Reluctance to leave should not apply for the loaning out of player without WP

[Kirluu]

The "reluctance to leave" message that blocks a newly signed player from leaving for either transfer or loan should not apply in the loaning out scenario, for at player that was signed, but which failed his work permit.

Likely Scenario:
One just bought this young Brazilian with huge potential, whilst one's club is located in England (regular WP rules are maintained in my case), but he failed to get a work permit, since he hasn't come of age to be relevant for the Brazil squad.
It is in your AND the player's best interest to go on loan, get some playing time, and make a name for himself.
The world recognizes this potential, and 11+ clubs are interested in loaning the player.

There should be no reluctance to leave on loan here! Is he supposed to prefer training along but getting 0 match-experience of any kind? Any player would prefer a loan!

 

Thank you for listening,

Kirluu~

 

EDIT:

I've just now also come across the same issue, after recently renewing the contract of a "Hot prospect" role player.
Once again, it makes no sense that he should be reluctant to leave on a loan, just because of committing his long-term future to the club. In this case, my player already had a work-permit, but generally a new contract shouldn't mean reluctance to leave on loan either, in my book.

[Eborg]

Agreed, players should accept loan moves in those cases. Especially if you are sending them to one of your feeder clubs.

[tiago_wakabayashi]

+1

[Neil Brock]

Reviewed so locked.