So in the cliched world of football the transfer window has 'slammed shut'.
My team - Hibs - have made a few interesting signings which will hopefully be enough to keep us in the Scottish top flight, but as we've lost the last seven games and not scored a goal this year - it's going to be a tough fight.
But the transfer goings on south of the border - with the usual eye popping amounts being spent - particularly for the less than special Andy Carroll make no sense in a time of austerity.
The fact that a truly great footballer like Kenny Dalglish pays £35 million for a player with almost no pedigree is bizarre - even if his club is flush with cash from the deep pockets of oligarch-backed Chelsea.
I came across an interesting site today - measuring worth - that tries to make historical comparisons of value across time which helps to illustrate just how inflationary football fees and pay have been.
In 1960 the maximum wage for footballers in England was £20 per week - somewhere between £350 and £1,000 per week in today's money (depending on how you calculate it) - less than what John Terry earns in an hour.
But the most interesting thing about the site is its claim that the Archbishop of Canterbury earned £15,000 a year in 1896 - somewhere between £1.2 and £13.5 million today.
The question this raises is it better to have the Archbish earning superstar wages and footballers the average - or the other way round?