Our budget is whatever INEOS decide it will be. There have been a few articles which lay out how we could spend anything from 4M to 400M this summer without any PSR concerns, we have any number of ways to increase the budget should we want to. The issue which constrains our spending is the appetite of our ownership to spend and commit their own resources to the club. I get the feeling INEOS will not be careless with money but do understand that we need to act responsibly moving forward, we have been the silly money for too long now and so we need to shake that reputation. We will never reveal how much we could spend anyway as that just invites selling clubs to gouge us, far better to plead poverty and plant multiple stories that we are struggling with PSR.
United's transfer budget and current FFP/PSR concerns
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
Our budget is whatever INEOS decide it will be. There have been a few articles which lay out how we could spend anything from 4M to 400M this summer without any PSR concerns, we have any number of ways to increase the budget should we want to. The issue which constrains our spending is the appetite of our ownership to spend and commit their own resources to the club. I get the feeling INEOS will not be careless with money but do understand that we need to act responsibly moving forward, we have been the silly money for too long now and so we need to shake that reputation. We will never reveal how much we could spend anyway as that just invites selling clubs to gouge us, far better to plead poverty and plant multiple stories that we are struggling with PSR.
I don't think large businesses work like that, throwing caution to the wind.
No avoiding that under the rules.
It’s only one quarter and one where we had some non PSR expenses and (per article) had a lot less home games. I think the quarter also includes the £30m+ (!) costs that we paid for the Glazers to sell some shares to SJR.. and they’re “one off” (below linked tweet references this and also that we’re expecting strong turnover… which various other sites say including US financial sites).
We’re fine… which is odd because MEN make it sound like a disaster and it’s not like them to be negative.
But even if all rosy, we’re not chucking large fees at players… especially over rated ones.
From the MEN? Well I never! I stopped clicking on their articles a while ago after getting really frustrated at their clickbaityness. I think they're even worse than the other tabloids for it. They often post titles like "ETH finally speaks on Sancho issue" and the article is just a recap of what's happened and a quote from that says "I have no comments".
It is not possible for us to know because some of the relevant figures are not in the public domain. It also doesn't really matter (whether or not we, as fans, know).
We hear it every year. Should tell you how reliable they are.
Am I right thinking that spending on infrastructure, women and youth actually improves your PSR?
I could swear I heard that on the Athletic podcast.
Ornstein said yesterday that we are negotiating with bologna to pay a slightly higher fee than the release clause amount, so we can stage the payments over the duration of Zirkzee's contact. Having to pay the full £43mil in one go will limit us on other transfers we want to complete this summer.
Also it will be a one in one out process, we have to make sales i.e. VDB, Sancho, Greenwood etc.
Make of that what you will.
The primary responsibility for ensuring the financial health and stable operation of the club lies with its professional financial teams. These experts possess the necessary experience and knowledge to manage complex financial issues effectively. As fans, our main role is to support the team and revel in the excitement and passion that matches bring.
Moreover, concentrating on the club’s financial matters can lead to unnecessary anxiety and stress for fans. Football should be a source of entertainment and relaxation, not another cause for worry. By entrusting financial matters to the professionals, fans can enjoy matches with peace of mind, knowing that the club’s finances are in capable hands.
It's also worth noting that while some clubs have faced financial difficulties due to mismanagement, these are typically extreme cases. Most club management teams can learn from these failures and refine their financial practices. Over-worrying about such rare occurrences can detract from fans' ability to fully support and enjoy their team.
Last edited:
I know nothing of the finances involved, so as a layman, I would imagine long term it would be better for JR three year plan to buy two promote two and try and move at least three on a year, over the three years. With end of contracts coming for some of the players the moving on at least three should be easy and a good plan to keep within the FFP. We all know we wont challenge for the title next season, but the aim in the short term should be regular top 4.
Out of the 300k+ a week club Casemiro will probably be here till the end. I think if the Saudis wanted him and offering a lot more than Utd, he would be gone by now.
Dont know how long Sancho has left, but surely we will get rid with a lowball offer eventually. Being as JR didnt sign him, surely this is the best option.
Rashford will most likely run his contract down as well.
Out of the 300k+ a week club Casemiro will probably be here till the end. I think if the Saudis wanted him and offering a lot more than Utd, he would be gone by now.
Dont know how long Sancho has left, but surely we will get rid with a lowball offer eventually. Being as JR didnt sign him, surely this is the best option.
Rashford will most likely run his contract down as well.
very unrealiable.
I think that it is prudent that we are not hearing things like a £250m war chest for this summer. That nonsense always helped to drive the prices up.
exactly
Am I right in thinking that our FFP/PSR issues are mostly already solved due to the sales of Greenwood, Kambwala, and Álvaro Fernández?
These 3 cost us a combined €4m in transfer fees (All of it is Kambwala from Sochaux), and we've sold them for around £35m without any add-ons included, if I'm not mistaken. I assume these three sales have already greatly helped our situation, and should enable us to spend a lot of money this summer. I also think that these issues were overblown by the media in the first place, who didn't want to do proper research on our financial situation, and claiming an outrageously small number as the budget we are working with this summer was a surefire way to rile up some United fans and get some free clicks.
Also, if we offload McTominay to Fulham, that will be at least another £20m of "pure profit".
Zirkzee and Yoro are going to cost us £87m in base fees combined. With that and the departures in mind, I expect us to spend at least £200m again this summer, and wouldn't be surprised if the fees spent on incomings were actually closer to £300m than £200m in the end, so it would be a record window in terms of that, possibly even in terms of net spend. The current record spent in one summer is ~£227m in the summer of 2022, ETH's first window.
These 3 cost us a combined €4m in transfer fees (All of it is Kambwala from Sochaux), and we've sold them for around £35m without any add-ons included, if I'm not mistaken. I assume these three sales have already greatly helped our situation, and should enable us to spend a lot of money this summer. I also think that these issues were overblown by the media in the first place, who didn't want to do proper research on our financial situation, and claiming an outrageously small number as the budget we are working with this summer was a surefire way to rile up some United fans and get some free clicks.
Also, if we offload McTominay to Fulham, that will be at least another £20m of "pure profit".
Zirkzee and Yoro are going to cost us £87m in base fees combined. With that and the departures in mind, I expect us to spend at least £200m again this summer, and wouldn't be surprised if the fees spent on incomings were actually closer to £300m than £200m in the end, so it would be a record window in terms of that, possibly even in terms of net spend. The current record spent in one summer is ~£227m in the summer of 2022, ETH's first window.
But they were sold in the new FFP year (this one). The PSR concerns were about the year that just went, no?
I'm not sure, but even if you're right, 4 departures where we receive over £55m in fees on players we basically spent nothing on should give us a lot of additional space, even if we don't necessarily need it right now, right?
I dont think this financial was as much of an issue. It was about how close we were in the previous deadline. I could be wrong though.
Well, 400m was what we had for previous season, until we wasted it on Antony, Casemiro, Mount.
Every purchase we make will be in the range of 50-100m, as soon as we make an enquiry, an extra 0 will be added, but this is life. So 2-3 new players will easily push us into the region of 200m
we are really in a very good position both in relation to the PSR/SCR (europe) or the FER (PL).
Excellent analysis! Thanks for sharing
Yes great analysis, Rumble is a poster here too, but forgot what was his username.
Edit now I remember it's @Messier1994
That's very promising reading.
I pray for once we actually sell well this summer. There's a lot potential finances to be freed up with AWB, Maguire, Lindelof, Mctominay, Eriksen, Casemiro, Antony, Rashford, Sancho.
I'm convinced we could overhaul nearly half the squad in one summer, we just never manage to offload the players we want to offload, and teams generally view it as too big a risk to have too much squad turnover in terms of ins/outs.
When your team has just finished 8th though, that's not the time to prioritise continuity. The bolder we are in re-shaping the age profile and quality of the squad the better.
Thanks great insight
A useful/simple example on the financial impact of keeping a player vs selling - obviously every case is different (fee, wages, worth to team, contract remaining, home grown or not, etc).
It’s not “I wouldn’t sell McT.. he’s worth more than £17m”, it’s “what does he cost to keep vs PSR benefit of selling?”. Ineos/Berrada are smart and experienced in this and business in general and I’m sure we’ll be fine… Chelsea maybe not!
It’s not “I wouldn’t sell McT.. he’s worth more than £17m”, it’s “what does he cost to keep vs PSR benefit of selling?”. Ineos/Berrada are smart and experienced in this and business in general and I’m sure we’ll be fine… Chelsea maybe not!
Someone comes up with we can spend £500M no problem, someone else comes up with we can't spend anymore unless we sell first.
Suggesting that no one has a fecking clue.
Suggesting that no one has a fecking clue.
People do have a clue, it's all laid out in that post above on Twitter from "The Swedish Rumble'.
The club are pushing the "finances are tight" narrative because it helps with negotiations.
Surprisingly, entering negotiations for players by saying "we can do things in the transfer market other clubs can only dream of" is NOT a great negotiating tactic.
If it's easy to discover that United can in fact spend a ton, then the club saying otherwise is worthless for negotiating purposes, assuming other clubs aren't complete idiots.
But it's all a game isn't it, a charade. Its about resetting our image as a club, sending a message by drawing a line in the sand and saying "the days of us being the stupid money are over, we're a professional outfit now".
Lying in a way that is easily discoverable doesn't really scream professional to me. It's just media noise.
What have we actually paid up front this summer? We've got that rolling credit facility (such a fancy term for an overdraft) which INEOS paid quite a bit off when they came into their quarter ownership.
I don't believe we are incapable of buying players until we sell. It's maybe more a question of risk, do we not dare acquire players before we sell for fear we end up not being able to shift them? I mean, the money (credit) is there
I don't believe we are incapable of buying players until we sell. It's maybe more a question of risk, do we not dare acquire players before we sell for fear we end up not being able to shift them? I mean, the money (credit) is there
Last edited:
But there are multiple ways to validate the statement:
- It is true that with 21/22 exceptional losses now dropping out of the three year rolling PSR cycle, the club no longer have any meaningful PSR concerns. That expired as of June 30th and the end of the 23/24 financial year.
- It is also true that PSR isn’t the only factor in determining our ability to buy players. So a narrative of needing to “sell to buy”, which maybe isn’t true, is still easy to justify to external stakeholders.
- Cash flow is one such determinant. United have ongoing operational costs, transfer obligations, and debt repayments. A lack of cash on hand is a valid reasoning for restricting spending, even if only a small portion of any fees are payable up front.
- Sustainable accounting. Internal managerial accounting is effectively subject to whatever we want it to say. If our business plan requires that in order to be sustainably profitable, we have to tether transfer amortisation and wage costs to 55% of turnover (for example), then it is easy for us to say that we have to sell to buy. Whilst we may technically be able to buy without selling, our internal controls and targets preclude us from exceeding that number. Hence we have to negotiate lower fees and wages.
When taking this position with other clubs, it might be a mixture of fact and fiction, or it might be all one or all the other. We will likely never know. But that isn’t important. What is important is that the club narrative is that we need to sell to buy and/or we have limited funds. This is a position designed to break the viscous cycle of us overpaying in player acquisition costs and wages. The club have multiple mechanisms by which they can back that position up, it doesn’t just come down to whether our rivals have read Swedish Rumble or not.
The relationship between incomings and outgoings will be undeniably complex, not just from a financial perspective but from a strategic perspective. Best not to speculate, because we don’t have enough data.
What happens if we just say screw it ,and spent £150 m more than we are allowed? If it's just a fine and a 3 or 6 point deduction, who cares. We aren't going to win the league and finishing 4th is going to be a battle between Chelsea, Spurs , Villa, Newcastle and us no matter who we bring in. Just get the best young players we can, write this season off and come back next year with much better team that can actually challenge for titles.
Banned for Euro cups possibly, if you break UEFA regulations. Consider that the CL is lucrative.
Biggest FFP singular fines apparently around 50-60m. I know it's not our money but you're asking INEOS (or the club itself) to eat a penalty on all that additional spending.
Ten points separated being 4th or 8th this season.
It's really not worth it, honestly, even if FiCheMe wanted to just splurge uncontrollably (which I doubt).
Last edited:
I guess it depends on the penalty. I thought Everton and Forest only got point deductions, not European bans and millions in fines.
Magic Hat's tweet proved to be complete bollocks 
We're posting losses and making redundancies. People are barking up completely the wrong tree thinking the reduced spending is down to FFP.
I know what the tweet said above but I’m still convinced we don’t have a pot to piss in at the moment
The tweets above are all about what we 'could spend' through FFP/PSR. Saying it's 'a disgrace' if we don't spend towards the limits is nonsense. Brighton could spend loads under FFP, doesn't mean they go and do it.
I remember reading about our finances a few months back and I said they look dire. I think it will be a year of getting things back under control to be able to spend bigger in the future.
Im no expert on all this but I'm pretty certain we won't see a massive net spend while we are making 250 redundancies.