SYDNEY chairman Andrew Pridham says teams that draft players out of northern Academies should have to pay a fee of $200,000 to the club that developed the player after the AFL's bidding changes were unveiled. 

And Gold Coast chief executive Mark Evans says the AFL missed a chance to correct imbalances in the trading and free agency landscape after the bidding moves. 

AFL.com.au revealed the League's sweeping changes to the bidding system on Tuesday before the AFL confirmed them to clubs on Wednesday, with tighter restrictions including a 20 per cent points tax for Grand Finalists, 10 per cent on preliminary finalists and the capacity to match with only two selections. 

It has sparked wide reaction, with Port Adelaide "furious" and Carlton also disappointed, while St Kilda president Andrew Bassat said the AFL had "gone weak" and not gone hard enough on changes. 

Pridham said "disincentivising" producing top talents by introducing the points loading for the best teams meant clubs should have to pay a levy in return for the development done by the Academy clubs. 

Last year's draft saw the Swans not match a bid on Academy product Lachie Carmichael, who joined the Western Bulldogs. Of the nine players to attract bids inside the first round last year, Carmichael was one of two (alongside Adam Sweid), who didn't have theirs matched by their club.

"They've changed the rules so we've got to live with it. The thing I think is more than worthy of discussion is if we're spending three and a half million dollars (per annum) developing players for the benefit of other clubs, we think it's only equitable there's a payment made to the Academy where those players come from to reimburse for the cost of their development over many years," Pridham told AFL.com.au.

"I think the club that takes them should pay for the development of that player and that money should go back into the Academy system.

"We're completely committed to our Academy. But if we're going to keep investing at the level we invest in our Academy, if we're not getting access to the better players if we're consistently successful on field, we are doing it for the good of the game. 

"If we're going to help unsuccessful, poorly managed clubs by supplying them with players then I don't think it's unreasonable they would contribute something for those players to go back into developing more players for the national game. It's probably something in the order of a couple of hundred thousands dollars per player." 

The long-term Swans boss hit back at clubs who had criticised the Academy system. 

"There's a very convenient downplaying of the importance of stability and management within a club that deals with the structural disadvantages we face being in the northern markets," he said. 

"Cost of living is a major issue for us and yet we have clubs who are being perpetually unsuccessful and they would say it's because of Academies and father-son and I would probably say maybe go and look in the mirror. It might be because of the management of your clubs over many years and many decades so clean up your own act before you start complaining about structural disadvantage."

Pridham said a "great risk" to the AFL was the dilution of talent and that clubs should have been given multiple years to prepare for the bidding changes. 

"I don't think it's fair to change the rules so significantly that impact list management through the season applying for the next draft. I think there should be notice. I think it's almost a retrospective change," Pridham said. 

"Linking the northern Academies with the father-sons and NGAs is devoid of logic. Father-son, which I support, is basically a genetic lottery and has nothing to do with game development and everything to do with the history and romance of the game, which I think is important to preserve.

"But I don't think in a game development and equity sense linking the two make sense and I don't think the NGAs make any sense full stop."

Gold Coast chief executive Mark Evans told AFL.com.au the AFL had missed the chance to also tighten up free agency and trading inequalities if they were focused on striking a balance with the bidding rules adjustments.  

"The competitive balance review that we'd heard about had 27 streams attached to it and we've been pushing for a long time as a club to make sure that we looked at all of the drafting and player movement rules," Evans said. 

"We're surprised to see we've made changes to the acquisition of underage talent but ignored the ability of a premiership-winning team to attain the best free agent, or even two or three free agents. We impose tariffs and barriers on speculative talent but we ignore the movement of highly talented established talent. 

"Why would we consider one above the other when we have plenty of examples of teams in premiership mode who stay in premiership mode for multiple years because they can just keep topping up and ignore the draft? 

"If there were 27 streams in this review, have we ignored free agency, travel inequities, cost of living, go-home factors, father-sons, home Grand Finals?"

Evans also said the changes followed the expected scrapping of Opening Round, which was designed to give clean air to games in the northern markets, and that more had to be done to continue the growth in those states. The Suns are estimated to spend around $2.5 million in their Academy annually. 

"We keep hearing New South Wales and Queensland are high on our strategic priorities and our biggest growth market. But in the same breath we look to disincentivise talented player acquisition in those markets and we look to sack Opening Round and extend Gather Round," he said.

"The question is 'What are we going to do in New South Wales and Queensland if it's such a strategic priority for us?"