| Forum » Suggestions » Loan System | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Changes should be made to the current loan system
|
||
|
Username
122 msgs.
Substitute
|
I've talked to several managers that have expressed a desire to change the current loan system. This is what some of them have said: 1. Ability to recall player if loanee isn't training player as promised or not keeping other promises. 2. Ability to verify loanee's coach rating because there are a lot of managers out there with low rated coaches claiming to have 99 ratings. 3. Loans should only be used as a short term fix rather than long term strategy. Right now, there are many managers that don't bother to buy or develop their own forwards, defenders or midfielders because they can loan the same player for 3 seasons or simply specialize in borrowing forwards, defenders etc.... Therefore, players should not be allowed to go on loan to the same team for consecutive seasons. This should force more market activity while making managers develop their own players. 4. Prevent managers from borrowing the same position every season to avoid the specialization in loans for a specific position. For example, every season some managers loan an IM instead of coming up with a long term option at IM by either training their own or buying one in the market. That can be stopped by not allowing the manager to ask for a loan for another IM in consecutive seasons. Edited by Vadecula 31-01-2016 23:37 Edited by Vadecula 31-01-2016 23:47 |
31/01/2016 23:22 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
620 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
5. And only a right-foot-playing players can be borrowed, 165-170 cm tall, but only on Tuesday and only to the teams which name begins on G or T. 6. Teams playing with 532 formation can borrow only LF and RB. Seriously. This is so one-sided. First two points are so subjective, how you want to measure what was agreed? Points 3-4 is a acceptable strategy. You can either buy or get a loan. That's why there is a limit on max 3 players per season. Points 5 a 6 are perfect. For me, its -4 and +2. |
01/02/2016 01:27 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
122 msgs.
Substitute
|
Lol, hilarious. However, I disagree on the first 2 being subjective. It's easy to verify coach rating just like you can verify players' progression and forecast by making it visible. It's not subjective if you claim to have 99 coach but when the manager checks he sees 75. It's also not hard to tell whether a player is being trained 2 times, 5 times or 0 times per week or whether the borrower promised to give a player a lot of game time but the player ends up on the bench or the reserves roster. Edited by Vadecula 01-02-2016 01:55 |
01/02/2016 01:53 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
21587 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Two votes for "Don't care" and one from me....  |
01/02/2016 06:58 |
| 🦊3773™ - Div2/Gr1 | ||
|
Username
2149 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Vadecula said: 3. Loans should only be used as a short term fix rather than long term strategy. Right now, there are many managers that don't bother to buy or develop their own forwards, defenders or midfielders because they can loan the same player for 3 seasons or simply specialize in borrowing forwards, defenders etc.... Therefore, players should not be allowed to go on loan to the same team for consecutive seasons. This should force more market activity while making managers develop their own players. 4. Prevent managers from borrowing the same position every season to avoid the specialization in loans for a specific position. For example, every season some managers loan an IM instead of coming up with a long term option at IM by either training their own or buying one in the market. That can be stopped by not allowing the manager to ask for a loan for another IM in consecutive seasons. I actually appreciate this too points. If you force the team to train most of thier own players, you will get a bunch of jack of all trades and master of none. With managers specialising in few training positions, we can get quality youth development program on, for e.g. i train OM's in hrs and now am really good at it (Shameless self promotion plug in). This makes a hell of a difference. -1 |
02/02/2016 16:31 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
4207 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Hearing complaint after complaint about loans each season, I suggest eliminating loans entirely. | 08/02/2016 08:54 |
| FC need more holidays - Div4/Gr7 | ||
|
Username
9897 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
@vgates said: Hearing complaint after complaint about loans each season, I suggest eliminating loans entirely. @Vgates rule the internet today. But let us loan in atleast a DMF  |
08/02/2016 12:16 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
1769 msgs.
International
|
I second Vgates' proposal.. Elimination, now. Multiple teams in my div have their entire forward pool as a loan.. 93+CF in group4 without having to purchase it is hard to defend. Edited by Buckeye623 10-02-2016 00:24 |
10/02/2016 00:23 |
| ★★Dyslexia Untied - Div2/Gr2 | ||
|
Username
2960 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@vgates said: Hearing complaint after complaint about loans each season, I suggest eliminating loans entirely. +1 This will up market prices,div.1 and div.2 teams = 100 teams got like 200+ players on LOAN ~95avg. When you cant loan you must train or buy and market will be more active and prices will go up. |
10/02/2016 05:04 |
| Mr. Q17 - Div1/Gr1 | ||
|
Username
122 msgs.
Substitute
|
That's not true. Prices are high now because of limited supply. Many managers send players on loan to gain more training, experience and play time so they can sell them for more money in the future. If they're forced to sell players instead of holding on to them they won't ask for the ridiculous amount of money they're currently asking for because they know there are 100s of managers trying to sell players as well. | 10/02/2016 05:53 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
1
