Potential Father/Son thread

[scottyturnerscurse]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

Am worried about the Lambert kids being indoctrinated in the Giants culture. We can't let them slip.

 

[Maxwell]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

You are making it seem like it is a bad thing for a parent to look after the interests of their kids.

No, not at all. I assume you are talking about the ransom comment? My comment was related to the clokes agreeing to send travis there when they drafted jason but then threatened to have him go to richmond or in the draft if they didnt give the other boys a big pay rise.

 

[uhuh uhuh]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

Looking forward to at least getting lambert down for a training session this year

 

[Mr Brightside]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

Naishys boy gos allright

 

[mk33]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

Is this Patrick Naish, what type of player is he ?
I see he is at the Northern Knights Under 16 squad with Joshua Broderick.

 

[Tigermad2005]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

Not going to make any difference now.
If the player is a star it's going to cost way to much.

 

[Jason King]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

Not going to make any difference now.
If the player is a star it's going to cost way to much.

So rather than being screwed by under performers getting the better selections, expansion teams gobbling up the talent pools, us making the wrong picks and poor development we now have the AFL moving the posts on father son selections? Right when we may have one or two that can actually play?

 

[uhuh uhuh]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

How does it work if we had three all looking good in the same year?

 

[JimJessTorp]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

You'd dip into next years draft and discard picks.

(or ... shhhh ... you'd tell the youngest/least developed kid to delay nominating for a year )

 

[Tiger Ghost]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

Surely this rule change has signaled the end of father son recruiting

 

[Tigermad2005]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

The number of games played for the club should now come down.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

The number of games played for the club should now come down.

Yep, if they're going to make clubs pay a pre determined price for father son prospects then any kid who's father pulled on the jumper should be eligible, one match or a hundred, it's still father - son.

 

[Willo]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

The number of games played for the club should now come down.

Yep, if they're going to make clubs pay a pre determined price for father son prospects then any kid who's father pulled on the jumper should be eligible, one match or a hundred, it's still father - son.

Fair point. Has there been anything public about reviewing the criteria?

 

[Scoop]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

Yep, if they're going to make clubs pay a pre determined price for father son prospects then any kid who's father pulled on the jumper should be eligible, one match or a hundred, it's still father - son.

Would destroy the draft, so many sons of former players going around that there must be a nominal figure of games to qualify.

 

[Willo]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

Would destroy the draft, so many sons of former players going around that there must be a nominal figure of games to qualify.

But that's the thing. If there is a predetermined value placed on each kid, you could only afford to take them if you offered the determined value.
Similarly to the academy selections, if the value is high, you'd have to offer up (multiple) picks (perhaps future picks) to match the value of points. Sooner or later you'd have to weigh up whether the risk is worth it and if you'd have picks available.
I believe there may need to be a qualifying figure somewhere, maybe to be reviewed, but TM made a pertinent point, why have the determined points value? Or does that only come in if the lad qualifies for F/S?
How then does it work for a lad like James Stewart (GWS) who Collingwood decided to overlook. Does the points value stand or is he then free to go into the draft without any points encumbrance for any other club? It seems an impost on F/S clubs that they then may have to pay a higher price for a F/S than other clubs who are free to select the kid if he's overlooked by his father's club. Depends how those other clubs rate him I guess.

 

[Tigertool]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

I thought the F/S bidding system was great. The unfair academy system working exactly the same as the F/S system, exclusively for the Sydney clubs was the problem. The changes are very disappointing.

 

[TheUmpire]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

But that's the thing. If there is a predetermined value placed on each kid, you could only afford to take them if you offered the determined value.
Similarly to the academy selections, if the value is high, you'd have to offer up (multiple) picks (perhaps future picks) to match the value of points. Sooner or later you'd have to weigh up whether the risk is worth it and if you'd have picks available.
I believe there may need to be a qualifying figure somewhere, maybe to be reviewed, but TM made a pertinent point, why have the determined points value? Or does that only come in if the lad qualifies for F/S?
How then does it work for a lad like James Stewart (GWS) who Collingwood decided to overlook. Does the points value stand or is he then free to go into the draft without any points encumbrance for any other club? It seems an impost on F/S clubs that they then may have to pay a higher price for a F/S than other clubs who are free to select the kid if he's overlooked by his father's club. Depends how those other clubs rate him I guess.

The point value of a player is not predetermined. It comes about from the highest pick that a team bids for a player. All draft picks from 1 - 73 have a point value (Pick 1 - 3000 points , pick 2 - 2517 points through to pick 73 - 9 points) For example last year Melbourne bid pick 2 in order to get Heeney. From that bid the point value is then determined (2517). This is the same for both father son and academy players.

The part I strongly disagree with is the club with the "rights" to the player (father-son or academy) then get a 20% reduction in the points that they must "pay" to obtain the player. The payment is in terms of draft pick. Again in the Heeney example the Sans would have had to cough up 2013 points to match the bid and move up to pick No.2. In my mind the discount should compromise the draft as little as possible so I'd be most happy with 0% discount but could live with 5%. That however doesn't correlate with the AFL's agenda of having perpetually strong NSW and QLD teams. Evidence of this is: The discount was initially proposed to be 15 per cent discount for father-son players and 25 per cent for academy prospects, but club feedback saw the discount set at 20 per cent for both categories in their recommendation to the Commission. from http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-21/new-bidding-system-introduced-for-fatherson-and-northern-academy-players

All in all, the new system is fairer than the old but still continues to massively advantage some clubs over others.

 

[Willo]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

The point value of a player is not predetermined. It comes about from the highest pick that a team bids for a player. All draft picks from 1 - 73 have a point value (Pick 1 - 3000 points , pick 2 - 2517 points through to pick 73 - 9 points) For example last year Melbourne bid pick 2 in order to get Heeney. From that bid the point value is then determined (2517). This is the same for both father son and academy players.

The part I strongly disagree with is the club with the "rights" to the player (father-son or academy) then get a 20% reduction in the points that they must "pay" to obtain the player. The payment is in terms of draft pick. Again in the Heeney example the Sans would have had to cough up 2013 points to match the bid and move up to pick No.2. In my mind the discount should compromise the draft as little as possible so I'd be most happy with 0% discount but could live with 5%. That however doesn't correlate with the AFL's agenda of having perpetually strong NSW and QLD teams. Evidence of this is: The discount was initially proposed to be 15 per cent discount for father-son players and 25 per cent for academy prospects, but club feedback saw the discount set at 20 per cent for both categories in their recommendation to the Commission. from http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-21/new-bidding-system-introduced-for-fatherson-and-northern-academy-players

All in all, the new system is fairer than the old but still continues to massively advantage some clubs over others.

Thanks for that.
It's still a bit confusing. So if a club has a F/S prospect and they rate him as a first round pick, ie pick 14 (say 1400 points) but another club rates him at their pick 10 (say 1550 points) does the team that rated him at 14 have to make up the difference ie add a 2nd or 3rd round pick (say worth 155 points) to the equation? So in effect they go from pick 14 to pick 10. The other clubs progressively fall down the order again.

 

[Harry]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

What a load of crap. Should be a second rounder full stop. If hes a gun then good luck to the club.

 

[TheUmpire]

Re: father sons- father sons 2011 2012 2013

What a load of crap. Should be a second rounder full stop. If hes a gun then good luck to the club.

And you think the Academy kids should go for the same draft pick compensation? Because Academy kids and father-sons are now one in the same thing and treated the same way, the only difference is that there are Academy kids every year and they are guns every year.

Did you know that the AFL draft/salary cap/equalisation was based on the American NFL system. Guess how many Academies/father-son type draft compromises the NFL system tolerates? (BTW if your answer is more than zero you are wrong)