lewwoo
Full Member
Where are all the profits going? I thought we had the highest turnover in the league. Why is nothing being invested back in to the team.
It is 80-90m at the moment. 10m was on bonuses for Lukaku, so that money won't come until the conditions for the bonuses are satisfied. We also gave 5m to Everton for him. And finally, we also also paying 5-10m for that French kid.Purse string have been tightened, its been evident since last summer really.
Our netspend this summer is £70m at the moment. This is without taking into account £10m which the club got for Fellaini in January. Rojo goes for rumored £25m? Our spend in calendar year 2019 would be a measly £35m. Just not good enough for a team which finished 6th last season.
Top reds/match going fans will still stand up and applaud everyone though, so it's unlikely we're gonna come out of this mess anytime soon.
Yeah. Nothing
Seriously am I the only one who sees the club operating properly as a positive? We bought Lukaku for 75m and sold him 2 years later only taking a 3m loss (if the rumours about Everton getting 5m are true). We've walked away from deals which would have caused even more disproportion in the wage structure (Dybala) whereas previously (Sanchez) we ignored such things
Yes we're short in midfield and attack but if we've levelled up the defence the way we have for just £73m that's a good thing is it not? Obviously it's a glass half empty crowd here but if the money we've made back from Lukaku means money for someone like Sancho and the right midfielder next summer then I'm all for it
It is 80-90m at the moment. 10m was on bonuses for Lukaku, so that money won't come until the conditions for the bonuses are satisfied. We also gave 5m to Everton for him. And finally, we also also paying 5-10m for that French kid.
I'll believe when I see it that we are selling Rojo for 25m. We will be laughing if we get 15m for him.
You literally only read the first line. Going 'over budget' is a common term in the workplace.
Do you really think a multi-billion £ organisation with a Financial invester/accountant as Executive Vice-Chairman, is not going to chair a meeting after the worst season in years and outline a stratergy/financial plan for the coming years?
And during an already inflated transfer market, this same Executive Vice-Chairman is not going to discuss a realistic budget for the coming window. Instead we are just going ot wing it and see what happens?
Whats more plausible here? That we entered the market with a budget discussed, or without one?
It just happens that £100m, coincidentally or not, looks to be the ball park figure.
I dislike Woody as much as the next fan, but as far has that infamous phrase goes, he was proven right.
It's just that the strategy of who we bought / how we went about it was completely flawed.
I said that midfield is an area we should have improved, but bar Rabiot I don't know a really quality midfielder that was available this summer.
McTominey has been playing really good for almost a year now, and Fred needs to either prove his worth or we should get rid of him. Enough with 50m pounds players who cannot even make the bench.
I think that we will be fine in the attack. Between Martial, Rashford, Lingard, Mata, James, Lingard, Greenwood, Gomes, Sanchez (and if needs be Dalot and Chong) we are fine for 3-4 positions. If Rashford gets injured, Martial can play in attack, and someone (Sanchez, Chong or Gomes) play in the left-wing. Or just play Greenwood in the attack. I don't see how it would have been a good idea to spend 50m or so in some good but not great striker when we have Greenwood.
We have nearly 200m in cash/equivalents. We have money. We are profitable.
The - we are skint- argument is just wrong.
If Woody had delivered a CM, this would have been a pretty decent window.
It's not that we dont have the money.. It must be that Woody doesnt want to get taken to the cleaners signing duds anymore.
The fact that we couldnt identify a top midfielder or convince him to join is concerning though.
Longstaff is still a possibility ... or not.
Only Arsenal (as things stand, providing that Lukaku goes to Inter and Majbri comes at United) has marginally net spend more than us from our rivals, with Villa being the other club in EPL spending more than us. Liverpool and Chelsea have a negative net spent (especially Chelsea who are at -70m), City and Spurs are at around 45m.Net spend is being pointed out to drive home the point we've been outspent by 5-6 PL clubs. 3 of them are our direct rivals no less. We need more given the dire season we just had, additional £10m on top of current figure of net spend doesn't change that.
Tielemans and McT are both B2B and I think they wants to give McT an opportunity.If we couldn't find anyone better to what we've got then giving Herrera what he asked for would have made sense. Sure his salary demands might have been OTT but there again, we could have afforded it IF we refused to give non players like Jones and Mata a new contract. However I can think of many signings who could have improved us from Tielemans, Rabiot right to Ndombele. Even second tier players like Kessie could do the trick.
That would have allowed us to beefen up an already weak CM whose set to get weaker with Matic growing 1 year older and with Pogba more focused on leaving then staying. Its totally unacceptable for a top club to lose 2 CM and not replacing them.
Regarding RW, we're once again without a top RW. Meanwhile upfront we'll be relying on a kid and a has been to cover for Rashford, the latter, not exactly being a Thierry Henry or a RVN.
Tielemans and McT are both B2B and I think they wants to give McT an opportunity.
Rabiot and Ndombele became a pipe dream the moment we lost top 4.
Ofcourse, I am with you on it. It has been a disaster. Esp given that Arsenal and Chelsea didn't strengthen enough and we had a straight shot to top 4.I think Mct can easily drop as a DM if needed. There are others such as Rice for example or Kessie for example. Meanwhile as no 10 I wouldn't have mind someone like Suso (whose got a ridiculous minimum signing on fee) or Bruno.
Lets face it, we didn't spent money because we didn't want to.
City is closer to 100m. Get it right before you make excusesOnly Arsenal (as things stand, providing that Lukaku goes to Inter and Majbri comes at United) has marginally net spend more than us from our rivals, with Villa being the other club in EPL spending more than us. Liverpool and Chelsea have a negative net spent (especially Chelsea who are at -70m), City and Spurs are at around 45m.
Only Arsenal (as things stand, providing that Lukaku goes to Inter and Majbri comes at United) has marginally net spend more than us from our rivals, with Villa being the other club in EPL spending more than us. Liverpool and Chelsea have a negative net spent (especially Chelsea who are at -70m), City and Spurs are at around 45m.
Thank you.Wrong on so many counts, beyond Arsenal and Villa there are 3 clubs at least who'd have outspent us.
First and foremost, Wolves net spend is £86.5m at the moment. That's without accounting for possible Kessie transfer at £26m which would push it north of £100m
https://www.transfermarkt.co.in/wolverhampton-wanderers/transfers/verein/543
Second, City net spend is £80m at the moment https://www.transfermarkt.co.in/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Third, Spurs net spend is £37m at the moment but Le Celso and Sessengon signings are imminent which would again push their net spend north of £100m.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.in/tottenham-hotspur/transfers/verein/148
Also, if Everton do sign Zaha in next few hours then they'd also leapfrog us.
Ofcourse, I am with you on it. It has been a disaster. Esp given that Arsenal and Chelsea didn't strengthen enough and we had a straight shot to top 4.
Next year, Pogba will leave and we will still sitting on a pile of cash doing nothing.
Man Utd can do things other team can't...oh wait...
How do you mean so I follow?
Where are all the profits going? I thought we had the highest turnover in the league. Why is nothing being invested back in to the team.
He spent a feck load of money, paid agents, paid the wages.
Hence why we got Falcao, Di Maria, Pogba, Sanchez (list goes on). All of those players were linked elsewhere, but we completely blew them away with ££'s.
Unless we all think they signed for the Reds because they loved us.
Poor frankenstein. He left Leicester thinking he'll be joining a better side
I get the intention, mate, we want to look on the bright side. Usually I'm all for making the best of it. But we're well past that and I think any message of temperance now only keeps Ed and Glazers at the helm longer and United down.@Sterling Archer , @Kush you're right, the website I checked had not been updated today.
Here is from transfermarket: https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
United is first at 159m euros. Remove around 70m for Lukaku (10m is on variables, so we have no idea if we will ever get that money), add 5-6m which we are giving to Everton (sell-on clause), and around 10m for Mejbri, this puts us at around 105m euros (95m if Mejbri doesn't come). Which is second only to Aston Villa.
Arsenal are at 99m, Wolves at 93.6m, Spurs at 40m (let's add the money for their signings which they haven't made when they make them), City at 86m.
Outspent by Aston Villa and Wolves even though we generate more money than any other club in the world.. Now thats the way to make United big again.. Why dont they just fecking sell and feck off
@Sterling Archer , @Kush you're right, the website I checked had not been updated today.
Here is from transfermarket: https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
United is first at 159m euros. Remove around 70m for Lukaku (10m is on variables, so we have no idea if we will ever get that money), add 5-6m which we are giving to Everton (sell-on clause), and around 10m for Mejbri, this puts us at around 105m euros (95m if Mejbri doesn't come). Which is second only to Aston Villa.
Arsenal are at 99m, Wolves at 93.6m, Spurs at 40m (let's add the money for their signings which they haven't made when they make them), City at 86m.
So do I. But I think we will be let down there as well. Fingers crossed they will feck off though.Mark Odgen was speculating that they might be planning to for the reason they've spent so little of the clubs revenue. They've spent the clubs money (not there own) before why stop now. With all rumours about Jim Ratcliffe or the Saudis buying United. I really hope they sell.
Okay understood but what was our targets? Clearly he hasn’t got them regardless of the ££’s and agents.
With all this hype surrounding kids I won't be surprised if we end up barely ever playing them at all. Next year our rebuilding will be massive, we'll need an entire midfield to rebuild (RW as well) and probably a scorer as well. I doubt Ole would still be here though which means all the work around these kids will be for nought.
Ole should have been less idealistic and more realistic. He should have added 2-3 other players who would have secured our top 4 spot and only then play the kids
@Sterling Archer , @Kush you're right, the website I checked had not been updated today.
Here is from transfermarket: https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
United is first at 159m euros. Remove around 70m for Lukaku (10m is on variables, so we have no idea if we will ever get that money), add 5-6m which we are giving to Everton (sell-on clause), and around 10m for Mejbri, this puts us at around 105m euros (95m if Mejbri doesn't come). Which is second only to Aston Villa.
Arsenal are at 99m, Wolves at 93.6m, Spurs at 40m (let's add the money for their signings which they haven't made when they make them), City at 86m.
Revan is not a Dark Lord. It is an anagram of the the word "Nevar" which is to snow in Espanol. this is symbolism that Ed Plans to freeze United's rise as a relevant club by snowing on your parade as opposed to raining on itWe have been outspent by Aston Villa and Wolves even though we generate more money than any other club in the world. We finished 6th! last year 6th! Madrid finished 3rd last year and have net spent 190m so far! Thats how you do it. How can you possibly defend these clowns.
It is not a variable for Lukaku though. 5m is going to Everton, which means that we are getting 60m, not 65. So 145- 60 = 85m net spent. Add the money for Majbri, and it goes to 90m+.Why are you including variables and addons for players we've signed and deducing it from those we have sold? That's so disingenuous.
We dropped £80m on Maguire, £50m on AWB and £15m on James for a total expenditure of £145m. Remove the guaranteed Lukaku money which is £65m base, that net spend goes down to £80m. Add the overall cost its in ~£70m region. Fact of the matter is, we finished 6th last season and we would've been outspent by 5-6 PL clubs this season, 4 of them which are our straight up rivals. There's no excuse for it.
If it ends up at £70m or less net spend that's appallingly bad considering we spent pretty much naff all last window as well. I'm not really sure what the club's doing - this is a very poor effort of attempting to make up the difference to top 4. The club must realise persistent failure to attain at least top 4 will start to impact all those lucrative deals just as it seems to be impacting attracting top talent. Maybe a club sale really is on the cards. It's a complete Shambles...
Depressing transfer window. Im really dissapointed to club.