Man Utd summer transfer budget capped by FFP due to 'historic spending'

[Lentwood]

Don't get me wrong, it's all their fault. Allowing a professional accountant/investment banker to run transfers and footballing decisions until a year ago is the root cause of all of this.

Agree 100%, but there's no conspiracy, our failure is down to incompetence

 

[Mainoldo]

Don’t buy any of it tbh. We don’t have an over inflated squad so our book value remains consistent regardless of how we sell we still sell and our turnover allows us to spend big. If it’s not the case explain how smaller clubs still can’t spend as much as us. We are speaking like Well run Brighton can spend £150m this year even with selling Caicedo for £80m and Mac Allister for £35m. They just can’t.

Nothing story… if we are restricted then so are the rest of Europe. So it doesn’t matter anyway.

 

[Cloud7]

One of those seasons they were banned from making signings though so that isn't surprising.

They had like 220m then nothing then 250m then just Lukaku then 600m. Lukaku seems to be an enormous write off. It just seems like a bit of a faulty system that rewards player sales so much more than other revenue

Good. Makes far more sense that you should be rewarded for good sales rather than just good marketing. At least player sales are related to football.

 

[romufc]

This is the clubs brief to the media, from the Glazers so the fans dont get upset at United not spending.

There is no way that a club that makes so much revenue, 0 investment from owners, can be limited to 100m spend.

Its just us who have the worst accountants, when other clubs can figure out ways to get transfers done.

Also, this FFP stuff is all fake, I have heard so many times.. x club needs to raise £70m by June 30th or else. Nothing happens.

 

[Adebisi's Hat]

its the usual bo%^ocks from the club trying to cover for the Glazers incompetence and dithering.

 

[Giggsy13]

I would take articles regarding our budget with a grain of salt, but we do know generally the glazer way after qualifying for champions league: limit spending. This is bound to happen again and be worse given the club is up for sale. The fact we’re even in the discussion of limited spending due to FFP is shambolic given our report of record revenues last season. Embarrassing.

We do actually know the one thing, which is actually impeding our ability to spend, the debt. I believe it’s been reported through some fairly respected sources that eliminating the debt would add £50 million to our budget. It’s financial facts such as this that are fairly depressing. I’ve accepted that we’ll never truly be title challengers in this era under the glazers.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

Amazing how owners of literally every other PL aren’t spouting this isn’t it…?

And what’s the Glazer track record of allowing the club to spend following CL qualification again…?

Utd won the League Cup and finished 3rd.

Cmon ffs, wake up.

If an owner wanted to input funds they could, if an owner wanted to sell players they could - big wages or not.

This isn’t an ffp issue, it’s a Glazer issue, again.

 

[Ralph1386]

Amazing how owners of literally every other PL aren’t spouting this isn’t it…?

And what’s the Glazer track record of allowing the club to spend following CL qualification again…?

Utd won the League Cup and finished 3rd.

Cmon ffs, wake up.

If an owner wanted to input funds they could, if an owner wanted to sell players they could - big wages or not.

This isn’t an ffp issue, it’s a Glazer issue, again.

Bingo!

 

[Lemoor]

I call bullshit on that article. Very light on the details. How will historic spending affect what we are spending today especially if we keep turning a profit every year after paying for the transfers. FFP is another way for the glazer parasites to not spend a penny and hurt the club.

Goal doesn't really have any decent journalists or insights. Most articles could be done by any rando on twitter.

 

[Devil You Know]

This is the clubs brief to the media, from the Glazers so the fans dont get upset at United not spending.

There is no way that a club that makes so much revenue, 0 investment from owners, can be limited to 100m spend.

Its just us who have the worst accountants, when other clubs can figure out ways to get transfers done.

Also, this FFP stuff is all fake, I have heard so many times.. x club needs to raise £70m by June 30th or else. Nothing happens.

The Glazers don't care about the fans. I think it's more likely a brief from our transfer negotiating team to the likes of Chelsea, Tottenham and Inter.

 

[kafta]

Amazing how owners of literally every other PL aren’t spouting this isn’t it…?

And what’s the Glazer track record of allowing the club to spend following CL qualification again…?

Utd won the League Cup and finished 3rd.

Cmon ffs, wake up.

If an owner wanted to input funds they could, if an owner wanted to sell players they could - big wages or not.

This isn’t an ffp issue, it’s a Glazer issue, again.

Completely agree. Can't wait to get rid of these leaches.

 

[Velvet Revolver]

Wages are far too high and we buy overrated players with little sell on value.

This. The lack of on field success is being compensated by over the top wages to lure mediocre players. This is so disgustingly bad.

 

[romufc]

The Glazers don't care about the fans. I think it's more likely a brief from our transfer negotiating team to the likes of Chelsea, Tottenham and Inter.

They dont care about the club either. Its not really, they have all set the fee for the players, apart from Spurs, Mount and Onana, there is a set fee, its not like the clubs are saying not for sale.

Its more, this is the price if you can afford it, if not dont bother.

 

[Crimson King]

This is the clubs brief to the media, from the Glazers so the fans dont get upset at United not spending.

There is no way that a club that makes so much revenue, 0 investment from owners, can be limited to 100m spend.

Its just us who have the worst accountants, when other clubs can figure out ways to get transfers done.

Also, this FFP stuff is all fake, I have heard so many times.. x club needs to raise £70m by June 30th or else. Nothing happens.

Very cute of the Glazers to think they have that level of trust with the fan base.

 

[lostcauz]

The Swedish rumbles latest thread on Twitter is interesting. Potential to spend upto £200m currently with the ability to spend up to £400m if we clear the debt and are able to make money through player sales.

 

[cyberman]

The Glazers don't care about the fans. I think it's more likely a brief from our transfer negotiating team to the likes of Chelsea, Tottenham and Inter.

It’s a pretty shit brief though. Even at out most outlandish we really never spent much more than 120m anyway and this is over the period where we wasted so much money

 

[RedRonaldo]

I am not surprised. We have overpaid alot in recent years and our players sales revenue has been complete shite.

 

[Mainoldo]

So just by the looks of things. We will get Mount for no more than £58m Onana for no more €50m. Add in a striker and another midfielder… But you guys believe this rubbish.

We will spend around £120m net. Like we always do.

 

[jm99]

Good. Makes far more sense that you should be rewarded for good sales rather than just good marketing. At least player sales are related to football.

Are they? Are Chelsea getting massive fees for Saudi Arabia really football motivated or is it because they had marketable Muslim players and got significantly above what they should have, or hoarding tons of players and loaning them out then selling them more valid reasons than being a big club through historical success?

 

[Big Ben Foster]

The real news here is that goal.com somehow still exists

 

[jm99]

So just by the looks of things. We will get Mount for no more than £58m Onana for no more €50m. Add in a striker and another midfielder… But you guys believe this rubbish.

We will spend around £120m net. Like we always do.

Didn't we spend like 230m net last year?

 

[Mainoldo]

Didn't we spend like 230m net last year?

We also let go of half the squad on a free. I’d assume it was budgeted for.

 

[jm99]

We also let go of half the squad on a free. I’d assume it was budgeted for.

Tbh I can't see us bidding 55m on mount if we really only have a limit of 120m. While we would hope to sell a few players, none are guaranteed to go given their massive wages and striker and keeper are higher priorities. I feel as if it must be close to 180-200m we'll have available

 

[Rozay]

Chelsea have spent like a billion pounds in the last 5 seasons, we've spent maybe half that with way more revenue than them, the rules are clearly fecked

They also sell players for actual money.

 

[Rightnr]

Quelle surprise. Old incompetence is catching up to us.

And people still maintain we can be run organically. We need a cash injection to wipe our debt and give us room to spend.

 

[Mainoldo]

Tbh I can't see us bidding 55m on mount if we really only have a limit of 120m. While we would hope to sell a few players, none are guaranteed to go given their massive wages and striker and keeper are higher priorities. I feel as if it must be close to 180-200m we'll have available

Listen let’s be honest what we hear and what it actually means is two separate things. With amortization, Book values and credit facilitation… these sums of £120m to £100m could mean anything to the club and its DoF.

All I know is we are planning to spend money and that’s all that counts.

 

[Roboc7]

Lack of sales is huge issue as well as the terrible spending. But at the moment the best course of action from the Glazers perspective is to spend nothing or as little as possible until takeover is resolved so that’s what they’ll do.

 

[jm99]

They also sell players for actual money.

Yeah, true but any money we have is earned by us, God knows its not the Glazers putting their own money in

 

[Levi1]

This thread from Kieron O’Connor (Swiss Ramble) covers the basics for the biggest clubs in the Premier League and Europe:

Very informative thread. Thank you for sharing it with us here. I'm not as troubled by the FFP issue in general, as long as it's the same for all clubs. Football needs some superimposed spending limits, certainly MUFC does. But when you see in there that City have higher commercial revenues than us, it does become demoralizing

 

[Woziak]

Didn't we spend like 230m net last year?

Exactly after being briefed the same thing £100-120m budget last season. We sold two homegrown players Andreas Pereira and James Garner for £25m Combined which due to amortisation gave us an additional £120m budget and that was after a financial loss of £125m.

United’s increased revenue of £630-640m and the potentially reduce operating loss only means under FSP, the club have much more available providing the Glazers have the cash.

 

[Champ]

Amazing how owners of literally every other PL aren’t spouting this isn’t it…?

And what’s the Glazer track record of allowing the club to spend following CL qualification again…?

Utd won the League Cup and finished 3rd.

Cmon ffs, wake up.

If an owner wanted to input funds they could, if an owner wanted to sell players they could - big wages or not.

This isn’t an ffp issue, it’s a Glazer issue, again.

As much as I detest the Glazers, alot of what you said isn't the case.

An owner can't actually just input funds unless it's in facilities which will have their own budget separate from any 'transfer kitty'. Certainly not without breaking rules anyhow.

An owner can't just sell players on a whim, they require buyers for that. No buyers then no sale.

Newcastle's owners and manager were literally spouting that the very same FFP spending restrictions were impacting them a month ago.

Had you said it was the debt payments that are impacting then I'd be inclined to agree.
And that indeed comes down to the owners ultimately.

 

[Levi1]

Exactly after being briefed the same thing £100-120m budget last season. We sold two homegrown players Andreas Pereira and James Garner for £25m Combined which due to amortisation gave us an additional £120m budget and that was after a financial loss of £125m.

United’s increased revenue of £630-640m and the potentially reduce operating loss only means under FSP, the club have much more available providing the Glazers have the cash.

I think your calculator may have the × and ÷ icons miswired

 

[romufc]

Exactly after being briefed the same thing £100-120m budget last season. We sold two homegrown players Andreas Pereira and James Garner for £25m Combined which due to amortisation gave us an additional £120m budget and that was after a financial loss of £125m.

United’s increased revenue of £630-640m and the potentially reduce operating loss only means under FSP, the club have much more available providing the Glazers have the cash.

These journalists brief things all the time and they are wrong alot of the times.

It is all about clicks for journalism, whatever drives the most clicks will be published, be it right or wrong.

 

[jm99]

I think your calculator may have the × and ÷ icons miswired

No he's right 25m in sales is included in our incoming for one year the whole amount, so this can give you 125m in outgoings, provided its spread over a five yesr contract. Obviously it would mean 25m being added to the outgoings in subsequent years but the idea would be success and CL revenue that you may not get otherwise makes it worth it

 

[Rightnr]

As much as I detest the Glazers, alot of what you said isn't the case.

An owner can't actually just input funds unless it's in facilities which will have their own budget separate from any 'transfer kitty'. Certainly not without breaking rules anyhow.

An owner can't just sell players on a whim, they require buyers for that. No buyers then no sale.

Newcastle's owners and manager were literally spouting that the very same FFP spending restrictions were impacting them a month ago.

Had you said it was the debt payments that are impacting then I'd be inclined to agree.
And that indeed comes down to the owners ultimately.

If we had no debt, FFP is not a concern. So your whole post is moot.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

I firmly believe where there’s a will there’s a way. If we had a new owner willing to splurge they’d find a way to finagle the rules.

The well which is Manchester United has now run dry & the current owners have never been willing to fund spending themselves so this Summer, so far, is a perfect storm.

I predict a ridiculous window, this or most likely Winter, once sold.

 

[Sandikan]

It's the same every year.

We finish the season with a bit of optimism about what the right few signings could do. More so this summer than the last many years back.

Then we hear all this budget talk, constraints and endure long winded pursuits of a player who generally underwhelms by a year or 2 in.

Roll on the Martinez/Casemiro type signings that are a bit quicker and actually succeed.

 

[Sandikan]

I firmly believe where there’s a will there’s a way. If we had a new owner willing to splurge they’d find a way to finagle the rules.

The well which is Manchester United has now run dry & the current owners have never been willing to fund spending themselves so this Summer, so far, is a perfect storm.

I predict a ridiculous window, this or most likely Winter, once sold.

I never understand all this "rules" talk. Man City have shown for years there are no actual rules.

 

[Highfather_24]

If we have a 100M budget, and we are able to recoup around 100M from sales(McT, Henderson, Maguire, Fred and the rest of the deadwood), that means we would have ~200M total budget.

If we get Onana, Mount and Hojlund for ~150M total, we would have 50M left for a CB and DM.

Its not looking good.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

I never understand all this "rules" talk. Man City have shown for years there are no actual rules.

Exactly.

The fact is this journos are clueless about our transfers/ownership so they’re going for these kind of articles cause it will create clicks amongst the hysterical bunch that like to doom monger.

Us not spending money now the Glazers would have to use their own isn’t surprising but it gives people something else to get upset over.

I’d love for us to have been sold already but until we are there’s little use getting upset if we only work on the fringes.