As with most legislation, the January transfer window has divided opinion since it was introduced. It was seemingly done with the best of intentions. Before, with nothing to restrict when players were signed, the system was open to unfair exploitation.

A team with enough ready money could strengthen their squad with ten, five, two games of the season remaining. There was even the (admittedly unlikely) possibility of buying your nearest rival’s star player at a crucial stage of the season. Closing this loophole, however, has meant teams at the other end of the scale are also prevented from bolstering their playing staff at crucial points of the season, for example with loan signings.

Anyone who can remember Youri Djorkaeff helping Bolton to Premier League safety back in 2002 will remember that there was no question of having gained an unfair advantage. Rather it was seen as good management. Had the transfer window been in operation back then, it’s possible that they would have been returned to the first division, from whence they had only just arrived. A manager’s reputation and club’s future can hinge on such matters.

With this in mind, the injustice done to clubs with fewer financial resources is two-fold. Not only are their opportunities to buy or loan in players restricted, the window itself forces prices up, which can put otherwise affordable targets, outside of their budget.

Furthermore with unpopular legislation, opponents and detractors usually target their ire at the body that initiated it. In this case that is the meddlin’ busybodies in Brussels (irony intended). In the case of the transfer window, however, the legislation seems to be in contravention to EC law in that it restricts the free movement of workers that has become so commonplace in every other walk of European life.

With the transfer windows, the EC is of the opinion that there is a valid reason for restricting movement at certain times, namely that it is in the interests of team stability and regularity of sporting competition. A worthy cause indeed.

The idea of the transfer window bringing about a fairer competition doesn’t seem to be borne out by the evidence. Comparing the final premier league standings in the years prior to the introduction of a transfer window to those since, winning margins, bottom placed teams and even the ‘gulf’ between the top four teams and the rest of the league have barely changed.

If anything, there’s now a bigger disparity within the league. Does it really make any difference to competition if Manchester City spends £35m on a player in January as opposed to forking out in February or March?

With the sanctions imposed, artificial price rises and distorted valuations surface along with a whole host of other issues. It’s fair to say that there are few advocates for the transfer window from within the game. Managers bemoaning the window are as certain these days as ludicrous transfer rumours come the start of a new year.

Some criticism is the kind that you might expect from Sun columnist and England manager in-waiting, Harry Redknapp; “The January window drives you mad. You get phone calls from agents without a clue, offering you useless players”.

And some provides the reasoned opposition which you’d expect from a manager with a degree in economics, like Steve Coppell; “I cannot see the logic in a transfer window. It brings on a fire-sale mentality, causes unrest via the media and means clubs buy too many players. The old system, where if you had a problem you could look at loans or make a short-term purchase, was far better than this system we have at the moment” Both arguments in their way, represent some of what’s wrong with the window.

All personal viewpoints aside, it is unequivocal to say that when availability of anything is restricted, either through quantity or limited time, prices rise. This is a basic economic principle and football is no different. Players being the major commodity for a modern football club, their values rise during restricted periods of availability. Surely there can be no starker example of this than the unbelievable fee that Liverpool paid for the services of Andy Carroll.

Andy Carroll is a decent young footballer; he led the line well during Newcastle’s Premier League hiatus and was having a decent start to their first season back in the top flight, but £35 million??? Even the most ardent of the Toon Army would have to admit that he was never that good!

The restriction of the transfer window meant that as the deadline approached, Liverpool became more desperate and his relative value rose. Almost like a poker game, Liverpool showed their hand and Newcastle bluffed their way to a big win! It’s a seller’s market, simple as that.

You might argue that with the onus on bigger clubs to spend, smaller clubs can take advantage of the state of the market to demand higher fees for their stars than would otherwise be the case. This is all fine and dandy, but that being said, when clubs rely on the income they gain from nurturing youth talent or selling on players for more money than they paid for them, their finances can often be in a parlous state anyway.

With the looming threat of administration, it was not uncommon for such clubs to sell a prized asset to stave off the bank. Nowadays, this is not an option left open unless clubs are ‘lucky’ enough to hit the skids financially in either January or August. A double penalty, meaning that they’ll be hit hard with a points deduction to add to the money meltdown.

With the best will in the world, I think it’s safe to assume that most clubs would gladly sacrifice star players if it meant avoiding the dreaded administrators and most likely, relegation. As it stands, clubs can receive special dispensation to sign players outside the window, such as injury to goalkeepers, but not sell them, even in the circumstances outlined above. Scrapping the window entirely would be a much fairer and more reasonable option.

All this begs the question, who does the transfer window benefit? I’ve a feeling that old ‘arry might be on to something with his own, inimitable take on the whole thing. It strikes me that the agents must be getting a fair whack in signing on fees and percentages of any transfer deals that they engineer for their clients. But that is perhaps a different story for a different day.