I'm not so sure. It means that as you cannot loan out players anymore, you have to develop them yourself and give them game time. And as a player you know that's how it works and that after maybe a couple of loans you get your chance with the first team if you developed nicely.
Banning loans would, in the initial stages, surely run some great young talents into the ground, cause they're under contract at big clubs which can't afford to promote them and let 'em play.
But after a while, the result might be young players staying at their own, smaller clubs for better chances at game time, or taking more steps up the ladder instead going straight to Real Madrid. Smaller clubs could now profit longer from their good youth development, instead of getting raided for talented youngsters by bigger teams with more money. If these youngsters stay and develop into their early 20s, they will fetch far bigger transfer fees than if they had left as teenagers.
Youngster who are under contract at big clubs but don't get many chances might look for transfers away quicker, knowing they can't be loaned out anymore. That's another way small clubs could profit.
All in all, it could be an incentive for smaller clubs to invest more into their youth academies, and for young players to actually stay at smaller clubs longer for better chances to actually break through into first teams and to get game time.
It might lead to a higher number of buy back clauses. E.g. big clubs buying young players, having them in their youth teams for a time, then selling them on to smaller clubs, where they get first team game time, with buy back clauses. But even that would still hold some financial gain for small clubs, if they get a big club youth player for 5m and the big club buy him back two years later for a set fee of 10m. It could actually work out to give small clubs financial and sporting profits.
