Bank projects Manchester United transfer budget is £133m for 2017

Surely bullshit? I doubt we'd offer 80+m for Mbappe if we only had 130 to spend.
 
Womp said:
Surely bullshit? I doubt we'd offer 80+m for Mbappe if we only had 130 to spend.
Click to expand...
I doubt we ever offered 80+m for Mbappe at all.

Mourinho needs the team to challenge on all fronts next season, and there are several areas of need. if there is a big ticket signing, it will not be an 18yr old kid.
 
Sell a couple of deadwood, get a few new arbitrary sponsorships, and we could double that! Get on it, Woodward. Hurry now!
 
That's such a lazy article. Presumably they are using our historical capital expenditure and projecting it to future. Mind you, that's a positive outlook in the sense that they are projecting us to stabilize our expenditure. It won't surprise me one bit if their entire research completely ignored the inflation in transfer market.
 
Not surprising at all if it's true. I expected our budget was around £120m-£130m. We might be rich but we have limit as well.

Hope people who wanted Lukaku/Mbappe + Griezmann in one summer doesn't get too depressed about this.
 
Isn't it possible that this has been put out by the club, to assure investors?
 
Even if that is the money you have available this year, most of the clubs use amortization for book-keeping purposes, which means that the actual transfer fee is divided by the length of contract and only that portion is shown per year. So if you sign Griezmann for 90 Million and hand him a five year contract, you'll only have to show 18 Million plus his yearly wage, which means a budget of 133 Million can be stretched to so much more
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Akshay
DellaNe said:
Even if that is the money you have available this year, most of the clubs you amortization for book-keeping purposes, which means that the actual transfer fee is divided by the length of contract and only that portion is shown per year. So if you sign Griezmann for 90 Million and hand him a five year contract, you'll only have to show 18 Million plus his yearly wage, which means a budget of 133 Million can be stretched to so much more
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that depend on whether or not the selling club accepts several payments instead of the one lump sum?
 
I don't believe this figure. We also sold schweinstiger, Schneiderlin and Depay and didn't replace them.
Not to mention Zlatan and Rojos long term injuries. My guess is we are bringing 4-5 players in and the budget is at least £150m.
 
DellaNe said:
Even if that is the money you have available this year, most of the clubs you amortization for book-keeping purposes, which means that the actual transfer fee is divided by the length of contract and only that portion is shown per year. So if you sign Griezmann for 90 Million and hand him a five year contract, you'll only have to show 18 Million plus his yearly wage, which means a budget of 133 Million can be stretched to so much more
Click to expand...
This. Very well said and a very important consideration.
 
Womp said:
Wouldn't that depend on whether or not the selling club accepts several payments instead of the one lump sum?
Click to expand...

No. It's just what clubs do for accounting purposes.

When you sell a player, all the money you get is shown in the book as lump sum for that year.
But when you buy a player, most clubs use amortization, like the example I mentioned above. Using that same example, if you then go on to sell Griezmann in couple of years, all the remaining amount owed in the book will have to be shown as a one time hit. But until then it's amortized cost per year. Also, if you offer him a new contract midway into his first one, you can spread the remaining amount left to even more years
 
Sky1981 said:
If one thing i learn being a broker once is thay these investments banks always made a shit projection
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't trust anything Credit Suisse say :lol:

It's probably easy enough to go back over the last few years and see how much we've spent compared to what our revenues/profits were.
 
I don't see a good reason why United's net transfer expenditure should be much above £100m this summer. If anything, I would expect the club to be more generous towards the manager in year 1 than in subsequent years.

Swiss Ramble does good articles on club's finances. His last one on United was:

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Manchester United?updated-max=2016-11-22T07:17:00+01:00&max-results=20&start=1&by-date=false

Even the BBC's latest article suggests not much change since last year, revenue is up slightly but salaries probably up too given Zlatan, Pogba, Bailly, Mkhitaryan (minus 25% basic salary hit for most of squad due to loss of CL football)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38904511

Revenue predicted to be £540m. Wages might be about £260m (possibly £245m). Other expenses just under £100m. Debt interest costs £20m.
 
Last edited:
Well, let's just give up then. £133m can only buy one average player these days. I think the average player we should go for is Dean Whitehead.
 
Womp said:
Wouldn't that depend on whether or not the selling club accepts several payments instead of the one lump sum?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure most transfers are several payments instead of one lump sum, that's the accepted practice. It's why even transfers that include a pretty straightforward buyout clause takes a lot of time because clubs don't want to pay the fee in one go.
 
We sold Memphis and Schneiderlin for around 40M? 133M net means 173M total. Griezmann 90M, Fabinho 40M and one other 40M. And maybe one more player like Pepe for a free transfer. And if we are selling DDG to Madrid... That could be near truth.
 
DellaNe said:
Even if that is the money you have available this year, most of the clubs use amortization for book-keeping purposes, which means that the actual transfer fee is divided by the length of contract and only that portion is shown per year. So if you sign Griezmann for 90 Million and hand him a five year contract, you'll only have to show 18 Million plus his yearly wage, which means a budget of 133 Million can be stretched to so much more
Click to expand...
First of all, it is strictly regulated in accounting standards how player investments should be accounted. Secondly, it is obvious that the bank is talking about CAPEX (capital expenditure) budget, and not a P&L budget, which means your conclusion is incorrect.
 
It's a bank guessing about future financial performance of a traded company and some of you lot are talking as if it's being claimed as inside info.
 
Not too bothered by thins. Net value of £133mil should mean around 200 million spent, ~240 million euro.
 
Holters said:
First of all, it is strictly regulated in accounting standards how player investments should be accounted. Secondly, it is obvious that the bank is talking about CAPEX (capital expenditure) budget, and not a P&L budget, which means your conclusion is incorrect.
Click to expand...

I am just replying to the thread starter saying the budget is 133 Million. I assumed he got that from the article. As for accounting standards, clubs do use amortization. It's documented in several football finance blogs.
 
That wouldn't even get you two half decent players on the current market. With the revamp this squad needs.. I smell horseshit.

We'll spend upwards of £200m minimum imo.
 
If true, we're fecked next season unless Mourinho has some extremely good scouts because we need 4-5 players.
 
Reckon we'll burn £150m if we qualify for the CL, might be less if we don't and get that 30% paycut from Adidas as a result.
 
SwansonsTache said:
Reckon we'll burn £150m if we qualify for the CL, might be less if we don't and get that 30% paycut from Adidas as a result.
Click to expand...

It's not a 30% cut from the whole deal. It's for one year spread out over the rest of the deal, so will be barely noticeable.
 
Raees said:
That wouldn't even get you two half decent players on the current market. With the revamp this squad needs.. I smell horseshit.

We'll spend upwards of £200m minimum imo.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think it'll be something along the lines of:

In:
LB: £25m-£40m
CB: £25m-£40m
CM: £25m-£40m
CM: £25m-£40m
RW: £35m-£40m
ST: £60-£90m

Min: £195m
Max: £290m

Out:
Rooney: £?? (Look to clear around £15m off the books in wages)
Smalling/Jones: £20m

Just looking through the squad and it's actually difficult to see us letting many go this summer. More likely to bring in players first, go into the season with a big squad and assess in January and sell then like we did this season.
 
DellaNe said:
Even if that is the money you have available this year, most of the clubs use amortization for book-keeping purposes, which means that the actual transfer fee is divided by the length of contract and only that portion is shown per year. So if you sign Griezmann for 90 Million and hand him a five year contract, you'll only have to show 18 Million plus his yearly wage, which means a budget of 133 Million can be stretched to so much more
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
STaphouse said:
It's not a 30% cut from the whole deal. It's for one year spread out over the rest of the deal, so will be barely noticeable.
Click to expand...

That sounds way better. I thought it was 30% from the entire deal which would set us back a lot.
 
The red panther said:
Keywords being "net" and "projection"
Click to expand...
Agree. :)
DellaNe said:
I am just replying to the thread starter saying the budget is 133 Million. I assumed he got that from the article. As for accounting standards, clubs do use amortization. It's documented in several football finance blogs.
Click to expand...
Of course they use amortisation (not "most of them" as you wrote; all of them do). However, the projected number is net capital expenditure - not a P&L budget, so your whole argument is misleading and incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.