Loan system - fair?

[Rich_L]

Have thought this for a while but cm1179's post in the Transfer thread prompted me to make this thread:

to flip it, man city paid us the bigger share of adebayor's wages to play for us.

Is this fair or an abuse of the loan system - given that teams can place stipulations that the player cannot play against the loaning team.

Effectively the team which receives the heavily subsidised player is then more competitive against the fellow sides competing against the loaning team, and if the player is a regular and successful fixture, arguably less competitive against the loaning team (due to having to change the team/formation etc).

I understand it's totally within the rules, but it seems slightly open to abuse if a loaded team like City can buy players and lend them to the competition at a subsidised price so they can better take points off their competing teams?

Thoughts?

 

[Rich_L]

Yeah I don't think that was the motivation in case I used - was more to illustrate the principle of it.

 

[Rich_L]

Yeah I think it should go either two ways - either the player must be loaned with no restrictions (tricky to enforce though - you can already see the England friendly-esque toe-stubs and head-colds conveniently taking place 2 days before the match-up due to a 'gentlemans agreement') or that within division loans should be disallowed. Due to the problems with the former I'd probably lean towards the latter being the preferred position.