It is a truism that people who talk money are boring, likewise that money talk infiltrates our lives to dispiriting extent. Football – a warm buzz of fantasy, community and identity – should give us refuge from this, but it has become impossible to grasp one without referencing the other. “Company structure”, “EBITDA” and “Mr Potato Head” now form part of the supporter’s lexicon – still prefixed and suffixed with profanity, but miserable nevertheless.

Manchester United are an egregious example of the incursion, these days more cashpoint than football club. Since the Glazers took over in 2005, they have been cleansed of more than £1bn, quid pro quo for the glorious privilege of being owned by a Trump-indulging family yet to contribute a penny of its own.

Transfer window: team-by-team guide to the Premier League summer deals Read more

Though Alex Ferguson is partially responsible for this pillaging, his genius mitigated its initial impact. But even while he was accumulating silverware, the rot set in: Cristiano Ronaldo was sold for roughly £85m, then replaced by Antonio Valencia, Gabriel Obertan and Michael Owen for roughly £20m; generational players grew old together; and not a single midfielder was purchased between July 2007 and July 2012. So, when Ferguson retired a champion in 2013, he bequeathed a squad needing major surgery.

Underinvestment is not the sole reason for United’s subsequent decline – horrendous judgment is also significant. Ed Woodward, the club’s dominant suit, has no footballing expertise and has, in the last five years, been forced to sack three managers he appointed. The money, though, keeps rolling, and consequently Woodward remains in situ, United failing at football but succeeding at business; existing to make money, not making money to exist.

Last season, they finished sixth in the league, 32 points behind Manchester City and with a squad still in need of serious attention. Ole Gunnar Solskjær– yet another new manager – could not have been clearer on this point, acknowledging his need to be “ruthless” with players lacking the virtues and vertebrae to succeed.

Instead, United moved on only four and brought in just three. Dan James arrived for £15m, roughly half of which was covered by Marouane Fellani’s January departure, and Harry Maguire joined for £80m, most of which was recouped by the sale of Romelu Lukaku. As such, the net spend is the £50m outlay on Aaron Wan-Bissaka and maximum £20m more.

These numbers, though nauseous, must be viewed in context. United require nothing from their owners save the ability to spend their own money, and are English football’s most profitable club by far – a status which should be reflected in their transfer activity. Except – with a rebuild required – they have been outspent by Aston Villa and Wolves, just as last season they were outspent by Everton, West Ham, Leicester, Southampton, Fulham, Brighton and Wolves.

The work done by United’s regular rivals is equally illuminating. Much as Sky would have us believe otherwise, it is impossible to judge who has “had a good window” until the players have, well … played, but is it absolutely possible to see who has filled their gaps. Previous splurges, responsible husbandry and the deployment of footballing expertise left Manchester City and Liverpool with little work to do.

On the other hand, Arsenal needed defenders so bought David Luiz, Kieran Tierney and William Saliba; needed a midfielder so loaned Dani Ceballos; needed a goalscoring winger so broke their transfer record for Nicolas Pépé. Similarly, Spurs needed to strengthen in midfield so bought two midfielders, breaking their transfer record for Tanguy Ndombele, and needed something for their left flank, so bought Ryan Sessegnon. Both teams finished above United last season.

Meanwhile, the holes in United’s squad gape: they have no specialist right-winger, no credible number 10, and have not replaced Lukaku. Yet these are peripheral issues when assessing an abomination of a midfield whose state is the principal reason they cannot control games; why they concede too many and score too few. If they are so keen to keep Paul Pogba, they should furnish him with suitable partners.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Romelu Lukaku has not been replaced by Manchester United. Photograph: Scott Heppell/Reuters

United did try to reinforce in this area: they bid for Newcastle youngster Sean Longstaff, a canny move. Longstaff acquitted himself superbly last season and Michael Carrick, one of Solskjær’s coaches, played the same position for United’s most successful team, while Carrick’s brother Graeme – also a coach – knows Longstaff, so can vouch for temperament as well as talent.

Premier League 2019‑20 preview No 12: Manchester United Read more

Of course, the £50m fee Newcastle quoted is ridiculous for a player with just 16 senior starts, but it is a misnomer too: the money is there, and if the board cannot accept Carrick’s expertise in this aspect, why do they employ him? Longstaff will only cost more next summer, when United might have to compete for his signature having made do for a year.

Essentially, if a transfer is successful, a player is worth whatever sum the buyer was lucky enough to pay for them – and what is a football club’s money for, if not for spending on the football team? Instead, United must hope that Scott McTominay and Mason Greenwood, two products of the club’s academy, have freakishly monumental seasons.

The Glazers’ parsimony affects strategy as well as success. When United first tried to buy Longstaff, Newcastle were managerless, but by the time they upped their offer Steve Bruce had publicly proclaimed that Longstaff would be staying. Similarly, they inquired about Maguire when the transfer window opened and were told what the price was, then baulked and haggled for two months before paying what they’d been told the price was, depriving Maguire of a pre-season settling into a new home and a new team.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Sean Longstaff was a target for United over the summer. Photograph: Mark Runnacles/Getty Images

Solskjær’s summer budget should have been augmented by the money refused José Mourinho last summer and the money saved by appointing the Norwegian rather than a more expensive alternative; in the event, he has been afforded roughly half the funds given to Mourinho and Louis van Gaal in their first windows in post, though prices have increased considerably.

The only feasible conclusion is that United’s business plan has changed. Given the Glazers’ aim of extracting as much money as possible, actively pursuing the league title has never made sense – it is expensive, speculative and relatively unrewarding. But Champions League qualification – lucrative and accessible – has been fundamental. Now, though, United are hoping for it rather than expecting it, in which regard it is instructive to look at Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the Glazers’ NFL franchise.

The Fiver: sign up and get our daily football email.

Since winning the Superbowl in 2002, the Bucs have had a losing record in 11 of 16 seasons, qualifying for the post-season playoffs just twice – and only as wild cards, losing on both occasions. Which to say that revenues allow for the neglect of the team without compromising the bottom line, just as they do at United. Unless, of course, rumours of a sale to Saudi are true, and the Glazers are simply economising before introducing terms like “sportswashing”, “repressive regime” and “human rights abuses” to the pre-match patter down Sir Matt Busby Way.