None of the above have benefited us long term only chelsea just like when they took kember and Nicolas. I don't want my club playing second fiddle to any other club especially them.

I mostly agree but wouldn't say that the argument against loans is utterly ridiculous. Having to bring loans in is effectively acknowledging that the squad isn't strong enough and that the club isn't yet in the position of being wholly self-sufficient player wise.

The aim for a club like Palace is to reach the point where we don't need loans other than when there's an emergency situation. We are still some way from achieving that given our limitations in the striker, winger and full back departments. Hence we continue to need incoming loans from the likes of Chelsea.

Negative on loans:
Most on here advocate buying potential playing for a year or two then selling at a profit. A loan player will take a place, we will develop that player for a year, hopefully returning to the parent club a better player who is now a more valuable player for them and we are left with a gap to fill. For this 'benefit' we are expected to pay a loan fee?

Surely better to play 11 Palace players each week if we can?

Not sure we have improved players for other clubs even when they have done well here. Take the recent Chelsea signinbgs - Gallagher was great for a few months but then reverted to mean - a player who is not a starter on a Champions League tema. Loftus-Cheek never held down a regular place at Chelsea although injuries were partly to blame, Bats dod well first time but Chelsea were quite happy to loan him out again to us.

I doubt Lokonga's value increased after his stay here, He was pretty ineffective but still filled a need. We have never been aa team without relegation a possibility so if there are no internal sources or reasonable buying options then loans are very useful and make the team more attractive for fans if they perform well

The loan of Hall seems to have been an open secret for about 3 weeks , but there’s still no news about it being finalised.
I do find it strange why it’s not already happened already (if it’s going to happen) and why he’s not training with the team.
Mitchell’s injured and there’s a glaring gap in his position which it’s looks like will have to be patched up by Clyne or Riedewald .
Even if Hall would not be used from the start , he would certainly be a very useful option from the bench.
There’s also a rumour that Doucoure may be out at the weekend which could mean that Schlupp may move to the middle in the additional absence of Hughes.
Hall could also be an option on the left of midfield in this situation.
There may well be good reasons why Hall hasn’t been confirmed yet, but surely the club want him on board asap.

It’s not so much a doubt about Hall joining, but more a question of the length of time it’s taking to finalise/announce , in particular when we have injuries.
Hall would provide an immediate boost to the squad and why join e.g tomorrow when he could have had a full week with the squad and be raring to go if necessary this weekend.