Transfer Window Analysis

The purpose of the transfer windows is a little hazy, with different corners arguing different purposes. The European Union obviously have their view on the matter, with freedom of movement, and intellectual property being buzz words often associated with ridiculous plans they have for football. Fifa and Uefa always like to get involved too, enforcing the window on the Football League when the FA originally only planned to implement it for the Premier League. Then there's the clubs, and their different takes on the window. Some clubs will look to utilise the buyers' market, knowing deals need to be completed by a certain date, and thus pouncing on clubs with troublesome players or in need of money. Smaller clubs may dislike the window, not being able to sell players on when they're short of funds, or perhaps being forced to sell in the buyers' market.

There was one expected trend however, that despite an early threat to the game, has diminshed unexpectedly, and perhaps can be put down to the shaky environment of the world's finances. This last transfer window saw some huge transfers, particularly Dimitar Berbatov to Manchester United and Robinho to Manchester City, weighing in at over £60m total. A lot of outsiders have looked at the Premier League as an embarrasment of riches, with clubs having more money than they know what to do with. However, there is evidence that this simply isn't the case.

The first example is Liverpool's need to sell, before they could fund further purchases. If the Premier League was such a luxury of riches, the top clubs would not suffer such a problem, in fact it is unheard of at the top of the Premier League for a club to attempt to sell a first-team player to bring in another top-flight player, but that was exactly what happened with Liverpool trying to sell Xabi Alonso to fund the bid for Gareth Barry.

Chelsea too have become a victim to finances, having to cut their losses on both Andrei Shevchenko and Shaun Wright-Philips (£42m loss), even going as far as suing Adrian Mutu for £11m after sacking him almost 4 years ago.

If the money was such an issue... why wasn't he sued at the time?



But the event in the news to inspire this financial analysis has been the news that Michael Essien has ruptured his cruciate ligament whilst on international duty. Now financially, G14 (Europe's group of elite clubs) have been pushing for insurance payments when players have been injured on international duty, so Chelsea will be well looked after... however they will be without one of their most important players for possibly 6 months, at a time when they can't purchase a replacement for 3 months. This is where Chelsea have become a victim to what I can only imagine is the credit crunch.

When the transfer window first arrived, there was an anticipation that the rich would consume everything infront of them as an insurance policy should anything go wrong during the season. In another words, with same-league loans enabled, it was expected that the 'Big 4' would amass massive squads, with 2 or 3 players for every position, and loan out the fringe players to 'feeder clubs' or other Premier League clubs. This way, should any of their first team players suffer a threatening injury, a player could be re-called from a loan spell to fill the gap in their squad. However, Chelsea, among others, have spent the last two summers minimalising their first team squad, and thus find themselves hit quite badly by Essien's injury. Arsenal too would, and have, struggled without Cesc Fabregas... Liverpool will suffer without Gerrard and Torres who are both injured... and Manchester United, whilst they have retained the services of Frazier Campbell upfront should they need him, are painfully thin at the back having lost Gerard Pique and Mikael Silvestre.

The 'Big 4' have not maintained the same strength in squads in recent years, and thus do not have that added insurance policy of strength in depth should a player be injured (or suspended) for a prolonged period of time. Should Chelsea suffer a major injury to John Obi Mikel, expect them to have a different transfer policy come January and next summer. Insurance money may help balance the books, but Lampard in the midfield anchor role will not help balance the team.