This is fair, but it's not really what happens though. For example, I remember talking to someone here who was blaming Woodward for signing Daniel James and refusing to think it was the manager's signing, but the club's one, as if Woodward is following Championship or something. This happens all the time. Good business is for the one people support and bad business is on whoever we're against. It's a double standards for many here. Maybe not for you, but for many others.It's not really a double standard, though - based on what we know (or think we know, at least) about United's infamous "structure".
The manager at United is ultimately responsible for recruitment (we don't have a director of football). So, we give him credit for good signings and the opposite for bad ones. As far as we know, there is no other figure at United beyond the manager who is ultimately responsible for identifying targets and sanctioning them from a football perspective.
Woodward sanctions all deals from a money perspective - and he is also ultimately responsible for negotiations (doesn't mean he negotiates the deals himself - but the people who do, do so on his watch).
So, yeah - in theory you could say well done to Ole for identifying Sancho as a target for United - and feck you to Ed for failing to sign him. However - a more or less rational/reasonable person wouldn't do that without being privy to details: firstly, it hardly takes a genius to target Sancho - and secondly there could be multiple very good reasons for why that particular move/deal simply wasn't feasible this time around.
Bottom line, though - there is no double standard. United bought Bruno. Who ultimately sanctioned that decision on the football side? Well, has to be Ole - who else? Who failed to land a deal for Sancho (we assume he was wanted by Ole)? Well, has to be Ed - who else?