What are the northern academies? Programs run in the two northern states. Each club has a designated area, and can pour as much money into it as they like. The clubs are club-branded and were put in place to help improve participation in those areas, better develop talented juniors, build draft numbers on take on other sporting codes. They're also designed to strengthen the NEAFL and the community clubs and competitions in those states. Most of the players who go through the academies won't get drafted, but they should go back to their NEAFL or local teams as better players. Kids are identified at about 12, and start off with occasional training sessions. As they get older, the most talented players are filtered through.

Why do we need them? Draft numbers from Queensland and NSW-ACT have been traditionally poor, in comparison to other states. Victorian players represent more than half of every draft. There's also the bigger picture, as mentioned in the above answer, of growing the game in non traditional areas and strengthening the second and third tier competitions in those states. Not many of the other things trialled by the AFL - such as the NSW scholarship scheme, where clubs could sign a kid and work with him until draft age - have been particularly successful. Taylor Walker, Craig Bird, Will Langford and Jarrod Witts are the most accomplished players to have come through that program, and Walker grew up in an AFL area, Broken Hill.

With Gold Coast and GWS entering the AFL in the last few years and the competition requiring a deeper talent pool, these two states have been seen as key areas for development. That the academies are club-branded is also significant. The idea is that showing a talented 12-year-old living in Newcastle and being fought over by different spots a direct pathway to the Swans is a compelling selling point for the sport. NRL clubs, for instance, can directly sign talented teenagers (at 13 in some instances) without having to put them through a draft. Why do the northern clubs get first call on them?

It's an incentive for them to invest money in their academies and develop talent not only for them but for the rest of the competition. Are all the other clubs fine with this? Not particularly. What's their problem? Philosophically, all of them would support the need to increase the overall talent pool by better developing kids in the northern states. More good players to pick from = happy clubs.

However, they can see the potential for the Giants, Swans, Lions and Suns to keep accessing top-level talent, cheaply, year after year, and are frustrated they won't ever get a real shot at the very best kids. Most think the AFL needs to revise the GWS zone, which takes in the Riverina, a traditionally strong football area. Others take issue that while a couple of the clubs put a lot of money and time into their academy kids, others make a far less significant investment and still get first dibs on the good players. Many people believe the AFL should take over the running of them and that all players should be available to everyone. The counter-argument to that, as mentioned earlier, is that having attaching the clubs to the academies is a key part of attracting talented kids who have other sporting opportunities and offers in front of them.

The thought is boys in Sydney, for instance,would be more drawn to the idea of playing for the Swans, than simply playing in the AFL. For clubs such as Brisbane, who have struggled to keep interstate draftees at the club, a well-run academy program could be critical to their future success. Not a fan: Collingwood president Eddie McGuire Credit:Getty Images Do the other clubs get any benefit? Hopefully, the academies will become so successful that the northern clubs simply won't be able to take all of the good players, meaning some will spill through to other clubs in the draft.

Also, having to bid for players means clubs have to pay more attention to them and the teams they play in, meaning they may then notice others. In 2014, Port Adelaide drafted two GWS Academy players, Dougal Howard and Logan Austin. How did bidding used to work? From 2009-2014, a bidding meeting was held right before the start of the trade period. Clubs had to nominate their eligible players a few days earlier, on the last day of the draft combine. At the meeting, clubs were asked if they wished to bid for one of the nominated players. When a bid was placed, a nominating club had to use its next available pick in the draft to match the bid.

If they chose not to match the bid, the club that placed the bid was able to take the player. That scenario never unfolded. Why couldn't we just stick with this system? Firstly, holding bidding so close to the end of the season meant clubs had little time to complete their assessment of them, and make a thorough decision on whether to bid, and where. They had no idea, when bidding, which other players they were potentially passing up on. What else?

Last year, Melbourne bid pick 2 for Isaac Heeney and Sydney was able to match with pick 18. That's a huge gap, but it wasn't the only issue that the AFL could see becoming more significant as the academies began to produce higher-quality players. Had another club then bid for Jack Hiscox with pick 3, the Swans, having already grabbed Heeney with 18, would only have needed to use a second round selection to get him. Heeney is an extreme example/case study - no-one has ever bid that high for a father-son or academy kid before. Melbourne's poor year and the Swans' high finish created the gulf. The new system was really a pre-emptive move, in case the states do start to have more than one top-end player graduate from their academy in the one year.

The northern clubs would argue that the new system is a huge over-reaction to the extreme/ unique example of Heeney. ie, the Swans set up their academy, found a major sponsor, hired good coaches, poured a lot of money into it and then found and developed Heeney, from Newcastle, where he was good at a number of sports. Their point would be that they were attacked by some of the Victorian clubs for doing too good a job. Isaac Heeney is a poster boy for the academy system Credit:Will Russell/AFL Media OK. So how does it work?

The first thing you need to know about is the Draft Value Index. The what? The DVI. Basically, every draft pick from 1-73 has been allocated a numerical value, or number of 'points.' Pick one is worth 3000 points, and pick 73 is worth nine. Picks placed below that have no value.

You can see the full list on page 7 of this document. How did they decide on those numbers? It's based mostly on historical player salary data. The league looked at what players chosen at each selection between 2000-2014 had gone on to earn, then smoothed the graph out. This data was considered the strongest available indicator of the relative 'market' value of the players chosen at each selection in that period.

OK. So when does bidding happen now? Bidding will now take place live on draft night, as the draft is unfolding. This was seen as a way of ensuring clubs place genuine bids, and know exactly which other prospects are available to them before deciding whether to bid or not. As mentioned above, when bidding was done six weeks before the draft, they were largely guessing about which other players would be available at the selection they were using to bid. Now, rather than match a bid for one of their players using their next pick, the academy club will have to match the number of points attached to the selection bid for him, as per the DVI.

That might mean clubs need to use two or more picks to match a bid for one player, depending on how early the bid is made. OK. So let's pretend this was all in place last year. Melbourne would actually have called Heeney's name out on the night, when it was their turn to pick at No. 2? Yes. Sort of, anyway. The AFL and Champion Data have developed new draft software to accompany the new system and draft night will look very different this year. The clubs will be set up in a room next to the main draft room. They'll be partitioned off from each other, for privacy as they discuss their selections. When it is their turn to pick, they will be prompted to select the name of the player they wish to draft from a drop-down menu.

They then submit the selection. It will be approved by AFL officials, and then announced as part of the telecast. That means no more 15 seconds of fame for the nicest, hardest working, most genuine people in footy - the recruiting managers. Are they devastated? Some are quite upset…. word on the street is that the number of draft eve haircuts/fake tan appointments/last-minute gym sessions will drop significantly. Wouldn't it be good to have cameras on the clubs as they decided whether to match bids or not?

It would be awesome. Oh well... Last year's top 10 on draft night Credit:Chris Hyde Righto. Back to Heeney. If Melbourne submitted him as their choice for pick 2 what would have happened next? On their computer screen, Sydney would have been asked if they wished to match the bid. The screen would have shown the Swans a list of their current picks, and a list of what their picks would have become if they matched.

They would then have hit the 'match bid' button, or let the Demons take Heeney. If they passed, Melbourne would have been listed as picking Heeney at pick 2. After they matched, Sydney would have moved up the draft order and been listed as holding pick 2. The picks the Swans needed to match the bid would have been moved to the back of the draft order. Any picks that had some points still attached to them would have been moved to the point they now fit into the order, according to the DVI.

Melbourne's first pick would then have become pick 3. Sydney would have ended up with Heeney and pick 57, in exchange for picks 18, 37 and 38. Does that mean everyone else's picks will shuffle down a spot when a bid is made and matched? Yes. Early on, at least. This year, there could be up to five players bid for in the first round: Callum Mills, Jacob Hopper, Matthew Kennedy, Eric Hipwood and Ben Keays. Mills is a Swans Academy player, Hopper and Kennedy are part of the GWS Academy and Hipwood and Keays are Lions Academy graduates.

Should all four players be bid for in the first 12, Adelaide's pick 13 would become pick 18. North Melbourne's pick 17 would become 22, and so on. Having said that, picks placed later in the draft will move up the order as clubs start matching bids, improving in some cases by a several spots. For instance, Brisbane holds picks 38-42 in the draft. If Mills attracts a bid before those picks - and the Lions could bid for him themselves, though that won't happen - then they will jump up the order a couple of spots, gaining value. Then, once they are required to use some or all of their picks to match bids for Hipwood and Keays, the clubs choosing behind them will bounce up a few spots.

Brisbane academy player Eric Hipwood Credit:Bradley Kanaris So the order in which players are bid for is important? Yes, it will matter (a lot, in some cases) to the clubs matching bids. The higher the bid, the more picks you have to come up with. The lower the bid, the cheaper the player becomes. The further up the order your picks bounce, the more points you have to use. The more they slide down, the more difficult it could become to secure players.

When you say picks get moved to the 'back of the order' once they are used to match bids, does that mean they go right to the back of the draft? Yes. The pick or picks a club needs to match a bid or bids will be moved to the end of the draft order, where they will be placed in ladder order. Do they lose all value when that happens? They do, because they have effectively been used to 'buy' the pick required to match the bid for their player/players. However, there is the potential for them to regain some (limited) value. For instance, a pick of around 90 could end up moving back up to the late 60s as the order changes.

So let me get this straight. The draft order will change as the draft is actually unfolding? Yep. The new draft software will automatically update the order as bids are made and matched. OK. Back to the bidding. Do the northern clubs get a discount when they match bids for their academy players, as well as the teams with father-son picks? Yes. They'll receive a 20 per cent discount when matching a bid placed in the first round. Using the Heeney example, the Swans would have had to match Melbourne's bid of 2517 points with 2013 points.

Back to Heeney: Melbourne bid pick 2, and the Swans matched with pick 18 Do the clubs with father-son players get the same discount? They do. The northern clubs had argued that they should receive a slightly bigger discount given they need to invest money to get their players to play. The father-sons don't to do that, although many have launched father-son programs or academies in recent years.

Why the discount? To encourage the clubs to keep investing in the academies and to reward them for developing a player to that high level. Is it 20 per cent all the way through the draft? Nope. After pick 18, the discount is set at a fixed 197 points (20 per cent of pick 18.) This means that academy and father son players become much cheaper to acquire as the draft goes on.

It's also another reason the order in which players are bid for could become quite important. Say North Melbourne wants to bid for GWS player Harrison Himmelberg at 17. That's a first round pick, but if Mills, Hopper, Kennedy, Hipwood and Keays have all been picked, it will turn into pick 22. While that pick will remain a first round selection, the Giants would receive the 197 point discount rather than the 20 per cent. This would allow them to 'save' around 30 points.

Academy prospects Callum Mills and Jacob Hopper Credit:Pat Scala What happens if a bid comes for a player late in the draft, and the pick bid is worth fewer than 197 points? Then the club can match the bid, and get the player, using its next pick in the draft. So it's really only the elite players that the academy clubs will really have to cough up for? Pretty much. The AFL wants the academy clubs to pay a hefty enough price for the top kids but also have a reason to punt on an academy kid ranked much lower by the other teams.

Let's use another example. Say Melbourne bids at pick 3 for Mills this year. How would Sydney match it? Sydney would have to come up with 1787 points (with the discount factored in) to match that bid. At the end of the trade period, the Swans held picks 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69 and 72. Hang on. They haven't delisted enough players to clear up that many list spots. Spot on. And until this year, the final draft order has only reflected only each club's available selections.

Clubs were only allowed to go into drafts with as many picks as they had open spots. That's changed, a little. The league this week released a final draft order that still cut clubs off according to list spots. When you look at it, you'll see Brisbane has 'lost' pick 42, for instance. However, those picks are still noted on the draft order. They're listed in the right spot as 'hidden' picks, and will be assigned the appropriate points value when activated on the night.

The activation will occur when the hidden pick or picks match up with how many lists spots the club has left to fill. So, back to the Swans and Mills…. To match Melbourne's bid of pick 3, Sydney would need to use the points attached to picks 33, 36, 37, as well as about half of 44. They would move up to pick 3 in the order, and take Mills. Pick 44 (which would still have around 200 points attached to it) would be moved further down the order, to wherever it fits in according to the draft value index.

The other selections (33, 36 and 37) are the ones that would be moved to the end of the order. So it all happens at once, as one transaction? Yep. Pick 36 won't, for instance, temporarily gain an extra handful of points after pick 33 is used (impacting ultimately on pick 44, and where it ends up landing) All the required picks will be used together, at the exact same time. Watching at home on Fox Footy, you won't need to worry about these technicalities. Unless you're really into that sort of thing.

What if a bid comes later for Mills. Say at pick 7. That would make significant difference to the Swans' draft. It would mean the Swans have to use 33, 36 and some of 37. Pick 44 would remain where it was. So what you're saying is that the Swans will get to start matching a bid of pick 3 or even pick 7 with picks in the 30s? Yes. Clubs still need to use their next available pick in the draft to start matching bids. You can't, for instance, trade a good pick in and elect not to use it because you have enough picks, or points, to cover your academy players later in the draft.

However because bidding is now held after the trade period, the Swans were able to trade down the draft order, increasing their number of picks and their overall points balance. Sydney, for instance, ended up trading pick 14 for picks 33 and 44. Ordinarily, no club would ever do a trade like that. But in doing it, the Swans actually gained points. I'm looking at the draft order now. The Giants seem to have done the same thing, and so have the Lions. Both clubs have a lot of late-ish picks. Yes. The Giants have Hopper, Kennedy and Himmelberg coming, and the Lions have Hipwood and Keays. All those players have been strong performers this year. Mills is also rated extremely highly.

The three clubs knew they were likely to attract high bids and were able to prepare for that likelihood during the trade period. What they did was trade reasonably good picks for multiple picks further down the order. This allowed them to accumulate more points than they went into the trade period with, which should ensure they can all match bids for their players without having to go into deficit. Clubs with father-son players will have the opportunity to do the exact same thing if they wish to. Did you just say 'deficit?' What's that about…?

We'll get to that.... Go on, then... Draft picks - and where they are placed - still mean a lot to most clubs. They want the best ones they can get. What a 'good' one is will vary from year to year. It will always be a subjective judgement. Draft points will remain the same year in year out, no matter how strong each draft pool is seen to be. During the trade period, the academy clubs valued points over picks. It didn't matter where their picks ended up being placed, or how many they had. They just needed the points.

The other clubs wanted picks. It was as if they were dealing in two different currencies. The academy clubs' priority was to make sure they had enough points to match the possible or probable bids for the players. What you would also have noticed is that both the Giants and Suns traded in multiple picks in next year's draft. This was the first year that future pick trading was allowed. This means those clubs already have a strong points balance ahead of the 2016 trade period, whether they keep those points for academy players or use them to generate even more. You can read more about what unfolded here

Is what they did during trade week ideal? Pick 18 seems a fairer price for Heeney than three picks in the 30s. It's fair to say what happened was probably an unintended consequence of the new system, which clubs were bound to use their best advantage. The thinking was that being forced to come up with enough points to match bids for their players would see the academy clubs trade players out, to the benefit of other clubs. Instead they turned their picks into more picks. Also, the Giants did lose Adam Treloar and a few others, and the Lions did trade James Aish out.

And that wasn't all those clubs did, with the Lions bringing in Ryan Bastinac, Josh Walker and others, Sydney signing Michael Talia and Callum Sinclair and the Giants getting a couple in too. Should the AFL be looking into this? The whole thing needs some time to settle. And (some) other clubs were able to benefit. They improved their draft position through arranging pick swaps and other deals with the northern clubs. Some of them gained good players in, ie Treloar and Aish, handing over valuable picks or 'points' for them.

However it wouldn't surprise to see the AFL review the DVI, and the number of points attached to each selection once the draft is over and there is some time to think and take everything in. Sydney, for instance, traded pick 14 for picks 33 and 44. Ordinarily, no club would ever do a trade like that. But in doing it, the Swans actually gained 16 points. It's important to remember is that the Swans did use pick 14 to help them get the points they need. When you look at it that way, they will still be using a first-round pick to help them pay for Mills. Technically, at least. In moving so far down the order have the academy clubs shown their hand?

Yep. They'll all be matching bids for their stars. The other clubs can bid for them knowing that. That's actually a disadvantage of the new system for the academy/northern clubs. No other clubs need to telegraph who they'll be picking in a draft like the Swans, Giants and Lions have this year. Can the northern clubs bid for each others' players? Of course. Will they? I wouldn't think so unless it was somehow to their detriment not to (bad karma).

If the player is clearly better than the next on their list you'd hope they'd bid. Brisbane has pick 2, and their next selections are in the late 30s. Sydney has three picks before then. Would it advantage them to bid for Mills, given that will make their picks in the 30s worth more points? It would. They would gain one more extra spot by also bidding for either Hopper or Kennedy at 2 and making the Giants use pick 34. They club isn't looking to to place any 'false bids' though. They'll just use pick 2. The Lions have another good player coming through next year who could be a top five pick. They wouldn't want to provoke another academy club into doing the same thing to them.

Would the clubs who improved their draft position through trade deals with the northern clubs have agreed not to bid for those clubs' players? The cynic in me can't see a club that has benefited from such a trade placing a bid for a player from the team that helped them out. We may never know for sure. And to be fair, maybe they honestly, truly, sincerely don't rate any of the academy players that highly. It's all a bit suss, but remember that all components of a trade deal need to be submitted to the AFL for the deal to be approved by the league. A side deal not to bid would be against AFL rules. So, there would be trouble if this was found to be the case.

Will clubs be hesitant to bid early selections on academy knows because of how it will make the players they do end choosing feel? That could happen. Clubs might worry about "the message" bidding for players would send to the player they ultimately select. The kid would surely get over it. They will have just been drafted, after all. GWS holds pick 10. What happens if no club before then bids for Kennedy or Hopper? They'll be able to use pick 10 on another player, so it will be up to the clubs with picks before then to make sure that doesn't happen.

One, because it means GWS won't be paying the right price for Hopper and/or Kennedy. Both are extremely talented players. Two, because it means the Giants will be able to remove another highly rated player from the pool. That's one more first-round talent the other clubs would then miss out on being able to draft themselves. Couldn't the Giants just use pick 10 on Hopper or Kennedy? They could. But remember that they get a discount when matching bids. They don't get that discount when using their own selection.

Therefore, there's no value in them using pick 10 on either player. They'd be better off running a lap of the room, high fiving all the clubs that let Hopper and Kennedy through, then picking a third top-level talent and dealing with the ramifications for their points tally later. Remember that during the trade period, GWS traded in several future picks, for use in the 2016 trade period/draft. They can afford to go into a bit of deficit if they have to. GWS academy player Jacob Hopper (left). Credit:Pat Scala There's that word again: deficit. Does this mean that a club can continue to match bids if it runs out of points in a draft? They can, to a point. Clubs that don't have the required number of points to match bids for one or more of their players are able to eat into their points allowance from the following year's draft.

For example, say a club ends up 'owing' 250 points after this year's draft. Those points will be subtracted from their 2016 points balance. Will the points be subtracted from their first pick? If that's where the bid they are matching was placed. Under that scenario, the club's future first pick will be repositioned in the drafted order. Owing 300 points, for instance, would see pick 4 moved to pick 7. However, if a club runs out of points matching a bid for a player in the third round, the points owed would be subtracted from their future third round selection.

That pick would also then be repositioned in the draft order, according to the DVI. In the event that a club has traded out the future pick they need to pay back any owed points, the points will be subtracted from their next selection. If they've brought a future pick back in as a replacement - Brisbane this year traded a future third round pick to Geelong but got one back from North Melbourne - any owed points will be taken from the pick traded in. How much deficit can you go into? Only so much. The deficit limit is set at 1723 points (the equivalent of the first four picks assigned to the premier side each year, 18, 36, 54 and 72).

Why is there a limit? So that clubs can't keep rolling their 'debt' into draft after draft, never paying back the points they owe. How will clubs know if they're going to exceed that limit? To quote Little Britain, "computer says no."

When the club attempts to match a bid - but matching the bid would mean exceeding the deficit limit - they will be blocked from doing so. More complicated, certainly. They'll need to have done their sums, attempted to work out who might be bidding for their players and tried to calculate what matching various bid will mean for their other selections and their value. They'll want to have as clear idea as possible heading into the night, though it will be impossible to know exactly how things will pan out.

Picks belonging to the northern clubs have the potential to move more than those belonging to other clubs, meaning much less certainty for their recruiting team leading into the draft. Does all of the above apply to clubs with father-son players? Yes. Clubs can still nominate boys whose fathers played 100 or more games for their club. On the night, the other clubs will be able to bid for them just like they can bid for academy players. The nominating club will then have the option to match the bid, or pass, and let the player go to the club that bid for him.

I have a few more questions…. Fire away. What happens if no other club bids for one of your players? You can get him with your last pick in the draft - ie, for nothing. If you have pre-nominated him as a possible rookie, then provided no one bids, you can add him directly to your rookie list ahead of the rookie draft.

Clubs have always been required to take three 'live' selections in any draft. Is this still the case? Yes, that's still the case, and still includes upgraded rookies. Even if academy clubs use up seven picks on two players and only has points left at the back of the draft, they'd still have to draft a third player or take on another academy kid. What if an academy player wants to go into the draft instead? Father-son players can say no to their clubs if they want to. Can they do the same thing? Not at the moment. Academy kids sign yearly contracts to be part of the program, committing to their club. They have to go to the club if it chooses to draft them.

Can a club bid for more than one academy player with the same selection? Yep. Let's use the Mills example again. Melbourne bids at 3, and Sydney matches it. Melbourne could then bid for Hopper at 4, moving the Giants up to 4. The Demons could then bid for Kennedy at 5. This would see the order end up looking like this: 3: Sydney (Mills)

4. GWS (Hopper) 5. GWS (Kennedy) 6. Melbourne Hopper has been at school in Ballarat for two years. How is he eligible for the Giants? His parents still live at home in Leeton, NSW. To qualify for an academy program, players must have a residential address in the zone for five continuous years.

Will it be harder for academies to get kids into their program now? It is one drawback of the new system, and potentially could cost them players. Now rather than "selling" the game to kids and their families by guaranteeing them a pathway, they'll have to explain this whole thing to them (this article can be reprinted for a small fee, guys....) They'll also have to tell them there's a chance that at the end of it all, they could end up at another team. Those clubs' challenge now will be a) to get kids in and b) make them fall so in love with the sport that they don't care which club they end up playing for.

However, the new system could again give the NRL clubs a leg up, in that we're back to them being able to offer kids an easier, more direct way into the sport than the AFL can. Have you forgotten anything? I really, really, really hope not! Send me an email if I have.