It say 130m net and we have already pocketed about 40m from player sales in the winter transfer window and we will certainly be selling more in the summer. I'd say a total spend of around 200m should be enough given what we spent last summer.
Bank projects Manchester United transfer budget is £133m for 2017
- Thread starter cheeky_backheel
- Start date
£133m net would be our biggest summer ever. £133m gross would be our third-biggest summer ever. Either way, it's not peanuts!
Agree.
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.
So basically I was right about amortization, but the thread starter incorrectly assumed the article was talking about transfer budget. okay, got it.
That will get you one good player and maybe a panini these days
This. I was literally scratching my head at the whole amortisation point. That has almost nothing to do with what is available to spend in the window.
No, I think you're one with incorrect assumptions. Transfer budget and (projected) net capital spend are the same thing.
Amortisation is only relevant when forecasting/reporting on profit for the year. It has (almost) nothing to do with what will be spent in the transfer window.
That will bring Griezmann alone.
It's net player capital expenditure not gross, so we'll definitely be buying for a lot more than 150 million and if there is a large sale (I'm thinking De Gea), it's perfectly possible we spend around 200 million and have a net of 133 million.
First thing a lot of you are missing is that is says net spending.
Second thing is that, based on that article, they seem to be guessing, as much as you and I might. There's no inside info here. The main thesis is that as the club gets more stable, the expenditure will be reduced. I don't think we need an expert to tell us that.
Second thing is that, based on that article, they seem to be guessing, as much as you and I might. There's no inside info here. The main thesis is that as the club gets more stable, the expenditure will be reduced. I don't think we need an expert to tell us that.
Just struck me, what accounting year do clubs follow? 133 million could be until June 30th 2017 which is basically, what we've already spent?
The title of the thread is misleading, though that's not necessarily the OP's fault as the article itself is misleading. It suggests our transfer budget this summer will be £133m, which is still a lot! However, the graphic is clearly labelled 'net' expenditure. It's expected that there will be some sales this summer and we could definitely accumulate £40-50m worth of sales. When you consider inaccuracies and that these are estimates, it's possible our spending could go up to £200m.
With regards to the projections. The article is again misleading because it suggests that we will 'run out of money' season by season thereby having a smaller budget. Of course I expect us to gradually reign in the spending, because whilst we have lots of it, we don't have unlimited sums. However, decreased 'net' expenditure should mostly reflect the fact that we should (or should be aiming to!) have an established squad where we are looking to make a few additions and sales each summer as part of the natural turnover. In the last few years we've been very erratic and frivolous with our spending to turnover an aging squad, and overspent as a result. Decreased 'net expenditure' doesn't necessarily represent a cause for concern, and in fact, could be considered a sign of positive progress and strength. Time will tell.
With regards to the projections. The article is again misleading because it suggests that we will 'run out of money' season by season thereby having a smaller budget. Of course I expect us to gradually reign in the spending, because whilst we have lots of it, we don't have unlimited sums. However, decreased 'net' expenditure should mostly reflect the fact that we should (or should be aiming to!) have an established squad where we are looking to make a few additions and sales each summer as part of the natural turnover. In the last few years we've been very erratic and frivolous with our spending to turnover an aging squad, and overspent as a result. Decreased 'net expenditure' doesn't necessarily represent a cause for concern, and in fact, could be considered a sign of positive progress and strength. Time will tell.
I'm shocked this thread even exists. Net-spend is irrelevant isn't it ?
Glazers fault etc....
£133mil seems a bit high.
For season 2016-17 our net spent was £104mil, for 2015-6 it was £28mil,for 2014-15 it was £102mil.
For some reason people think we spent a lot when we don't.
Chelsea had a net spend over around £90mil in 2005-2006. Real had a net spent of around £150mil in 2009-10 etc etc.
The owners are still screwing us over. It's not just transfers.
Spurs are spending £800mil and rising on a stadium. Liverpool spent over a £100mil on a stand. They are going to spend £50mil on a new training complex. We are standing still on the capital side.
For season 2016-17 our net spent was £104mil, for 2015-6 it was £28mil,for 2014-15 it was £102mil.
For some reason people think we spent a lot when we don't.
Chelsea had a net spend over around £90mil in 2005-2006. Real had a net spent of around £150mil in 2009-10 etc etc.
The owners are still screwing us over. It's not just transfers.
Spurs are spending £800mil and rising on a stadium. Liverpool spent over a £100mil on a stand. They are going to spend £50mil on a new training complex. We are standing still on the capital side.
Last edited:
While this is correct, it's annoying how it gets revisited every year: "no worries, with this money magic amortisation thing we can spend zillions".
We are also amortising Pogba, Mkhitaryan, Bailly... maybe even Fellaini. Point being, you don't start afresh and can push it into the future willy nilly, it soon becomes a case of last year constraining this one.
I noticed the same. "Maybe the club planted it to calm down investors". So much wrong in there
That's not bad. It's net spend, we got around 40 million for Memphis and Schneiderlin and will probably sell a few more in the summer.
133 million is more than enough. Jose needs to buy well and make the most of what he has.
They probably do have more inside info than the average online poster. For all the debt refinancing, the club would have had to provide more details to the banks than is available to the average fan. Also, Credit Suisse provided those numbers to their investors. Being way off the mark does very little for their credibility.
Given historical numbers, I dont see why the projected number for this season should be discounted (subsequent ones are different), particularly if there is no alternate information from a more credible source.
I've felt Jose has had an agenda for a while. The way he talks about tiredness, the injured players and them not playing through the pain barrier. Then we've got Assistant Zlatan saying that despite our not challenging that Jose is getting everything from the team (supported also by Bailly).
Can it be that Jose has already been told what's available and that he doesn't consider it enough?
We've let go of Memphis and Schneiderlin which is cash in the bank. Schweinsteiger, Rooney and Zlatan off the wage bill is a big chunk too.
Of course, this projection does not have to have anything to do with the club or what will actually be spent. But I feel as though there have been attempts to bring home the message that serious investment is needed. And of course, given the type of players we are after, to improve not just the squad, but the first XI, and the way the market is, the figure might be significantly higher than the price of one and a half top player.
Can it be that Jose has already been told what's available and that he doesn't consider it enough?
We've let go of Memphis and Schneiderlin which is cash in the bank. Schweinsteiger, Rooney and Zlatan off the wage bill is a big chunk too.
Of course, this projection does not have to have anything to do with the club or what will actually be spent. But I feel as though there have been attempts to bring home the message that serious investment is needed. And of course, given the type of players we are after, to improve not just the squad, but the first XI, and the way the market is, the figure might be significantly higher than the price of one and a half top player.
I doubt that's taking into account his January sales. We'll spend between £150-£200 mil as will City/Chelsea.
Last edited:
We are not getting the kind of money Chelsea will be getting from China, and the Citeh board seem more willing to bankroll crazy numbers than the Glazers.
True but our revenue is much higher than them.
I don't see any negative in the club expecting our capex on players to halve in the next 4 years. The graph shows that they expect relative stability post this years summer transfer window (where they expect to spend a significant amount; 133m net spend is a lot). We cannot continue to have massive spending windows and a churn of five or six players every season if we want to be successful. At some point we'll have to go back to having a stable team and then addition of a couple of players to improve the team each term. I know everyone thinks that we are a cash machine but blowing £150m net on players every transfer window is not sustainable even with our massive revenue. There may also be other areas where the club would like to spend capital for the long-term benefit of the club.
Also, amortization of assets is for accounting and tax purposes. It doesn't have to do anything with our yearly net spends on transfers.
Also, amortization of assets is for accounting and tax purposes. It doesn't have to do anything with our yearly net spends on transfers.
We have had high revenues but still didnt spend that much in net transfers. I just think the Glazers are more interested in the financials than the footballing results.
The fact they've got Woody who's determined to throw the chequebook at any world class player at the helm leads me to think they are interested in both.
NET transfer budget is the difference between what you spend on transfers (buying players) and what you bring in from transfers (selling players). So if we sell one of the central backs, Darmian or Blind, Rooney and Young, they will bring in £50-60m, which means the club can spend circa £200m on new players this summer.
I appreciate the back and forth here. Don't get lazy on us folk that aren't as business/finance savvy and not finish this discourse.
How exactly does United forecast and then account for their expenditure on player signings? Does a players transfer fee get lumped into wage spending or is reported separately like purchasing his contract from another club ( an asset ?). Might be simple/dumb questions but I'm curious of the details.
What a load of rubbish, we will be spending much more than that this summer. That was a crap article, we're going to spend an absolute fortune this year. Memphis, Bastian, and Morgan left already. Rooney is as good as gone, a replacement for Zlatan will come too. Rojo being out and the unreliable cb's being injured will force us to spend, will Carrick, Young and De Gea be here next year? You could be chatting maybe 6 new players next year.
We know through Griezmann's advisors that we have put an offer in. I'd say we are in for in Mbappe, point is that it's nearly 100m right there for each, add another 4 or 5? We will stop spending when we are more stable, add one or two every summer window after that. We are in transition and rebuilt is happening since Jose came. Don't believe stupid projections based on nothing.
We know through Griezmann's advisors that we have put an offer in. I'd say we are in for in Mbappe, point is that it's nearly 100m right there for each, add another 4 or 5? We will stop spending when we are more stable, add one or two every summer window after that. We are in transition and rebuilt is happening since Jose came. Don't believe stupid projections based on nothing.
It's reported separately.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_7TjMzCY...CLcB/s1600/1+Manchester+United+P%26L+2016.jpg
Our player amortisation cost in 15/16 was £88m. It has been explained in the comments you quoted but we bought Depay for about £25m on a five year contract so Depay's transfer fee would be £5m of that £88m figure. The wage bill for all employees and including social security and pensions was £232.2m. Before we sold him Depay was probably costing us something like £10m a season in wages and amortisation.
I don't know how United forecast these things, they'll roughly know how much revenue/wages/operating expenses are going to be for the season ahead so they'll know how much can be spent on transfers.
Last edited:
2-3 players max, or we won't be in the title race next year. We can't bring in 5 new players an expect the team to perform well as a team during the first half of the season.
So you think it's more realistic we'd spend 100m on one player, and then sign another 5 on top of that?
I think we will spend around 100 on one and buy 4 more. It's all pointing to that, there is more than evidence to suggest we will. It's definitely realistic
Now let this be a warning to you! 
Potentially Out- darmian young blind januzaj shaw zlatan Rooney de gea (hope not)
Already sold- schweinsteiger depay schneiderlin
Should be plenty of money in pot to buy the players we need.
Already sold- schweinsteiger depay schneiderlin
Should be plenty of money in pot to buy the players we need.
What's the evidence? No way our spending exceeds 200£m which is the minimum you'd be looking at if your 5+ incoming is correct.
When you buy a player, you treat that player as effectively an intangible asset and the value we paid has to be written off over the life of the contract. This is purely for accounting purposes
For example pogba was bought for 90m. We expect to receive benefits from the player for the next 5 years so we put Pogba as an asset valued at 90m and in 5 years we have to bring it to 0. The logic is that we don't receive the entire benefits from pogba in one year. We will receive it over the next 5 years so we write the cost off in instalments. It can be either equally (if we assume the same benefit every year) or unequal amounts (sometimes we may expect that we receive lesser benefits now and more later. Maybe in cases of young players like martial).
Now this has nothing to do with transfers or what we pay the other club. What we owe the other club is a debt for us. We may pay it in part but it's just a deferred payment and not optional payment.
For the revamp we need I can only see us spending way above that, it's from next summer onwards I can imagine us starting to limit our spending as we'd only need a few additions each window to keep the squad fresh, we're hoping by the end of this summer our team is near enough complete.