I don't agree with it full stop. It holds back clubs young players. Chelsea see it as part of their business model. Loan 40 players out every season for fees and wages and it is costing them nothing to hoard these players while making a nice lot of money from the process. Virtually all of them will never make the 1st team and then they willbe sold off with their profiles higher to fetch a higher price

Loans are useful as supplements to the squad, and should never replace actual signings in the same period. Afterall, all a loan is only a deferment of the problem - when the loan period has ended you are left with The same problem, although maybe with a slightly higher chance of signing the loaned player.
They should be used when it allows you to fill a gap in the squad that your could not otherwise fill. Yes, it may block youngsters coming through, but due to the high penalties of failure in this league, it can be too risky to blood untested young players. (A squad should not include untested Youth Players as starters)
If reports are to be believed that SA spunked all of The transfer budget in January - then a) it was completely justified and b) we should consider them as summer signings. The loaning of TFM and RLC has allowed us to sign Luka, Schlupp and PVA. and Boy! did we need them in January.

"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

I think the mistake being made by many people on here moaning about loans is that a loan player is not a signing the club makes instead of a permanent signing...it is more often a signing we can make on top of permanent signings.

Let’s say the club spend 30m altogether this summer. 8m on Riedewald and another 20m let’s say.

Both RLC and TFM would cost us a minimum of 15m each...maybe even more.

Those two loans if permanent would have cost us our entire summer kitty.

FdB has come in and changed the system completely. He needs different players than the ones we had. There is only so much money to spend so the club have a choice...do you only spend money on permanent players and only solve half the problems at the club or do you mix it up with loans as well and plug all the gaps giving a whole year to make plans for more permanent solutions?

It’s a god damn no brainer to me but people will still complain.

Some people saying we should only loan players who we can buy at the end of the loan...what are you on about??? These two chaps are not for sale, because their clubs believe they can be 1st team players and are too good to be sold. Would you prefer we signed players that are not as good as them and who are not wanted by their parent clubs because they are not good enough???

It isn't a long term solutions but it could be part of a long term solution.

If using a pair of quality loan players enables us to move away from being perennial strugglers and relegation candidates to mid table it will be easier in the future to attract replacements.

If we get a few of our younger players integrated then could be a plus like Lokilo or wan-bisakka . Then could be a positive, but think I'd rather get Chambers on loan with that fee already set and option to buy would be better than fosu-mensah. If both are successful and play a huge part in this season. Next summer we're having these problems to solve, let alone more that will arise. I do like the fact we are targeting young players, but I'd rather get them permanently. With Man City spending maybe we can nab maffeo or Patrick Roberts.

Another Damien Diagonal - Total Football

Are you an idiot?

If we don't have the money to buy permanent replacements and we don't have the right quality available in the youth setup then what would your alternative suggestion be? Because it sounds as if you don't have a solution and that you are just moaning for the sakes of it.

If you have enough money to buy 3 players but you need maybe 5 or 6 players if you are going to succeed then what is the solution?