Quote Originally Posted by light up the darkness View Post
Another potentially issue is the freedom with which players employed by clubs who are part of a conglomerate (several clubs in different countries owned by the same owners) can just swap clubs on loan.

No fees, no deals, no troublesome agents.

If you are a club that is not part of a conglomerate (and half the clubs in the Premiership are not) how fair is it to be faced with this additional hurdle.

If you want to sign someone on loan and one of your rivals also want him you have no chance.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67490620

Newcastle will be able to sign players on loan from sides also controlled by their Saudi owners in January, after a vote by Premier League clubs on a temporary ban on related-party loans did not receive the required support.

Twelve clubs voted in favour of a block on loan moves between teams under the same ownership.

That was two short of the two-thirds majority needed for it to be passed.

The Premier League was understood to be in favour of introducing the ban.

While clubs have been able to sign players on loan from clubs that are under the same ownership for some time, the matter has been heightened by Newcastle being owned by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) since 2021.

It is understood Newcastle, Manchester City, Chelsea, Sheffield United, Everton, Wolves, Nottingham Forest and Burnley voted against the ban.