Has player loaning gone too far?

[God The Mechanic]

We've got Holtby on loan...

But equally, had the loan system not been so overly weighted towards the clubs with money we may have been able to BUY him when Spurs did.  Or at least a club of a similar standing to us.
The fact that they know they can loan out players to pretty much everyone, means the bigger richer clubs are able to take a punt on someone like him - whereas clubs like ourselves would sign him for an almost auto-first eleven spot.

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

But if that were restricted to:
a/.  Working only for the club that bought his contract/signed him.
b/.  Working only for the club that pays him; no loans = player sales = change pf contract 
c/.  If they are still getting paid their contracted salary but playing in the reserves, that is not restricted practice, I wouldn't think.

I also don't think a lot of it counts anyway, most of the deals are done by agents and 9/10 the loanee benefits.  The players don't get the choice to work where they want, it's narrowed down to who shows interest in him.
It's a bit like the rent to own system.

One simple step to balance it up a bit would be not to allow loans between sides in the same division, so you can only loan to a side below your league. No more Zaha, Lukaku, Moses type loans.

I think then you get into the EU restraint of trade argument, which I think is why loans between prem clubs were allowed in the first place (not 100% on that). But basically any worker has the right (or so it seems) to work wherever h wants, you could say well that doesn't stop him working in a lower division so to speak, but then it is constraining who or where he can work which is also against EU rules. its all too complicated for me to bother with, i don't generally object to the loans between prem clubs, although we seem to have loaned a dud one in Bent this season. Having said that if we had Lakaku ourselves I doubt anyone would complain.

[HillFace]

Personally, I don't have any problems with the loan set up. I think it's just smart business at the end of the day. You may say that the richer clubs become bloated and the market gets imbalanced, but its just a sensible business model to get your fingers in as many potential pies as possible. Mourinho has quite openly said that he has used his loanees to hamper his rivals. See Lukaku against Arsenal as the biggest tout. And fair play to Lukaku. Where would be better to ripen him to the perfect premier league player than at a top premier league team? Certainly if Fulham were at the top of the tree I'd love to see our younger players get moulded by other teams at a similar level. Players like Scott Sinclair, Wilfred Zaha etc. who have been drawn to the light like hopeless moths can use it as a chance to repair their careers in the league they eventually want to be in. Just the game evolving imo and long may it evolve.

[Nick Bateman]

A good thread.

The loan system has been exploited and abused by clubs like Chelsea and the oligarch Ambramovich's billions - he buys every slightly talented youth player in Europe and loans them out to cover the costs.

It allows Chelsea to dominate the market place and have squads bigger than allowed by regulations.  It also gives other clubs top players sometimes, and therefore is a distortion of the Premier League.

As pointed out earlier, Lukaku has helped Everton to achieve a high position in the table - but Chelsea are choosing who receives a player like this, and he cannot play against Chelsea.

This is wholly unfair and with all the rhetoric regarding the "fair play" system with relation to overall club spending, makes a MOCKERY of such an incentive.

I would limit clubs to 3 loans in or out and it should only apply to youth players.