BBC reports that City are likely to be granted permission to sign a keeper on loan. Isn't this unfair to Villa, Spurs and maybe even Liverpool?

Is there a precedent for such a grant?

Not sure about precedent but it is within the rules for goalkeepers. I do not think it is right however as they have a first team keeper...their No.3 surely he should be allowed to play. When Cech and Hilario were injured we played Ross Turnbull without crying all the way to the Premier League.

If memory serves, Aston Villa had a keeper on loan well after transfer window a couple of years back.

It was actually before the January transfer window. They signed Kiraly from Crystal Palace mid December on an emergency loan.

Didn't Everton sign Westerveld(or however it is spelled) in a similar fashion?

Ok, I see, there's precedent. But is it fair? Liverpool would kill to get a striker on loan, not that I care, I'm just saying. Why should City be given the grant to sign a keeper while Liverpool would be denied one for a striker?

Perhaps the fairest solution would have been that City were allowed to make the signing but would have to field their own player (the Faroe Islander whose name escapes me - Neilsen?) as first choice.
:-)