Not exactly. It frees up space for a signing in January in other position. We were ready to pay 2-3m and still have that clause.
Having a player on higher wages who you dont need is not good. This is exact problem we are trying to fix. If we have tried to address it with our future signings, people should appreciate it. Think it was smart to move away from an expensive loan which dont suit our requirements
What you're describing are still money issues though.
It doesn't free up space for a signing a January unless the limiting factor for a signing in January is FFP / cash, which obviously both fall into the 'money issues' category. It isn't as if there's a rule limiting your January transfer business if you have a loan that you can't terminate.
Same with your wages point: the only issue with having a loan player on high wages who you might not need later is financial. It's not like giving a permanent player ridiculously high wages where you risk upsetting the rest of your squad, breaking the club's wage structure etc. It's Chelsea who have a contract with him on far too high wages, we're just agreeing to cover them for the duration of the loan, which is only a problem because it might mean we have to 'waste' money on wages after Luke Shaw and Malacia are back.
I'm not trying to be pedantic here and it's obviously fine to prefer that we do a cheaper loan for Reguilon rather than a more expensive loan for Cucurella, I just think we should be honest that the reason that we chose Reguilon is overwhelmingly financial. Also I don't think we should pretend that the club's decision here is an example of savvy operations and reversing the behaviour that has caused problems for us during the Woodward era, as if our issues were caused by us signing too many players on expensive loan deals without break clauses.