You have 703.5?

This is hotting up nicely for a middle aged pole

Need to sell first ?

comment by Fan Gillhaus 1903 (U3339)
posted 12 minutes ago
Need to sell first ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Obv it’s a proper auction. Ludes sold his 2 before bidding

Sorry been busy with stuff

Just confirm Ludy I’ve been away too long

In

in for Saul (Liverpool)

It’s a loan for Saul only atm I think

As tab says if he is allowed in then so should others that have been loaned out irl

That’s not in the rules

You guys need to stick to a story - can’t only have consistency when it suits. Proper wormy changing opinion

What’s the rule then?

Players who leave on loan are allowed to be loaned in

All tab is saying is that it should be no different this time

This is why I asked on the Hp, I only got a few replies

im not sure what's wormy,

if a club has loaned out a player in real life, then why cant that same player be loaned out inside the league?

There isn’t a rule, that’s why Fan’s asking opinions

Fan when a decision is reached it’s probably worth adding it to the rules page, then it’s set in stone

As I say not fussed whether he comes in permanent, should just be the same for all players.

Personally I’d say,

If it’s a loan with an option to buy - can come in on loan and if it turns permanent then they go up for auction

If it’s a loan with an obligation to buy - can come in permanently/go straight up for auction

I'd say if its a loan with an option to buy then there should be some added incentive for the club taking him on loan, like a first refusal sort of thing, because that is firstly more realistic, and also offers a further benefit to taking the player on loan in the first place.

I’m easy

Loans are usually free so never really been a need for an incentive as you’re getting a player for nothing. Only requirement was usually game time but not sure if that’s still the case.

Saul obvs a bit tricky as loans are usually first come first served

Probably best to take it case by case. Keeps it consistent with transfers.

Seems strange to make a rule for loans with an option, when it’s no difference to previously not being allowed to swap a youngster. So simply stupid (hypocritical as always) to make a rule for simply one

Its also not always clear if a loan is a loan with an option, loan with an obligation, or loan with neither, and there are obviously sometimes clauses on them, as well, such as obligation after games played.

Seems like an unecessary amount of greyness to get involved in/.

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 8 minutes ago
Probably best to take it case by case. Keeps it consistent with transfers.

Seems strange to make a rule for loans with an option, when it’s no difference to previously not being allowed to swap a youngster. So simply stupid (hypocritical as always) to make a rule for simply one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary, making a rule on loans keeps them consistent and stops any silly squabbles

If you want to propose a rule on transfers feel free

Do I need to get some popcorn ready again, lads?

Lubo

It was fun but I haven’t got the time for a debate today!

Agree on your point with loans often being unclear. Maybe a simple solution is that if a players moves on loan then they are simply allowed in on loan. Cuts out any ambiguity.

comment by Take a boo (U21318)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 8 minutes ago
Probably best to take it case by case. Keeps it consistent with transfers.

Seems strange to make a rule for loans with an option, when it’s no difference to previously not being allowed to swap a youngster. So simply stupid (hypocritical as always) to make a rule for simply one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary, making a rule on loans keeps them consistent and stops any silly squabbles

If you want to propose a rule on transfers feel free
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No just pointing stupid inconsistencies in people’s opinions

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Take a boo (U21318)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 8 minutes ago
Probably best to take it case by case. Keeps it consistent with transfers.

Seems strange to make a rule for loans with an option, when it’s no difference to previously not being allowed to swap a youngster. So simply stupid (hypocritical as always) to make a rule for simply one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary, making a rule on loans keeps them consistent and stops any silly squabbles

If you want to propose a rule on transfers feel free
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No just pointing stupid inconsistencies in people’s opinions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Swear my 3 year old whines less than you do…

We’re discussing the Saul options now bud. Either make a positive contribution or don’t, makes no odds to me