Lukaku - transfer speculation | Gone

[JPRouve]

Ammortization

That's not what amortisation do or means.

 

[VeevaVee]

Does that 10M + 60M include or exclude them paying his wages? Or is the 10M meant to cover the wages, so it's effectively 60M?

I'd be well happy with 60m. Not great over multiple years, but does that really matter for us?

 

[charlenefan]

Its not the right price though is it?.

No

 

[giorno]

Listening offers is negotiations open. Doesn't mean we are any close to accepting such an offer.

Man United get nothing in this.

There's a difference between receiving an offer and refusing out of hand and receiving an offer and saying let's talk

 

[charlenefan]

I'd be well happy with 60m. Not great over multiple years, but does that really matter for us?

Well yes if the rumours are true that our budget is only 100m without further sales

 

[bosnian_red]

Yeah we'll probably just agree a combo up to the actual fee we paid... As someone else mentioned, accounting feckery is all it is, if it's the same price split over 3 years then I doubt that's a huge problem for them (at a slightly increased fee to adjust the difference in yearly inflation). I know people on here out of principle will say feck that, but the vast majority of us really dont have a clue on how most deals are actually structured with respect to payments, and I'm pretty sure most fees are paid over a period of time anyway (think I remember reading the £80m for Ronaldo was a rare case of the whole fee being straight up at the time). Anyway, just want it sorted one way or another. If we sell, sell, and buy someone who fits our style to replace the goals.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

They took us to the cleaner when we wanted Perisic. We shouldn't be accepting anything less than 70m cash from the get go.

They haven't got it. That's the issue.

 

[ArjenIsM3]

Ammortization

Yeah so we'd effectively be taking a loss but just because he's now in the books for probably half his original price based on an ammortization scheme that's based on the expected revenue the player would generate (which he didn't) means we'd be making an accounting profit. Erm, no. We bought him for 85m euro's and we're selling him for 70m euros in a heavily inflated market. He also didn't perform as we expected him to so he didn't "create revenue" the way we expected him to so his ammortization schedule is kaput. We're not making a profit.

 

[Rightnr]

I'd be well happy with 60m. Not great over multiple years, but does that really matter for us?

Well yes if the rumours are true that our budget is only 100m without further sales

I'd be happy to be rid of Lukaku because he was never worth what we paid for him (not even close). That's our club's and our board's mistake.

While I agree we should not bend over for Inter, we should look to do a quick deal (that 80/20 principle where if we get 80-90% of our desired price for 20% of the time it'll take to get the full price) and focus on actually achieving our club's goals and not have Lukaku sitting on the bench next season and sowing discontent in the dressing room.

Also, we won't see that dumb thumbs-up sign again.

 

[giorno]

That's not what amortisation do or means.

Uh? Yes it does. That is how profit on sales are calculated in the books

 

[Patrick08]

There's a difference between receiving an offer and refusing out of hand and receiving an offer and saying let's talk

Give some time, if we refuse some days later its literally refusing out of hand for such an offer, pretty much how lousy the club works in this regard.

 

[Posh Red]

Who can we realistically replace him with? Don’t like him as a player but I’m not sure who’s out there that we could sign

 

[Kostov]

Nothing less of what we paid for him. feck Inter.

 

[AshRK]

Would be rejected. We don't seem to like the loan business. Woodward be like either pay the full 75m or just feck off.

 

[giorno]

Yeah so we'd effectively be taking a loss but just because he's now in the books for probably half his original price based on an ammortization scheme that's based on the expected revenue the player would generate (which he didn't) means we'd be making an accounting profit. Erm, no. We bought him for 85m euro's and we're selling him for 70m euros in a heavily inflated market. He also didn't perform as we expected him to so he didn't "create revenue" the way we expected him to so his ammortization schedule is kaput. We're not making a profit.

Yes you are. As for as your accounts are concerned you are making a profit, and the books are all that matters, financially

 

[VeevaVee]

Well yes if the rumours are true that our budget is only 100m without further sales

It's not Fifa though. There's no way we don't have 60m extra to spend now if we know we're going to get it.

 

[Lash]

Yes you are. As for as your accounts are concerned you are making a profit, and the books are all that matters, financially

Yeah, you’ve got a point here. Especially if you’re looking at it from an FFP standpoint

 

[El Jefe]

It's not a bad deal per se it just fecks up the cash flow for the club a bit.

The issue for us is other than Inter I don't think any club wants him that bad so we may never get a better chance to sell him for as much as now. I would probably ask for 30+40.

 

[charlenefan]

It's not Fifa though. There's no way we don't have 60m extra to spend now if we know we're going to get it.

You're familiar with our owners yes?

 

[Tel074]

United should be screaming with laughter down the phone to that deal. Inter obviously do not have the money to buy.

 

[VeevaVee]

You're familiar with our owners yes?

The ones who spent £75m on Lukaku, £80m on Pogba, £60m on Di Maria, £50m on Fred etc?

Other than last summer, not spending hasn't been the issue.

 

[Bastian]

Surely we can up that price to what we laid out on him if they're paying it over 3 years. Would be great to recoup what we paid and get his wages off the bill. Especially would be good to transition to a completely different attacking movement and defending from the front.

 

[giorno]

Yeah, you’ve got a point here. Especially if you’re looking at it from an FFP standpoint

Not just FFP. The books are what you show to the FA, the banks, potential investors, partners, etc. They're the financial statements. Meaning whatever is written in them is automatically true, or you're committing fraud

 

[Patrick08]

It's not a bad deal per se it just fecks up the cash flow for the club a bit.

The issue for us is other than Inter I don't think any club wants him that bad so we may never get a better chance to sell him for as much as now. I would probably ask for 30+40.

Its a very bad deal. None of our strikers are sure to nail down the spot. With the fee not coming in immediately we are weakening ourself of goals and options in that position.

He is still a striker if fed balls on the plate will score goals, and probably we can get full payment in once in future if he turns out to be decent for these years.

The offer is ridiculous from our perspective.

 

[ArjenIsM3]

Yes you are. As for as your accounts are concerned you are making a profit, and the books are all that matters, financially

The Glazers would fecking love you. You sound like Woodward. You're probably right purely from an accounting perspective, but that's a very limited perspective indeed.

 

[VeevaVee]

Its a very bad deal. None of our strikers are sure to nail down the spot. With the fee not coming in immediately we are weakening ourself of goals and options in that position.

He is still a striker if fed balls on the plate will score goals, and probably we can get full payment in once in future of he turns out to be decent for these years.

The offer is ridiculous from our perspective.

You know we can buy someone though? I doubt we desperately need the money to do that.

 

[charlenefan]

The ones who spent £75m on Lukaku, £80m on Pogba, £60m on Di Maria, £50m on Fred etc?

Other than last summer, not spending hasn't been the issue.

And last summer is the only one of any relevance now

 

[VeevaVee]

And last summer is the only one of any relevance now

Why is it? That's ridiculous.

While some of it understandable, some people here just want to be as pessimistic as possible.

 

[giorno]

It's not a bad deal per se it just fecks up the cash flow for the club a bit.

The issue for us is other than Inter I don't think any club wants him that bad so we may never get a better chance to sell him for as much as now. I would probably ask for 30+40.

Cash flow should not be an issue for you, 10+60 is far more advantageous for you, and it's unlikely they'd pay the 30m upfront anyways

 

[charlenefan]

Why is it? That's ridiculous.

Because why does it matter what happened 2 years ago? To harp back on what they did 2 years ago is what's ridiculous.

 

[Patrick08]

You know we can buy someone though? I doubt we desperately need the money to do that.

We need to invest money in other areas of the pitch. Midfield, CB, Right winger. Without cash coming in upfront this sale is a non starter.

 

[El Jefe]

Its a very bad deal. None of our strikers are sure to nail down the spot. With the fee not coming in immediately we are weakening ourself of goals and options in that position.

He is still a striker if fed balls on the plate will score goals, and probably we can get full payment in once in future of he turns out to be decent for these years.

The offer is ridiculous from our perspective.

Obviously if we sold Lukaku he would be replaced and I imagine he'd be replaced by a striker that fits our style more than he does.

The structure of the deal isn't the best I agree but it will guarantee us €70m. We might never get that amount again for him unless an English club is involved but I don't think his ego would accept stepping down to a club not in European competitions.

 

[Leftback99]

Laughable offer if true. We've just signed a right back for £50m, so lets sell our best goalscorer for slightly more on a buy now pay later deal.

 

[Patrick08]

I imagine he'd be replaced by a striker that fits our style more than he does

We need to spend our money in other areas. We have no money to spend in strikers position, unless a cash offer comes in. 2 year loan deal with an obligation to buy is ridiculous.

 

[VeevaVee]

Because why does it matter what happened 2 years ago? To harp back on what they did 2 years ago is what's ridiculous.

What a weird stance. Very attitudey as well. Ciao.

We need to invest money in other areas of the pitch. Midfield, CB, Right winger.

We needed that anyway. We just need to not piss about. There's still plenty of window left.

We need to spend our money in other areas. We have no money to spend in strikers position, unless a cash offer comes in..

You don't know this though. You're choosing to think it.

 

[bond19821982]

Feck that offer. In 2 years 70m will be bargain with the influx of money in football. If they want to spread the offer make it to 90/100 and 20-30m upfront .

Else pay the full fecking money. Period.

 

[giorno]

The Glazers would fecking love you. You sound like Woodward. You're probably right purely from an accounting perspective, but that's a very limited perspective indeed.

So you'd rather keep a player who is a backup, wants to leave, and can net you a massive profit, while you already have cheaper replacements lined up, because...why?

 

[Rightnr]

People clinging on Lukaku as if he's the new Brazilian Ronaldo while he's just a Belgian Emile Heskey. I do despair sometimes with some of this brilliant 'thinking'.

 

[Berbaclass]

Feck that offer. In 2 years 70m will be bargain with the influx of money in football. If they want to spread the offer make it to 90/100 and 20-30m upfront .

Else pay the full fecking money. Period.

In two years he has a year left on his deal and is worth significantly less. We're at the point now where we get as much as we can for him and get someone else.

 

[El Jefe]

Cash flow should not be an issue for you, 10+60 is far more advantageous for you, and it's unlikely they'd pay the 30m upfront anyways

It should especially if we'll be having big commitments this year and next. Unless we structure the deal the same way for his replacement we'll be at a loss cash flow wise over the loan period of the deal. Over the 3 years of course it evens out.