Bruno Fernandes | Signed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seb burrow said:
I just don’t get this club. we’re not in a position to negotiate hard ball over 5/10m. We’re in a crisis. Sporting Lisbon and everyone else knows that.

The smartest move the board could do is negotiate a fair deal. And give the team the best opportunity to rectify this mess and to put us in a stronger negotiating position for future deals.

But yet again everything is left to the last minute when the team is in dire need of players. If the club was more forward thinking some of these injuries might not of occurred.

ps sign the petition.

https://www.change.org/p/manchester-united-fans-sack-ed-woodward-from-his-role-as-executive-vice-chairman-of-manchester-united?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_14906129_en-GB:v4&recruiter=48684420&recruited_by_id=7e3e62c0-9085-0130-f30f-3c764e049b13&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_abi&utm_term=psf_combo_share_abi&share_bandit_exp=abi-14906129-en-GB&share_bandit_var=v1
Click to expand...

We don't really know what the sum is. Some reports suggest £18 million difference or more.
 
romufc said:
A good businessman understands his seat on the negotiating table.

Unfortunately, Ed doesn't.
Click to expand...

This is Ed's chair on the negotiating table :
s-l640.jpg

He likes it because its comfortable,got a couple of hanging toys and the colours make him happy.
 
romufc said:
A good businessman understands his seat on the negotiating table.

Unfortunately, Ed doesn't.
Click to expand...
Ed is a good business man, look at all the sponsorship he brings in that are keeping us a float without winning anything...... Problem we have he knows absolutely nothing about football
 
Giggsy13 said:
This is definitely not happening now but I do love Sky reporting that we’re failing to meet Sporting’s price and in fact backed out of a provisional agreement on the fee. Further reports of Joel f’n Glazer vetoing the deal was the cherry on the top.

I have to think that it was Mendes who strategically provided these leaks to throw United under the bus. It looks as if we’re going to burn a relationship with another super agent on our botched handling of the Bruno transfer. We look incompetent all around and clearly now “Bantz FC”. Mendes is more refined than Raiola but privately he’s probably thinking the same thing: why would I bring any of my clients to this shambles of a club.
Click to expand...


why is the is plonker even involved, the lad already has an agent. It's bad enough having to deal with agents but these "super" agents brought in to help "broker" deals just mess everything up. Why do they need his help to broker the deal. They've a club that has financial issues with a player who let's be honest, there isn't a line up of top clubs breaking their door down to sign him. They've a team who are willing to pay for him, fees "supposedly" agreed and then this Mendes cnut piles in and wants a fee paid to him, for what?
So frustrating......
 
Kerry Donaghy said:
Please tell me you're joking.
Fair enough, it was first talked about in the press around last April/May but that means nothing.
However, the fact we then went out and actually bought three British players and nobody else is pretty strong evidence.

Also, what has Pogba getting criticised got to do with this?
And even if it was relevant, the fact that he's getting made a scapegoat and isn't British, if anything backs up what I'm saying.

It's the sane with Haaland, the fact that we weren't prepared to push the boat out for him but did it for Maguire and AWB only backs up what I'm saying.

As recently as the post match analysis of the Burnley defeat, Rio was banging on about it as well, as if this 'buying young British players' was the way forward.

So, as I said, there's plenty of evidence.
Click to expand...
Sorry but the fact that we bought 3 English players is not evidence that we have a buy British policy.

Haaland was not going to work for us because either a) he's not as dumb as people assume and he didn't want to come here b) the release clause was too low not giving us control over his future or C) Raiola. Realistically I think most sane people can see that he made the best decision for HIS future. Ole went to fecking see him so clearly we were interested.

Hernandes certainly appears to be someone we are after and we've heard about 12 different explanations as to why its not happened yet so clearly they can't all be right.

So, in 2 windows we'd signed 3 english players (2 of which pretty much everyone expected anyway) and have then tried to sign Haaland and Hernandes
 
Kerry Donaghy said:
If you can't see how much we've been shafted with Maguire and Wan Bissaka and that we could have spent that £130m better then I can't help you.
The worst thing about it is that the most important people in this context, our recruitment team, seem to think the same way as you.

Us overpaying for players anyway x English players overhype x Utd having a 'buy British' policy = a recepie for disaster (and so far that's exactly what it's been).
Click to expand...
Where the feck did I say that it couldn't have been spent better?
 
DBT85 said:
Sorry but the fact that we bought 3 English players is not evidence that we have a buy British policy.

Haaland was not going to work for us because either a) he's not as dumb as people assume and he didn't want to come here b) the release clause was too low not giving us control over his future or C) Raiola. Realistically I think most sane people can see that he made the best decision for HIS future. Ole went to fecking see him so clearly we were interested.

Hernandes certainly appears to be someone we are after and we've heard about 12 different explanations as to why its not happened yet so clearly they can't all be right.

So, in 2 windows we'd signed 3 english players (2 of which pretty much everyone expected anyway) and have then tried to sign Haaland and Hernandes
Click to expand...

Basically like saying "Just because the ground is covered in snow out there it doesn't provide any evidence that it was snowing"
 
DBT85 said:
Where the feck did I say that it couldn't have been spent better?
Click to expand...

Well I'm suggesting that we massively overpaid for AWB and you're saying that you think we didn't.

You're entitled to your opinion, so it's fine, you don't need to backtrack on it.

If you think Wan Bissaka was a snip at £50m then fair enough, I think we got shafted massively.
 
It would be more like saying "Just because the ground is covered in snow out there it doesn't provide any evidence that it has never rained".

Which is a more accurate but equally stupid analogy.
 
Seb burrow said:
I just don’t get this club. we’re not in a position to negotiate hard ball over 5/10m. We’re in a crisis. Sporting Lisbon and everyone else knows that.

The smartest move the board could do is negotiate a fair deal. And give the team the best opportunity to rectify this mess and to put us in a stronger negotiating position for future deals.

But yet again everything is left to the last minute when the team is in dire need of players. If the club was more forward thinking some of these injuries might not of occurred.

ps sign the petition.

https://www.change.org/p/manchester-united-fans-sack-ed-woodward-from-his-role-as-executive-vice-chairman-of-manchester-united?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_14906129_en-GB:v4&recruiter=48684420&recruited_by_id=7e3e62c0-9085-0130-f30f-3c764e049b13&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_abi&utm_term=psf_combo_share_abi&share_bandit_exp=abi-14906129-en-GB&share_bandit_var=v1
Click to expand...

So if we did only offer £40m + addons, and Sporting want £50m + addons, are you suggesting a 25% increase in the base price is something the club should not try to negotiate?
 
vanderpants said:
Who wants to break the record for a sponsorship for a bang average team in the Premiership that isn't concerned about winning trophies anymore..... Think Avram glazer will be a bit shocked when he fails to find a suiter
Click to expand...

I hope they get a couple of insulting proposals so maybe they realise how deep in the mud they dragged the club in.
 
0le said:
So if we did only offer £40m + addons, and Sporting want £50m + addons, are you suggesting a 25% increase in the base price is something the club should not try to negotiate?
Click to expand...

The thing is, he’s not going to get his man at 40m in this example. He can negotiate for the entire month and at best we’ll pay 45m+addons. Although his base price was 25% off, in reality we will save 10% or so. Not getting the player can compound problems very quickly. Now let’s say we had Bruno at the start of the month without the whole saga, we might have looked decisive, with injuries to players Bruno would be a massive help, we may have avoided two premier league defeats back-to-back and the pressure on the manager could’ve been far lesser.

If he is indeed determined to get a cheaper player than Bruno, then he should make the executive decision and go for someone else early in the window and land that player. If that player is a failure, it’s Ed’s decision and he should be held accountable just like he should be held responsible for delaying this transfer. Lack of accountability is the biggest problem at Man Utd.
 
Tom Cato said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks - this is more accounting than I know, so I'd like to abstract out some of the detail there and look at it from a higher level. I want to say first that my intuition is that the financial side of the business is pretty well run and that Ed is a smart cookie when it comes to finances. My claim (in my previous posts) is that we don't have the kind of money to spend 80M on Bruno now (which is what people in this thread are asking us to do) and also continue to invest in the summer on a Sancho level player (bringing our spending to 200M or so in one season). Maybe transfer spending is just accounting tricks and if you invest in an asset that has a high likelihood of appreciating in value (like Sancho or Pogba) and we don't even have to worry about it and we can pay whatever we want.

For the last two years, we've spent about 70M in transfers (net) even with additional revenues in the form of CL money and I'm expecting that to continue this year as well. The Chinese sponsorship deal might offset the CL money, but do you think we can be financially responsible and yet still invest the kinds of money people are talking about now?

Tom Cato said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by your question here, but my objection is that even if we're not pennypinching, we're certainly spending way less than we could if we didn't have interest + dividend payments each year. That's to the tune of ~60-70M / year and over 15 years that adds up to a ~900M - 1 Bn not spent on improving the club, its facilities or its squad. This is not even considering additional revenues we would've had if we had invested in the first place during Fergie's final years and had consistent CL.
 
Giggsforever said:
Reports in Portugal (papers) that we have increased our offer by 5 mill.
Click to expand...

What do we have, another 7 days to piss about..??
Maybe this deal could still be done.....in the customary keystone cops style.. :rolleyes:
 
Ikon said:
What do we have, another 7 days to piss about..??
Maybe this deal could still be done.....in the customary keystone cops style.. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


In my head, the entire 9 man Swiss sponsorship delegation (led by Woodward) is gonna storm the Lisbon offices with a megaphone and Neil Ashton scribbling down ideas.
 
While I'm not best pleased by our nickle and dime dog and pony show over this proposed transfer, I'm also inclined to tell Sporting that their financial shithousery isn't our problem and we're not responsible for bailing them out of a bad situation of their own making.
 
  • Like
Reactions: langster
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
While I'm not best pleased by our nickle and dime dog and pony show over this proposed transfer, I'm also inclined to tell Sporting that their financial shithousery isn't our problem and we're not responsible for bailing them out of a bad situation of their own making.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true banker.
 
Giggsforever said:
Reports in Portugal (papers) that we have increased our offer by 5 mill.
Click to expand...
This deal will get done....late on......and when the details come to light it will show that we paid a lot more than what Ed wanted to and just like the Wan-Bissaka haggle in the summer we end up paying nearly what they wanted......

With all these accountants at the club, you'd think someone would do some cost analysis and try and put a value on the points we will have lost (3 at home to Burnley for starters) over the season that will be directly attributed to us having a threadbare squad and not making sufficient plans to alleviate the weaknesses......I mean - whats the cost of not making the top 4? Sponsership kickbacks?

In any normal season we would have been so far off 4th place by now that you could say ok let's wait for the summer - but somehow, due to the poor quality of other teams around us - we are in 5th place and could have made a serious effort to get 4th with a little clever recruitment and investment ........

It all feels like a too little too late........again
 
If we paid 50 million for Wan Bissaka, we should be in theory paying about 60 to 65 million for Bruno.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
While I'm not best pleased by our nickle and dime dog and pony show over this proposed transfer, I'm also inclined to tell Sporting that their financial shithousery isn't our problem and we're not responsible for bailing them out of a bad situation of their own making.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We have a bqd reputation of overpaying. So many clubs have fleeced us its beyond ridiculous. Sporting can get fecked.
 
If this deal does get done, we will be well placed for the summer. Hopefully one of Tuanzebe or Bailly shows us that we don't need a centre back in the summer. We would be able to sell Pogba for a sizeable sum and potentially sign a right winger as well. That would give us a competitive first xi moving forward, and all future transfers we would be making would be to improve the quality we have in those positions or adding squad depth as opposed to filling up glaring holes.

If this deal doesn't go through, I'm not sure how much faith I have in Woodward to negotiate three transfers in a summer window in which a euros will be played.
 
Hugh Jass said:
If we paid 50 million for Wan Bissaka, we should be in theory paying about 60 to 65 million for Bruno.
Click to expand...
Well maybe we shouldn’t. It’s got to stop somewhere. Can you imagine well run clubs like BM being fecked about?
 
Our sponsorship isn’t results based apparently.

Let’s be honest we are getting no one in this window. Ole has virtually made that clear today

I honestly hope the shirt sponsors just ask what our projected finish is over the next two years and then laugh at anything they are told.
 
Oh and anyone still thinking Jason sancho is turning up in the summer is having a laugh
 
Even if we are haggling over the price why does it take so long. Surely the conversation can only take a couple of hours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.