Sounds like you have assumed that we received all of the player sales upfront, whereas the player purchases are paid in installments. Any reason for that?
Man Utd summer transfer budget capped by FFP due to 'historic spending'
- Thread starter Hammondo
- Start date
As I've said, it's easy as pie (if you have the dough). The calculation is % of revenue (90 this year, 80 next, going down to 70 after) minus outstanding debt and wages.
If an owner comes in and just pays off not just the leeches' debt from the takeover but also the money owed for old transfers, we're clear to spend, especially with higher revenues from CL football and potential new sponsor.
For ffp purpsoes its irrelvant, the incoming is added to the years total whether received in one payment or instalments, it's the purchases that are amortised, the sales are immediately counted towards that year
Cash flow and FFP amortization are two completely different things. Both relevant when discussing our finances, but different issues altogether.
Although I agree with some of your posts, the selling bit is not entirely true.
Its only at United we struggle to find buyers, most clubs who want to get rid of a player do manage it and get good sums.
I will give you a few examples... Chelsea had Kennedy as a LB who was barely used. He was sold for 15m Euros and we cannot get a buyer for Telles.
There are multiple examples I can give you. Its just that Manutd has no buyers.
Goal.com I'm not giving them clicks and neither should you.
Because that's how clubs always put it through the books. It doesn't matter when they actually got or paid out the money. Purchases are always amortised over the length of the contract and sales are always put in as if the whole sum was received.
I honestly do not follow anyone with rumors, it just came up on my phone in the morning from google.
Ugh promoted google links. It always click bait.
United have never been a big selling side, even pre Glazers.
Sir Alex used to say that he was happy to see a player leave for a minimal fee as he would rather they go and play rather than sit around, that still seems to be the case when it comes to our younger players.
Chelsea have issues with selling players also, just look at the amount of players they have let go for free in the last few seasons!
The Kennedy you reference had multiple seasons in other teams, Newcastle I believe was one and was actually sold for £500k.
As I say, selling players requires a buyer, if the players are underperforming which has been the case with some of our loanees (Telles, Bailly, Williams etc), and even some at the club, it gets harder to find a buyer.
Well you’re right inasmuch as nobody has a clue how small your transfer budget could be but FFP is measured against annually published accounts so everybody has a good clue as to how big another clubs budget will be to still comply with FFP.
iirc you’re allowed up to €60 losses over a 3 year period. if you have a look at the published accounts for the last 2 years (to get exact numbers for 66.6% of the 3 year period) and extrapolate from those accounts (which also show forward figures inasmuch as annual accruals for players and annual income from sponsorships etc.) an informed approximation for the unpublished accounts, then you can derive a pretty damn accurate upper limit for a transfer budget.
After that it’s just a case of the ins & outs. Receipts for sold players offset against possible spend on new players and salary figures do likewise.
The whole premise of your posts is that the Glazers cannot do anything about the situation.How do when that was the whole point I was making
That's clearly wrong. If they paid the debt off tomorrow, we're fine. So, try again.
Does 100m mean ‘the club cannot buy players to a value exceeding 100m’ or does it mean ‘the club cannot add anymore than 100m onto the annual balance sheet?’. Because even 100m with favourable payment structures can surely get you a number of good players?
We have no chance of getting 100million in sales. We should be able to for those players, but we'll not get anywhere near.
Report by goal dot com, ok
I take their word over people trying to fill pages of their paper and who know mentioning United also gets massive numbers in terms of clicks.
Maguire : 30M
Henderson : 15M
McTominay : 30M
Fred : 10M
Elanga : 10M
That's 95M. And those are pretty realistic prices and mostly sellable players. Now Murtough and co are fecking useless, that's a different issue.
There's no chance in hell we sell the McFred partnership this summer.
If we can get in Mount and another midfielder, I dont see why not. VdB is kinda unsellable at his moment I feel, but you can keep Fred and sell him too.
This story doesn't even make sense. If we supposedly have £260m to spend on player purchases but can't use it because of FFP, then we don't actually have £260m to spend on players. I wouldn't necessarily trust this Goal article but that tweet is clearly bullshit imo
Be great if we could get rid of the above for good fees but being realistic and way things are.
Struggle to sell Maguire, we will end up loaning him out. No club will pay him the wages he gets at us. Unless West Ham go for him with the big fee there getting for Rice.
Fred will go for 15 mill
Henderson 15 Mill to Forest
Elenga be 7-10 mill hopefully.
Telles and Bailly for 5 Mill.
Have feeling McTominey will stay.
VDB be loan. Only coming back from ACL injury no club going to risk buying him without knowing how he goes with comeback.
Maguire and McTominay are our most sellable assets. If we fail to offload them at decent prices, we are fecked.
Hes been in charge for one window, calm the feck down.
That's my fecking point! Not my fault of you can't grasp that.
The fact is they can't do much about selling players, that's up to other teams wanting to buy our players.
This is all briefed to help us with current negotiations. We’ll get Mount, Onana and a CB in whilst everyone thinks we’re skint then spunk £100million on Kane when the takeover goes through
I have your optimism but mine includes Tchouameni!!
The club will let us down.. but rather have high hopes than moan
FFP is a myth. Just like Chupacabra and Bigfoot. The best club in Europe currently is the reminder why we shouldn't bother about feckin stupid stuff like FFP. We are United, we buy who we want. If FFP is ever REALLY implemented City will be playing in the 4th division.
I’m not buying it, this is us trying to counter the ‘United tax’. We have saved an absolute fortune on the wage bill over the past 12 months and we have a few sellable players. I’m predicting four players in and us spending around 200 million again.
If hes the one who offered DDG a deal the manager didn’t agree with he should be sacked post takeover
Caicedo, Onana, Pavard, Osimhen
It's not a myth if your accounts are published for the entire world to see every quarter. If we were a private club, ran by a state we could do whatever we wanted.
You're making up a lot of things. It's more likely ten hag changed his mind after the contract was offered.
Also put it down to DDG too, he himself was stalling on an extension agreement too.
If. I have no idea what is more likely and neither do you
It makes it all the more frustrating. Yes, funds was made available but always when all our primary targets were already gone or season has already started. We end up overpaying or getting secondary/third target.
We worry about players leaving for free, so we tie them up with high salary that makes it impossible to give them away and likely cause of complacency.
I used to think is all Woodward but look at the club sales debacle where they can't seem to make their mind up this late in the summer, I'm starting to think our transfer issues were likely cause of the owners can't make their minds up.
Thats my point. Don't assume.
Its not a myth but its impact on spending gets exaggerated by Media as well as Clubs when it suits them , its hardly the end of the world if the Club actually breaches it . Its slap on the wrist unless they become repeat offenders .
So if Glazers or the new owners want to go crazy in the Market they can definitely do so with out any far reaching ramifications even if they don't sell a single player this Summer . United's current issues are more to with actual cash flow rather than FFP.
Even if our available spend this summer under FFP is exactly zero at the moment, doesn’t £50 million in sales (easily achievable), free up spending of £250 million on players, assuming they’re given 5 year contracts?
I didn’t hence the IF
Bit of a pointless if.
If my nan had wheels shed be a bike and all that
Sure, as long as you can find another £50m in sales of revenue for the next 4 seasons too.