With the January transfer window appearing ever closer on the horizon, now is the time that managers need to make contingency plans to avoid the potential catastrophe that can easily arise if clubs are unable to secure their preferred targets.
Following a truly turgid summer that was full of false hope and ultimate disappointment, new Manchester United manager David Moyes perhaps understands more than most the complications that can occur as a result of a botched transfer policy.
Having missed out on a number of players during the previous transfer window, Moyes and the Red Devils will presumably be approaching the winter period with a steely and determined resolve to banish those unwanted memories and ensure that they can adequately progress after a disappointing start.
Despite their recent upturn in fortunes - United had won four consecutive matches in all competitions prior to Tuesday night's Champions League stalemate against Real Sociedad - Moyes evidently still needs to bolster his ranks with a few stellar signings. In particular, the Scot needs to address the chronic lack of creative threat from midfield and the slight concerns about a lack of sufficient depth and experience in defence.
On that latter point, United are bound to have their supposed 'superstar' targets, with the likes of Borussia Dortmund rock Mats Hummels and FC Porto's French sensation Eliaquim Mangala being linked with respective moves to Old Trafford in recent weeks.
These are targets that I am sure the majority of United fans would fully endorse. However, if recent history repeats itself and the club are unable to entice such players, then there is one other more unusual and undeniably controversial target who I believe should be pursued - Daniel Agger.
While this might sound fairly bizarre upon first hearing, I believe with a little consideration it begins to make a great deal of sense.
28-year-old Agger - who joined Liverpool from Danish outfit Brondby in January 2006 - is currently on the sidelines at Anfield, with manager Brendan Rodgers somewhat bafflingly keeping him behind the likes of Kolo Toure and Mamadou Sakho in the pecking order as the Reds have experimented with a three-man defensive system.
While Liverpool have enjoyed a rather successful start to the campaign, this is a decision that I cannot quite understand and - quite frankly - regard as an insult toward a player of Agger's unquestionable ability.
It has come as no surprise in recent weeks to hear of speculation that Agger will be forced to strongly consider his future on Merseyside if he is unable to win back a regular starting berth under Rodgers.
Despite the player having seemingly moved to reject such reports, it would not be a shock if Agger - who is arguably now entering the prime years of his career as a top centre-back - was forced to quit the club in January.
Could United be a possible destination?
Given the two clubs' status as fierce old foes, it is obviously unlikely that they would allow Agger to move to Old Trafford.
However, if Rodgers is seriously no longer considering Agger as a reliable option, then he could have no choice but to accept any offers that come the club's way - unless he wants to risk disrupting a promising campaign by having to deal with an unhappy player of considerable influence in the ranks.
After all, despite what many Liverpool supporters may have come to expect after that promising start, the two are hardly likely to be going head-to-head for the title just yet.
I fully appreciate that this is a particularly contentious opinion that is unlikely to prove particular with certain 'hardcore' fans of each of the two clubs in question.
However, if Liverpool truly do not intend to fully re-integrate Agger into their immediate first-team setup and Manchester United are unable to convince a number of their preferred defensive targets to move to Old Trafford yet are still in dire need of reinforcing their backline, then a move for Agger could well make perfect sense.
They should at least give it consideration. That is all I am saying. What do United have to lose?