BuzzerBeater Forums

The point of loaning a player is not to then sell him it is to get him ready to be in my rotation either because i have an aging star or or see more upside with him than a urrent player. There are pplayers who are not always going to be ready and need time to devolop. why should i always sell them and then buy someone else when i am ready. Why cant i keep him and let someone else train him on my money.

I think this sums up your position nicely. You want someone else to assume all the early risk of training up your unwanted, unplayable young players for you, so you can profit from them, rather than focusing on training players they own to benefit their team.

How delightfully selfish.

that`s what I said (=

However, to contribute in a positive fashion, I think I can add a few modifiers to the original proposal making it fairer for the team receiving the player

1. A team may only loan 1 player per season
2. A team may only recruit 1 player on loan per season
3. A team may not recruit a loan player from another team in the same country (good point, OP)
4. A player can only be on loan for one season in his entire career. The minimum and maximum loan length is one season
5. The teams involved in the loan must agree terms under which the loaned player plays, ie. minutes per week, positions played, skills trained.
6. The team making the loan pays a fee, eg. $250,000, to the team receiving the player in return for services rendered. This fee is held in trust for the duration of the loan and is payable when the loaned player returns to his original club if the playing terms have been met.
7. The team who own the loan player must pay the player's wages
8. If the loan player is sold at any time after the loan period ends, 33% of the proceeds is paid to the team who took the player on loan.

Opinions?

Pointless. Just buy and sell, that's what the transfer system is for.

It is pointless to tell the team loaning the player how to train them when I don’t always know how I am going to train my players in a month time. Also why should I pay the team for taking a player and pay his salary for the duration of the year when they are getting a player that might make them a better team or not. As being accused of being selfish. If you think that than you have never played a game where you were a team with no money in a lower league. You get a player who is in your rotation or a starter where I don’t have to pay their salary or a transfer fee. That player might be the difference in them getting promoted or not. All of those things help me out allot. All I get is a player with better game shape and more experience and slightly improved in certain categories that I don’t get to choose. Oh yeah very selfish.

Go drop down to division 4 where you cant afford good players on the transfer list and your not making any money. Now you can have a player from the top division for free to help you out. Yeah horrible idea. This idea also will cut down day trading as teams will loan a player insted of buying someione they cant afford which will lead to them going bankrupt and them leaving the game.

You don't understand what i'm saying. Go back and read through my proposal again.

On second thoughts, I'll highlight some key points for you:

5. The teams involved in the loan must agree terms under which the loaned player plays, ie. minutes per week, positions played, skills trained.

So you, the owner, get to decide what sort of thing happens to your player. Nobody is going to train a centre without outside skills as a guard when training them as a centre will earn them $250,000. So if you have a spare centre from the draft, you can get him trained in inside skills. But there's a catch, for both teams. And as for not knowing in advance what you'll be training from week to week....sheesh. Proper planning and preparation prevent poor performance. Good luck with your unplanned system!

6. The team making the loan pays a fee, eg. $250,000, to the team receiving the player in return for services rendered. This fee is held in trust for the duration of the loan and is payable when the loaned player returns to his original club if the playing terms have been met.

So let's say that your loaned centre doesn't get any playing time, or enough time, after you and the receiving team agreed that he would get at least48 minutes per week in a training position. He has not improved at all. Therefore, the agreed playing conditions have been breached and your money, held in trust, is returned to you.

If he does get trained, then you get a player who is improved at a set of skills decided in advance by you and the receiving team for a knockdown price of $250,000. I estimate that under a well-thought out regime, you could turn a centre with average IS, ID and RB into a centre with strong in those three skills. Bargain!

Ah, you say, what if the player is injured? Then the amount of money to be paid is reduced by the percentage of the season he has missed.

Now it seems your main concern for having a loan system is

That player might be the difference in them getting promoted or not.

It is for lower teams to get better players and help them with out paying their whole salary and you get your 18 year ols 2nd round pick aa chance to play and prove his worth to you before you decide to sell him

The system I proposed allows for this. Let's say that you don't want the player to be trained and don't want to pay the loan fee: the solution is simple: set the playing conditions to be something that cannot be fulfilled eg. a guard to be played as a centre. Your generous sense of philanthropy is fulfilled! You might have helped a poor little Div IV team to promote! And you lost no money! Awwww! Except here's the problem: this is where the system is ripe for abuse. Bummer.

To DemonHoosier: point taken. ksach's point is that teams receiving a loan player can't afford trainees. Hence the need, he believes, for a loan system.

Go drop down to division 4 where you cant afford good players on the transfer list and your not making any money.

Isn't that the whole point of having different divisions? That the best players are in the top divisions?

This will never happen - the cheating potential is too great.

Totally agree...

Steve

Yes the better players are in the top division that is obvious. But the top teams have bigger arenas make more money on merchandise and have more flexibility to work with. So you make a system to help the lower league teams that can benefit everyone. For all of you who disagree with system go start a new team in a lower league and see how easy it would be to get promoted now when you have so many active players in the game.

I do understand what you are saying. I don’t agree. The idea for sending players on loan is not for me only to benefit. As you are asking. If I send my center to them and they play an jump shot type of offense now because we made agreements he need s to restructure his training system so I can benefit with a player who is better and his players who don’t play the same position as mine dot improve. Also what if the players don’t improve as fast and he is training them that way. He trains rebounds as a team so the player goes up every 3 weeks instead of every 2 now he can’t match all the stipulations because of something in BB.

Then you will also having people loaning people for the money not to improve their team. Oh yeah that what we want to turn loaning players into a day trading system. You need to rethink your rules a bit buddy. There is a risk in loaning players and maybe the player does not improve as much as I wanted him to or do not in the categories I would have liked. But he improved with them when I would have barely gotten him into my rotation. So no matter how you look at it I get a better player back and he get a player to help him win.