Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2024/25

P-Nut said:
I've never heard of a loan with obligation having a loan fee to be honest, it's usually just accounting tricks to move it to a different year, coupled with the fact PSG want rid and we've been haggling on price I certainly wouldn't be expecting it to be more than if we bought him now.

The most likely reason we're pushing it back is simply that we can't afford what PSG want within PSR
Click to expand...
Depends on the circumstances and who benefits I suppose. A loan with an obligation eases the pressure on PSR/FFP/cash in bank of the buying club, but does so at the expense of the selling club, who gain nothing in that regard til next year. They are essentially giving some of their financial flexibility to the buying club. PSG aren't desperate to sell, so I just assumed we would be incentivising them into such an arrangement. But maybe us paying their full asking price is sufficient incentive.
 
mazhar13 said:
Tier 1:
Click to expand...

I think he was quite impressive in preseason. Shame he's not going to be staying with the u21s etc. Atleast we can buy him back if he keeps progressing though.

Would've thought a loan would be better but see how it goes.
 
Last edited:
saik said:
Defensive mid/centre mid and yea he is pretty much a youth signing. Will play for u-21s most likely.

Edit :


I'm trying to find where Whitwell said this but it's not there on his 'X'.
Click to expand...

Article on the Athletic
 
quadrant said:
Could be. We have a few problem areas, notably left back, where it could go either way. By Christmas we could have 2 fit and firing specialist LBs, or both Shaw and Malacia could still be on the treatment table. So there is a degree of wait and see.

However I think this deal looks a lot less tidy if we don't buy anyone with the fee we've "saved". If we're not buying anyone, it would have been better to just pay the 60M now. Indeed since there is, presumably, a loan fee involved, it would mean we've essentially paid more in total that if we just bought him this summer. So unless we truly couldn't afford him, or there's some other financial incentive we're not party to, it feels like a much worse deal if we don't use the opportunity it affords us.
Click to expand...
The loan fee would just cover most/all his wages this year. So it's not really adding to the total expense.

Also, it depends on the terms of the obligation. If say we're obligated to buy him if he appears in 50%+ of our matches this year, that protects us against a long-term injury. Could even have it conditional on making top 4, though I doubt PSG would agree to that.

I think a lot of folks assume "loan w/ obligation" means "you have to buy no matter what". Not the case at all. It means "you have to buy if certain conditions are met", whereas "loan with option" means "it's completely up to your discretion whether you buy at the end", a la Amrabat last year. I'm sure those conditions are a key part of the negotiation.
 
GwilDor said:
What position does he play? Expecting this to be a youth signing, rather than a first team signing?
Click to expand...
What is the difference exactly? Since players are eligible to sign professional contracts once they turned 17, I assumed everyone 17+ for the most part was on standard contracts (equivalent to the first-team, but with less money of course) and then just gets assigned to play for the U18s or U21s informally. Didn't think there was necessarily any distinction in contracts.
 
quadrant said:
A loan fee to PSG covers the wages to the player? How so?
Click to expand...
It appears he's earning about £7M this year. So PSG for example may ask us to pay a £7M loan fee, which would offset the wages he's due to be paid.
 
Withnail said:
As much as I'd love to see this, I cannot see Juventus giving us a suitable offer.

It'll be a loan with no obligation or a derisory transfer fee.
Click to expand...

This.

The timing of this romoured interest says it all.
A week and a half before deadline, while we try to force through a couple of sales to comply with FFP rules.

The italian clubs will never change when it comes to sniffing up a good deal.
 
bb8 said:
It appears he's earning about £7M this year. So PSG for example may ask us to pay a £7M loan fee, which would offset the wages he's due to be paid.
Click to expand...
Yeah but we'll be paying his wages during his stay, would we not?
 
quadrant said:
Yeah but we'll be paying his wages during his stay, would we not?
Click to expand...
It just depends; it's all based on whatever the teams agree to. For most loans the team losing the player covers at least part of the wages.

For instance, last year we loaned Sancho to BVB for half a season. In that time he made £250k per week * 26 weeks = £6.5M, but BVB only paid us £4M as a loan fee. So we used that to offset some of his wages, but we paid about 40% of Sancho's wages despite him being on another team.

If you're asking if a loan necessitates paying wages, then no it absolutely does not. You can loan out a player and be responsible for all their wages still. For instance Antony is on £200k a week and he's worth nowhere near that. If we found a team willing to take him on loan we'd be lucky if they'd be willing to pay half his wage during the loan period.
 
bb8 said:
It just depends; it's all based on whatever the teams agree to. For most loans the team losing the player covers at least part of the wages.

For instance, last year we loaned Sancho to BVB for half a season. In that time he made £250k per week * 26 weeks = £6.5M, but BVB only paid us £4M as a loan fee. So we used that to offset some of his wages, but we paid about 40% of Sancho's wages despite him being on another team.

If you're asking if a loan necessitates paying wages, then no it absolutely does not. You can loan a player and be responsible for all their wages still. For instance Antony is on £200k a week and he's worth nowhere near that. If we found a team willing to take him on loan we'd be lucky if they'd be willing to pay half his wage during the loan period.
Click to expand...
You only subsidise wages if a) the other club can't afford to pay the wage you currently give the player and/or b) you're keen to get at least some of their wages off the payroll. I really don't see either being the case between us and PSG. I think its a safe bet we're paying his wages on this one.
 
quadrant said:
You only subsidise wages if a) the other club can't afford to pay the wage you currently give the player and/or b) you're keen to get at least some of their wages off the payroll. I really don't see either being the case between us and PSG. I think its a safe bet we're paying his wages on this one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. The loan fee is very likely to be the total cost of his wages (currently about £5M actually) this year. My disagreement was with this statement you made: "Indeed since there is, presumably, a loan fee involved, it would mean we've essentially paid more in total that if we just bought him this summer. So unless we truly couldn't afford him, or there's some other financial incentive we're not party to, it feels like a much worse deal if we don't use the opportunity it affords us."

Consider two examples:

Loan to buy:

24/25 season: £5M loan fee. After the year we pay £50M transfer fee and Ugarte signs a 4 year contract thereafter for say £8M wages a year
25/26 season: £8M wages: £12.5M fee amortization
24/27 season: £8M wages: £12.5M fee amortization
24/28 season: £8M wages: £12.5M fee amortization
24/29 season: £8M wages: £12.5M fee amortization
Total cost: £87M; £17.4M per season

Immediate purchase for £50M transfer fee and Ugarte signs a 5 year contract thereafter for £8M wages a year:

24/25 season: £8M wages: £10M fee amortization
25/26 season: £8M wages: £10M fee amortization
24/27 season: £8M wages: £10M fee amortization
24/28 season: £8M wages: £10M fee amortization
24/29 season: £8M wages: £10M fee amortization
Total cost: £90M; £18M per season

There need not be additional cost to loan him for a season then buy him. And there's a potential benefit:

A "loan with obligation", contrary to popular belief, can have conditions which if not met mean we don't have to buy the player. This could protect us from downside scenarios (e.g., Ugarte getting hurt or falling out of favor), and I'm assuming is a big part of what we're currently negotiating on. An immediate transfer doesn't have this downside protection.

If you think my math is wrong please show me how, but I see zero additional cost associated with loan w/ obligation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: top1whoisman
bb8 said:
What is the difference exactly? Since players are eligible to sign professional contracts once they turned 17, I assumed everyone 17+ for the most part was on standard contracts (equivalent to the first-team, but with less money of course) and then just gets assigned to play for the U18s or U21s informally. Didn't think there was necessarily any distinction in contracts.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t referring to any difference in contract. Merely trying to get an idea of how close he would be to first team football.

Seems he, like that Arsenal striker Obi-Martin(?), will mostly be in the u-23s, but be emergency backups for the first team in case of injury crises, and/or have an outside chance at seeing a debut and minutes in cup games.
 
Italian clubs are pathetic in the transfer market - we shouldn’t even entertain them. They’ll probably be looking for a four year loan with an option to buy, which they will turn down.
 
We aren't accepting loan with obligation* (with conditions) .. So Juve can look elsewhere and stop wasting everyones time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.