Transfer Tweets - Summer 2017 | Keep it on topic

Rusholme Ruffian said:
My take is that we have a limited budget with which to make all 4 signings and thought that we could get Perisic for about £35 million (which is probably around his market value if he was being transferred to another Italian club). Inter are playing hardball and we're now a bit stuck as overspending on Perisic would mean we can't afford our other signing. Perisic himself was probably seen as something of a 'budget solution' to allow us to spend big on Lukaku.

Hence Mourinho's recent comment about maybe now only being able to sign 3 of our targets.

Frustrating (if true) given that we are the most profitable club in the world, but I know many won't hear a bad word said about our owners...
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Even if there was a budget set for "summer '17" which placed Perisic's value at, say £35m, I've never heard of any suggestion that the budgets cant be flexed a little bit and reconciled in subsequent windows.

I'd highly expect that, if the original budget didn't allow for an extra £10-15m in the first place, it would just be revised against subsequent transfer windows. Particularly as, in Jose's eyes, that £10-15m could be the difference between mounting a title challenge and not.
 
finneh said:
The reason we're the most profitable club in the world ....
Click to expand...

Are you even the most profitable club in the Prem (never mind the world)?

Over the last two seasons for which there are published accounts (as far as I'm aware) - 2014-15 + 2015-16 - Spurs made more profits than United: £50m vs £45m. Even Leicester City made only £3m less profit than United over that period.

Of course there may be more recently published accounts of which I'm not aware ...

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club
 
Rusholme Ruffian said:
My take is that we have a limited budget with which to make all 4 signings and thought that we could get Perisic for about £35 million (which is probably around his market value if he was being transferred to another Italian club). Inter are playing hardball and we're now a bit stuck as overspending on Perisic would mean we can't afford our other signing. Perisic himself was probably seen as something of a 'budget solution' to allow us to spend big on Lukaku.

Hence Mourinho's recent comment about maybe now only being able to sign 3 of our targets.

Frustrating (if true) given that we are the most profitable club in the world, but I know many won't hear a bad word said about our owners...
Click to expand...

I am a fan of Perisic and Matic. Contrary to what seems like popular opinion here, I do think they will both make us strong title contenders. However, I am entirely supportive of Woodward's stance and methods in the negotiations. We need to be tough. Once clubs perceive us as ever willing to over pay, we will be in trouble in the long term. I love the way we told Madrid to stuff it. We must never allow any club to bully or blackmail us in any way.

I am sure there are other substitutes for those roles.
 
Last edited:
GlastonSpur said:
Are you even the most profitable club in the Prem (never mind the world)?

Over the last two seasons for which there are published accounts (as far as I'm aware) - 2014-15 + 2015-16 - Spurs made more profits than United: £50m vs £45m. Even Leicester City made only £3m less profit than United over that period.

Of course there may be more recently published accounts of which I'm not aware ...

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club
Click to expand...
Errrrmmmm last year Spurs made a pre-tax profit of £38m, ours was £49m.
 
Dion said:
Errrrmmmm last year Spurs made a pre-tax profit of £38m, ours was £49m.
Click to expand...

Yes, and over the last 2 years - in other words over a longer and thus more indicative period - Spurs profits were higher. Or if you wish to look at the last 3 years of published accounts, Spurs profits after interest and tax include an additional £65m.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Yes, and over the last 2 years - in other words over a longer and thus more indicative period - Spurs profits were higher. Or if you wish to look at the last 3 years of published accounts, Spurs profits after interest and tax include an additional £65m.
Click to expand...
Except the figures you quoted for Man Utd were a single year. Over 2 or 3 years it's not even close.
 
Dion said:
Except the figures you quoted for Man Utd were a single year. Over 2 or 3 years it's not even close.
Click to expand...

No, the figures I quoted were over 2 years, as my post made clear. Over 3 years the profits-gap grows even wider in Spurs favour.
 
Is it a surprise that Utd post slightly less profi than Spurs when weve spent 300m odd over three years while Spurs cant afford shit? On top of no Cl and on top of paying off 2 managers?
Glaston and his Utd finance obsession..
 
GlastonSpur said:
Yes, and over the last 2 years - in other words over a longer and thus more indicative period - Spurs profits were higher. Or if you wish to look at the last 3 years of published accounts, Spurs profits after interest and tax include an additional £65m.
Click to expand...

Is there a debate about the financial power between United and Spurs?
 
Cantonagotmehere said:
Is there a debate about the financial power between United and Spurs?
Click to expand...

There's a few posts concerning the subject of profit (as distinct from income etc.) ... which is entirely obvious from the posts concerned, as I'm sure you already know.
 
Saf94 said:
You do realise we didnt sign Morata because of a price difference right? And that's with Mou claiming multiple times that he wanted him
Click to expand...

Morata was just smokescreen for Lukaku's move, I personnally suspect that we would have bought him even if Real agreed for 50-55m pounds.In my opinion he is bit overrated, only 40 goals in his career is little bit weak stat for a leading striker in the biggest club in the world with tendency to be the best.He is very technical and talented but also lacks pace and who knows how he will adapt do premier league.

50m pounds for Perisic is way to much, even for today transfer market.The main problem in my opinion is the principles of the clubs towards United and from this summer all English clubs.They look us as money machine which they can milk.Maybe it's little too late to return the reputation, but that's some statement from the club that they won't be played.

The main question is, don't they have alternative for Perisic(despite his qualities)?They could've gotten Willian for 40-45m if they tried.He loves Mou, can play on both wings and is PL proven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sultan
Fensa#08 said:
Morata was just smokescreen for Lukaku's move, I personnally suspect that we would have bought him even if Real agreed for 50-55m pounds.In my opinion he is bit overrated, only 40 goals in his career is little bit weak stat for a leading striker in the biggest club in the world with tendency to be the best.He is very technical and talented but also lacks pace and who knows how he will adapt do premier league.

50m pounds for Perisic is way to much, even for today transfer market.The main problem in my opinion is the principles of the clubs towards United and from this summer all English clubs.They look us as money machine which they can milk.Maybe it's little too late to return the reputation, but that's some statement from the club that they won't be played.

The main question is, don't they have alternative for Perisic(despite his qualities)?They could've gotten Willian for 40-45m if they tried.He loves Mou, can play on both wings and is PL proven.
Click to expand...

What makes you think Chelsea will even sell him considering they are even reluctant to sell matic for less than £50m. They will surely demand somewhere £60m. Also, dont think willian is any longer looking to move
 
El-Manos said:
If there's shite in a thread and you'd want to blow off your head, that's Glastoooooonnnnnn
Click to expand...

I've simply pointed out that United over the last 3 year-period of published accounts (maybe longer since I've haven't checked) have not been the most profitable club in England (let alone the world). Instead of acknowledging this, the response has been a variety of obtuse and silly posts.

It seems that some posters can't bear have to incorrect assertions questioned.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I've simply pointed out that United over the last 3 year-period of published accounts (maybe longer since I've haven't checked) have not been the most profitable club in England (let alone the world). Instead of acknowledging this, the response has been a variety of obtuse and silly posts.

It seems that some posters can't bear have to incorrect assertions questioned.
Click to expand...
I didn't make any recent assertions pet. You're renowned for being one the least sensible posters around so I don't take anything you say too seriously to be honest. However in regards to your latest rant, unlike yourself I am no financial expert so I will sit this one out.
 
El-Manos said:
I didn't make any recent assertions pet. You're renowned for being one the least sensible posters around so I don't take anything you say too seriously to be honest. However in regards to your latest rant, unlike yourself I am no financial expert so I will sit this one out.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't ... but the posts I replied to did, if you'd bothered to actually read them before wading in with your waste-of-space post, pet.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Are you even the most profitable club in the Prem (never mind the world)?

Over the last two seasons for which there are published accounts (as far as I'm aware) - 2014-15 + 2015-16 - Spurs made more profits than United: £50m vs £45m. Even Leicester City made only £3m less profit than United over that period.

Of course there may be more recently published accounts of which I'm not aware ...

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club
Click to expand...
Oh God

He's at it again.

You can have the 'most profitable club in the league title'. No one cares.
 
SATA said:
Why isn't Glastonspur banned yet? I wouldn't mind opposition fans here at all but his posts are just so annoyingly tiresome
Click to expand...
They are very good opposition fans on here, and the more the merrier.

But when your sole reason of being on a rival forum is to just pick silly arguments, one needs a serious look at their priorities. The only thing he does now is derail any thread he enters.
 
manunited1919 said:
Players have too much power.
Arsenal should tell PSG to feck off, and then tell Alexis to sign a new deal or head to the reserves on a WC year.
Click to expand...

He is in the last year of his contract. This is not an abuse of power, he is perfectly entitled to do what he is doing. So are Arsenal, for that matter. If he stays at Arsenal, he is not going to go on strike or something.

I doubt he would be so inflexible wrt wages if it was Madrid or Barca. But he probably feels that going to PSG, who are by no means CL favorites themselves, he might as well make it worth his while.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Are you even the most profitable club in the Prem (never mind the world)?

Over the last two seasons for which there are published accounts (as far as I'm aware) - 2014-15 + 2015-16 - Spurs made more profits than United: £50m vs £45m. Even Leicester City made only £3m less profit than United over that period.

Of course there may be more recently published accounts of which I'm not aware ...

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club
Click to expand...

In terms of our ability to spend only Real Madrid come close. Which makes sense as we have the highest turnover and the lowest wage to turnover ratio.

8%2BChelsea%2BEBITDA%2BLeague%2B2016.jpg


Real Madrid as the next closest reporting £145m.

Including player sales in overall profitably is a bit bizarre in my view as they're somewhat exceptional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.