brezzette said:

+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.

Vadecula said:
It's erroneous to assume prices will go up, loans only affect the supply not demand, not prices. That's like saying stopping people from renting cars will cause car prices to increase. There's no connection at all. Eliminating loans or setting more limits/restrictions on loan activities have no impact on market prices. If anything prices may even go down because there will be more players to choose from in the market.

Vadecula said:
You should read my post more carefully. I said removing loans won't cause prices to go up. There will still be plenty of teams out there needing good players (demand) and we'll still have plenty of players with good progression and forecast (supply). Thus, removing loans or having restrictions will be a long term impact instead of 2 seasons.
Edited by Vadecula 18-02-2016 18:23

Vadecula said:
''If they remove loans market price may drop a little but only 1-2 seasons coz all teams will sale their players they cant loan.
After that prices will go up.'' You're basically assuming there won't be any more good players after 1 or 2 seasons. As previously stated, Uplay determines the amount of 90+prog players. So for your argument to work wages would have to remain absurdly high and Uplay would also have to stop making more 90+prog players after 1-2 seasons. We already know there are plenty of good managers from all divisions that will continue to train good players. I doubt UPlay would stop generating good players when they've been working hard on having players being sold at fair market value instead of the speculative pricing that has dominated for many seasons.

Much of your earlier argument is one dimensional because you focus on Div 1 and 2 as if they're the only one here. A more balanced distribution of good players will benefit D1 and D2 as much as lower divisions. It will make playing more interesting instead of focusing so much on money. Moreover, a more balanced distribution of good players will result in lower wages and prices. Managers won't have to pay outrageous wages or fear hostile clauses as much as they do now because there will be less money floating around and a larger pool of good players to choose from instead of the limited supply monopolized by rich teams or those from Div 1 and 2.

90+avg are maxed in div 1 and 2 because they have the resources to pay the wages required to have all those players. If things were more balanced and wasn't focused on money I'm sure there would be more of those players in lower divisions. The current model of good managers and money determine 90+avg, not necessarily being from Div 1 and 2. There are plenty of good managers in D3 and D4 that are tactically better than some of the managers from Div 1 and 2. They just don't have the money to compete regularly and field a powerful squad.