Lukaku - transfer speculation | Gone

[roonster09]

Expect it in two instalments over two years with a different buyer, with the money there is in the business. Business is not our main focus, football is. Our top 4 and europa league is at stake, while also the need to invest in other areas. Inter could join us in europa league in February too and become our competitors this season.

There is no reason we take such a poor deal where we don't see the cash for so many years, while sabotaging our own team with a heavy need to reinvest, just because we want full money back on our purchase.

If his goals wins us the europa league again even a slight loss on sale in future with good percentage of money upfront will be a good deal. Don't just tell me there are no other buyers for him than inter if he even has a decent season with us with wingers supplying him to score.

We are still paying for the transfers we completed few years ago. Clubs usually don't pay in 1 or 2 installments.

You are just over dramatic for no reason. We don't have to sell to buy, we barely spent any money last season, so we should have good enough money to invest.

 

[JPRouve]

Do you think this type of deal will help us reinvest in the team this summer in other positions with a month left and find even replacements for him with a month left while also being in the risk of losing his goals and thus our own financial goals with lack of champions league qualification if we fail to do so? I don't think so.

The obligation to buy won't cover our risks arising him for letting him go this summer for such a kind of deal.

For a club like United these type of deals have no short term impact, the club has cash reserves, it doesn't need to get the money upfront, the only thing needed is the obligation to buy.

 

[JPRouve]

We are still paying for the transfers we completed few years ago. Clubs usually don't pay in 1 or 2 installments.

You are just over dramatic for no reason. We don't have to sell to buy, we barely spent any money last season, so we should have good enough money to invest.

That part isn't correct, the club spent a fair amount last season and that's actually due to the point that you are making. It was more than in 2017 even though people will go on transfermarkt and think otherwise.

 

[roonster09]

That part isn't correct, the club spent a fair amount last season and that's actually due to the point that you are making. It was more than in 2017 even though people will go on transfermarkt and think otherwise.

Yeah we spent a lot in 2016 and 2017, but last season (for various reasons) we didn't spend much. Yeah I used barely to exaggerate a bit. We sold Blind, Johnstone, Fellaini (in Jan), so our net spend was around 40-45 million.

 

[Ikon]

For a club like United these type of deals have no short term impact, the club has cash reserves, it doesn't need to get the money upfront, the only thing needed is the obligation to buy.

Its sort of similar to having a guaranteed post dated cheque.....we can, in theory, spend against the guarantee.

Personally, I'd be completely willing to consider any interesting proposition from buying clubs to shift Lukaku and others from our club.
Considering the inflated fees we have paid and the exorbitant salaries, things might need to be a little bit creative.

 

[Patrick08]

We are still paying for the transfers we completed few years ago. Clubs usually don't pay in 1 or 2 installments.

You are just over dramatic for no reason. We don't have to sell to buy, we barely spent any money last season, so we should have good enough money to invest.

Over dramatic? Which of my point was over dramatic? It made total footballing sense.

You talk like every deal is structured in many instalments, which surely is not a given. Many deals happen where significant amount is paid up front as well.

Our boards and glazers policy now is definitely sell to buy since a last few years in positions that are already stacked with options since we have invested heavily and loaded more debt on the club accounts. We have floated Shares on NSYE so we are payable to those shareholders as well.

The managers words at the end of last season are also an indication we are not going to rebuild buying 7-8 players in one or two summers.

Last season we couldn't offload darmian and rojo so we failed to invest in cb and other areas too. We wont buy Sanchez for 35m unless we offloaded mkh.

 

[Patrick08]

For a club like United these type of deals have no short term impact, the club has cash reserves, it doesn't need to get the money upfront, the only thing needed is the obligation to buy.

Your talking purely from an accounting point of view. Not from footballing or strategic veiw of the board.

 

[JPRouve]

Your talking purely from an accounting point of view. Not from footballing or strategic veiw of the board.

No, I'm talking from a financing point of view which is the point that you were making. We don't need the money upfront in order to finance the arrival of a replacement because we have cash reserves and we also don't pay upfront.

 

[Patrick08]

No, I'm talking from a financing point of view which is the point that you were making. We don't need the money upfront in order to finance the arrival of a replacement because we have cash reserves and we also don't pay upfront.

Of course we don't need from purely a financial point of view, we are well above ffp regulations.

The point is we are a privately owned business. The glazers who Woodward serves, strategic decision is to pump the profits into interests over the club's debt payments which has grown from the heavy investment from the past few years. So they have created a deliberate cash crunch by diverting profits into debt payments and dividends, which is visible in our relatively low transfer budgets ( according to our needs ). Hence the club seems to have adopted the policy of sell to buy. It's a strategic decision by the looks of it, not that we are on need of urgent cash.

 

[roonster09]

Over dramatic? Which of my point was over dramatic? It made total footballing sense.

You talk like every deal is structured in many instalments, which surely is not a given. Many deals happen where significant amount is paid up front as well.

Our boards and glazers policy now is definitely sell to buy since a last few years in positions that are already stacked with options since we have invested heavily and loaded more debt on the club accounts. We have floated Shares on NSYE so we are payable to those shareholders as well.

The managers words at the end of last season are also an indication we are not going to rebuild buying 7-8 players in one or two summers.

Last season we couldn't offload darmian and rojo so we failed to invest in cb and other areas too. We wont buy Sanchez for 35m unless we offloaded mkh.

Every point.

 

[JPRouve]

Of course we don't need from purely a financial point of view, we are well above ffp regulations.

The point is we are a privately owned business. The glazers who Woodward serves, strategic decision is to pump the profits into interests over the club's debt payments which has grown from the heavy investment from the past few years. So they have created a deliberate cash crunch by diverting profits into debt payments and dividends, which is visible in our relatively low transfer budgets ( according to our needs ). Hence the club seems to have adopted the policy of sell to buy. It's a strategic decision by the looks of it, not that we are on need of urgent cash.

That's wrong, the club currently spend a lot less on finance costs(debt payment) than it used to.

 

[Patrick08]

Every point.

Totally disagree.

 

[roonster09]

Totally disagree.

You just disregarded our squad size and came to conclusion that we have to sell to buy based on finances when it's to do with squad size too. Last season we registered 24 players and that's excluding players like Rashford who should be registered this season. So we have to offload players, we are not backed by state to have players unregistered and still paid good wages.

We have added Daniel James, Wan Bissaka this season and players like Rashford, Tuanzebe should be registered this season. So we have added 4 more to the squad list and offloaded 3 (Fellaini, Herrera, Valencia). So right now our squad size has reached 100% limit or near 100% if we assume Tuanzebe will be out on loan. So yeah we should offload many players, not just to finance the deal but also to have free up slots in 25 player squad.

 

[Lash]

You just disregarded our squad size and came to conclusion that we have to sell to buy based on finances when it's to do with squad size too. Last season we registered 24 players and that's excluding players like Rashford who should be registered this season. So we have to offload players, we are not backed by state to have players unregistered and still paid good wages.

We have added Daniel James, Wan Bissaka this season and players like Rashford, Tuanzebe should be registered this season. So we have added 4 more to the squad list and offloaded 3 (Fellaini, Herrera, Valencia). So right now our squad size reached 100% limit or near 100% if we assume Tuanzebe will be out on loan. So yeah we should offload many players, not just to finance the deal but also to have free up slots in 25 player squad.

Thanks for that, I really couldn't be bothered to work out everyone's ages and count who needs to be registered. It does make it very interesting to see who we'll offload.

 

[roonster09]

Thanks for that, I really couldn't be bothered to work out everyone's ages and count who needs to be registered. It does make it very interesting to see who we'll offload.

This is the registered squad from last season.

Spoiler: Players registered

Bailly
Darmian
De Gea
Fellaini
Lee Grant*
Herrera
Andreas Pereira*
Jones*
Lindelof
Lingard*
Lukaku*
Martial
Mata
Matic
McTominay*
Pogba*
Rojo,
Romero,
Sanchez,
Fred
Shaw*
Smalling*
Valencia
Young*

Players like Rashford was in u21 category but for this season to be in U21 category "Under-21 players will have been born on or after 1 January 1998"

So Rashford, Tuanzebe should be registered. Same with Dean Henderson and Joel Pereira (assuming both will be loaned out). Then you have Fosu Mensah who was born on Jan 2nd 1998, so I think he can be registered in U21 category.

Not sure which players will be offloaded. Herrera, Valencia, Fellaini are gone from the list. Only Lukaku is linked with other clubs. Pogba rumors stopped too.

 

[Patrick08]

That's wrong, the club currently spend a lot less on finance costs(debt payment) than it used to.

Well, why don't we just spend 200-250 m out there in Markets and address our weaknesses in the team as quickly as possible? The glazers seemed to have tightened the purse strings as far as we can see.

 

[Lash]

This is the registered squad from last season.

Spoiler: Players registered

Bailly
Darmian
De Gea
Fellaini
Lee Grant*
Herrera
Andreas Pereira*
Jones*
Lindelof
Lingard*
Lukaku*
Martial
Mata
Matic
McTominay*
Pogba*
Rojo,
Romero,
Sanchez,
Fred
Shaw*
Smalling*
Valencia
Young*

Players like Rashford was in u21 category but for this season to be in U21 category "Under-21 players will have been born on or after 1 January 1998"

So Rashford, Tuanzebe should be registered. Same with Dean Henderson and Joel Pereira (assuming both will be loaned out). Then you have Fosu Mensah who was born on Jan 2nd 1998, so I think he can be registered in U21 category.

Not sure which players will be offloaded. Herrera, Valencia, Fellaini are gone from the list. Only Lukaku is linked with other clubs. Pogba rumors stopped too.

I think Pereira should go, but they all came out with quite a lot of praise for him towards the end of the season. Rojo seems very hard to move on, Darmian seems like the only one that will likely leave. Adds an interesting dynamic to the transfers in, could be a large reason why a few of them can't be pursued properly just yet.

 

[JPRouve]

Well, why don't we just spend 200-250 m out there in Markets and address our weaknesses in the team as quickly as possible? The glazers seemed to have tightened the purse strings as far as we can see.

Because even though we have cash the club isn't made of money, we still have to be within the limits of our means. Transfer fees aren't the only expenses and we drastically increased our wage bill since 2016.

Also the clubs that spend +200m are either City-PSG or clubs that received a lot of money through transfers and generally spent less than we did in the last 5 years.

 

[Patrick08]

You just disregarded our squad size and came to conclusion that we have to sell to buy based on finances when it's to do with squad size too. Last season we registered 24 players and that's excluding players like Rashford who should be registered this season. So we have to offload players, we are not backed by state to have players unregistered and still paid good wages.

We have added Daniel James, Wan Bissaka this season and players like Rashford, Tuanzebe should be registered this season. So we have added 4 more to the squad list and offloaded 3 (Fellaini, Herrera, Valencia). So right now our squad size has reached 100% limit or near 100% if we assume Tuanzebe will be out on loan. So yeah we should offload many players, not just to finance the deal but also to have free up slots in 25 player squad.

You have miscomprehended my point dude, we have to sell to buy outside our allocated transfer budget.

 

[roonster09]

You have miscomprehended my point dude, we have to sell to buy outside our allocated transfer budget.

What is our allocated transfer budget? (please don't tell me it's 100 million).

 

[JPRouve]

What is our allocated transfer budget? (please don't tell me it's 100 million).

And if we spend outside of our allocated budget then we are most likely talking about an expense linked to an outgoing player, which makes the point moot.

 

[roonster09]

And if we spend outside of our allocated budget then we are most likely talking about an expense linked to an outgoing player, which makes the point moot.

Yeah, sometimes I feel we are talking about some poor club going by how we have to sell to buy.

 

[Cloud7]

You are just over dramatic for no reason

This is what 80% of the posts in here have been since this story broke. Bunch of fecking drama queens.

 

[JPRouve]

Yeah, sometimes I feel we are talking about some poor club going by how we have to sell to buy.

I could be wrong but it seems that people at the same time underestimate the amount of money spent by the club, available for football expenses and how much the club pay in finance costs. Also people are most likely comparing us to Real Madrid who didn't spend much in the last 5 years while having comparable revenues, they wouldn't be spending what they spent if they were the ones spending regularly in the last 5 summers while not selling much.

 

[tenpoless]

1. PSG got knocked out by ManUnited in the CL
2. PSG "revenged" by taking away Ander Herrera
3. PSG tried to sign De Ligt
4. De Ligt has a concern about French League, in favour of ManUnited
3. PSG "revenges" by trying to take Lukaku

 

[roonster09]

I could be wrong but it seems that people at the same time underestimate the amount of money spent by the club, available for football expenses and how much the club pay in finance costs. Also people are most likely comparing us to Real Madrid who didn't spend much in the last 5 years while having comparable revenues, they wouldn't be spending what they spent if they were the ones spending regularly in the last 5 summers while not selling much.

There is no doubt about that. We have spent huge money and people still say "manager xyz wasn't backed". Good chance we are seeing that impact now (hopefully we are wrong here)

Also Madrid have improved so much in the market, they had quiet few windows but they became such a good club at offloading their players too. This is something we are very poor at.

 

[giorno]

There is no doubt about that. We have spent huge money and people still say "manager xyz wasn't backed". Good chance we are seeing that impact now (hopefully we are wrong here)

Also Madrid have improved so much in the market, they had quiet few windows but they became such a good club at offloading their players too. This is something we are very poor at.

You're not poor at offloading players, you just have poor players to offload

 

[Cloud7]

You're not poor at offloading players, you just have poor players to offload

Very true.

 

[roonster09]

You're not poor at offloading players, you just have poor players to offload

I disagree with that, there are many examples where we sold players for nothing, like Zaha, Evans.

 

[dove]

You're not poor at offloading players, you just have poor players to offload

Not really, we absolutely suck at it. Players we sold for peanuts in recent years (or struggle to sell) are surely not THAT terrible that we could not find a buyer to offer more than £5m.

 

[sullydnl]

For a club like United these type of deals have no short term impact, the club has cash reserves, it doesn't need to get the money upfront, the only thing needed is the obligation to buy.

If we were to sell Lukaku in the normal fashion, I believe the yearly cost of his purchase (wages + portion of transfer fee) as is spread across our books for the duration of his contract would be removed? I assume recieving an obligation to buy instead wouldn't allow us to do this immediately? In other words his wages would be removed and we would be receiving a loan fee but our yearly player costs would still contain the relevant portion of what we paid for him?

I'm wondering if we could have our own internal expenditure restrictions in place which mean that still technically carrying Lukaku on the books impacts on what we can spend, despite the obligation to buy and despite us not actually needing the money itself? Also whether that yearly figure would be counted net or gross of the loan fee we would be recieving for him, if that makes sense. So would the loan fee be used to reduce the yearly player expenditure figure or be seperate to it?

 

[giorno]

I disagree with that, there are many examples where we sold players for nothing, like Zaha, Evans.

What was their market at the time?

Not really, we absolutely suck at it. Players we sold for peanuts in recent years (or struggle to sell) are surely not THAT terrible that we could not find a buyer to offer more than £5m.

Clearly they are. Otherwise you'd get those offers. But when you are trying to offload a player on relatively big wages, not young, and either coming off seasons of poor performances or a lot of bench, well, there's just not going to be a big market that

 

[roonster09]

What was their market at the time?

Clearly they are. Otherwise you'd get those offers. But when you are trying to offload a player on relatively big wages, not young, and either coming off seasons of poor performances or a lot of bench, well, there's just not going to be a big market that

Check the Liverpool transfers and few of City transfers and how much they got for players who did nothing at top level.

Danny Ings injured forever and contributed/didn't play at all and he was sold for 20 million
Solanke - 1 goal for Liverpool, bunch of sub appearances and was sold for 20 million
Danny Ward - Nth choice GK - 12 million
Sakho - Who was out of favor and fell out with Klopp - 25 million
Ibe - 15 million
Benteke - 30 million ( recouped 100% of the fee)

Iheanacho - 25 million
Gunn - who played 1 season in championship was sold for 15 million
Mooy - 10 million


On the other hand we sold
Blind - 12-13 million
Januzaj - 5-6 million
Depay - 14-15 million
Hernandez - 8-9 million
Nani - 4-5 million
Evans - 6 million
Rafael - 2 million
Kagawa - 6 million
Zaha - 3-4 million
M.Keane - 2 million (he was sold to Everton for 25 million later)

And there are many more.

All these players were proven players and many of them are regular for their national sides and not on very high wages either. We just suck at selling. Only good deal we got was 20-22 million for Schneiderlin and 16 million for Welbeck.

 

[Eoin McMahon]

Your mad. Icardi is much the better striker and Lukaku adds nothing to our overall play.

Its Icardis missus that is the diva not Icardi. Hes just under the thumb so to speak. We paid £75-90 million for that lump and if we need another number 9 to replace him (absolute must) which will score 25 goals per season. Then Icardi is a no brainer. There is no way our summer budget will allow another £80m+ signing. Icardi is being shown the door at Inter. We should be all over that opportunity

Im 50/50 about Lukaku. He guarantees goals, hes PL proven and does have passion for the club. He had a great first season with us but I feel the big problem with him this season was that he bulked up too much, and that has really affected his ability to run off defenders and he became more of a target man than anything else. I dont know if that was what Mourinho wanted him from or did he change his style himself but hes a different player to what he was during his Everton years and first season with us. His touch isnt good enough for him to be a out and out tagetman despite his size, hes definitely better running in behind at pace defenders cant get near him once hes through on goal. If he doesn't mind being in rotation with Rashford id keep him. Icardi wouldnt suit our playstyle and i think the PL would be a bit too fast for him look at higuain for example.

 

[JPRouve]

If we were to sell Lukaku in the normal fashion, I believe the yearly cost of his purchase (wages + portion of transfer fee) as is spread across our books for the duration of his contract would be removed? I assume recieving an obligation to buy instead wouldn't allow us to do this immediately? In other words his wages would be removed and we would be receiving a loan fee but our yearly player costs would still contain the relevant portion of what we paid for him?

I'm wondering if we could have our own internal expenditure restrictions in place which mean that still technically carrying Lukaku on the books impacts on what we can spend, despite the obligation to buy and despite us not actually needing the money itself? Also whether that yearly figure would counted net or gross of the loan fee we would be recieving for him, if that makes sense.

If I'm not mistaken, he would be held for sale and would cost a lot less in the books.

 

[Eoin McMahon]

Check the Liverpool transfers and few of City transfers and how much they got for players who did nothing at top level.

Danny Ings injured forever and contributed/didn't play at all and he was sold for 20 million
Solanke - 1 goal for Liverpool, bunch of sub appearances and was sold for 20 million
Danny Ward - Nth choice GK - 12 million
Sakho - Who was out of favor and fell out with Klopp - 25 million
Ibe - 15 million
Benteke - 30 million ( recouped 100% of the fee)

Iheanacho - 25 million
Gunn - who played 1 season in championship was sold for 15 million
Mooy - 10 million


On the other hand we sold
Blind - 12-13 million
Januzaj - 5-6 million
Depay - 14-15 million
Hernandez - 8-9 million
Nani - 4-5 million
Evans - 6 million
Rafael - 2 million
Kagawa - 6 million
Zaha - 3-4 million
M.Keane - 2 million (he was sold to Everton for 25 million later)

And there are many more.

All these players were proven players and many of them are regular for their national sides and not on very high wages either. We just suck at selling. Only good deal we got was 20-22 million for Schneiderlin and 16 million for Welbeck.

All the players youve listed that we've were all sold around 3-4 years ago alot of them were deadwood left from Fergusons last team and not many of them were a loss the team at the time. Zaha and Depay are the two players we maybe regret but whose to stay would have developed as much if they stayed with united.
As for the players listed from City and Liverpool theve all been sold in the last year or 2 and inflation means them prices are the norm. Im sure if we were selling the likes of Nani or Kagawa after inflation they'd be going 20 million aswell

 

[roonster09]

All the players youve listed that we've were all sold around 3-4 years ago alot of them were deadwood left from Fergusons last team and not many of them were a loss the team at the time. Zaha and Depay are the two players we maybe regret but whose to stay would have developed as much if they stayed with united.
As for the players listed from City and Liverpool theve all been sold in the last year or 2 and inflation means them prices are the norm. Im sure if we were selling the likes of Nani or Kagawa after inflation they'd be going 20 million aswell

All these players were sold in last 5-6 years. We sold Blind last season for 12 million, there is no way we would have sold Nani and Kagawa for 20 million had we sold them last season. On the other hand, Ibe was sold in 2015 or 2016 for 15 million. We sold in inflated market and Liverpool sold before that.

 

[BrianMcClair'sBarnet]

 

[giorno]

All these players were sold in last 5-6 years. We sold Blind last season for 12 million, there is no way we would have sold Nani and Kagawa for 20 million had we sold them last season. On the other hand, Ibe was sold in 2015 or 2016 for 15 million. We sold in inflated market and Liverpool sold before that.

Notice those liverpool and city players were all sold in england(? A couple of those i've no idea honestly) and also that they were all either young prospects or players in their prime coming off one bad season but with several good ones before that(apart from Ings, sorcery must have been involved in that one. And wasn't he signed by southampton? With the amount of business they done over the last few years sorcery of the accounting kind was definitely involved there)

Yours? Mostly sold outside england, most after either years of underperformance and/or old enough to not represent an investment for the future and/or on too high wages. Zaha before money swept through the whole league

 

[Andy_Cole]

It’s a bit of an awkward situation as only tier 2 clubs want him so can’t afford him.

We bought him at a tier 1 price and he hasn’t worked out so should be happy to take a hit really. £60m should be fine.