Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2022/23 | Follow the OP rules and check the quality of your sources before posting. STAY ON TOPIC!

Status
Not open for further replies.
mazhar13 said:
Click to expand...


:lol: Is that why we’re targeting £100m Osimhen? Because we think we’ll get £100m from selling Maguire and McTominay?

Did not expect such a shitty, hysterical and blatantly false tweet from such a respected journalist and publication. Whitwell does have this in him though, does it about once or twice a year. Imagined being outperformed by Samuel fecking Luckhurst. Brutal.
 
NYAS said:
:lol: Is that why we’re targeting £100m Osimhen? Because we think we’ll get £100m from selling Maguire and McTominay?

Did not expect such a shitty, hysterical and blatantly false tweet from such a respected journalist and publication. Whitwell does have this in him though, does it about once or twice a year. Imagined being outperformed by Samuel fecking Luckhurst. Brutal.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Luckhurst did mention that we needed to sell in order to fund for a new midfielder (partially or otherwise). I wish Whitwell could offer us more context here because that Tweet itself is a bit vague.
 
mazhar13 said:
To be fair, Luckhurst did mention that we needed to sell in order to fund for a new midfielder (partially or otherwise). I wish Whitwell could offer us more context here because that Tweet itself is a bit vague.
Click to expand...

There’s a massive difference between what they both said. Luckhurst has only confirmed what we basically all have known for a few months, which is that we can probably spend around £100m without sales. So, a top striker and nothing else. If we sell, we can use that for a new midfielder.

Whitwell is saying we can’t afford to spend anything unless we sell. If that’s not what we actually meant, then it’s shockingly poor wording given this is his actual profession.

Buying a £100m striker without selling, is not “sell to buy”.
 
NYAS said:
There’s a massive difference between what they both said. Luckhurst has only confirmed what we basically all have known for a few months, which is that we can probably spend around £100m without sales. So, a top striker and nothing else. If we sell, we can use that for a new midfielder.

Whitwell is saying we can’t afford to spend anything unless we sell. If that’s not what we actually meant, then it’s shockingly poor wording given this is his actual profession.

Buying a £100m striker without selling, is not “sell to buy”.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. That Whitwell Tweet sensationalises the situation, which is not what The Athletic is typically about (though I've seen questionable articles by certain journalists for other sports).
 
ayushreddevil9 said:
Well chelsea found a loophole that prevented them from getting fined due to FFP
Click to expand...

Chelsea also have sold players at a better rate, which is what happens when you hoard players and loan them out consistently, so they should be okay. But they'll still have to register players, meeting the English homegrown quota, and battle complacency in the squad with players who are fringe but are getting a nice salary while living in West London.

United can offload Telles, Bailly, Henderson, and possibly Maguire, McTominay, Elanga, Williams. The first summer window after the first EtH season will be very interesting.
 
I wouldn't be overly hopeful of a great transfer window if we are reliant on sales. Sabitzer, Weghorst, and a top striker would be amazing.
 
Sassy Colin said:
Did you miss that they've spent close to £1B since Lampard was there?
Click to expand...
Doesn't really matter as I said earlier, FFP can't do much as their expenses are spread across the next decade. So they managed to keep their books in check.

If you wanna go back to Lampard era then you should also see how much we have spent on players.
 
Realistically we can probably raise well over £100 million - IF we are able to sell all the players we want to offload - but that is unfortunately the not so realistic.part :)

So we probably need to rely on some loans - and maybe we can raise £50-60 million through sales.
 
ayushreddevil9 said:
Doesn't really matter as I said earlier, FFP can't do much as their expenses are spread across the next decade. So they managed to keep their books in check.

If you wanna go back to Lampard era then you should also see how much we have spent on players.
Click to expand...

What a terrible post of made up of complete rubbish.

Check how much we've spent in the last 3 years, nothing like a £1B, barely even half that.

Spread £100M over 8 years rather than 5 years, spending twice as much money. Who has spent the most? And that fiddle only refers to transfers made in the last window anyway.

Why would you defend Chelsea if, as you attest from your username, you're a United fan?

There's no way anyone is telling me that Chelsea can afford to spend more money than United.
 
Sassy Colin said:
What a terrible post of made up of complete rubbish.

Check how much we've spent in the last 3 years, nothing like a £1B, barely even half that.

Spread £100M over 8 years rather than 5 years, spending twice as much money. Who has spent the most? And that fiddle only refers to transfers made in the last window anyway.

Why would you defend Chelsea if, as you attest from your username, you're a United fan?

There's no way anyone is telling me that Chelsea can afford to spend more money than United.
Click to expand...
So now that you resorted on calling the post rubbish, I have to put numbers in front of you. Maybe then you can really see what's the reality.

(All data pulled from transfermarkt.us from 19/20 season)

Chelsea
Expenses: 1022m euros
Sales: 407m euros

Man Utd
Expenses: 704m euros
Sales: 144.5 euros

I will let you do the net spend math and see theres roughly a difference of a 50-60m. Not our fault that our club doesn't know how to sell players.

I'm a utd fan but I am simply calling out a baseless post claiming FFP is only applicable to Utd and not Chelsea. Of course its applicable for both but one club was clever enough to work around the rules. I would be delighted to see them get punished for it but it doesn't seem like it.

And Chelsea do have more money than us as their owners are investing around 1.7b into the club. Utd is operating on self generated revenues and the owners are taking money out of the club in the form of dividends.
 
The FFP aspect is explained in depth in this thread: https://www.redcafe.net/threads/a-l...-financial-fair-play-rules-on-man-utd.474688/

Its very long and technical, but I want to highlight this aspect of it:

(a) Player sales and (b) player acquisitions, are apples and oranges in relation to the new FFP rules. Sell to buy, does not function like it would in FM23, it’s not x% “money in” can be used to buy. 100m in, could depending on the circumstances mean everything from that you can spend 500m extra on transfers to that you can spend — less — on transfers before making the sale.

So do we need to sell to buy in the summer even despite new owners?

Yes, definitely. In fact, all of the highest spenders sell players. MCFC could not get by without selling. And our wage bill is far from optimal. Can’t have someone like Harry Maguire as a 5th option at CB, etc etc etc.
 


The quotes:
I think it’s much too quick, much too soon to talk about that. First, we are in this season. That is where the only focus has to be. No distractions for what is coming next season.
Click to expand...
 
Zoo said:


Story by Adrian Kajumba
Click to expand...

If Southampton go down and we're able to bring him in for a reasonable price I'd be pretty happy with that. We need midfield cover for Casemiro and he would count as homegrown. If Lavia comes in and we get shot of McTominay, we're laughing.
 
Scorpy said:
City won’t let us have him though.
Click to expand...
This. I have previously heard of penalty clauses if a player is sold to another club. Could City have inserted on to say Southampton have to pay a considerable sum if he's sold to us?
 
Zoo said:
Click to expand...


If this approach is true-and it sounds plausible - I'm not sure what the reasoning is here in terms of the club turning down approaches. All they need from MG is a statement that - however inefficiently everything that isn't sponsorship or directly under ETH's ambit is potentially being run under the rats - still shouldn't have taken more than a day to collect post-verdict .

They've made it clear through briefs that MG's situation, in terms of potentially even being allowed to return to team training, won't be clarified before the summer...so it's not a case of potentially depriving ETH of a player for the run-in. It's also pretty clear that he won't be retained by the club, thanks to all the noise around the case and - short of some startling revelation appearing in the public record about the images/sounds - combination of genuine objections from people supporting or associated with the club, combined with more cynical opposition fan conduct (note the differing reaction to a certain arsenal player, where the only real difference was lurid, and of course genuinely shocking, images rather than incriminating texts etc, or previous cases where players accused of racially aggravated assault and under trial were still allowed to play) and media outcry spooking potential sponsors has made sure of this.

It's both another potential distraction and in any case the club de-facto would be pressured into jettisoning him. Conversely, A loan to Turkey or wherever to regain his match fitness and find himself another employer, and some kind of severing of relations in the Summer, where we also get compensated in the form of a transfer fee ( which the club can partly donate, but that's on their conscience/public image CSR ) if 2 or more clubs are both interested is probably the least worst outcome. In both cases you can make a case for loaning, then letting a player go without being accused of breaching contract/constructive dismissal....
 
Baxquux said:
If this approach is true-and it sounds plausible - I'm not sure what the reasoning is here in terms of the club turning down approaches. All they need from MG is a statement that - however inefficiently everything that isn't sponsorship or directly under ETH's ambit is potentially being run under the rats - still shouldn't have taken more than a day to collect post-verdict .

They've made it clear through briefs that MG's situation, in terms of potentially even being allowed to return to team training, won't be clarified before the summer...so it's not a case of potentially depriving ETH of a player for the run-in. It's also pretty clear that he won't be retained by the club, thanks to all the noise around the case and - short of some startling revelation appearing in the public record about the images/sounds - combination of genuine objections from people supporting or associated with the club, combined with more cynical opposition fan conduct (note the differing reaction to a certain arsenal player, where the only real difference was lurid, and of course genuinely shocking, images rather than incriminating texts etc, or previous cases where players accused of racially aggravated assault and under trial were still allowed to play) and media outcry spooking potential sponsors has made sure of this.

It's both another potential distraction and in any case the club de-facto would be pressured into jettisoning him. Conversely, A loan to Turkey or wherever to regain his match fitness and find himself another employer, and some kind of severing of relations in the Summer, where we also get compensated in the form of a transfer fee ( which the club can partly donate, but that's on their conscience/public image CSR ) if 2 or more clubs are both interested is probably the least worst outcome. In both cases you can make a case for loaning, then letting a player go without being accused of breaching contract/constructive dismissal....
Click to expand...

Any move would thrust him into the spotlight and create a lot of discussion on whether he's returning or what the plan is moving forward. Currently, there is none, and we'd all like to keep it that way. This would be the most unweclome of distractions at a time where the mood around the club is the best it's been in years.
 
AnotherLondonManc said:
Any move would thrust him into the spotlight and create a lot of discussion on whether he's returning or what the plan is moving forward. Currently, there is none, and we'd all like to keep it that way. This would be the most unweclome of distractions at a time where the mood around the club is the best it's been in years.
Click to expand...


Well, I'd agree up to a point. Obviously the club, sale ambiguity notwithstanding, is a in a good 'moment' and have a duty to look after the interests of the whole squad All I'd say is

a) the dropping of charges and the brief media furore accompanying this didn't seem to affect the squad at the time - sending him on loan and issuing a curt press statement about 'joining for rest of the season; circumstances will be reviewed in the meantime with a decision to be taken in June' and a moratorium on further press conference questions seems unlikely to cause more disruption.

b) if anything, a loan makes any distractions in the interim less likely - you can just say that nothing is expected to be announced before June whilst the season and the loan are both in progress, the player plays in a league which seldom gets any serious media coverage well away from the UK, and you avoid the question of why you're keeping a player with no charges and no convictions in indefinite professional stasis (as opposed to a time-limited suspension relating to named offence).

c) as an extension of that, you have a situation where a player due to circumstances more or less of his own making - obviously we're not discussing the previous allegations or speculating on the circumstances of witness retraction in further detail as per mod request - is having his career curtailed, having been cleared of formal wrong-doing. I'm not a lawyer, and anyone with some expertise feel free to chip in, but my sense is the club are potentially leaving themselves in a precarious legal situation. He's under contract, being stopped from training, let alone playing once deemed fit by the manager, or receiving physio support to recover capacity to play, with no formal end date according to the club's own briefed information, and with the club also seemingly refusing to entertain a temporary release based upon suitable compensation so that the player can get minutes with a club able to accommodate him and pursue his career elsewhere.

It's not cut and dry but if the club decide not to retain him after the Summer, there's at least some chance his legal team seek compensation from the club, particularly in light of precedents about how high-prfoile clubs have treated other players accused or acquitted of criminal offences.....
 
GaryLifo said:
I'd not be sad if we kept Sabitzer and Weghorst as long as we still brought in a young CM and top class CF.
Click to expand...

This. Don’t mind keeping them as backups but definitely need major upgrades. I guess a fair bit depends on who our owners are going to be if it’s the Glazers/Qataris/INEOS plus how much money we make from player sales.
 
RedDevilRoshi said:
This. Don’t mind keeping them as backups but definitely need major upgrades. I guess a fair bit depends on who our owners are going to be if it’s the Glazers/Qataris/INEOS plus how much money we make from player sales.
Click to expand...

Who would be your young CM to partner Casa and top striker as well just out of interest
 
Tier 1:

Manchester United, Arsenal and Newcastle are among the teams following Gabri Veiga closely.

All three Premiership clubs have come to see him in several matches this season.

[Release] Clause: 40 million Euros
Click to expand...
  • Also followed by a Bundesliga club
  • Current contract until 2026
  • Veiga is currently happy to play for Celta Vigo, but a transfer is not out of the question.
  • Celta Vigo want to renegotiate his current contract
    • Offer a pay raise
    • Increase the release clause amount
  • Gabri Veiga will change his agent soon as he's currently close to an agreement with Pini Zahavi.
 
Last edited:


The full quotes:
I think playing in one of the top five leagues in the world (Serie A) is an amazing feeling for me. A lot of people worldwide consider the Premier League as the best and the strongest league but now I’m in one of the best leagues in the world which is the Italian Serie A.

I’m working so hard to make sure that I achieve my dream of playing in the Premier League some day but like I said, it’s a process and I just want to keep on this momentum and continue to do well.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.