An interesting watch on this.

What’s the go with Marcus Prasad’s eligibility?

The changes to the rules are substantial.

Under the new rules, the cultural background of the parent is paramount; a player must have at least one parent born overseas to qualify for multicultural status.

Clubs must spend more time with NGA prospects, have nominated them earlier, and proven that they have improved their football.

Pacific and Central and South American regions have been added to the cultural eligibility criteria while European countries have been removed.

With the inclusion of the Tassie Devils, North Melbourne loses its zone in the Apple Isle and the zones will be shifted around to accommodate them in Victoria.

Obviously, more details are required to assess the effect on the MFC. We need to see what the boundaries are of the amended zones and know more detail about the families of the potential NGA prospects.

It appears that there are no changes to 2025 draft eligibility criteria so on that basis, we can still get Toby SInnema but not Tairon Ah Mu, although we might have access to the latter’s younger brother who is also a talented young player.

afl.com.au

AFL cracks down on player eligibility in NGA revamp

Clubs must spend more time with Next Generation Academy prospects and register their interest earlier in order to get priority draft access

Do we still get Prasad?

Are we selecting SInnema?

One presumes the changes have been crafted scrupulously according to the AFL Changes Handbook, for compliance with established practice under the sections 'Treatment of Big Clubs' and 'Effects on Melbourne Football Club'.

31 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Do we still get Prasad?

Are we selecting SInnema?

Re Marcus Prasad - See my comments above about the need for further information on any changes to our zone.

Re Toby SInnema - we still have access to him as the changes don’t appear to apply to the 2025 draft eligibility criteria.

41 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The changes to the rules are substantial.

Under the new rules, the cultural background of the parent is paramount; a player must have at least one parent born overseas to qualify for multicultural status.

Clubs must spend more time with NGA prospects, have nominated them earlier, and proven that they have improved their football.

Pacific and Central and South American regions have been added to the cultural eligibility criteria while European countries have been removed.

With the inclusion of the Tassie Devils, North Melbourne loses its zone in the Apple Isle and the zones will be shifted around to accommodate them in Victoria.

Obviously, more details are required to assess the effect on the MFC. We need to see what the boundaries are of the amended zones and know more detail about the families of the potential NGA prospects.

It appears that there are no changes to 2025 draft eligibility criteria so on that basis, we can still get Toby SInnema but not Tairon Ah Mu, although we might have access to the latter’s younger brother who is also a talented young player.

afl.com.au

AFL cracks down on player eligibility in NGA revamp

Clubs must spend more time with Next Generation Academy prospects and register their interest earlier in order to get priority draft access

You'd hope (ha!) that clubs could 'nominate' prospects already in their systems as if they had been nominated at the required (earlier) stage, perhaps within a time window from the rule change.

Every club's new NGA zone confirmed after AFL review - Every club's new NGA zone confirmed after AFL review

We've lost Mornington peninsula region to St Kilda.

AFL cracks down on player eligibility in NGA revamp - AFL cracks down on player eligibility in NGA revamp

On first glance, very disappointed that we've lost Mornington Peninsula. Genuinely can't see what we've gained. I see that Geelong is still travelling ok.

A reasonable assumption would be that it’s tied to population and our South East Melbourne area has seen significant growth in that regard

Of course that’s assuming that the AFL are reasonable, which they aren’t

Seems like we’ve just lost out for no good reason 🤷

So we lose a zone and get nothing back. WFT?

16 minutes ago, demoncat said:

A reasonable assumption would be that it’s tied to population and our South East Melbourne area has seen significant growth in that regard

Of course that’s assuming that the AFL are reasonable, which they aren’t

Seems like we’ve just lost out for no good reason 🤷

What's the quote? 'You're not paranoid if it's true'. Lo and behold, Collingwood and Geelong appear to have improved their lot. How's Geelong's Western District expansion? Mind boggling

St Kilda have been kissed on the (censored) gaining the Mornington Peninsula and keeping Bayside. Huge region choc full of talent.

Screwed again by the AFL.

We’ve lost ground, including a traditional footy area but will continue to gain population as the outer SE booms. The challenge is turning that population in to footballers.

To speak frankly there might be not much point trying to get footballers out of Asian migrants.

Our best hope for a strong academy is to tailor as much of it as we can to the Sudanese kids.

Does that mean we have lost out to the Dandenong Stingrays area?

14 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Does that mean we have lost out to the Dandenong Stingrays area?

Stand corrected, but don't think so Dazzle

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Does that mean we have lost out to the Dandenong Stingrays area?

No Dazzle but make no mistake we have been screwed over. Our region is the South East Juniors Comp only which is not a particularly strong competition.St Kilda have now got the Mornington Peninsula Juniors, Frankston and Districts Juniors and a large portion of the South Metro Juniors.

Stingrays zone is SEJ, MPJFL, FDJFL.

Edited yesterday at 10:011 day by Dee Viney Intervention

It appears we’ve been shafted again with academies. How is this fair?

Fox Sports

Jamarra the Cat: AFL re-works controversial draft system....

Jamarra the Cat: AFL re-works controversial draft system... which would’ve changed a No.1 pick

1 hour ago, hillie said:

It appears we’ve been shafted again with academies. How is this fair?

Fox Sports

Jamarra the Cat: AFL re-works controversial draft system....

Jamarra the Cat: AFL re-works controversial draft system... which would’ve changed a No.1 pick

Yep. Three clubs lost territory with nothing in return, being us, Hawks and Dogs. Geelong and St Kilda both got gifted extra territory without giving anything up. Gotta love the AFL's attempts at "fairness."

6 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Yep. Three clubs lost territory with nothing in return, being us, Hawks and Dogs. Geelong and St Kilda both got gifted extra territory without giving anything up. Gotta love the AFL's attempts at "fairness."

Unbelievable the whole NGA & Academies are BS yet the northern clubs run on different rules! It compromises the draft .. top 10 should be pure

25 minutes ago, Demonsone said:

Unbelievable the whole NGA & Academies are BS yet the northern clubs run on different rules! It compromises the draft .. top 10 should be pure

The problem is that any move to fix the broken system will only hurt the clubs that haven't benefited from it. If they came out and said no academy picks in the first round, The Suns and Brisbane would be laughing. They have cashed in and nobody else gets the chance.

Of course, the AFL have a history of doing just this, waiting until the "chosen" clubs benefit, then changing the rules to prevent others from doing the same (see Mac Andrew, or Judd's Visy contract).

Supposedly afl looked at demographics and tried to even it all out between the vic clubs, taking into account population and number of immigrants and indigenous people that would be eligible. Knowing the AFL they screwed the pooch and we got the short end, us and the hawks were the only 2 sides to lose zones and get nothing back while cats and saints appear big winners both gaining zones while losing nothing. Everyone else got shuffled round.

Not sure why the afl even persists with these club run academies at all, it just seems to distort the entire draft for minimal benefits. We went through this prior to having the draft and the whole competition become a pay to win and luck of what zone you had.

Edited yesterday at 15:401 day by Garbo

1 hour ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

The problem is that any move to fix the broken system will only hurt the clubs that haven't benefited from it. If they came out and said no academy picks in the first round, The Suns and Brisbane would be laughing. They have cashed in and nobody else gets the chance.

Of course, the AFL have a history of doing just this, waiting until the "chosen" clubs benefit, then changing the rules to prevent others from doing the same (see Mac Andrew, or Judd's Visy contract).

Damage is already done, keeping it going longer will only make it worse. Sure a few clubs got a massive benefit like Suns and Lions, likely why the AFL has only stepped in now that lions went back to back and suns look like they will have a period of dominance to but before everyone else gets the same benefit and nullifies it.

Time to pack it in with the academies. We were denied MAC Andrew, had Darwin as a zone taken off us and given to the Suns and now have the Mornington Peninsula Junior Football league which is a strong competition taken off us and get SFA in return. Good thing we stocked up on smalls in the last draft because we won’t be getting Marcus Prasaad.

Equalisation……Bollocks.

Academies work against one of the key pillars of equalisation ie the draft. AFL no longer cares about equalisation, they care about revenue and expansion. The game is cooked.