McTominay (Out) | announced - signed for Napoli

[lsd]

We got what we deserved with Burnley. We are playing hard ball with McTominey who isn't worth 15 million tops. Bar his goals he is a poor midfielder and we are kidding ourselves we will get over twenty million for him.

 

[Chelsea Dubbing]

Not everything - players having entitled attitudes has been a big problem (see Pogba, Lingard, Rashford, and Henderson.) I don’t see that with McTominay; he’s just not good enough.

I was referring more to the clubs actions towards him more than him as a player. I've nothing against him, he's tried his best, but as you say, he's not good enough.
I was pointing more to the fact that as a player, United have never done what they should have with someone of his ability, which is get rid and offload him a lot sooner than they have. We've done that with so many players over the last decade its ridiculous.
I wish him well though, wherever he goes.

 

[jem]

I was referring more to the clubs actions towards him more than him as a player. I've nothing against him, he's tried his best, but as you say, he's not good enough.
I was pointing more to the fact that as a player, United have never done what they should have with someone of his ability, which is get rid and offload him a lot sooner than they have. We've done that with so many players over the last decade its ridiculous.
I wish him well though, wherever he goes.

Agreed.

 

[croadyman]

Maybe. The same is being said about galatasaaray. Neither club seem to have the money to buy him though so he will probably stay here and leave for a free

Yeah both seem interested in only loans or lowball offers as seen by Galatasaray's recently

 

[Idxomer]

Ok, but I’m sure you’d agree that Mctominay is useful as an impact sub. He scored some vital goals for us off the bench.
I’m not opposed to selling him but agree with the club that unless we get 30m or near enough to it, he’s worth keeping.

He scored in 3 games coming off the bench last season which earned us some points. If we agree he won't start as much as last season, that sub role isn't enough to reject 20m for him. It can also be covered by a few other players offering more overall.

 

[Highfather_24]

You can play hardball when you have multiple interested clubs(United, Fulham). Besides they asked for 30M, and accepted a 25M bid, pretty normal. Dunno why fans are upset with Burnley.

For example, we cant play hardball with Mejbri, because no one is interested.

 

[Ish]

Nope, sorry. You're wrong on both counts.

Item #1. There would be no net difference to profitability from selling McT and Sancho, even if they were on the same wages. I thought it was clear enough just going over things high level, but if the math helps I can show that too.

McT 24/25: £3.1M salary, zero amortization fee.
McT 25/26 (assuming option exercised): £3.1M salary
McT if sold: zero salary, £25M fee
Net difference: improves our profitability by £31.2M over two years compared to keeping him. Frees up the full amount this year

Hypothetical player with McT's wages but £70M transfer fee - 24/25: £3.1M salary, £14.4M amortization (72M fee divided by five year contract)
25/26: £3.1M salary, £14.4M amortization
If sold: zero salary, £25M fee. Amortization gets pulled forward, meaning we take a £28.8M amortization hit this year, which reduces our spending power. Importantly though, the amortization fee is a sunk cost, so we still get all the cash
Net difference: improves our profitability by 3.1 + 3.1 + 25 = £31.2M

The money would be the same for both players. The previous transfer fee paid is irrelevant, and the concept of "academy players are pure profit" is bogus except on short-time horizons. Long-term it makes no difference.

Item #2. Yes, the £28M in remaining amortization for Sancho's transfer fee from BVB is a sunk cost. It will be on our books no matter what we do with Sancho: play him, extend his contract, loan him, sell him, etc. That's amortization remaining from the transfer 3 years ago and there is nothing we can do about it.

Surely you can't amortize an asset you no longer own - in the event of selling Sancho? That's not how it works in accounting principles anyway. You'd subtract the remaining amortization not yet incurred, from the sales price to determine either a "profit" or "loss" on the player, which will then go into the books. Maybe it works differently for player contracts, but I'd highly doubt it.

 

[Fugeeface]

Hmmm.....

Not sure how you can class him as a failure. What has he failed at, exactly? Contrary to that, why hasn't someone like Mainoo failed as well? He also finished 8th last season and won the same FA Cup as McTominay.

Secondly, the business stuff is extremely vital and important to a football club for any success. I get you "want rid of" but, extracting market value for him means a lot more breathing space to do other deals. Selling him for £10m doesn't really do much for us and hamstrings us in other deals even though it's pure profit.

You're not sure? He failed to be a good player for us. That's below expectation, that is below standard. In other words: a failure.

Under SAF we could afford the odd players - Fletcher and O'Shea come to mind. Not that great, but they played their roles as expected. And expectations were low.

Contrary to that, Mainoo has not failed to be a good player for us. He exceeded expectations, he performed above standard. In other words: a success.

Secondly: I didn't say finances aren't vital. I said they are immaterial to me in regards to Manchester United. Finances and/or financial stability are not "culture".

Selling him for 10 million doesn't really do much, I agree. Selling him for 20 doesn't really do much, either. Selling for 30 million will not happen.
What is the point of keeping him around, when that alone doesn't do anything?

How is that beneficial? Placing our hopes in Scotty of all people to come on in the 86th minute to do what, score a goal against Burnley? That in itself is not United standard.

 

[Escobar]

We got what we deserved with Burnley. We are playing hard ball with McTominey who isn't worth 15 million tops. Bar his goals he is a poor midfielder and we are kidding ourselves we will get over twenty million for him.

If we sell our players too cheap people moan if we demand fair value, it is also not ok…. We just cant win can we

 

[Andycoleno9]

Few players want to leave manutd. Phil nev didn't want to leave but he left because his time was up. Those sticking to the club despite having 1 year left on their contract are doing so for financial reasons. They know that united will either trigger the 1 year clause and they'll get a piece of the pie or they will walk as free agents and get the money themselves

Look how Lille resolved that with Yoro. You leave now or you are benched whole season.
Benefits for Lille with that approach; 70 mil euros.

 

[gajender]

If we sell our players too cheap people moan if we demand fair value, it is also not ok…. We just cant win can we

We sell our players on cheap due to our own stupidity , what basically happens is we tend to overvalue our players a lot and end up rejecting reasonable offers but eventually reality sinks in and we either push them out on cut price deals or they leave on free .

 

[davbon]

Surely you can't amortize an asset you no longer own - in the event of selling Sancho? That's not how it works in accounting principles anyway. You'd subtract the remaining amortization not yet incurred, from the sales price to determine either a "profit" or "loss" on the player, which will then go into the books. Maybe it works differently for player contracts, but I'd highly doubt it.

You are correct

 

[ThanksBoss26]

This may have already been posted so apologies if so, but just read on twitter the main bullets from Whitwell’s transfer piece today.

Seems Fulham moved on as the player wanted to wait longer in case of other clubs. Fair then they didn’t want to risk it and switched to Berge.

The rest we probably know. He has had talks with Napoli but not yet on personal terms. Galatasaray have made him an attractive wage offer but of course the fee likely be an issue with them. Fenerbache and Everton are both interested but have limited funds which is no shock either.

 

[devilish]

Look how Lille resolved that with Yoro. You leave now or you are benched whole season.
Benefits for Lille with that approach; 70 mil euros.

Bingo.

 

[devilish]

Yeah both seem interested in only loans or lowball offers as seen by Galatasaray's recently

And it makes sense really.

McT is on 60k a week. He'll probably ask for a pay rise (70k?) which would put him among the 5-6 top earners at Napoli (5th if Osimhen leaves). That's a risk. McT lacks the anticipation and the positioning of a DM, he lacks the work rate of a B2B and is hardly a top no 10 either (he lacks the vision, the passing skills etc). He's only effective in the 'Fellaini' role were his physicality and his aerial prowess is meant to cause trouble in defenses.

TBF I can see that being more effective in Italy were defenders lack the physicality the typical EPL CB has. Conte seem to double down on that with Lukaku whose also a physical beast. Yet Conte is a short term type of manager, he's already showing signs on unease at Napoli and another typical Serie A manager will probably not like McT. Hence why they won't be spending big money on him.

I always said that Napoli circling around him is bad news for us. These Serie A clubs have all the charm in the world but hate to put their hands in their pockets. I suspect that they have everything wrapped up with the player for either this year or the next

 

[lsd]

If we sell our players too cheap people moan if we demand fair value, it is also not ok…. We just cant win can we

I'm not complaining but if we really want to sell McTominey we have to be realistic about the price and not ask for crazy money for him

 

[Ish]

You are correct

Yeah found the whole "amortization is a sunk cost even if you sell the player" explanation a little confusing/odd.

 

[CannibalSpectre]

McTominay would be a mid-table superstar for 8 teams in the PL that would build their sides around him. It's nuts that he's still at United when he really should have been sold 3-4 years ago.

He's a goal threat and not much of anything else. I can't see even lowly PL clubs build around him in this modern era as a principal measure. You're right, his exit has been a long time coming

 

[bosskeano]

Italy wouldn't be a bad place for him to go to

 

[stevoc]

He's a goal threat and not much of anything else. I can't see even lowly PL clubs build around him in this modern era as a principal measure. You're right, his exit has been a long time coming

And for a lot of teams that will be enough.

 

[Redjazz]

Surely you can't amortize an asset you no longer own - in the event of selling Sancho? That's not how it works in accounting principles anyway. You'd subtract the remaining amortization not yet incurred, from the sales price to determine either a "profit" or "loss" on the player, which will then go into the books. Maybe it works differently for player contracts, but I'd highly doubt it.

Yeah. Selling McT would yield 25m profit on player disposal now, selling Sancho would yield a loss of -(25-28)=3 m now, but amortization costs would be reduced by 14+m each year over the next 2 years since his contract is no longer our asset. So overall profitability impact on selling Sancho (ignoring salaries) is -3+14 +14=25m, which is the same as McT. The difference is timing; selling McT would improve our profitability (under the various fair play tests) immediately whereas selling Sancho would improve profitability over the next 2 years.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Surely you can't amortize an asset you no longer own - in the event of selling Sancho? That's not how it works in accounting principles anyway. You'd subtract the remaining amortization not yet incurred, from the sales price to determine either a "profit" or "loss" on the player, which will then go into the books. Maybe it works differently for player contracts, but I'd highly doubt it.

The point is that it doesn't make a difference, over time.

Selling a player for X amount saves [X + wages] compared to not selling. Book value doesn't change anything, you don't make more from selling academy players compared to people with a high book value.

 

[babablue]

Nope, sorry. You're wrong on both counts.

Item #1. There would be no net difference to profitability from selling McT and Sancho, even if they were on the same wages. I thought it was clear enough just going over things high level, but if the math helps I can show that too.

McT 24/25: £3.1M salary, zero amortization fee.
McT 25/26 (assuming option exercised): £3.1M salary
McT if sold: zero salary, £25M fee
Net difference: improves our profitability by £31.2M over two years compared to keeping him. Frees up the full amount this year

Hypothetical player with McT's wages but £70M transfer fee - 24/25: £3.1M salary, £14.4M amortization (72M fee divided by five year contract)
25/26: £3.1M salary, £14.4M amortization
If sold: zero salary, £25M fee. Amortization gets pulled forward, meaning we take a £28.8M amortization hit this year, which reduces our spending power. Importantly though, the amortization fee is a sunk cost, so we still get all the cash
Net difference: improves our profitability by 3.1 + 3.1 + 25 = £31.2M

The money would be the same for both players. The previous transfer fee paid is irrelevant, and the concept of "academy players are pure profit" is bogus except on short-time horizons. Long-term it makes no difference.

Item #2. Yes, the £28M in remaining amortization for Sancho's transfer fee from BVB is a sunk cost. It will be on our books no matter what we do with Sancho: play him, extend his contract, loan him, sell him, etc. That's amortization remaining from the transfer 3 years ago and there is nothing we can do about it.

It's been 15 years since I took my last accounting class (for a minor degree, so not my focus area), so I won't press the point since I might be missing something. But my recollection of sunk cost is something like the (new price - salvage value) which is 42M for Sancho. The 28M hasn't hit the club's books yet.

 

[Ish]

The point is that it doesn't make a difference, over time.

Selling a player for X amount saves [X + wages] compared to not selling. Book value doesn't change anything, you don't make more from selling academy players compared to people with a high book value.

I mean, yeah, I didn't say otherwise? I was simply posting around that poster equating amortization to a sunk cost.

 

[devilish]

I'm not complaining but if we really want to sell McTominey we have to be realistic about the price and not ask for crazy money for him

Asking 30m for McT isn't that unrealistic especially if we were ready to go down to 25m. I have a feeling though that McT is refusing to move unless it's one that can guarantee European football. That what happens when the clubs hypes a very ordinary player to oblivion.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I mean, yeah, I didn't say otherwise? I was simply posting around that poster equating amortization to a sunk cost.

Sure, just clarifying the user's point. When you sell an asset and therefore subtract the remaining asset value from the sale price, that isn't amortization so calling it that is technically wrong, but it doesn't change the numbers involved. The remaining book value will also become a cost no matter what, whether a sale happens or the contract runs out.

 

[Ish]

Yeah. Selling McT would yield 25m profit on player disposal now, selling Sancho would yield a loss of -(25-28)=3 m now, but amortization costs would be reduced by 14+m each year over the next 2 years since his contract is no longer our asset. So overall profitability impact on selling Sancho (ignoring salaries) is -3+14 +14=25m, which is the same as McT. The difference is timing; selling McT would improve our profitability (under the various fair play tests) immediately whereas selling Sancho would improve profitability over the next 2 years.

Sure, just clarifying the user's point. When you sell an asset and therefore subtract the remaining asset value from the sale price, that isn't amortization so calling it that is technically wrong, but it doesn't change the numbers involved. The remaining book value will also become a cost no matter what, whether a sale happens or the contract runs out.

Yep, as earlier, Redjazz summed it all up already as above. Like I said, I never disputed the posters thinking in the first place. It was just the terminology.

 

[Andycoleno9]

Funny part is that some of people here who want him to stay (or not pushed by force through the door) want Ugarte at the same time.
Like my kid who wants two things at the same time in a toy shop.

He is our 5th option in midfield with one year of contract left. Keeping him is crazy piece of business.

 

[VP89]

Funny part is that some of people here who want him to stay (or not pushed by force through the door) want Ugarte at the same time.
Like my kid who wants two things at the same time in a toy shop.

He is our 5th option in midfield with one year of contract left. Keeping him is crazy piece of business.

We can get Ugarte and keep McTominay though

 

[Bertie Wooster]

If we sell our players too cheap people moan if we demand fair value, it is also not ok…. We just cant win can we

Yes we can. Demand fair value and then actually successfully sell them for that. Or even be the ones receiving above market value for once.

The two scenarios you painted people moaning about were either us selling them on the cheap, or trying to get a fair price and then ending up missing out on the sale altogether. Should be obvious neither of those options are ideal.

 

[Highfather_24]

We can get Ugarte and keep McTominay though

We already have 7 midfielders including Collyer. Can we add Ugarte on top of that? I kinda doubt it.

 

[DOTA]

Funny part is that some of people here who want him to stay (or not pushed by force through the door) want Ugarte at the same time.
Like my kid who wants two things at the same time in a toy shop.

He is our 5th option in midfield with one year of contract left. Keeping him is crazy piece of business.

I very much think we should take 20-25m for him personally but I don't think it's really that the people here, or indeed our manager, desperately want the midfield depth. I think that's a bonus on top of what they're really valuing which is the guy who you can throw up the field in difficult times and he may well grab you important goals.

There have been reports saying we will not have to shift him to get Ugarte. If that is the case then keeping Scott for another season and then triggering the extension and selling maybe sets us back 10 million? His wages for a year come to something like 3 million. I can see why people find it quite possible that he would score 13 million quid's worth of goals this year.

 

[VP89]

We already have 7 midfielders including Collyer. Can we add Ugarte on top of that? I kinda doubt it.

McTominay would be used as an option to be further up top I'd imagine. Collyer may not be called on many games. Weve just come out a season that has Mainoo out for half a year, Casemiro out for extended periods and Mount out virtually all season. Wel see injuries this year too, and I don't really think Eriksen much counts as a body wel want to use much.

 

[Andycoleno9]

We can get Ugarte and keep McTominay though

You can't just buy, buy and buy players without selling anyone. It is not sustainable in a long run to have a 6th choice midfielder who you can sell for 20-25 mil.

 

[Sarni]

If we sell our players too cheap people moan if we demand fair value, it is also not ok…. We just cant win can we

£30m was fair value for him last year just like £20m is fair value this year with one year left on his deal. If we end up letting him leave for free it’s much worse.

End of the day I would prefer to get a few million less here and there if it meant turning over players who aren’t good enough quicker.

 

[the_cliff]

You can't just buy, buy and buy players without selling anyone. It is not sustainable in a long run to have a 6th choice midfielder who you can sell for 20-25 mil.

I think if you look at it this way it's a bit different:

We've got Mainoo, Mount, Eriksen, Mctominay and Bruno for those 2 8/10 CM positions. I don't expect Eriksen to get many minutes at all this season tbh and it will be his last season here regardless.

Then we have Casemiro as our only DM, 6, midfield option. Last season we had Amrabat at least. I agree in thinking that Ugarte is needed whether Mctominay leaves or not, I don't think Mctominay is competing for the position Case/Ugarte would take up.

I didn't include Hannibal/Collyer for obvious reasons.

 

[Bertie Wooster]

£30m was fair value for him last year just like £20m is fair value this year with one year left on his deal. If we end up letting him leave for free it’s much worse.

Hasn't McTominay also got a year option that we can take up? I didn't think we risked losing him for free at the end of the season?

 

[Pexbo]

I think if you look at it this way it's a bit different:

We've got Mainoo, Mount, Eriksen, Mctominay and Bruno for those 2 8/10 CM positions. I don't expect Eriksen to get many minutes at all this season tbh and it will be his last season here regardless.

Then we have Casemiro as our only DM, 6, midfield option. Last season we had Amrabat at least. I agree in thinking that Ugarte is needed whether Mctominay leaves or not, I don't think Mctominay is competing for the position Case/Ugarte would take up.

I didn't include Hannibal/Collyer for obvious reasons.

I think Eriksen will be out one way or another before deadline day.

 

[Plastic Evra]

Hasn't McTominay also got a year option that we can take up? I didn't think we risked losing him for free at the end of the season?

There's an option to extend the contract by 1 year though, possibly, McTominay would have some perks activated by doing so.

 

[Highfather_24]

McTominay would be used as an option to be further up top I'd imagine. Collyer may not be called on many games. Weve just come out a season that has Mainoo out for half a year, Casemiro out for extended periods and Mount out virtually all season. Wel see injuries this year too, and I don't really think Eriksen much counts as a body wel want to use much.

McT is not a striker. I'm including him in a midfield 3.

Collyer is 7th choice. We already have 2 players for each of the 3 positions. One of those is occupied by Bruno who practically plays every game. Casemiro/McTominay/Mainoo/Mount/Eriksen/Collyer is more than enough cover for the deeper positions, and you have Mount or McT who can play as the #10 as well. We are stocked, we just lack quality.

You cant stock up on players just IN CASE you have injuries. What you do is have 2 players for every position, and maybe one older/younger player as backup in case of emergencies. Our squad is filled up, unless McT/Eriksen leave.

We had similar conversation before for the backline, and it seems I was right. We are not going in for anymore defenders after De Ligt and Mazraoui. No more leftbacks/LCB for this season.