I recently loaned two of my players in fastticker. I was wondering how the system chooses the team that gets the loan if there are more negotiating teams.
For instance: for the loan of Belfiore 2 teams were negotiating (Espanyol and Udinese). Why Udinese gets the player?

A second question: Can you refuse teams to loan one of your players, because they are compititors in the league or an international competition. I think it must be possible. For sure when these teams play in the same league but maybe the manager has to give a reason for the rejection.

Cheers

The answer to the first question is: highest wage percentage, longest period, “weakest” team.

Second one: we have a same league block planned for when you transfer or loan list a player.

Cheers!

What makes a team “weak” or “strong”, I mean what’s the calculation after it. Does the system just count up the values of the players?
Because in the previous season my team was expected to reach the international final. Now I only have to reach the quarters. I have taken a look to other good teams but most of them are not much different from previous season. So has the logic changed after adding the new valuesystem.

cheers

Yes, the logic to evaluate the player strength (and therefore the team strength) has changed. Before we used only the player’s main skill, now we have a formula considering all relevant skills, that’s why expectations have changed all around.

Cheers!

I would like to be able to loan out young players to clubs with coaching department level 10, can this be added, please ?

Added to our list Alban. It has been suggested before but we hadn’t created an enhancement for that yet. :)

what about loaning out ur player and the team that takes him isnt playing him at all

there for wasting him and hes no developing,

can there be a clause where they have to play him once every 40 turns at least

cos ive got players loaned out to siena and that jerk isnt playing them…and if i call him back i lose 1.4 million

thats bull

Maybe the amount of required matches could be related to the wage percentage. For instance, if I loan your player paying 100% of the wage I’m not required to use him, but if I pay 50% I must play him at least in half the matches. The numbers don’t need to be these, just giving an idea :)

Cheers!

well i think if your loaning a good young player that is worth 6 million.

its actully hurting the team rather than helping because he isnt developing

id like to see a base reqirement… an auto return and fine for the loaning in team …. that way the team that has loaned the player out doenst have to pay out a shit load just to get the player back.

or raise the cost of the loan where i make income untill he is played

I have loaned out 2 of my players, but….. instead of not participating they play every friendly match.

They now have a small amount of stamina, I don’t seem to get out of the contract (which is exactly a 0%-wage).

Of course I can talk to their manager, but shouldn’t there be a way to get them back ?

That is a delicate subject. Some think contracts should be easy to break, some think that there should be a cost to break them and some think that they should be unbreakable. We were thinking about changing the system to make them unbreakable, which is a conservative choice – but it makes it easier for everybody to avoid problems.

If you make them unbreakable, I think, you also need to add an option that we can choose a minimum coaching level for the loaning team. The goal of loaning is to make these players better but if a team with coaching level 3 loans him this developpement won’t be that fast as with a coaching level 9.
Another suggestion is a minimum number of matches he has to play. The kind of match doesn’t matter.
So I support unbreakable loans as long as we can specifie the loancontract more.

I totally agree. The loan agreement should be improved if we choose the “unbreakable” path.

I agree with Dirk, if they are unbreakable there should be that options for loaning team couch department and games to play (in this particular I like Gabriel’s idea to make it depends on the wage percentage).
This way both loaning and loaner have contract guaranties and I believe it would stimulate the loans market.

Regards

Let’s keep them unbreakable for now to avoid problems and work on the improvements already suggested (minimum number of official matches, level of coaching, etc).

Hi dudes
i´m having this problem. I loaned some of my youths…… but they are not playing!!!! so i want them back. Just logical.
Now, i dont think that people can play tricks calling loan players back or canceling the contract. But i did some money long ago when my team was so weak, and it help me.
Simple solution (maybe): each team can only cancel a contract 2 or 3 times per season or 2 seasons. That way the money to make if so, will be a small amount. And if the home team need that player back for whatever reason, he can have it, like in the real soccer world.
Gracias, salud y suerte
damago

This limit is something we can test, DaMaGo. I’ll add this enhancement to our list.
Thanks!

I personally think you should do it like it was in managersim. I think both sides should be able to cancel or recall a loan. It’s your player. If he’s not playing then there are plenty of teams that could use the player and will play him.

I really don’t see the problem. At the moment it just sucks if you are happy you loaned out a player but he’s not being played and there is NOTHING you can do about it. I think this is a big downside and I think it should be changed.

If I got it right you want to be able to recall or return a loaned player for free, right Sly? Well, personally I think that’s ok. When I first introduced the fine to recall or return a loaned player the idea was to be fair with the other team, but now I see it brought more worries than benefits. Maybe we should try that and see how it goes :)

I agree with sylvain, you should be able to recall or send back a player with no penalties, i also think you should definately consider an option so the manager can decide where his player goes, that way there shouldn’t be a need to cancel the contracts as you are sending him somewhere that you feel he will probably play.

I’ve been thinking about…this way it makes no sense to define a loan period! We could simply leave the player there until one of the sides cancel the loan. Hard decision :P

Well happy to see you are coming around. That penalty thing was a bad idea. If there is no penalty there is no way of “cheating” the system. It’s your player. If he’s not playing and you want him to play then I think you should be able to recall him. If the loaning manager doesn’t like that……well…thats his fault right? Then he should have played him….why loan a player in the 1st place then! On the otherside, if you loaned a player and feel like you really don’t need him anymore you should be able to send him back. I doubt the manager who owns the player would mind, since he could most likely loan him out again anyway. Both sides happy……boths sides win. PROBLEM SOLVED!

What about these 2 additions:
- loan clauses: minimum coaching (if the team who loaned in the player downgrade its coaching below the specified level the player is returned), maximum number of official matches missed (if the loaned player misses more than the specified number of official matches he is returned; matches where he was injured or suspended won’t count)
- loan renewal option: when loan contract is ending both managers have the option to extend the loan for more 36 turns

I’m really not comfortable anymore with an option to call back or return the player for free. It could be abused. :(

I think you shoud not remove the penalty, it can be unfare for the smaller teams with lots of other teams players in there main squad. Without penalty managers would recall players for any reason, like if they have a player injured or red carded… that would create instability for the team that is counting with the loaned players in their main squad.

Best regards, Filipe

Gabriel

I like your loan extension
rewards the good managers doing the right thing. Allow upto a full season extension.

i see both parts of the story with loaned out players BUT guys you cant have it both ways, wheres the risk factor!

I don’t see why you would think recalling a loan for free could be abused? How the hell could you abuse it? I currently have a player loaned out who’s not playing. Now this really annoys me because I’m sure I could loan him to another team who would be very happy to have him. Because of this the players loses an entire season of increasements, so it will only take longer for him to get better. Now… please tell me…what the points is of not being able to recall a player? It really is starting to piss me off, and perhaps even more managers. Then in the future….why the hell loan out a player. If he’s not being played you are screwed. You are better of just keeping them yourself….

I could loan a player to a friend of mine for he to play just one match and then recall him…of if the player wasn’t loaned to my friend’s team but to another team I recall him. These are the kinds of abuses I’m thinking about :)
I’m pretty sure everybody will be more comfortable when there is a contract clause saying your loaned player must play official matches otherwise he will return to his team. I can even cancel the existing loans (at least for those who request it) when I add this new feature.

well, how long before this can be implemented, because I want my player to either start playing matches or return to my club. It’s getting pretty annoying. Also because the manager who loans him doesn’t answer to my e-mails….

It’s hard to tell Sly, I may be able to come up with something until tomorrow, otherwise it won’t be ready until the end of next week as I’ll be out until next wednesday. But don’t be annoyed Sly, I’m sure your player will have enough time to fully develop :)

Are there any updates? I’m still in the same situation. I loaned a player who isn’t playing. So please, could you try and come up with some possible way to recall the player. He’s losing valuable playing time. I was actually subbing him myself and then noticed on 1 day I loaned him out. I was happy to see this at first, but now I’m regretting it since he’s NOT PLAYING!!