Our signings under INEOS...

A lower wage bill is a handicap we have chosen to inflict upon ourselves and I don’t personally see it as cause for celebration. If you want to clap like a seal, knock yourself out. Don’t complain when we can’t compete for signings with clubs who aren’t overly focussed on their wage bill.

You don’t celebrate reducing the wage bill until you see benefits on the pitch. What will lead to better results on the pitch is better recruitment and better management. Not a lower wage bill. A lower wage bill will at some point hinder that.

I doubt Liverpool fans give their wage bill a second thought one way or the other.

Thank you for your amateur analysis on my personal spending habits. A better analogy might be worrying about reducing my Tesco bill when I’m spending fortunes on interest on self inflicted debts.

We aren’t losing money because of our wage bill.
You’re missing the point.

I have seen the reduced wages described as more about making the club more agile and flexible in the market.

The ability to lose quickly, in business terms.

You will never get it right all the time in the market, no club does, but if you can get rid of the mistakes quickly or afford to replace them without having to offload, you can fix those mistakes more quickly.

That is what reducing the wages is about and it offers far more hope for long term success then simply praying that the next big money signing works out and then being stuck with them for 5-10 years when they don’t, all while being so financially handicapped by their salary that you cannot afford to replace them.

That is what our transfer strategy has boiled down to for over a decade and it’s why we are where we are.
 
A lower wage bill is a handicap we have chosen to inflict upon ourselves and I don’t personally see it as cause for celebration. If you want to clap like a seal, knock yourself out. Don’t complain when we can’t compete for signings with clubs who aren’t overly focussed on their wage bill.

You don’t celebrate reducing the wage bill until you see benefits on the pitch. What will lead to better results on the pitch is better recruitment and better management. Not a lower wage bill. A lower wage bill will at some point hinder that.

I doubt Liverpool fans give their wage bill a second thought one way or the other.

Thank you for your amateur analysis on my personal spending habits. A better analogy might be worrying about reducing my Tesco bill when I’m spending fortunes on interest on self inflicted debts.

We aren’t losing money because of our wage bill.

That's why alot of clubs implement a wage structure now? We have not chosen to inflict a handicap, we are basically saying, earn your wage. Actually, not many fans are complaining about players we cant sign because of the wage.. most fans would rather not sign the player than pay 250k +, which is the strategy we have implemented in the past with no success.

Liverpool fans dont care because they have success, no fan cares about anything at their club if they are successful. A classic example is a few years back, after their title win, Liverpool missed out on Tchouameni, Jude etc.. and there were plenty of FSG out fans, last season too. Fast forward this season, because they won the PL, there is nothing of the sort.

Our wage bill has contributed to us losing alot of money, it cripples us in the transfer market, buying and selling.
 
You’re missing the point.

I have seen the reduced wages described as more about making the club more agile and flexible in the market.

The ability to lose quickly, in business terms.

You will never get it right all the time in the market, no club does, but if you can get rid of the mistakes quickly or afford to replace them without having to offload, you can fix those mistakes more quickly.

That is what reducing the wages is about and it offers far more hope for long term success then simply praying that the next big money signing works out and then being stuck with them for 5-10 years when they don’t, all while being so financially handicapped by their salary that you cannot afford to replace them.

That is what our transfer strategy has boiled down to for over a decade and it’s why we are where we are.
Do you know what would make us more ‘agile’ in the market? Better recruitment and success on the pitch.

Reducing the real problem with our finances would be even better though.
 
Last edited:
I've read both articles at the time. I haven't read the link I've sent you because I'm not currently subscribed to The Athletic. Last year I took up the free trial and hence had access for a while. And it's been well documented about INEOS signing Zirkzee due to the player showing up well regards data analytics.
You understand my hesitancy to believe any of this though right? Your proof is it's an article you read a while back but neither of us can find anywhere, it's also Ogden so not exactly a great source and then the article you sent me which is completely irrelevant to what your saying (hence why I asked if you send the right one).
 
That's why alot of clubs implement a wage structure now? We have not chosen to inflict a handicap, we are basically saying, earn your wage. Actually, not many fans are complaining about players we cant sign because of the wage.. most fans would rather not sign the player than pay 250k +, which is the strategy we have implemented in the past with no success.

Liverpool fans dont care because they have success, no fan cares about anything at their club if they are successful. A classic example is a few years back, after their title win, Liverpool missed out on Tchouameni, Jude etc.. and there were plenty of FSG out fans, last season too. Fast forward this season, because they won the PL, there is nothing of the sort.

Our wage bill has contributed to us losing alot of money, it cripples us in the transfer market, buying and selling.
Our wage bill is not the issue. We have one of the lowest wages to turnover ratio in the league. The issues are elsewhere. What are owners want us to do is ignore that and blame players. Apparently it’s working.
 
Our wage bill is not the issue. We have one of the lowest wages to turnover ratio in the league. The issues are elsewhere. What are owners want us to do is ignore that and blame players. Apparently it’s working.

Our wage bill was an issue.. I dont know how one can deny that. Having a high turnover doesn't mean its good to have a high wage bill.

Well... you can blame the owners and everything all you want... that is a different topic in itself.. No one is happy with how the owners have piled the debt in the club.

Unfortunately, it seems you think the problem can only be the players or the owners not both.

IMO, the owners are terrible, but the players have been to and none of them deserve the wage they are on.
 
Our wage bill was an issue.. I dont know how one can deny that. Having a high turnover doesn't mean its good to have a high wage bill.

Well... you can blame the owners and everything all you want... that is a different topic in itself.. No one is happy with how the owners have piled the debt in the club.

Unfortunately, it seems you think the problem can only be the players or the owners not both.

IMO, the owners are terrible, but the players have been to and none of them deserve the wage they are on.
Not in and of itself. It isn’t an issue for clubs like Real Madrid and Bayern Munich so why should it be for us? The problem is recruitment. Not the overall wage burden.

We should be happy with better value for money on the money we pay. We shouldn’t be that happy about reducing the wage bill because that is only done for the benefit of the owners.

Unfortunately you seem to buy everything INEOS wants to sell you. Including how sacking the kitchen staff would make us better at football.
 
Last edited:
Not in and of itself. It isn’t an issue for clubs like Real Madrid and Bayern Munich so why should it be for us? The problem is recruitment. Not the overall wage burden.

We should be with better value for money on the money we pay. We shouldn’t be that happy about reducing the wage bill because that is only done for the benefit of the owners.

Unfortunately you seem to buy everything INEOS wants to sell you. Including how sacking the kitchen staff would make us better at football.

Maybe because they win things.... I dont know how it is in your field but I am sure in football and other fields... most staff wages are performance based.

It seems, you seem to think if you work for a big name company, you are entitled to highest pay...

If Madrid, Bayern did not win leagues and CL for 10 years, their wage structure would be a massive problem too.

It seems like you are too hell bent on having a go at INEOS rather than getting players to assume responsibility.
 
Maybe because they win things.... I dont know how it is in your field but I am sure in football and other fields... most staff wages are performance based.

It seems, you seem to think if you work for a big name company, you are entitled to highest pay...

If Madrid, Bayern did not win leagues and CL for 10 years, their wage structure would be a massive problem too.

It seems like you are too hell bent on having a go at INEOS rather than getting players to assume responsibility.
It’s funny how the teams that spend the most on wages typically win the most. Which brings us back to the original point. Reducing the wage bill isn’t in and of itself a good thing. Reducing what some players earn in order to pay the wages of better players will make us better. Just paying less wages won’t.

No, I think we should celebrate improvement, not reduction in the wage bill.

I just judge them on their actions and how that translates on the pitch. You are hell bent on defending every action they take regardless of the evidence in front of our eyes.
 
It’s funny how the teams that spend the most on wages typically win the most. Which brings us back to the original point. Reducing the wage bill isn’t in and of itself a good thing. Reducing what some players earn in order to pay the wages of better players will make us better. Just paying less wages won’t.

No, I think we should celebrate improvement, not reduction in the wage bill.

I just judge them on their actions and how that translates on the pitch. You are hell bent on defending every action they take regardless of the evidence in front of our eyes.

No.. that is not how it works. If you think High wage = win.... go back and have a look at which PL club had the highest wage bills from 2014 - 2022 and then tell me if that club won any PL or CL.

No I am not defending every action but reducing the wage bill is something that needed to be done... we dont need players like Casemiro, Rashford, Sancho collecting wages and not producing on the football pitch.
 
No.. that is not how it works. If you think High wage = win.... go back and have a look at which PL club had the highest wage bills from 2014 - 2022 and then tell me if that club won any PL or CL.

No I am not defending every action but reducing the wage bill is something that needed to be done... we dont need players like Casemiro, Rashford, Sancho collecting wages and not producing on the football pitch.
I’m not doing this with you again. I have zero interest in arguing things I haven’t said.

Man City have had the highest wage bill. Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid and PSG have some of the biggest wage bills. Who wins the most? Liverpool have been something an outlier based on a great manager and good recruitment. Again, coming back to my original point.

Reducing the wage bill is not something we needed to do. We need to invest our money better.

This will be my last reply to you on the subject.
 
You understand my hesitancy to believe any of this though right? Your proof is it's an article you read a while back but neither of us can find anywhere, it's also Ogden so not exactly a great source and then the article you sent me which is completely irrelevant to what your saying (hence why I asked if you send the right one).
That's fine you don't have to believe me. A few months ago on this very forum I was questioned on me saying Ugarte was a signing pushed by Wilcox. Unfortunately at that time I couldn't find The Athletic article where it was mentioned. But a few weeks ago, Laurie Whitwell confirmed it on a podcast.

The below isn't specifically directed at you but for the general forum as whole as well.

So going back to the original point. Of course it's absolutely believable that ten Hag would want to work with players like de Ligt and Mazraoui who were key players in his system and were players who he knew well. Zirkzee wasn't a player ten Hag had worked with before and he was a player that had left Holland as a 16 year old.

INEOS have signed the players below via their own appointments on the football side of the club for the first team. I think it's a pretty mixed bag as things stand. The further we go into the season, the more things will reveal themselves in a good or a bad way. Even under Soskjaer, many had convinced themselves that he was on the right track by signing the likes of Maguire and Wan Bissaka amd wanted him to be our DoF.

Zirkzee
Ugarte
Yoro
Heaven
Dorgu
Mbeumo
Cunha
Sesko
Lammens
 
I’m not doing this with you again. I have zero interest in arguing things I haven’t said.

Man City have had the highest wage bill. Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid and PSG have some of the biggest wage bills. Who wins the most? Liverpool have been something an outlier based on a great manager and good recruitment. Again, coming back to my original point.

Reducing the wage bill is not something we needed to do. We need to invest our money better.

This will be my last reply to you on the subject.
You're right with what you're saying but I think what people are saying in response is that it's important to bring the wage bill down first by getting rid of the players we know aren't good enough for the club.

I agree with you, to be successful, the wage bill will grow but that wage bill has to grow along with the performance on the pitch. And I think the crux of the matter is that the performance on the pitch hasn't come close to matching the wages we've handed out.
 
You're right with what you're saying but I think what people are saying in response is that it's important to bring the wage bill down first by getting rid of the players we know aren't good enough for the club.

I agree with you, to be successful, the wage bill will grow but that wage bill has to grow along with the performance on the pitch. And I think the crux of the matter is that the performance on the pitch hasn't come close to matching the wages we've handed out.
My concern is that INEOS’ first priority is reduction in the wage bill, not so it can be reinvested in full but to make savings in order to grow their asset. Which has been their MO in everything they have done and is not cause for celebration.

I certainly won’t argue that we have had value for money. We clearly haven’t. The size of wage bill itself isn’t the problem. How it has been used is. Just reducing the wage bill doesn’t solve the problem.
 
Last edited:
Three center forwards in the last three summers and we don't look close to scoring goals most games.
 
My concern is that INEOS’ first priority is reduction in the wage bill, not so it can be reinvested in full but to make savings but to grow their asset. Which has been their MO in everything they have done and is not cause for celebration.

I certainly won’t argue that we have had value for money. We clearly haven’t. The size of wage bill itself isn’t the problem. How it has been used is. Just reducing the wage bill doesn’t solve the problem.
I completely share your concerns. The way teams are spending now it's extremely important to get back into the champions league quickly or we're going to suffer. The likes of Chelsea and City previously and now Arsenal and Liverpool are aslo spending vast amounts of money that if we don't get back into the champions league quickly and get our act together as far as recruitment is concerned, we are going to be in real trouble. We won't be able to compete with those teams as far as club appeal, financially and also the football project.

I think this season Amorim needs to try and replicate something similar to what Solskjaer did in his first two seasons where playing in transition will get us results potentially. Solskjaer potentially had a better attack with Rashford, Martial, Greenwood, Bruno and Pogba being big goal threats or in Pogba's case someone who had ability on the ball to make a difference from midfield.
 
That's fine you don't have to believe me. A few months ago on this very forum I was questioned on me saying Ugarte was a signing pushed by Wilcox. Unfortunately at that time I couldn't find The Athletic article where it was mentioned. But a few weeks ago, Laurie Whitwell confirmed it on a podcast.

The below isn't specifically directed at you but for the general forum as whole as well.

So going back to the original point. Of course it's absolutely believable that ten Hag would want to work with players like de Ligt and Mazraoui who were key players in his system and were players who he knew well. Zirkzee wasn't a player ten Hag had worked with before and he was a player that had left Holland as a 16 year old.

INEOS have signed the players below via their own appointments on the football side of the club for the first team. I think it's a pretty mixed bag as things stand. The further we go into the season, the more things will reveal themselves in a good or a bad way. Even under Soskjaer, many had convinced themselves that he was on the right track by signing the likes of Maguire and Wan Bissaka amd wanted him to be our DoF.

Zirkzee
Ugarte
Yoro
Heaven
Dorgu
Mbeumo
Cunha
Sesko
Lammens
You get this just seems so odd right? It seems more like you want to say Ineos hired Zirkzee, which I can only assume (given we have evidence to the contrary) is because you want their recruitment to look worse i.e. Maz & De Ligt are better to leave out for your argument as they are both good players.

(Also don't forget Leon & Chido)
 
I think people are in for a rude awakening. Low wages are an INEOS mantra. It’s an excuse. Wages are not the reason we are failing and reducing them is not inherently a route to success. Improving recruitment and management, thus being more successful on the pitch, is.

Like it or not, high wages are generally a price of success.

You do realise that our current "lowering the wage bill" moves are part of the "improving recruitment" side of things?

Again, we have zero issue with someone like Bruno being on a high wage because he's earned it.
 
My concern is that INEOS’ first priority is reduction in the wage bill, not so it can be reinvested in full but to make savings in order to grow their asset. Which has been their MO in everything they have done and is not cause for celebration.

I certainly won’t argue that we have had value for money. We clearly haven’t. The size of wage bill itself isn’t the problem. How it has been used is. Just reducing the wage bill doesn’t solve the problem.
Reading your replies I understand your point better tbh, especially what you say in the second paragraph, but if I will give INEOS the benefit of the doubt, I think they see the first team as a team in transition, with no chance of even securing top 4 let alone win major titles, so none of the current players are worth these high wages, that's why I can see sense in reducing the wage bill (by getting rid of shit players on high wages such as Rashford and Sancho, not renewing for the deadwood like Erikssnd and Lindelof and signing new players on competitive wages representative of their level) all of this not only to save, but to also make sure there is "value for money" and once we get to the level where we are top 4 and competing then we can start offering top dollar to the best.
 
First team wage bill has been going down since INEOS came in. It's only going to go lower yet with higher earners like Casemiro, Shaw and Maguire surely being replaced over the next year. Onana and Rashford would also be good to lose wages wise soon.

We're doing much better with new signings not being overpaid.
 
Last edited:
My concern is that INEOS’ first priority is reduction in the wage bill, not so it can be reinvested in full but to make savings in order to grow their asset. Which has been their MO in everything they have done and is not cause for celebration.

I certainly won’t argue that we have had value for money. We clearly haven’t. The size of wage bill itself isn’t the problem. How it has been used is. Just reducing the wage bill doesn’t solve the problem.
So far they have done the exact opposite of what you say. There is zero evidence in your statement. They updated Carrington, plan a new stadium, have invested big time in new players.
That wage bill was just overblown and not healthy at all. Not sustainable
 
You do realise that our current "lowering the wage bill" moves are part of the "improving recruitment" side of things?

Again, we have zero issue with someone like Bruno being on a high wage because he's earned it.
Is it though? Why does the wage bill need to be lower to improve recruitment?
 
Reading your replies I understand your point better tbh, especially what you say in the second paragraph, but if I will give INEOS the benefit of the doubt, I think they see the first team as a team in transition, with no chance of even securing top 4 let alone win major titles, so none of the current players are worth these high wages, that's why I can see sense in reducing the wage bill (by getting rid of shit players on high wages such as Rashford and Sancho, not renewing for the deadwood like Erikssnd and Lindelof and signing new players on competitive wages representative of their level) all of this not only to save, but to also make sure there is "value for money" and once we get to the level where we are top 4 and competing then we can start offering top dollar to the best.
Which is why I think people will be in for a surprise when we can’t make the next step because we don’t want our wage bill to increase. A high wage bill is the price of success.
 
So far they have done the exact opposite of what you say. There is zero evidence in your statement. They updated Carrington, plan a new stadium, have invested big time in new players.
That wage bill was just overblown and not healthy at all. Not sustainable
The only evidence we have is cost cutting. They bought stock. That money went on Carrington instead of the going to the previous owner of that stock. We have spent in net terms around what we were spending before they arrived.

Real Madrid, Bayern Munich etc have larger wage bills and are perfectly sustainable.
 
You get this just seems so odd right? It seems more like you want to say Ineos hired Zirkzee, which I can only assume (given we have evidence to the contrary) is because you want their recruitment to look worse i.e. Maz & De Ligt are better to leave out for your argument as they are both good players.

(Also don't forget Leon & Chido)
The Athletic: "Though it was initially Ten Hag who wanted the signing — having floated the idea in January — De Ligt’s surprise availability and the relatively modest fee meant United’s recruitment team came to agree with their head coach. De Ligt fitted their model for players at the younger end of the spectrum, and his character also appealed. The club had reports on him, going back several years, already in their system."

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5705404/2024/08/22/matthijs-de-ligt-manchester-united-inside-deal/

Simon Stone (BBC) reported that the club's target was Branthwaite. But it was the cost of the deal that put United off and they weren't willing to pay the £70m price tag. Hence they went with ten Hag's choice as reported by The Athletic.

Chido and Leon were non first team signings and they may or may not make it for us. Kone is another potentially good signing who I like, but again we just don't know if they will make it at first team level. Like Garnacho previously and a few others at youth team level, if we can get a good fee for them in transfers, if would aslo be a good result, if they end up not making it at first team level.
 
The only evidence we have is cost cutting. They bought stock. That money went on Carrington instead of the going to the previous owner of that stock. We have spent in net terms around what we were spending before they arrived.

Real Madrid, Bayern Munich etc have larger wage bills and are perfectly sustainable.
What? What do you mean when they bought the stock it didn't go to the previous owners?
 
Is it though? Why does the wage bill need to be lower to improve recruitment?

You seem to have just made your mind up here so this will be my last post on it to you.

The mistake you've made is linking "turnover" and "wages" instead of looking at "wages" compared to "performance".

Using capology as the source, we have the second highest wage bill in the league, with only City spending more than us. We had the highest wage bill between 2019/20 and 2023/24. In the last four seasons, we've finished 6th, 3rd, 8th and 15th. We're clearly spending far more on wages than the ability and performances of our players warrants.

To repeat myself from earlier, we've given contracts to players far in excess of what they'd be paid elsewhere. We get rid of those players and the wage bill comes down. This helps recruitment because a lower wage bill, with our turnover, will allow us to spend more money on transfer fees for/pay higher wages to better, more deserving players. We get back to the top end of the table on a regular basis and find ourselves regularly competing in the Champions League, and our wage bill will increase to match as we reward our high-performing existing players and attract top players that command higher, initial wages.
 
What? What do you mean when they bought the stock it didn't go to the previous owners?
The portion that went on Carrington. Obviously the Glazers pocketed most of it. This wasn’t additional investment by INEOS though.
 
You seem to have just made your mind up here so this will be my last post on it to you.

The mistake you've made is linking "turnover" and "wages" instead of looking at "wages" compared to "performance".

Using capology as the source, we have the second highest wage bill in the league, with only City spending more than us. We had the highest wage bill between 2019/20 and 2023/24. In the last four seasons, we've finished 6th, 3rd, 8th and 15th. We're clearly spending far more on wages than the ability and performances of our players warrants.

To repeat myself from earlier, we've given contracts to players far in excess of what they'd be paid elsewhere. We get rid of those players and the wage bill comes down. This helps recruitment because a lower wage bill, with our turnover, will allow us to spend more money on transfer fees for/pay higher wages to better, more deserving players. We get back to the top end of the table on a regular basis and find ourselves regularly competing in the Champions League, and our wage bill will increase to match as we reward our high-performing existing players and attract top players that command higher, initial wages.
It’s not the mistake I’ve made. It’s the mistake in your interpretation.

I haven’t said we’ve got value for money from what we’ve spent. I’ve said the opposite. I’ve also said, continually, our issue has been poor recruitment and poor management.

Reducing our wage bill by 25%, or any other figure, doesn’t make us better on the pitch. Spending our budget better will. We didn’t need to reduce it to spend it better.

My mind is no more set in stone than yours is so spare me the holier than thou attitude.
 
My take might be a little different to what I’ve read so far.

Summer 2024-25:

(1) Lenny Yoro - CB - Elite potential, already very good.
(2) Manual Ugarte - CDM - More potential than people give him credit for. Needs a long run of games. Pace of the PL might be too much for him. The biggest disappointment so far. Not ready to write him off yet.
(3) Matthias de Ligt - CB - Been solid since he arrived, getting better all the time. Very good signing.
(4) Joshua Zirkzee - Striker/SS - A fluid, graceful player who just can't seem to click. Think he will be a forever "nearly" man. Still have hopes for him. Squad player at best.
(5) Noussair Mazraaoui - RB - Very good squad player at worst. Would be our starting RB if we switched to a back 4. Versatile. Modern day Phil Neville.
(6) Ayden Heaven - CB - Top drawer potential. Absolute steal of a signing. Like him a lot. Expecting big things.

January 2024-25: (With Amorim at the helm)

(7) Patrick Dorgu - LB/LWB - Still fairly raw. Didn't cost much. Think he has lots of potential and is already my favoured player at LWB. Versatile. At worst a very useful squad player.

Summer 2025-26:
(8) Benjamin Sesko - Striker - Elite potential. Jury is obviously out. High hopes.
(9) Bryan Mbeumo - AM/Winger - Best player available in his position/profile. Superb.
(10) Matheus Cunha - AM/#10 - Same as above. Has that X factor. Love this guy.
(11) Senne Lammens - GK - He's a goalie. That's all you needed to say. Jury obviously out.

I think one needs to give three grades to each signing. One for the strategic thinking behind the signing (e.g. Age, profile, squad need, resale value, style of play suitability), one for the long term potential of the signing, and one for the short term performance of the signing. Because each signing can look very different in 2 years versus how they look now. In some cases it's also easy to see why the player was signed, and not entirely clear why their performance hasn't matched. With that in mind I have done the following:

PLAYER​
FEE​
VALUE​
STRATEGIC​
POTENTIAL​
PERFORMANCE​
Leny Yoro
52M + 7M​
A-​
A​
A+​
B+​
Manuel Ugarte
42M + 8M​
C+​
B​
B-​
D+​
Matthias De Ligt
38M + 5M​
B+​
A​
A​
B+​
Joshua Zirzkee
36M​
B-​
C​
B-​
C-​
Noussair Mazroui
13M + 3M​
A​
B​
B​
B​
Ayden Heaven
1.5M​
A+​
A​
A-​
B-​
Patrick Dorgu
25M + 4M​
B+​
B+​
B+​
C+​
Benjamin Sesko
66M + 7M​
B-​
A​
A+​
N/A​
Bryan Mbeumo
65M + 6M​
B-​
A​
A​
N/A​
Matheus Cunha
62.5M​
B​
A​
A+​
N/A​
Senne Lammens
18M + 3M​
A-​
A​
N/A​
N/A​

I'll pick a couple out to explain my thinking. First obvious candidate is Manuel Ugarte, because he will be the one that will generate the most consternation....

Manuel Ugarte
Value: C+ : This is a score based upon the perceived value at the time of signing, not in hindsight. The real world doesn't operate with the benefit of hindsight, and the assessment of value shouldn't either. Compared to other players that moved that summer he was seen as okay value, if a little on the expensive side for a player that was surplus to requirements at PSG.
Strategic Score: B : It is, and was, easy to see why the club signed Ugarte. He was a player with a profile of attributes that the club sorely missed in midfield. Energy, physicality, speed, mobility. He was also young (23) so represented a great deal of potential improvement. He was a player with a superb reputation (and scouting reports) in Portugal (where he had dominated Arsenal in the CL), and had an excellent first 6 months in Paris before falling off somewhat. He was generally seen as a welcome and excellent signing by the fanbase. This score also takes into account his potential resale value (good) versus his purchase price (not so good), offset against his contract (okay).
Potential Score: B- : This score is my assessment of the highest grade the player can likely reach in the future, assuming they develop to their full potential. A B- grade would be a good PL midfielder, and a top level squad player. It would also be a grade that would mean that at his best he could form part of a top quality unit (assuming he played in an excellent system with other good players that equaled more than the sum of their parts). For context, Liverpool won a title with at least one B- level midfielder.
Performance Score: D+ : This is a grading of his actual performance to date. I would consider a C grade to be "satisfactory", so a D+ grade means he has performed below satisfactory levels to place him somewhere between "disappointing" and "quite poor"


What strikes me about looking at the signings in this format is that we have clearly developed some strategic intent, prioritised players who can improve over the long term, and paid pretty reasonable - and occasionally excellent - fees for players. What we will all be hoping for over the next 12-36 months is the delta to close between Potential and Performance.
Great post, and pretty much agree. It is subjective, and very small nuances.

In value, I would have probably scored De Ligt's value as A-, and Zirkzee as C+.

In potential, Sesko, at best A, but probably more A-/B+, Cuenha and Mbuemo probably A- too (I think A+ should be reserved for one of the best players in the world at that position, an absolute world-class player).

Strategic, I agree, maybe Zirkzee C+/B- considering we had only Hojlund in attack.

Performance is spot one, maybe Mazroui B-.

But as I said nuances.
 
Great post, and pretty much agree. It is subjective, and very small nuances.

In value, I would have probably scored De Ligt's value as A-, and Zirkzee as C+.

In potential, Sesko, at best A, but probably more A-/B+, Cuenha and Mbuemo probably A- too (I think A+ should be reserved for one of the best players in the world at that position, an absolute world-class player).

Strategic, I agree, maybe Zirkzee C+/B- considering we had only Hojlund in attack.

Performance is spot one, maybe Mazroui B-.

But as I said nuances.
I don’t disagree with your nuanced differences. The only reason I have De Ligt a B+ on value because of an A- were the purported wages which I deemed to be high. Transfer fee alone, I agree with you.

Zirkzee B- vs C+ is a tight call, again I went on lower wages and coming off significant young player accolades in Italy the season prior. In this day and age I consider 36m to be downright cheap. Which is pretty appalling. But agree it can go both ways.

I agree that A+ should be reserved for potentially world class players in the potential category. I keep hearing that Sesko has the ultimate tool kit and has an enormous ceiling but I have probably fallen foul of hyperbole there. An A or A- is probably more accurate in terms of his true ceiling.

Again I think you are likely right on Mbeumo and Cunha. I actually think Mbeumo will do the better of the two, but that Cunha has the potential to be a genuinely top class, even elite player because he has an X factor that few other players have. Nevertheless, a slight downgrade, as you suggested, is warranted.

The pattern we need to establish in the coming year or so is for the performance graded to catch up to the potential. I think our next signing, which should undoubtedly be a midfielder, should likely be focused on someone who can immediately come in and perform at an A- type level right away.

In terms of squad building there is obviously major surgery required in midfield. Next summer we should absolutely be moving on Bruno for the biggest fee we can to SA. If we can get 75m+ for him and are able to translate Rashford’s loan spell into a permanent transfer for 30-40m, in addition to Casemiro being out of contract, then we should parlay that money - and savings - into both Baleba and Wharton. It’s a 200-230m spend on two players, but two players who will transform the squad. We can also offset around 60% of that spend on sales, and another sizeable chunk on saved wages. Both together will likely make what Casemiro makes alone - or less.

Even if we switch to a 3 man midfield, which seems unlikely under this coach, but may happen under another, a three of Baleba, Wharton and Mainoo is about as well balanced, high quality, and youthful as you could get. A perfect blend of energy, physicality, ball winning, positional sense, press resistance, possession recycling, vision, transitional passing, and ball carrying.

What I want to see us do, is identify targets that we absolutely want, and stick with the pursuit (having done the due diligence and knowing they want to come - not like FDJ) until we secure the target. Even if it takes a year. Liverpool have done this to enormously positive effect, whereas we have just generally said “we need a midfielder” (for example), and pursued a player like FDJ all summer, only to then pivot at the last minute and sign Casemiro. Two massively different players at completely different stages of their careers. It exposes a complete lack of critical thinking.

If we have identified Baleba as the player we need, and we know he wants to come, we should not sign a different player just because we couldn’t get him this summer. We should build on the groundwork we’ve done and resume our pursuit before the next summer window starts and make sure he ends up a United player. Likewise Wharton, for whom I could understand if he was completely unattainable and we pivoted to Stiller - because there’s coherency there - but we should essentially adopt the same approach. That’s how great sides are built. By signing the right players for your needs, rather than shoehorning in more readily available alternatives.

Finally, I think we really need to be looking at making a play for Guehi in January if there’s any chance we can get him. He’ll be available for a great fee and he’s undoubtedly the best, PL proven, CB currently on the market. Homegrown and had bags of quality. Very comfortable playing on the left of a three and would make the perfect foil to Yoro and De Ligt, while Heaven, Maguire and Mazroui provide depth. Shaw should revert to the left as he has so much more quality there than Dalot, and is a good rotation option with Dorgu.

Thank you for the response.
 
Last edited:
It’s not the mistake I’ve made. It’s the mistake in your interpretation.

I haven’t said we’ve got value for money from what we’ve spent. I’ve said, continually, our issue has been poor recruitment and poor management.

Reducing our wage bill by 25%, or any other figure, doesn’t make us better on the pitch. Spending our budget better will. We didn’t need to reduce it to spend it better.

My mind is no more set in stone than yours is so spare me the holier than thou attitude.

Actual last post now. How you think you're making any sense is mystifying.

For starters, you are simply speculating that INEOS are not interested in raising the wage bill again, but are treating your speculation as established fact. You also appear to be conflating "lower wage bill" with "lower wage budget". Just because we can afford one of the league's highest wage bills doesn't mean we should be paying it. We can maintain the headroom in the budget without meeting it until performances warrant it.

You are also still treating the issues as exclusive of each other, when it's actually all very simple.

Despite us not getting close to a league title since Fergie retired, we've maintained one of the highest wage bills in the league every single season. We have had the highest wage bill for 75% of those seasons, including five of the past six seasons. Our wage-expenditure to performance ratio is clearly way, way off. This is a problem that needs addressing and we are in agreement that recruitment and contract management has been very poor.

Reducing our wage bill does not, on its own, make us better on the pitch. No one has claimed as much. However, reducing our wage bill will come as a result of us offloading players who, almost certainly, will have been under-performing in comparison to their wage. The lower wage bill will then free up funds to be spent on new, better players (both fees and wages). As a result of getting rid of under-performing, overpaid players, we are also less likely to be "held to ransom" by new signings and existing players demanding contracts that scale with overpaid top earners. If we can establish ourselves as a regular Champions League standard team and find ourselves in a position to compete for and win league titles, our wage bill will likely increase again as a result of rewarding our existing high-earners and our increased ability to attract top players commanding higher initial wages.

Your mind is set in stone because you've speculated that INEOS are only interested in reducing the wage bill for the sake of reducing the wage bill, and not because we've been paying the likes of Sancho and Rashford £250,000 to £300,000 a week for extremely sub-par performances and clearly need to get rid. Your mind is set in stone because you paint a picture of a club that no longer wants to pay top wages, when we know for a fact that we could have pushed one of our top earners out of the door and pocketed £100 million + in transfer fees on top.
 
The Athletic: "Though it was initially Ten Hag who wanted the signing — having floated the idea in January — De Ligt’s surprise availability and the relatively modest fee meant United’s recruitment team came to agree with their head coach. De Ligt fitted their model for players at the younger end of the spectrum, and his character also appealed. The club had reports on him, going back several years, already in their system."

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5705404/2024/08/22/matthijs-de-ligt-manchester-united-inside-deal/

Simon Stone (BBC) reported that the club's target was Branthwaite. But it was the cost of the deal that put United off and they weren't willing to pay the £70m price tag. Hence they went with ten Hag's choice as reported by The Athletic.

Chido and Leon were non first team signings and they may or may not make it for us. Kone is another potentially good signing who I like, but again we just don't know if they will make it at first team level. Like Garnacho previously and a few others at youth team level, if we can get a good fee for them in transfers, if would aslo be a good result, if they end up not making it at first team level.
I'm so confused why you keep posting so much info? ETH driven players are the two Dutch guys, that is Zirkzee and De Ligt, you are just confirming above that ETH was the initial pusher for De Ligt.
 
I'm so confused why you keep posting so much info? ETH driven players are the two Dutch guys, that is Zirkzee and De Ligt, you are just confirming above that ETH was the initial pusher for De Ligt.
Erik ten Hag driven players are the two players he coached at Ajax, de ligt and Mazraoui who were both key cogs in his system in the build up phase. Zirkzee has nothing to do with ten Hag as far the identification process is concerned and it has been reported that it was the club's data analytics led by Dan Ashworth who wanted the player. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary you are not adding anything. Give me a tier 3 source, I'll accept it and move on.
 
much better player recruitment than previous years. Also paying sensible wages means if some don't make it they wont be difficult to offload.

We totally screwed ourselves with some decisions. Anthony was on 20k a week at ajax and we give him a 200k a week contract ffs. I'm sure he would have been delighted with 100k.

The choice of manager is still in doubt at this time.
 
Erik ten Hag driven players are the two players he coached at Ajax, de ligt and Mazraoui who were both key cogs in his system in the build up phase. Zirkzee has nothing to do with ten Hag as far the identification process is concerned and it has been reported that it was the club's data analytics led by Dan Ashworth who wanted the player. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary you are not adding anything. Give me a tier 3 source, I'll accept it and move on.
Bro, you do you. You posted an AI overview which was completely incorrect, an article that did not show in any way what you said it did and seem to not understand tier 3 is terrible. Surely Sir Jim is a tier1 or tier 0 source himself and you can watch him literally say what I am saying. As said, you clearly just want to make the point you aren't sure on Ineos' recruitment but that point looks way better if you add Zirkzee into the mix.
 
It’s not the mistake I’ve made. It’s the mistake in your interpretation.

I haven’t said we’ve got value for money from what we’ve spent. I’ve said the opposite. I’ve also said, continually, our issue has been poor recruitment and poor management.

Reducing our wage bill by 25%, or any other figure, doesn’t make us better on the pitch. Spending our budget better will. We didn’t need to reduce it to spend it better.

My mind is no more set in stone than yours is so spare me the holier than thou attitude.
Our problem has been sustained paying of Champions League wages to a Europa League level team, which was unsustainable and a solid way to go bust. To fix that you have to first get your spending in line with your results, then you can start to invest again but from a more solid set of foundations. That's what we are doing now. Of course you have to spend to win the biggest prizes, but you first have to know how to spend to get results. And we haven't. Hopefully that is next to come.
 
Bro, you do you. You posted an AI overview which was completely incorrect, an article that did not show in any way what you said it did and seem to not understand tier 3 is terrible. Surely Sir Jim is a tier1 or tier 0 source himself and you can watch him literally say what I am saying. As said, you clearly just want to make the point you aren't sure on Ineos' recruitment but that point looks way better if you add Zirkzee into the mix.
I put out that AI because I was too lazy to Google something I expected you to do.

Ogden is tier for 3 reliability concerning transfers. What we're discussing doesn't fall into that category.

And what Ratcliffe said regarding signing a couple of Dutch players due to the manager can be read a couple of ways. You mentioned Mazraoui as being of Moroccan descent whilst he's also a Dutch national. But Zirkzee who is also a Dutch national and also part Nigerian. Lets not get into semantics and apply some reason and logic as to why ten Hag would want the club to push for signings like de ligt and Mazraoui who were key cogs in his build up phase. And how extremely important Mazraoui was to the build up phase post the departure of both de Jong and Lasse Schone.

I don't have anything against INEOS or Ratcliffe in particular. But I don't believe the likes of Wilcox and Berrarda have shown anything thus far that has convinced me that these guys know how to implement a recruitment strategy that is centred around developing a attacking team that is proactive and attacking with and without the ball. So unless they prove me wrong, right now it's not that I dislike INEOS but rather that I'd be much more happier if we had a different DoF at the very least.
 
Actual last post now. How you think you're making any sense is mystifying.

For starters, you are simply speculating that INEOS are not interested in raising the wage bill again, but are treating your speculation as established fact. You also appear to be conflating "lower wage bill" with "lower wage budget". Just because we can afford one of the league's highest wage bills doesn't mean we should be paying it. We can maintain the headroom in the budget without meeting it until performances warrant it.

You are also still treating the issues as exclusive of each other, when it's actually all very simple.

Despite us not getting close to a league title since Fergie retired, we've maintained one of the highest wage bills in the league every single season. We have had the highest wage bill for 75% of those seasons, including five of the past six seasons. Our wage-expenditure to performance ratio is clearly way, way off. This is a problem that needs addressing and we are in agreement that recruitment and contract management has been very poor.

Reducing our wage bill does not, on its own, make us better on the pitch. No one has claimed as much. However, reducing our wage bill will come as a result of us offloading players who, almost certainly, will have been under-performing in comparison to their wage. The lower wage bill will then free up funds to be spent on new, better players (both fees and wages). As a result of getting rid of under-performing, overpaid players, we are also less likely to be "held to ransom" by new signings and existing players demanding contracts that scale with overpaid top earners. If we can establish ourselves as a regular Champions League standard team and find ourselves in a position to compete for and win league titles, our wage bill will likely increase again as a result of rewarding our existing high-earners and our increased ability to attract top players commanding higher initial wages.

Your mind is set in stone because you've speculated that INEOS are only interested in reducing the wage bill for the sake of reducing the wage bill, and not because we've been paying the likes of Sancho and Rashford £250,000 to £300,000 a week for extremely sub-par performances and clearly need to get rid. Your mind is set in stone because you paint a picture of a club that no longer wants to pay top wages, when we know for a fact that we could have pushed one of our top earners out of the door and pocketed £100 million + in transfer fees on top.
I hope you’re true to your word this time.

I base my belief their motivation is reducing the wage bill because everything they have said and done points to it. It is also what they do across all their businesses.

What I’m doing is basing my opinion on fact. What you are doing is basing yours on fantasy. When the facts change, my opinion will.