While I agree with the sentiment that we should look at signings such as De Ligt and Ugarte, or any signing for that matter, with a view to the long-term, the saving of 10 euros which seems to be sum actually saved by driving the hard line isn't that great of a sum when looked at in the long-term. I don't know the details of his contract but let's assume it's a 4 year deal...we saved 2.5mE over each year of his contract. That's not nothing, but it's not a lot either.
First, we all assume here that Ugarte is the right man for the job and will more than pay us back for the 50mE we spent on him. I agree with that assumption.
If a fully fit and in form Ugarte means the difference between defeating or being defeated by Liverpool, as well as Brighton, the 10mE the Glazers saved may not well have been good business. True, the outcome one game (actually two if we count Brighton, and possibly three as we barely scraped by Fulham but we did scrape by) isn't the end all, be all in judging the wisdom of holding out for a 10mE savings, but this isn't just another game and we're already in a bit of a hole after only 2 PL games. Speculation only, but I speculate we would not have dropped three points to Brighton had we had Ugarte. And sticking with speculation, I speculate that Ugarte makes the difference between the likelihood of United defeating, rather than losing to, Liverpool this weekend.
But if I'm wrong about that, that having Ugarte fit and in form for Brighton and Liverpool makes no difference as to whether or not we would have lost to Brighton anyway and probably get thrashed by Liverpool, then I'm wrong about that, but then we might want to question why we're spending 50mE on a player which does not materially improve our ability to control midfield, a universally acknowledged weakness in our play.
However, here we are and the Glazers did save 10mE by holding out to the last minute in buying a player the manager desperately wanted and which nearly every one of us here, myself included, believes will substantially improve our ability to control midfield and shield our back line.
10m Euros, which is the least we will save - and potentially as much as 20m - is a lot of money. However you shake it down. Whether you look at it in one sum or amortised over the course of the contract. It’s also best viewed as a foundational principle, because 10m saved on every signing in that sort of price bracket (we saved a similar amount on De Ligt), adds up very, very quickly. Moreover, it is part of the strategy to change the perception of the club as being a soft touch and overpaying in the market. You can’t do that unless you drive a hard bargain on EVERY deal. You can’t save 10m on De Ligt and then throw 70m at PSG for Ugarte and then wonder why people continue to take us for a ride in the market. I would say it’s one of the single most important things we’ve done in the market this summer.
And as I have to reiterate, sacrificing that principle just to have a player available for the first three games, is the sort of thinking that leaves us in this long term cycle of overspending in the market. At some point you have to bite the bullet, make the change, suffer the pain, and reposition the club. It only made sense for Ineos to do that from the moment they took over. I don’t see any valid argument, that isn’t an example of extreme short term thinking, that successfully advocates for overpaying on a transfer to ensure they are assimilated earlier.
For Ineos to course correct the club, it’s going to take years, not weeks. The work done this summer will be felt this year, but it’ll be felt more next year and the year after. Just like the profligacy of previous summers is being felt now. The success of the Ineos era will be judged over seasons, not over the matter of games against Fulham, Brighton and Liverpool.
It’s also the case that two things are happening simultaneously here. 1. Is the recalibration and improvement of the squad, where getting the right players in, at the best prices, is the principle priority. 2. The coaching of the team. Losing to Brighton, who fielded a midfield of Gilmour and 37 year old James Milner, isn’t the result of the failure to sign another 50m midfielder, it’s the result of a failure of coaching. United, with all their resources and players - and look at the teams on paper, man to man - should be beating Brighton and dominating the game. The failure to do so was because the team was out coached and out played. Unless the answer is that we now need James Milner to succeed. Every time we lose to a team who, on paper, have significantly lesser players than we do, people resort to saying how we need new signings; where the reality is that we have a series of players who would massively improve these smaller clubs we lose to, but we routinely fail to get the best out of them. Coaching.
While Ugarte will make us better, much better presumably, but the manager should also be getting significantly better performances and results out of the players he has. That comes down to simple things such as giving the players the right instructions, developing well honed patterns of play, and of winning the tactical battles through intelligent deployment of resources. Any of the players so often lambasted in our system of not being good enough, could rock up into that Brighton team and look a much better and more effective player; why? Because they are well coached, have a distinct and well drilled approach to play, and have specific objectives directly related to the quality of resources at their disposal. All the things that aren’t happening at United.
Ineos are building a squad that will help the manager implement his vision, but they are also building a squad that will help the next manager implement his vision. This is the first summer where we are actually operating with an overarching strategic intent. One where a style of play and suitable squad is being built that doesn’t need to be ripped up every time a new coach is appointed. A scenario that feels like a matter of when, not if.
If, after spending the hundreds of millions the manager has already spent, we can’t put together a cohesive, effective performance without yet another new signing; then the problems run much deeper than whether a new signing was ready in time or not. And because of that, the reform of the club had to be root and branch, not just superficial. It had to be robust enough that a new coach coming in had all the infrastructure - both physical and intellectual - to effectively deploy a system of play without needing to resort in any overhaul. That is the goal of what Ineos are doing. The idea of signing a single player to transform the fortunes of the club on the pitch, is the stereotypical example of superficiality in reform. The need to do so is probably the most damning indictment of a coach’s ability that I can think of.
Slot has come into Liverpool to a midfield of Gravenberch, Mac Allister and Szloboszlai, with Curtis Jones and Harvey Elliot as other options. That is hardly, on paper, a great midfield. He’s been able to make zero midfield signings. He’s also implemented a completed different style of play to his predecessor. And yet, they’ve looked slick. This is Ten Hag’s third season now, and he can’t get a trio of Casemiro, Mainoo and Fernandes to dominate Brighton. If you look at Casemiro’s heat map, he’s ALL over the field, this from a player who arrived at the club as one of the most revered and specialised DMs in world football. Now he’s “washed up”, “gassed”, “legs are gone”, “useless”, or is he just woefully misused? Mainoo looks knackered after 60 minutes, is he unfit, too young? Or is he being asked to cover far too much ground because of our bizarre 3-1-6 formation that doesn’t even yield goals?
I think we can all agree that in an ideal world we’d like all signings made early in the summer so they can get a full preseason with the squad, but given the realities of a summer with copa and euros, this was always a near impossibility. I will also contend that it was much more important to get the right players and not over pay (for the long term success of the club) than it ever was to get them in quickly at an elevated fee. We’ve spent years with short term, quick fix, band aid, and glamour thinking. And the club has fallen into complete disaster. A chaotic, profligate wasteland of shite. Having long term, joined up thinking, changing the perception of the club in the market, and implementing a strategic vision was always the most important objective of the summer. And is a blessed relief.
Again, I don’t expect this to pay off right away, but that’s not really the point. The point is where we will be in 3 years, not where we are after 3 games.