On this point, I'm wondering: who makes these salary decisions, and what are they basing them on? As far as I can tell, United's moneymen are generally pretty good; how come they can't assess the football salary market better? As you or someone else said, it makes no sense that a club like United could sign a player like Telles only if they pay him this much. So again, how and why does it happen anyway?
I have seen comments that having a Director of Football would solve this, but is that what they do? I thought they would be there to oversee the sportive direction of the club: ensure coach and players fit the vision in terms of approach, ethos, playing style, ensure that this vision runs through the entire club from the youngest academy levels to the first team, and direct the scouting apparatus accordingly. Would this also be the person that assesses the market and determines what a club should be paying in terms of transfer fees and salaries?
I think looking back over the last 20-25 years it's about club philosophy. I posted previously about United having a "socialist" ethos that meant the lower contributors couldn't earn several times lower than the higher contributors. Likewise Fergie himself apparantly was of the view that a player could never earn more than him otherwise he'd be undermined (typical socialist I'd say!)
In truth back then it's arguable that it was an equitable endeavour. He got more out of his squad players than any other manager ever and in truth rarely lost his best earners (despite the likes of Keane and Ferdinand being close).
The problem nowadays is that wages are far more important than transfer fees. Back when Keane had signed the highest paid contract in England (after much negotiatio - £52k per week) the highest transfer fee was Zidane at around £48m. Since then transfer fees have multiplied by less than 5 whilst wages have multiplied at double that rate. Likewise we've previously spent over 150% of our EBITDA net in one transfer window (Veron and Ruud); that would be like spending £300m net now which is unthinkable.
I think essentially accountants making these decisions aren't the best people. Financial people are often really good at seeing numbers but really poor at seeing "the bigger picture" (I've experienced this when talking to my own business accountant who for example says "transactions below £100 are loss making, I'd advise a minimum order value of £100". Not realising that the action of implementing such a policy would lose hundreds of four figure orders in the process as you can't pick an choose orders.
I think United are run by financial people who similarly think "buying a replacement for Lingard may cost £25m, whereas paying him £2m above market value for 5 years only costs £10m". As I said previously that's completely flawed as not only does it reduce his resale value by a huge amount but it increases the negotiating position of every other player meaning they'll also be getting £2m each above market value.
Without being a fly in the negotiating room I think we're run by people who consider financial decisions in a very narrow vacuum as financial people often do. A director of football I doubt would help as they wouldn't be given autonomy over our complete wage structure; that'll always stay with Woodward.