Former Manchester United defender and Sky Sports pundit Gary Neville argued an extremely salient point worth noting in the midst of all the madness of transfer deadline day, stating that the clubs that do the majority of their business in the final few hours of the window are more often than not poorly run. But does this theory carry any weight?

Neville tweeted at the height of the final day's worth of trolley-dashing fun: "What the transfer deadline gives you is a clear indication of which are the badly run football clubs!!!"

It would appear to tie in rather neatly with the universally accepted opinion that if a club gets the majority of their transfer business done early enough in the summer, that they go into pre-season with the aim of integrating the new faces and start the full season with a more settled side. Nevertheless, there are obviously bargains to be had as the final hours of the clock tick down and before the window slams shut.

Of course, current reigning Premier league champions Manchester City made a big splash on the final day, bringing in the likes of Javi Garcia, Scott Sinclair, Maicon, Matija Nastasic and Richard Wright and it has to be said, there was a degree of desperation to the way that they went about their business.

The frustration felt by manager Roberto Mancini all summer was palpable and he had a very public falling out with the club's football administrator Brian Marwood over their inactivity throughout the window, as they missed out on both Eden Hazard and Robin van Persie to rivals Chelsea and Manchester United.

The school of thought that unless you are constantly looking at improving your squad, you are in danger of not only standing still but going backwards is a sound one, and it appears that even though the club were mindful of the Financial Fair Play rules and the effect a potentially budget-busting signing could have on their financial future, it appears as if their movement was simply to indulge and placate Mancini.

Nobody in their right mind would state that Liverpool did well on the final day either, but for completely different reasons to City's Arsenal-esque attempts to get bodies into the club. The lack of a CEO at the club appears to have cost them and managing director Ian Ayre has come in for some criticism for failing to secure a deal for either Clint Dempsey or Daniel Sturridge after allowing Andy Carroll to leave on loan to West Ham.

It's been widely reported that Liverpool offered just £3m for Dempsey, who was in the final year of his contract at Craven Cottage, with the club's owners FSG unconvinced that paying the £5m plus asking price was sound business considering the 29 year-old forward's age. Their offer was rejected and Tottenham swooped in during the final hour to clinch his signature, leaving Liverpool woefully short on numbers up front now until January. It was a lesson in how not to conduct your business on deadline day and just drives home the point how risky it all is if it doesn't end up falling your way.

Tottenham could never be accused of being a poorly run club, and chairman Daniel Levy is as tough a negotiator and astute businessman as there is currently operating in the top flight. He's often criticised for running his club like a business, but when you take away the sentiment that often blinds your everyday fan, what other way is there to run it?

The club's slow start to the campaign has once again been attributed to their lack of movement in the market this summer, as they haggled with Real Madrid over the transfer of Luka Modric. In the end, they managed to secure a package worth upwards of £30m, plus a potentially lucrative long-term commercial partnership that could be set to benefit the club in the years to come.

They signed Hugo Lloris and Clint Dempsey on the final day, only just missing out on Joao Moutinho by the narrowest of margins. Considering that prior to this summer, the club required a replacement for Luka Modric, a couple of strikers and a long-term replacement for Brad Friedel in goal, they haven't done too badly, but they operate solely on the principle that they spend what they've got and they weren't about to part with any cash until the Modric deal was tied up. In that sense, they can be seen as sensible, but they have still paid the cost of doing their business late, in the short-term at least.

It all depends on what sort of budget the club in question is operating with, to be honest - Stoke, for example, clinched deals for both Charlie Adam and Steven N'Zonzi for a combined total of around £7.5m - they clearly got both cheaper than they may have done earlier in the window due to the respective selling clubs willingness to shift them on. They already have a reasonably settled side, so the impact that the new players coming in can have will only enhance the team, whereas at a bigger side in transition, it may disrupt the harmony and balance of the starting eleven.

There is certainly a degree of validity to Neville's statement, as best highlighted by the fact that Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea all remained inactive on deadline day, despite all having noticeable gaps in their squads that needed plugging. A big club can be held to ransom on deadline day while a smaller one can profit and secure the odd bargain - it simply all depends which side of the coin that you approach it from.

Naming and shaming a club as poorly run is a rather simplistic way of looking at things; QPR for instance look to be without a coherent plan as they invested in practically a whole new spine to their side, while Tottenham were shackled by negotiating a large deal out of the club.

There are many reasons for conducting the majority of your business on deadline day, and it's a hugely risky strategy to say the least, but to call every club poorly run that does dip their toe into the murky waters of the market in the final few hours would seem to be a somewhat dramatic generalisation, not taking into account the various factors which clubs are run by.

You can follow me on Twitter @JamesMcManus1

[ad_pod id='dfp-mpu' align='right']