SoccerProject

The amount of money you can loan should depend on the size of your club. If I had a loan company, I would not allow very little H-division teams to borrow money as they could easily go bust... but if a top league team asked for money, I would certainly lend them more than 2.5M, as they are far more reliable.

Real life example...

Man U are in 500M debt and Chelsea are in 700M debt.

However, AFC Bournemouth are struggling to find investers, even if means a few penny.


So I think to be more realistic, there should be a limit to how much you can borrow, for example;

A - 11M
B - 9.5M
C - 7.5M
D - 5.5M
E - 4M
F - 2.5M
G - 1.5M
H - 500K

However, the repaying part would stay the same...
How's the idea?

Yeah,this sounds good to me. But I think top teams don't borrow money anyway.Or am I wrong?

Werder_fan wrote:Yeah,this sounds good to me. But I think top teams don't borrow money anyway.Or am I wrong?

its good idea, also top team takes loans, also i take. LT-Bayern , B.3

Thanks werder_fan and Imp4 for your support!

werder-fan: of course, some don't. some people like to take it steady and some people prefer the extreme. Just like Sjarel, krcgenk and others see themselves running steady, whereas the 2 Israelis, Sly and asiskunk, decided to whack all, and then had absolutely nothing left to cover them after that.

even in real life... premierleague team Arsenal have no debt. They are clean. However, they never spend lots of money... they get all the players as youths, and they sell to buy. teams like man u and chelsea, they take it over the top, but this is the choice they take to become more competitive without having to wait for great youths to come out.

However, if the lower league clubs, like me favourite Bouremouth, even try to take money out... nobody wants to lend them any!!

This new loan option would allow a real life-like choice available to SP. Its a take or leave, but is always available. Much more realistic than "whether your team is a 23 season old top-flight or whether it was set up yesterday, 2.5M it is".

The logic is the same as the stadium boardings. People pay more to advertise at better teams' stadiums. People lend better teams more money as they are more reliable.

Hmm..the idea sounds good , but it gots a lot of holes in it . Maybe a H team would need money like that to invest in a team building . And in time, they would sell players they don't like anymore , paying the loan . The team becomes a bit strong , money comes even from other parts , and players are improving , wich could bring again money for the loan . Well , of course it is the possibility that some could not pay the loan and... but that can be evitated easily if u know how .

I think that a better ideea would be to be able to pay the full rest of the loan , if , for example , during the period after the loan was taken , we get money , and maybe we want to pay it back so that in case that we'll need money sometime quickly..then.. Most can't keep money just like that , they prefer to buy players of invest in something , rather than keeping them .

Sounds realistic and all, but I think H-F should all have 2.5m, then it can progressively increase. Reason for this is that H teams might need the money early on to invest in youth centres, perhaps a few players just to bolster their squad. Let's face it, 2.5m isn't huge money but it would be valuable for a lower club.

Man Utd will go close to 1b in debt soon.

oh yeah 1b debt would help me now
maybe 200mils would be enough please, implement!

Frrfrr wrote:oh yeah 1b debt would help me now
maybe 200mils would be enough please, implement!

Haha Me too

madruga, and guys, the sum I mentioned was just an example... they could be different.. it could be 2.5M for H and 25M for A... it was just mentioned to help people understand what I am trying to say...

cruxify, hope the above answers your question as well...

Frrfrr, I am not saying that the sums should become so huge that as soon as you get to A, you will never leave A as long as you buy players with the loan. All I am saying is that there should be a contrast, and the higher league teams should be allowed to borrow more, just like real life. But if they cannot pay it back afterwards, and the figures drop to -3M, just like that is the limit now, then the team gets 1 week to rectify the situation, and then gets liquidated if the situation is not changed by the manager.

lee> my post had to be joke ... i just referred to previous post ... was not meant as contra ... although +200mils would be cool to have now

Frrfrr wrote:lee> my post had to be joke ... i just referred to previous post ... was not meant as contra ... although +200mils would be cool to have now

I do have a problem of skimreading, and misinterpret things all the time..

i say now. for the simple fact that the diffrence betwen poor and rich teams will increase...and we dont want this to happen....we want a true competition

I agree wit Kennyanu - do we really want a situation like real life English Premier League, where four teams dominate season after season after season after season after season and where there are no real prospects that this will change anytime soon. A suggestion like this will just increase the likelihood of that happening.

I was kidding too of course

kennyanu wrote:the diffrence betwen poor and rich teams will increase

ahh! I knew someone would bring this up...
loan does not mean free cash btw, it is borrowing, and then returning it back WITH INTEREST. Maybe, the interest level can be increased to discourage managers from borrowing money unnecessarily... e.g. 25% of borrowed sum.

So if your team is in trouble and is in negative budget, you can borrow a small amount and then pay back later - but you'll have to pay back 125% of course.