It never happens. We'll sell one or two and be scrambling to get loans arranged for the rest.
CL is vital to get our revenues back up for future windows.
MUFC are looking at a budget of about £100m, due to FFP (The Athletic)
- Thread starter jamesjimmybyrondean
- Start date
CL is vital to get our revenues back up for future windows.
Payment terms are irrelevant to FFP. Billion dollar industries do not operate under cash accounting.
Unfortunately we suck at selling players. There should be another £80-100m in Maguire, McTominay, van de Beek, Henderson and Williams, but I doubt we will get anywhere near that.
Good point, forgot about this.
Little stock should be placed in hard figures like that unless the journalist can actually outline how the figure is calculated. And in this case the journalist is making a side point in an article that isn't specifically about our finances.
In general terms though, the underlying practical point is correct. These considerations will restrict our spending and we will need to sell players to spend more, as has already been widely reported in recent months.
It's also worth noting that when we talk about selling players, the impact isn't as straightforward as the player we sell for the most helping us the most, because it's relative to their book value. So Player A and Player B could free up the exact same wages and garner the exact same transfer fee, but one would benefit us more than the other in terms of freeing up capacity to spend. Something we sometimes overlook when talking about which players should be sold.
In general terms though, the underlying practical point is correct. These considerations will restrict our spending and we will need to sell players to spend more, as has already been widely reported in recent months.
It's also worth noting that when we talk about selling players, the impact isn't as straightforward as the player we sell for the most helping us the most, because it's relative to their book value. So Player A and Player B could free up the exact same wages and garner the exact same transfer fee, but one would benefit us more than the other in terms of freeing up capacity to spend. Something we sometimes overlook when talking about which players should be sold.
Dream on.
I would love for that to happen. However it has been hard to sell players. They like their inflated salaries.
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with the figure, and if actual money was not a problem for us under new ownership, then it only comes down to satisfactory accounting from there.
We could theoretically sign Osimhen from Napoli on a one or two year loan deal with an obligation to buy for £100m is he plays more than 30 seconds a season or whatever. PSG signed Mbappé on loan from Monaco, when it’s obvious players like Mbappé, Bellingham and the like do not go on loan.
We could theoretically sign Osimhen from Napoli on a one or two year loan deal with an obligation to buy for £100m is he plays more than 30 seconds a season or whatever. PSG signed Mbappé on loan from Monaco, when it’s obvious players like Mbappé, Bellingham and the like do not go on loan.
?!? wtf
Kane?
Newcastle were in for McT for 40m in Jan.
Theres going to be bidders for Henderson. Maguire let's see, even 25m is enough to do what I said.
Yeh like every summer I’ve heard people here suggesting we could recoup like 70-100m from selling our deadwoods.
Like the feck it ever happened.
We can't be counting players we haven't bought yet, especially not one who isn't going to be easy to sign. Even if we sign him it still doesn't make 8. I don't think we will sell both of Maguire and McTominay for this reason. Could be that Fred ends up being sold and we keep McT.
We can in my scenario, I said assume the 100m we can spend goes straight on kane and then we sell xyz to buy the CB and the CM.
Exactly, like everyone here talking about selling Maguire for £20m and taking a loss on the book. That's really going to help our spending.
We sold Lukaku for around that much.
Anyway it's clear players can be sold and in a new regime this is very plausible.
Transfers don't work like this. If we buy Kane for 100m for example, the payments will be split over serveal years. It's the same with the players we sell. Journo's always report like this, but accountants do not.
Considering this, 100m could get 5 top players (not that we are capable of making 5 signings).
Considering this, 100m could get 5 top players (not that we are capable of making 5 signings).
Apparently we had only 50 million last summer 
Not according to Athletic.Apparently we had only 50 million last summer
We should tap Madrid up again, they've surely got a 30 year old we can have?
Ok so Maguire was a bad example, perhaps Elanga or Henderson for £20m instead then. And in fairness I made no reference to the following seasons, just explained how easily a club could theoretically turn a £100m "budget" into a £300m spend and remain compliant with FFP. It's not as simple as £100m, plus the flat total of whatever we make back in sales like seems to be being interpreted by many in this thread.
But surely that's irresponsible. It's the equivalent of saying the club should do a Barcelona and sell its future revenue streams to "back the manager" this summer.
i know. 100m. even if i supported someone like villa and they pulled that kind of stunt, i’d consider my future. but this is man united.
Even then, that is assuming that we'd have no amortisation from previous years to deal with, isn't it?
Last season we spent £200m. Over a five-year amortisation period that's £40m per year that goes just from last year's spending. The season before that, we spent about £120m which is another £24m amortisation for another four years. So that's £64m gone already. Year before that another £60m which is £12m over a five-year period.
I hope you are right. The thing is, players may not want to move.
100 million doesn't guarantee Kane though. Levy could just refuse to sell to a PL club.
You've been here since 2015 and don't know who rimaldo is?
Buying Kane for £100m is how you end up even more fecked with FFP in 2-3 years time
I don't agree with suggestions of selling 6-7 players to bring in 2-3. Our squad is pretty thin as it is, considering some of the injury prone players.
They always had this but this year it’s slightly different with new sustainability rules coming into play. We can only spend 90% of our gross turnover on wages, financials, agent fees and net transfers.
All the new contracts like De Gea’s reduced contract proposal will have no effect til next year, the only way to increase the budget is clear the club debt because the Annual interest payment of £40m is immediately stopped.
Assuming right now our turnover is £550m from last year and wages reduced to £350m which is 64% of turnover. The interest to service the debt rumoured to be £40m, no dividends are being taken this year. Agent fees are now limited to 10-12% of total sale value by new FIFA regulations but must be paid upfront.
The biggest issue for the club is the loss of £115m that was made last season which must also be included in the new sustainability rules. Uefa’s main objective is to stop clubs from over trading, spending more than they earn and become fully sustainable going forward without debt.
As you can see with the financial loss and Interest charges to service the clubs debt your looking at £150m from last year plus the wages which may be lower than £350m because of the Europa league clause so let’s say £325m your at £475m against £550m which is about 86%.
Last season debacle of 58 points, no CL qualification and wasteful vanity extensions or transfers like Cavani, Ronaldo and Pogba blew up the wages bill to £385m per year.
This makes total senses the club might be left with £20-25m after all the costs of running the club have been deducted , this value can be amortised by 4 to 5 years depending on contracts which is how a rough transfer budget of £100m has been evaluated.
The only salvation is if we sell players like ; D Henderson, B Williams, S Mctominay, A Elanga, this would create profit as they never cost the club a penny, so if we sold them for £50m , this moves the net transfer position to £70/75m and then amortise that 4/5 years which is £280-£350m budget.
The bottom line is we need to be selling players very early in the window to create an increased budget and this report just made SJ bid a whole lot more interesting as SJR would have to now absorb the debt as well to have any chance of being able to spend big in the transfer window.
The debt must be paid as this stops the interest payments and clears the decks as a new takeover is viewed in a completely different way by UEFA with regard to FFP.
To give a better insight, the year before in 2021 the club turned over £494m and lost £92m, however united were still able to spend £200m last summer, purely because we sold two players that cost us nothing but were sold for profit, Andreas Pereira and James Garner for combined fee of approximately £25m.
The issues now, are Uefa will no longer allow clubs to lose money and spend big, that’s why things are now changing and probably why the Glazers want out, they simply can’t milk the club going forward with the current model in place, as a club united have turned over £1.587 billion over the last three years and lost £230m, the previous three seasons the club turned over nearly £1.8 billion including the covid issue with a small combined profit of nearly £20m from 2017-2019.
Manchester United can not continue to be a yo yo club that qualifies for the Champions League every other year.
They can not continue to service a £600m debt at £40m per year, United must be sold this summer, the question are to whom and when ?
You don’t have to have 8 homegrown players. You just can’t register more than 17 non homegrown. We currently have 13 of those in our first team squad if we don’t have to register Bailly and Telles. Theoretically we should be able to add four more non homegrown before we’d have any issues.
Think your every post includes his name. Clearly a fan!
And if we sold Maguire for 20m we would suddenly owe 6, instead of 26, which would still free up 20m in our accounts, no?
Yes. A highly theoretical explanation on an internet forum of how a new owner may be able to spend considerably more than the current allotted "budget" whilst remaining compliant with the current FFP rules is me being irresponsible.
fecking love me a bit of Kane
I think mct was reported to be keen due to lack of playing time? Let's see.
I think it would. Poch to Chelsea and levy risks losing him to the club he hates most on a free? Quite sure he'd cash in to us instead.
Kane is sex this is true
You forgot to add Liverpool would play with only goalkeepers every match while the manager is on holiday for the entire season.
Surely sponors like Qatar telephone, Qatar construction works and Qatar sporting goods can help?
Sell Maguire, McTom, Williams, Henderson, Pellistri, Elanga and DVB (I'm sure I've missed some deadwood here).
I'm sure that'd raise enough for a proper Striker, CM, backup CB and possibly a GK.
Also the likes of Hannibal and Amad coming back who we could integrate into the squad.
I'm sure that'd raise enough for a proper Striker, CM, backup CB and possibly a GK.
Also the likes of Hannibal and Amad coming back who we could integrate into the squad.
That's why I put circa 40m, unless we decide to cut our losses. These bad transfers have enormous consequences. However, I am of the opinion we should cut our losses even though it makes our books look worse, we won't gain anything by keeping him on the books or sending him on loan.
Another painpoint I have it our insistence on keeping on the academy players who imo are unliekly to make it. Its a great source of padding your books cause the amortisation costs on them is very low. Chelsea and Liverpool do an excellent job of it. Players like Brandon william, Elanga should be sold not loaned. I felt we should have taken Newcastle's 35m for McTominay. You don't get good prices for average players often.
This was always going to happen at some point. A side effect of “sign whoever the manager wants at whatever cost” which is why we need someone overseeing transfers whose priority is the club, not the manager
You wonder how much this will influence the decision to integrate a certain individual back into the club.