The other way of looking at it is that we get a good player for £1m loan fee (or whatever) that would cost £10 to £15 to buy thus freeing up the remaining £14m for other players

Good spot

Mr Cadbury's Parrot says "Hello"

I am afraid it is to me. we are potentially developing a player for another club, paying a loan fee and wages as well, then having no option to buy that player.

Whereas the time he gets on the pitch could have developed one of our own players. I am not against loans but there needs to be a potential benefit for both sides. Taking the Sakho example we probably put 10million on his price.

We get him for a year and during that time we can develop our own midfielders and maybe just maybe one will be ready in a years time.

That way we haven't blocked there progress by buying someone.

And who knows a one year loan may turn in to two years.. who knows.

For now, we should be very happy at having a quality player for a position we're light on and can't afford to buy.

Simply really good solution consider our constraints

Great signing for palace looks like his in the Frank lampard mould if he plays like lamps this season than we have a great loan on our hands shame there ain't an option to buy though but if all goes well he might not want to go back to Chelsea anyway

Personally (and i know i'm in the minority) think we've added a player where we least need one. CM had Milovojevic, McArthur, Cabaye, Puncheon and Chungy all battling for 3 positions. Now we've added RLC that makes it 6. Good strength in depth mind.