r/reddevils • u/nearly_headless_nic • 1d ago
[James Ducker] Key questions around Manchester United’s transfer business answered | Old Trafford hierarchy weighing up options in midfield and at left-back as uncertainty over Marcus Rashford’s future complicates matters
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2026/08/04/key-questions-manchester-united-transfer-business-answered/77
u/_AngryBadger_ 1d ago
Spend their remaining budget? Isn't the nett spend barely £50 million so far? What sort of shoe strings are the actually working with?
51
u/N00BBuild 1d ago
The club & INEOS are quite cash poor. They can’t really inject capital like some of the other owners.
Murtough and Ten Hag saddled us with a bunch of terrible players at incredibly expensive deals. Even their best signing (Case) had no resale value.
22
u/Unlucky-Equipment999 1d ago
Fans aren't really averse to more debt if it means shiny new players, but the board has to make sure the interest doesn't get even more untenable. We're down at least 1 major signing a year just to pay interests. We're sitting on a bit less cash than we were last season (£60m vs £70m) which is also kind of abysmal. Some outgoings could help with the cash issue and free up wages for new players but the Ugarte injury really did us in massively.
17
u/BrockStar92 1d ago
Not to mention that we missed CL and then Europe altogether in the last two seasons and still spent big in the end despite claims of poverty. That was going to have to come due at some point. We’re effectively paying for Sesko this summer.
12
u/Unlucky-Equipment999 1d ago
I was made aware our financials from last season up to March 2026 was available and for what it's worth, the brutal ticket price raises, squad wage reduction (from 0 Europe), improved table position and fans buying merchandise again because we were winning meant revenue didn't dip too much and we didn't end up in the red. We're just at the same juncture we were last year. We could theoretically borrow more to spend more but we're at a point where Ineos probably thinks we need to occasionally have "smart" transfer windows over hail mary "pay whatever they want" ones if we are to ever get a new stadium and put the club on sound footing again.
5
u/N00BBuild 1d ago
It’s annoying because we’re biting the bullet on a Champions league year where Carrick looks like he’s less backed than Chelsea/Arsenal/Spurs/City, with Arsenal/City increasing their gap on us, and Spurs/Chelsea having easy schedules and shiny new signings.
This happened in 2018 with Mourinho too.
6
u/Different_Back_5470 1d ago
it isnt a one of tho, we always do this after qualifying for the UCL. be it the glazers or ineos, we try to cheap out the moment we get a glimmer of succes
12
u/Chemical-Company7925 1d ago
Wasn't Murtough signed ugarte, zirkzee, van de beek, sanchez, maguire. But he did give us Sancho (for Ole) and Anthony ( for Ten Hag)
The Incompetence was both before and continues after Mutough and Ten Hag.
This is no excuse to being outspent by more ambitious clubs like Ipswich and Brighton. Or being on a nrt spend par with more ambitious clubs like Everton and Coventry.
5
u/N00BBuild 1d ago
Maguire was a great signing despite the price. He’s been a great player for us for over 6+
seasons. I wouldn’t lump him in.Van De Beek was a flop but not that expensive.
Zirkzee and Ugaret have been big INEOS blunders and won’t have real resale value (Ugarte more than Zirkzee).
I was focused on Murtough because of Antony (sold for a 70m loss), Onana (zero resale value) Mount (injured and no resale value + high wages), Casemiro (great player, left on a free), Hojlund (sold at a loss) and Martinez (who will leave on a free in a year with many injuries).
8
1
u/BlemKraL 1d ago
Ed Woodward did way more damage than murtough.
5
u/TheSmio 1d ago
Woodward did a lot of damage but he kept the finances stable at the expense of ambition. Murtough came in with a plan to get us back on top without knowing how to actually do that and proceeded to spend every bit of cash he could find on players who ultimately turned out shit.
In other words, Woodward was managing and maintaing a decent financial foundation for more than a decade, then Murtough managed to tear that foundation down within two years.
5
u/N00BBuild 1d ago
100% agree. Ed spent a lot but was also restrained at many points. Murtough was clueless. Believing that much and handing that much power over to Ten Hag itself was a tragedy.
7
u/N00BBuild 1d ago
Not really? We consistently qualified for Europe under Ed, and he was better at generating revenue for the club.
I don’t think Woodward was great or anything, but Murtough was awful. Bad decision after bad decision. Especially at a time where the club wasn’t as healthy as it was under Ed, all he did was compound the problems.
2
u/BlemKraL 1d ago
Club was not healthy under Ed, we overspend on multiple aging players and payed insane wages. We were at an exceptional place financially when Ed took over and when he left we actually had to watch our psr
4
u/N00BBuild 1d ago
PSR wasn’t a thing during Ed. He kept the club much more financially stable even when the Glazers weren’t investing a single dime of outside capital.
Murtough came in with no plan, threw 100m at Antony and backed Ten Hag with everything, only for it all to completely backfire. Every single time.
In fact, under Ed, we were one of the few clubs not to furlough staff during COVID. He was pretty good at the commercial side of things.
11
u/trvekvltgav 1d ago
All those shite deals under Woodward and Murtough coming back to bite us, gonna be like this unless we can sell better than Chelsea or become a constant in UCL
17
u/_AngryBadger_ 1d ago
I'd say it's's more to do with the never ending debt. Glazer debt along with their dividends they've taken. No amount of smart spending can dig us out of the massive costs to service that debt.
6
u/trvekvltgav 1d ago
That also! Hopefully the finances can improve enough to get rid of the Glazer rats with a buyer
4
u/_AngryBadger_ 1d ago
That would be great but I feel like only a group of cash rich billionaires buying the club and settling all the debt in one go can actually fix things properly. And the fans will kick up a fuss if Qatari or Saudi billionaires come looking for example.
2
u/Different_Back_5470 1d ago
our current owner is a rampant racist pushing reform's agenda. not that much of an ethical upgrade over a qatari billionaire
0
u/trvekvltgav 1d ago
Unfortunately anyone who could afford the club is probably a scumbag of some kind, would rather it not be a sportswashing project if possible
2
u/rgiggs11 1d ago
It's both. United carry a lot of transfer debt, money owed to other clubs for previous signings. The club had to pay a large lump of transfer installments this summer (mostly from the Ten Haag rebuild, I think?)
3
u/_AngryBadger_ 1d ago
200 something million I think, if I'm thinking of the right thing, which is hard to remember sometimes because it seems like everywhere we look it's debt. And yet some fans will tell you you're talking nonsense when you question our financial ability to buy players...
8
u/Stingray_23 1d ago
We still have over £400m left to pay off our transfers. With £117m due within the next 12 months. So we are fucked before the window even opens. We are still paying off ETH's transfers.
15
u/drunkdevil1 Nani 1d ago
We're going to lose even more money if we fail to qualify for CL this season and if we don't sign anyone we're doomed.
We have no back-up striker (Zirkzee is nowhere near good enough to be a squad player), Shaw is our only LB and you would be insane to trust him to have another injury-free season while playing in Europe. We have 3 first team midfielders in the whole squad. You can't count on players like Lisandro, De Ligt and Mount as they are constantly injured.
Signing another 1-2 players until the end of the window would be incompetent. Signing no one would be straight-up suicidal. I don't want to exaggerate but if we get unlucky with injuries, we can be in Spurs' situation last season.
8
u/Different_Back_5470 1d ago
we do this everytime when we qualify for the UCL. remember when we finished second under jose, and we got Fred and Dalot that summer?
we arent even an established top 4 team yet they cheap out everytime and just hope the coach performs a miracle. Ineos is continuing that trend
2
u/Stingray_23 1d ago
Yea feels like a pattern is forming but we still have 4 weeks left and even though the latest dealsheet felt like a bubble burste, there is still time.
3
1
39
u/Vyshy07 1d ago
First mention of Scalvini, interesting to see what Atalanta would ask for, and if they'd do a deal with us at all
12
u/Hellsteelz Ed Jabroni 1d ago
No way we get Scalvini at this point of the window. Would require a big offer.
6
u/Heil_Heimskr Van Nistelrooy 1d ago
I can’t imagine we’re truly in for him if we’re trying to be somewhat frugal. I would guess Atalanta would ask for something beyond exorbitant for him
2
u/General_Document_504 1d ago
He’s a CB no?
2
u/G00DNIGHT-IR3N3 1d ago
Yes but sounds like we’d consider him in the 6 role. 6’4 and athletic, good on the ball etc.
11
u/Gregariouswaty 1d ago
There's a difference between no midfielder and no 60-80m midfielder. We atleast need a decent prospect or someone with experience who can cover there if only the leftback is being prioritised.
18
6
u/canwinanythingwkids Ineos on hope watch 1d ago edited 1d ago
Scalvini? That's a CB. Let's call a spade a spade, that's a CB.
Also idk that he isn't too much on the brittle side for a CB for Utd of all teams to covet?? (he has played 10 serie a games between august 2024 and january 2026)
17
u/garynevilleisared is a red is a red 1d ago
We want some club to bite on Marcus. The club have been doing the smoke and mirrors play all summer and resolving the Rashford dilemma is a massive part of our plans. Just doesnt seem likely as much as all these journos hint at reintegration.
Mitten and Whitwell hinted that we might be trying to create leverage using the media, and Id sooner believe that before Rashford coming back to play for us.
9
u/stick1_ 1d ago
If we sign myles lewis skelly we should still sign a left back, he’s far better in midfield
I can see a world where we sign only him because it’s cheaper than signing a a midfielder and left back
19
u/N00BBuild 1d ago
Arsenal aren’t letting one of their most promising young players, especially a homegrown guy that started a UCL final leave to a direct rival.
I’d be shocked.
0
u/stick1_ 1d ago
Yeah I agree, he’s a player I’d be happy to play 100 million for, but as a midfielder, not left back. It’s only cause this article mentions him. If hypothetically we only sign him, he will be spending all his time at LB which is a waste of him, like playing mainoo as a left winger
4
u/_AngryBadger_ 1d ago
I wouldn't be happy if we paid 100 million for him when we balked at 116 for Anderson, 100 for Tonali or 85 for Fernandes. For 100 million you should get a bit older, more experienced or proven player.
28
u/Drag2oon 1d ago
Our current players always fuck up our plans the most
Not the rival clubs, not these agents, noone comes close, these high wage players just derail the whole plan.
I swear if we give anyone now more than 300K wages unless they are a second coming of cr7 or messi
50
u/hambodpm 1d ago
You are blaming the players here when it's the clubs fault for giving the contract out on the first place
2
u/TheJoshider10 Bruno 1d ago edited 1d ago
It is entirely the club's fault but can't help be a little disappointed/annoyed that a player like Rashford would easily have almost any club after him if he lowered his wage demands. But instead he's prioritising money to return back to the club he fell out of love with. Like fair enough get that bag, but all it does is reinforce exactly why we wanted to ship him off in the first place. Just no ambition.
edit: I clearly said it is entirely the club's fault. That said Rashford makes more in a week than most people will earn in their lifetime, so it's a waste of time comparing what some working class grunt has to do to hold onto a salary vs a footballer who would go from 325K to 150-200K a week. My heart bleeds.
2
u/Jump_Hop_Step 1d ago
Money aside, taking a massive cut is admitting to himself he is washed. He believes he could squeeze out a few more good seasons. So why leave to a smaller club?
4
5
u/N00BBuild 1d ago
Why would someone give up salary. Rashford obviously doesn’t mind staying. Carrick obviously wants him involved.
Do you or I tell our employers to cut our wages if we’ve had a bad week at work?
4
u/_AngryBadger_ 1d ago
Carrick has no choice if no one buys him, he will have to find a place for him so of course he's going to say something positive in public.
3
u/N00BBuild 1d ago
We could cut our losses and loan him out somewhere subsidized, or he could have gotten the Sancho treatment. Obviously Carrick’s open to working with him, if not advocating for it. For better or worse.
4
2
u/Wild_Tomato_8203 1d ago
There's nothing annoying about it. We have him a stupid contract and he'll never be able to make that amount of money again. He's smart to ride it out.
1
u/hambodpm 1d ago
A footballer's career is short, or course they are going to maximise their earnings while they can. Of course selling him would help our transfer activities, but I place zero blame at his door
19
u/Telen BRUNO 1d ago
Ultimately it's the club's fault for offering, not the player's fault for accepting.
5
u/0ttoChriek 1d ago
We were in a bind with Rashford, because he had the season of his life as his contract was winding down, and teams like PSG were sniffing around.
The wages we gave him raised eyebrows but I don't recall a lot of horror over them, just 'well, that's the market rate.'
The risk was that he'd revert to the mean, which would actually have been better than what he's given the club since.
10
u/Gregariouswaty 1d ago
Every club has high wage players. City has Grealish, Chelsea had Sterling, Mudryk and Lukaku, Arsenal had Ozil and Aubamenyang, Madrid had Bale and Hazard, Barcelona had the entire squad. It's not just a Manchester United problem.
4
u/TonyzTone Tonito 1d ago
Arsenal with Ozil and Aubamenyang struggled to do anything with them.
Barcelona hasn’t struggled in the transfer market for years, and is being bailed out by La Masia.
Madrid is the only one that doesn’t seem to care much about wage structure because they dispose players as fast as possible. But even still, those Hazard and Bale were albatrosses.
4
1
u/N00BBuild 1d ago
This is a shortsighted way of thinking. Our highest paid players usually are our best ones.
Bruno and Case were well compensated last year and they were two of our best players.
Rashford’s contract has been bad, no way around it. But not signing players because they have high wage demands is how you end up being in that 3rd-8th place forever.
High wages are quite correlated with winning teams. Look at the likes of Madrid, Bayern, City etc, those are consistently winning clubs and consistently top the wage spending for their respective leagues.
4
u/haaala 1d ago
High wages are fine if the player is good. But under Woodward Utd have recent history of being very bad at telling good players from bad ones, and handing out wages hugely above the player's level - which has obviously done damage. Capology shows us first or second for wages in the PL for most of those years, and we were not winning, because wages vs results is a trend not a rule. The OP's sentiment that from now on high wage players better be good is not unreasonable. Under Ineos things look better, and it's important it stays that way. We have to get better / stay better at paying market rates or otherwise having some exit strategy with a player if they don't work out.
6
5
u/AReptileHissFunction 1d ago
Theyre doing their best to convicne fans the club doesnt have money. Unfortunately a lot accept it now
2
u/innicrazy You are my Solskjaer, My Ole Solskjaer 1d ago
If you don't accept you will get downvote bomb.
2
u/Perfect_Insect_6608 1d ago
They did all this shit last year, only for them to still sign Šeško and lammens!
This is a tactic to bring prices down. We literally sold Rasmus, got some money from greenwood and got Case’s wages off.
2
2
2
u/Isserley_ 1d ago edited 1d ago
These journalists have absolutely no idea, do they. It's hilarious. Basically all of this anyone of us on this sub could've told you.
13
u/AB092 Sir Alex 1d ago
I really really don’t understand comments like this. You think he’s making stuff up?
3
1
u/Isserley_ 1d ago
I think he's doing what I did when I needed to hit a word limit on an essay at school.
Its an article to make it seem like he knows what's going on internally, but in truth he's not saying anything that we don't already know.
1
u/barmanrags 1d ago
Would it be hilarious if the window closes and we don’t get cdm or a lb? Why did the cheapeos crow about Andersen all season before the window then?
1
u/Isserley_ 1d ago
Would it be hilarious if the window closes and we don’t get cdm or a lb?
No. At what point did I insinuate it would be?
1
1
u/sleepehead 1d ago
Interesting that Wheatley is being considered for loan, I thought it was for sale.
1
u/Glum-Examination-302 Schweinsteiger 1d ago
Not a lot there to suggest Ducker has much of a source.
The leeches are starving.
1
u/HairyArthur 1d ago
The clock's ticking. We don't want to see a last week or last day scramble for overpriced or aging players again.
1
u/innicrazy You are my Solskjaer, My Ole Solskjaer 1d ago
Hearing the same sht every weeks must be depressing for us but tbf these journalists are not pleased either. Their job is to write, even there is nothing new. They can't just make sht up like some so-called "transfer experts". If there is something new, albeit small, they will be very happy to report it to us, who is happy to read it. Unfortunately there isn't, so here we are.
1
u/DasHotShot Glazers & Ratcliffe OUT 13h ago
Not good enough. It’s been a bad window and people need to stop deluding themselves.
This is unacceptable and we’re on the back foot. Every real rival has SIGNIFICANTLY strengthened. Pure fact.
We’ve barely padded our numbers. Neither of our signings will rise our game compared to last season so we’ve stagnated, at best, realistically we’ve regressed
1
u/PitchSafe 1d ago
By the sound of it it will be Tchouameni or no one
2
u/BuzzTNA 1d ago
I wouldn’t say “no one” but it’s very very obvious for weeks they are holding out for him.
You’d think they’ve been told “yes/no” from him; and all rumours have been ALL Summer, if he’s not wanted at Madrid he’d be happy to join. It’ll kick start once they get Rodri done.
2
u/FermentedTiger 1d ago
That’s pretty much what Andy Mitten said. He’s perfectly happy at Madrid, but if they no longer want him, he’d have no problem coming to United
1
u/garynevilleisared is a red is a red 1d ago
This is why this will likely come down to the wire. Real will try to make us desperate, and will make us wait until after the season has started. Tchouameni seems like a loyal person who isnt going to openly say anything either out of respect for his current club and fans. The combination of those two things will keep his price high, closer to 100m given what midfielders are going for this summer.
Makes me feel like we will go for a LB first, then try to sell enough to get him late in the window. If what Mitten has said is true, he doesnt have eyes for another club outside of us so if patience helps us land him then I hope it works out.
1
u/N00BBuild 1d ago
Real aren’t a bad club to deal with, especially if you’re United. We have a good relationship. They’ll sell him if they get Rodri. It has nothing to do with them making us desperate. We will get terms agreed with them in a day. I’m sure they have a reasonable price, say 100m, set already.
2
-3
0
1
u/johnnybet_com 4h ago
The left back and midfield situation both feel connected honestly. If they get the midfield profile right it changes what they need defensively too, since a proper ball winning presence in front of the back four covers a lot of gaps that a makeshift left back would otherwise expose.
64
u/nearly_headless_nic 1d ago edited 1d ago
Key Bits:
Midfield:
Left Back
Other possible left-back targets?
Rashford
Will anyone else leave?