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

Makes you wonder why the club has been so reluctant to take a chance on up and coming players e.g. Caicedo, Enzo Fernandez, Alvarez etc?

Could have massively improved the first team without spending £50m per player had we gone in when other teams did.
 
El Zoido said:
We’re going to get lowballed on sales now that everyone knows we need to sell.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the prices above are what I'd consider negotiated prices based on being lowballed. If you compare to other transfer fees we could reasonable expect higher fees for most of them players on the list.


MegadrivePerson said:
We'd also be ten players short of a squad with that strategy!
Click to expand...

From them 10 players: 3 are already out on loan (Henderson, Telles, Bailly), 2 never play (Tuanzebe, Jones), the midfield and forward signings will replace 2 (McTom and Elanga), 1 we have cover for already (Maguire) and then most of the others can be (or have been replaced by youth). (Donny, AWB)

Maybe we are selling too many centre backs, but I don't think we need Varane, Martinez, Lindelof, Maguire, Tuanzebe, Jones, Bailly when we have Casemiro and Shaw who can cover there. In my opinion we could live with 3 full time CBs, plus Shaw and Casemiro. We could then invest in a young 3rd / 4th choice to develop.
 
Tarrou said:
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
Click to expand...

Exactly, we're up against state owners that have bottomless pits of money and despite being able to compete with them we still have a budget to apply too. It's got nothing to do with previous purchases, the market these days are obscene.
 
TheReligion said:
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.
Click to expand...

This. + new sponsorship deal to be signed.
 
TheReligion said:
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.
Click to expand...

A considered view isn't as enjoyable as seeing doom around every corner.
 
Much ado about nothing here. The article is basically saying that in order to sign a top striker AND a top midfielder in the summer we'll have to qualify for the Champions League and sell some players; surely we already knew that we couldn't just go out and spend £200m again if we finished 6th and sold nobody?

The article even explicitly says that Arsenal and Chelsea will likely be hampered much more than United, that United are supportive of the regulations for several reasons including the fact that we have "tended to operate with a healthier wage-to-turnover ratio than most leading domestic and European rivals" and because we " believe the fact the club operates a positive equity on their balance sheet unlike many leading rivals is also an advantage as it will permit the “allowable” loss under the Uefa regulation." The article also says that our revenues are forecast to be up on last year and the wage bill lower, which further improves our ratio's for FFP purposes.
 
JB7 said:
Much ado about nothing here. The article is basically saying that in order to sign a top striker AND a top midfielder in the summer we'll have to qualify for the Champions League and sell some players; surely we already knew that we couldn't just go out and spend £200m again if we finished 6th and sold nobody?

The article even explicitly says that Arsenal and Chelsea will likely be hampered much more than United, that United are supportive of the regulations for several reasons including the fact that we have "tended to operate with a healthier wage-to-turnover ratio than most leading domestic and European rivals" and because we " believe the fact the club operates a positive equity on their balance sheet unlike many leading rivals is also an advantage as it will permit the “allowable” loss under the Uefa regulation." The article also says that our revenues are forecast to be up on last year and the wage bill lower, which further improves our ratio's for FFP purposes.
Click to expand...

Yeah it’s a nothing article but folks like @Adam-Utd are getting giddy over it. Come on!
 
Thats the consequence when we don't have income from CL, went trophy-less for years, and trying to spend 200m like every summer.
 
TheReligion said:
Yeah it’s a nothing article but folks like @Adam-Utd are getting giddy over it. Come on!
Click to expand...
I'm not getting giddy, people just have to be realistic. We've already got posters above saying "I don't believe it, we will spend 200m this summer" :drool:

Getting new owners won't allow us to blow 200m - just look at the Saudis and Newcastle. If FFP wasn't an issue why aren't they playing 11 new players this January to push them into the CL?

They simply cannot spend more money than the earn through revenue.

United are having to balance the books. The last 2 seasons we've had a heavy loss financially due to big spending. We're at the end of our credit line.

We will be able to spend like 60-90m if we get into the CL, but people thinking Dubai or Qatar will suddenly allow us to buy Mbappe/Fernandez and whoever else in the summer, it's frankly wrong.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/383903/manchester-united-profit-loss/#:~:text=This statistic shows the total,the club reported a loss.
 
GBBQ said:
How come it doesn’t impact Chelsea’s splurging at the moment?
Click to expand...

Club having zero debt now probably helps quite a bit.

Chelsea are seemingly taking full advantage of the new FFP rules that have a few year transition period before coming to full effect. Right now player costs (transfer fee amortisations + wages + agent fees) are still capped at 100% of club revenue before gradually decreasing all the way down to 70% from the 2025/26 season onwards so in the short term it is beneficial to make full use of the cap before cutting down on spending/costs once the limits start to go down.

Right now I'm sure Chelsea wouldn't even be close to complying with the 70% FFP cap but for a couple more years we don't even have to. During this transitional period the club have plenty of time to both reduce costs by getting rid of the squad's deadwood and also try to increase the revenues through new sponsorship deals etc.
 
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...

You do realize that we still need to field a squad. From that list the only ones that are sure to be gone are Telles, Bailly, Henderson, Tuanzebe and Jones. The rest could stay depending on the role they’re prepared to accept. We can’t expect youth players to step in and make an impact right away. Not every youth player is like Garnacho.
 
Adam-Utd said:
I'm not getting giddy, people just have to be realistic. We've already got posters above saying "I don't believe it, we will spend 200m this summer" :drool:

Getting new owners won't allow us to blow 200m - just look at the Saudis and Newcastle. If FFP wasn't an issue why aren't they playing 11 new players this January to push them into the CL?

They simply cannot spend more money than the earn through revenue.

United are having to balance the books. The last 2 seasons we've had a heavy loss financially due to big spending. We're at the end of our credit line.

We will be able to spend like 60-90m if we get into the CL, but people thinking Dubai or Qatar will suddenly allow us to buy Mbappe/Fernandez and whoever else in the summer, it's frankly wrong.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/383903/manchester-united-profit-loss/#:~:text=This statistic shows the total,the club reported a loss.
Click to expand...

The initial comment I pulled you up on, and the real reason you’re tagging me in this puff piece, was you suggesting there’s no money to spend whoever takes over and we are in for a frugal period of years.

This is nonsense and nothing here proves you to be correct. Infact if you read the article as @JB7 wrote it suggests Arsenal and Chelsea are in the same boat as United and that United are already making big improvements in terms of FFP.
 
Giggsy13 said:
You do realize that we still need to field a squad. From that list the only ones that are sure to be gone are Telles, Bailly, Henderson, Tuanzebe and Jones. The rest could stay depending on the role they’re prepared to accept. We can’t expect youth players to step in and make an impact right away. Not every youth player is like Garnacho.
Click to expand...

I posted a clarification after this on the reasoning. Of course I know we need a squad. Have a read of the clarification first hey?
 
A top striker and midfielder in the same window seems like wishful thinking even if we did have money to spend.
 
TheReligion said:
The initial comment I pulled you up on, and the real reason you’re tagging me in this puff piece, was you suggesting there’s no money to spend whoever takes over and we are in for a frugal period of years.

This is nonsense and nothing here proves you to be correct. Infact if you read the article as @JB7 wrote it suggests Arsenal and Chelsea are in the same boat as United and that United are already making big improvements in terms of FFP.
Click to expand...
None of us truly know the full extent. If we miss the CL and get our Adidas money cut, we cut end up being very tight. Making 2 losses in a row (last year heavy) and with the spending this summer?

We will find out - but it's not clearly not all sunshine and rainbows like some seem to think. I imagine it'll land somewhere in the middle.

One thing for sure is we will NOT be spending 2/300m this summer.
 
kps88 said:
A top striker and midfielder in the same window seems like wishful thinking even if we did have money to spend.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Sign the striker we have been crying out for and then sign a midfielder that isn’t going to cost £80m+

We just aren’t proactive enough (or at least haven’t been) to sign the likes of Enzo Fernandez BEFORE they take off.
 
#07 said:
Makes you wonder why the club has been so reluctant to take a chance on up and coming players e.g. Caicedo, Enzo Fernandez, Alvarez etc?

Could have massively improved the first team without spending £50m per player had we gone in when other teams did.
Click to expand...
Talk to Brighton fans and they will tell you the exact reasons for the first one
 
Adam-Utd said:
None of us truly know the full extent. If we miss the CL and get our Adidas money cut, we cut end up being very tight. Making 2 losses in a row (last year heavy) and with the spending this summer?

We will find out - but it's not clearly not all sunshine and rainbows like some seem to think. I imagine it'll land somewhere in the middle.

One thing for sure is we will NOT be spending 2/300m this summer.
Click to expand...
You’re in zero position to state that as fact when we don’t even know who the owners are.
 
Adam-Utd said:
None of us truly know the full extent. If we miss the CL and get our Adidas money cut, we cut end up being very tight. Making 2 losses in a row (last year heavy) and with the spending this summer?

We will find out - but it's not clearly not all sunshine and rainbows like some seem to think. I imagine it'll land somewhere in the middle.

One thing for sure is we will NOT be spending 2/300m this summer.
Click to expand...

When do we ever spend 300m?

The fact is there will be a transfer budget to spend in the summer. It’s blatantly obvious this budget will be bigger if we have CL football and we sell players to help free up wages. Not sure why that is a surprise to anyone?

If the club is taken over as expected and debts cleared then the goalposts move yet again.

The doom and gloom mongering is pure fantasy.
 
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...


Post the article as you’re misleading everyone
 
The truth is somewhere in the middle here. We're not broke, but we can't spend like we did this summer (net spend wise). I think we're getting back to a better, more sustainable model anyway.
 
Probably is some truth to it, but I imagine these briefings serve a purpose when it comes to tackling the Utd tax we perpetually seem to face in the market. That shite is solely on Woodward imo.
 
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...

Not to mention the savings in salaries.
 
Elcabron said:
Not to mention the savings in salaries.
Click to expand...

That's another reason, plus I think it's acknowledged most of the players on the list aren't the future, so at some point they need to be replaced. If we can do it from within squad, or by picking up younger/free replacements that fit the profile ETH wants then why wouldn't we. We may as well have a squad of players who fit and are cheap, than old failures who rarely play and still have some resale value.
 
The glazers aren't going to spend money if they are trying to sell up. I can do without new signings if it means we get rid of them
 
Honestly, I think the journalist is making assumptions about the new FFP rules that aren't really merited. All the sustainability stuff is phased in and there are still so many accounting gimmicks one can use. I wouldn't take these claims all that seriously at this point, especially if there are new owners.
 
whitbyviking said:
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?
Click to expand...
These are UEFA rules that have bugger all to do with the PL rules
 
Adam-Utd said:
I'm not getting giddy, people just have to be realistic. We've already got posters above saying "I don't believe it, we will spend 200m this summer" :drool:

Getting new owners won't allow us to blow 200m - just look at the Saudis and Newcastle. If FFP wasn't an issue why aren't they playing 11 new players this January to push them into the CL?

They simply cannot spend more money than the earn through revenue.

United are having to balance the books. The last 2 seasons we've had a heavy loss financially due to big spending. We're at the end of our credit line.

We will be able to spend like 60-90m if we get into the CL, but people thinking Dubai or Qatar will suddenly allow us to buy Mbappe/Fernandez and whoever else in the summer, it's frankly wrong.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/383903/manchester-united-profit-loss/#:~:text=This statistic shows the total,the club reported a loss.
Click to expand...
COVID played a part in the losses as well
 
Holters said:
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.
Click to expand...

That ban was reduced to one window and thanks to some very creative work they actually bought Kovacic for that window anyway but completed the deal outside of the window. Once the ban was over they instantly spent a fortune on Werner, Havertz, Chilwell, Mendy and Ziyech for a total of around 250 million Euros which is part of the reason fat Frank got the boot when they turned out be flops. They have not stoped spending and are over 350 million Euro this year, 400 million if you count the Nkunku deal which is already completed for the end of the season, yet every time you bring up their spending this mythical transfer ban is cited as why they can now spend the GDP of a small country every summer despite having nowhere near the revenue to support it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.