Parent club wanting fee and wages paid in full?

I am Crewe and after two promotions back to back I asked for a parent club and got Arsenal. I am struggling to stay on the Championship so went to try and loan some youngsters but they want between 250k and 450k from my side to loan them and the wages paid in full. Every other time I have had a parent club they didn't ask for a fee with wages paid, is this normal?

It can be at times. Depends on the player. As Derby in the Championships on one of my saves I loaned a heap of players for nothing from Premier League clubs without any hassle. However, the likes of Gibbs, Wilshere and such needed some kind of fee and their wages. I'd say lower the bar on your targets. Also, go on a freebie hunt and listen to those annoying agents if you desperately need some new blood, you never know who might want to join.

If they want fee for everyone... then either they see you as a Premier League quality team [which would be odd in the case you suggested] or something has changed since the first patch.

Hope that's of some help and good luck! The Championship is an interesting league.

They are not Arsenals top youngsters some are on less than 1k a week wages. It is annoying me I can't afford to get even free players because we have no spare wages.

I think this is wrong I doubt prem clubs charge nearly half a million to skint championship sides to loan their youngsters. Relegation beckons now lol.

They are not Arsenals top youngsters some are on less than 1k a week wages. It is annoying me I can't afford to get even free players because we have no spare wages.

I think this is wrong I doubt prem clubs charge nearly half a million to skint championship sides to loan their youngsters. Relegation beckons now lol.

Hmmm... That does seem a tad wrong.

As for relegation though, how many points adrift and how long left in the season?

Also, my suggestion. Hit the opposition and hit them hard! Lift the pressure off your players and let them fly! That is if you are significantly in the drop zone.

The logic behind that is basically if you're on a poor run, all you need is one result to kick start the team's confidence (normally) and as such you may as well throw what you've got at them. Who knows, maybe they won't see it coming and you'll get that vital win to get you going again. It saved me once... I got a team relegated doing it once as well, but hey!

I am Crewe and after two promotions back to back I asked for a parent club and got Arsenal. I am struggling to stay on the Championship so went to try and loan some youngsters but they want between 250k and 450k from my side to loan them and the wages paid in full. Every other time I have had a parent club they didn't ask for a fee with wages paid, is this normal?

I know when the Parent Club sends the player on loan to you, it's free all round (wages and fee), but it seems if you request to loan any of their players you get no preferential treatment.

The minute my team reached the Championship, everyone wants loan fees. No one ever wanted them before that.

The minute my team reached the Championship, everyone wants loan fees. No one ever wanted them before that.

This is the case in my game.

Currently one point above relegation with six games left scoring loads but conceeding loads as well. Thrown lots of points away thanks to players going mad had 8 reds and 73 yellows so far. Gone all out attack all season works sometimes but get thrashed sometimes as well.

I just fear that we will never be able to bring loan players in with the feea being quoted.

I've noticed this as well and it seems wrong, it's kind of useless to have a parent club once you get to the second league tier because of this.

The silly thing is that it in no way takes into account what club you are. I can understand wanting a fee if the club loaning the player is relatively well off and established, but the loan fees for players actually good enough for the Championship are more than my entire transfer budget in many cases. No way am I paying that amount for a player that's then not even mine!

Yet the previous season, I loaned the same player all season in a lower league for no fee.

I've had the same problem as Granada CF with Udinese as parent club. Unfortunately for me, as obviously I know (being their researcher and whatnot ) that it's classed as a "long term" affiliate deal, I can't cancel it either.

Second season and they won't loan me a single player without full wages and a loan fee. In reality, it's highly unlikely that would happen, given the support and investment of Udinese and their president Gino Pozzo, for Granada CF. Effectively I go from having around fifteen players on loan from Udinese, as per real life, to zero. So for me managing Granada, the parent deal is pointless, apart from the circa 250k per year fee the club receives.

I can see that trying to restrict huge quantities of loans from a parent club, helps avoid the silly situations like me being Hyde United in FM08, loaning pretty much the whole Man Utd reserve team and walloping all opponents. It's very difficult for me to emulate the real circumstances at Granada CF though, either with anything I can do via research, or during gameplay. Currently, all the players I had on loan last season, a few of which I would have certainly had back under the same "free" loan terms, are now rotting in the Udinese reserves.

So other than seeing what others are regarding parents wanting a fee and full wages further down the line, I can appreciate that emulating Granada's deal with Udinese being far from ordinary, it's likely very difficult to code an arrangement into the game, which in all fairness, it quite unique.

The minute my team reached the Championship, everyone wants loan fees. No one ever wanted them before that.

I can confirm that, same happened. That does seem a bit too simplistic an approach ... Should be on a list of things to improve...

I have that in my game. I'm U.D Leiria in Portugal and I have Barcelona and Bayern as my parent clubs, yet either a) no-one wants to come to the Liga Sagres or b) I have to pay out monster money for them.

Would people consider this a bit of a bug?

Quite possibly, but only in the sense that we've perhaps gone from one extreme (as I highlighted in my previously posted example with Hyde United and Man Utd with FM08), to the other (where I currently cannot get a single player from Udinese with Granada CF, without paying an exorbitant loan fee and at least 80% wages). My example with Granada CF is perhaps a glaring stating point, given the affiliate deal and quantity of loan players from Udinese they actually have.

Although impossible to code into the game, Udinese have actually bought players, specifically and seemingly for the only reason, of sending them on extended loans to Granada CF, as part of their "investment" in the Spanish club. Such is why it's impossible to cancel the affiliate link between the two clubs, as it's coded into the game as a "long term" deal.

Just to add to my woes, I transfer listed a player recently, who I'd actually brought to the club myself. I received offers of 1.7 million from all interested parties, then Udinese made an approach, with no fee, which was accepted and that's where the player went. Although I know that Udinese have "first option to buy", I also know that doesn't mean they can just take a player from Granada CF for free! Obviously my concern now, is that any other player I bring to the club, then decide to sell, Udinese might come in and take them for free.

Interestingly though, I've seen Manchester United buy lots of youngsters, then loan them out for free to other clubs. If I approach them to loan one of these players though, they want a sizeable loan fee and 100% wages covered.

Would people consider this a bit of a bug?

I think it is a bug that parent clubs demand money to loan players to their feeder clubs yes. Fix the abuse-of-this-feature thing in another way.

The balance has tipped the other way now, as it is suddenly too difficult to both loan out players and to loan players. Again the reputation-based system has become a problem.

was this not coded intentionally this way? I know in previous version of FM it was far too easy to get an entire team on loan, i remember in FM10 taking Luton from the third division to the prem in 5 seasons without buying a single player, and with a wage budget so small i was actually clearing a good profit each month, now it seems to have swung the other way, but i do remember a post from a dev saying they had intentionally made it more difficult to loan players because the info they had was that most clubs pay for loans, and especially wages of loan players. I do think its maybe gone too far the other direction tho.

Good evening chaps and chapettes.

I eagearly awaited the new path before commencing my career game, where I intend to take the not so mighty Cheltenham Town all the way to the top, and hopefully replicate the FM09 wonder of winning the Champions league.

Like all LLM, i built a team in League 1 and League 2 around a core of strong loan players, taking 4 on loan for the season and supplementing them with 3 month signings. For both seasons this did not cost me a penny. Newcastle were my feeder club and were more than happy to send their average youngsters may way.

Upon winning the League 1 playoffs (In a nail biting 2-1 victory over MK Dons) I asked the board to find me a new feeder club. Imagine my delight when Man Utd kindly offered to go into partnership with me. I dreamt of storming up the Championship table with the likes of Bebe, Obertan, Macheda etc in my team. This was going to be a fairly easy season and I could begin making Premiership plans in January.

Or so I thought.

Literally over night clubs started asking for money for loan signings (Even Man Utd!), asking me to pay 50%+ of their wages and pay up to £500k. Now, despite the big names above, I was looking at average youngsters and them same principle applied. Odd, I thought.

Now, I'm not going to jump up and down and scream "BUG! BUG! BUG! SQUASH IT! WORST FM EVER! I WANT MY MONEY BACK" like most of the 13 year old chirldren who post on this board, however i did find it odd. I have no objection to paying for loans (except I can't afford them). It was the instantaneous change that concerned me. Surely this is not the case? Has a change in my rep lead to this?

I'd be interested to hear the thoughts and experiences of others.

I'd say it's definetly a bug at least with parent clubs, they'll have players on 3,4k/month and still want that we pay wages besides paying a fee, it makes having parent clubs pretty pointless when you are on the lower leagues, you'll normally get their scheduled loan but most of the time it might be for a position that you don't even need.

The whole feeder club system is somewhat buggy as well, i'm enjoying FM11 a lot, but i hope these two issues are fixed for the next version

"Bug" is maybe a bit extreme, because it's probably this way by design. I'd definitely say it's "silly"

I think the more sensible approach would not be to have a blanket "you're in the Championship, you pay a fee" approach to loans. Instead, it would be nice if the AI teams thought a little bit more about their players and what they want for them.

I never ask for a loan fee and don't care about the wages either, because if I'm loaning out a player, it's because he's not good enough yet and I want him to get game time. It's in my interest for the player to go out on loan. I can however understand that in some cases, a loan fee is quite sensible. If one EPL team loans a player to another, even I'd want a fee. If the player is already an established player (e.g. Bellamy IRL) and goes on loan elsewhere, yes I'd expect a financial contribution. But I'd actually pay the other teams to take my still developing 18 year olds out on loan and play them in 25 games in a suitable league! On top of it all, the fee defeats the purpose of having a parent club too.

In very simplistic terms, loans need to work something like this (I've tried to keep it very simple so that it's actually feasible to code):

• decent young player: no fee expected, possible minimal wage contribution
  
• hot prospect: depending on age, rep, CA, wages and the existence of a club link: either no fee/wage contribution or scaled according to player's perceived value
  
• backup player: fee expected, wage contribution expected. The player is probably only being retained until contract runs down, so anything to make money off him is welcome. It's unlikely the player is still expected to develop, so there's little benefit to the club to loan him out for nothing.
  

FM should definitely be more lenient with fees if there is a relationship in place, at least for the youngsters. Loaning out fully developed top players for free is not really the idea behind the link, but you might expect the fee to be waived for all but the very best youngsters (i.e. those the club may be reluctant to loan to anyone, not just the affiliated club).

what gets me is, in theory, its the clubs such as Man United that WANT to send to the player on loan to gain first team experience for example...yet in FM11 they ask for ridiculous amounts for a fee and then a very large part of the wage too...and they WILL NOT budge to £1.00p less if you wanted to negotiate with them...

its the fact that its impossible to even negotiate the loan fee/wage%...for example, if i was lets say, Leeds...and i wanted to loan a young player from Chelsea who isnt anywhere near the first team but has potential, they will want 500k loan fee and 90% of the wages...i cant quite afford this so will say i will pay 400k and 70% of the wages...CHelsea will always reject the negotiation!

I'am at June 2011 in my Hibs game. I got Arsenal as a parent club. I am trying to get a few of their youngsters on loan from them but their want fees and high wages. WTF

second OP. Im southampton and i wanted wilshire on loan in the championship. Arsenal wanted 650k. I said no thanks. When I was in league 1 I had Kakuta and Nordveet, and Bruma all on loan for free. I guess its just they see that theres a supply and demand, in the championship, you want quality and theyve got it... fair deal?

P.s Johnjo Shelvy at 400k for a 6 Month loan.. GTFOH

Wait a second, why are you all trying to sign the likes of Wilshere for Championship teams? Isn't he a first team regular at Arsenal? Wouldn't it be slightly unrealistic for Arsenal to even consider to loan him to a lower league side - nevermind him wanting to go there?

Wait a second, why are you all trying to sign the likes of Wilshere for Championship teams? Isn't he a first team regular at Arsenal? Wouldn't it be slightly unrealistic for Arsenal to even consider to loan him to a lower league side - nevermind him wanting to go there?

You're quite right. The problem is with the lesser known youngsters (on less than 1k pw). Some clubs ask for 250k plus and have their entire wage paid for. If I wanted to spend 250k (which I don't have) then I will buy a player.

Wait a second, why are you all trying to sign the likes of Wilshere for Championship teams? Isn't he a first team regular at Arsenal? Wouldn't it be slightly unrealistic for Arsenal to even consider to loan him to a lower league side - nevermind him wanting to go there?

It is not Wilshere it is newgens listed for loan some on £500-£1k a week yet the clubs want between 200k-500k. It is unrealistic to demand half a million from a team that is your feeder club.

Actually parent clubs are the ones supposed to send players to you.The players that THEY want.You can't demand from them players even if they are on loan list to be loaned to you for free.

That is strange, never an issue I've had before. Quite often if I've tried to loan a player from a team and they want a fee, wages paid in full etc, then I try again if I'm a different team and they're a feeder club, I find I don't have to pay a penny.

Actually parent clubs are the ones supposed to send players to you.The players that THEY want.You can't demand from them players even if they are on loan list to be loaned to you for free.

I know how parent clubs work. On FM10 every player I loaned from a parent club came with no wages and no fee. This is a fault with the game because the players can be loaned until the Championship then no matter how bad or good the player is there is suddenly a fee and wages involved.

I too thought that this was a bug however after having a good search on the net I now believe this to be a more realistic way of how 'loaning a player' really is in this changing times. I read a rather interesting article written by David James this season for the Guardian newspaper which talks about the changing times of the way loans are handled and the extortinate fees that clubs are being asked to pay for Prem players. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/blog/2011/mar/27/david-james-loan-players

My local club 'Bristol City' were trying to loan a player in the January window only for the manager to make this statement "I spent all Sunday on the phone and I thought I was close to getting someone in," Millen told City`s official website. "In the end the club concerned came back to me with a ridiculous loan fee so that one is dead and buried". http://www.bristolcity-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/millen_slams_ridiculous_loan_fees_624395/index.shtml

Also it is well known that Stoke City in the run in to their promotion season paid £500k to Newcastle for Shola Ameobi for just under 10 matches and Everton were trying to get a 6 figure fee from Derby and Coventry after their was quite a lot of interest being shown in him.

On examples of wages would be Craig Bellamys loan move to Cardiff. Now it was widely reported that Cardiff had to stump up between 25-35k of Bellamys 85k a week wages (noted it's not 100%) but still a hefty amount in wages to pay (Cardiffs wage cap was £20k) admittedly I could not find anything as to how much the fee was that Cardiff paid although I think that it was free given the fact that Man City wanted him out big time!

I do feel that as clubs we should be able to negotiate 'both' the fee and the players wages and that the fee should be in line with the length of the loan spell ie; whole season should cost more than 1 month etc. Although we are able to negotiate the fee and % of wages paid, it clearly does not work as the holding team will not budge in the slightest but as I stated and from the reports above we can clearly see that the way that loans are handled are changing and that clubs are demanding bigger fees.

The last remaining issue is what actually happens between 'parent' and 'feeder' club in regards to fees and wages etc. Well my take would be that let's say the feeder club approaches the parent club and asks to take the specified player on loan for a season that the 'parent' club would still ask for a fee and for some or all of the wages paid due to the fact that they would be able to loan that player to some other club and command that fee so they would not want to lose out just because he was going to their 'feeder' club.

Edit: If a player is transfer listed then the holding club will only require 50% wage contribution where as if he is not listed then they will always request 100%.