It’s the stupid PSR rules with homegrown talent meaning 100% profit if sold. The PSR rules are needed to stop the likes of Newcastle but that element of PSR needs revising. It shouldn’t take the sale of youth players to keep clubs above the limits.
Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2024/25
- Thread starter mazhar13
- Start date
It’s the stupid PSR rules with homegrown talent meaning 100% profit if sold. The PSR rules are needed to stop the likes of Newcastle but that element of PSR needs revising. It shouldn’t take the sale of youth players to keep clubs above the limits.
Maybe said clubs shouldn't be spending themselves into the wrong side of PSR.
Great they can feck off with their lowballing offer then.
Or include Kvara as part of the deal.
Isn't he going to PSG?
Absolutely. It encourages teams to offload youth and needs to be reconsidered
Weve already shipped alvaro and kambwala. No real guarantee we wouldn't have just been better off keeping them. Not sure they met that criteria but an example of types of players who could
Enjoy Werner
Offloading all of Greenwood, Rashford and Mctominay earlier would have been beneficial.
Until it's confirmed by both parties, we still have hope.
EDIT: Looks like its finalised
Last edited:
Still hoping for Kolo-Muani/David and Douglas Luiz loan if we could move those two on
They just got €70m Kvara and low balling us with €40m
Yeah the utter cheek of it
I'm not 100% set on Garnacho staying, but the offer needs to be high as it's not like we are desperate for him to leave like we are with Rashford.
The concern is he doesn't fit the system so his price could tumble the less he plays, but we definitely shouldn't be getting lowballed here considering left of contract and that he is still developing.
The concern is he doesn't fit the system so his price could tumble the less he plays, but we definitely shouldn't be getting lowballed here considering left of contract and that he is still developing.
Nonsense. We've got a roster full of overpaid players signed to poor contracts. That is the cause of our problems, not PSR rules.
And anyone who understands the PSR rules knows that the "homegrown players are pure profit" is essentially bollocks anyway. It's true only on a one year time horizon. Look at a multi-year time horizon and it makes zero difference to PSR calculations whether you're homegrown or not. Only short term thinking teams (aka us most of the time) are operating on one-year timelines with most of their decisions.
Sheesh I wish folks would understand the PSR rules before posting. It's absolutely not true that homegrown players are any more "profit" than other players except on a one year time horizon. And clubs that think like that deserve to lose.
Look, you got a guy that you previously paid £50M for and signed to a 5 year contract. Transfer fees spent by a club get amortized over the lifetime of the contract (max of 5 years) for PSR purposes. He's got 3 years left on his deal; that means you're amortizing the remaining £30M at £10M per. If you sell him, the whole £30M hits the books immediately. This is a short term "loss" for PSR, but only in the first year. In years two and three, you've no longer got the £10M per season amortized. So all in all, you come out the same; previous transfer fees are a sunk cost.
That means we'd get exactly the same PSR benefit of selling Garnacho for £50M as say Holljund. We'd be better off selling Garnacho in year 1, but better off having sold Holjund in subsequent years. On net, they'd be exactly the same.
Please, please don't listen to anyone who say "homegrown players are pure profit". They either don't understand the rules, or don't get how a club ought to make these decisions.
But it’s precisely why clubs are selling youth players because there is no amortised cost to hit the P&L. So my statement is correct because clubs are looking to sell youth players to get around the rules. Maybe you can disagree that the rules need revising but ultimately clubs are getting around the rules by selling youth players first. That’s how Chelsea in particular are able to maintain large transfer funds every summer, even with no European football.
INEOS have not invested much money into United and seem increasingly like Glazers v2.0 by selling off our assets, slashing salaries and letting go of staff. Should have gotten the Arabs’ fundings
Haven't you just explained how they are pure profit vs a player who still has an amortised transfer fee? Also getting the money on the books immediately which you can the invest in multiple amortised deal does help clubs.
In your example, you have an extra 50m on the books today vs 20m. Also PSR is locked at over a three year period so last year isn't exactly old news.
Surely that invalidates your point or have I missed something?
They’ve put money into the club and bought their shares.
Something the Glazers haven’t, as they loaded debt to buy onto the club and only ever taken money out.
Then there’s the whole INEOS are minority investors.
Am not exactly sure what you are expecting, a premier league owner can only invest a maximum of £35m per year in their club, this is amortised over any 3 year accounting period for PSR, INEOS have invested £90m on top of the $1.3bn used to buy the initial stake + a further $500m in additional shares.
Even if they could why would INEOS put any more money into a club in which Ratcliffe only owns 27.7%?, especially as supposedly the Glazer's could force Ratcliffe to sell before the end of 2025 if they want to.
The only other options available to INEOS (other than the efficiency measures they have taken) would be to take out more debt, or do a citeh and manufacture a dodgy sponsorship deal, but again why would they throw money into a club in which other parties will just reap the benefits.
This is a power game, within a few years Ratcliffe will force the Glazer's to sell more to him, until then Ratcliffe is putting plans in place to build a new stadium and redevelop the entire area, funnily enough that will not happen over night.
And technically it is Ratcliffe's not INEOS investing
Yeah I agree. I have doubts about his ceiling and his position in the team. However, we are talking about a bright young prospect who has played a couple seasons in the premier league for Man United, and a very popular player. At 20 we should be demanding more.
I appreciate your detailed post, but it doesn't contradict anything we said. Right now, its more in Uniteds interest to sell garnacho than hojlund even if both commanded the same fee
What an utterly clueless post
Any kop?
Wasn't this restriction only for players of a certain age?
I thought the restriction is on how many players you can bring in on loan, not on how many you can loan out. Chelsea have had dozens of players out on loan over the years.
I believe Ratcliffe transfered all his shares from Trawlers Ltd to Ineos in December, so Ineos now owns around 29% of Utd.
There are a lot of posts on PSR here and this season 24/25 could be the very last for a new three year rolling period from 22/23 season, 23/24 and then 24/25 season.
The EPL is trying to bring in a new Squad Ratio Rule which is almost identical to UEFA Squad Cost Control which is Annex K of their FSR where any club competing in a UEFA tournament can only Spend 70% of their overall Revenue on player wages, net transfer costs and Agent Fees from 2025/26 season. This year the limit was 80%.
The EPL is rumoured to want an 80% cap with an 4.5 times multiplier anchoring factor on the media revenue received.
So if Saints were bottom in 24/25 season but received £105m merit money from TV sponsors then teams could spend £472.5m on wages, agent fees and net transfers providing that figure was still only 80% of the club’s revenue.
This is why United and City are the two clubs most vehemently against this proposal because 80% of £660-720m is greater than the anchoring rule suggested.
All 20 PL Clubs have passed the 3 year from 21/22 to 23/24 season, most just don’t want to spend any huge cash outlays right now in an uncertain market.
SJR and INEOS have 29% stake, control of footballing matters and yet we are half way through the window, have no strikers that can score goals, have no left footed full backs/Wing backs and overseen a club with 23 points from 20 EPL games, they want at least one of Mainoo or Garnaucho sold, definitely want rid of Casemiro, Eriksen and Rashford sold and we have no incomings to try and galvanise the squad. PSR is not relevant to United this season especially after selling £60m worth of players in Greenwood and Mctominay who will both count in 24/25 accounts.
I think we can safely say that SJR and INEOS record of initially ruining football clubs before raising them to football mediocrity is well underway!
The EPL is trying to bring in a new Squad Ratio Rule which is almost identical to UEFA Squad Cost Control which is Annex K of their FSR where any club competing in a UEFA tournament can only Spend 70% of their overall Revenue on player wages, net transfer costs and Agent Fees from 2025/26 season. This year the limit was 80%.
The EPL is rumoured to want an 80% cap with an 4.5 times multiplier anchoring factor on the media revenue received.
So if Saints were bottom in 24/25 season but received £105m merit money from TV sponsors then teams could spend £472.5m on wages, agent fees and net transfers providing that figure was still only 80% of the club’s revenue.
This is why United and City are the two clubs most vehemently against this proposal because 80% of £660-720m is greater than the anchoring rule suggested.
All 20 PL Clubs have passed the 3 year from 21/22 to 23/24 season, most just don’t want to spend any huge cash outlays right now in an uncertain market.
SJR and INEOS have 29% stake, control of footballing matters and yet we are half way through the window, have no strikers that can score goals, have no left footed full backs/Wing backs and overseen a club with 23 points from 20 EPL games, they want at least one of Mainoo or Garnaucho sold, definitely want rid of Casemiro, Eriksen and Rashford sold and we have no incomings to try and galvanise the squad. PSR is not relevant to United this season especially after selling £60m worth of players in Greenwood and Mctominay who will both count in 24/25 accounts.
I think we can safely say that SJR and INEOS record of initially ruining football clubs before raising them to football mediocrity is well underway!
How many clubs have they ruined?
Less than a year in? Seems a bit reactionary.
Chelsea had over 20 players on loan not so long ago
You get more money available immediately from selling homegrown players, but less in future years. The net is the exact same. There is no benefit overall, no extra profit.
It's not a good strategy to use, and to the extent clubs want to make a mistake by selling their cheap young players for a short term benefit, it's very likely to end horribly. It's not something that needs correcting as in actuality it hurts most teams that use it.
Not if the club is run well it isn't. It makes zero sense for United to be run with such short term thinking, particularly with the season we're having.
Again, over a three year period there is ZERO extra profit from selling Garnacho vs Holjund. If INEOS is making decisions only based on how it impacts the rest of this season then we are in big, big trouble.
If you buy Casemiro for £60m and sell for £30m that still cost you £30m regardless of how his contract is amortised.