While independent arbiters under the umbrella of the FA were preparing to assess the precise amount of financial damage one club (West Ham United) may have caused another (Sheffield United) by entering into illegal, third-party agreements, over at Stapleford Park, a stately home near Melton Mowbray in Leicestershire, two very different pleas on the same subject were being heard by the chairmen of Premier League clubs at their annual meeting.

Richard Scudamore, the Premier League chief executive, was making a strong case for the abolition of loan transfers between member clubs. He considered them a serious flaw in the structure of the modern game and believed that they could provoke conflicts of interest. Given the wealth of the league, he said, they were unnecessary. Clubs in the first tier of English football were sufficiently well rewarded not to need to borrow players from rivals. In turn, he argued, it was wrong that a player should appear on one payroll but be expected to try his heart out for a rival.

Had Scudamore taken his argument to the logical conclusion, he would have made the point that loans are a form of third-party interference as well because a loaned player cannot appear against the club who own his permanent contract, so the wealthiest teams in the league are guaranteed to play certain matches against weakened opponents. For example, if Fraizer Campbell, the Manchester United forward who was the best player in Hull City's promotion campaign last season, signs up for another year at the KC Stadium, he will not turn out against United in two matches, but he will play against Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal, and Hull will be stronger opposition for it.

Technically, there is nothing to stop an elite club placing the talented young players from outside their first-team squad throughout the league, like booby traps. The potential problems are clear and Scudamore has argued against the loan system for several years (he made a similar speech at the 2007 annual meeting, too). Put to the vote again this year, however, he was defeated by 18 to one, with Chelsea not present (Peter Kenyon, the chief executive, had left at the end of the first day). Aston Villa were the only club who saw sense and put what was best for football above self-interest, although even their attitude may have changed had the naysayers' vote been taken first and Villa's representative had realised that he was going to be in a minority of one.

The loan system is popular because there is a mistaken belief that it benefits the smaller clubs and gives them access to players they could otherwise not afford. This is highly debatable. If Campbell could not be loaned to Hull next season, he may tire of life in the reserves at United and seek a permanent move, which would be of longer-term benefit to the smaller clubs. Under the present system, however, United get to release him and keep him. One can see why the elite like the idea, but Hull miss the point if they think they are getting a good deal.

The richest clubs play both ends against the middle. Campbell gets his Premier League experience and then returns to Old Trafford, perhaps to use his newfound confidence against the team who helped to train him up. Maybe, if Birmingham City had not had such easy access to temporary solutions they would have been in a greater hurry to nurture their own talent, rather than paying players who were passing through and were not good enough to maintain their Premier League status.

Anyway, Scudamore's first defeat on loans did not turn out to be the half of it. After that the 19 clubs discussed a proposal by Portsmouth to make another change to loan regulations, with equally alarming effects. Portsmouth wanted to scrap a rule that had been brought in last season and won unanimous support for their proposal. And although what was eradicated was a stupid rule, poorly conceived and inadequate in addressing the problem that it was designed to solve, its replacement will take football back to the bad old days of the nod, the wink and the carve-up.

Indeed, it goes farther by placing that type of arrangement above board and in writing. In a climate in which the ramifications of the Carlos Tévez affair are unresolved, that Premier League chairmen should be so willing to endorse the potential for third-party interference is remarkable; in essence, it exposes all their outrage and concern on this issue previously as a self-serving, hypocritical sham.

You may remember the controversy over Tim Howard, the Everton goalkeeper, and the role he played in the title race in 2006-07. Howard had been on loan from Manchester United since the start of the season and the loan was made a permanent transfer on February 14, 2007, with Everton paying a £3million fee. Loan transfers can be made constant at any time in the season and are not subject to transfer-window restrictions, but when Everton played United at Goodison Park in April Howard did not appear and his place was taken by an understudy, Iain Turner, whose mistakes were largely responsible for United's win.

David Moyes, the Everton manager, and Ian Ross, the director of communications, explained that as part of the terms of the transfer deal, Howard could not play against his former club that season if the match was significant to United's title ambitions, even though his registration was by then wholly owned by Everton. The Premier League subsequently confirmed this as a contravention of third-party interference rules and conducted a half-hearted investigation that lasted less than 48 hours and came to an abrupt and convenient end on the day United won the title with the announcement that, because nothing was written down, it was only a gentleman's agreement between the clubs and could not be proved.

Sheffield United turned out to have a similar arrangement with Watford, the buyers of Steve Kabba, who joined with the private understanding that he would not play for his new club when the teams met. The Premier League was being made to look ridiculous. West Ham had been, rightly, brought to book over third-party agreements that were never acted upon, yet these gentleman's agreements had been applied and the governing body was powerless to stop them. At the annual meeting last summer the loophole was closed, but in an unsatisfactory manner.

Instead of outlawing any hold that a club have over a player the moment he has been sold and determining to investigate thoroughly a convenient absence from the teamsheet for a particular fixture, the Premier League introduced a rule by unanimous vote saying that a loaned player would no longer be able to play against his former club that season, even if his loan deal was made permanent. This was the opposite of what should have happened and, like all bad laws, it was exposed as such within months, in this instance by the transfer of Jermain Defoe from Tottenham Hotspur to Portsmouth.

Defoe joined Portsmouth on January 31, 2008, the final day of the transfer window. There were no stipulations on Tottenham's part and they were happy for Defoe to play against them when the teams met on March 22. Yet when the date came round it transpired that Defoe was subject to a Premier League ban because his transfer had initially been a loan, made formal with an agreed fee of £7.5million four days later. The reason was that Portsmouth intended to finance the deal by selling Benjani Mwaruwari to Manchester City at the same time, but there were complications in that transfer and, unsure of getting the money in time, the South Coast club had made Defoe a loan acquisition before completing the deal when Benjani's move was finalised.

Despite an honest administrative procedure, resulting in a transfer that was above board, with all sides looking to do the right thing, Portsmouth had fallen foul of the new law.

It was clear that the rules, although black and white, were flawed. It would have been easy to have removed the defects and kept the clarity. All transfers to be made final, any suspicious activity to be investigated. Portsmouth did not propose that. They wanted the grey area to be reinstalled. This is why, from next season, when a loan transfer is made permanent the clubs will decide between themselves whether or not the player can face his former team-mates. That clause is then inserted in the contract.

It is still a carve-up, but now it is a legally endorsed one: a return to back scratching, and doing a mate a favour. As it stands, a selling club can pocket the money and keep the right to pick elements of the opposition team in at least one match. Manchester United could have pulled Howard out of Everton's team but would have done so with formal, official blessing. Meanwhile, English football continues to debate the ramifications of third-party agreements, while enshrining one aspect of them in the rulebook.

Where will it end? Maybe at next year's annual meeting it will become permissible for the selling club to nominate who the transferred player does turn out against as well. Maybe they could secure a commitment that he will be well rested before a particular match against important rivals. “As well as not playing against his old mates at Manchester United, the party of the first part will also be left out of the game at Wigan Athletic on Saturday, March 19, to make sure he is ready to give Arsenal a right good stuffing on Wednesday, March 23 ...”

Although, on second thoughts, maybe those details will just be limited to gentleman's agreements instead. After all, we wouldn't want too much of this dark material formally entering the rulebook. People may begin to think the game was dodgy.