Clubs asking for too much when loaning Players

Hi

Has anyone else found that clubs since 11.3 want ridiculous amounts to let you loan their players, even if their players are loan listed.

For example, I am a cash tight Portsmouth and needed some speed in my final third so tried to loan Freddy Sears. West Ham want 200k and 100% of his wage paid for. That isn't right.

Then look at someone else, Danny Ward at Bolton. They want 150k to loan him and 100% of his wage paid for.

This doesn't change if I set the loan for 1, 2,3 months or the whole season.

Should be cheaper especially if player is listed for loan and/or the loan is shorter

Yes i think SI a aware of this its a knightmare if your playing lower league, this actually spoilt my 1st save on 11.3 with leeds as i had spurs has a feeder and they would't give me 1 players without wanting a fee off me and to pay part of wage

Ive only found the clubs ask for more money if they see you as a threat or if your similar size, Ive noticed everytime I get a club into the top flight of any league I have to pay for the player, the higher up the league you finish the more you play.

Yes i think SI a aware of this its a knightmare if your playing lower league, this actually spoilt my 1st save on 11.3 with leeds as i had spurs has a feeder and they would't give me 1 players without wanting a fee off me and to pay part of wage

Knightmare:

Loans are usually free if you're League One or lower.

I find that if you're in the Championship then you'll generally have to stump up a tidy amount of cash and wage.

Yeah, all my loans were free that were based in the same country until I reached the championship, then all of a sudden these same type players are needing up to hallf a million just to borrow them for a month?? I'd be very surprised if that happens irl. I thought they did that to give youth first team experience not to make a huge profit.

I havent spent 50K to sign a permanent player, nevermind 500K on somebody who I have to give back.

Then it seems to be random. Rangers wanted 10k to loan a great promising youth player valued at 2.5 million, wolves wanted 250K to loan a mediocre player valued at 2.5 million. And they want full wages, they wont accept 90%.

Then, when I have agreed to pay to borrow the player, he wont come anyway.

Surely its a little bit of SI cheating to try to make the game harder or something. I'd like to hear if that always happens IRL.

Surely its a little bit of SI cheating to try to make the game harder or something.

I don't see what benefit could come of this for anybody, so I find it ridiculous that SI might have done it for that reason.

I don't see what benefit could come of this for anybody, so I find it ridiculous that SI might have done it for that reason.

I cant see what other reason. It would make the game a whole lot easier if you could loan some of the young prem talent thats kicking about, unless this type of thing goes on in real life. Maybe it does but I doubt it. I could only imagine the top few clubs in england could afford to throw money away like that. Thered never be any loans going outside of the prem.

Its hard enough to pay full wages, nevermind spending all that money up front 2.

AFAIK, IRL the top clubs will let you loan youngsters for free at first. if you want them for longer then you pay a minimal fee/wage percentage.

it has spoilt some of my lower league games though. what can i change in the editor to stop these fees?

Knightmare:

lol,,,,classic 80's

I don't see what benefit could come of this for anybody, so I find it ridiculous that SI might have done it for that reason.

They stated that they spoke with clubs and agents and that it is much more realistic this way.

I have been looking around the internet and I found this..

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Derby-and-Coventry-left-stunned-as-Everton-demand-six-figure-loan-fee-for-striker-James-Vaughan-article316471.html

They were stunned at 6 figures so it must have been a bit of a surprise and out of the ordinary. It happens everytime on FM. The 500KI was asked their jaws would hit the floor.

I've just had a look at some of the players available for loans in my game. Arsenal want 800K and £32,000 wages paying in full for a loan listed 22 year old who has never kicked a ball for them. Dont expect him to be going on loan anytime soon.

Chelsea want 375K to loan a not very good 18 year old who has never played a single pro game in his life. I would think twice to pay 375K to have him on permament as hes nothing special.

Crazy.

That article is more than a year old, and I always find that you need to take tabloid stories with a pinch of salt, because they can lean toward the sensational side of things. That being said, it does seem like it's an unusual practice - could it be that through their consulting with people in the profession SI have predicted a future trend?

Its a trend I cant see catching on somehow. Just noticed on my save sunderland paid 2.1 million to loan a player who looking at his stats never played a single game for them. Money well spent.

Villa loaned Scott Carson for £1mill for a season long loan.

It does happen, just when they are listed for loan (The club actually wants them to go!) then the fee should be minimal if any at all.

What needs to be tweaked imo is the fact that once a team demands a loan fee, there is no way you can negotiate it down like you can transfer fees and the same goes for the wage percentage to be paid by your club.

Villa loaned Scott Carson for £1mill for a season long loan.

It does happen, just when they are listed for loan (The club actually wants them to go!) then the fee should be minimal if any at all.

It does happen, but it doesn't happen to all clubs. The Old Firm are not going to charge other teams in the SPL a loan fee (which they try to do). Saying that in 11.3 you can't even loan a player from another SPL side

I found as soon as I got into the Championship I had to start paying loan fees. Nothing too drastic mind.

I can still get "free" loans from my parent club Liverpool though.

I'm in championship and, for some reason, I've still got West Ham as parent club and they want a fee if I want to loan someone.

They keep sending me carp though.

Villa loaned Scott Carson for £1mill for a season long loan.

It does happen, just when they are listed for loan (The club actually wants them to go!) then the fee should be minimal if any at all.

Yeh but the difference their is it was a season long loan for a fairly highly known goalkeeper, same with the Shola example.

Many premier league clubs loan players out for free to Championship club for a month or two.

Fees should also match the length of time of loan. Freddy Sears cost 200k to loan for a month, 2 months and a season, surely for a month it should be cheaper

Loans are usually free if you're League One or lower.

I find that if you're in the Championship then you'll generally have to stump up a tidy amount of cash and wage.

I wish that were true have struggled to attract players on my Accrington and Halifax saves because they all demand money.

robzilla wins post of the day.

In fairness I think it's difficult to judge as there are extreme examples of loans both in cost being high and in being low. When Stoke loaned Shola Ameobi from Newcastle at the end of their promotion season they paid £500k to take him on loan for less than 10 matches. Players like Daniel Sturridge it's assumed were loaned for fees, but as the fees don't have to be released it's difficult to get an idea of costs. Maybe we err on the side of caution, but if you could loan great players from higher leagues really easy, it would make it exactly that. Just a little bit too easy. So we've gone cautious in the hope it's more realistic.

But the game only erred on the side of caution from 11.3, wasn't the same in 11.2. I did raise this in the official feedback thread (and you did respond Neil) but I don't think I got a definative answer as to whether this has been changed in 11.3

For me they are too high (as in the examples above) especially if a club has a player who is listed for loan who they are actively trying to get first team experience.

EDIT: What I also found was that if you are trying to loan a player from a lower league, you still have to pay a fee. Not saying this is wrong, just stating...

My parent club, Arsenal, want me to pay £100,000 - £200,000 and the full amount in wages to loan a player. This is a farce - this game is becoming more and more of a boring simulation than a game. Completely unnecessary addition which has ruined a feature, well done.

To be honest, players of the calbire I want to sign never signed for me on loan anyway while going up the leagues so the change of it requiring fee's hasnt changed things at all, it was already impossible to loan players that'd be first choice at a low-rep team, got far better on free transfers.

Loans are usually free if you're League One or lower.

I find that if you're in the Championship then you'll generally have to stump up a tidy amount of cash and wage.

I went around that by applying for the loans as soon as June 9th came (the transfer window) when I got promoted

I don't see what benefit could come of this for anybody, so I find it ridiculous that SI might have done it for that reason.

Its more game balancing than cheating.

They keep sending me carp though.

When life sends you carp, make sushi out of it.

I think that SI have to make the game more intelligent with regards to loans.

In my experience as soon as you are in the Championship clubs will want relatively big fees and big wages covered.

If the club has listed the players available then I think it should severely limit the amounts the club want for that player especially if he has been listed for half a season with no takers then you make a bid and they say £250k and 100% of £20000 p.w. please.

I agree that the game has to be balanced but it should also be more realistic in some situations especially when you are a cash strapped Championship club with little or no resources.

On 11.2 I was able to loan Freddie Sears and Ciaran Clark for free without any wage contributions for a league one club (and Wojciech Szczęsny for a couple of months too, though he wasn't all that), which is clearly unrealistic. Now perhaps it has gone a bit too far the other way - I think there should be a fee involved for long term loans but not for short term loans, though some wage contribution isn't unreasonable. It has been too easy to loan quality players for nothing for many years now, my favourite example would be loaning David Bellion from Man Yoo four seasons in a row on CM0304 with no money involved on my part then signing him on a bosman...