Loan Clause: Minimal Play Time in First Team

Hello all.

Sorry for my english, i hope you can understand everything, this is just my idea about a Loan Clause (which is really needed!)

Well the title says all i think, A loan clause, minimal play time in first team.

There should be a system aswell, if you loan a player with this clause for example;

Player A goes to Club A with a Minimal Play time in First Team (say 10 games).

Player A's value is: 5.000.000

If Player A played 10 games in the first team on the end of the season then they won't have to pay a 'fine'. If Player A played for example only 5 games, then the Club should pay a 'fine'.

Player A has a value of 5.000.000 so that will be 5mil / 10 (games) = 500.000 - Player A only played 5 games so 500.000 x 5 = 2.5Mil, 2.5Mil - 5Mil = 2.5 Mil 'Fine'.

-----

Example A;

Player A should play 15 games but played 8 games only.

Player A value is 5.000.000 / 15 = 333.333 x 8 = 2.666.666, 5.000.000 - 2.666.666 = 2.333.334 'fine'.

-----

Example B;

Player B should play 25 games but played 4 games only.

Player B value is 12.300.000 / 25 = 492.000 x 4 = 1.968.000, 12.300.000 - 1.968.000 = 10.332.000 'fine'.

Shouldn't it be that in example A they have to pay a 333.333 x 7 = 2.333.333 fine and in example B a 21 x 492.000 = 10.332.000 fine?

It seems strange to give a fine based on the number of games the player has played instead of the number of games he hasn't played.

What you are suggesting is that if a player plays 9 of the 10 games the club has to pay more than if the player played only 2 of the 10 games.

Are these 'fines' used IRL ? If they are, then I'm all for it. If not, I'm afraid this will get a

I'm sorry but I don't think this is a very good idea.

What if the player is injured or suspended?

Or what if he has a run of bad form - surely this owuld be down to the player.

When a club bids to loan a player they tell you what his role would be, i.e. valuable first team player, backup etc.

This is more or less an indication of how many games he will play.

If you are unsure then you have the option to insert a clause to allow you to recall the player.

It doesn't make sence to fine clubs for not playing loan players. This would put clubs off loaning players in the first place.

You have a good idea there mate but the fine is not doing anything for me, it would be extremely unfair to involve fines as a majority of loans inn the game tend to be involving lower league clubs with little or no money.

These teams are likely to play them in more than the minimum amount of games anyway, but if they did not then a fine would be ridiculously harsh for a lower team.

Drop the "Fining" part and you have a good suggestion, even if it is not done in real life.

It would be against the non-interference rules. Sending someone on loan is okay, but making the other team play them is not.

You have a good idea there mate but the fine is not doing anything for me, it would be extremely unfair to involve fines as a majority of loans inn the game tend to be involving lower league clubs with little or no money.

These teams are likely to play them in more than the minimum amount of games anyway, but if they did not then a fine would be ridiculously harsh for a lower team.

Drop the "Fining" part and you have a good suggestion, even if it is not done in real life.

Do you mean the option to stipulate how many games the player shoudl play in?

If so then it's already implemented in a way because if you want the player to get regular games you would simply reject loan offers that state the player will be backup.

Didn't this happen IRL when Man Utd loaned Roosi to Newcastle and he struggled to hold down his place after a slow start?

I'm sure Ferguson had a few things to say about his lack of games for them, since at the time he was a very promosing youngster who banged in the golas in the reserves.

Do you mean the option to stipulate how many games the player shoudl play in?

If so then it's already implemented in a way because if you want the player to get regular games you would simply reject loan offers that state the player will be backup.

Didn't this happen IRL when Man Utd loaned Roosi to Newcastle and he struggled to hold down his place after a slow start?

I'm sure Ferguson had a few things to say about his lack of games for them, since at the time he was a very promosing youngster who banged in the golas in the reserves.

Yes but Newcastle weren't punished for it. Man U simply recalled Rossi back in mid-season.