What feeder clubs to choose

I've got a few questions about the use of feeder clubs and hope someone can enlighten me a bit.

Will a feeder club in a non active league develop players sent there at all?

If you get a feeder club in a view-only league, will players there develop better than in a non active league?

And if a player do develop a bit in a non active or view only league, will it be better for a player to be sent there over a move to a active, but not as good league?

I'm asking this because I notice some of my players (managing Arsenal) will not go on loan to championship clubs in England. A better club in a better league would probably make them accept to be sent out on loan. But I do not think it's of any help if they do not develop at all.

Don't take this as gospel but I think that players don't show an improvement if you send them on loan to a team in a non-active league but I think more knowledgeable could come along and give you a definite answer.

Another question is about commercial relationships.for example, when various options are given the fee to pay the clubs differ a lot. I wonder if choosing a club with higher fee will get you more money in the end or not. Anyone have ever tested it?

I think it does generally mean that you make more money if you have to pay them a higher annual fee. I look at the clubs reputation, if they are continental I think they make more money than if they were national.

Will a feeder club in a non active league develop players sent there at all?

If you get a feeder club in a view-only league, will players there develop better than in a non active league?

I'm also interested in this. I have only 1 league active, Spanish, as i'm playing with barca, and not planing to change club, and i have 6-7 best European leagues on view only.

Will a player develop better if he is sent on a loan to an active league, or if you will, will he develop slower if he is sent to a view only, or not active and without view?

*all the clubs have top training facilities*

I have no evidence for this, but I've always worked on the assumption that sending a player to a club without any, or many, fixtures is pointless. I've always tried to insist players go and play in one of my active leagues.

The most important think is that you send the players to a team in an active league! after that you must look bout training facilities etc. but its really very important for the team to have real fixtures!

The most important think is that you send the players to a team in an active league! after that you must look bout training facilities etc. but its really very important for the team to have real fixtures!

But how do you know this? Is this a fact, or just an opinion?

I sent a player to Brøndby for a season long loan, they're not in an active league in my save. According to the fixtures list for Brøndby, they played 6-8 games but according to the history of my player, he played over 33 league games, scoring 17 goals, making 14 assists and 1 MoM. He averaged with a 7.23 in that season. He gained a lot at this loan.

I sent a player to Brøndby for a season long loan, they're not in an active league in my save. According to the fixtures list for Brøndby, they played 6-8 games but according to the history of my player, he played over 33 league games, scoring 17 goals, making 14 assists and 1 MoM. He averaged with a 7.23 in that season. He gained a lot at this loan.

So he did in fact progress when on loan at a club in an league not active?

Looks like opinions and experiences are a bit different on this matter.

So he did in fact progress when on loan at a club in an league not active?

Looks like opinions and experiences are a bit different on this matter.

On my save, these guys do progress, but not at the rate I would expect them to progress based on their potential (CA, using 3rd party scout tool).

Players that get some 1st team football or play for my reserves generally develop quicker, although I can't provide any numbers to back that.

Alos I have one player, 20 yo, who had a CQ of 140 when I sent him to a non-active feeder club (to avoid WP regulations) and his CA has decreased to 135 after 6 months).

However, I fear that there is a general issue with player development which is that only very very few high potential youngsters ever get close to fulfilling their potential. I have a couple of 180+ CA players that are 20 years old and have a CA of around 140-145 and even at that age, with plenty of sub appearances in the first team (and not playing bad at all), most of them developed by 0-5 CA pts in 6 months, some of these guys actually got worse...

Some others have developed well (a 20 yo CB I signed with CA of 145 has now 161 only 6 months later), although I really don't know why.

It especially seems that players with CA of 180 or more have a hard time to develop.. my 170-179 youngsters mostly develop very well.

to cut a long story short, it seems that non-active leagues have less effects than octive ones, although it may be down to the quality and reputation of the club you loan them out to.