Subject: [IDEA] Loaning - A great way to do it

Why would anyone want to loan a triple divine striker? Why should not keep it itself?

main interest is to gain some money ( when you think you can still perform well without him or if you don't care about your final ranking )

If you don't have money enough for superstriker why would you buy an older and cheaper striker?

That's right, loan would be in concurrence with hiring old players, because this would be close in term of approach... But this is why bidding is important, there would be a price for loan player and a price for old player, and you can expect that market price for loan would be lower.

It is already stupid enough that players are traded like socks here and that they are even willing to make so many club changes. This idea would increase even more the chaos that sometimes appears because of this excessive market flexibility. If you don't have the money for 2x divine striker, well, hello, maybe you shouldn't have one until you make the money.

why stupid ? because this is not realistic ? Purpose of this game is to give fun, not to provide a complete and complex realistic simulation. Sokker is very far from providing that, many aspect are totally unrealistic.
As you said, and I fully agree with you, it's definately better to have the money to get your superstriker, because by loaning it, ok you have it for one season, but the season after he's gone and you lost the money you spent to loan it. But this is manager decision, short term gain for any ( good or bad ) reason or more secure long term view, this add gameplay options, so basically it increases fun.

By the way, I respect the opinion of everyone about loaning and I am not sure this is worth to debate about it so long since it will never be developped in Sokker so I will stop there.


(edited)

The idea would be great if people were fair and rule-abiding. However this is not true and people will find workarounds to loan players among friends so it'd be unfair for new teams.

i think this idea is good but not for sokker ... nobody will put on loan list or will let you loan a 3x divine Striker or a 5x magical Mid ... at least if you offer good money , but if you offer good money plus you are able to pay the high salary better you buy or grow your own player

This would not be able to happen because of the second stipulation

-The loaned player must have a value lower than at least one of the players in the loaning team (so will potentially be their second best player)

+ 9,999,999

FANTASTIC IDEA!!!

There has to be a different treatment for keepers though. It would be hard to improve your keeper with the current system. (Or, with a good keeper, you would be able to loan a better player, circumventing a bit the second stipulation)

I like Etienne idea somehow, but really no one would like to train the loaned player, so the main use for the loaning in theory (developing your player in the skills you are NOT training at the moment) would not work.

The loaner have to have some protection on the deal. But I can't see it without complicated contract system. For me the model would be:

Ex: I train pace and will train technique next season. I have a divine paced player with average scoring and would like someone to train it for me, and use my player for much cheaper than to buy it, than I have it back and train technique. The interested team have no much money and it is suffering for having an slow team, and is training scoring and have a free spot. The loan can make his team much more competitive and save his ass on the league. So, here goes the deal

The destination club have the obligation of having the player on training spots on 80% of the weeks of the loan (discounting when injuried or banned) or will have to pay a compensation in money for each week that isnt trained (maybe based on the player value/statistics). Maybe, also, to incentivate, the destination club can get 5% of the next transfer as well.



I think it is too complicated to be implemented anyway

- The loaned player must have a value lower than at least one of the players in the loaning team (so will potentially be their second best player)

Here we have another issue. Gk's have bigger value than field players so basically you can loan even Miasojedovas and he will be considered as second best player...

Its a good point, although that is only to control the standard of player as a general rule... If it becomes an issue, which it may do, maybe they can say that the value rule excludes players with weak in keeper or higher?

so basically i can get my friends to start teams, loan them a player. they go inactive. player get the 100% training.
get the player back and then sell him for profits after he has a season training.
nice :)

good point!

hope they implement it

I don't like a loaning system, think it's good enough as it is right now. Old players aren't expensive to buy if new managers want players with high(er) skills. Besides, loaning is bad for the financial situation of the new managers, they can't sell the loaned player but only train them.

And kenyard has a good point :)

well ...
- players under 24 years must play 1 match per week,if not they return to the owner
- players under 24, the owner pays half of the salary of the player and the other half is payed by the loan keeper
- if the player is selled under 26 years a cote of the price goes to the loan kepeer ( only if the player has more then 9 weeks loan)
- players loan 9 weeks or 16 weeks
- player over 24 years, loan owners pay half of the player salary to the owner club (still they pay the salary of the player normaly)
- no bid for loan
- only 2 players allowed at a time for loan
- maxim 5 players in loan per total in a season ( this will create strong relationship between managers)
- juniors can't be loan in they first season
- players can't be selled on loan time

my point of view..
(edited)