Jadon Sancho| Staying at Dortmund for now

Status
Not open for further replies.
romufc said:
Clearly you do not see the point.. Manchester United is a self sufficient club. Owners make money from the club, do you get that? We make money, profit... that gets paid in dividend.

So Liverpool have spent all that money jsut from Couthinho? Coutinho payed for 3 windows and pay rises to clubs?

We are a rich club. We are not going to become bankrupt after one signing.
Click to expand...
Dividends are agreed to be paid out (regardless of business situation) every 3 years or so. Despite the club losing money, the Glazers are still entitled to their dividends, as agreed by all board members. That's got nothing to do with how the sufficient the club is.

It's well documented that Liverpool's transfer spend is about £50m or something in the whole time Klopp has been there.

We are a rich club and we're not going anywhere anytime soon but one big signing, that fails, coupled with no fans in the stadium, a worldwide pandemic, a bloated squad with players on daft contracts north of £300k a week (De Gea, Pogba).

This situation can go from bad to very bad in a short space of time. We'll most likely be fine in the end but it's not worth putting the club at risk or having to sell players to balance the books.
 
crossy1686 said:
Dividends are agreed to be paid out (regardless of business situation) every 3 years or so. Despite the club losing money, the Glazers are still entitled to their dividends, as agreed by all board members. That's got nothing to do with how the sufficient the club is.

It's well documented that Liverpool's transfer spend is about £50m or something in the whole time Klopp has been there.

We are a rich club and we're not going anywhere anytime soon but one big signing, that fails, coupled with no fans in the stadium, a worldwide pandemic, a bloated squad with players on daft contracts north of £300k a week (De Gea, Pogba).

This situation can go from bad to very bad in a short space of time. We'll most likely be fine in the end but it's not worth putting the club at risk or having to sell players to balance the books.
Click to expand...
Football is risk/reward...
 
crossy1686 said:
Dividends are agreed to be paid out (regardless of business situation) every 3 years or so. Despite the club losing money, the Glazers are still entitled to their dividends, as agreed by all board members. That's got nothing to do with how the sufficient the club is.

It's well documented that Liverpool's transfer spend is about £50m or something in the whole time Klopp has been there.

We are a rich club and we're not going anywhere anytime soon but one big signing, that fails, coupled with no fans in the stadium, a worldwide pandemic, a bloated squad with players on daft contracts north of £300k a week (De Gea, Pogba).

This situation can go from bad to very bad in a short space of time. We'll most likely be fine in the end but it's not worth putting the club at risk or having to sell players to balance the books.
Click to expand...

Losing out on titles and CL also costs us a lot of money too, both from reward money and sponsorships.
If you're happy battling it with Sheffield for the 5th position fine, I'd rather take a risk (although everyone and their grandmother agree this would be a banging transfer for us and much less a risk)
 
MichaelRed said:
Dortmund saying there's no COVID discount is just to save face in my opinion. I think £108m is a COVID discount. 20 years old & on a level with players like Mbappe who is 21 & went for 160m. 3 years left on his deal & will easily be 150m next season with more than one suitor.

Glazers must love some of you doing all the PR work for them aswell. Acting like it's unreasonable to spend with COVID. Wake up and smell the coffee. We've not gone above 70m net spend under the Glazers without COVID. They've not invested a penny into the club but they've milked us for hundreds of millions & yet you get muppets on here defending them and falling for the COVID excuse like we'd have forked out 108m otherwise. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

They've spent £1.2b since 2013, with a net spend of £900m.

Glazers own the club since 2005. Any money made is theirs. So any money spent in the club is their money.
 
crossy1686 said:
Dividends are agreed to be paid out (regardless of business situation) every 3 years or so. Despite the club losing money, the Glazers are still entitled to their dividends, as agreed by all board members. That's got nothing to do with how the sufficient the club is.

It's well documented that Liverpool's transfer spend is about £50m or something in the whole time Klopp has been there.

We are a rich club and we're not going anywhere anytime soon but one big signing, that fails, coupled with no fans in the stadium, a worldwide pandemic, a bloated squad with players on daft contracts north of £300k a week (De Gea, Pogba).

This situation can go from bad to very bad in a short space of time. We'll most likely be fine in the end but it's not worth putting the club at risk or having to sell players to balance the books.
Click to expand...

If no one took a risk in business, we would have no businesses.

That is the point, this is why the rich get rich, they are willing to take risk.

Have you got a link or proof that the transfer spend is £50m since Klopp got there? Just because they have a dept that can sell well, does not mean they have a limited budget. They have got rid of their deadwoods at a very good price. Something this club lacks.

Yes, we are the only club that is affected by the pandemic... we have some of the best commercial deals in football. Even with our bloated wage bill, we have a very similar turnover to wage ratio to other teams.

With limited fans being allowed in the stadium, we will have 20/30k fans which is some clubs capacity.

Spending £100m on transfers will give us a better chance of getting top 4 plus more next season.. with no spending our chances of finishing top 4 are that much less.

So either we spend £100m and get £80m in return - £20m loss

Or spend nothing and lose £80m worth of CL money.
 
crossy1686 said:
Dividends are agreed to be paid out (regardless of business situation) every 3 years or so. Despite the club losing money, the Glazers are still entitled to their dividends, as agreed by all board members. That's got nothing to do with how the sufficient the club is.

It's well documented that Liverpool's transfer spend is about £50m or something in the whole time Klopp has been there.

We are a rich club and we're not going anywhere anytime soon but one big signing, that fails, coupled with no fans in the stadium, a worldwide pandemic, a bloated squad with players on daft contracts north of £300k a week (De Gea, Pogba).

This situation can go from bad to very bad in a short space of time. We'll most likely be fine in the end but it's not worth putting the club at risk or having to sell players to balance the books.
Click to expand...

Agree with all this. We have spent big in past with little rewards. Barca also show this.

We have to protect the club and its employees.
 
If Chelsea fork out 100m for Havertz (looking very likely) then we just have to agree to Dortmund's estimations.
 
laughtersassassin said:
Havertz to Chelsea done for 100 mil euro. Shows 120 million euro for Sancho is reasonable.
Click to expand...
groovyalbert said:
If Chelsea fork out 100m for Havertz (looking very likely) then we just have to agree to Dortmund's estimations.
Click to expand...
For the 100th time it's also about how the 120m is paid, not just the amount itself.
Chelsea had 80m upfront + 20m EUR addons accepted.
We had 80m upfront + 40 EUR dismissed.

It's much harder to negotiate with Dortmund, they have Champions League to offer and a better squad relative to Leverkusen to keep Sancho from pushing for a transfer as much as Kai did.
 
Redcy said:
I have no problems with Grealish and 2 others, my concern is there doesn't seem to be much we can get sensibly, if you told me Grealish at 40-50m, Chiesa and 45m and a CB for 35m I'm all in. We are being quoted 80m for Grealish and 40m for Brooks, if thats where the market is then Sancho seems like a bargain right now.
Click to expand...
The conundrum we have is if we spend the “sancho” money on 3 other players which would cost in total around £100m, then it could potentially prevent us signing Sancho at all next summer. I don’t see a massive recovery in finances before next summer.

So the problem we have is we may have to wait till next summer without spending much this summer in order to fund Sancho.
 
red thru&thru said:
They've spent £1.2b since 2013, with a net spend of £900m.

Glazers own the club since 2005. Any money made is theirs. So any money spent in the club is their money.
Click to expand...
Don't know where you're getting this fantasy figure from when it has atually been 600. Even that 600 has been utterly wasted and only spent in a panic because of how much of a disaster things have been. If we'd maintained success we would have continued to be neglected. Look at the state of Old Trafford ffs. Look at what happens under the Glazers when you lose a CL final? Sell the best player in the world at the time for 85m & reinvest 15m in Antonio Valencia & bring in Michael Owen on a free. We just won the PL and were runners-up in the CL and turned a sodding £70m profit instead of showing ANY desire to kick on. If Glazers wanted to spend they would have done it from a position of strength, not a reactionary attempt to claw back some success that their greed and negligence let slip in the first place.
 
With the Havertz deal agreed, it is now more vital we get this done. We risk falling a lot behind. Chelsea have splashed the cash, we need to start making quality moves.
 
VP89 said:
For the 100th time it's also about how the 120m is paid, not just the amount itself.
Chelsea had 80m upfront + 20m EUR addons accepted.
We had 80m upfront + 40 EUR dismissed.

It's much harder to negotiate with Dortmund, they have Champions League to offer and a better squad relative to Leverkusen to keep Sancho from pushing for a transfer as much as Kai did.
Click to expand...
Literally been no report of this? All reports are they wanted 80+20+20 in the following summers but we wanted to pay conditional add-ons rather than installments and we didn't want to pay 80 up front.
 
VP89 said:
For the 100th time it's also about how the 120m is paid, not just the amount itself.
Chelsea had 80m upfront + 20m EUR addons accepted.
We had 80m upfront + 40 EUR dismissed.

It's much harder to negotiate with Dortmund, they have Champions League to offer and a better squad relative to Leverkusen to keep Sancho from pushing for a transfer as much as Kai did.
Click to expand...
Assuming you meant 40m, I don't think we have made any offer that reaches 120m in total. There is no concrete information about our bid.
 
VP89 said:
For the 100th time it's also about how the 120m is paid, not just the amount itself.
Chelsea had 80m upfront + 20m EUR addons accepted.
We had 80m upfront + 40 EUR dismissed.

It's much harder to negotiate with Dortmund, they have Champions League to offer and a better squad relative to Leverkusen to keep Sancho from pushing for a transfer as much as Kai did.
Click to expand...

Excuses excuses.
 
kafta said:
With the Havertz deal agreed, it is now more vital we get this done. We risk falling a lot behind. Chelsea have splashed the cash, we need to start making quality moves.
Click to expand...

Well current window we have zero chance of keeping up with Chelsea. Already we are playing to just improve our points total and get 4th at best.

Club needs to wake up. Ole must be fuming.
 
MichaelRed said:
Literally been no report of this? All reports are they wanted 80+20+20 in the following summers but we wanted to pay conditional add-ons rather than installments and we didn't want to pay 80 up front.
Click to expand...
gorky_utd said:
Assuming you meant 40m, I don't think we have made any offer that reaches 120m in total. There is no concrete information about our bid.
Click to expand...
laughtersassassin said:
Excuses excuses.
Click to expand...


Getting tiresome now. It's well reported that negotiations are ongoing between the 3rd party liaisons, so the "official" bid will likely be the one that gets accepted. You can see as above that we've sounded out alternative packages but it's been dismissed. 80m + 40m for example, is outright dismissed.

So when we have lazy posters with "excuses excuses" trying to compare apples with pears, I don't know what to tell them. Just that, they deserve the frustration they feel if that's their logic :)
 
MichaelRed said:
Don't know where you're getting this fantasy figure from when it has atually been 600. Even that 600 has been utterly wasted and only spent in a panic because of how much of a disaster things have been. If we'd maintained success we would have continued to be neglected. Look at the state of Old Trafford ffs. Look at what happens under the Glazers when you lose a CL final? Sell the best player in the world at the time for 85m & reinvest 15m in Antonio Valencia & bring in Michael Owen on a free. We just won the PL and were runners-up in the CL and turned a sodding £70m profit instead of showing ANY desire to kick on. If Glazers wanted to spend they would have done it from a position of strength, not a reactionary attempt to claw back some success that their greed and negligence let slip in the first place.
Click to expand...

From Kieran Maguire, an actual financial football person.

He actually looks at clubs books and gets his figures.
 
laughtersassassin said:
Well current window we have zero chance of keeping up with Chelsea. Already we are playing to just improve our points total and get 4th at best.

Club needs to wake up. Ole must be fuming.
Click to expand...
66 points, which both ourselves and Chelsea ended on, is the lowest amount to get top 4 in at least the last 15 years (City also got it with 66 when Leicester won the league), yet we have decided to make zero additions to a squad that is already showing signs of fatigue and will get little rest with the season already starting in a few weeks. Meanwhile Chelsea have invested heavily and shown a real intent to be challenging for honours. 4th would be a miracle at this rate & honestly the club might aswell sack Ole now because they're sealing his fate with every day this sideshow drags on.
 
Godfather said:
Chelski properly showing us how it's done this summer
Click to expand...
Good example of really backing a manager to try to build and improve on the previous season.

I'm jealous because Ole had a more impressive season than Frank by my measure, just that Frank is at a club that actually puts value on winning and challenging for things and not just the bare minimum of CL qualification
 
Stop saving up to spend on Grealish and Brooks FFS. Chelsea are making us look like absolute mugs in this window. We needed a top class window and we haven't even reached a mediocre one yet.
 
VP89 said:


Getting tiresome now. It's well reported that negotiations are ongoing between the 3rd party liaisons, so the "official" bid will likely be the one that gets accepted. You can see as above that we've sounded out alternative packages but it's been dismissed. 80m + 40m for example, is outright dismissed.

So when we have lazy posters with "excuses excuses" trying to compare apples with pears, I don't know what to tell them. Just that, they deserve the frustration they feel if that's their logic :)
Click to expand...

You've literally just proven yourself wrong. Banging job bud. He says they won't accept over 4 or 5 years & he has since also clarified this as being because we want to put in performance based add-ons i.e winning a CL which would take an indeterminable amount of time which he's referring to by not being specific with the number of years. They want installments, time-based payments which are guaranteed. Not performance based which could take 5 years or potentially more depending on the add-on clause. So please, shut up with your utter nonsense & calling other people "lazy posters". They want 80+20+20 in installments over 2 years as has been reported multiple times by the very source you're using (Romano). They do not want 80+20+20 in add-ons that may or may not be activated and could take half a decade even if they are activated.
 
That'sHernandez said:
Would have happened by now if it were going to... all the evidence is to the contrary. The Glazers might seem a bit stingy compared to an Arab owner but they’re good businessmen and have run the club in a fiscally sound manner.
Click to expand...

One man's fiscally sound manner is another's lack of ambition, satisfied with top 4.
 
MichaelRed said:
You've literally just proven yourself wrong. Banging job bud. He says they won't accept over 4 or 5 years & he has since also clarified this as being because we want to put in performance based add-ons i.e winning a CL which would take an indeterminable amount of time which he's referring to by not being specific with the number of years. They want installments, time-based payments which are guaranteed. Not performance based which could take 5 years or potentially more depending on the add-on clause. So please, shut up with your utter nonsense & calling other people "lazy posters". They want 80+20+20 in installments over 2 years as has been reported multiple times by the very source you're using (Romano). They do not want 80+20+20 in add-ons that may or may not be activated and could take half a decade even if they are activated.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to be proven wrong I'm not really into measuring dicks, but can you point me to the article or tweets that show this, so that I can be up to speed on my end?
 
MichaelRed said:
So we've spent a secret 300m, seems legit.
Click to expand...

Ok. But I'm inclined to put my faith of the figures I've given, as they're from someone whose job is to teach financial sports accounting, has books on the matters and appears on many of the national and international media, including the likes of Sky etc.

But you continue with the figures you have from...well, I'm not too sure where from?!
 
That'sHernandez said:
If you say so... I'd hardly describe our transfers as a lack of ambition over the last seven years.
Click to expand...
Have you never noticed how neglegent we act in windows after we`ve finished in the top 4 compared to when we don`t have top 4? LVG`s 2nd window was fine but our net spend was still very low compared to his first. In Jose`s first window after getting us top 4 you know what happened. This summer we are seeing a similar trend to 2018 and at this rate it looks like we only get one signing which is far from enough to even get us top 4 leave alone close the gap on LFC/City
 
we need to start making quality moves, I'm afraid we don't! This summer is crucial for the years to come. The team needs new and better players. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
Stop saving up to spend on Grealish and Brooks FFS. Chelsea are making us look like absolute mugs in this window. We needed a top class window and we haven't even reached a mediocre one yet.
Click to expand...

We don’t know what’s behind the scene. We could just plan to wait until Chelsea made a bid for Havertz to give us more reason to Dortmund about the asking price. People are so impatient.
 
That'sHernandez said:
If you say so... I'd hardly describe our transfers as a lack of ambition over the last seven years.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a complete lack of ambition but they are satisfied with top 4. Not ambitious enough imo. Not just in terms of money outlay. In other aspects such as structure etc.
 
mav_9me said:
I don't think there is a complete lack of ambition but they are satisfied with top 4. Not ambitious enough imo. Not just in terms of money outlay. In other aspects such as structure etc.
Click to expand...

I think once it was clear Jose wasn't anywhere near the level of Pep and Klopp we decided to build towards the moment both have moved on.

You can have the best squad on paper, but it's meaningless without the right manager.
 
There is one thing most United fans fail to understand is that Glazers own the football club. Any money United spend is their money. This discussion is fruitless that how many millions were paid in dividends ( which is normal business practice) and how much was paid as installment and how much was spend on transfer. We have spent money and only LUHG twitter accounts will deny that because they live in their own fantasy world.

We will get Sancho eventually. We are not even in pre season. Just because few of our fans wants us to make a signing doesn't mean we shouldn't negotiate. This Dortmund will not agree thing is just media posturing. There is no harm in trying to find a deal that is good for us.
 
RkkMan said:
Have you never noticed how neglegent we act in windows after we`ve finished in the top 4 compared to when we don`t have top 4? LVG`s 2nd window was fine but our net spend was still very low compared to his first. In Jose`s first window after getting us top 4 you know what happened. This summer we are seeing a similar trend to 2018 and at this rate it looks like we only get one signing which is far from enough to even get us top 4 leave alone close the gap on LFC/City
Click to expand...

The club has spent £1.2b post saf.

LVG was backed in the 2 seasons he was there.

Jose was backed heavily in the 2 out of the 3 seasons he was there. It was clear to see his success rate in the transfer market wasn't very good whilst at Manchester United, so wrongly or rightly, chose to withdraw wasting anymore money...which I agree with.

Ole then backed in his 1st full season, with the second not even started.

So I'm not sure where people get the neglect the club give after finishing 4th?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.