I wanted to know if someone could tell me after how many days can we recall a player we have loaned, but that we would like to repatriate? Thanks for your answers, Gus 🐯🐾

I think it's 7 days.

Yes I think so 🤔

It's 3 days

Well done. Aymeric has blocked loan returns at 32. Do you have others like that? I would limit the number of 99NG per club so that it is a little more equitable. Come on, let's cut all the 99ng to 90 to balance it out!

The worst part is that it's based on nothing. Not a single guy in the top 10 or even the top 100 benefits from something this bogus.

Thank you for your answers!

32 days 😱 ... without informing huh

So for a member (who corrected the matter) it's 3 agreements to target??🤔🤔🤔

No, not all agreements! :D

Facts, facts ..... You have some facts my dear pieutte, but you prefer to bury your head in the sand, or hide behind your little finger, it's up to you. The facts therefore are that a club, managed by Myforsans, has been contacted several times by the game administrators (more Morten in general) for a year, because he had too many players in his team. And that as a result the administration team had received complaints. On this forum, you can find traces of the time when he had 48 players under contract (38 in the team and 10 on loan from memory), for example. That was 4 months ago, so about 120 days. He had already been asked before to reduce his number of players. He was asked again this time. And so when a few days ago, Bryou contacted me to tell me that he was playing against a team that had 37 players (thinking that I was still an administrator) and that I saw that it was still Myforsans, I suggested that he make a topic on the vforum, because obviously the reminders to order from the administrators have no effect on him, and it's a shame that it has come to this. He will probably explain that these are loan returns. Before his transfers were deleted, he had still bought 3 players on August 18, 18 and 22. To buy the last one, I imagine he had to take advantage of a quintuple departure of players in the federation. Loan returns are a good excuse. So there you go, we got to this point because a team was continually playing with the limit on the number of players. This team is part of the Viking Legion, that's how it is. This does not mean in any way that the other members of this agreement were doing the same thing. Until then, there had always been a tolerance on the numbers for loan returns precisely, or for departures from the training center. On condition that it was resolved quickly. I, like others, took advantage of it to release players in the evening, who were generally sold the next day. Myforsans played much more with the limit, now this tolerance no longer exists, I am the first to regret it because I think the loans at the start of the season will decrease a lot, and that means less help from established clubs to beginners. Now, the attitude of Myforsans (and of certain members of the Viking Legion), which consists of placing themselves as victims of the situation, is frankly misplaced, to say the least. Let him come here to dare to say that he was not asked to resolve the situation in the past. He will probably prefer to explain to us that in fact having 37 players in his team, having 48 players under contract, is a constraint of which he was the victim. As if he had not wanted this situation. To my knowledge, players do not transfer themselves to sign a contract with his club. It would have been a little classier to say that he had played with the limit of the number of players provided for by the game (limit which, by the way, has no place in the rules since it is a parameterized limit of the game. Wanting to write it in the rules is like wanting to write that you should only put 11 players on the field). I hope that these factual elements will be able to enlighten your thinking.

You got the wrong subject halfway. Focus on... , it's not here 🤭😁😘

Why is a former admin showing off his knowledge to a pack that is just waiting for that, when during his term he didn't hesitate to use this famous "loophole" to get a young person out of the center? My goodness!

Is that your argument? Because it's a bit inappropriate to defend Myfor by attacking Demi I think. Or maybe I didn't quite understand my faith.

Anyway, the oldest ones who play clean know who is who in the game...no need to have been an admin to know that.

To raise the debate a little, and remove some doubts, It seems to me however that I have the right to quote the LV or the members of the LV as much as I wish, since nothing in the rules prohibits quoting the LV. A young member raised to the LV (it was easy) wondered why a manager raised his voice to quote the LV. I therefore limited myself to lifting the veil on facts that had occurred to allow him to raise his thoughts on the subject a little. E(n)levez me a doubt, but I don't think I complained. At most I regretted a lack of frankness that would have allowed the aforementioned club to rise a little in my opinion. Wishing you a pleasant evening and raise your glasses ... In moderation of course !!! (And don't get up too early tomorrow morning LV friends, it's the weekend!)