd not be happy.

So, I'm on board as long as the discounts are generous enough and that there is still an incentive to continue the father/son tradition.

Rexy17 · Joined: 09 Oct 2006 Location: Ballarat

Think I might have a solution

leave the bidding system as it is, if some side bids a 1st rounder then that is matched by the clubs next bid. ( as it is now) However if there are 2 or more so called 1st rounders (most likely Academy kids) the club can only take 1 and must choose. The one not picked then goes to the highest 1st round bidder. If the Academy kids are rated in in different rounds of the draft the club can take them with their next pick if some other club bids, but can only take one.
ie. if there is 2 1st round picks they can only take one, if a 1st round and 2nd round pick they can get both.

same would apply for F and S picks

cheers

Rexy