Loaning suck. At least at lower levels.

I have a 20 year old striker with 1 (CA) of 3 (PA) stars, who did a 6 months loan in the league bellow me (BSS). Had 38 appearances and not a single injury.

All that resulted in 2 stamina, 1 influence, 1 heading gain. Everything else slightly (less than a point) declined. That is really poor compared with the guys sitting in my Reserves who are on part time contracts.

At what level loaning beats training?

First team football generally does more good than harm in my experience, but you have to take in to account whether the team you're loaning them to have at least half decent facilities/coaches I think, otherwise I'd weigh up whether it's worth it (if you have the coaches/facilities/mentors to delvelop him yourself).

Half a season out on loan...half a season with you I try to go for. Best of both worlds so to speak.

Yes. As SFraser noted in his development thread, the most important consideration when loaning a player out is how good the team's manager is -- is he good in working with youngsters, man management, motivating, tactical knowledge?

Also, development suffers if the player doesn't perform well (either on loan or in your squad). I loaned a young striker out to a struggling Serie A team this year and I'm considering recalling him because he's getting pasted out there.

I think generally first-team football (loaning) beats training, but it isn't clear to me whether going on loan for six months beats training with your squad while being mentored by a first-class senior player. Mentoring can yield huge improvements.

Also, development suffers if the player doesn't perform well (either on loan or in your squad). I loaned a young striker out to a struggling Serie A team this year and I'm considering recalling him because he's getting pasted out there.

That's a good point. If one of my loanee's is out playing, but pushing out an average match rating of say 6.20 or 6.30 or less and/or he's really not happy then he's coming home. Hence I never loan out without the 'recall player' option ticked.

Well, yes, his performances weren't good at all, but still, I expected that competitive games will be better than Reserves.

Neither my Boreham Wood in BSP, nor Maindenhead in BSS have first-class anything

Fair one on the facilities, but you have to weigh up whether the player is up to scratch as well. I don't too pay too much to CA/PA stars mind you. Some players won't progress like they should, others will surprise you. It's your call that makes the game.

And sometimes, though I have no evidence beyond a hunch, those 38 games played will have a knock on positive effect in the mid/longer term, i.e. it benefits him the following season when he's ready for you. You're looking at his attributes changes shorter term than I might.

Working of the assumption that 3 stars means he will be a good player/leading star for your league, I would actually say loaning out that class of a player is pretty pointless when your in low leagues unless you loan them to a team in the same league. As I like to take a grade up in quality each season, sending a player on loan one season to get to the quality im after for that season still wouldnt be good enough the next season.

If you can't find a team in the same division, I find it better to either try him out for a few unimportant games and see how he does or get rid..

The only reasons I would loan to a lower division when im in low leagues is because my team is too big and/or he's under contract and no1 wants to buy him.

But thats just my opinion!