U19 league vs sending on loan

In which case youth player will develop faster - if they play in U19 league or if I send them on loan and they play regularly?

Send on loan to play regularly.

But they must have the required contract -cannot send out YTH contract players.

Yeah send on loan but try to make sure the club want him as a first teamer. Otherwise he'll be in the reserves or on the bench all season. Does nothing for development in my experience.

I have been confused by which one is better as well. If my U19 guy plays every game for my U19 team and then would do the same if he was on loan. Why would sending them on loan be better?

Does first team experience just equate for more? Regardless of how many games they play or how good each club's training facilities are?

I have been confused by which one is better as well. If my U19 guy plays every game for my U19 team and then would do the same if he was on loan. Why would sending them on loan be better?

Does first team experience just equate for more? Regardless of how many games they play or how good each club's training facilities are?

Under 19s are not competitive games.

He would be better off playing a couple of division down, in games that mean something.

Could be that he's playing with a higher standard of teammate as well.

Sending them on loan will develop them more quickly in most cases (granted they get played). However there are other advantages of keeping a good prospect at the club. You can tutor them, teach them PPMs, specialise their training, all of which you can't do when they're on loan. Not to mention if they're a good player in the U19s/reserves, they'll help those teams win, which is good for morale for other reserve/u19 players. Also players can often reach their potential at your club without going out on loan, it just may take a bit more time. My personal preference is to groom players I have really high hopes for, but I'll loan out others if I think they'll lag behind if I keep them at the club.

What I do is to keep them "in-house" for a few seasons, to tutor them and such. If they are not able to get more than a handful of games for my first team, I send them out on loan to clubs that wants them as First team player. If they want them as cover, i always reject, no matter what the club.

As 15-17 year olds (which is what I normally search for) are on Youth contracts, I get to keep them at my club until they can sign a professional contract. If they are still not quite good enough, then they go out on loans. Then I evaluate them after each season, if I should keep them or sell them. If I cannot see them breaking through to play at least 15 games in my first team, by the time they are 20-21, then I sell them.

This is also necessary, as I have a tendency to sign way too many players

Some people here just blindly saying out on loan a few divisions below is better.

I would agree with this, BUT, 90% of my players that go on loan to L2 and sometimes L1 come back saying it was a waste of time.

But then again, does this mean they are right?

How confusing

Coming back to this thread after a while. Strange thing is that I never notice outstanding improvements when I send players on loan, even though they play every single game. On the other hand, players that stick around with first team sometimes 'explode' even without playing more than a handful of games during the season.

I'm wondering what kind of experience do you guys have with putting your youngsters to play into a reserve team, who are in competitive leagues (Like for example managing Ajax, PSV, Real Madrid, Porto, you know, clubs who play in countries where reserves are playing in the lower leauges of that country)?

One would think that that's the best option, since they use your training facilities and play competitive football. Or is sending them out to loan still a better option? Because that actually wouldn't make much sense to me...

This is one of the most frustrating things about youth development. When I get a request or recommendation to list a player for loan, I generally get multiple offers, all promising "Important first-team player" or "regular first team player", but then after they're gone, I start getting notes from my DoF saying the player's not receiving first-team play, as promised. So, I call up the coach of the loaning team, he gives me the "well, the player isn't good enough for 1st-team play", there's no option to re-call the player, and he spends the entire season sitting on Blackburn's bench or playing for their U-21 team. I would ASSUME those teams have scouts (better than mine, actually) who wouldn't go sign a loan player who can't crack their 1st team. Then the player comes back, saying it was waste of time, and they'd be better off staying at home...and then next season, they want to go on loan again.

This is one of the most frustrating things about youth development. When I get a request or recommendation to list a player for loan, I generally get multiple offers, all promising "Important first-team player" or "regular first team player", but then after they're gone, I start getting notes from my DoF saying the player's not receiving first-team play, as promised. So, I call up the coach of the loaning team, he gives me the "well, the player isn't good enough for 1st-team play", there's no option to re-call the player, and he spends the entire season sitting on Blackburn's bench or playing for their U-21 team. I would ASSUME those teams have scouts (better than mine, actually) who wouldn't go sign a loan player who can't crack their 1st team. Then the player comes back, saying it was waste of time, and they'd be better off staying at home...and then next season, they want to go on loan again.

Always gotta make sure being able to recall is part of the loan terms. Nothing worse than having a promising youth stuck on someone else's bench all season.

This is one of the most frustrating things about youth development. When I get a request or recommendation to list a player for loan, I generally get multiple offers, all promising "Important first-team player" or "regular first team player", but then after they're gone, I start getting notes from my DoF saying the player's not receiving first-team play, as promised. So, I call up the coach of the loaning team, he gives me the "well, the player isn't good enough for 1st-team play", there's no option to re-call the player, and he spends the entire season sitting on Blackburn's bench or playing for their U-21 team. I would ASSUME those teams have scouts (better than mine, actually) who wouldn't go sign a loan player who can't crack their 1st team. Then the player comes back, saying it was waste of time, and they'd be better off staying at home...and then next season, they want to go on loan again.

They promise first team status, but if the player doesn't perform and they have players that aren't that much worse, do you really expect them to keep playing him?

If I have a really important prospect, they never leave my side. If they're that good though they'll be in the highest youth level, even if they're 15-16.

I'll aso keep them on my bench, give them minutes every time I can(had a 16 year old silver star CA player save my ass on a big match after subbing him on), and they can have the unimportant cup matches and the like for the rare start.

They promise first team status, but if the player doesn't perform and they have players that aren't that much worse, do you really expect them to keep playing him?

I look at their playing record while they're out on loan, and sometimes they don't even play a single match, first-team or reserve. How do they know if the player doesn't perform if they never play him for an entire season?

Depends what league you play in. In the SPL I promote all the highly promising youngsters to the first team as there aren't any U19 games. I accept any loan offers for those who are unlikely to ever make the first team. I prefer to develop high potential youngsters until they claim HG Club status then I'll consider loaning them out.

In Germany it's easier as I will have a second team playing in the third tier. So players will get competitive games while remaing at the club.

If I have a really important prospect, they never leave my side. If they're that good though they'll be in the highest youth level, even if they're 15-16.

I'll aso keep them on my bench, give them minutes every time I can(had a 16 year old silver star CA player save my ass on a big match after subbing him on), and they can have the unimportant cup matches and the like for the rare start.

This guy gets it.

I have a 17-y-o GK with 4.5* star potential and I have no intention of letting him go out on loan. He usually gets F.A. and COC matches. If I've qualified from my CL group with a game or two in hand, he gets them also. On the rare occasion, if I am winning a league game by 3/4 goals with 20-25 minutes remaining, I'll even bring him on then.

I also have two very promising young strikers (who I got from my youth intake). I would have done the same with them throughout the season. However, my youngest one broke his foot near the start of the season and was out from around Sept. - Jan. Then, as he was coming back, my other striker broke his leg and will be out until pre-season/the start of the new season.

I recently signed a bunch of youngsters and was also in need of home grown players so I made the decision I would keep them at the club until they hit the home-grown at club status and then loan them out. However, I noticed the players kept at the club (with full training & youth facilities) developed far better and in most cases were ready to be used in first team action by the time they were 18/19/20 while players who had been going out and getting regular games at lower level were behind in terms of development.

If I have Top training and Top youth facilities and good coaches, I do not loan players very often. In my current save I have a very large squad (playing in Brazil, where it's necessary), and I loan maybe 2-3 younger players per year, and that's really only when the loan fee is too good to turn down and he's not an absolute top prospect. In addition, I never loan players to a club where they're unlikely to get playing time. If my staff say he's a "decent second-division" player, then he gets loaned to second division, never first. I've rarely had a player not get games this way, but they always seem to get no games if the team is too high for their ability. If for some reason I do loan out a player for no fee, I insist on a recall clause, but I allow them to play in cup matches and against me, for the maximum number of possible games. Over the course of a season, I usually have around 30 players that get multiple appearances for my senior squad as I rotate like crazy, have many go away on international duty, and I micro-manage each player's training/tutoring/PPMs, so development is very quick - it usually only takes one and a half or two seasons to get a prospect to around 80% of his potential, which is usually good enough to be my starter. I'm ruthless when it comes to selling senior players as well. As soon as I see a prospect close to ability of my "main" player in that position, I sell the main player (almost always for a huge profit).

So in theory would sending them on loan to teams that are in either promotion or relegation battles for example, they should experience potentially an increase in their important matches stats?

i have a large youth setup at min as was one of the clubs contract terms

i have some on loan nt playing and have no option to recall from loan.

i think they would have been better playing for me then being out on loan