What a mess of a post this is. One main point of loans is to be able to bring in young players from bigger clubs that you wouldn't have been able to sign permanently. Would we have been able to bring in McGuane last summer? No. Would we have been able to sign Roofe? No. Or Cadden, Browne, Holland, Martinez, Sinclair, Mowatt, Kane, Baldock or Kenny. Loans are an important part of a lower league club's arsenal, where you're essentially getting a player on a free for a season. To think that loans are essentially year-long trial periods for a permanent signing, then you've missed the point.
And every club in the EFL has to have some churn every season, so I'm really surprised you're going in for the club for having to replace our loan players and the players we've sold/released. We've been doing that every season since I can remember, where have you been all that time? (In case you don't believe me, here's what happened in 2009, where we released 8 and transfer listed 2:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/o/oxford_utd/8022872.stm Next season we won promotion.)
As for the last paragraph, the whole point is to attract better players to sign knowing that we have a very good track record of developing young talents and not getting in their way. I don't know how many times I have to say it:
If we didn't have this model, we wouldn't have signed the quality of players we have. Which means we wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the League One play-offs in the first place, so your whole schtick about the 'lottery of the play-offs' becomes a moot point if it's anchored to the failure of the club's model in your eyes.