I don't like loan options for players who we consider our jewels who might shine. I don't know why we don't do it yet, something similar to the half of the player, but with more certainty, i.e. the sale with buy back option.
With loan, there is literally zero incentive for the loaning club to play him and develop him to the fullest. The only way that player plays over the owned player, is when the loaned player is twice the player for his position from loaning club. If that's not the case, he will not play instead of the owned player, as the club gains too little to play/develop him. When was the last time you remember a player who was loaned from us, who played a lot in a decent team? It doesn't exist. If Zaniolo was loaned, I'm sure he would not be so developed by Roma either.
What I would much rather prefer is if we just sold the player with a higher buy back option/first option that would be there for 2-3 years. Obviously only lesser clubs would do it, but it's no problem to sell the player for lower fee as we can get him back with the clause. That way the loaning club has incentive to develop the player that they cannot afford, because if they develop him well the former club will buy him back with interest. With loan it hardly ever happens. How ofter we loan players to serie B, to only hear how they sit on the bench constantly.
10 years of FIF
Transfer Guru
