MUFC are looking at a budget of about £100m, due to FFP (The Athletic)

If the bigger clubs are overly constrained artificially and if FFP is not applied equally across the board, you will get fan unrest (see a bit in this thread already). If this is a sweeping movement and there is no hope, then and only then will the super league be able to come to pass.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Yeah, bollocks to cheating.

Our sponsorship revenue is higher than almost everyone’s. We’ve sold the soul of our club. There’s nothing else to sponsor.

No buyer is going to increase revenues. There’s no headroom.
Click to expand...
I am wondering how do you conclude that it is impossible to increase revenue?

Investment in the infrastructure and diversification must have some possibilities? I’m not sure how the sort of investment in stuff that isn’t players is accounted for in FFP rules - if you are clued up on this sort of thing, perhaps you can share?

The sort of thing I am getting at is: would the cost of a new 100,000 seater stadium mean we are not allowed to spend as much on players?

Also the debt. If the debt is cleared by a new owner so that the club isn’t paying all that interest, will that money then become available for players? Or is that also not allowed?

Sorry if I’m treating you as a professor on this but it’s clear from comments on this forum that most of us don’t really understand any of the detail about how FFP works.
 
OrcaFat said:
I am wondering how do you conclude that it is impossible to increase revenue?

Investment in the infrastructure and diversification must have some possibilities? I’m not sure how the sort of investment in stuff that isn’t players is accounted for in FFP rules - if you are clued up on this sort of thing, perhaps you can share?

The sort of thing I am getting at is: would the cost of a new 100,000 seater stadium mean we are not allowed to spend as much on players?

Also the debt. If the debt is cleared by a new owner so that the club isn’t paying all that interest, will that money then become available for players? Or is that also not allowed?

Sorry if I’m treating you as a professor on this but it’s clear from comments on this forum that most of us don’t really understand any of the detail about how FFP works.
Click to expand...

A new / refurb stadium may help increase revenue but it's obviously a middle term thing.
Interests on the debt are I believe 20-25m£ annually.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Shouldn’t FFP benefit us relative to other clubs as we have a high turnover?
Click to expand...
It’s simply years of mismanagement in terms of transfer fees, who they’ve been spent on, wages and selling. We’ve been bad at literally all aspects of it.

We should have been able to give ourselves some breathing room this year but I’m sure clubs are aware of our situation and been unwilling to budge in negotiations. I’d like to think that there’s light at the end of the tunnel, but if Sancho and Antony turn out to be duds, we’ve got two Harry Maguire situations on our hands.
 
sullydnl said:
Aside from anything else, City and Chelsea do this clever thing where they sell their players for substantial money. I know it's unorthodox but it helps a lot with these regulations. We should look into it.

Quick calculation of player sales over the last five years, as per Transfermarkt. Spot the difference.

Man City - €448.57
Chelsea - €514.41
United - €185.98

And a lot of that City/Chelsea income comes via academy products, who are particularly FFP-efficient. The main legitimate method of circumventing FFP City have had over the years is operating their battery farm of youth players as a way to generate ability to spend, even as few of them have actually made it to the first team.
Click to expand...
The same City and Chelsea who have been cooking the books for years. We are badly ran in out buying and selling of players no doubt. ETH has spent £400m and squad still full of holes. However to compare to City and Chelsea who have both abused the “System” is absurd. City and Chelsea have broken the rules and everyone knows it though our so called authorities seem afraid to do much about it. Chelsea already had 1 transfer ban remember. This window and the mess is down to ETH and no one else. FFP is a great excuse not to spend. We have CL revenue this season no Ronnie or deGea yet FFP is a problem nonsense.
 
Last edited:
sullydnl said:
Aside from anything else, City and Chelsea do this clever thing where they sell their players for substantial money. I know it's unorthodox but it helps a lot with these regulations. We should look into it.

Quick calculation of player sales over the last five years, as per Transfermarkt. Spot the difference.

Man City - €448.57
Chelsea - €514.41
United - €185.98

And a lot of that City/Chelsea income comes via academy products, who are particularly FFP-efficient. The main legitimate method of circumventing FFP City have had over the years is operating their battery farm of youth players as a way to generate ability to spend, even as few of them have actually made it to the first team.
Click to expand...
Spot on and the best explanation for why City and Chelsea seem to do better. They are just far more proactive at selling players and are able to realise solid sums of money for them than we are. Manchester United lingers and lingers on clearly not up to it players than tries to panic sell at the end of the window when everyone has cemented their squads for the season.

It just down to competency of the club's leaders and decision makers and for the last decade, we have been amongst the worst out there.
 
Dan_F said:
It’s simply years of mismanagement in terms of transfer fees, who they’ve been spent on, wages and selling. We’ve been bad at literally all aspects of it.

We should have been able to give ourselves some breathing room this year but I’m sure clubs are aware of our situation and been unwilling to budge in negotiations. I’d like to think that there’s light at the end of the tunnel, but if Sancho and Antony turn out to be duds, we’ve got two Harry Maguire situations on our hands.
Click to expand...

It will be the same with Mount as well. Isn’t he reportedly on £250k-£300k per week? Zero chance in getting rid of him if those wages are true and he’s a flop.
 
parmenio said:
The same City and Chelsea who have been cooking the books for years. We are badly ran in out buying and selling of players no doubt. ETH has spent £400m and squad still full of holes. However to compare to City and Chelsea who have both abused the “System” is absurd. City and Chelsea have broken the rules and everyone knows it though our so called authorities seem afraid to do much about it. Chelsea already had 1 transfer ban remember. This window and the mess is down to ETH and no one else. FFP is a great excuse not to spend. We have CL revenue this season no Ronnie or deGea yet FFP is a problem nonsense.
Click to expand...

Chelsea's transfer ban had nothing to do with FFP.
 
Garethw said:
It will be the same with Mount as well. Isn’t he reportedly on £250k-£300k per week? Zero chance in getting rid of him if those wages are true and he’s a flop.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the fee is a decent amount lower which will helps a bit. Plus I think he’s one of those players that will always attract interest due to how he can fit into a squad. I don’t think we’d have a problem getting £30 million for him in a few years even with those wages.
 
Dannn411 said:
Spot on and the best explanation for why City and Chelsea seem to do better. They are just far more proactive at selling players and are able to realise solid sums of money for them than we are. Manchester United lingers and lingers on clearly not up to it players than tries to panic sell at the end of the window when everyone has cemented their squads for the season.

It just down to competency of the club's leaders and decision makers and for the last decade, we have been amongst the worst out there.
Click to expand...

You’ve only got to go back to Beckham, Stam, Ronaldo, Heinze, Butt, O’Shea, Brown, Neville, and plenty more, in order to find examples of us selling players we don’t want. With a couple of exceptions, these sales were handled quickly and without noise that upset the dressing room. We didn’t try to sell them for mythical figures. We just moved them on.

Sales have been a joke for more than a decade now. 10+ Years. It’s insane.

None of the contract extensions and book value, balance sheet bollocks has ever seen us gain any ground in on-pitch performance

The club is a joke. It’s by design. The Glazers are vampires.
 
Dannn411 said:
Spot on and the best explanation for why City and Chelsea seem to do better. They are just far more proactive at selling players and are able to realise solid sums of money for them than we are. Manchester United lingers and lingers on clearly not up to it players than tries to panic sell at the end of the window when everyone has cemented their squads for the season.

It just down to competency of the club's leaders and decision makers and for the last decade, we have been amongst the worst out there.
Click to expand...

I think overall Manchester United are terrible at identifying talent - whether that talents in the club or it's the talent we're trying to sign from elsewhere. It's why we fail to move on players who eventually we find out aren't good enough - the problem is, we need so much time to make that decision everyone outside of the club knows it as well.
 
If the budget is £100 million every summer then at best the club will stand still. But when everyone else is spending the same amount and in a few cases a lot more...the chance of the club going backwards is also a likely outcome.

It's why the scrutiny on the manager is a bit daft. United's aim is to finish Top 4, do that and everyone has done their job.
 
Plastic Evra said:
Well, no... and we're now paying for it and hitting a financial brick wall. The only path to continue following that arms race is to become a "sportwashing" club or at the very least either the toy of a "benevolent" aristocrat or another subsidiary in the sport portfolio of the INEOS group (which isn't too far off what Boehly or Textor -on a smaller scale- is doing).

I think United could be run sustainably and free of ulterior motives but probably at the expense of remaining as competitive as now (though perhaps still at an elite level)... But let's be honest : I don't think we're ready to accept that.
Click to expand...
So essentially what you’re saying is United were miss managed which was my original point
 
prateik said:
We have raised
15m Elanga
15m Henderson (all done but not announced yet)
5m Kovar
~2m from the academy players + Chong sell on

--
~10m for Fred
4m Telles


The academy sales have been over 35m .. total sales around 50m.

Wages have gone down .. Bailly will leave on a free.. got a loan fee for Williams.

If we had 100m before FFP, I don't think FFP is holding us back that much.. we should be able to spend close to 100m if needed.

I'd be happy if McT stayed. I like him. Maguire out for a backup CB pushing for a starting role wouldve been ideal, but that wouldnt have helped with FFP..

FFP is a distraction.. we either don't have the money, or we are talking about FFP to negotiate better deals.
Click to expand...

There are two different balances - FFP and real cash.

The original article said we have 100mil to spend. We spent 180mil on 4 players.

From a FFP perspective, the 180mil plus yearly player salary, is amortized over 5 years, as each contact is 5 years. So that is 35mil in transfer fees added to the FFP balance, plus wages. Mount is on 10mil a year, im guessing Onana the same and Hojland half that. So that is 25mil in salary, plus 35mil in transfer fees - 60mil total added to the FFP bottom line. Not including Bayindir as he wont be on a significant wage.

We have recouped 50mil in sales, which comes off this year's FFP balance. Plus, savings in wages from Henderson, Telles and Fred of around 15mil, if those guys were on circa 100k a week. Not included the others as they would have been on relative chump change.

So we added 60mil to the FFP total and removed circa 65mil.

That doesn't leave us with much headroom, especially if we bring in Cucurella on 175k a week plus a loan fee.
 
Cassidy said:
So essentially what you’re saying is United were miss managed which was my original point
Click to expand...

As a football club ? Yes.
As a prime opportunity to multiply by 5 (or actually 20) times your investment in 20 years, the Glazers did fine and achieved what they wanted to do.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
You’ve only got to go back to Beckham, Stam, Ronaldo, Heinze, Butt, O’Shea, Brown, Neville, and plenty more, in order to find examples of us selling players we don’t want. With a couple of exceptions, these sales were handled quickly and without noise that upset the dressing room. We didn’t try to sell them for mythical figures. We just moved them on.

Sales have been a joke for more than a decade now. 10+ Years. It’s insane.

None of the contract extensions and book value, balance sheet bollocks has ever seen us gain any ground in on-pitch performance

The club is a joke. It’s by design. The Glazers are vampires.
Click to expand...

The team was fantastic then, under the best manager in history. Other clubs looked at our player with envy, which made them easy to sell.

Over the last 10 years, we have been pretty poor and have been in a cycle of one manager undoing the previous ones work.

We have recruited bad managers who, along with the player recruitment team, have bought bad players, or ones that are towards the end of their career with little to no resale value.

The Glazers are parasites for how they bought the club. They haven't put much of their own cash in and have taken a whole heap out. But they have hired CEOs who are then meant to put the structure in place for success.

This club should be successful, regardless of The Glazers.
 
Dan_F said:
Yes, but the fee is a decent amount lower which will helps a bit. Plus I think he’s one of those players that will always attract interest due to how he can fit into a squad. I don’t think we’d have a problem getting £30 million for him in a few years even with those wages.
Click to expand...

You would have said the same about Sancho, but no one would take him on 30mil + 350k a week.

Only the top clubs can pay 200k+ a week. That may change in time, but if you commit to a player on this kind of salary, then it better be a hit, or else you are stuck with a Harry Maguire.

The strategy is all wrong. We would be much better doing what Chelsea are doing - going for younger talent on lower wages, even if the initial hit may be 50mil, like in the case of Lavia.

Instead we want to buy players like Casimiro and Varane and give them a huge salary, with no way of every moving them on, unless Saudi come to the rescue.
 
gaffs said:
There are two different balances - FFP and real cash.

The original article said we have 100mil to spend. We spent 180mil on 4 players.

From a FFP perspective, the 180mil plus yearly player salary, is amortized over 5 years, as each contact is 5 years. So that is 35mil in transfer fees added to the FFP balance, plus wages. Mount is on 10mil a year, im guessing Onana the same and Hojland half that. So that is 25mil in salary, plus 35mil in transfer fees - 60mil total added to the FFP bottom line. Not including Bayindir as he wont be on a significant wage.

We have recouped 50mil in sales, which comes off this year's FFP balance. Plus, savings in wages from Henderson, Telles and Fred of around 15mil, if those guys were on circa 100k a week. Not included the others as they would have been on relative chump change.

So we added 60mil to the FFP total and removed circa 65mil.

That doesn't leave us with much headroom, especially if we bring in Cucurella on 175k a week plus a loan fee.
Click to expand...
We had 100m to spend before FFP became a factor.. We spent 165m on the 3 players (~175m if we add the keeper and a loan fee for Cucu) .. went over by 75m..
75/5 is 15m. Add wages.. probably 35m if we factor in Cucurella and the keeper as well.
so over by 50m

We got 35m from academy sales.. (forget telles+fred) .. saved about 15m on wages..
That's even.

We also saved ..

De Gea ~400k
Jones ~100k
Tuanzebe ~50k
Williams ~50k (loan)

That's over 30m in wages.

Bailly and Greenwood will leave on a free.. that's ~200k/week or 10m in wages


I'm sure its more complex.. and there are other expenses that have to be accounted for.. if we had 100m to spend before any sales at the start of the window, FFP shouldnt be a factor right now. We have only spent 65m more (over the 100m) and sold 35m of academy players.. and reduced wages.
 
It would be an understatement to say that I am no expert on any of this. But I have the nagging feeling what is, and has been since the last window, limiting our transfer activity is not (mainly) FFP, but a directive to cut costs before a sale. That our squad is falling behind because the club is for sale.
 
FortunaUtd said:
It would be an understatement to say that I am no expert on any of this. But I have the nagging feeling what is, and has been since the last window, limiting our transfer activity is not (mainly) FFP, but a directive to cut costs before a sale. That our squad is falling behind because the club is for sale.
Click to expand...

Both can be true.
If we're really struggling with FFP it means the club already maxed their spending relative to their revenue.
Obviously getting hit by FFP would lower the value of the club for buyers.
 
prateik said:
We had 100m to spend before FFP became a factor.. We spent 165m on the 3 players (~175m if we add the keeper and a loan fee for Cucu) .. went over by 75m..
75/5 is 15m. Add wages.. probably 35m if we factor in Cucurella and the keeper as well.
so over by 50m

We got 35m from academy sales.. (forget telles+fred) .. saved about 15m on wages..
That's even.

We also saved ..

De Gea ~400k
Jones ~100k
Tuanzebe ~50k
Williams ~50k (loan)

That's over 30m in wages.

Bailly and Greenwood will leave on a free.. that's ~200k/week or 10m in wages


I'm sure its more complex.. and there are other expenses that have to be accounted for.. if we had 100m to spend before any sales at the start of the window, FFP shouldnt be a factor right now. We have only spent 65m more (over the 100m) and sold 35m of academy players.. and reduced wages.
Click to expand...

Hang on. Where does the 100mil come from? Because I think you are conflating money available and FFP "cap space" as it were.

The original article says...

As it stands, United are looking at a budget of about £100million ($125.6m), due to financial fair play rules. This would be the case even under Qatari owners. Wiping away the debt would allow for more flexibility but the way for United to really raise additional money is via player sales.

https://theathletic.com/4485383/202...ic-despite-mystery-of-summer-transfer-budget/

That doesn't say we have 100mil in FFP headroom. Yes, we will have increased revenue due to Champions League money, but it wouldn't be enough to allow for an extra 100mil in FFP room.

Good point re DDG and Jones forgot about them. No guarantee that Bailly leaves and it would be very tough for a club to take on all of Greenwoods wages.
 
Where is the “it’s not your money” brigade that were attacking any semi reasonable fan who expressed concern with the reckless overpaying last year and the stupid Mount deal 2 months ago?
 
instead of spending £60m on Mount we should have signed Ozan Kokcu for £20m and Kim Min Jae for £44m at the beginning of this transfer season. Both were available and Kim was willing to move. Then we should have sold Maguire and McTominay for £45-50m in a combined package to West Ham, bought Amrabat for £20m and left some money aside for cases like the Shaw injury to react in last minute and still have some money to spend. If you have limited budget, it's all about spending cleverly.
 
aeh1991 said:
instead of spending £60m on Mount we should have signed Ozan Kokcu for £20m and Kim Min Jae for £44m at the beginning of this transfer season. Both were available and Kim was willing to move. Then we should have sold Maguire and McTominay for £45-50m in a combined package to West Ham, bought Amrabat for £20m and left some money aside for cases like the Shaw injury to react in last minute and still have some money to spend. If you have limited budget, it's all about spending cleverly.
Click to expand...

Yeah definitely should have utilised that money spent on Mount much better in window
 
aeh1991 said:
instead of spending £60m on Mount we should have signed Ozan Kokcu for £20m and Kim Min Jae for £44m at the beginning of this transfer season. Both were available and Kim was willing to move. Then we should have sold Maguire and McTominay for £45-50m in a combined package to West Ham, bought Amrabat for £20m and left some money aside for cases like the Shaw injury to react in last minute and still have some money to spend. If you have limited budget, it's all about spending cleverly.
Click to expand...

This would have made a lot more sense. Would still need to replace De Gea though, or would you have renewed him and not signed Onana?
 
MegadrivePerson said:
This would have made a lot more sense. Would still need to replace De Gea though, or would you have renewed him and not signed Onana?
Click to expand...
That scenario would have included signing Onana and Hojlund. Basically the same as what we have done so far, but with the difference of signing 2 players (1 CM, 1 CB) instead of Mount, while selling both McT and Maguire instead of failing to do so.
 
MegadrivePerson said:
This would have made a lot more sense. Would still need to replace De Gea though, or would you have renewed him and not signed Onana?
Click to expand...
im guessing from what i can understand reading that essentially the onana/hojlund deals remain the same, just taking the mount money and better parceling it out. Also shortchanges the duo deal think it was widely reported it was 60 million for the 2 for west ham. Doing that and then the other little deals we have done with like henderson and could easily see this being a much better window.
 
FerociousCorgis said:
im guessing from what i can understand reading that essentially the onana/hojlund deals remain the same, just taking the mount money and better parceling it out. Also shortchanges the duo deal think it was widely reported it was 60 million for the 2 for west ham. Doing that and then the other little deals we have done with like henderson and could easily see this being a much better window.
Click to expand...
I wrote 50m due to the compensation we'd had to pay to Maguire
 
I sometimes think that best thing for us, under this management, would be transfer ban for one year.
 
Mickeza said:
Except our budget isn’t 100m every summer is it? We literally spent twice that 12 months ago.
Click to expand...

Erm (not sure why you are quoting me) but to answer your question...Yes!

Correct last year the club spent more in the summer and improved the final league position from 6th to 3rd.
 
Rangnick (this is not a i love RR debate) was right about one thing and thats buying players on their first big contracts rather than their latter contracts. Mount is a prime example. Yes still youngish but also by the end of his 5 years it’ll be his last contract, and hes commanding 250k a week and relatively unproven or out of form. We are in a big mess and i don’t mean it in a toys out of the pram way because we haven’t bought a shiny new toy, I mean the wage structure going forward for the lack of returns on the pitch.
How much would we be paying players if we were actually winning things? If Rashford was a 40 goal striker and we were winning the league, would he be on 500k a week like Ronaldo was? What would someone like Sancho be on as he’s on 350k and barely does anything.
We are paying a player in latter end of his career 300k+ in Casemiro, i like Casemiro but its insane, i guess he was on half that at Madrid when he was winning his CL titles.

We should be scouting for young talent on 70-120k range of wages. 120k being for a top young prospect ala Greenwood quality.
The messy wage structure also effects ffp and transfer budget.
 
We still have enough funds for a CR7 and Paul Pogba triple comeback double whammy.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
I sometimes think that best thing for us, under this management, would be transfer ban for one year.
Click to expand...
Agreed. A CF and a no 8 this summer would have made sense, or just a CF. Maybe Mount and Höjlund work out, maybe not. If DDG sat on his arse he would be ridiculed.
 
aeh1991 said:
instead of spending £60m on Mount we should have signed Ozan Kokcu for £20m and Kim Min Jae for £44m at the beginning of this transfer season. Both were available and Kim was willing to move. Then we should have sold Maguire and McTominay for £45-50m in a combined package to West Ham, bought Amrabat for £20m and left some money aside for cases like the Shaw injury to react in last minute and still have some money to spend. If you have limited budget, it's all about spending cleverly.
Click to expand...

I can't even imagine the meltdowns we would have had here if the club bought a player from a club in the Eerste Divisie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.