If Loan deals were possible..

[seababoon]

do you think introducing a loan system like they have in europe for soccer, would be good for afl?

 

[RoosterLad]

No it's a terrible idea. It is a completely different scenario... completely different sports. It's unbelievable you would actually firstly think this up, then bother to take the time to mash on your keyboard before pressing submit.

 

[seababoon]

well.. it was worth it.. i got a reply

 

[Ron]

I think it's a fantastic idea, and to show how great it is, i am willing to let the Crows loan Collingwood both Thompson and Goodwin for the rest of the year.

 

[IddyBiddy]

Could never work. But, what about the idea of a loan system for players not currently on AFL Lists, whereby the long term injury clause would have to be introduced. E.g. A key Ruckman/forward goes down with an injury, a player (Over 25 being the min age) has been cleaning up in the SANFL and could potentially walk straight into the squad to fill the position, unlike the younger rookie listed player. What about a loan system whereby the SANFL/VFL etc club receives a match appearance fee for their player and that player is only contracted to the club only until the season's end. After that contracted period, if the club wishes to keep said player they have to go into a bidding system like F/S.

More than likely full of holes, but i'm board at work.

 

[relapse]

The only reason that it has merit in soccer is because if those players arent playing then they dont play so if they dont play they wont develop so loaning them to a club that could use the player will assist in their development.

We dont need it because those needs are met by the SANFL.

 

[RoosterLad]

That's a pretty fair call relapse, AFL players not playing for their AFL teams (fringe and rookies) are effectively loaned to the SANFL clubs as they don't own them but they can fill a need.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

The only reason that it has merit in soccer is because if those players arent playing then they dont play so if they dont play they wont develop so loaning them to a club that could use the player will assist in their development.

We dont need it because those needs are met by the SANFL.

They still play reserves, but point taken.

It works in soccer because the professional game is worldwide, and in each country there are different tiers. It's very rare you'll see teams loaning to teams in the same league, and if you do it's usually a top team to a smaller club/team looking to avoid relegation.

Why would AFL clubs want to develop players that can't get a game at other clubs rather than giving that spot to one of their own kids? What's the benefit? It's not like relegation is a threat, rather prime draft picks if you have a poor season. If North took Brent Prismall and he starts tearing the competition apart, who is going to benefit most? Geelong will, and we'll have just made them stronger.

Maybe we could have taken Hawkins last season when Thompson went down, but all we're really doing is developing a crucial part of Geelong's list for 2008 and beyond.

 

[acker]

Its got merit

As a dog I would say it wouldn't hurt if we loaned Street to another club, he wont get agame with the present ruck combo.

But we would want him back if either of our two first choice rucks got injured or lost form.

It is probably better for both the player and the club than having them play in a lesser competition.

 

[RoosterLad]

That may be so in the VFL but they develop nicely in the SANFL as it is a pretty strong comp and clubs have strong values rather than the VFL which is nothing but a glorified reserves comp.