It started with Bosman, and since then there is an ongoing fight of power between clubs and the individual players. That´s the bigger pictures, and it´s not about United, or this club or that club. Agents are hired by players (not the other way around) to speak their interest, and release clauses represent some sort of security for a player, so that he can easily leave a club if he wants to - because of money perhaps, or because he does not get to play, he does not trive in the city, his family want to leave, he does not get along with the other players, the manager does not believe in him, he gets an offer from a bigger club, he´s missing his parents, he doesn´t like the weather, or for whatever reason. Just like everyone would like to have the freedom of quitting her/his job if she/he feels like. From a player´s perspective, this is very understandable.
The clubs however, see it very differently, and United are one of those clubs taking the stand they want to fight this player power. If you sign a contract for 3 years, well, then you expect the player to be available for those 3 years. And if you want to leave earlier, the club want the right to put a prize on your head based on your current value in the marked. If you invest in gold, you would like the freedom of cashing in on your investment based on the actual value - not based on any clause saying you have to sell if someone offer you a certain amount of money.
You suggest that the fight against player power is already lost, and you might be right, but as a supporter of a football club - not football players - I find it reasonable that a club want to guard their investment. Yes, everyone should have the freedom to seek work wherever they want, but if you are offered a job at McDonalds, McDonalds don´t need to pay Burgerking any money, do they.
See, I don't really care about the ethics behind all that, I only see the market for what it is. And the market is how it is because players are worth all the stuff you mentioned. They wouldn't be able to demand those things if clubs weren't better off accepting it in order to sign a promising player. That's the mechanism, that's how markets work. The things you can demand for your service are directly dependant on what you offer. Players just insist on their share of the profit, which is just rational behaviour.
Also, from a financial perspective, where's the problem? Dortmund will most likely still make profit from Haaland. And even if it was +/- 0, they would've got 2-3 years of a top striker for free. This argument only makes sense if there were opportunity costs, which in this scenario effectively means they (or you) could've signed another striker that would've generated greater profit while producing similar performances. IMO that's not the case, neither for you nor for Dortmund, which makes this argument appear very weak to me. Essentially, this is a loan move with recognizable financial reward in the end. Say the option were on the table that United could loan Mbappe for three years, pay his wages and then be rewarded with 50 million for it - what speaks against it?
You don't have to talk or inspire a lot if there's guaranteed silverware on the menu
Btw, I'm not so sure about Havertz joining us anymore. Neither are (or anybody else, for that matter) we going to shell out 130m for him, nor do we have a pressing need here.
Both Müller & Goretzka compete for the same spot as him, and both are doing pretty fine lately.
LW & RB are the spots where we *have* to find premium solutions. Don't that would leave us with sufficient funds for Havertz.
That were my thoughts from the very beginning. Coman's injury record is a shame but you definitely need to find someone more reliable for that position.
I'm a little bit disappointed that Kimmich will move to the center completely. Germany has an abundance of great midfielders but only sub par full backs. Kimmich was world class in both positions. Now we have no premium solution for RB but Kimmich, Gündogan, Kroos, Havertz, Brandt and Goretzka compete for a few midfield spots. Would also be easier for you to find a new CM than a new RB, I suppose.
Arsenal signed Dortmunds best player Aubameyang with no champions league so there answers your question. Money is the single greatest factor in anything business related. Lets not pretend it isnt. Whether our reputation has declined or not we will still have no trouble signing those you have listed as long as we can pay. Thats the difference between United and a Dortmund/leverkusen, our long history of success has merged more into the commercial side and kept us going till we can shift back to winning things. The only players who wont come here are limited to 5 and they are all Worldclass(they have the money so trophies is more important). Anyone else is fair game.
Also Haaland didnt come here because he was willing to wait a full year before he did or moved to another top club. Raoila is an expert planner and knows Dortmund is not his final destination. Dortmund are also aware of this and are okay because they know they are a top tier feeder club. A historical German club has been reduced to nothing but a stepping stone for other clubs that it was on par with a few years ago.
But you don't compete with Dortmund and us if you want to sign those players
from us. You compete with Barcelona, Madrid, PSG, Bayern, City, Liverpool and Juventus. Those are 7 clubs with significantly better perspective and comparable financial prowess.
Thing is, young talents will prefer Dortmund over you. Elite players will prefer the current elite clubs. You're left with those players who deem themselves too good for Dortmund and co. but aren't good enough to arouse the interest of the top players, like Aubameyang, Bruno Fernandes, etc.
I mean, we just need to take a look at the result. I wouldn't say that Dortmund squad, player by player, is weaker than yours. I think it's actually better with only Pogba and de Gea being clear starters at Dortmund while the top talents of Dortmund's team would walk into United starting eleven.
And yes, it's all about money. But a decision like Haaland's is better from a monetary perspective. Young players and their agents have understood that an additional 3-4 million more during the first 4-5 years of their careers is worth less when that'll cost you the very big contracts because your development has been disappointing.
That reasoning is so absurd I don't even know what you mean by that. There's literally zero connection to what I wrote.