We don't though. We had CL money last year and made ~20M in profit and after buying Fred and Dalot for ~70M. We already spent a net of 70M this year and were okay with spending another 55-ish in Jan, that too with out the CL money. We'll probably post a loss this year and pretty soon you'd have to borrow to fund player purchases. Lots of (admittedly smaller) clubs went bust that way. I think some amount of financial prudence and long term thinking is good.
I firmly believe that the thing that's preventing us from getting back to the top is the scatter brained recruitment strategy and not the money. Even if we had unlimited money to spend, I don't trust the people running the club to make the right decisions right now.
I don't think firing Ed does much good at this point either. They've learned a lot of hard lessons over the last five years and all we'll do is to bring in another CEO who might have to do it all over again. We seem to have turned a corner transfers wise, so I hope another 2-3 players this summer who can fit in as nicely as Maguire and AwB in the squad is what I'm hoping for.
Having a net spend does not meant the value is lost in the books, its simply moved from Cash reserve to asset. The value remains the same primarily unless a factor increases or decreases the players market value. But primarily the reason we are not doing to post a net loss is because of the adjusted wage structure the club has put in place in the event of CL football. The players wages are reduced to offset the operating loss of CL v EL football, plus the departure of Lukaku and parts of Sanchez's contract helps offset further wage headaches. Our wage expenditure is down -8.8% this year because of this. The thing about a giant club like Manchester United is that we employ some
really good accountants that are incredibly good at forecasting. Forecasting is what helps us adjust for any number of scenarios, be it operation reduction, reduction of TV deals, sponsorship, increase in shirt sponsor revenue, what have you. There is nothing "year to year" with Manchester United's financial planning, it's modeled out the next 5 years or even more to ensure the longevity of the company. There are ALWAYS long term plans in a business of this magnitude. That is why no one gets too nervous about a year in the Europa League. There is financial health there sufficient to invest. When the club says that it has a new transfer strategy it certainly means it. Buying younger players that can contribute in 2-3 years is the current model. The club has an ambition of competing for titles
next season. This season is all about investing into the right youth and future key components. The season is a professional and financial write-off for future gain. It was always that way to begin with.
A net spend does not mean that the club has lost the net value. The value is still there, in the player. The players value goes on the books as an asset. Net spend simply refers to the balance of players in vs out. Not reduction of operating income.
The club has a operating EBIDTA of £155m to £165m for this fiscal year. Down from £185~m fiscal year 2019, in line with the annual guidance. Total operation income is budgeted to £560-580m. The fiscal year of 2019 had a operating profit of £50 million. MUFC pays out a dividend yearly to our shareholders, primarily the Glazer family. This is how the Glazers earn an income on the club if they are not reducing their A/B shares. In very short, there are no surprises or financial results that are of a concern for us at this stage. The club knew about this last year and our operation expenditure has been adjusted to account for the loss of operation revenue.
EBIDTA is for this who aren't familiar with the term:
Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization
Ed Woodward, for all the glorified hate he gets for player recruitment, despite not being the guy that even brings the players names up in the first place, is a fine businessman, and manages to constantly put healthy profits on the table even when we lack CL football, and the club is saddled with the Glazer family's debt. MUFC is still an extremely attractive club, with the new chinese shirt sponsor deal to be finalized, blowing the Chevrolet deal out of the water, and a estimated 1.1 billion global fans according to Kantar.
Whenever I see someone (not you) post that they suspect we are pennypinching because of a Glazer sale.. I'm kinda wondering, do they think the money in the club belong to the Glazer family and they take it with them when the club is sold?