It depends on the circumstances.
Arsenal rate the young David Bentley but at present he would not get regular football with them so loan him out to another premiership side for a years experience. West Ham similarly loaned Jermaine Defoe to Bournemouth a couple of years back.
I could see the point of Chelsea 'owning' Mikael Forssell, loaning him to Crystal Palace for a season. I cannot see the point of then loaning him to Birmingham for (I think) a third season. Either they want him or they don't!
it can be a good idea...some of the lesser off clubs can get a great player , who for various reasons wont play for his " team " , Smertin for instance will never wear a chelsea shirt , yet they paid 3million for the guy, and was farmed out on loan ( which is wrong , but RA does some silly things ie..Sacking Ranieri..what a Loss , he is a top manager!!) . I think they are planning to buy a brasilian child superstar , and loan him to PSV Eindhoven.
it will benifit David Bentley as he will get some games , and keep the match fitness up , will be an ideal replacement for Bergkamp when he retires, also have a season of premiership football under his belt.
I hope Jose Mourinio sticks to his guns , gets rid of a lot of what he sees as dead wood and have a team of 21 players and a couple of goalies..there are a few teams who would benifit from a cull at Chelski.....
I do think tho that Roman Abramovich is bad for british football tho.
I think it's wrong of some clubs who loan a player then say " ooo you cant play against us...." if he / she was that good , dont loan the player in the 1st place...
It's a good idea if it's used the right way...loan signings for up and coming (but not quite there yet) stars are a very good idea to help out lower league clubs and also to help the player gain much needed match fitness/experience.
We lost our 1st keeper through injury this season and didn't want to have to rely on the services of our (although extremely good) very inexperienced and young 2nd keeper (we only have 2 keepers having been on our knees financially and staff wise at the start of the season...i think we only had 8 players on the books two weeks before the season kicked off), so we signed Paul Rachubka from Charlton on loan for the rest of the season and he was an absolute star all along...doubtful we'd have achieved promotion had we not had someone of his skill and experience in the net. He saved a penalty in the playoff final so we owe a massive debt to that man.
I'm not sure that the current loan system is a good thing, especially as some clubs seem to be growing even richer. In theory, one of them could simply buy up a talented young player to keep him out of their opponents' clutches, and then send him off on loan to a lower division where there's no risk of him harming their own efforts.
As to the idea of one year loans, it doesn't seem to say a lot about either a club's aspirations or a player's commitment and loyalty. Better, surely, to offer a one year contract if you have to do so to a player nearing the end of their career but who can still do a good job.
I like the idea of season long loans. As long as that is what they are, ie the club calling their player bck 1/2 way through a season.
What I dont like is the 3 month loans for the players over the age of 25. With those they can be loaned to a club for 3 months but at the end of 3 months the loaning club then either says cheerio to them forever or has to sign the player permenantly. Problem with that is that a player could end up playing for 3 different clubs in one season!