This is something that was changed recently and is being subject to discussions, so I decided to open a specific topic about it. The idea of keeping the loan was introduced to protect smaller teams who rely on loans to be competitive. You may say it’s not fair for the team which is buying the player, but he knows the player is loaned and should expect the player to be available only when the loan ends.

What do you think, if a loaned player is sold to another team, should the loan be terminated?

I don´t aprove this change.
Of course the loan should terminate.

Terminate, but the seller should pay a fee.

Other (not good) option is to reduce to 12 turns the loan time

i don’t understand why seller should receive anything at all?? he is the one who is selling the player on loan…
And buyer is also aware that he is buying someone who is already on loan…

i approve the change… it is upto the manager to check who he is buying…

hum… to avoid this situation why didn’t the owers of the game develop something to avoid selling loan out players????

it is not something for owners to do…
it is the job of that manager who is trying to buy a player…

Aand how about an email explain the changing?

the owner of a player should be able to sell a player – if loaned out or not.
.
but the manager who uses the loaned player, should be given a “transmission time”.
.
When the deal is done (transfer is final, cash exchange) the player stays for additional 6 turns on his side, then he wents to the buying manager. 6 turns should be ok for rearrange the formations and looking out for new loans.

A fair opinion from Philipp.

i like the way it is right now… a buying manager knows before hand who is on loan and who is not… so, it is his decision to buy or not…
he can always request the loan termination … or look for other players…

The problem Nirabdha is that other managers don’t accept the loan termination and it was not you who loan the player.
This is a trick solution.
In real life this don’t happens. If a club buy a player, the owner of the player decide if he want to loan him or not. It’s no FIFA or UEFA that decides were he will play.
My opinion is more radical that Philipp. For me if a manager buy a player he should be in his team after the deal is done. The end.
The crap conversation of rich clubs and poor clubs it’s bullshit.
If there were a certain number to transfer for season or a maximum to get free transfered players maybe poor clubs could get less poor.

I think in real life the player still stays in the loaner team till the end of loan contract.

In my opinion the best way is as it is now. The buyer knows the conditions he is buying, and so the loaner must know he can keep the player for the duration of the contract.

I bought Fábio Guedes yestarday because i needed another striker till the end of this season.
I payed 5,3m for him and i couldn’t have the player in my team because he was loan out to another club and i did know this rule.
No problem. I fired him now and another rich club will get him for sure… probably the club i bought him the first place.

Ricardo, the problem there is that you didn’t knew about this rule, not the rule it self…

I think Gabriel forgotten to announce it when he created the rule, but this was one isolated case, all changes in the game are anounced so every one can know how the game works…

It’s true Filipe… I didn’t know about this particular rule but i don’t agree with it.

I want to say that seller have to lose money because of broke contract.

ulisses, there is no broken contract involved in this case… it is the responsibility of a buying manager to check if the player is loaned.
There are clear indications to let everyone know if a player on the transfer list has been sent to another team on loan…

Gabriel is asking about suggestion. I said that my one is that loan should terminate and the seller should lose some money.

i replied because i didn’t see any contract being broken…

My opinion is the same that the manager who buys a player that is loan know’s that so I think that the sell should be finalised at the end of the loan agreement.

Of course I say this because I’m in a lower divisio so I get many players from loan and it’s very difficult to lose a player with no warning.

If this is not the final decision,I think, at least, the manager who have the player from loan should have a gap to try to get another player, like Philipp Leibeck said.

My opinion is that when a team loans a player, a contract is stablished. The old rule was bad for the teams who used loaned players. When someone says “you can use my player for 144ticks”, it should really mean that, not “you can use it until who nows when”…
A sell after the loan shoudn’t prejudice the loaner.
So, I think this new rule ir correct.
As a suggestion, I think that the buyer should be ablo to choose between taking the player immediatly, paying an indenization to the team who loaned the player. Or he could choose to wait until the end of the loan contract to use him.

There should be a clause in the contract to say that the player can or cannot be recalled from the loan at any time.

Had I known that the player I bought, who happened to be loaned out at the time, would not be released by the club who has him I never would have bought him.

What about when you buy a player who isn’t loaned out like I just have in fasttick and before you have completed the transfer, the selling club loans out to another club – very unfair, unethical. I spend $8M on a 31 year old to improve my team immediately and now i have to wait 1 year before he helps me. This shouldn’t happen.