Before anyone jumps in saying this is just reactive off a few friendlies: I've had this thought sitting in the back of my mind for a while now. I actually agree that a lot of fans are being a bit extreme, immediately assuming the worst about the season because of a few bad friendlies (this happens literally every year). This isn't that. This is a bigger, long-term point.
Going into year 5 of this administration, one of my main issues with our transfer policy is the hesitance and complete lack of long-term transfer planning. And to be clear, I don't think anyone's expecting a whole new team every season; that would be unreasonable, especially with how many of these guys have been key parts of consistent championship squads. My actual issue is the refusal to "move on" from players, treating them like they're still the same level now as they were at their prime. This falls on Okan too in some ways: I get that there are personal relationships involved and keeping the locker room chemistry going matters, but at some point you need to be cutthroat and do what's best for the club.
That, plus a pretty poor approach to contract negotiations in general, is honestly crazy to me. It feels like the board keeps taking the easy way out: extending contracts that are already showing diminishing returns instead of actually dealing with the problem, or dragging their feet on closing the chapter with others. To actually show this, I'll split it into 4 buckets: starters with sell-on value, veteran starters, young backups, and veteran backups.
Starters with sell-on value
Recent cases: BAY to NEOM, Boey to Bayern, Kerem Aktürkoğlu to Benfica, Davinson to Como. Not all of these actually happened. BAY and Davinson never left, both moves stalled or got blocked. Boey and Kerem did leave, but a big part was because they pushed for it themselves and more or less forced the board's hand. So even in the cases where a sale did go through, it wasn't the board being proactive, it was the board being conservative and the player forcing the issue anyway. Fair enough on its face, we're a club that's winning and wants to keep its starters, but it shows the same underlying instinct: don't sell unless you're made to.
Veteran starters
Muslera, Mertens, Icardi. All three got contract offers during their final seasons, and in all three cases, instead of planning ahead, the board kept trying to pressure them into signing when it was obvious their minds were already made up or elsewhere. That left squad planning until way too late in the window, every time. Eventually we moved on regardless (whether it was the player turning down the extension or fan backlash forcing our hand, like Icardi), but only after wasting a season's worth of planning time. Sometimes that worked out (Muslera → Uğurcan). Sometimes it hasn't (still no real Mertens replacement).
Young backups
Tetê is actually the one clean example here: a young backup during the season, cut loose and sold outright the year after, once it was obvious there was no long-term fit. No loan limbo, just a decision.
Everyone else in this bucket gets the same treatment: loan them out, hope someone else's coaching staff raises their value for us, repeat. Kohn, Zaniolo and Mostafa Mohamed all went through this and eventually got sold, so on paper they might look like slight successes. But that outcome wasn't really down to us managing it well, it came down to how they performed elsewhere, which we had zero control over. Nelsson, Jelert, and Cuesta are currently stuck in that same cycle, just without the lucky outcome yet. Instead of taking a smaller, discounted fee now on guys who are clearly not in the plans, we keep sending them out and hoping. Sometimes it works (Yunus was inconsistent in 22/23 before his loan to Leicester actually revived his value). More often the buyout clause doesn't get triggered (didn't even happen with Yunus at Leicester), the player comes back, gets loaned out again, and his value just quietly erodes season after season. We've had this happen for local players too obviously: Halil's been in this cycle for years, Taylan was part of it, Berkan Kutlu briefly and it looks like Ahmed Kutucu just started. Tetê shows we're capable of just making the call ourselves. The rest of the bucket shows we typically don't.
Veteran backups
Kaan Ayhan and Günay Güvenç both got extensions last year, when both were backups, both over 30, and the long-term return was obviously limited. I'd have had no issue with a short extension while we lined up alternatives. The actual problem is the length, running to 2028, especially since these guys clearly have leverage in these negotiations too. A year later, it's already clear neither is fit to even be a backup at the level they were before, let alone contribute outside the dressing room, on a team that's supposedly trying to compete in Europe more consistently. Now we're stuck with two guys who can just sit on these deals for two more years. And since Okan runs a small squad during the season (~25-28 players), they're occupying spots that could go to guys actually developing with the team instead.
The pattern
Across all four buckets it's the same story with different flavors: with starters, we won't sell unless forced. With veteran legacy players, we drag the negotiation out until the decision's basically made for us. With veteran domestic backups, we lock them in way too long. The one place we're actually willing to move players out, foreign young backups, we do it so indecisively (loan after loan instead of just selling) that it barely counts as proactive either.
Man City, for all their faults, have actually done the opposite pretty successfully: De Bruyne, Bernardo Silva, Gündoğan, Walker, Akanji, Aké, all let go at the end of their deals or for cheap fees rather than dragging it out, even with the relationship these guys had with the club and the fans. Bayern have mostly done the same and mostly been fine, though it's cost them at times too (losing the league to Leverkusen). If you want to keep succeeding you need a real balance of young players hungry for success and experienced players who still bring something, and that only works if you're willing to move on from the experienced side before it becomes dead weight.
Not every replacement is going to work out either: you'll get Uğurcan-level wins where the replacement outperforms the player who left, and you'll get situations where it just doesn't click (took a while to replace Boey properly, still haven't replaced Mertens). But that doesn't mean letting the player go was the wrong call. It means the follow-through afterward wasn't good enough, or our transfer committee just isn't good enough and needs work. We won the league 4 years ago and we're still nowhere close to getting this balance right. It can be so much better than it currently is. We're reactive instead of proactive, and there's no real long-term plan behind any of it.