Rasmus Højlund | Signed for United

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love Italian teams valuing their random players for mental money.

SMS is a prime example. Lazio kept an average player by pricing him out of the market and achieved what? Nothing.

Could of generated £80m in cash yet now he's pretty much worthless and they've still achieved nothing. Just tremendous business.

Some teams just need to understand that they're selling clubs.
 
sglowrider said:
I am certainly not against Caisedo.

If you look for the original thread of him when he was still in South America, I wanted him then. One of those obvious buys especially at the price quote ($4-5million) -- it was a no-brainer. He even claimed to be a United fan back then on the back of Antonio Valencia. Its a shame that Woodward/Judge just didn't have the balls or the knowledge to get the deal done.
Click to expand...

And to think there was actually a place for his type of midfielder in our squad, a 5m punt shouldn't be a problem. Although even at Brighton, he still need a season to adapt before he exploded last season.
 
Isotope said:
And to think there was actually a place for his type of midfielder in our squad, a 5m punt shouldn't be a problem. Although even at Brighton, he still need a season to adapt before he exploded last season.
Click to expand...

I hope with this new team and the Brexit rules will only encourage us to go look for these diamond in the rough.
RM seem to be bring down their squad age profile dramatically by buying young kids early and leaving them at home to gain experience before gradually bring them to Spain.
Feckin Woodward was clueless on this. No vision.
 
sglowrider said:
I hope with this new team and the Brexit rules will only encourage us to go look for these diamond in the rough.
RM seem to be bring down their squad age profile dramatically by buying young kids early and leaving them at home to gain experience before gradually bring them to Spain.
Feckin Woodward was clueless on this. No vision.
Click to expand...

No vision, no leadership, and making wrong choices. But he generated money to his master, so he kept his position for so long.
 
zaafi said:
On the right instead of Antony?
Click to expand...
Antony was injured a lot last season. Can see how my post came across as criticism of Antony but it was actually more to do with how we had to move Bruno out there whenever Antony wasn’t fit. Antony did well enough last season but needs to improve his output this time around.
 

Personal terms agreed since May, this transfer will happen in the next two weeks I reckon.

One player at a time!
 
L1nk said:


This is what Barcelona are paying for Vitor Roque, 18, from the Brazilian league. But people expect us to pay 30mill tops for Hojlund, people need to be serious.
Click to expand...

You genuinely believe that with Barcelona's financial issues that that deal isn't similar to Amad's?
 
noelyman said:
It’s not just Glazers telling us we’ve got no money. Although they’re largely the reason we don’t.
On your point about Chelsea’s “offloading very few players” you might be surprised to find that:

One area where Manchester United have a poor record is player sales, where profits go directly into FFP calcs. Chelsea have generated £5.3m for every £1m of player sales made by #MUFC over last decade

Source Kieran Maguire tweet 4/7/23

They’ve recouped 700m+ compared with about 132m that we have through player sales.
Click to expand...
Over what time period? In the last season, they spent €611m and sold €67m. So far this summer, they’ve sold €220m, but also spent €97m.

https://www.transfermarkt.us/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631

Number of players doesn’t matter, it’s total spend. FFP is set up to minimize the effects of big clubs pouring huge amounts of money into the transfer markets. How can Chelsea, who have 20% less revenue than we do (will be more like 30-35% this season as they are out of the CL) have a net spend of €550m, yet not a word about FFP, yet we spend 150m and suddenly we have FFP issues? Do you understand how accounting works? How player sales works? It’s not upfront cash, it’s usually paid in installments, and the transfer fees are amortized over the life of the contract, usually 5 years. Mason Mount will cost us £10m per year plus salary… if we spend 150m this summer, it’s literally £30m per year on the books.

Our transfer record has been abysmal, but that’s not what this is about. The reason management has said there are FFP concerns is because they want to get away from paying the United premium (fair) plus, they want to juice profits to justify a higher acquisition price. Don’t be naive.
 
L1nk said:


This is what Barcelona are paying for Vitor Roque, 18, from the Brazilian league. But people expect us to pay 30mill tops for Hojlund, people need to be serious.
Click to expand...



There you go, structured exactly the way I suspected. €30m up front for a younger striker with a better goalscoring record. If Hojlund wins a Ballon d'Or I'd be delighted with a similarly structured deal.
 
DSG said:
Over what time period? In the last season, they spent €611m and sold €67m. So far this summer, they’ve sold €220m, but also spent €97m.

https://www.transfermarkt.us/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631

Number of players doesn’t matter, it’s total spend. FFP is set up to minimize the effects of big clubs pouring huge amounts of money into the transfer markets. How can Chelsea, who have 20% less revenue than we do (will be more like 30-35% this season as they are out of the CL) have a net spend of €550m, yet not a word about FFP, yet we spend 150m and suddenly we have FFP issues? Do you understand how accounting works? How player sales works? It’s not upfront cash, it’s usually paid in installments, and the transfer fees are amortized over the life of the contract, usually 5 years. Mason Mount will cost us £10m per year plus salary… if we spend 150m this summer, it’s literally £30m per year on the books.

Our transfer record has been abysmal, but that’s not what this is about. The reason management has said there are FFP concerns is because they want to get away from paying the United premium (fair) plus, they want to juice profits to justify a higher acquisition price. Don’t be naive.
Click to expand...

Because:

1. Chelsea do have FFP issues, there's been tons written about it. FFP looks at the last three years, but because of covid things it's and average of 2020 and 2021, so it's the last four years for now.
2. Included in the relevant time period is when Chelsea was transfer banned and made huge net spend profits.
3. They did that now-banned 8 year contract thing for amortization purposes last year.
4. Because of amortization you can frontload your spending, and while United and Chelsea have a similar net spend, Chelsea spend and sell more. Frontloading your spending will hurt in the future, but we're not in the future yet.

United's FFP stories isn't because of "management", it's because people can look at the numbers.

Edit: Point 1 partly explains Chelsea's transfer window. According to transfermarkt, all numbers in Euros: Spent 97m, sold for 221m. On the books it'll be roughly 125.5m income from sales, and 19.5m expenditure each year the next five years. This year they've made a net profit of 106m so far.
 
Last edited:
Dazzmondo said:


There you go, structured exactly the way I suspected. €30m up front for a younger striker with a better goalscoring record. If Hojlund wins a Ballon d'Or I'd be delighted with a similarly structured deal.
Click to expand...

Agree Hojlund's deal should be structured like this. If Atalanta do believe in his supposedly huge potential they shouldn't mind the add ons I guess?
 
Last edited:
Strelok said:
Agree Hojlund's deal should be something like this. If Atalanta does believe in his supposedly huge potential they shouldn't mind the add ons I guess?
Click to expand...
30m means more to a Brazilian club than it does to an Italian, so naturally they are going to want more.
 
jesperjaap said:
Consderng take prolonged take over and supposed relatve budget, I think we should offer Greenwood as a straight swap wth a buy back clause for say £55m or whatever the realstic cost of Hojlund would be.

Atalanta are gettng a player that was better than Hojlund and is more talented so could be gettng a better player for nothng and f he gets back and mproves on the player he was, if we decded aganst buyng hm back, they probably could sell him for far more than £55m, he was valued at £100m before all the drama.

For us, we are rdding ourselves of all the negatvty around the player and gettng the striker we crave for nothng, whch gets some of the value out of Greenwoods huge ablty and the tme and money spent on him n development and wages and our budget hasnt been affected at all. He has been out a long tme and may not mentally, desre wse or physcally get anythng back to the player he was or stll carry too much negativty to com eback anyway.....but f the stuatons changes we can buy hm back wth new owners
Click to expand...

You need to get an i test mate.
 
GreatDane said:
30m means more to a Brazilian club than it does to an Italian, so naturally they are going to want more.
Click to expand...
Tbh I don't mind at all a €40m + €40m of add ons. If one day we'd have to pay all that €40m money well spent imo.

Edit: I mean Hojlund's deal should be structured like the Victor Roque deal. Not exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
NotThatSoph said:
Because:

1. Chelsea do have FFP issues, there's been tons written about it. FFP looks at the last three years, but because of covid things it's and average of 2020 and 2021, so it's the last four years for now.
2. Included in the relevant time period is when Chelsea was transfer banned and made huge net spend profits.
3. They did that now-banned 8 year contract thing for amortization purposes last year.
4. Because of amortization you can frontload your spending, and while United and Chelsea have a similar net spend, Chelsea spend and sell more. Frontloading your spending will hurt in the future, but we're not in the future yet.

United's FFP stories isn't because of "management", it's because people can look at the numbers.
Click to expand...
This is a joke… FFP doesn’t include money spent on “infrastructure, training facilities and youth development”. Point out to me where in the United financials, these are broken out. You can’t. That’s a black box, only the team knows the costs. How much does it cost to run CArrington for a year? 10m? 20m? The academy, coaches, cafeteria, cryogenic pods, the list goes on.

In addition, an owner is allowed to inject as much as 30m in capital in a single season and still not run afoul of FFP. Lastly, have you seen the order of “punishments” for FFP? It starts with a fecking warning!!!!! Have we ever been warned? No!

Look Sparky, I know that there is a group in the Caf who are paranoid about our financials. That’s fine. But to say we can’t spend 150m in transfers because you and some dumb journalists have bought the “sources say” crap and tried to analyze the numbers — without 100% transparency mind you — just isn’t helpful. There’s too many examples of teams spending huge amounts and having significant losses and never being sanctioned by Uefa. Chelsea (okay one transfer period and they got around that by loaning the player back for 6 months), PSG, Barcelona (!!!!), Juventus, City, etc.

Don’t be naive. The fact we have a budget of 100m this summer has nothing to do with FFP. It’s 100% the Glazers. Don’t get it twisted.
 
L1nk said:


This is what Barcelona are paying for Vitor Roque, 18, from the Brazilian league. But people expect us to pay 30mill tops for Hojlund, people need to be serious.
Click to expand...

Roque look incredible, they had to pay that fee as a number of clubs were trying to get him
 
DSG said:
This is a joke… FFP doesn’t include money spent on “infrastructure, training facilities and youth development”. Point out to me where in the United financials, these are broken out. You can’t. That’s a black box, only the team knows the costs. How much does it cost to run CArrington for a year? 10m? 20m? The academy, coaches, cafeteria, cryogenic pods, the list goes on.

In addition, an owner is allowed to inject as much as 30m in capital in a single season and still not run afoul of FFP. Lastly, have you seen the order of “punishments” for FFP? It starts with a fecking warning!!!!! Have we ever been warned? No!

Look Sparky, I know that there is a group in the Caf who are paranoid about our financials. That’s fine. But to say we can’t spend 150m in transfers because you and some dumb journalists have bought the “sources say” crap and tried to analyze the numbers — without 100% transparency mind you — just isn’t helpful. There’s too many examples of teams spending huge amounts and having significant losses and never being sanctioned by Uefa. Chelsea (okay one transfer period and they got around that by loaning the player back for 6 months), PSG, Barcelona (!!!!), Juventus, City, etc.

Don’t be naive. The fact we have a budget of 100m this summer has nothing to do with FFP. It’s 100% the Glazers. Don’t get it twisted.
Click to expand...

You can't know the exact number, no, but you can make very educated guesses. It's well known what share of wage expenditure tends to go to the players, for instance.

You can call Swiss Ramble and all the other financial experts naive, and shout about how you know better. That's fine. Chelsea are extremely worried about FFP, guess they haven't consulted you.
 
Strelok said:
Tbh I don't mind at all a €40m + €40m of add ons. If one day we'd have to pay all that €40m money well spent imo.

Edit: I mean Hojlund's deal should be structured like the Victor Roque deal. Not exactly the same.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I don't disagree with that.
 
Dazzmondo said:


There you go, structured exactly the way I suspected. €30m up front for a younger striker with a better goalscoring record. If Hojlund wins a Ballon d'Or I'd be delighted with a similarly structured deal.
Click to expand...


Better goal scoring record? He plays in the Brazilian league ffs.
 
zaafi said:
Better goal scoring record? He plays in the Brazilian league ffs.
Click to expand...
The Brazilian Serie A is the 7th highest ranked league in the world, comparable to Ligue 1, the Eredivisie and the Portuguese Primeira Liga. It's ranked significantly higher than the Austrian Bundesliga which Hojlund played in at the age of 19, where he scored 6 goals and got 1 assist in about 250 more mins than Vitor Roque at this point in the current season. At 18 Hojlund had only played around 450 mins for Copenhagen and hadn't scored a league goal (he did have some Conference League goals though). Hojlund has potential to be a very good striker just as Vitor Roque does, but they're more comparable than you seem to believe. The Brazilian league is a much stronger league than you're suggesting.
 
Dazzmondo said:
The Brazilian Serie A is the 7th highest ranked league in the world, comparable to Ligue 1, the Eredivisie and the Portuguese Primeira Liga. It's ranked significantly higher than the Austrian Bundesliga which Hojlund played in at the age of 19, where he scored 6 goals and got 1 assist in about 250 more mins than Vitor Roque at this point in the current season. At 18 Hojlund had only played around 450 mins for Copenhagen and hadn't scored a league goal (he did have some Conference League goals though). Hojlund has potential to be a very good striker just as Vitor Roque does, but they're more comparable than you seem to believe. The Brazilian league is a much stronger league than you're suggesting.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to say that Vitor Roque isn't a good striker or that he doesn't have huge potential, but it's a lot easier as a forward to play in the Brazilian league than Serie A as the defending is considerably worse. You have a good point regarding Højlund in the Austrian league, though. Hopefully he keeps up his progressive trajectory at the pace he has been doing for the past year, as we desperately need a striker that scores.
 
zaafi said:
I wasn't trying to say that Vitor Roque isn't a good striker or that he doesn't have huge potential, but it's a lot easier as a forward to play in the Brazilian league than Serie A as the defending is considerably worse. You have a good point regarding Højlund in the Austrian league, though. Hopefully he keeps up his progressive trajectory at the pace he has been doing for the past year, as we desperately need a striker that scores.
Click to expand...
You're correct that the Italian Serie A is a better league. I'm not disputing that. Only the Premier League and La Liga are better than Serie A currently. Hojlund at a reasonable price is fine, we just shouldn't spend northwards of £50m up front for somebody who does need to improve significantly to be a starting striker for Utd. Realistically we should have been bringing in a 20+ goal striker this season and it seems like that's impossible, so it's going to be a struggle whoever we sign. Hojlund is already going to have massive pressure on him, the higher the fee the more that pressure will rise. We've already seen how that can affect a young player with Antony last season.
 
I know it's only twitter rumours but if we could get Hojlund in and Felix on loan with MG being loaned out then that would be fantastic.

I know Felix didn't light it up at Chelsea but man has so much talent and I just think he needs the right team and right manager and he will excel. Has more talent than most players could even dream of
 
Dazzmondo said:
Hojlund is already going to have massive pressure on him, the higher the fee the more that pressure will rise.
Click to expand...
But why? We create so many chances. He can finish, and even with average finishing he will be in a position to score plenty - which will help his self belief and lessen the pressure.
 
Alemar said:
But why? We create so many chances. He can finish, and even with average finishing he will be in a position to score plenty - which will help his self belief and lessen the pressure.
Click to expand...
You’ve seen all the young players sold for massive money to United fail and you’re asking that?
 
Cassidy said:
You’ve seen all the young players sold for massive money to United fail and you’re asking that?
Click to expand...
Contrary to those sold for massive money, he is going to be sold for regular 50m, similar to Mount or Onana fee
 
He won’t be enough. I can’t complain about transfer dealings but we can’t expect Ten Hag to “mount” pardon the pun - a challenge with these reinforcements
 
Cassidy said:
You’ve seen all the young players sold for massive money to United fail and you’re asking that?
Click to expand...

I think this guy will flourish if given similar playing time as Weghorst. He’s strong, quick and a good finisher and in fact got the whole frame to be a top player. Yes, he’s young, yes somewhat unproven and the fee is massive. But I think Ten Haag knows what he’s doing on this one.
 
Alemar said:
Contrary to those sold for massive money, he is going to be sold for regular 50m, similar to Mount or Onana fee
Click to expand...
No one said he would be. Go back and read what you responded to
 
Status
Not open for further replies.