Would a player loan system help the bottom 4 clubs

[Makeshift Park]

We've reached a point where teams like Brisbane and Gold Coast have lists are getting outstanding depth.

(Irreplaceabiity of Harris Andrews

31

Harris Andrews

Age

29

Ht

200cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.8

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.6

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

151.7

2star

D

17.0

4star

K

9.0

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.0

3star

D

9.8

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

4.8

4star

M

3.4

4star

T

1.6

4star

MG

94.0

2star

notwithstanding)

The academy system is ensuring the northern states stay at the top. The AFL insists this is necessary for growth of the game, despite in the inequalities this will continue to make for the competition.

Meanwhile, bottom clubs pay massive overs to attract so-so players.

But what if depth players could enjoy the certainty of longterm contracts and a bonus for short-term loans?

Why shouldn't teams like West Coast, North, Essendon, and Richmond be able to use their salary cap room to pay a good roleplayer - say Doedee or McKenna - and their team for a 12 month contract to increase their competitiveness?

 

[MisterMarcus]

How would you prevent it being used the opposite way - contending clubs can just "short term" poach good players from weaker clubs to fill gaps or cover for injuries?

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

No, these clubs need to be developing their own players not developing players for the top sides by giving them game time.

 

[Makeshift Park]

How would you prevent it being used the opposite way - contending clubs can just "short term" poach good players from weaker clubs to fill gaps or cover for injuries?

I assume it would have to require the agreement of both clubs and the player?

Definitely open-minded to it not being a good idea tho - hence my question.

 

[stallon]

No

Whats that going to do for them lol, like what is the actual point?

Doedee or McKenna come for 12 months, takes a spot off a kid, then **** off again? Why?
To be more competitive right now? but why is that the goal? The goal is to build a list that can compete for premierships im pretty sure

It ONLY helps the top teams loan players off non-contending clubs so they can push for a premiership.

 

[Underarm]

What would Richmond benefit by giving the GC player more experience?

 

[Makeshift Park]

Whats that going to do for them lol, like what is the actual point?

Doedee or McKenna come for 12 months, takes a spot off a kid, then **** off again? Why?
To be more competitive right now? but why is that the goal?

I'm by no means a coaching expert, but I'd guess that most kids develop faster when they have a decent core of experienced players around them?

So the competitiveness isn't for its own sake, so much as to expedite young players' development, and instill real on-field structure that can evolve as the list evolves too.

There's only so much a squad with 50%+ kids can learn when they're getting smashed most weeks of the season. It also means that you have kids playing roles where they aren't best suited to compensate for rebuilding list holes.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

The loan system only works in soccer because they have relegation and there is incentives for the bottom clubs to win, AFL clubs at the bottom is all about development of their own young players hoping they turn into elite senior talent which will eventually elevate the club up the ladder.

 

[SSSSSS]

I don't mind the idea of a mid season loan to fill in gaps for positions hit by injury but essentially the MSD is supposed to serve a similar function.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

No

Whats that going to do for them lol, like what is the actual point?

Doedee or McKenna come for 12 months, takes a spot off a kid, then **** off again? Why?
To be more competitive right now? but why is that the goal? The goal is to build a list that can compete for premierships im pretty sure

It ONLY helps the top teams loan players off non-contending clubs so they can push for a premiership.

Correct, would be better off allowing in season trades so that these fringe players can move to a new club looking for senior football, hard to not have it be exploited by the top clubs pinching the better players from the lower clubs. Perhaps a trade period after round 10 and only players who have played less than 4 games are eligible to move.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If you can loan players out then the list is too big - reduce the list size if so.

In Europe it’s just a rort by the big clubs to warehouse players.

 

[Makeshift Park]

You've got all these rebuilding teams compelled to give crap players overs so they can reach the salary floor.

At its nadir, North gave long contracts to the likes of Corr, Fisher and Coleman-Jones.

Essendon did the same with Duursma and McKay.

Richmond the same with Hopper.

Surely there's a better way for these rebuilding clubs to use their salary cap space to their advantage that doesn't involve having to clog up their lists with battlers for 5 plus years.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

You've got all these rebuilding teams compelled to give crap players overs so they can reach the salary floor.

At its nadir, North gave long contracts to the likes of Corr, Fisher and Coleman-Jones.

Essendon did the same with Duursma and McKay.

Richmond the same with Hopper.

Surely there's a better way for these rebuilding clubs to use their salary cap space to their advantage that doesn't involve having to clog up their lists with battlers for 5 plus years.

It’s called front loading, and all clubs do it.

 

[Makeshift Park]

It’s called front loading, and all clubs do it.

Teams like ours can frontload all we like. We still have salary cap space going to waste every year.

 

[stallon]

I'm by no means a coaching expert, but I'd guess that most kids develop faster when they have a decent core of experienced players around them?

So the competitiveness isn't for its own sake, so much as to expedite young players' development, and instill real on-field structure that can evolve as the list evolves too.

There's only so much a squad with 50%+ kids can learn when they're getting smashed most weeks of the season. It also means that you have kids playing roles where they aren't best suited to compensate for rebuilding list holes.

What decent senior players are floating around the VFL, and arent required depth by the stronger clubs that theyd offer them as a loan?
Next to none lol

What would clubs give up for the loan system? is it picks or money as an offering to the club loaning out the player? If its a depth player for 12 months why would ANY pick not be overs, and if its cash well the AFL makes sure that all clubs have all the cash they need.

The Eagles who are by far the youngest club currently still have a decent group of mature players as it is, adding a cuple more depth players like Doedee or McKenna isnt going to add much lol

A rebuilding side needs what Richmond have, a couple of inside mids, a ruckman and a few defenders, the rest can be kids
The Eagles have had older inside mids but been injured, always had defenders, just a ruckman is the issue but we arent getting a depth ruckman from another club that is any sort of reasonable improvement on Flynn

 

[stallon]

Correct, would be better off allowing in season trades so that these fringe players can move to a new club looking for senior football, hard to not have it be exploited by the top clubs pinching the better players from the lower clubs. Perhaps a trade period after round 10 and only players who have played less than 4 games are eligible to move.

Yeah if they ever implement an in season trade period it would have to have a games played limit like you say, but also somehow have that exclude stars who are injured or refuse to play to get to that limit to stop club poaching the good players from weaker clubs

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Yeah if they ever implement an in season trade period it would have to have a games played limit like you say, but also somehow have that exclude stars who are injured or refuse to play to get to that limit to stop club poaching the good players from weaker clubs

Yes its tough and I suppose the stronger club would still need to fit them into their salary cap which probably rules out most of the top line players and a trade would still need to be agreed upon between both parties.

 

[Rob]

It's more an argument for a mid season trade period. But the way the system is currently, no bottom 4 team would be likely to want to win a few extra games anyway. They'll still miss the finals but get worse draft picks.

 

[stallon]

It's more an argument for a mid season trade period. But the way the system is currently, no bottom 4 team would be likely to want to win a few extra games anyway. They'll still miss the finals but get worse draft picks.

Id argue its not really an argument for anything, mid season trade period suits teams at the top chasing a flag who may have had a couple of injuries and need cheaper replacements

Its not going to be superstars moving to strong clubs, its not going to be weaker clubs trading for depth players from stronger clubs(they have no incentive to move on potentially important depth for late picks), etc

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If you can loan players out then the list is too big - reduce the list size if so.

In Europe it’s just a rort by the big clubs to warehouse players.

While I agree it's a rort, a good faith logic to loaning in European soccer is that there's a benefit of a weaker club in giving experience to a young player from another team and that's ... avoiding relegation.

Of course, no team needs to avoid relegation here so there's no point Richmond loaning Annable from Brisbane or whatever.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

I think what the AFL can do is have the first 2 rounds of the draft go to the bottom 8 sides. Top of the ladder starts from pick 30 onwards a team that finishes first gets pick 18 is just wrong imo.

If a bottom four side loses their best player via FA to a top side the bottom side doesn't get their compo wiped if they bring in a FA.

If a FA joins a bottom side they get a sign on bonus

These are some to things the AFL can do to make teams at bottom regenerate quicker and not have them spend years at the bottom.

 

[Golumless]

I think what the AFL can do is have the first 2 rounds of the draft go to the bottom 8 sides. Top of the ladder starts from pick 30 onwards a team that finishes first gets pick 18 is just wrong imo.

If a bottom four side loses their best player via FA to a top side the bottom side doesn't get their compo wiped if they bring in a FA.

If a FA joins a bottom side they get a sign on bonus

These are some to things the AFL can do to make teams at bottom regenerate quicker and not have them spend years at the bottom.

Does the AFL really need to help the bottom regenerate? I'd argue it's quite healthy to have teams like Kangaroos at the bottom for a decade + to remind everyone that incompetence is still going to be punished (and to get your off field right). Or Essendon for 20+ years in the mid-table.

Take Adelaide and Hawks. Both did it in ~ half a decade and both were able to attract some big hits in FA/Trade in this time. Richmond too seems on the way for only a quick trip to the bottom of the ladder. You can regenerate quickly if you start to get shit right off field, just that there are many teams who get stuck in that quagmire because they don't get the basics right.

Now if you want to argue the AFL should be more proactive in throwing out the boards of teams who get stuck, I could be swayed. We don't need further concessions to reward being shit though.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Does the AFL really need to help the bottom regenerate? I'd argue it's quite healthy to have teams like Kangaroos at the bottom for a decade + to remind everyone that incompetence is still going to be punished (and to get your off field right). Or Essendon for 20+ years in the mid-table.

Take Adelaide and Hawks. Both did it in ~ half a decade and both were able to attract some big hits in FA/Trade in this time. Richmond too seems on the way for only a quick trip to the bottom of the ladder. You can regenerate quickly if you start to get shit right off field, just that there are many teams who get stuck in that quagmire because they don't get the basics right.

Now if you want to argue the AFL should be more proactive in throwing out the boards of teams who get stuck, I could be swayed. We don't need further concessions to reward being shit though.

Guess its a fundamentally different equation when you're in a two-team footy mad state and can rely on bringing in local boys of Dawson and Rankine's calibre, even when you're not looking great on field.

In Hawthorn's case, they still had a core of premiership winning players to build around.

FWIW I don't think North needs more experience for its own sake now. But it would have been damn handy around 2021-23 to stop us bottoming out as hard as we did, and allow the kids to develop in a semi coherent structure. You should be able to still get your top 3 picks by playing something that resembles organised football. I realise that's not just the lists fault, because Noble couldn't coach or conceive of a decent gameplan, but its still a big part of it.

 

[stallon]

Does the AFL really need to help the bottom regenerate? I'd argue it's quite healthy to have teams like Kangaroos at the bottom for a decade + to remind everyone that incompetence is still going to be punished (and to get your off field right). Or Essendon for 20+ years in the mid-table.

Take Adelaide and Hawks. Both did it in ~ half a decade and both were able to attract some big hits in FA/Trade in this time. Richmond too seems on the way for only a quick trip to the bottom of the ladder. You can regenerate quickly if you start to get shit right off field, just that there are many teams who get stuck in that quagmire because they don't get the basics right.

Now if you want to argue the AFL should be more proactive in throwing out the boards of teams who get stuck, I could be swayed. We don't need further concessions to reward being shit though.

The AFL doesnt have to help the bottom regenerate, but theyve done more to hinder the bottom from regenerating than anythign else in the last few years with academies and cheap f/s matching, as well as introducing free agency with compo picks(FA should be abolished, the compo picks are necessary if FA is to exist), etc

If you remove academy, cheap f/s matching and FA then the top clubs dont get to regenerate at all unless they do some incredible drafting with later picks.

If they wish to keep the cheap matching bids and FA, then a little more to help the bottom clubs wouldnt go astray

 

[Makeshift Park]

The AFL doesnt have to help the bottom regenerate, but theyve done more to hinder the bottom from regenerating than anythign else in the last few years with academies and cheap f/s matching, as well as introducing free agency with compo picks(FA should be abolished, the compo picks are necessary if FA is to exist), etc

If you remove academy, cheap f/s matching and FA then the top clubs dont get to regenerate at all unless they do some incredible drafting with later picks.

If they wish to keep the cheap matching bids and FA, then a little more to help the bottom clubs wouldnt go astray

Yep. You either make kids from the northern academies available to every team and wind down F/S rorts, or you start thinking about creating sustainable measures to increase the competitiveness of bottom teams instead of giving out random discretionary priority picks.

My preference is the former but the fact I made this thread was premised on the fact I think that's gonna be very unlikely.