Why Erik ten Hags gloomy assessment of January transfer prospects makes total sense

If any Manchester United fans were holding out for a few new signings in the January window to help turn around a season of often underwhelming performances on the pitch, Erik ten Hag appears to have poured cold water over those hopes.

Not that the rebuild is complete, as is plain for anyone to see. In an interview with fanzine United We Stand, Ten Hag stressed the importance of improving the squad at his disposal.

Advertisement

“We have to develop and progress this team. In reality, we go to the next summer window and there will be new players coming in,” he said.

What about January though?

“I don’t think so,” he added. “As a club, you have to look for improvements, so if you can find better and it’s realistic financially and with financial fair play (FFP), I think the club has to go with it.

“But realistically, in relation to the market, most of the time you don’t attract the best players in the winter. The top, top players will not leave their clubs in the winter. It’s players who are disappointed, injured or just not the right fit or whatever.”

Generally speaking, Ten Hag is right and United’s January signings during his first year in charge go some way to proving his point, fitting into at least one of the three categories he outlines.

Wout Weghorst certainly disappointed by scoring just twice in 31 appearances, even if his unquestionable work rate meant he was still regularly preferred to the alternatives up front.

Marcel Sabitzer was adequate short-term cover in midfield — and a deal struck quickly at short notice after Christian Eriksen’s ankle injury — but not deemed the right fit for the long term. Jack Butland was also signed as cover, brought in after Martin Dubravka was recalled by Newcastle, but did not play a single minute.

All of which would seem to support the notion that the month-long winter window is typically slower than the summer’s. Clubs tend to leave their priority business until later in the year. But that is more of a guideline than a rule and quality is still available before the clocks go forward.

Last January, Chelsea broke the British transfer record for Enzo Fernandez, having already set up a deal for Malo Gusto, one of the most promising young full-backs in Europe.

Advertisement

Anthony Gordon joined Newcastle United and Cody Gakpo arrived at Liverpool that same month. The previous January saw those clubs sign Bruno Guimaraes and Luis Diaz respectively, while Manchester City arranged their move for Julian Alvarez.

And then there is the only permanent first-team addition to United’s squad to arrive in January in the past four years: their most influential player over that period, club captain Bruno Fernandes.

In other words, it is not necessarily the case that there is “no value in the market”, to borrow a phrase Sir Alex Ferguson regularly leaned on at the turn of the 2010s, when a refinancing of the Glazers’ high-interest loans had a detrimental impact on United’s ability to do transfer business.

But “no value in the market” is essentially Ten Hag’s argument and though there is reason to it, United’s financial predicament is far more of a limiting factor than a lack of options.

It is only a few months since they were fined €300,000 (£257,000; $323,000) by UEFA for breaching FFP rules, although fortunately they and other clubs competing in European competition are not assessed on the break-even measure this season while the governing body migrates to new rules.

United’s compliance with the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability regulations (P&S) remains a live issue, though, and a combined pre-tax loss of £182million ($229m) over the 2021-22 and 2022-23 seasons has left the club with little room for manoeuvre.

GO DEEPER

Ten Hag made some big calls and was vindicated by Manchester United's performance

Under the P&S rules, top-flight clubs are permitted to lose £105m ($132m) over three years — but crucially, £90m ($113m) of that has to be covered by funding from the club’s ownership.

Given the Glazers are not known for putting their hands in their pockets, United will likely have to meet the much lower £15m ($19m) to avoid a breach this season and it is far from certain that the various deductions clubs can make for Covid-19 losses, women’s football, youth development and community work (among other things) will be enough to bring them in line.

Advertisement

Punishments for breaching the lower limit are not as severe as the 10-point deduction recently handed down to Everton for their £125m ($157m) loss over three years, but that ruling demonstrated that the Premier League is not afraid to sanction clubs who are found to have spent beyond their means.

United therefore need to show prudence in their spending and, though that might not have been obvious when shelling out £163m ($205m) on Andre Onana, Mason Mount and Rasmus Hojlund this summer, greater caution was required towards the close of the window.

Deals for Sofyan Amrabat, Sergio Reguilion and the relatively cheap £4.3m signing of goalkeeper Altay Bayindir from Fenerbahce could only go through once Dean Henderson’s £15m transfer to Crystal Palace was completed.

That Amrabat and Reguilon were short-term loans told a story in itself, following the temporary moves for Weghorst, Sabitzer and Butland earlier this year.

Selling players is one path to achieving greater P&S headroom. The departures of either Harry Maguire or Scott McTominay would have helped widen those margins in the summer but both players have since regained Ten Hag’s trust and become regular starters.

Jadon Sancho is now the highest-profile name in the shop window, although wages of more than £200,000 a week ($252,000) may prove a stumbling block to clubs outside of the Saudi Pro League.

Donny van de Beek is another player United will be willing to listen to offers for but after more than two years spent on the fringes of the first-team squad, he too could prove difficult to shift.

And any supporters believing Sir Jim Ratcliffe will soon arrive as a white knight, riding in to fund a January spending spree on the back of his 25 per cent minority investment, are likely to be disappointed.

The problem is that an INEOS-led sporting structure is not expected to have its feet under the table by the opening of the January window and, with an announcement still pending, it is far from certain that it will officially be in place by its end, too.

Advertisement

Once Ratcliffe’s investment has been confirmed, it will likely need to be cleared by the Premier League. While that process is not expected to be an obstacle, it could take between six and eight weeks to finalise all the relevant paperwork.

As it stands, figures close to the INEOS bid do not expect to have an official bearing on United’s transfer business during the January window. That does not necessarily rule out influence through other channels — to be expected when parting with £1.3billion for sporting control — but the ability to act on and execute deals will only come once the new regime is in the building.

Once in place, Ratcliffe is also committed to initiating a full and comprehensive review of the football department’s internal structures that will all but certainly last beyond 11pm on 1 February, the winter transfer deadline.

And so whichever way you square it, Ten Hag’s assessment of the club’s options in the upcoming window appears accurate.

Whether due to there being no value in the market, the financial position or the state of flux at the very top of the club, United cannot count on January reinforcements to improve their so-far underwhelming season.

(Top photo: Martin Rickett/PA Images via Getty Images)

ncG1vNJzZmismJqutbTLnquim16YvK57lGpob3BmaXxzfJFsZmpqX2WEcMDEp2ShmZdit6K61JqpsmWkp66vv8WeqaxlmaOysL%2BO