Or people might prefer we identified and lined up targets in good time to get business done earlier in the window with work behind the seasons to understand the viability of transfers happening before the summer. You know like a well run club
What would you prefer, getting a player that will improve you somewhat but will want replacing again in a year or 2 years time or going for someone who should be with the club for a decade and improve you massively.
You talk about us signing trash as though there are only a handful of players that could improve our squad
Improving your squad by a little amount while spending a lot of money each season is silly. There are loads of players that would improve us but many of them would cost a lot of money and only improve us a tiny bit. The overlap of players that would improve us a lot, not cost the earth, are available and willing to come to United is quite small despite what people like to suggest.
People seem to forget all the players that United "should have signed" that go elsewhere for big fees and do feck all when they get there. All the clubs people fawn over doing "great" business are gambling on players. Sometimes they come good, most of the time they don't but our fans forget about that and move onto the next window and make eyes at other "great buys" that are still just gambles.
Everyone will just be complaining that we didn't get Frenkie if we signed Sangare and hes crap. Everyone will be complaining if we pay £60m for Neves and hes barely an upgrade on what we have.