100m budget for 2019 Summer window

Well it's beginning to show with the players we have now, compared to what we used to have.
Scholes, Keane, Beckham, Giggs, Cantona, Ronaldo, Rooney, Ferdinand, Vidic, Neville, and many others.

Now look at what we have got compared to these guys, and tell me we haven't gone backwards.
 
sp_107 said:
Chelsea would struggle with transfer ban and it seems Arsenal doesnt have too much money to spend. That leaves City,Pool,Spurs and we really step up then we can own that 4th spot and build on that. We just need 4/5 quality players in this window if we cant fully overhaul the squad.
Click to expand...
Definitely need 5 players and then some more next season, but we should not depend on getting just 4th place. We should be aiming for more than this, and the Glazers should be putting in more that 100 million for us to achieve this.
 
VanGaalyTime said:
What were we actually doing during the season? Woodward had at least 6 months to sign players and we're still in negotiations? What's happening?
Click to expand...

Agree entirely. Why wait until the season closes down. Players and clubs can agree terms prior to any transfer window opening. We’ve done it before with Jasper Stam, Ruud if I remember correctly. It just feels like Ed sits in his exec seat for months on end sorting commercial deals and only kicks into transfer action when the window opens. Reactive, not proactive
 
Bestietom said:
Well it's beginning to show with the players we have now, compared to what we used to have.
Scholes, Keane, Beckham, Giggs, Cantona, Ronaldo, Rooney, Ferdinand, Vidic, Neville, and many others.

Now look at what we have got compared to these guys, and tell me we haven't gone backwards.
Click to expand...

We used to be prepared to spend the money required. Most years in the 90s and early 2000s we spent money to improve. But we've allowed others to get better players. We've held on to poor players too long. And given too much money to average footballers. No other clubs in the history of world football has wasted money like United. And so when you add that to the 2.8billion difference in spending between the city and United owners, you get the current state.
 
We should stop going after high profile players other big teams want. Instead we should focus on building the team up with promising players that want to join us to develop themselves. For example, I really think we should go for Ozan Kabak from Stuttgart. He’s only 19 but is a beast. I have followed his games both for Galatasaray and Stuttgart, he has the potential to be the next big thing. He has a release clause of €15m. If we get him we potentially have a good CB for at least 10 years. Also he would be interested in us because he has not yet developed into the high profile player that can play in all big teams (read De Ligt, Koulbalt, etc.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Penna
My understanding of how transfers work is that they're done on a per year basis?

So if you spend 25m on a player on a five year contract it could work out as 5m per year on the books rather than as a 25m payment from some pooled transfer budget?

Which immediately makes me suspicious of articles like this as saying someone has a 100m transfer fund in a given window will naturally be over-simplistic. You could commit 100m in ways that have more or less impact per year, so it doesn't make sense to me that it would be defined in those terms.
 
VanGaalyTime said:
We used to be prepared to spend the money required. Most years in the 90s and early 2000s we spent money to improve. But we've allowed others to get better players. We've held on to poor players too long. And given too much money to average footballers. No other clubs in the history of world football has wasted money like United. And so when you add that to the 2.8billion difference in spending between the city and United owners, you get the current state.
Click to expand...

I dread to think what we will be like in another 4/5 years if we carry on like this. The Glazers need to spend BIG to get us back to where we belong. If they don't then sell up to somebody that will look after the football end of things.
 
sullydnl said:
My understanding of how transfers work is that they're done on a per year basis?

So if you spend 25m on a player on a five year contract it could work out as 5m per year on the books rather than as a 25m payment from some pooled transfer budget?

Which immediately makes me suspicious of articles like this as saying someone has a 100m transfer fund in a given window will naturally be over-simplistic. You could commit 100m in ways that have more or less impact per year, so it doesn't make sense to me that it would be defined in those terms.
Click to expand...

To me whatever transfer business is done is on the agreement of both parties. If they want so much up front and the rest paid over time and so on. I can't see any club settling for monies to split down equally over the time of contract. Clubs would try sign players over 10 years then.
 
Bestietom said:
I dread to think what we will be like in another 4/5 years if we carry on like this. The Glazers need to spend BIG to get us back to where we belong. If they don't then sell up to somebody that will look after the football end of things.
Click to expand...

They’re not going to spend big, they have no interest in doing so. They’ll sell up once we become so shit we can’t secure massive commercial deals anymore.
 
El Zoido said:
They’re not going to spend big, they have no interest in doing so. They’ll sell up once we become so shit we can’t secure massive commercial deals anymore.
Click to expand...

Well this would be a real shame on them and fans should not allow it. Show it by not going to games.
 
Bestietom said:
Well this would be a real shame on them and fans should not allow it. Show it by not going to games.
Click to expand...

I agree but that’s not going to happen. The owners do not care if the stadium is filled up with fans or tourists. Old Trafford is always going to be basically packed.
 
Bestietom said:
To me whatever transfer business is done is on the agreement of both parties. If they want so much up front and the rest paid over time and so on. I can't see any club settling for monies to split down equally over the time of contract. Clubs would try sign players over 10 years then.
Click to expand...

It isn't that they agree to split the money over a 5 year contract, it's that that's how it's recorded on the books. This explains it better than I can:

https://newtrendsinaccountingandfin...otball-clubs-use-accounting-and-amortization/

So while the money is actually paid up front (or over a year, or whatever) it's recorded per year. Which surely mean that budgeting has to be done on that per year basis too? Also wages, agent fees and image rights payments are factored into that yearly impact too, so i don't see how or why a club would have a straight "100m war chest" or whatever.
 
sullydnl said:
My understanding of how transfers work is that they're done on a per year basis?

So if you spend 25m on a player on a five year contract it could work out as 5m per year on the books rather than as a 25m payment from some pooled transfer budget?

Which immediately makes me suspicious of articles like this as saying someone has a 100m transfer fund in a given window will naturally be over-simplistic. You could commit 100m in ways that have more or less impact per year, so it doesn't make sense to me that it would be defined in those terms.
Click to expand...
Yes, i'm pretty sure there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread of how it works.

From what i understand, in the annual accounts the 'transfer spend' is seen through the 'Player Amortisation' line below (£138.4m) for 2018:

The £138.4m will be made up of writing off (amortising) previous year's transfer fees over the length of the contracts. So it will include for example £20m of the £100m we spent on Pogba in 2016 (£100m/5 year contract).

In simple terms getting say Bale on loan for 'free' but on £600k a week, would cost us £30m in annual profit terms. Wan Bissaka for £50m on £100k a week might cost us £15m a year (£50m/5 + £5m wages). How we actually pay for the transfer fee (up front/installments) is a different thing.
 
SirAF said:
One week until pre-season, tick tock..
Click to expand...

And just 2 weeks, or so, before the squad fly out to Australia. Ideally you’d want any new acquisitions on that flight to integrate and gel with the rest. If we are going to bring in some panic buys towards the end of the window we will go into the new season with a team that look like they don’t know each other.

Oh, wait a minute .....
 
Have a feeling we will Sign AWB and Bruno before the team leaves . Maybe 1 more before the start of the season . Unfortunately I dont think that is enough . Going to be a tough start to the season
 
George The Best said:
And just 2 weeks, or so, before the squad fly out to Australia. Ideally you’d want any new acquisitions on that flight to integrate and gel with the rest. If we are going to bring in some panic buys towards the end of the window we will go into the new season with a team that look like they don’t know each other.

Oh, wait a minute .....
Click to expand...

:lol:

Yep exactly! That's why I find it funny when people post a shit load of transfers "in and out" in those prediction threads, someone always quotes it and says, no way we can't do that, it'll ruin the squad harmony.

At this point we literally need to take a sledge hammer to the entire foundations of this squad. So much useless shit and players that constantly flatter to deceive.

It's not looking likely right now but I really think we need to be bold and have a huge shake-up personnel wise. Get rid of Pogba, Lukaku and any other fecker that wants out and just take a bloody chance on some hungry players.

WE FINISHED GOD DAMN 6TH, if we're not willing to take risks now, we're never getting back to the top:nervous:
 
It's actually quite a clever article when you think about it despite it obviously being made up nonsense.

First off it ticks the angry United fans with their pitch forks click bait box, and secondly, every man and his dog knows we're trying to sell Lukaku, and we will no doubt shift on another couple of players even if for small fees. That means, it has a huge chance of being correct also despite it being pure guesswork.
If we sell Lukaku for £65m and another couple of players for £25 in total, that gives United a kitty/budget of £190m. Obviously we're very unlikely to spend more that £190m quid so by the end of the window the journo can turn around and say "As we exclusively revealed" for any spend under or around that £190m mark.
 
Last edited:
I personally have made peace with the fact that we as usual will not bring in what ever United fan knows we need. I wont be a single bit surprised if on the final day of the window we start stupid bidding for players we have little hope of getting like some other windows . I genuinely believe Pep himself would struggle with the current set up at United so Ole has little chance until things above him change
 
manunited1919 said:
If it’s true we’re only spending 100m, then we have no ambition as a club.
Click to expand...

100 million net is about what i'd expect for a club without Champions League football?

You are lucky really that you can go in to next season realistically knowing that only two clubs will definitely finish above you.

The budget isn't your problem next season, it's having a manager that would struggle to get a job at any other Premier league club, and too many players that either don't want to be there, or don't seem to care about football enough?
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
It's actually quite a clever article when you think about it despite it obviously being made up nonsense.

First off it ticks the angry United fans with their pitch forks click bait box, and secondly, every man and his dog knows we're trying to sell Lukaku, and we will no doubt shift on another couple of players even if for small fees. That means, it has a huge chance of being correct also despite it being pure guesswork.
If we sell Lukaku for £65m and another couple of players for £25 in total, that gives United a kitty/budget of £190m. Obviously we're very unlikely to spend more that £190m quid so by the end of the window the journo can turn around and say "As we exclusively revealed" for any spend under or around that £190m mark.
Click to expand...

With this upturn in click-based marketing money, now that traditional newspapers are almost obsolete, it's become even easier to dangle tantalizing nonsense that gets a read isn't it?
 
VanGaalyTime said:
What were we actually doing during the season? Woodward had at least 6 months to sign players and we're still in negotiations? What's happening?
Click to expand...

That’s a great question really. I'm really curious to know what a day in the life of Ed or Matt Judge is in terms of handling the football side.
 
Tel074 said:
I wont be a single bit surprised if on the final day of the window we start stupid bidding for players we have little hope of getting like some other windows .
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with 2 signings and Ed is going to come out, do a little PR stunt and say we were in the market for those 100 million pound players but no one wanted to play ball. I think I read last season, he didn't want to pay over the odds for those players Mourinho wanted but he would happily invest on those young talented players like Varne even if it'll cost United a lot however we know his all talk.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
It's actually quite a clever article when you think about it despite it obviously being made up nonsense.

First off it ticks the angry United fans with their pitch forks click bait box, and secondly, every man and his dog knows we're trying to sell Lukaku, and we will no doubt shift on another couple of players even if for small fees. That means, it has a huge chance of being correct also despite it being pure guesswork.
If we sell Lukaku for £65m and another couple of players for £25 in total, that gives United a kitty/budget of £190m. Obviously we're very unlikely to spend more that £190m quid so by the end of the window the journo can turn around and say "As we exclusively revealed" for any spend under or around that £190m mark.
Click to expand...

If we only spent £100m net I think the vast majority of Utd fans would be very unhappy with that, it goes without saying that any money received from player sales should go into the fund but given the pitiful spend last summer and our dire campaign we're looking at £200/300m net to turn this mess around

Even that would be dependant on us actually identifying and signing the correct players, which I have no faith in us achieving
 
Lentwood said:
If we only spent £100m net I think the vast majority of Utd fans would be very unhappy with that, it goes without saying that any money received from player sales should go into the fund but given the pitiful spend last summer and our dire campaign we're looking at £200/300m net to turn this mess around

Even that would be dependant on us actually identifying and signing the correct players, which I have no faith in us achieving
Click to expand...

The main thing to me is £100 million is less than Jose or LVG spent most summers. So if we expect Ole to do better than they did, surely he shouldnt be shortchanged.
 
Ekeke said:
The main thing to me is £100 million is less than Jose or LVG spent most summers. So if we expect Ole to do better than they did, surely he shouldnt be shortchanged.
Click to expand...


The main thing for me is we can afford to spend 200m each summer without selling. And have money leftover for must have players that year. The fact that our biggest next spend has been 131m during the Pogba year is a disgrace. City have spent 200m almost every summer for 6 years. We cannot compete unless we spend. And last summer we were outspent by Fulham, Everton and Wolves. And remember we didn't spend anything between 2009 and 2013. That should be 800 million over 4 years. Which if we had spent would have kept us above the others. We're now playing catch-up and can't afford yet another low spending summer.
 
Leftback99 said:
Yes, i'm pretty sure there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread of how it works.

From what i understand, in the annual accounts the 'transfer spend' is seen through the 'Player Amortisation' line below (£138.4m) for 2018:

The £138.4m will be made up of writing off (amortising) previous year's transfer fees over the length of the contracts. So it will include for example £20m of the £100m we spent on Pogba in 2016 (£100m/5 year contract).

In simple terms getting say Bale on loan for 'free' but on £600k a week, would cost us £30m in annual profit terms. Wan Bissaka for £50m on £100k a week might cost us £15m a year (£50m/5 + £5m wages). How we actually pay for the transfer fee (up front/installments) is a different thing.
Click to expand...


It's seen through trade payables, the table doesn't show it.
 
There are 2 players that could be sold: Pogba (Madrid and Juventus interest) and Lukaku (Inter interest).

If we sell Pogba, we can invest the money in 2 players. Most of the money should go for a creative/goalscoring midfielder, someone like Havertz, Eriksen, Fernandes or Maddison.
Then, we should get another midfielder. It could be a deep-lying playmaker (Neves/Tielemans), a box-to-box (N'Domebele/Barella) or even a destroyer (Rice/Ndidi).

If we sell Lukaku, then we should use the money to buy a RW, the best options at the moment are Chiesa and Pepe, considering that Sancho will stay at Dortmund.

It seems that we are going to end up with Wan Bissaka for 50m. So I would sell the deadwood and use the rest of our transfer budget to get a top CB like Koulibaly.

At the end, we could have: Koulibaly, Wan Bissaka, N'Dombele, Fernandes and Pepe (I think Chiesa will go to Juve). That's 5 quality players for the first team.
 
JPRouve said:
It's seen through trade payables, the table doesn't show it.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be how much we owe on the balance sheet, but the annual cost to the profit and loss account is spread over the contracts through the amortisation line.

If we spent £1bn this summer, we wouldn't book a £1bn 'loss' in this years profit and loss account, it would be more like £200m (amortisation).
 
Leftback99 said:
Yes, that would be how much we owe on the balance sheet, but the annual cost to the profit and loss account is spread over the contracts through the amortisation line.

If we spent £1bn this summer, we wouldn't book a £1bn 'loss' in this years profit and loss account, it would be more like £200m (amortisation).
Click to expand...

And what you are describing, assets amortization, doesn't represent the "transfer spend". In this case it is simply an accounting practice that spreads the cost over the life of the asset which means that for example when players extend their contracts it alters the amortization. In the club's consolidated financial statement, transfer fees are in the Trade and other payables section and specifically included in trade payables.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.