1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

Founded 2010.......6 years academy graduates Brandon Jack; Lloyd Perris; Sam Naismith; Dan Robinson; Isaac Heeney; Jack Hiscox; Abaina Davis and Jordan Foote and Mills, 3 in six years

What's your point?  Lloyd Perris would have almost been the pick of the bunch if not for injuries.  You can't predict that.  Jack and Naismith are both still on the list and are solid contributors, while we know how well Mills and Heeney are both going.  

Not all players will get there, but they get a free hit at many kids from an early age and it has worked out very, very well for them so far.

8 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

What's your point?  Lloyd Perris would have almost been the pick of the bunch if not for injuries.  You can't predict that.  Jack and Naismith are both still on the list and are solid contributors, while we know how well Mills and Heeney are both going.  

Not all players will get there, but they get a free hit at many kids from an early age and it has worked out very, very well for them so far.

Some are posting as if the academies are rolling out a fully formed team of 22 each year, I said the academies are overrated, others think it is giving the teams with academies an unfair advantage when it comes to identifying young talent, there isn't really a point, just differing opinions

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

Some are posting as if the academies are rolling out a fully formed team of 22 each year, I said the academies are overrated, others think it is giving the teams with academies an unfair advantage when it comes to identifying young talent, there isn't really a point, just differing opinions

They're not posting that at all, just that it gives the clubs an unfair advantage, which in some ways it does.  Academies would be overrated if we all had them - as it stands we don't, and therefore it does give them access to players that we are shut out from.  That's, in many ways, a bit of an unfair advantage.  The only leveler is that we can bid on them, but that doesn't even worry a club like GWS who, for example, have 5 picks inside the top 33 this year, so not only would they get their academy player, but they can also draft/trade to bolster their already talented list with even more talent.  Doesn't seem like a level playing field to me.

Anyway, for some reason you think the academies are overrated, most don't think that's the case, but let's leave it at that.

31 minutes ago, thevil1 said:

Professional advice, facilities, coaching etc even on just a part time basis over a 5/6 year period is a big advantage on a teenagers development any way you cut it. That's why they spend good money doing it & so far the return on investment for those teams has been fantastic with kids making big contributions to finals bound teams pretty much straight away. 

that's right. you only have to look at uk sport funded by the lottery to see what money and professional talent spotting with elite development academies can do. the uk success in recent olympics is ample evidence. 

The competition implemented systems that are supposed to have equalisation measures which under pin the integrity of the game. How can the competition be taken seriously when those equalisation measures are being openly tampered with in an aim to give two new teams success? It defeats the purpose of why they were implemented in the first place. The whole competition is a farce. Salary cap exemptions, draft concessions and the introduction of academies all go against what the system was created for. I struggle to take the competition seriously anymore when it continues to happen. Outside of these issues  is the uneven fixture & the drug issues that the AFL sweeps under the carpet. Whilst the game is getting record profits it is rotten to the core. What really surprises me is that the AFL clubs have let the AFL have too much say on the direction of the game & they are the ones who stand to lose out in the long run even if it does mean they all line their pockets from the TV revenue in the short term.

It's not the identification of young kids that's the problem with Academies; it's the ridiculous ability to acquire said kids with crap picks when you're already at the top of the ladder. It's a farce; the most transparent mechanism since COLA of the AFL's desperate attempts to keep certain teams successful (as if all their manufactured assistance to Essendon wasn't obvious enough).

Frankly, anyone who thinks the Academies are overrated is clueless. It's an equalisation-bypassing farce with a single purpose: to keep the Sydney/expansion clubs successful at the top of the ladder, while allowing them exclusive access to potentially the best talent in the draft in exchange for peanuts.

This is despite Sydney finishing 1st, 4th and 1st over the last 3 years, but getting a free hit at the highest-polling first year players in consecutive NAB Rising Star awards.

28 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

It's not the identification of young kids that's the problem with Academies; it's the ridiculous ability to acquire said kids with crap picks when you're already at the top of the ladder. It's a farce; the most transparent mechanism since COLA of the AFL's desperate attempts to keep certain teams successful (as if all their manufactured assistance to Essendon wasn't obvious enough).

Frankly, anyone who thinks the Academies are overrated is clueless. It's an equalisation-bypassing farce with a single purpose: to keep the Sydney/expansion clubs successful at the top of the ladder, while allowing them exclusive access to potentially the best talent in the draft in exchange for peanuts.

This is despite Sydney finishing 1st, 4th and 1st over the last 3 years, but getting a free hit at the highest-polling first year players in consecutive NAB Rising Star awards.

Well Said Saber. 

The quiet free hit that keeps giving no matter what ladder position you are in...

FGS Satyr give it a rest. You are way out of your depth 

"Casey is our Academy....."

clueless...

24 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

It's not the identification of young kids that's the problem with Academies; it's the ridiculous ability to acquire said kids with crap picks when you're already at the top of the ladder. It's a farce; the most transparent mechanism since COLA of the AFL's desperate attempts to keep certain teams successful (as if all their manufactured assistance to Essendon wasn't obvious enough).

Frankly, anyone who thinks the Academies are overrated is clueless. It's an equalisation-bypassing farce with a single purpose: to keep the Sydney/expansion clubs successful at the top of the ladder, while allowing them exclusive access to potentially the best talent in the draft in exchange for peanuts.

This is despite Sydney finishing 1st, 4th and 1st over the last 3 years, but getting a free hit at the highest-polling first year players in consecutive NAB Rising Star awards.

Spot on, how a team like Sydney who have been at the top of the ladder can get access to Mills & Heeney in the last two drafts is ludicrous. The AFL needs to run the academies rather than the clubs & push the players in the academies into the draft as it was before they had the academies. 

Well worth keeping in mind that we beat GWS early in the year.

6 minutes ago, 48 Year Now said:

Well worth keeping in mind that we beat GWS early in the year.

and we beat Hawthorn.... but it doesn't fill me with hope after losing to ..... you know who they all were !!

14 minutes ago, 48 Year Now said:

Well worth keeping in mind that we beat GWS early in the year.

And then who did we lose to the week after....

34 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Well Said Saber. 

The quiet free hit that keeps giving no matter what ladder position you are in...

FGS Satyr give it a rest. You are way out of your depth 

"Casey is our Academy....."

clueless...

Why do I have to, you have your rather bitter and twisted opinion, I don't agree with it, as it is a public board I am allowed to express it, feel like joining in with the proper debate as to why my opinion is incorrect?

37 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

Spot on, how a team like Sydney who have been at the top of the ladder can get access to Mills & Heeney in the last two drafts is ludicrous. The AFL needs to run the academies rather than the clubs & push the players in the academies into the draft as it was before they had the academies. 

We bid for them during the draft but lost out, but because the old system was deemed biased they introduced the points system, so we do get a chance going forward to get academy products, let's not let facts get in the way of rants

3 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Why do I have to, you have your rather bitter and twisted opinion, I don't agree with it, as it is a public board I am allowed to express it, feel like joining in with the proper debate as to why my opinion is incorrect?

Do some research before wasting pepole's time clogging up threads. 

You completely took over the Hogan Thread just because someone had different info to you..

Mmmmmm methinks this thread is looking towards the grassy knoll...although there is some smoke

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-season-2016-clubs-warn-against-kneejerk-changes-to-draft-bidding-system-20160711-gq3cy2.html

 

11 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

We bid for them during the draft but lost out, but because the old system was deemed biased they introduced the points system, so we do get a chance going forward to get academy products, let's not let facts get in the way of rants

The facts are Sydney used draft picks that were outside of their draft range to acquire the best talent in the comp via a loophole that the AFL created for them. Yes we bid for them but why should we have to bid for them? They should have just been available as that's what the draft was created for, equalisation. It wasn't created to keep players in certain zones or to give access to certain players at certain clubs. We don't have a chance at getting the best academy products as they will simply go to the interstate teams who will continue to use the loophole the AFL has created as you mentioned using the points system. They will continue to get cheap access to higher end talent than they would be able to access through the draft in their normal position. Hardly a rant just saying it how it is.

Just now, Bonkers said:

The facts are Sydney used draft picks that were outside of their draft range to acquire the best talent in the comp via a loophole that the AFL created for them. Yes we bid for them but why should we have to bid for them? They should have just been available as that's what the draft was created for, equalisation. It wasn't created to keep players in certain zones or to give access to certain players at certain clubs. We don't have a chance at getting the best academy products as they will simply go to the interstate teams who will continue to use the loophole the AFL has created as you mentioned using the points system. They will continue to get cheap access to higher end talent than they would be able to access through the draft in their normal position. Hardly a rant just saying it how it is.

This.

We might get access to solid or average academy products that the Swans or GWS don't want, but if a gun comes through the ranks they simply won't pass on them.  It's that simple.

4 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

The facts are Sydney used draft picks that were outside of their draft range to acquire the best talent in the comp via a loophole that the AFL created for them. Yes we bid for them but why should we have to bid for them? They should have just been available as that's what the draft was created for, equalisation. It wasn't created to keep players in certain zones or to give access to certain players at certain clubs. We don't have a chance at getting the best academy products as they will simply go to the interstate teams who will continue to use the loophole the AFL has created as you mentioned using the points system. They will continue to get cheap access to higher end talent than they would be able to access through the draft in their normal position. Hardly a rant just saying it how it is.

Yes but my point is, Heeney and Mills are two shining examples of the Sydney academy, but that is two in 6 six years, it is not the goldmine it is made out to be, it is like any drafting/academy/father-son selections, not all will turn to gold......we have a good recruiting team in place, I expect them to keep finding nuggets for us as well

19 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

We bid for them during the draft but lost out, but because the old system was deemed biased they introduced the points system, so we do get a chance going forward to get academy products, let's not let facts get in the way of rants

You mean like how we had a chance of getting Mills under the new system? When we bid pick 3 but Sydney were able to match it with picks 34, 36, 37 & 43? Is that really any more fair than pick 18 for Heeney?

The Academy bidding system won't stop these teams from getting their Academy players, nor is it meant to; it's designed to give the illusion of giving up "fair value" for a player.

2 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Yes but my point is, Heeney and Mills are two shining examples of the Sydney academy, but that is two in 6 six years, it is not the goldmine it is made out to be, it is like any drafting/academy/father-son selections, not all will turn to gold......we have a good recruiting team in place, I expect them to keep finding nuggets for us as well

Two players who would have gone top 5 in the same period while the Swans were top 4. By the way the Swans still have father son access from the South Melbourne days as do Brisbane with Fitzroy (so they do not suffer there.)

Sorry that is a huge leg up in the scheme of things. (albeit small in comparison to what GWS and GCS were gifted.)

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

Yes but my point is, Heeney and Mills are two shining examples of the Sydney academy, but that is two in 6 six years, it is not the goldmine it is made out to be, it is like any drafting/academy/father-son selections, not all will turn to gold

I will accept that there has been 2 gun players in 6 years. I haven't done the research but it appears that this number will increase in the upcoming years if you consider the amount of talent coming through the academies at present both in NSW as well as QLD. 2 in 6 years is still a good result when you consider they will probably play over 200 games each & become likely top 50 or top 20 players in the comp. Sydney will build their team around these players so I think you are downplaying the impact it will really have to support your argument. My point is that if any team is given an unfair advantage to jump the queue to acquire talent it is not right & against the spirit of equalisation & why the draft was created. 

5 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

I will accept that there has been 2 gun players in 6 years. I haven't done the research but it appears that this number will increase in the upcoming years if you consider the amount of talent coming through the academies at present both in NSW as well as QLD. 2 in 6 years is still a good result when you consider they will probably play over 200 games each & become likely top 50 or top 20 players in the comp. Sydney will build their team around these players so I think you are downplaying the impact it will really have to support your argument. My point is that if any team is given an unfair advantage to jump the queue to acquire talent it is not right & against the spirit of equalisation & why the draft was created. 

No I am not downplaying to support my argument, I just think the impact of the academies is overrated, in my opinion, the good thing about this thread is there is some really good discussion going on without the usual argy bargy (with one exception of course), readers and not posters are able to get both sides of the argument to form an opinion themselves if they haven't already got one, exactly what a discussion board should do

With GWS, they have shown that it will happen if most things go right, and they work at it,  GCS have shown no matter the concessions it can be [censored] up big time, with things both in and out of their control, same with the other expansion teams, what if GWS follow the Brisbane model, a couple of glittering premierships and then a mighty crash and burn, who knows?

7 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

I put this in the AFL Finals thread

All this hand wringing over GWS.

Yes they got high draft picks, but you have to develop them properly and have them working as a team, we at MFC know high draft picks is no guarantee

You have to get the right coaches

You have to get the right experienced players, Gold Coast have shown it can go wrong

You have to do real business on the trade table, they have shown they were willing to take risks, they let Hogan and Tyson go, we should be grateful for that (at the moment), and Bugg to a lesser extent, and Boyd to the Bulldogs

We [censored] up in the last 10 years all by ourselves, GWS had no part in it, and Hawthorn seem not to be affected in the last four or five by the so called bias from the AFL

Suck it up kiddie

2 hours ago, Bonkers said:

The competition implemented systems that are supposed to have equalisation measures which under pin the integrity of the game. How can the competition be taken seriously when those equalisation measures are being openly tampered with in an aim to give two new teams success? It defeats the purpose of why they were implemented in the first place. The whole competition is a farce. Salary cap exemptions, draft concessions and the introduction of academies all go against what the system was created for. I struggle to take the competition seriously anymore when it continues to happen. Outside of these issues  is the uneven fixture & the drug issues that the AFL sweeps under the carpet. Whilst the game is getting record profits it is rotten to the core. What really surprises me is that the AFL clubs have let the AFL have too much say on the direction of the game & they are the ones who stand to lose out in the long run even if it does mean they all line their pockets from the TV revenue in the short term.

Well spoken. Anyone who has a contrary view is a fool. The only reason we follow this farcical league is our tribal ties.GWS is an abomination. Footy May be the best game in the world,however,the AFL is by far the worst competition.

42 minutes ago, martin said:

 

What I think from reading some posts is that some would still prefer a 10 or 12 team league playing in Victoria on suburban grounds,.

We have gone past that, and whatever anybody thinks,  whether they like it or not, and I am not a fan of the AFL either, some of their decisions baffle me.

Broadcast rights money rules, it's the same across all major sports now, so unfortunately we have to wear the consequences if the game is to survive   and thrive.

 Even if clubs have 70000 members the money from them doesn't cut it these days, doubt the membership revenue for MFC would even begin to cover the costs of the Footy Dept, neithet does the sponsorship money from the local real estate agent

Sponsors want to see their name on TV, Western Sydney is a massive market, so everything good and bad was done to establish a foothold, we have to live with it

I support Everton in the Premier League have since I was 5 so a long time   always hoped not to see us owned by an oil baron or the like unfortunately to survive that can't happen

 

, 

53 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

I will accept that there has been 2 gun players in 6 years. I haven't done the research but it appears that this number will increase in the upcoming years if you consider the amount of talent coming through the academies at present both in NSW as well as QLD. 2 in 6 years is still a good result when you consider they will probably play over 200 games each & become likely top 50 or top 20 players in the comp. Sydney will build their team around these players so I think you are downplaying the impact it will really have to support your argument. My point is that if any team is given an unfair advantage to jump the queue to acquire talent it is not right & against the spirit of equalisation & why the draft was created. 

Mate you are wasting your time, it's brick wall material you are talking too,

I get the feeling that if you argued the other way he'd still disagree with you, I think it's called feeding the troll. Your position is clear and unequivocal, he is arguing without a position of strength and just ignoring your accurate summation of the situation.