This is more of an ifs and buts piece rather than hard-core facts, but it is some food for thought.

Six years ago, it was not in the league's regulations for one Premiership club to loan their players to other teams that are also in the the Premiership - only to teams in lower divisions or out to clubs in European leagues.

Four-and-a-half years ago, the rule was changed so that, starting from the beginning of the 2003/2004 season, the rule was changed so that players from Premiership teams could be loaned to other teams in the same league.

We saw a flurry of summer activity with Paul Konchesky being loaned to Spurs by Charlton and Lomano Lua Lua going on loan to Portsmouth from Newcastle in the January window - to just name a couple of the dealings that went on between rival clubs.

This new rule, however, had a major flaw in that players could play against their actual employers. This proved to have a devastating effect on Newcastle's season as Lua Lua - who had his wages primarily paid for by the Magpies at the time, scored the winning goal at Fratton Park in the last minute of the game. The two points that Newcastle lost by that goal cost them European qualification for the next season.

With this in mind, the FA and the Premier League then changed the rule and from the beginning of the 2004/2005 season, players who were loaned to other Premiership teams could not play against the teams that held their contracts. Without doubt this makes a lot of sense, as it would be very hard for a player to return to his employers if they proved to have an impact like Lua Lua did for Newcastle.

Manchester United currently have two goalkeepers out on loan at other Premiership clubs. Tim Howard is at Everton and having a steady season, while Ben Foster is on loan at Watford - and we all now how impressive Foster has looked at Vicarage Road. So much that he has been recognised by England and made an impressive debut against Spain early this year.

I have no problems with that. It is well within United's right to loan their players out for Premiership experience if they are not likely to feature much in the season.

However, this is the part that I find quite interesting.  It means that Manchester United know that for at least four games in the season, they are going to play against a reserve goalkeeper. Or in the case of this season, it was five games as Foster was ineligible to play for Watford in the FA Cup semi-final.

Now, as I said at the beginning of the article, this is all a case of ifs and buts. It was never more underlined at the  weekend, though. Everton were leading United 2-0 with 35 minutes to go, United got a corner which Everton's reserve keeper fumbled, United scored - and it proved to be the catalyst for a great comeback. Had Howard been playing, would the game turned out differently? There is no way of knowing.

Could Watford have had a better chance in the FA Cup semi-final? There is no way of knowing.

Let me just clarify that in no way am I begrudging the title heading to Old Trafford this season. They have by far been the best team to watch this season, playing exceptional football and showcasing some of the world's best talent as well.

I just wonder if that maybe Manchester United's loaned-out players have had a bigger role in their employers' season than they know and expected.

Do you agree with th loan system as it is? Sportingo would welcome your thoughts and comments.