Man United say Financial Fair Play will restrict transfers

why dont we just do what city did? you know, cheat.

City owners want to win trophies, our owners only want to finish in top 4.

There’s no motive for Glazers to spend anymore than they absolutely have to as there’s no return for them. If there was money to be made by going outside FFP, even at a cost or penalty to the club, you would bet your life the Glazers would do it.

FFP adherence to the letter suits them down to the ground.
 
FFP is going to be the golden goose of an excuse for the new era.

Glazers did a beautiful job conning gullible fans to accept mediocrity but now all the Ineos lot have to say is "we can only compete within our means"

Not like you hey, you see through the lies
 
The bolded could/should go too. Heaton and Evans will want first team football, as may Eriksen/Bayindir.
I’m not convinced what Hannibal offers to be honest, and Antony simply isn’t good enough.

Clearly we aren’t going to let the majority of the squad go in one window. We are stuck with some of these players for the long term.
Heaton and Evans, why would they care about first team football? They are more at the retirement point, they knew the role they were signing up for before they joined. Maybe Evans but I have my doubts. Altay is a normal backup GK, if he's content in the role it doesn't matter they don't play anyway.

Hannibal I agree, but as a backup to Bruno to just get those few minutes that Bruno doesn't play is fine. When Bruno needs replacing then I'd just spend big there anyway on someone like Wirtz.

Agree on Antony but that's the 2nd point, we spent so much on him and recently, he's gonna stay, especially given we don't have other right wingers.
 
How does a club like Chelsea not have restrictions? Surely they've spent more than us? Other clubs?
 
Yeah whenever they've tried to spin constant failure as a process. When they framed the Ole era as a reboot of club culture. Which they tried the exact same thing again with Ten Hag.

How we spend £200m a year on transfers (until the credit card ran out) but are supposed to be happy with tinpot cup finals or top four finishes.
It's almost like spending £100m well is better than spending £200m badly.
 
Even without a takeover this should prompt a major revamp of transfers. We have a poor squad and can't spend
Desperately needs a complete overhaul whatever happens. Personally if the money ain't there I'd buy a dozen teenagers who might make it and hope some work out by fast tracking them. If it means treading water for a year or two like we are now then nothing ventured etc.
 
Last edited:
Yeah whenever they've tried to spin constant failure as a process. When they framed the Ole era as a reboot of club culture. Which they tried the exact same thing again with Ten Hag.

How we spend £200m a year on transfers (until the credit card ran out) but are supposed to be happy with tinpot cup finals or top four finishes.

I don’t think anyone believes this is a process, that ship has long gone. And nobody is happy, there’s just very little to be done aside from disrupting matches.
 
It's January. Of course they're not going to spend much. This is a nothing report.
 
This is why we should have looked signings like Rabiot instead of Mount or Verbruggen instead of Onana which would have saved us around £85 million but improved us, we’re so piss poor in regards to structure that we just sign players then wonder where we’ll play them after.

This summer coming Rabiot, Gabriel Barboza, Guidi Rodriguez, Claudio Echeverri, Federico Redondo and Juan Miranda are all out of contract and Echeverri and Redondo have massive potential so even if they didn’t realise their potential they could be sold on with a lot of willing buyers.

Our problem is we offer ridiculous wages for no reason and with no rivals for that players signature, we can’t move players on because the high wage so they either go on loan with us paying half their wages or run down their contract so we pay their whole outlay in full thus killing us FFP wise.
 
Heaton and Evans, why would they care about first team football? They are more at the retirement point, they knew the role they were signing up for before they joined. Maybe Evans but I have my doubts. Altay is a normal backup GK, if he's content in the role it doesn't matter they don't play anyway.

Hannibal I agree, but as a backup to Bruno to just get those few minutes that Bruno doesn't play is fine. When Bruno needs replacing then I'd just spend big there anyway on someone like Wirtz.

Agree on Antony but that's the 2nd point, we spent so much on him and recently, he's gonna stay, especially given we don't have other right wingers.
Heaton was offered a contract by Luton in the summer. He would have been their first choice but we wouldn’t let him leave because the DDG/Onana thing was up in the air. I think he could have a year or two playing somewhere else. Evans has shown he can still kick it too.

Bayindir was first choice at Fener, I don’t understand why he would come to Utd to NOT play. Also by most accounts he is nowhere near the required standard. It’s pointless paying his wages if he never plays.

No point keeping Hannibal for a backup role. You sign somebody to challenge Bruno and rotate effectively. We need to stop relying on the same guys and having a huge drop off if first choice isn’t available. We can definitely improve on Hannibal.
 
Heaton was offered a contract by Luton in the summer. He would have been their first choice but we wouldn’t let him leave because the DDG/Onana thing was up in the air. I think he could have a year or two playing somewhere else. Evans has shown he can still kick it too.

Bayindir was first choice at Fener, I don’t understand why he would come to Utd to NOT play. Also by most accounts he is nowhere near the required standard. It’s pointless paying his wages if he never plays.

No point keeping Hannibal for a backup role. You sign somebody to challenge Bruno and rotate effectively. We need to stop relying on the same guys and having a huge drop off if first choice isn’t available. We can definitely improve on Hannibal.
Backup goalkeepers are full aware that they are showing up to never play. It's assumed that they will only play if the main guy gets injured, and that's always needed.

We aren't signing somebody to rotate Bruno. You don't sign somebody to rotate your best player who is fit every game and plays every game. It's just about prioritizing and not wasting money on a backup 10 who won't play anyway. We'd use a different set up without Bruno, or in full rotation set ups just use Hannibal.
 
It's almost like continually making 50-80m signings that don't solve any problems in the team will eventually catch up with you.
 
The bolded could/should go too. Heaton and Evans will want first team football, as may Eriksen/Bayindir.
I’m not convinced what Hannibal offers to be honest, and Antony simply isn’t good enough.

Clearly we aren’t going to let the majority of the squad go in one window. We are stuck with some of these players for the long term.
So you're suggesting we play with no goalkeeper and have no back-ups given Onana will likely be at AFCON?
 
Like signing Phillips to be cover for Rodri and then just never using him??
Exactly that, but be honest Phillips was a hot property. It’s not the same as using Hannibal from the youth team.
If Phillips had come to United he would likely have been a first XI player - that is the kind of depth of quality we should aspire to.
 
How does a club like Chelsea not have restrictions? Surely they've spent more than us? Other clubs?
They absolutely gutted their entire team over the last 3 windows. Almost complete squad turnover from even last year. Most of those guys were on really high salaries. Salaries have a far bigger impact on the bottom line than transfer fees. We still keep on the same underperformers and even extend their contracts and bloat their salaries even more.

They sign most of their new players to very long contracts to minimize the annual amortization impact of transfer fees on the bottom line. The impact of Enzo's transfer for example is like €15m because of the long tenor of the contract.

Their new owner pumped money into the team.
 
Working with a tighter budget may actually help. We'll be forced to sell and buy smarter, rather than spend recklessly on overpriced crap
 
I'm pleased the club have wised up personally. Whether it's true or not, these kind of statements send the right message.

Essentially by publicly saying this, we are letting rival clubs and players know that we will no longer be a soft touch.

Strangely, having your CEO brag about how ridiculously rich you are before each transfer window hasn't exactly helped us drive a hard bargain this last decade.
 
They absolutely gutted their entire team over the last 3 windows. Almost complete squad turnover from even last year. Most of those guys were on really high salaries. Salaries have a far bigger impact on the bottom line than transfer fees. We still keep on the same underperformers and even extend their contracts and bloat their salaries even more.

They sign most of their new players to very long contracts to minimize the annual amortization impact of transfer fees on the bottom line. The impact of Enzo's transfer for example is like €15m because of the long tenor of the contract.

Their new owner pumped money into the team.

Not entirely accurate. Some nuggets of truth in some of the individual assumptions/statements but the bottom line is, Chelsea have basically decided to ignore FFP and suffer the consequences - possibly believing that they wouldn't get a serious punishment.

I think this, in part, is why Everton were punished so harshly for one breach. Its essentially a warning shot to Chelsea and other clubs who might be thinking the rules don't apply to them. It also sets a precedent to prevent FFP punishments being challenged effectively in a courtroom.
 
Not entirely accurate. Some nuggets of truth in some of the individual assumptions/statements but the bottom line is, Chelsea have basically decided to ignore FFP and suffer the consequences - possibly believing that they wouldn't get a serious punishment.

I think this, in part, is why Everton were punished so harshly for one breach. Its essentially a warning shot to Chelsea and other clubs who might be thinking the rules don't apply to them. It also sets a precedent to prevent FFP punishments being challenged effectively in a courtroom.

Pretty sure it was amortisation that helped Chelsea. Plus they actually sell players - 2023 saw £266.4m received. That's banked in that financial year. The 608.7m was amortised over the length of the contracts given.

They've now made that illegal, however it won't be back dated. So I imagine Chelsea won't be continuing to do what they are doing in future windows.

Same with City too, they actually sell players for decent prices. 114.5m Euros according to transfermarkt last summer. Whilst it's a negative netspend, it's nothing on us due to our sheer ineptitude in signing players with no resale value or simply never selling (e.g. Martial would have been shipped by any normal club about four years ago to Spurs or something).
 
Sales help ffp and that's the idea. Loans won't do much of course. January should be focused on clearing out the squad as we have no fixture congestion left this season, to fix our FFP position for the summer.
  • Sancho
  • Casemiro
  • Varane
  • Martial
  • Lindelof or Maguire
  • Reguilons loan
  • Amrabats loan
  • Van de Beek
  • Mount
  • Pellistri

Those are all players who have extremely questionable current or future roles and all either have a good chunk of wages or could get us money. With Casemiro and Varane, you have the injury/age concerns plus what our rebuild target is, and finding that balance.

People remaining would be:

Onana, Altay, Heaton
Dalot, AWB
Shaw, Malacia
Lindelof or Maguire, Martinez, Evans
Mainoo, McTominay, Eriksen, Bruno, Hannibal
Amad, Garnacho, Antony, Rashford
Hojlund

Obviously we have gaps there to fill like CB and DM if we sell some of those guys, but we'd be fine to see out the year and it puts us in a spot to build better in the summer.

Mount has no place on this list, be serious.
 
FFP is a godsend to the Glazers to avoid throwing money at the disaster they have already caused every transfer window.

It's also our own fault. Ridiculously high wages for unproven players and being held to ransom over transfer fees. Rinse and repeat.
 
It's shocking that a club of our size is in this situation, but when you look at our selling record in recent years it's shocking. We barely get money for anyone.
 
How will the potential resurgence of the super league effect this in case the big 6 of English football break away again?
 
With the resurgence of the super league then I can see SJR's bid being turned down or capped to just 25% with no automatic option in increasing his share. I believe that the January window will be underwhelming but we'll spend money in summer to appease the fans
 
Pretty sure it was amortisation that helped Chelsea. Plus they actually sell players - 2023 saw £266.4m received. That's banked in that financial year. The 608.7m was amortised over the length of the contracts given.

They've now made that illegal, however it won't be back dated. So I imagine Chelsea won't be continuing to do what they are doing in future windows.

Same with City too, they actually sell players for decent prices. 114.5m Euros according to transfermarkt last summer. Whilst it's a negative netspend, it's nothing on us due to our sheer ineptitude in signing players with no resale value or simply never selling (e.g. Martial would have been shipped by any normal club about four years ago to Spurs or something).

That's why I said there was a 'nugget of truth' in what was posted. Its not entirely an incorrect representation as its true that Chelsea have used creative contracts to balance the books - although all transfers are spread over the contract term whether paid upfront or not, so it's nothing new.

Its also true that they have sold homegrown players which means they get to recognise the full value of the transfer immediately.

None of this, however, changes the fact that senior sports lawyers/advisors believe they will well exceed what is allowed with respect losses and will therefore be in breach.
 
I can't believe some folk still take what appears in the media about transfers and budgets as gospel.
 
Imagine being handed the most profitable sports club in the world and being so incompetent you run it into the ground within 10 years.

Scummy wankers.
 
If anything FFP is too lax. We've been pissing away money for years and it utterly failed to stop us doing so.
 
Mount has no place on this list, be serious.
I like Mount. I don't see what role he plays. He can only play Bruno's role IMO, and it makes no sense keeping him as a Bruno backup when Bruno plays pretty much every game.
 
Sales help ffp and that's the idea. Loans won't do much of course. January should be focused on clearing out the squad as we have no fixture congestion left this season, to fix our FFP position for the summer.
  • Sancho
  • Casemiro
  • Varane
  • Martial
  • Lindelof or Maguire
  • Reguilons loan
  • Amrabats loan
  • Van de Beek
  • Mount
  • Pellistri

Those are all players who have extremely questionable current or future roles and all either have a good chunk of wages or could get us money. With Casemiro and Varane, you have the injury/age concerns plus what our rebuild target is, and finding that balance.

People remaining would be:

Onana, Altay, Heaton
Dalot, AWB
Shaw, Malacia
Lindelof or Maguire, Martinez, Evans
Mainoo, McTominay, Eriksen, Bruno, Hannibal
Amad, Garnacho, Antony, Rashford
Hojlund

Obviously we have gaps there to fill like CB and DM if we sell some of those guys, but we'd be fine to see out the year and it puts us in a spot to build better in the summer.

Honestly every time I see our entire squad typed out somewhere it remind me how weak we are considering the amount of money we have spent.
It`s mind boggling to be honest.
Every season for the last 7-8 years we have been talking about "clearing the deadwood" but in reality all we seem to do is replace deadwood with more deadwood.

We really have been utterly shambolic at recruitment (bar a few)
 
That's why I said there was a 'nugget of truth' in what was posted. Its not entirely an incorrect representation as its true that Chelsea have used creative contracts to balance the books - although all transfers are spread over the contract term whether paid upfront or not, so it's nothing new.

Its also true that they have sold homegrown players which means they get to recognise the full value of the transfer immediately.

None of this, however, changes the fact that senior sports lawyers/advisors believe they will well exceed what is allowed with respect losses and will therefore be in breach.

But I don't think they're actually running foul of FFP, as hard as it is to believe. They haven't chosen to ignore it, in fact the opposite. They've successfully circumvented the rules as far as I can tell.

Obviously it's incredibly high risk and probably fecking stupid, but I don't think they're under any threat of FFP fines and can finance pretty much anything they want, should they want to.
 
With the resurgence of the super league then I can see SJR's bid being turned down or capped to just 25% with no automatic option in increasing his share. I believe that the January window will be underwhelming but we'll spend money in summer to appease the fans

In which case Ratcliffe walks away and the parasites are fecked financially due to the historical debt, the interest, the credit card facility, the outstanding transfer fee balance, the dross on the books we can’t shift due to ridiculous wages and the club revenue due to not ever making the CL being shorter and shorter each year.

Not for a second do I think Ratcliffe comes in just for 25% and no guaranteed pathway to full control as he’s an astute self made billionaire in the latter part of his life and regardless of the news today the super league won’t happen, Uefa and Fifa won’t allow it and will adapt the competitions in place like they already have for the CL for next year.

It seems to be forgotten constantly just how dire the club finances are if Ratcliffe doesn’t come in for the parasites as they’d have to pump their own money in or watch the club collapse, the historical debt has gone up since the old man passed even though we’ve made all loan and interest repayments and can’t be refinanced again.
 
Imagine being handed the most profitable sports club in the world and being so incompetent you run it into the ground within 10 years.

Scummy wankers.
to be fair....they've made plenty of cash available

it's the cnuts like Ed, Murtaugh.....the football people.... that allowed us to buy so many shit players over the 10 years