Galywat |
3h agoThis is a request for the admins, but I'm posting it here because their answer might help a few people.
I'd like a clarification about the rules for loans.
Technically, it's only possible to make 7 or 8 loans via the loan module (I think so, my figures may be incorrect, but it doesn't matter, the principle remains the same).
However, with the new rules, it is technically possible to give a player to someone and take him back 57 days later. This would be tantamount to making a kind of loan without the name (and without the advantages of comfort of bonus payments). The rules specify:
"Furthermore, the transfer module may not be used to treat a player in a higher-level infirmary or to make a short loan: a player sold may not be bought back by the same club less than 56 days after his sale."
Do we agree that loans made directly through transfers with longer return periods (>= 56/57d) are authorised? In particular, they allow you to break the limit on the number of loans that the game allows via this module, but given that transfers are free of any amount, and that the rules only mention a ban on short loans, I'd like to ask for confirmation.
Thank you for your reply, and have a nice day.
Galy
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Pauul76 |
1h agoHi Galy,
I asked blue the same question and he told me that the rules were clear.
So I guess there's no problem in doing that!
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Socrate |
1h agoAbove all, it is impossible to prove that this is actually a "disguised" loan.
In your example, you're talking about 56 days, but you can use the same process for the same purpose over a longer period, 2-3-4-5-6 seasons.
How can we, as admins, prove that this is a loan and not simply a purchase followed by a totally conventional sale?
Even before this new change, it wasn't impossible to see players making an A/R 56 days later or even over a longer period.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Galywat |
5 min agoSocrate: [b][color=#556B2F] Il est surtout impossible à prouver que cela est effectivement un prêt « deguisé »
Dans ton exemple tu parles de 56 jours, mais tu peux faire le même procédé avec la même finalité sur une durée plus longue 2-3-4-5-6 saisons.
Comment en tant qu’admin on pourrait prouver que cela est un prêt et non pas simplement un achat puis une vente totalement classique.
Même avant ce nouveau changement il n’était pas impossible de voir des joueurs faire un A/R 56 jours après voir sur ...
I quite agree, I just wanted to be sure of that :p
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
