Manchester United’s summer transfer window is difficult to reduce to a simple verdict.

The club addressed one of the squad’s clearest weaknesses and added three midfielders who offer very different qualities. At the same time, the window closed without another left-back, central defender or striker arriving.

That leaves several competing interpretations.

One says United showed discipline, secured value in an unusually expensive market and completed the most important stage of Michael Carrick’s rebuild.

Another says the club stopped too soon and left a promising squad exposed in positions that could prove decisive over a longer season.

A more sceptical interpretation questions whether the publicly stated financial restrictions fully explain United’s activity—or whether other priorities influenced the decisions made during the window.

The fairest conclusion may be that elements of all three arguments deserve consideration.

What has been confirmed?

United’s senior additions were:

Sky Sports reported that Tielemans cost £35 million, while Baleba joined for £65 million plus a possible £5 million in add-ons. Different reports vary slightly when describing the total committed to the midfield, but approximately £155 million has been widely used as the headline figure.

It was clear from the acquisitions the club’s most visible priority: United wanted to reconstruct and strengthen the centre of the pitch.

Tielemans supplies experience, passing range and Premier League know-how. Santos brings energy, mobility and—being only 22—room to develop. Baleba offers the physicality, tenacity and defensive qualities that could eventually give Carrick’s midfield a more complete balance.

Baleba will not provide an immediate answer because he arrived while recovering from an ankle problem. That delays his first appearance, but United were aware of the injury before completing the transfer.

United’s reported net spend finished at approximately £118 million—below several Premier League clubs, and this even includes promoted sides Ipswich and Coventry, according to Sky Sports’ interview with Carrick. And even below what a certain other Manchester club shelled out for just one of its marquee signings.

What is Carrick saying?

Carrick’s public position is positive without pretending the work is finished.

He told Sky Sports that United had brought good players into the club and improved the squad both individually and collectively. His central argument was straightforward: “the team is stronger now than it was when the window opened.”

He also acknowledged that the market had been challenging and that the club had to work within its financial circumstances.

Speaking separately before the Everton fixture, Carrick described himself as “largely happy” with the business. He rejected the idea that one transfer window could instantly repair every part of the club, stressing that United’s progress must involve more than simply adding individuals.

That distinction matters. Carrick is not claiming to have a perfect squad. He is arguing that United have completed another stage of the rebuild without compromising future stages.

The Guardian’s account of Carrick’s press conference also reported his belief that flexibility within the existing group can help cover some of the remaining gaps.

What is the positive case?

The strongest argument in United’s favour is that the club identified a major weakness and addressed it properly.

United did not divide the available budget among several cheaper additions simply to increase the number of arrivals. They concentrated their spending on three midfielders capable of contributing at different stages of their careers.

There is also a value-for-money argument. Premier League spending rose dramatically during the window, with several rivals committing enormous fees to individual deals. United’s business was hardly inexpensive, but it appears more controlled when compared with some of the largest purchases elsewhere.

Even Gary Neville, while calling for defensive reinforcements, acknowledged that rebuilding the squad in stages might be the sensible approach. United invested in their attack during the previous summer and concentrated on midfield this time.

That does not satisfy every immediate need, but it does suggest an identifiable plan.

The return of Marcus Rashford provides Carrick with another attacking option too. His fitness, application and early performances have been encouraging. Supporters are entitled to be excited about what a confident Rashford might add, although his return should not be used to disguise the fact that he is an existing United player rather than an additional transfer.

Youth-team graduates pushing their way into senior contention and vying for the eye of the manager could strengthen the squad further. Their emergence should only be encouraged, as is the Manchester United way, and properly recognised—but relying on young players to carry the burden of covering unresolved weaknesses carries its own risks. These risks sometimes pay off, though, so it’s one Carrick and his staff will keep an eye on.

What are the concerns?

The most consistent criticism concerns the defence.

Neville argued before the deadline that United needed both a centre-back and a left-back. He believes the current defensive group contains capable individuals but lacks a dependable, established unit—particularly once injuries and fixture congestion begin to have an effect.

His concerns were published by Sky Sports.

Some would argue that United cannot claim to have addressed all of the squad’s major weaknesses when no left-back was signed.

Luke Shaw remains the only established senior specialist in the position, and his recent injury history makes the lack of additional cover difficult to ignore.

Some flat out say that even the other defensive options right across the back line are not as strong or consistent as a club of United’s stature would ideally like.

Reports linked United with several alternatives for the left-back position all throughout the window, but no agreement was completed. Refusing to overpay for the wrong player may eventually prove sensible…or not. Entering a Champions League campaign with limited specialist cover still remains a risk the club now has no choice but to manage.

There is a similar debate at striker. Benjamin Šeško remains the only out-and-out striker, although players like Marcus Rashford, Bryan Mbeumo and Matheus Cunha can all do a job there despite it not being their most natural position. Even Joshua Zirkzee himself was said to have been a “9.5” as opposed to a straight number 9 or 10 when we signed him in July 2024 for £36.5 million.

United decided it was too late to allow Joshua Zirkzee to leave on deadline day because a replacement could not be secured. That protected the existing depth but also demonstrated how little room for manoeuvre the club had—despite being linked to some notable operators in that position. Names such as Endrick (Real Madrid), Jean-Philippe Mateta (Crystal Palace), Nicolò Tresoldi (Club Brugge) and Joaquín Panichelli (Strasbourg).

The Times’ analysis placed particular emphasis on financial restrictions, limited outgoing business and the effect that existing wages had on United’s flexibility.

This is where much of the frustration comes from. Supporters recognise the quality of the players signed but are still wondering why more players did not leave—and whether that prevented the club from completing another incoming deal.

The number of transfers matters as well as their quality. United may have improved the midfield, but supporters hoping for a wider reshaping of the squad were left with several familiar questions.

Why did the end of the window cause so much confusion?

The final days brought a fresh burst of transfer speculation.

United were linked with several possible arrivals, particularly at left-back, while reports continued to raise questions about potential departures. The volume and timing of those stories created an expectation among some supporters that one more deal might be completed. Instead, no late or deadline-day signing arrived, and United’s window quietly closed.

That left some fans confused about whether the club had been actively pursuing another player, merely exploring the market or allowing preliminary enquiries to become something larger in the public conversation.

Not every transfer link comes directly from the club. As we know, agents, intermediaries and selling clubs all benefit from speculation, and United cannot reasonably be held responsible for every name placed alongside theirs.

However, after such a noisy finish, the disappointment felt by supporters who expected another signing was understandable.

If United had already decided that no further business was likely, the late flurry of reports created an unfortunate contrast between expectation and reality. If the club was genuinely trying to complete another deal, questions remain about why it waited until the final days to do so.

Either way, the end of the window felt less controlled than the business completed earlier in the summer.

Are we being told the whole story?

This is where the discussion becomes more difficult—and where some of the strongest criticism has been directed at United’s ownership and hierarchy.

Mark Goldbridge and The United Stand have been particularly dismissive of the club’s apparent financial explanation. Their position is not simply that United had a disappointing end to the window. Goldbridge argues that the money was available for further recruitment but that the hierarchy chose not to spend it for reasons that remain unclear.

In The United Stand’s post-window assessment, Goldbridge questioned the honesty of the ownership and board while criticising the failure to secure another left-back or striker. He has also argued that United’s window should be judged against what the club could afford—not merely against its comparatively restrained net spend.

From that perspective, praise for any “value” and financial discipline risks allowing the hierarchy to avoid more difficult questions.

Why could other clubs spend more aggressively? Why did United generate so much late speculation if another deal was not realistically achievable? Was the decision to retain certain players partly intended to remove the need for further signings? And did the squad rebuild remain the hierarchy’s overriding priority throughout the window?

That is one of the harshest interpretations of United’s business, and it represents a significant strand of supporter opinion. It should therefore be included in any honest account of who is saying what.

However, the claim that United definitely had more money available is still an interpretation rather than an independently established fact.

Despite the gossip mill and outrage at things out of fans’ control, some have doubled down on their support, praise and faith in Michael Carrick to get the most he can out of his squad over the course of the season, and called for the fanbase to rally behind the manager and the squad.

Outside observers do not have complete access to the club’s cash-flow position, transfer negotiations, wage commitments, borrowing arrangements or internal spending limits, and do not hear the conversations taking place in its meeting rooms and offices. We do not see every negotiation, budget discussion, medical report or proposed deal. So unless we can be a fly on the wall at Carrington and inside the club’s executive offices, we can only assess what is visible: the players signed, the positions left unfilled, the money reportedly spent, the players retained and the results that follow.

Equally, supporters are entitled to question whether the explanations released to the public account for the decisions they can see being made.

Where does the reporting agree?

Across the coverage, there is broad agreement on several points:

  1. United’s midfield is stronger.
  2. The squad is not yet complete.
  3. The club says financial considerations limited what it could do.
  4. Limited outgoing business reduced United’s flexibility.
  5. Left-back remained a recognised area of concern when the window closed.
  6. No unsuitable signing was made simply to satisfy deadline-day pressure.

The disagreements concern why those limitations existed, how much weight we should give them and whether the hierarchy could—or should—have done more.

Other assessments fall somewhere between those positions: encouraged by the quality and value of the midfield recruitment but frustrated by the number of unresolved issues.

These perspectives should not automatically be dismissed as either spin or negativity. They’re a spectrum of interpretations of the same transfer window, a cross-section of the fanbase—and the season ahead will provide the strongest evidence of which assessment was closest to the truth.

THE UNITED ROUNDUP VIEW

One good window, not a finished job

United had a good window in one area—but not a complete one that overhauled the entire squad.

The midfield rebuild looks coherent, and there are credible reasons to believe the individual deals represent better value than some of the more dramatic spending elsewhere in the league.

Carrick has more variety, more energy and potentially a much better platform from which to build his team.

However, concerns at left-back, central defence and striker are legitimate. They should not be brushed aside simply because the club completed its primary stated objective.

Questions about the ownership and the club’s financial explanation should be examined fairly too. Supporters do not have to accept every statement without scrutiny, but neither should suspicion be reported as proof of dishonesty.

For me, results will matter most.

This squad could still silence those who have already labelled the transfer window a disaster and written off United’s chances of success. The players may demonstrate that the club was right to remain disciplined and that Carrick already had enough quality to compete.

It could equally turn out that the critics were justified—that the failure to strengthen certain positions left United short when injuries, fatigue and fixture congestion arrived.

The sensible judgement today is therefore neither triumph nor disaster.

United appear to be in a healthy next phase of their squad rebuild. The direction is clearer, the midfield is stronger and the mood around Carrington appears positive.

Even though the window has left Carrick dependent on fitness, positional flexibility, youth development and the continued re-emergence of players already at the club, I wouldn’t expect him to be too worried just yet, as long as form and fitness are on his side going forward.

To be fair, the recruitment team has made progress. Whether its decision to stop was disciplined or overly cautious cannot be settled by another headline.

Only time—and results—will tell.

Reports compared Michael Carrick’s assessment · Sky Sports Carrick on the absence of an instant fix · The Guardian Gary Neville’s assessment of the defence · Sky Sports The United Stand’s post-window criticism · Mark Goldbridge Analysis of United’s financial restrictions · The Times United’s confirmed business and reported targets · TNT Sports