January transfer takeaways: Why Man City spent, the odyssey of Joao Felix, more

Another winter transfer window has come to a close, which means another chance for some takeaways...

1. Most teams don't want to spend

It's the age-old truism whereby you don't get a good deal in the January window, and there's more than a little truth to it. You tend to pay a premium for mid-season transfers because the club whose player you're taking has to find a replacement in double-quick time. (And their replacement's old club has to, well, replace him ... and on, and on...)

There are exceptions, but clubs who are doing well, or relatively well, tend not to splash cash in mid-season because coaches don't like disruption and because league position is an excellent excuse for a beancounter to say "no" when someone suggests a midseason player.

Add in the fact that most clubs are losing money and markets are "correcting" -- meaning there's plenty of uncertainty regarding what transfer fees will look like going forward -- and maybe it's not a surprise that the top nine clubs in Spain did not add a single starting caliber player in the January window. Neither did Napoli or Inter, first and second in Serie A. Or Bayern and Bayer Leverkusen, first and second in the Bundesliga. Or, indeed, Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea, first, second and fourth in the Premier League.

2. Manchester City are the notable exception ... but not the only one

The reigning Premier League champions shelled out a whopping 218 million ($227m) in net spend to secure five players -- that's more than the next four January big spenders Europe's Big Five leagues ... combined. What's curious is the identity of the next biggest spenders. Other than Leipzig (whose figure, 55m or $57m, is inflated by the 50m/$52m they used to make Xavi Simons' loan permanent now rather than in the summer) and Brighton (47m, $49m) but then this is the most contrarian club around), the others are all in the bottom half of their domestic tables.

Cesc Fabregas' Como (49.2m, $51m), Wolverhampton Wanderers (48m, $50m) and Rennes (45.8m, $47m) are all just above their respective relegation zones. Panic buying? Maybe. But it can't be a coincidence that of the top ten January spenders, just two (RB Leipzig and City) currently occupy Champions League spots.

3. There's a reason transfer fees are what they are ... and there's more to it than meets the eye

Take a look at Transfermarkt's list of the most expensive January transfers. Take out the Saudi Pro League-bound guys (because, well, Saudi: the party is still going on there... for now) and the Manchester City spending spree.

What's left? Khvicha Kvaratskhelia to Paris Saint-Germain, funded largely by the Xavi Simons deal. Or Luiz Henrique going from Botafogo to Zenit St. Petersburg -- between the potential ban for match-fixing and the Russian sanctions, this one's a bit of a head-scratcher. Only then, at No. 10 on the list, do you have the first relatively "normal" one -- in the sense that it's a big team trying to add a guy who can turn their season around -- as Milan acquired Santiago Gimnez from Feyenoord for 32m ($33m).

4. Few clubs are ashamed to take guys on loan ...

Loan deals used to be reserved for youngsters who needed playing time and little else. Big clubs used to turn up their nose at them, especially in England.

Not so much anymore.

Now they're everywhere, mainly because (almost) every club is on a budget and the big ones are littered with high earners that have years remaining on their contracts whom the manager doesn't like. And so they go out on loan, often with the parent club paying a chunk of the wages (see: Rashford, Marcus or Sterling, Raheem).

If the player going on loan is still productive for the parent club, they might receive a loan fee from the club taking it on, as is the case with lvaro Morata's move from Milan to Galatasaray -- he's the captain of the Spanish national team, after all -- who had to make way, both on the pitch and on the balance sheet, for Gimenez.

And then there are the clauses. The "loan with an obligation to buy" -- where, after the loan period ends, the deal becomes permanent at a pre-determined price -- is generally financial engineering, shifting the payment of the transfer by one year. (It also shifts the amortisation, so it doesn't always make sense.)

Its cousin is the "loan with an option to buy," where the loaning club has the option to acquire the player permanently again at a pre-determined price. The logic here is that during the loan spell you decide how much you like the player and how much the player likes you. And if sparks fly, you tie the knot. That's what Aston Villa is doing with Rashford.

5. ... but options to make a loan permanent don't actually mean that much

That's because the player, ultimately, has to agree to a permanent move. Take Rashford. Let's say he does well enough at Villa that the club want to keep him. Reportedly, they can make the deal permanent for �40m ($50m), but what if they want to negotiate that down and only offer �30m ($37.5m)? Are United going to turn that down and take back an unhappy Rashford and his wages? Probably not, especially if Ruben Amorim is still around.

Or how about Mathys Tel? Spurs signed him from Bayern -- with a hefty loan fee of 10m ($12.5m), a lot for a guy who has started nine professional league games in his career) and an option to make the deal permanent. But if Tel does poorly, Spurs won't want to keep him. And if Tel is phenomenal -- unless he decides he really, really loves North London and not playing Champions League football next year -- Bayern will probably like their chances of convincing him to return, especially with Harry Kane a year older.

It's only if he ends up in that "meh" intermediate level of production, and Tel decides he loves Tottenham, that Spurs' option will come into play ... and then Daniel Levy will negotiate the heck out of it.

Take all these January option deals with a huge pinch of salt.

6. Agents and relationships matter, or how Jo�o Flix confirmed his status as the most seductive player in the game

Nobody doubts Joao Felix's technical ability. Considering he's two-footed, you can probably count on one hand the number of players who are more gifted than he is. The problem? Ever since he became the fifth-most expensive player in history at the age of 19 when he moved to Atletico Madrid from Benfica for 126m ($131m), he's been either underachieving or injured.

And no, it wasn't just that mean old Diego Simeone at Atletico Madrid. He has never started more than 21 league games in his career -- oh, and the last time he did that was six years ago. It happened in his loan spells at Chelsea and Barcelona, too. And after Chelsea inexplicably stumped up around 50m ($52m) to take him back to Stamford Bridge in the summer -- part of an "accounting swap" for Conor Gallagher -- it happened again, as Joao Felix made just three league starts for Enzo Maresca. Now he and his big salary are off to Milan for six months in exchange for a �5m ($6.2m) loan fee.

You can see the Chelsea logic in this. If they transfer him anywhere on a permanent basis, they'll take a massive hit after just six months. Better to get a bit of cash back and his wages of the books, at least for a while. (Even though, with Mykhailo Mudryk facing a possible doping ban, they're now light in the winger department.)