Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2023/24

[K Stand Knut]

Nobody will pay £70m for Rashford because he’s garbage.

Nobody from Europe can afford him at that price and I think we’d be foolish to sell him within England.

 

[Red Rash]

Source (Tier 2): https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/40055111/man-united-not-expecting-rashford-offers-summer-source

100 million for the two would have been unthinkable just a few seasons ago. We would have got over double that

 

[Godfather]

Yeah nobody is paying 70 million pounds for him

 

[SAF is the GOAT]

 

[DavelinaJolie]

What's with the buttplug?

 

[Bastian]

Great news.

 

[Lennon7]

Nobody will pay £70m for Rashford because he’s garbage.

Nobody from Europe can afford him at that price and I think we’d be foolish to sell him within England.

Why would we? Get rid and sell him to Burnley. feck I’d even sell him to City

 

[K Stand Knut]

Why would we? Get rid and sell him to Burnley. feck I’d even sell him to City

Because the meltdown by our fans every 4 heard when he decides he can be arsed would be extremely painful

 

[Judas]

Nobody will pay £70m for Rashford because he’s garbage.

Nobody from Europe can afford him at that price and I think we’d be foolish to sell him within England.

Why are you worried, you think he's garbage?

 

[K Stand Knut]

Why are you worried, you think he's garbage?

See above!

 

[Judas]

See above!

What if a PL team offered over 70m? (Not that I believe that would happen)

 

[K Stand Knut]

What if a PL team offered over 70m? (Not that I believe that would happen)

Well, that’s a no-brainer and would be the only reason I’d be ‘happy’ to see him sold in England.

Only two clubs are stupid enough for that

EDIT - I’d try and drum up interest from a European club for less

 

[DavelinaJolie]

What's with the buttplug?

Worked it out. Instead of moving to Utd he got a glass buttplug to simulate the Man Utd experience.

 

[SAF is the GOAT]

Wrong thread?

Saw that he was linked to us so I posted it

 

[mazhar13]

Tier 2:

 

[UTD_Since_1978]

Tier 2:

And we had such high hopes for him.

 

[Red Royal]

And we had such high hopes for him.

Shame it didn't work, but in theory as it is pure profit gives us enough to but a new LB depreciated over 5 years.

 

[Red Royal]

Dan Ashworth needs to work harder in his garden, for a free that is a good transfer.

 

[golden_blunder]

Tier 2:

Unless they have plans for a new LB I’d consider keeping him after the season shaw and malacia have had with injuries

 

[gajender]

Unless they have plans for a new LB I’d consider keeping him after the season shaw and malacia have had with injuries

Not upto United it's Benfica's decision .

 

[Blood Mage]

Dan Ashworth needs to work harder in his garden, for a free that is a good transfer.

He is legally not allowed to do anything for us right now.

 

[Lee565]

Tier 2:

We could probably do with him next season with shaw injury issues and malacia basically on the missing person list

 

[top1whoisman]

We could probably do with him next season with shaw injury issues and malacia basically on the missing person list

You would’ve thought so this season too.

 

[pascell]

Tier 2:

It's the right move for him, he wasn't good enough to start for us and I believe he hasn't started that often for Benfica neither.

 

[mazhar13]

 

[sepulturite]

Wrong thread?

 

[mazhar13]

Saw that he was linked to us so I posted it

The free agency Tweet made sense. This is more specific to Newcastle, and since the link is tenuous, it's better off being posted in the England/Scotland thread. If Newcastle were actually advancing in their interest, then it'd make sense to post it in here.

 

[Dannn411]

What if a PL team offered over 70m? (Not that I believe that would happen)

Only Chelsea would be brave enough to try. I'd haggle for 80 and sell.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Tier 2:

Woohoo, let's use the 'significant' €6M boost to buy Mbappe!

 

[mazhar13]

 

[VWW]

Reading that Athletic article from Crafton, Ratcliffe is ending working from home and forcing all staff back into the office.

I dont like this, not only is that syle of working out of date but normally when companies insist this, its because they will start laying people off in a few months. The getting people back to the office demand is just a ploy to get some people to leave voluntarily before they start the layoff process. Its one of the reasons Patrick Stewart left because he was against this idea.

I wasnt keen on him winning ownership of the club but I have been encouraged by the appointments he has made. This is just not nice although I shouldnt be surprised given his history and tory support.

 

[roseguy64]

Reading that Athletic article from Crafton, Ratcliffe is ending working from home and forcing all staff back into the office.

I dont like this, not only is that syle of working out of date but normally when companies insist this, its because they will start laying people off in a few months. The getting people back to the office demand is just a ploy to get some people to leave voluntarily before they start the layoff process. Its one of the reasons Patrick Stewart left because he was against this idea.

I wasnt keen on him winning ownership of the club but I have been encouraged by the appointments he has made. This is just not nice although I shouldnt be surprised given his history and tory support.

Yeah this move along with the Cup Final benefit going is pointing in that direction. Especially since there is no space for all those employees at the club's offices. They'd have to spend money to undo the space reduction that was done with the WFH policy or rent out office space.

Doesn't sound great for cost-cutting.

 

[Crimson King]

Woohoo, let's use the 'significant' €6M boost to buy Mbappe!

I think that because of the way amortisation works then 6m pure profit can actually be stretched pretty far on the books when it comes to signing players

 

[mazhar13]

 

[pascell]

Reading that Athletic article from Crafton, Ratcliffe is ending working from home and forcing all staff back into the office.

I dont like this, not only is that syle of working out of date but normally when companies insist this, its because they will start laying people off in a few months. The getting people back to the office demand is just a ploy to get some people to leave voluntarily before they start the layoff process. Its one of the reasons Patrick Stewart left because he was against this idea.

I wasnt keen on him winning ownership of the club but I have been encouraged by the appointments he has made. This is just not nice although I shouldnt be surprised given his history and tory support.

Is this in the Transfer Tweets thread because it's here we go on United staff going from working at their kitchen tables to office desks?

 

[Sassy Colin]

I think that because of the way amortisation works then 6m pure profit can actually be stretched pretty far on the books when it comes to signing players

Alright, so if we can sell Rashford and MuckyT for £120M, we can spend £600M in the summer? If you say so.

 

[VWW]

Is this in the Transfer Tweets thread because it's here we go on United staff going from working at their kitchen tables to office desks?

I was responding to the tweet with the Athletic article that Mazhar posted here. I cant quote the tweet as I dont have permission to. Didnt know where else to respond to it.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Alright, so if we can sell Rashford and MuckyT for £120M, we can spend £600M in the summer? If you say so.

From an FFP perspective, yes - we'd be in the clear next season if we did that. The problem, of course, would be cash flow as well as funding the amortization outlay for the other years. So with all things considered, probably not.

 

[lysglimt]

From an FFP perspective, yes - we'd be in the clear next season if we did that. The problem, of course, would be cash flow as well as funding the amortization outlay for the other years. So with all things considered, probably not.

Well we would actually be in the clear for almost 2 years - as the amortization cost would be £120 million a year and we are allowed to run a deficit of about £100 million over 3 years (if we take for granted that we break even on FFP for the last 3 seasons - which we dont do)

No seriously - this is why what Chelsea did was SORT of clever (and why FFP only considers 5 year contracts now ) .

Let's say for case of argument they signed just 5 players for £100 million each on 10 year contracts last summer - and then sold us Mount for £60 million (he is pure profit)

The cost in terms of FFP will be £10 million each season pr player signed - so £50 million in total pr season for 10 years. Short term this is brilliant - long term ..... not.... as they need to include these players in their FFP cost for 10 years. But short term - as long as Chelsea sell home grown talent for £50 million a year - they break even in terms of FFP against the 5 hypothetical players they signed.

The problem is of course that they need to sell £50 million of homegrown talent simply to cover the cost of the players they signed last summer - if they were to sign another expensive player for £100 million - they now need to conjure up £20 m (£100 m divided by 5 years) extra to cover that cost. So chances are that Chelsea need to sell at least one expensive homegrown player each year to be compliant with FFP

And let's be realistic - they haven't got that many anymore.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Chelsea used to have, like, 100 players out on loan every year. Some players were sent out permanently on loan for years on end and never actually got to play for Chelsea.