Transfer Fees as ratio to Turnover

Scholesy

New Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
11,117
Location
'And Solskjær has won it'
We are going to sign Pogba for £100M. 25% of our £400M turnover.

We signed Rooney for £25M when our turnover was £250M. 10%.

So if we wanted to sign a similar player like Rooney today, we should only pay £40M max.



A 25% ratio signing is by far our biggest ever. Major problem with our club.
 
Its actually 19% of our £510m revenue. And why only 10%? Your post makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
and lo, after 40 years of wandering the desert, the chosen one will find his home.
 
What's your thoughts on technique improving once a player hits the 19yr old mark?
 
Cob9DAQWYAAQDXm.jpg


These are the actual figures. So, basically there is a 3.6% difference between Rooney and Pogba. I don't see how that's a problem. Also, there are two signings with even higher figures.
 
People will always try to find a way to justify a transfer fee. Personally I think we've paid too much for all of our transfers this Summer but the agent fee really grates.
 
Wow, guess I'll just ring up Woody and tell him to cancel the deal then.
 
He returns after years and doesnt even acknowledge his comeback first! Not to mention the numbers are way off
 
Why are people so bothered about the fee anyway? We are going to get one of the best midfielders in the world. Who cares how much he costs. Just be happy that we are not like Arsenal who are content with a top 4 finish every year.
 
Definitely overpriced.. but the "facts" stated in the first post are not even close to being true.
 
abhayselvan said:
Why are people so bothered about the fee anyway? We are going to get one of the best midfielders in the world. Who cares how much he costs. Just be happy that we are not like Arsenal who are content with a top 4 finish every year.
Click to expand...
Is there anything to suggest the club isn't content with top four?
 
Speak said:
Is there anything to suggest the club isn't content with top four?
Click to expand...
No club spends 150m every year just to get into top 4. We are clearly looking to build a team that can win titles both domestically and in Europe. With Jose at the helm, I don't know why you would even think that.
 
prateik said:
Definitely overpriced.. but the "facts" stated in the first post are not even close to being true.
Click to expand...

Well from a business perspective you cannot say that he is overpriced because the marketing power of such a transfer is immense. It is a great investment for the future and he turns out to be the player he has the potential to be, he won't be overpriced at all. At a similar thread I examined our jump in revenues in the last 25 years and I argued that with the immense inflow of money in today's football it is only natural that as long as revenues grow so will wages and fees. It is simple economics. If a Higuain who turns 29 in December is not overvalued at 75mln, if Bony is worth 35mln quid, and so on, and so on how is Pogba not worth the money? Even if he does not progress to be the footballer he has the qualities to be our club will not lose on this transfer at all, and if he does then he would be worth much much more. Having in mind that there is no available talent in world football today I can hardly think of a better transfer in terms of marketing power, football potential, etc. The only negative thing about him is that I have not seen him play to his full potential. He has much much more work to do and I really hope he would step up...
 
Scholesy said:
We are going to sign Pogba for £100M. 25% of our £400M turnover.

We signed Rooney for £25M when our turnover was £250M. 10%.

So if we wanted to sign a similar player like Rooney today, we should only pay £40M max.



A 25% ratio signing is by far our biggest ever. Major problem with our club.
Click to expand...

Our projected revenue for the fiscal year is 500-520 million quid, your post is as far away from the truth as it can be. As big as this fees can look like at first glance, this is just the reality of the modern game. It is the same with real estate. Who is to say what a London flat is worth right now? The market...I would have argued 5 years ago that London properties are overpriced and I would have been proven wrong by the market with a vengeance by now. It is the same with football. As the revenues grow so will transfer fees and wages. Simple economics...
 
abhayselvan said:
No club spends 150m every year just to get into top 4. We are clearly looking to build a team that can win titles both domestically and in Europe. With Jose at the helm, I don't know why you would even think that.
Click to expand...
United hasn't spent £150m every year, though.
The two biggest windows (in terms of money spent) have come the summer after finishing out of the top four. Last season, selling Di Maria alone pretty much covered the cost of Depay and Martial. No huge money was spent.

If the team finishes second this season, and the club proceeds to spend £150 million next summer to progress even further, you'll have a point.
They'd be foolish to do that, though, from a business point of view. And that's why they probably wouldn't.

We all know that the biggest problem United could realistically face is not qualifying for the Champions League. Money-wise, that's the important line.
United has been in a position where top four has seemed uncertain, which has meant that drastic measures and huge spending has been needed. The cost of missing top four outweighed the cost of huge spending.

Nothing to suggest that United will spend big next summer if they finish within the top four in 2016/17. Actually, there's more to suggest that they wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
ManUchosenbosslvg said:
People will always try to find a way to justify a transfer fee. Personally I think we've paid too much for all of our transfers this Summer but the agent fee really grates.
Click to expand...
Unless I'm mistaken, It's not agent fees. riaola owns a part of his playing rights and Unless we buy it off, he can't play in the PL.
 
Even if Pogba wins us the league a hundred times, it's still the wrong transfer. We would be better off getting Fabio back from Cardiff.

Also, Modric.
 
Speak said:
United hasn't spent £150m every year, though.
The two biggest windows (in terms of money spent) have come the summer after finishing out of the top four.

If the team finishes second this season, and the club proceeds to spend £150 million next summer to progress even further, you'll have a point.
They'd be foolish to do that, though, from a business point of view. And that's why they probably wouldn't.

We all know that the biggest problem United could realistically face is not qualifying for the Champions League. Money-wise, that's the important line.
United has been in a position where top four has seemed uncertain, which has meant that drastic measures and huge spending has been needed. The cost of missing top four outweighed the cost of huge spending.
Click to expand...
We got into top 4 last year and still spent 146m Euros in the Summer window. Qualifying for CL is very important for us of course. But I'm sure we won't stop there. We will continue to spend until we have a squad good enough to compete for the CL. Even from a commercial point of view, it is important for our team to be fighting for trophies every year.
 
Speak said:
United hasn't spent £150m every year, though.
The two biggest windows (in terms of money spent) have come the summer after finishing out of the top four. Last season, selling Di Maria alone pretty much covered the cost of Depay and Martial. No huge money was spent.

If the team finishes second this season, and the club proceeds to spend £150 million next summer to progress even further, you'll have a point.
They'd be foolish to do that, though, from a business point of view. And that's why they probably wouldn't.

We all know that the biggest problem United could realistically face is not qualifying for the Champions League. Money-wise, that's the important line.
United has been in a position where top four has seemed uncertain, which has meant that drastic measures and huge spending has been needed. The cost of missing top four outweighed the cost of huge spending.

Nothing to suggest that United will spend big next summer if they finish within the top four in 2016/17. Actually, there's more to suggest that they wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Your delusional if you don't think that as a club we don't want to be right up there as the biggest club in the world winning champions league honours. The board is committed to that as they are showing but some people are never happy.
 
abhayselvan said:
We got into top 4 last year and still spent 146m Euros in the Summer window. Qualifying for CL is very important for us of course. But I'm sure we won't stop there. We will continue to spend until we have a squad good enough to compete for the CL. Even from a commercial point of view, it is important for our team to be fighting for trophies every year.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you aren't taking into account that Di Maria covered about 52 million Euros.

From a business point of view, there is little to gain by spending £100-150 million pounds unless they felt the team may miss out on top four again.
That's where the money is - top four.

The nature of competitions (especially cup competitions) is that spending big guarantees nothing in terms of actually picking up the trophy.
Once you're in that group of about 8 strong European teams, there's a good chance you can reach the final.

Why would the club spend £100 million + to take the team from third to possibly (not 'guaranteed') first?
The gains from (possible) success wouldn't outweigh the huge spending.

They would need to have a real love for the club.
 
Last edited:
abhayselvan said:
Cob9DAQWYAAQDXm.jpg


These are the actual figures. So, basically there is a 3.6% difference between Rooney and Pogba. I don't see how that's a problem. Also, there are two signings with even higher figures.
Click to expand...

Nice list. More telling for me though is that looking at the current top 3 (ignoring Pogba), they were all over a four year period. I highly doubt we'll be spending another 100m next season. But even if we do, past history has shown us we're able to cope with big spending over a prolonged period of time (also we never won anything of note from 04-07 as well which should have created a bigger burden).
 
TrustInJanuzai said:
Your delusional if you don't think that as a club we don't want to be right up there as the biggest club in the world winning champions league honours. The board is committed to that as they are showing but some people are never happy.
Click to expand...
Every club wants to be there. I'm sure Arsenal's board would love to be there too. But from a business point of view there's no point in spending ridiculous money until the club MAYBE wins a lot of trophies. Not when making the major money doesn't require winning.

The board has shown that when the club falls out of the top four, they will spend big big money to try to get back into it. Which makes sense, as finishing top four has pretty much the biggest impact on anything regarding the club.

Added to that, United is a huge enough brand to not need trophies every season.

I think you're delusional if you believe United would spend £150 million next summer if they finished third or fourth in May.
 
Last edited:
Speak said:
I'm pretty sure you aren't taking into account that Di Maria covered about 52 million Euros.

From a business point of view, there is little to gain by spending £100 million pounds unless you feel the team isn't good enough for top four.
That's where the money is - top four.

The nature of competitions (especially cup competitions) is that spending big guarantees nothing in terms of actually picking up the trophy.
Once you're in that group of about 8 strong European teams, there's a good chance you can reach the final.

Why would the club spend £100 million + to take the team from third to possibly (not 'guaranteed') first?
The gains from (possible) success wouldn't outweigh the huge spending.

They would need to have a real love for the club.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between getting into the top 4 and competing for CL. Everyone knows that Arsenal's squad is just not good enough to win the CL. We will spend until we have a squad that can realistically win it. Once we have assembled such a squad, we wouldn't need to spend too much after. Also, 100m pounds is just 20% of our turnover which will continue to increase. So, it really is not that huge a figure.
 
abhayselvan said:
There is a difference between getting into the top 4 and competing for CL. Everyone knows that Arsenal's squad is just not good enough to win the CL. We will spend until we have a squad that can realistically win it. Once we have assembled such a squad, we wouldn't need to spend too much after. Also, 100m pounds is just 20% of our turnover which will continue to increase. So, it really is not that huge a figure.
Click to expand...
I dont understand how people are still balking at the fee. We have explained that countless times in the Pogba thread.
 
abhayselvan said:
There is a difference between getting into the top 4 and competing for CL. Everyone knows that Arsenal's squad is just not good enough to win the CL. We will spend until we have a squad that can realistically win it. Once we have assembled such a squad, we wouldn't need to spend too much after. Also, 100m pounds is just 20% of our turnover which will continue to increase. So, it really is not that huge a figure.
Click to expand...
Arsenal's squad isn't worse than the Dortmund squad that got to the final (maybe you'll disagree). It's not a worse eleven than Chelsea's winners. It's a cup competition; a club can't actually spend their way to winning it.
On the flip-side, a club can spend half that of their competition and still win. And even if you spend big and manage to win it once, you aren't close to guaranteed to win it again. So have the summers of £150 million spending been worth it five years later?

Spending helps to point, but eventually you get to the point where spending is doing little but costing the club.
The key is to spend when the cost of not spending is greater - Champions League/ top four places.

You have nothing to suggest the club will spend £150+ million if they finish third or fourth this season - you just hope they will. There's more to suggest that they wouldn't.
 
ManUchosenbosslvg said:
People will always try to find a way to justify a transfer fee. Personally I think we've paid too much for all of our transfers this Summer but the agent fee really grates.
Click to expand...
If we hadn't paid what we paid for Bailley, Mkhitaryan, and Pogba then we'd have ended up with none of them. Would that have been preferable to you?
 
We must also look at the players age and fee.

Di Maria cost us £60M at age 26. We would have got 6 seasons from him. £10M per season.

Pogba, 23 at £100M. We will get 10 seasons from him. £10M per season.

So Pogba is the same price as Di Maria.
 
Should just buy Norwood, Wootton and Delfouneso. THEN we would win the title.
 
Scholesy said:
We are going to sign Pogba for £100M. 25% of our £400M turnover.

We signed Rooney for £25M when our turnover was £250M. 10%.

So if we wanted to sign a similar player like Rooney today, we should only pay £40M max.



A 25% ratio signing is by far our biggest ever. Major problem with our club.
Click to expand...

Modric.
 
Meaningless statistic.

Look at the spend as a percentage of expected turnover for next 5 years with and without the player if anything.

What Manchester United are paying for is expected impact.

It's not uncommon for businesses(and I am calling Manchester United a business here because we're talking about revenues) to spend with an eye on the future.

Do you pull up Uber's profit numbers and laugh because of what they're spending on marketing? No, because they're growing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.