What a load of crap next one of these coaches will suggest that they should be allowed an opposition sub to be used for them if they have more than 2 injuries to even up the bench how about this coaches coach and the AFL screw up the game with rule changes.....

Being a successful takes a holistic approach, it’s not just winning games on the field, it’s also list and injury management etc. This is one of the more poorer suggestions I’ve heard in a while, so that’s saying something. 

Edited April 8, 20214 yr by Ethan Tremblay

I just don’t think footy is big enough for it. In soccer, it is either loaning a young player to a lower division (or completely different country), or loaning a player you don’t want any more with an agreement to sell them at the end of the loan. Basically, it’s rare for a player you want and you are developing to be playing against you in the same league for one of your direct rivals.

Absolute no from me. You play for a club, not a team. Enough of this "injuries ruin football". It's part of the game. Move on. 

A win win situation would be very rare. How many players would you loan out that aren’t in your best 26-28 but would make another sides best 22?  
 

I think the AFL should increase list sizes to then allow clubs to have enough quality players in reserve should injury happen.  Then create a national reserves competition so all players can play competitively at a high level. 

9 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

so I have only one ruck on my list knowing that I can get a backup from another club?

Why reward bad planning

Loaning out players in the EPL is completely different as the top 6 aren't really competing with the teams who are the beneficiaries of the loan

Agree, and most teams loan out players to different leagues around Europe. 

1 hour ago, Forest Demon said:

I just don’t think footy is big enough for it. In soccer, it is either loaning a young player to a lower division (or completely different country), or loaning a player you don’t want any more with an agreement to sell them at the end of the loan. Basically, it’s rare for a player you want and you are developing to be playing against you in the same league for one of your direct rivals.

And il add the players wages are paid by the loanee, so wouldn't work with salary cap in Afl

9 hours ago, Demonland said:

Anyone in favour of this?

Yes I am 

Give me Dusty pls on loan

There’s no reason for clubs to carry more than 3 rucks and a forward/ruck. 

All 4 of those are out for the Suns.

There absolutely has to be a system to allow them to add a ruck until the mid season draft. 

If a loan is the best way for that to happen then so be it.

Id happily send Austin Bradtke up there for a chance to play for 7 weeks or so. 

58 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

If a loan is the best way for that to happen then so be it.

To many problems associated with way.

Loyalty, injury and not being managed well, reduced development, relocation costs and related family/friends upheavals, losing time with the primary club and so losing intimacy and bonding periods.

Only benefit I can see is the experience a player will gain.

The team in need could pluck a ~27 year old from the country or lesser leagues (if the rules allowed it), who has some craft already developed. Making for someone's dream to come true.  

I hate this so much.

the flipside which no one seems to have acknowledged including dimma is what happens when for example richmond loan out RCD and Thomson Dow to a NM/carlton or whatever and that player plays 22 games that season and the senior coach says how would u like to join on permanently heres a 3yr deal and ur clearly in the 22 as you proved this season, now you've just generated a process that allows you to have your youngsters tapped up and stolen undoing any previous developmental work you've put into them and setting u back as it always eventually catches up with you - see gws who consistantly lost players 23-27 each season meaning players 30-35 are now 4th year players who are not at the level required for senior footy but have been granted season upon season due to exits in the fringe bracket above them year on year.

Oh no?Leave our game alone!

12 hours ago, kev martin said:

To many problems associated with way.

Loyalty, injury and not being managed well, reduced development, relocation costs and related family/friends upheavals, losing time with the primary club and so losing intimacy and bonding periods.

Only benefit I can see is the experience a player will gain.

The team in need could pluck a ~27 year old from the country or lesser leagues (if the rules allowed it), who has some craft already developed. Making for someone's dream to come true.  

Pretty much all of those issues you mentioned were tackled with COVID changes last year. Majak played a scratch match with us last year! 

If the player agrees to go and the club agrees to let another side manage them for a period of time the benefits outweigh the negatives. 

State league call ups are probably the safer choice but you’re then impacting a state league club and you’re also having a mid season draft type exercise that could be harder to police.

Purely for rucks I think the loan makes sense. 

Why can’t they make do with pulling a player from affiliate club/metro zone/country zone as in old days. 
isn’t that how Mick Nolan got a game?

3 hours ago, radar said:

Why can’t they make do with pulling a player from affiliate club/metro zone/country zone as in old days. 
isn’t that how Mick Nolan got a game?

Radical thought ... but what if there was some kind of system of "reserve" players? You could have a bunch of players of all kinds, held in reserve ... rucks, mids, KPF/KPD, the lot ... ready to fill in at a moment's notice. You could even have entire teams of these "reserve" players. To go a step further: you could take a team of "reserve" players and affiliate them to a club. You could even have EVERY club have a "reserve" team of players -- as if they were PART of that club. These "reserve" teams could play each other every week, just like the main or "senior" teams do. As a curtain raiser maybe? When a "senior" player gets injured -- or even just loses form! -- you could swap in a "reserve" player, just like that. With the "reserve" team being part of the club as a whole, the "reserve" players could enjoy the same coaching & fitness benefits ... learn the "senior" game plan ... a lot of upside in this crazy idea of mine.

 

No, forget it. I'm dreaming. Let's **** over our native game and dilute its uniqueness by importing more ideas from soccer & gridiron, just because it suits one coach of one club.

4 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Radical thought ... but what if there was some kind of system of "reserve" players? You could have a bunch of players of all kinds, held in reserve ... rucks, mids, KPF/KPD, the lot ... ready to fill in at a moment's notice. You could even have entire teams of these "reserve" players. To go a step further: you could take a team of "reserve" players and affiliate them to a club. You could even have EVERY club have a "reserve" team of players -- as if they were PART of that club. These "reserve" teams could play each other every week, just like the main or "senior" teams do. As a curtain raiser maybe? When a "senior" player gets injured -- or even just loses form! -- you could swap in a "reserve" player, just like that. With the "reserve" team being part of the club as a whole, the "reserve" players could enjoy the same coaching & fitness benefits ... learn the "senior" game plan ... a lot of upside in this crazy idea of mine.

 

No, forget it. I'm dreaming. Let's **** over our native game and dilute its uniqueness by importing more ideas from soccer & gridiron, just because it suits one coach of one club.