I keep bouning around on this concept of player loans. There's plenty of pro's and cons.
It's good for players. They get extra experience in some very good organisations. And after the last few years they really could use it for their development.
It's good for the game, if more players are able to grow into regular first graders.
It's fine for the bottom 8 clubs, so long as the players loaned out are only depth and there's the option to recall them if they need to.
It's great for top 8 clubs who are decimated by injury.
It's not so great for top 8 clubs who aren't receiving players. It gives their opponents a leg up.
I think I struggle most with it as a rugby league purist. I want my team to be my team, with my players. No mergers, no late-season signings thank you PVL.
What we really need are some guidelines around those points to protect clubs. It's all very new and it seems a verbal agreement is all that's needed at this time, which is pretty dicey. You don't want to see a situation where a player is earmarked for loan before their final 8 hopes are extinguised or any other dicey **** like that going down.
Apparently the NRL doesn't actually have a system in place so it is literally cancelling one contract and signing a whole new one at the 'loan' club and then, due to the timing, they can also sign one for back at their original club. Think most players would want to know their return will be confirmed in a contract before they tear up their current one. Have it sitting ready to sign in front of them.
I think a decent loan system in the pre-season would be a great idea such as what happened with Grant and Momirovski. But we can't have chopping and changing. If you're going to have mid-season loans, it should only be for players who have played <30-50% of first grade games they were fit and available for.
Depth moving around and getting first grade opportunities is a good thing. Taking established first graders from one side and blocking a pathway to grade for a player in another side is ****.
That was a great use of the system, both teams had needs and a fringe guy they could send to get a start at the other club. Exactly what it should be used for.
A 175 game NRL player with 95 tries to their name sits a bit different. And current timeline definitely too close to finals.
On the one hand anyone can do it if they save the cap space but on the other hand I still don't like it for vet players.
Some interesting points raised by Kempy
If Nofo is on 525k for the full year say he has 100k remaining which Storm pick up.
On a cap of 10million (to keep it rounded) have they smartly used their last 100k or have they now falsely given themselves a cap of 10,425,000 because they have used that last 100 to sign a 525k player? Just because he only has 100k owed to him for the year doesn't make him a 100k valued player.
Obviously can argue semantics about Nofo's value but I think the point is very reasonable.
If a club kept 200k spare and signed a million dollar player for the last 20% of the season they don't get a 200k player, they get a million dollar player.
You'd be mad not to hold a spot and 120k-ish aside unless things change. And if everyone does it then it'll be a circus.
Another thing I didn't like, which he also mentioned, was trades like this potentially cost another club the chance to play finals.
Not just because of their own position in the 8 but wins they may drop to other teams on the cusp.
In the case of the Storm I guess it is more a jostle for ladder position and some outside the 8 clubs would rather see them stronger than to drop games vs Eels and Roosters.