Much better. Now we are debating the various merits of the different systems.
You have proposed what is in effect a system of charity between teams, whereby unwanted players get passed around in the hope that they will improve teams in lower leagues (an assumption which is pretty condescending for teams in lower leagues) and maybe get some training.
I have proposed a modified version of that system which allows for several things to occur:
1. For lower league teams to train a player for a higher level team and earn money they would otherwise not have, if they cannot obtain trainees of their own (a big concern of yours!);
2. For higher league teams to invest money in the training of that player, who they would otherwise be required to sell or fire (another concern of yours!), in order for that player to improve;
3. For higher league teams to lend players - non-trainees - to lower league teams as charity (that's all three of your bases covered!).
Loaning players cannot turn into a day-trading system, if three stipulations are followed:
1. A team may only loan 1 player per season
2. A team may only recruit 1 player on loan per season
4. A player can only be on loan for one season in his entire career. The minimum and maximum loan length is one season
This limits the availability of players for loan.
Other things which you are seemingly ignoring:
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.
Please compare your comment here to my comments:
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.
I'll flesh this part out further for you.
In order to ensure that both teams play fair, the agreement is saved on the players page. Furthermore, each week the player's owner is sent a weekly report saying how many minutes he played, in which position he played and what skills the receiving team has trained, and how many positions are trained. These details are also saved on the Loan Agreement Form. Once the loan is concluded, the owner compares what the receiving team has done with the player with what was promised. If the receiving team is in breach of the loan conditions, they don't get paid. Of course, you might still not be happy and try to weasel out of paying the fee, but a system of arbitration could be set up (poor GMs!) to resolve such issues.
Then you will also having people loaning people for the money not to improve their team
Uh huh. Think again. Two points here:
- If I agree to train a player for you, it is guaranteed that I am going to be training other players in the same skills unless I am an idiot. Your player improves alongside my trainees. My team improves and I get money for training your player, and I get more money if you sell that player (point 7 of my proposal).
- If I agree to train one of your players for you, and then fail to do so, I get nothing and your player has not improved. Nobody benefits. But that's the risk you take. No improvement = no payment
Anyway, I hope that makes things clearer. I've enjoyed thinking about this system and wish you the best of luck this season!