Has the money run out? - probably not. No one knows.

pacifictheme

Full Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
8,024


Quite worrying if true. Sounds like awful mismanagement in the past is catching up with us. Even new owners won't be able to fix it due to the changes from the start of the season.

Edit: wasn't sure if this was transfer forum or united forum content.
 
Was always going to happen after years of abysmal mismanagement of the club. Literally hundreds of millions wasted on dross. Its not sustainable without the backing of an entire state
 
How come it doesn’t impact Chelsea’s splurging at the moment?
 
All our mismanagement is catching up with us. Embarrassing.
 
Technically we don't even need to sell well, with the following at least basically dead wood in the squad -

Maguire 20-30
Henderson 20
Bailly 10
Telles 10
AWB 10-20
McTom 10-20
Donny 10
Elanga 15
Tuanzebe 5
Jones 50p

If we got anywhere near market value for them then we'd potentially have enough money for a forward and a midfielder. Think all the fees could be targeted and if we got the lower or midpoint we'd potentially be looking at 100m + (+50p)
 
GBBQ said:
How come it doesn’t impact Chelsea’s splurging at the moment?
Click to expand...

Didn't they get a special grace due to the takeover, which the Premier League then immediately wrote new rules to ensure it never happened again?
 
@TheReligion :wenger:

The short answer is, yes.

We're up to our eyeballs in debt through loans + outstanding player payments.

We're in for a couple of lean years it seems.
 
Basically all it says is we can't spend like we spent last summer and will have to spend back like our normal spends of just picking 1 big signing in the summer and a few smaller signings, with a 100m net spend being our budget like it's usually been. Which isn't a big deal. Last summer was always a 1 off and it shouldn't need to be the norm.
 
whitbyviking said:
Technically we don't even need to sell well, with the following at least basically dead wood in the squad -

If we got anywhere near market value for them then we'd potentially have enough money for a forward and a midfielder. Think all the fees could be targeted and if we got the lower or midpoint we'd potentially be looking at 100m + (+50p)
Click to expand...

We'd also be ten players short of a squad with that strategy!
 
So Chelsea can spend another £500m no problem but we’re screwed despite having higher revenues?
 
Certainly not an expert but this doesn’t make sense to me. Unless he knows the instalment schedule of that 307m and how much is due next year he is in no position to say what we can spend. European FFP is actually very lenient next year - 90% of revenues can be spent on wages/transfers. With CL our revenues will be around 680m even without a big new shirt sponsor - if the current wage bill in the CL is around 360m then that leaves 240m additional that could be spent transfer instalments/wages…the vast bulk of that 307m will be from the last two years spend which you’d think is split over 5 years - 60m a year - let’s add another 40m is due from previous spend next year then we can still spend 140m on transfer instalments/wages next year even without factoring sales/new owner dodgy sponsorships. I think we’ll be okay somehow…
 
whitbyviking said:
Technically we don't even need to sell well, with the following at least basically dead wood in the squad -

Maguire 20-30
Henderson 20
Bailly 10
Telles 10
AWB 10-20
McTom 10-20
Donny 10
Elanga 15
Tuanzebe 5
Jones 50p

If we got anywhere near market value for them then we'd potentially have enough money for a forward and a midfielder. Think all the fees could be targeted and if we got the lower or midpoint we'd potentially be looking at 100m + (+50p)
Click to expand...

We’re going to get lowballed on sales now that everyone knows we need to sell.
 
GBBQ said:
How come it doesn’t impact Chelsea’s splurging at the moment?
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, Chelsea had transfer ban during a couple windows under Lampard, so they probably have more headroom to spend big now compared to United that has spent money on big transfer fees every summer. Two years in a row out of CL will also reduse our revenue substantially as I belive our sponsor contracts have a one year grace period without revenue reduction if we fail to qualify for CL.
 
a top striker and top midfielder is 250m in todays market

hardly surprising if we don't qualify for CL we can't afford that
 
You know United are doing well when they start writing bullsh*t like this :devil:

I don't believe in any of this, give us the Dubai money and in the summer we are splashing from 200m to 300m pounds for sure :devil:

ETH slowly but surely is building something and our fear factor is coming back :)

Imagine this squad under ETH + top CF/1 more CM and RB .

United will be back and i have never been more sure about this ! :drool:
 
I don’t understand why people struggle to grasp these points:

1) The club is up for sale and this is expected to be completed in the first quarter of the year. The price has been set.

2) The club has a budget in terms of transfers. This was exceeded in the summer and has therefore left us with very little this January.

3) The Glazers will want to stick to the original budget as they won’t be here much longer. Spending more now and exceeding it will add to the sale price and start moving the goalposts of a process which is seeking conclusion.

4) The Glazers aren’t going to give us money for nothing. We all know that.

They’ll be money to spend whatever happens in summer from the new budget. We’ll have more if we have new owners but it will be stricter if we still have the Glazers involved or the process isn’t completed.
 
pacifictheme said:


Quite worrying if true. Sounds like awful mismanagement in the past is catching up with us. Even new owners won't be able to fix it due to the changes from the start of the season.

Edit: wasn't sure if this was transfer forum or united forum content.
Click to expand...

Unless it’s stated in the article it seems he’s stolen a poor point make on Twitter yesterday as a basis for this. It’s common practise and the 307m is already on the books.
No wonder he’s tumbled down in tiers
 
We’ve been buying players on tick for a few years now.

from these transfer threads people seem to think the glazers have been digging in their own pockets, they haven’t. What was budgeted from the club is gone now. That’s why most of the threads in this forum are irrelevant until at least the summer if not longer, depending on getting a new owner
 
El Zoido said:
So Chelsea can spend another £500m no problem but we’re screwed despite having higher revenues?
Click to expand...

Besides this year thier net spend is quite low. Selling Hazard for $100M really helped.
 
strandty said:


Oh Ed...
Click to expand...

And we did but spent it on Di Maria, Rojo, Depay, Schweinsteiger, Darmian, Schneiderlin, Pogba, Bailly, Mkhi, Lukaku, Maguire, AWB.

Almost all of LvG's signing were shit. He was clueless.
 
Red the Bear said:
What if we get state money?
Click to expand...
Won't make a difference, we can only spend income earned through the company.

Unless they make up fake sponsorships or sign a lot more sponsors then we simply cannot spend more than we earn.

The rules get tighter and tighter over the next couple of seasons, so we will have to pay what we owe, clear the debt and then should be looking much healthier.
 
Disastrous management of the club was bound to catch up with us eventually. Top 4 is crucial this season.
 
cyberman said:
Unless it’s stated in the article it seems he’s stolen a poor point make on Twitter yesterday as a basis for this. It’s common practise and the 307m is already on the books.
No wonder he’s tumbled down in tiers
Click to expand...
His maths makes zero sense unless he’s assuming we have to pay the majority of that 300m transfer debt next year or we’re signing Mbappe and paying up-front. Can’t believe he’s marked it as an exclusive either when unless he has intricate knowledge of our books he has no idea.
 
Every team pays for transfers that way, its common practice, obviously payments will go out every year, if I remember right Chelsea still owe most of the Lukaku money to Inter,
 
The title is much more grim than the actual article.

Article says they might be forced to only sign one marquee player - IF they don't qualify for the Champions League. But could still get both if they do qualify because that'll massively swell our transfer kitty.

Nobody would expect 2 marquee signings if we missed out on CL again anyway

Also i don't buy the "even if Glazers sell" line. If United get Abrabian owners, they'll likely sponsor the shirt effective immediately for a huge inflated sum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.