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

edcunited1878 said:
Those clubs, per usual, don't get the same level of scrutiny as United because they aren't Manchester United, even if they have similar financial spending without the known revenue.

And this sets off unnecessary panic and complaints from supposed supporters who just cannot let it go and let it be.
Click to expand...

There have been plenty of press about both Newcastle and Chelsea regarding FFP. Arsenal, I'm not sure. United have spent more than both Newcastle and Arsenal, of course, you justchose a convenient and not very relevant sample.

Net spend 20/21: Arsenal -67m, Newcastle -39m, United -64m, Chelsea -190m

Net spend 19/20: Arsenal -107m, Newcastle -37m, United -155m, Chelsea +112m

Of course there's more about United, because United is a bigger club and it gets more clicks.
 
NotThatSoph said:
There have been plenty of press about both Newcastle and Chelsea regarding FFP. Arsenal, I'm not sure. United have spent more than both Newcastle and Arsenal, of course, you justchose a convenient and not very relevant sample.

Net spend 20/21: Arsenal -67m, Newcastle -39m, United -64m, Chelsea -190m

Net spend 19/20: Arsenal -107m, Newcastle -37m, United -155m, Chelsea +112m

Of course there's more about United, because United is a bigger club and it gets more clicks.
Click to expand...

I chose the years that were in the article, which isn't being convenient nor relevant sample, it was the mirror image of the timeline dedicated in the article.

United have outspent Arsenal, but not by much all things considered. Newcastle didn't have Saudi owners and their spend has skyrocketed since the takeover, yet they just hit European qualification this past season.

Chelsea's has circumnavigated FFP a bit by long contracts and by getting investment from the Middle East and buying clubs in other countries/league, as part of their investment arm.
 
edcunited1878 said:
I chose the years that were in the article, which isn't being convenient nor relevant sample, it was the mirror image of the timeline dedicated in the article.

United have outspent Arsenal, but not by much all things considered. Newcastle didn't have Saudi owners and their spend has skyrocketed since the takeover, yet they just hit European qualification this past season.

Chelsea's has circumnavigated FFP a bit by long contracts and by getting investment from the Middle East and buying clubs in other countries/league, as part of their investment arm.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the article is irrelevant. They didn't go "United have spent a lot the last two years, lets write that they have FFP issues". It went like "everyone is writing about United's FFP issues, we have to do the same. Lets look up how much they've spent." It's Goal.com, so they chose the last two years because why not, it doesn't matter.

United have a higher net spend than Arsenal by a decent margin, and much higher wages. Newcastle's FFP issues are widely reported on.
 
Skills said:
Quite simply, because we wouldn't have sold him in that scenario. We could've got upwards of £30m for Henderson after his PL season with Sheffield United, probably could've got even more for him after the season he started for us.

But nah, there's no chance we sell an academy product until their situation at the club becomes almost untenable and then at that point their stock in football is low.
Click to expand...
What about all the academy guys we do sell?
We sold garner at 21 after a great spell at forest and got less than 10m
United got 1m per player they sold recently from the youth, again same age.
I don't suspect wages would have been an issue with them as it would be for players were trying to move on from the first team.

And this seems to be an ongoing theme with united.
 
JuriM said:
Chelsea also manages to sell their players for huge sum of money - Mount, Lukaku*, all the ones who left to Saudi Arabia now and some former academy products they have managed to load off. Our selling department is basically 0*
Click to expand...
pretty much my point: new owners need to clear out the boardroom entirely
 
bond19821982 said:
Chelsea's selling makes a difference, I guess. They are doing alright and bringing in money.
Click to expand...
and as usual we get £3.50 and bag of jelly babies. We need to rid ourselves of the entire board - they can go to Florida and work with the vampires
 
As long as we can be sure that we can shift a couple out then we should be fine for FFP this year….

DDG, Ronaldo, Phil Jones, Tuanzebe salaries have already come off. If we can offload Telles and Bailey then there is additional.

And if we can shift MaGuire and Fred then that will ensure our compliance with allowing us to spend significantlymore this summer.

I don’t think we will be able to shift Martial as his salary is so high, possibly DVdB?
 
By my count ETH has spent over £250 million in the space of 12 months so far.

Antony £75 million
Casemiro £60 million
Mount £55 million
Martinez £50 million
Malacia £12 Million
Weghorst £2 million loan fee

In the same period nobody has left for a fee higher than about £7/8 million.

We are paying for years of bad spending. Trying to get the likes of Sancho and Maguire off the books is a real big problem.
 
MegadrivePerson said:
By my count ETH has spent over £250 million in the space of 12 months so far.

Antony £75 million
Casemiro £60 million
Mount £55 million
Martinez £50 million
Malacia £12 Million
Weghorst £2 million loan fee

In the same period nobody has left for a fee higher than about £7/8 million.

We are paying for years of bad spending. Trying to get the likes of Sancho and Maguire off the books is a real big problem.
Click to expand...

Perriera
Garner

That’s about £25m.
 
MegadrivePerson said:
By my count ETH has spent over £250 million in the space of 12 months so far.

Antony £75 million
Casemiro £60 million
Mount £55 million
Martinez £50 million
Malacia £12 Million
Weghorst £2 million loan fee

In the same period nobody has left for a fee higher than about £7/8 million.

We are paying for years of bad spending. Trying to get the likes of Sancho and Maguire off the books is a real big problem.
Click to expand...
Ten Hag didn’t sell anyone last year because he wanted to work with most of them to see who he wanted to keep.
Our sales are delayed a year because of it
 
cyberman said:
Ten Hag didn’t sell anyone last year because he wanted to work with most of them to see who he wanted to keep.
Our sales are delayed a year because of it
Click to expand...

Or because the club couldn't generate interest, well see this year.
 
Based on Kieran Maguire's tweet earlier about owner equity investment I think it may be safe to assume if we get sold either owner would probably make that investment allowing us to spend more right?
 
Our worries are over. Dylan Levitt has been transferred from Dundee United to Hibs and thanks to our cunning decision to include a 25% sell on clause when we sold him last summer we have netted a cool 100K.
 
Gandalf said:
Our worries are over. Dylan Levitt has been transferred from Dundee United to Hibs and thanks to our cunning decision to include a 25% sell on clause when we sold him last summer we have netted a cool 100K.
Click to expand...

Cue a fluff piece in the Athletic about how Murtough negotiated a hard deal and got them up from 80k.
 
It amazes me how we boast the biggest profits, amazing numbers for incoming but outgoing oh no no no, United are unique and therefore HEAVILY restricted.

Utter bullshit.

No ones buying these pathetic excuses from an incapable hierarchy and negotiation team. I don't know who's involved intricately but the face of it is Arnold and Murtough and they are a couple of absolute clowns.

Look across the entire world, no other club briefs this nonsense as a pre-made excuse, do your god damned jobs and get creative.
Idiots.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
It amazes me how we boast the biggest profits, amazing numbers for incoming but outgoing oh no no no, United are unique and therefore HEAVILY restricted.

Utter bullshit.

No ones buying these pathetic excuses from an incapable hierarchy and negotiation team. I don't know who's involved intricately but the face of it is Arnold and Murtough and they are a couple of absolute clowns.

Look across the entire world, no other club briefs this nonsense as a pre-made excuse, do your god damned jobs and get creative.
Idiots.
Click to expand...

Exactly, there is no way, with our turnover, profits and everything else, we are restricted to 120m spend.

Considering we are one of the only clubs who's owners don't even invest any money into the club, so we can only spend what we earn anyway.

It makes no sense.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
It amazes me how we boast the biggest profits, amazing numbers for incoming but outgoing oh no no no, United are unique and therefore HEAVILY restricted.

Utter bullshit.

No ones buying these pathetic excuses from an incapable hierarchy and negotiation team. I don't know who's involved intricately but the face of it is Arnold and Murtough and they are a couple of absolute clowns.

Look across the entire world, no other club briefs this nonsense as a pre-made excuse, do your god damned jobs and get creative.
Idiots.
Click to expand...
Nobody at the club has ever claimed we are severely restricted by ffp
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
It amazes me how we boast the biggest profits, amazing numbers for incoming but outgoing oh no no no, United are unique and therefore HEAVILY restricted.

Utter bullshit.

No ones buying these pathetic excuses from an incapable hierarchy and negotiation team. I don't know who's involved intricately but the face of it is Arnold and Murtough and they are a couple of absolute clowns.

Look across the entire world, no other club briefs this nonsense as a pre-made excuse, do your god damned jobs and get creative.
Idiots.
Click to expand...

No one says this, you just don't pay attention.

Several other clubs are heavily restricted in the transfer market due to FFP. Chelsea and Newcastle are the two most obvious examples among the competing clubs.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
It amazes me how we boast the biggest profits, amazing numbers for incoming but outgoing oh no no no, United are unique and therefore HEAVILY restricted.

Utter bullshit.

No ones buying these pathetic excuses from an incapable hierarchy and negotiation team. I don't know who's involved intricately but the face of it is Arnold and Murtough and they are a couple of absolute clowns.

Look across the entire world, no other club briefs this nonsense as a pre-made excuse, do your god damned jobs and get creative.
Idiots.
Click to expand...

This is absolute nonsense. Nobody is claiming we are uniquely restricted when other teams have their own reported FFP issues too.

In our case we have aggravating factors in terms of not having sold as well as some of our rivals in recent years, as well as the impact of Glazer ownership the article mentions relative to what other ownership models might have allowed:

The rules allow clubs to make a £15m loss over a three-year monitoring period, with losses of up to £105m permitted so long as the £90m difference is covered by secure funding from a club’s ownership — i.e. by buying up more shares, not simply giving their club a loan.

Unfortunately for United, the Glazer family are not exactly known for putting their hands in their pockets.

United’s owners have invested none of their own money into the club since their leveraged buy-out in 2005. For the purposes of P&S, that means United’s losses have not been able to exceed the standard £15m limit.
Click to expand...

And even then they make clear that player sales this summer would have a clearing effect, so it isn't a crippling restriction by any means. But anyone claiming these FFP restrictions aren't a factor for us this summer is frankly clueless.
 
We are definitely not making 'the biggest profits'. In fact, we have been registering bigger and bigger losses for 3 years straight now.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/383903/manchester-united-profit-loss/

We do not have endless chasms of money. All the bad transfers of the last 5 years will have an effect.

Thank god we still have money for Onana after Mount, but it does look like a striker is out of our reach for another year.
 
Probably a good sign to be honest. The more a precedent is set the less cheating likes of City will be able to get away with. It might also stop us spending silly if Qatar do sadly get their hands on us
 
You must log in or register to reply here.