Once the Premier League's problem solver, this January transfer window was defined by loans and a lack of deals

There’s notoriously never been so much money in the game, yet there’s rarely been such an unwillingness to spend

At the very least, out of very little, this January window showed that Premier League clubs have long moved past the point where they saw the transfer market as the first solution to any problem. Many didn’t see it as a solution at all.

Tottenham Hotspur were the most notable in this regard given the recent issues with their squad, as they were one of eight of the 20 clubs who didn’t bring in a single player, in what felt the quietest window in some time.

Manchester United didn’t go for the centre-half they’ve needed, Manchester City didn’t go for the left-back or defensive midfielder they’ve needed. And, of the transfers that did take place, none were any way bombastic.

The most prominent can at best be described as “astute” – or “interesting”. Those terms certainly apply to the return of Samir Nasri and Ryan Babel to the Premier League, to West Ham United and Fulham respectively. Even the two biggest moves – both involving Chelsea – weren’t really about now.

One of them, for Christian Pulisic from Borussia Dortmund, wasn’t even for now. He will arrive in the summer, and is for the future. Gonzalo Higuain, meanwhile, was primarily signed on his reputation and past work with Maurizio Sarri, rather than recent form.

It says much that it required a break from Chelsea’s usual policy of not bringing in players over 30, and that also deviated from their general approach to major signings – which is to buy someone on the up and in rich form.

The Higuain signing certainly didn’t make the kind of waves it would have done had the club acted on previous interest in the Argentine at any other point over the last few seasons.

And this window certainly didn’t offer a Virgil van Dijk, an Andriy Arshavin, or even a Lucas Moura. There was similarly none of the drama or narrative intrigue of the swap of Alexis Sanchez for Henrikh Mkhitaryan. Everything was so much lower-key than that, right down to the nature of many deals.

Gonzalo Higuain was signed on his reputation rather than form (Getty) (Getty Images)

Denis Suarez could well prove to have a key impact for Arsenal and, beyond Higuain, he was probably the closest thing to one of the big clubs bringing in a specific player type they needed. Just like Higuain, though, he was another loan.

Such temporary deals ruled, in a way we’ve not seen for quite some time, or at least since the 2015 TV deals.

That does raise a key issue as to why it’s been so relatively quiet, especially given the absence of big deals going the other way, too. It’s not like there’s been a Philippe Coutinho, either, or any other similar purchase from one of the Spanish giants.

Barcelona instead went for their own “astute” and “interesting” deal in Kevin Prince-Boateng.

Some of this is down the “absence of value in the market” in January, some of this down to the struggle to find available players of the type you need in January. But the very fact big clubs are so greatly influenced by these factors indicates something wider.

Loan signings have beent the feature of the window (Getty) (Arsenal FC via Getty Images)

There’s notoriously never been so much money in the game – particularly at the top end – but then there’s rarely been such an unwillingness to spend.

While two of the wealthiest in City and United were just reticent, all of Barcelona, Madrid, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, Chelsea and even Juventus were mostly looking to loans.

The lack of cash, and literal cash flow, is something that has been addressed a lot over the past few days by football finance expert Kieron O’Connor – best known for his excellent ‘Swiss Ramble’ twitter account.

He points out how this apparent contradiction really comes down to the calculations of accounting. It comes down to the very nature of player trading accounting, which can make football club profits feel misleading. It certainly explains how £4.6bn of Premier League revenue from 2016-17 only produced £119m operating profit, although there is the very visible chunk devoted to wages, at a total of £2.5bn.

Barcelona even restored to signing Kevin-Prince Boateng on loan (AFP/Getty) (AFP/Getty Images)

The size of the wage bill is one big reason why Barcelona have been so quiet, and it applies to a lesser extent at Madrid, but they are primarily focused on a huge summer overhaul.

One issue O’Connor highlights in the Premier League is that while all transfer sales are booked by the selling club at 100% in the year they take place – regardless of when the actual cash is paid – purchases are instead amortised. So it superficially looks like more is coming in than is going out.

That in turn illustrates how surprisingly dependent even the wealthiest clubs have become on player sales – particularly Arsenal and Chelsea – and O’Connor has argued that there maybe needs to be a bit of a rethink in terms of commercial plans. The huge TV deals have arguably created an element of complacency in this regard.

Whatever happens there, it means right now there isn’t the same available cash, which is one reason to explain why there isn’t as much cash flowing around the transfer market.

And it has for the moment meant that clubs are looking beyond the transfer market to explain their teams.