It literally comes down to what is the downside of allowing this?

There has been ZERO points made saying "this shouldn't be implemented and here's why". If the user who loaned your player wants to heal him, tell me why you'd object. Don't tell me that you wouldn't spend a credit to heal your loaned player because you would in 9/10 situations.

Several users have made good points including myself and I don't think there is anything more to say about it. All this talk about TC/HC relative injuries is interesting too, but not my main focus.

Yes Jax, this topic is about giving the people who bring in loaned players the option to heal the player without relying on the owner to do it. This hurts nothing and gives a completely reasonable option to the person who is using the player this season.

Spot on Jax.

No, not spot on, Jax.

Read some of the posts in this thread again, there have been some very good arguments against this proposal.

When this is introduced, it will be completely up to the loaner to heal a loaned player, one more obligation on top of the ones there already are.

I'm more in favor of sharing profits, but also costs. Now the owner has all the profits, and 0,0 costs. With this proposal, he's got even more profits, and even less costs.

Errennu, loaner's profit is getting a player who's worth 10-20 times more than what he pays for having him for a whole season. Would you rather lose 2-3 games cause your most important loaned player is out and owner doesn't see it or care about, or you'd pay 1 credit and some ridiculously small amount for healing yourself?

Errennu, I´m not 100% on Budamank´s intent, but the post reads: "the manager of the team loaning the player should be able to treat the player"

For be "be able" means he or she would have the option along with the owner. It doesn´t say "has to"

I don´t understand why people are saying that the responsibility to heal the player would fall on the current manager of the player. If both have the option then the owner can heal the player when it is beneficial to the owner, and the manager can heal the player when it is beneficial to do so. Win-win. What am I missing?

I don't understand what people here think the problem is either. It really would be win-win, since the parent club would lose nothing if the loaning club would be able to heal the player just to play more matches than were needed for him to gain experience. Plus, the player would get more match experience, which probably is far from 1000, seeing that he's out on loan.

Ive read the posts and I stand by what I said. I dont agree with much of what you said.

The idea was to make player healing AVALIABLE TO BOTH PARTIES. You said that loaning clubs shouldn't have the burden all on them. They wouldn't. You also said loaning clubs can't control how the player is trained which is true. However you claimed that the health of the player is dependent on the owning club which is true but it shouldn't be.

Dragontao among others fully explained how injured players are dealt with by both the owning and loaning club. it's completely illogical that the owning club would need to sign off on treating a 3-5 day injury, of course they'd be fine with it. Its important for the two sides to be in contact but the Owning club would NEVER say "No, let him Stay hurt and take longer to regain fitness"

Not that I want this but it makes more sense for the loaning club to heal than it does the owning club. The loaning club still is mandated to play the player in 20 matches so what does it matter to the owner. If the loan club chooses not to heal him, than he will have less lineup flexibility when the player does return. All that said, I still would like the option for both parties.

@eddie well said. I think there are some who are over thinking this. I over think everything which is why I am unable to write concise and "to the point" posts haha.

I'll just add that I have not had a player on loan for a number of seasons (though I did try for a striker this season to bolster my squad for a season while building infrastructure). So there is absolutely no self interest in my stance here.

@errenu - you have misunderstood. Jax's latest post tries to clarify. The bit in capitals is the important part.

@Stephen: I didn't misunderstand anything, I read Jax's by the way excellent posts. Jax does have excellent arguments, and I do see also advantages for the loaning club.

I just disagree with the idea that it's only the loaning club that profits of loaning. The biggest profit is for the owning club: their players get 20 caps usually in A-squad games, which they otherwise wouldn't have, not to mention cup and other games, they gat paid the loaning fee, and they won't have anything to do anymore if it becomes up to the loaning club to heal their injured players. On top of that, only they profit of the increased market value of their players, while the loaning club gets nothing, apart from the proverbial kick in the lower back side at the end of the loaning period, and the obligation to give them enough games, no matter what. That's what bothers me. And this proposal tips the balance once more further in favour of the owning club, that's all.

I suggest we agree to disagree on this one ;-) I didn't mean any disrespect to anybody.

It's far from the case that the owning club profits the most from the situation, so we're definitely agreeing to disagree.

For smart managers who use the system wisely as part of their long term strategy (and are lucky enough to bring in the player(s) they want because of bidding wars) it's a very beneficial arrangement.

Advantages for the borrowing club include potentially much greater TV revenue if the player(s) they have on loan improve their squad significantly and helps them win more games.

A quality striker or keeper, beyond which a team could afford to purchase at their level of development, could be the difference between getting promoted or staying where they are, or for weaker sides, the difference between staying up or being relegated.

Also, a club bringing in three very good players on loan, can save themselves a fortune in transfer fees, utilising their transfer fund instead to upgrade facilities, which in turn can increase their profits (stadium, catering etc) or aid in the development of the club through allowing funds to be spent on youth centre and training centre upgrades. That is a huge long term advantage that loaning players brings to the borrowing club.

So the borrowed players have the potential to make a substantial contribution to not just a club's finances, way in excess of the fee they pay to loan the player, but also in the development of the club by freeing up funds for infrastructure.

I'll give you an example of the kind of benefit I'm talking about.

http://rockingsoccer.com/en/soccer/info/player-327607/employment

This player I had on loan back in Season 9 freed up funds to improve infrastructure.

His goals made a vital contribution to my winning the division, racking up higher TV revenue as a result.

So the loan helped with promotion, increased revenue in season 9, with improved infrastructure and revenue moving forward in successive seasons. That contribution can't be ignored or understated.

If you look at the player's history after that, it's pretty clear I, as the borrowing club, got the better deal out of that loan and definitely profited the most from it, not his parent club.

The loan system applies right throughout the leagues and can really benefit clubs at basement levels.