A deal is a deal.
IF the two owners found the deal to be attractive to each other, they will do it. If that means say throwing in a bench player for a short loan with no extra interest, what is the problem?
There really isn't in any way shape of form. There is give and take in any deal, and a Good deal is WIN - WIN.
I really haven't seen anything of substance in any kind of "arguement" against Loans. I do see a nasty case of sour grapes. And got hit with rather insulting insinuation earlier, that I had a lot of issue with.
Balance? Let's look at the DEAL that sparked this jealousy.
R'lyeh recieved $15mil in loan Immediately - GAIN
Chapel Hill sent $15mil Immediately - LOSS
R'lyeh sends $5mil per season for 5 seasons - LOSS
Chapel Hill receives $5mil per season for 5 seasons - GAIN
But KP has the arguement that My loss is manageable - DOH! that was the idea... in any DEAL you want to make your losses as manageable as possible. Do you go into a trade/deal with the idea - I need to make sure I don't gain any ground.... I want to balance out my situation, but just shuffle players around.
Now let's look at what Chapel Hill GAINS. well, if you have noticed he is running small market economy, with little income (compared to "top" teams) and little expenses. That $5mil per season for 5 seasons? Well it pays for his operations for 5 seasons, for the little loss (to him) of reducing starting capitol.
I guess you shouldn't look for DEALS that are good for you, or that are in a WIN - WIN situation. Someone will get jealous and will cry.
I just traded and Added a second high calibre SG to my team, there has to be soemthing wrong with the deal, because I didn't send a SF to HJ, or a PG that won't foul out to KP.
Let's keep things on the table and on the level.
-- That as the intent with the complete scenario, blowing a gasket and getting worked up later...
Sour Grapes.