100m budget for 2019 Summer window

Rumours are true.

£68m spent so far, roughly.

If we sign Longstaff for what we are willing to spend = another 25-30m.

£95-100m.

Maguire will not be coming unless Lukaku is sold.
 
I can only find two possible reasons for why we seem so skint (if we don't spend more), either it's somehow because of Brexit since no other English club seem to spend money either. Or the Glazers are preparing for a recession while the Spanish clubs are not worried about that.
 
red thru&thru said:
Where does all our money go to only have a £100m budget???
Click to expand...

It’s being perms-siphoned into the Glazers pockets don’t you know.

Most of you people don’t really give a shit about the money. Nor truly understand how the club is run.

As long as the team is winning nobody on here will moan about anything. Because we are not everybody is jumping on ‘finances’ ‘players’ etc and pretending to be experts.

It’s amusing but also a bit sad to observe. Especially as I’m guilty of it too.
 
SaintMuppet said:
It’s being perms-siphoned into the Glazers pockets don’t you know.

Most of you people don’t really give a shit about the money. Nor truly understand how the club is run.

As long as the team is winning nobody on here will moan about anything. Because we are not everybody is jumping on ‘finances’ ‘players’ etc and pretending to be experts.

It’s amusing but also a bit sad to observe. Especially as I’m guilty of it too.
Click to expand...

To be fair, my comment was to ignite this kind of response. I know 'loosely' what happens to our money. More and more fans need to question it. This window just highlights what the Glazer's and Ed are doing with the clubs finances.
 
red thru&thru said:
Where does all our money go to only have a £100m budget???
Click to expand...
Ridiculous wages compared to performances on the pitch
High transfer fees wasted in previous years
Lack of champions league money
£20m+ payoff of Mourinho and staff
Low returns when selling players
Interest payments

The accounts are publically available (posted earlier in this thread) and to me show we can't afford anywhere near as much on transfers as people think.
 
Leftback99 said:
Ridiculous wages compared to performances on the pitch
High transfer fees wasted in previous years
Lack of champions league money
£20m+ payoff of Mourinho and staff
Low returns when selling players
Interest payments

The accounts are publically available (posted earlier in this thread) and to me show we can't afford anywhere near as much on transfers as people think.
Click to expand...

So we're pretty much a poorly run club?
 
Leftback99 said:
Ridiculous wages compared to performances on the pitch
High transfer fees wasted in previous years
Lack of champions league money
£20m+ payoff of Mourinho and staff
Low returns when selling players
Interest payments

The accounts are publically available (posted earlier in this thread) and to me show we can't afford anywhere near as much on transfers as people think.
Click to expand...

It is weird you say that. If your finances are terrible then.
1. You dont offer Jose a new contract and not back him, knowing a pay off is huge
2. You don't offer De Gea £350k a week
3. Keep players and give them contracts in fear or risk losing them for free? I would rather see Jones, Darmian, Rojo, Sanchez leave for free to free up wage budget.
 
romufc said:
It is weird you say that. If your finances are terrible then.
1. You dont offer Jose a new contract and not back him, knowing a pay off is huge
2. You don't offer De Gea £350k a week
3. Keep players and give them contracts in fear or risk losing them for free? I would rather see Jones, Darmian, Rojo, Sanchez leave for free to free up wage budget.
Click to expand...
They are all just examples of the poor decision making that has caught up with us. The De Gea contract is a symptom of not sorting it out sooner, leaving us in the potential position of losing him for nothing and having to replace him.
 
Leftback99 said:
They are all just examples of the poor decision making that has caught up with us. The De Gea contract is a symptom of not sorting it out sooner, leaving us in the potential position of losing him for nothing and having to replace him.
Click to expand...

We’ve tried to sign him up for years and years.

Edit: not to have a go but this is another example of EVERYTHING being our boards fault apparently. We have managed to keep de Gea. This is great news not seen as a negative.

We also clearly don’t have a 100 million budget this transfer window whatsoever.
 
Wumminator said:
We’ve tried to sign him up for years and years.

Edit: not to have a go but this is another example of EVERYTHING being our boards fault apparently. We have managed to keep de Gea. This is great news not seen as a negative.

We also clearly don’t have a 100 million budget this transfer window whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Probably not but i highly doubt it will be the £200m+ net that some think either.
 
Leftback99 said:
They are all just examples of the poor decision making that has caught up with us. The De Gea contract is a symptom of not sorting it out sooner, leaving us in the potential position of losing him for nothing and having to replace him.
Click to expand...

De Gea I can see the logic, but Jones is not worth £120k a week - sometimes you have to tell these mediocre players, leave if you want, you wont get these wages.
 
So you’re telling me United make the most revenue profit out of any club in the world yet are expected to spend like some middle tier team? Feck off.



...and I can’t believe this wage thing is being thrown around and people are eating it up - what a sorry ass excuse. Lukaku makes a £9m salary annually. That’s the difference between us being able to spend £150m-£200m or not, all the way down to £100m? Really?? If you believe that you’re the type of robot head-nodding fans the Glazers appreciate and love to have.

What a joke. Our club continues to be a laughing stock while the owners just pocket the money and are only invested on the financial side of things. Just think about this bs excuse of having to shed a player like Lukaku in order to spend more; Lukaku makes £9m annually but supposedly that’s preventing us and the cause for slashing our transfer budget by minimum £50m? :wenger:
 
romufc said:
Maybe because the transfer window in Europe closes after the English one.
Ole wants Lukaku out, Lukaku wants out.

Is that enough of a reason?
Click to expand...
I didn't say how I said why. If ole publically says he wants to replace lukaku I think once UK window shuts he is staying put
 
I think clubs are being extra cautious because of Brexit.

Nobody in the premier league has spent loads this year, there has to be a reason for that.

I suspect clubs are hanging onto their cash just incase the pound plummets and causes financial issues.
 
Adam-Utd said:
I think clubs are being extra cautious because of Brexit.

Nobody in the premier league has spent loads this year, there has to be a reason for that.

I suspect clubs are hanging onto their cash just incase the pound plummets and causes financial issues.
Click to expand...

Yeah seen a thing before saying it has been the least active window in Premier League history this year, all very quiet.
 
Adam-Utd said:
I think clubs are being extra cautious because of Brexit.

Nobody in the premier league has spent loads this year, there has to be a reason for that.

I suspect clubs are hanging onto their cash just incase the pound plummets and causes financial issues.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that.

Liverpool dont really need anyone.
Spurs strengthened where they needed to after spending alot on their stadium
Man City - Needed fine tuning and got that.
Chelsea - Transfer ban but still spent £100m in Pulisic and Kovakic
Arsenal - same as us - board not spending
Everton - Spending - 34m so far
Leicester - Spending - 76m so far
Wolves - Spending 43m so far
West Ham - Spending - 61m so far
Aston Villa - Spending - 115m so far
Newcastle - sending - 40m so far
Southampton - spending 50m so far

And if teams dont want to spend, why not sell and get some money in?
 
romufc said:
I disagree with that.

Liverpool dont really need anyone.
Spurs strengthened where they needed to after spending alot on their stadium
Man City - Needed fine tuning and got that.
Chelsea - Transfer ban but still spent £100m in Pulisic and Kovakic
Arsenal - same as us - board not spending
Everton - Spending - 34m so far
Leicester - Spending - 76m so far
Wolves - Spending 43m so far
West Ham - Spending - 61m so far
Aston Villa - Spending - 115m so far
Newcastle - sending - 40m so far
Southampton - spending 50m so far

And if teams dont want to spend, why not sell and get some money in?
Click to expand...
Considering all teams get 80m a season just from TV deals alone, I wouldn't say any of those are pushing the boat out.
 
Leftback99 said:
They are all just examples of the poor decision making that has caught up with us. The De Gea contract is a symptom of not sorting it out sooner, leaving us in the potential position of losing him for nothing and having to replace him.
Click to expand...
The club has tried getting DDG to sign for a long time. People just love making things up.
 
Adam-Utd said:
Considering all teams get 80m a season just from TV deals alone, I wouldn't say any of those are pushing the boat out.
Click to expand...

I think you will realise that £80m doesnt all go to transfers.

They take this into consideration for wages, stadium upgrades, facilities etc.
 
It does feel like we're waiting for the sale of Lukaku before doing anything else, which would fit this narrative.
 
romufc said:
I disagree with that.

Liverpool dont really need anyone.
Spurs strengthened where they needed to after spending alot on their stadium
Man City - Needed fine tuning and got that.
Chelsea - Transfer ban but still spent £100m in Pulisic and Kovakic
Arsenal - same as us - board not spending
Everton - Spending - 34m so far
Leicester - Spending - 76m so far
Wolves - Spending 43m so far
West Ham - Spending - 61m so far
Aston Villa - Spending - 115m so far
Newcastle - sending - 40m so far
Southampton - spending 50m so far

And if teams dont want to spend, why not sell and get some money in?
Click to expand...
Scouse need a goal scoring midfielder and more depth overall. City need a good centre back, Kompany won them the league and is gone. Chelsea sold Hazard. Arsenal need a lot of new players, United could do too, but the ambition isn't there. Newcastle, Everton Wolves could spend a lot more.

Premier League wants to be the best league in the world but especially the spanish giants have much better players and teams at their disposal. If the trend continues, the TV money will be getting smaller and smaller, IMO.
 
Mark Ogden has reaffirmed his stance that United only have a £100m net to spend in this window in a Podcast with Andy Mitten.

Ogden also speculates that the Glazers might jump ship in the next 12 months which would explain the squeeze in the transfer market.
 
luke511 said:
It does feel like we're waiting for the sale of Lukaku before doing anything else, which would fit this narrative.
Click to expand...
Problem is the transfer window in England closes early. Inter can get another striker signed until September. Pressure is on United to sell.
 
Adnan said:
Mark Ogden has reaffirmed his stance that United only have a £100m net to spend in this window in a Podcast with Andy Mitten.

Ogden also speculates that the Glazers might jump ship in the next 12 months which would explain the squeeze in the transfer market.
Click to expand...
One of them ( a Woman) has taken out 2 big loans in the last 5 weeks ( an American bank) on the strength of her shares.
 
Adnan said:
Mark Ogden has reaffirmed his stance that United only have a £100m net to spend in this window in a Podcast with Andy Mitten.

Ogden also speculates that the Glazers might jump ship in the next 12 months which would explain the squeeze in the transfer market.
Click to expand...

Good. The quicker they piss off the better. I think it's obvious we are pretty much done in the market. Maybe Maguire but I even doubt this will happen. That's roughly 70 mill spent this and last summer. And that for a club that needs major investment to challenge again. It's a joke
 
Why would the owners spend when there is no need ? Ed Woodward has done a fantastic job in making Manchester United one of the most lucrative sporting franchises on the planet , worth far more now than when the Glazers bought the club and earning them plenty on the way . He has secured some excellent sponsorship deals without the need for the team to be any good and brought in some extremely marketable players . If ever the profits do start dropping the owners can sell and make a tidy profit , they can`t go wrong really . The Glazers and Woodward are great businessmen , money for nothing really .
 
We're spending like a midtable ambitions club to be fair, it will be funny if Arsenal manage to spend about the same as us or even outspend us come end of the window.

But yeah, Ed said it himself, we can do what other big clubs can dream of in the market. Like spend feck all or spend it on garbage.
 
Kostur said:
We're spending like a midtable ambitions club to be fair, it will be funny if Arsenal manage to spend about the same as us or even outspend us come end of the window.
Click to expand...

Fecking aston villa has spent 100 million this summer.
 
romufc said:
I disagree with that.

Liverpool dont really need anyone.
Spurs strengthened where they needed to after spending alot on their stadium
Man City - Needed fine tuning and got that.
Chelsea - Transfer ban but still spent £100m in Pulisic and Kovakic
Arsenal - same as us - board not spending
Everton - Spending - 34m so far
Leicester - Spending - 76m so far
Wolves - Spending 43m so far
West Ham - Spending - 61m so far
Aston Villa - Spending - 115m so far
Newcastle - sending - 40m so far
Southampton - spending 50m so far

And if teams dont want to spend, why not sell and get some money in?
Click to expand...
Only three clubs on your list there have spent more than us, though?

Art said:
Fecking aston villa has spent 100 million this summer.
Click to expand...
So did Fulham last year. Third highest spenders, second last.
 
Kostur said:
Those are some very good points.

Relegation fodder/newly promoted teams have shown and show more ambition than us in the transfer market.
Click to expand...
How? Buying shite players for a lot of money isn't showing ambition. It's showing negligence.
 
It was the same sort of rubbish last year, we wanted Perisic, a CB like Maguire, or altneratives, all we got was a young Portugese rightback for £20m and a 'marque' £50m signing in Fred. Mourinho publically stated he wanted more players, but was given nothing.

Anyone with eyes knows we have gaping holes in our team and need to spend about £200m to even catch up to the likes of Tottenham, never mind the top 2. Instead we're spending the bare minimum, because we're still paying a stupid debt that's taken $1b out of the club and because Ed and the Glazers care more about the profit-loss figures than actual on the field success.

I really hope their endgame is to sell soon, because if they keep the club for another 5+ years we'll fall further behind the pack and suddenly we'll find our revenue limited ala Arsenal, and at that point we won't actually be able to spend £200m.
 
Last edited:
Alabaster Codify7 said:
Rumours are true.

£68m spent so far, roughly.

If we sign Longstaff for what we are willing to spend = another 25-30m.

£95-100m.

Maguire will not be coming unless Lukaku is sold.
Click to expand...
Already had a bid rejected by Leicester, confirmed by Rogers, so no, they ain't.

£68m spent so far, roughly.
£70m bid rejected by Leicester
£20m bid for Longstaff rejected by Newcastle

£158mil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.