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

jamesjimmybyrondean said:
Oh wait so you're saying the fact the we have to pay up debt is what's limiting our budget. I thought it would be the opposite meaning we could spend more :(
Click to expand...
It's not just the debt but it's part of it. This is our major cost this summer:
Manchester United have a £300 million limit with Bank of America, which gives them room for significant spending, reports The Athletic.
The Red Devils owe £960m, but they have promised to repay the £200m debt owed on a ‘revolving credit facility’ by June 30.
Man United still have around £280m to pay on future transfer instalments, with £55m coming their way from other clubs.
Click to expand...
This impacts our FFP spending. So yes, it's having an impact on our ability to purchase players.

There's also amortization of previous purchases which we pay over the course of the players contracts. This is normal and done by every club which is why Chelsea are signing players on 8 year contracts, that's £10m a year for a player that cost £80m.

Purchases are amortized over the length of the contract, so yearly expenses. Sales go on the books as full value from the moment they happen. So we could actually buy 5 players for £50m each and only *spend £50m this summer (£10m each over 5 years) and bring in over £100m if the deals are structured right.
 
Last edited:
We need to be smarter about how, we spend and significantly improve at selling players at the right time, for the right price. It's not sustainable to continue spending at the rate we do while making next to nothing in sales. That also comes down to being smarter with the contracts we offer.
 
This isn’t a negative article. It’s just reality. Look at our statements over the last three years.
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60973786

Uefa has brought in new financial regulations which will limit clubs' spending on wages, transfers and agents' fees to 70% of their revenue.

Permitted losses over a three-year period have also risen from 30m euros (£24.98m) to 60m euros (£49.96m).
The new rules will come into force in June and clubs will have three years to implement them.

Uefa said "breaches will result in pre-defined financial penalties and sporting measures".

It is thought new reinforced punishments, including points deductions, demotion to lower-ranking competitions and potential exclusion from European football completely, will be introduced as part of the new regulations.

Clubs are expected to be allowed to spend 90% of their income in 2023-24, reducing to 80% in 2024-25 and 70% a year later.

The new "financial sustainability regulations" have been put together by Uefa and the influential European Clubs Association (ECA) and "are the first major reform" of the financial fair play (FFP) rules introduced in 2010.

"Uefa's first financial regulations, introduced in 2010, served its primary purpose," said Aleksander Ceferin, president of European football's governing body.

"They helped pull European football finances back from the brink and revolutionised how European football clubs are run.

"However, the evolution of the football industry, alongside the inevitable financial effects of the pandemic, has shown the need for wholesale reform and new financial sustainability regulations.

"These [new] regulations will help us protect the game and prepare it for any potential future shock, while encouraging rational investments and building a more sustainable future for the game."

In a statement, Uefa added: "While the acceptable deviation has increased from 30m euros over three years to 60m over three years, requirements to ensure the fair value of transactions, to improve the clubs' balance sheet, and to reduce debts have been significantly strengthened.

"The biggest innovation in the new regulations will be the introduction of a squad cost rule to bring better cost control in relation to player wages and transfer costs.

"The regulation limits spending on wages, transfers, and agent fees to 70% of club revenue."
Click to expand...

Clearing the debt/removing interest payments only helps with the allowable losses. But it's the squad cost rules that'll limit spend.

The chickens are coming home to roost for the 'back the manager' choir.
 
feck sakes. is it even worth supporting united if they’ve only got 100m to spend?
 
It's not bad news per say.

£100m net spend is still quite good. Assume that's Kane for the moment.

Then If we sell Maguire, McT, Henderson and then a fodder like Baily then we can buy well. That income can get us a good 6/8 and also timber in CB

If we offload AWB then we can stretch to a more premium RB.
 
They say we have 100million every year. It's just a repeated story based on nothing but guesses, these guys have no idea of the accounts of how transfer budgets work.

from last year

"

Erik ten Hag will have just £100m transfer budget to rebuild ...
The Sun
https://www.thesun.co.uk › sport › erik-ten-hag-transfer-...



26 Jun 2022

2021 it was between 100-150 and i'm pretty sure they only added the extra on because we were chasing sancho who was valued at 100 in the media.

Also, we ended up spending double the reported 100mil in ETH's first season (e.g this one).

Hence, budgets are nonsense.
 
What happened to the Athletic? They seem to be coming up with increasingly stupid articles.

Worse than daily mail or the sun these days and that’s no exaggeration.

This is unashamedly nonsense.
 
Anustart89 said:
Haven't read the article, but is this with CL qualification or revenues at current level (EL)?
Click to expand...
FFP isn't based on future revenue. It is based on past financial performance. Ours has been objectively poor. We have run operational losses since Covid.
 
We just need to sell players. We can't keep hoarding them like Pokemon cards. Most of them have not much sporting value and yet take up space on the wage budget.
 
crossy1686 said:
We have to pay off debt, so that counts as a spend. FFP is revenue vs spend.

If we didn't have to spend £300m on debt this summer, then we'd have £300m more wiggle room. Even if we didn't have the cash in the bank, we could, in theory still spend up to £400m in the summer if we wanted to.
Click to expand...
Does it? I know certain costs/spend don’t count. Not sure about paying off debt. Even if it did I’m sure there’s a way where a £500m debt pay off could be worked to not effect spend.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
What happened to the Athletic? They seem to be coming up with increasingly stupid articles.

Worse than daily mail or the sun these days and that’s no exaggeration.

This is unashamedly nonsense.
Click to expand...
It's literally one comment in an article about Ten Hag saying he doesn't know what the budget will be in the summer: Manchester United’s Ten Hag optimistic despite mystery of summer transfer budget - The Athletic

"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, and that perhaps was at the crux of how Ten Hag answered a question about what is happening across town."

It's not really a big deal anyway. If you have a budget of £100 already, and then sell Harry Maguire and Scott McTominay for £20m each, you can suddenly spend £300m and be compliant with FFP, which is far more than we'll spend whoever the owners are.
 
Not surprising. We'll make next to nothing in player sales as usual though.
 
JB7 said:
It's literally one comment in an article about Ten Hag saying he doesn't know what the budget will be in the summer: Manchester United’s Ten Hag optimistic despite mystery of summer transfer budget - The Athletic

"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, and that perhaps was at the crux of how Ten Hag answered a question about what is happening across town."

It's not really a big deal anyway. If you have a budget of £100 already, and then sell Harry Maguire and Scott McTominay for £20m each, you can suddenly spend £300m and be compliant with FFP, which is far more than we'll spend whoever the owners are.
Click to expand...

No you can't.
 
AlPistacho said:
Does it? I know certain costs/spend don’t count. Not sure about paying off debt. Even if it did I’m sure there’s a way where a £500m debt pay off could be worked to not effect spend.
Click to expand...
From UEFA:
Only a club's outgoings in transfers, employee benefits (including wages), amortisation of transfers, finance costs and dividends will be counted over income from gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, disposal of tangible fixed assets, finance, sales of players and prize money. Any money spent on infrastructure, training facilities or youth development will not be included
Click to expand...

So debt repayments (finance costs) and dividends count towards FFP. Except in the case of a takeover where they debt was paid off as part of the purchase.
 
Leftback99 said:
Not surprising. We'll make next to nothing in player sales as usual though.
Click to expand...
AWB, Mcrominay, Henderson, Lindelof/Maguire, Elanga have some value and interests. We should be able to get 70m from selling them and scraps like Telles, Bailly, Williams etc
 
LawCharltonBest said:
Every United story in the Athletic lately seems very negative

Tempted to DM them asking if they're ok at this point
Click to expand...

I mean, it is well known all season we have FFP restrictions. What do you want them to do? Clickbait that we are signing Mbappe and Osimhen? You can trawl Twitter for some anonymous ITK account that will tell you what you want to hear if that makes you feel better?
 
crossy1686 said:
What do you think is the 'truth' then?
Click to expand...
There is no “truth” the summer “budget” has and will always be a tightly guarded secret and isn’t a set amount of cash it’s a range based in income from player sales and ongoing revenue balanced with current outgoings and the ability to secure cash against future income.

It’s so stupid for any article or insider to claim it’s X amount transfers aren’t even paid for all at once.

If we buy Kane for 100m , 100m doesn’t come out of our current transfer budget and it’s gone. You pay and amortise against the contract so 20/30m upfront and 10m or whatever it is against future points agreed upon. Same with sales.

It’s complete bullshit by the media to get people excited or outraged. According to the same articles we had 50m or whatever it was to spend last summer.

Happens every year and no one learns.
 
That’s pretty fecked if true.

We are now paying the price of buying rather average players for insane amount over the years, aren’t we?
 
JB7 said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

1. We still owe £26m (£80m x 4/6) in amortisation costs for Maguire. So selling him for £20m would be a £6m loss on the balance sheet.

2. If that wasn't true, where does that put us for the 4 seasons after? Are we going to be selling £40m worth of players every season, just to fund the extra £200m worth of spending this summer?
 
VP89 said:
100m net is fine no?
McTominay to Newcastle, Henderson to another club, Maguire to another club that should bring in around 70-100m on top.

Can do Kane 80-100m
CM for 30-40m
CB for 30-40m
RB for 20m
Click to expand...
How are we with the home grown player situation? If we sell the above 3 you mention, we are left with Rashford, Shaw, AWB, Sancho ( think he counts). Do U21s count? If so Garnacho and Hannibal if he stays can be added to the list. That's still a couple short of what we would need. This is expecting Williams and Elanga to be sold as well.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
There is no “truth” the summer “budget” has and will always be a tightly guarded secret and isn’t a set amount of cash it’s a range based in income from player sales and ongoing revenue balanced with current outgoings and the ability to secure cash against future income.

It’s so stupid for any article or insider to claim it’s X amount transfers aren’t even paid for all at once.

If we buy Kane for 100m , 100m doesn’t come out of our current transfer budget and it’s gone. You pay and amortise against the contract so 20/30m upfront and 10m or whatever it is against future points agreed upon. Same with sales.

It’s complete bullshit by the media to get people excited or outraged. According to the same articles we had 50m or whatever it was to spend last summer.

Happens every year and no one learns.
Click to expand...
It doesn't take an insider to work out United's revenue or financials because they post them every quarter in their quarterly earnings call, like every other PLC.

So it's quite easy to work out how much United have to spend with decent accuracy when you cross reference that with FFP guidelines.

£100m is a lot to spend if you structure your deals well, but why would Tottenham want to do us a favour by allowing us to pay £20m for Kane this year? Levy will almost certainly insist on getting most of that money up front. This is what happened with Maguire and we paid his full transfer upfront.
 
RedRonaldo said:
That’s pretty fecked if true.

We are now paying the price of buying rather average players for insane amount over the years, aren’t we?
Click to expand...
Exactly, plus putting many of those said players on high wages and long contracts.
 
If clubs will really be forced to limit spending then surely transfer fees and wages will crash? How is anyone affording the Bellingham's and Oshimens let alone Mbappe etc.
 
Maguire, VdB, Elanga and Henderson are surely moving.

Thats likely £70m.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see a surprise higher value sale - like Sancho or Amad.
 
Lynty said:
Maguire, VdB, Elanga and Henderson are surely moving.

Thats likely £70m.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see a surprise higher value sale - like Sancho or Amad.
Click to expand...
Won't be surprised if all are loaned cause we are being low-balled on all of them.
And that's the problem here. Our players are on such high comparative wages that clubs don't want to spend money on fees for them.
We would demand 40m for Maguire for example, but who is going to pay that and also pick up his 200k wages?
Our transfer trade balances are a joke. Has to be the worst in the league.
 
Adisa said:
Won't be surprised if all are loaned cause we are being low-balled on all of them.
And that's the problem here. Our players are on such high comparative wages that clubs don't want to spend money on fees for them.
We would demand 40m for Maguire for example, but who is going to pay that and also pick up his 200k wages?
Click to expand...

He's also the biggest meme in football - due to no small part from our own fanbase. Good luck getting anything close to that sort of fee for him.

It actually doesn't make sense to sell him because we still owe circa £26m in amortisation. So unless we break even on that (including wages with his replacement), it just makes the situation worse.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
Look down their United related stories. Things aren't THAT bad. United are actually doing ok this season
Click to expand...




'United wouldn't exist without him': Jimmy Murphy, a legend behind Old Trafford statue

United fans: Discuss the Brighton game with Carl Anka

Ten Hag - optimistic despite mystery of summer transfer budget

Sabitzer has failed to make a lasting impact at United - his future is uncertain

Garnacho urged to kick on at Man United after new deal

Robson tidying up and Sharpe's trip to Old Trafford: How Manchester United celebrated the 92-93 title

Malacia: Ten Hag is demanding about 'everything'

Casemiro vs Bruno: The 'creative tension' fuelling Manchester United
Click to expand...

Unless you're a die-hard Sabitzer fan, I struggle to see the negativity.
 
We need the Qataris to bung us some extra cash on the sponsorship deals. That's the thing that'll make significant difference to our spending.

We also need to be way smarter with our use of the academy. For profit, not development. Be way more ruthless, decide who's good enough or not early and put the rest up in the shop window while their value is still high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.