They’re after Neymar aren’t they? Won’t get Pogba as well if they succeed.
Why is Woodward not spending more?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
Because the club know we've got Greenwood, Gomes, Garner, Laird et al primed and ready to show everybody else how to play football, innit?
Who to?
How many people, or states, going to throw £4bn at them? Public float unlikely to meet that return given the state of markets.
I agree, but maybe if they offload Bale and James could still pull it off.
There’s still some three weeks of transfer window left so a lot can happen.
Even if these kids are the real deal, they won’t be making any substantive impact this season.
Most we can expect from them and James this season is to make up numbers in the fringe games and cups
because hes been given a tight budget by the Glazers
they are the ones who have no interest in Manchester United as a football team - hes just their richly rewarded frontman at the club
they are the ones who have no interest in Manchester United as a football team - hes just their richly rewarded frontman at the club
Probably about right. Seems like they didn't spend last year because they figured Jose was likely to implode. If they weren't sure one of the all time great managers would last the whole season last year, they might have been reluctant to buy too many players that Ole wanted his first window. The 2 defensive recruits we brought in were needed regardless of whether Ole remained at the wheel all this season. I hate it but I get it.
Well it will have to be one of those oil states or sheiks. Despite dropping in the table we’re still a massive brand. Saudi Arabia spent billions on WWE and UFC just to get a video package praising their country on the telecast. Manchester United is a bigger brand worldwide than both of them.
Disclaimer that not an accountant so might be schooled here, but looks like it's because we're paying for the previous windows. We took a shot at it in terms of massive investment and missed. We're rich enough in that we can recover but think it's questionable that we can just write it off and instantly go again.
Last Annual accounts we had £242m in the bank, but owed a lot to other clubs in trade payables (basically future installments)
June 2018
Trade payables include transfer fees and other associated costs in relation to the acquisition of registrations of £258,316,000 (2017: £179,133,000) of which £102,067,000 (2017: £82,866,000) is due after more than one year. Of the amount due after more than one year, £65,495,000 (2017: £76,821,000) is expected to be paid between 1 and 2 years, and the balance of £36,572,000 (2017: £6,045,000) is expected to be paid between 2 and 5 years.
Net trade receivables include transfer fees receivable from other football clubs of £29,214,000 (2017: £46,343,000) of which £4,724,000 (2017: £15,399,000) is receivable after more than one year.
(Page f-40 and f-43 https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/documents/2018-mu-plc-form-20-f.pdf)
March 2019
We had £193.855m in bank, but
Trade payables include transfer fees and other associated costs in relation to the acquisition of registrations of £122,281,000 (30 June 2018: £258,316,000; 31 March 2018: £194,924,000) of which £43,698,000 (30 June 2018: £102,067,000; 31 March 2018: £74,600,000) is due after more than one year. Of the amount due after more than one year, £32,767,000 (30 June 2018: £65,495,000; 31 March 2018: £41,117,000) is expected to be paid between 1 and 2 years, and the balance of £10,931,000 (30 June 2018: £36,572,000; 31 March 2018: £33,483,000) is expected to be paid between 2 and 5 years.
Net trade receivables include transfer fees receivable from other football clubs of £22,802,000 (30 June 2018: £29,214,000; 31 March 2018: £31,359,000) of which £9,964,000 (30 June 2018: £4,724,000; 31 March 2018: £5,618,000) is receivable after more than one year.
Page 32 and 34
https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/Governance Document/manchester-united-plc-3q19-interim-report.pdf
So basically in the 9 months following June 2018 where at the time they had £242m in cash, the club would have had £156.249m transfer debt due within one year owed to other football clubs, with only £24.490m owed to us from other clubs.
The position as per the last quaterlys (Mar 2019) was that we've paid off a good chunk of that but still with £193.855m in cash, we owe £78.583m within one year, with only £12.838m coming back this year.
And as said the above is future staged installments, as opposed to upfront payments and it's to be differentiated from amortisation (so actual cash leaving as opposed to asset value written off).
Per Swissramble's recent thread on twitter:
https://twitter.com/SwissRamble
(I can't post links as a newbie but click on his link dated 6th august, well worth a look as he breaks down comparisons of spending over last 3,5,10 years between the clubs, and lots of pretty graphs comparing this "transfer debt" to other clubs,
As you can hopefully see, other clubs are following suit in terms of going stage payments and so its normal practice to a degree now but I'd imagine it's still a concern that they wanted to arrest,
£34m gross transfer debt in Jun 2013 rising to £258m gross (229m net) in Jun 2018 is pretty alarming, an awful lot more than our competitors (Man City is next gross highest at £141m,but they have £80m receiveable so net transfer debt £61m) and and likely to impair us to some degree when the outlay's not exactly provided the expected return on investment. As said, Swissramble's link shows it clearer.
Last Annual accounts we had £242m in the bank, but owed a lot to other clubs in trade payables (basically future installments)
June 2018
Trade payables include transfer fees and other associated costs in relation to the acquisition of registrations of £258,316,000 (2017: £179,133,000) of which £102,067,000 (2017: £82,866,000) is due after more than one year. Of the amount due after more than one year, £65,495,000 (2017: £76,821,000) is expected to be paid between 1 and 2 years, and the balance of £36,572,000 (2017: £6,045,000) is expected to be paid between 2 and 5 years.
Net trade receivables include transfer fees receivable from other football clubs of £29,214,000 (2017: £46,343,000) of which £4,724,000 (2017: £15,399,000) is receivable after more than one year.
(Page f-40 and f-43 https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/documents/2018-mu-plc-form-20-f.pdf)
March 2019
We had £193.855m in bank, but
Trade payables include transfer fees and other associated costs in relation to the acquisition of registrations of £122,281,000 (30 June 2018: £258,316,000; 31 March 2018: £194,924,000) of which £43,698,000 (30 June 2018: £102,067,000; 31 March 2018: £74,600,000) is due after more than one year. Of the amount due after more than one year, £32,767,000 (30 June 2018: £65,495,000; 31 March 2018: £41,117,000) is expected to be paid between 1 and 2 years, and the balance of £10,931,000 (30 June 2018: £36,572,000; 31 March 2018: £33,483,000) is expected to be paid between 2 and 5 years.
Net trade receivables include transfer fees receivable from other football clubs of £22,802,000 (30 June 2018: £29,214,000; 31 March 2018: £31,359,000) of which £9,964,000 (30 June 2018: £4,724,000; 31 March 2018: £5,618,000) is receivable after more than one year.
Page 32 and 34
https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/Governance Document/manchester-united-plc-3q19-interim-report.pdf
So basically in the 9 months following June 2018 where at the time they had £242m in cash, the club would have had £156.249m transfer debt due within one year owed to other football clubs, with only £24.490m owed to us from other clubs.
The position as per the last quaterlys (Mar 2019) was that we've paid off a good chunk of that but still with £193.855m in cash, we owe £78.583m within one year, with only £12.838m coming back this year.
And as said the above is future staged installments, as opposed to upfront payments and it's to be differentiated from amortisation (so actual cash leaving as opposed to asset value written off).
Per Swissramble's recent thread on twitter:
https://twitter.com/SwissRamble
(I can't post links as a newbie but click on his link dated 6th august, well worth a look as he breaks down comparisons of spending over last 3,5,10 years between the clubs, and lots of pretty graphs comparing this "transfer debt" to other clubs,
As you can hopefully see, other clubs are following suit in terms of going stage payments and so its normal practice to a degree now but I'd imagine it's still a concern that they wanted to arrest,
£34m gross transfer debt in Jun 2013 rising to £258m gross (229m net) in Jun 2018 is pretty alarming, an awful lot more than our competitors (Man City is next gross highest at £141m,but they have £80m receiveable so net transfer debt £61m) and and likely to impair us to some degree when the outlay's not exactly provided the expected return on investment. As said, Swissramble's link shows it clearer.
I'm not sure it's even an unwillingness to spend. Unless the last minute scrambles for Dybala and Eriksen were complete guff it looks more like an absence of strategy.
If Solskjaer really put Eriksen's name forward in March and we only discovered he prefers a move to Spain in the last couple of days then it's all a bit amateur hour.
If Solskjaer really put Eriksen's name forward in March and we only discovered he prefers a move to Spain in the last couple of days then it's all a bit amateur hour.
Gomes, chong and garner were all playing the efl game the other night. I am all for them playing loads of games but This idea that matic mata and co will not kick a ball this season while those 3 flourish and play most weeks is unfortunately a fantasy
Because since 2015, we’re only behind City in transfer spending and gone backwards the most. Surely something is fundamentally wrong and it’s not the spending.
Just trying to put a positive spin on it, saying that i'd expect James and Greenwood to be regulars in the matchday squads this season, and Gomes will probably alternate with Mata for a place in the 18 most weeks, the other two are probably 18 months/two years away but are considered precocious talents for their age.
Are we a bigger brand than WWE & UFC? We 'possibly' have more fans. However they both turn fans into hard cash so much better than we ever will.
Negotiating our own access to the American PPV & streaming markets is the only way our club can compete with those organisations. Probably the only way we can dominate English football again without Middle East investment.
No, in a word. Trade payables is everything from transfers to player wages, staff wages, stadium maintenance to the office milk orderS So its essentially a cashflow forecast, because obviously you pay everyone monthly. Thats offset by our operational incomes - when adidas gave us the kit sponsorship for 750m everyone has a magic idea they paid the lot in one big cheque. We now spread the cost of our transfer fees by amortising the asset value against the operational life of the assett - that means that for tax purposes you get to write off the entire transfer fee as an operational expenditure and more importantly for ffp you get to spread the reporting of your big 90m pogba transfer, his wages and the agent fees over the length of his contract - dont know the length off the top of my head but say its 5 years, and wages plus agent fees and transfer fee is 110
Mil, you can report it as 22 mil a year over 5 years. Most transfer fees are paid in instalments over 2 years. That would mean reporting two 45m expenditures over two years.
We had a lot of cash, just didnt really utilise it for whatever reason. I wasnt expecting us to buy 9 players and i expect a few transfer windows to get us into shape if ole stays but i find it baffling we couldnt fill any of the gaping holes in midfield or the right wing by signing 1 extra player.
The thing Is we really should have got in a midfielder because if pogba leaves next season then we'll be in deeper deeper trouble
Appreciate the reply, and this isn't meant to be antagonistic:
So I get that it's offset by our operational incomes, and that Adidas paid us £79,015m, and that some of sponsorship money is possibly recorded as deferred income in the trade receivables (equally that could be other obligations to fulfill, tv money etc):
Net trade receivables also include £77,357,000 (2017: £26,241,000) of deferred revenue that is contractually payable to the Group, but recorded in advance of the earnings process, with corresponding amounts recorded as deferred revenue liabilities.
F-40
but per the 2018 annual statement though, trade and other payables (Page F-43) overall were shown as £372.267m, comprising of £266.316m trade payables, other payables £4.754m and £83,280m accrued expenses and £17.916 social security and other taxes with the qualifying statement:
Trade payables include transfer fees and other associated costs in relation to the acquisition of registrations of £258,316,000 (2017: £179,133,000) of which £102,067,000 (2017: £82,866,000) is due after more than one year. Of the amount due after more than one year, £65,495,000 (2017: £76,821,000) is expected to be paid between 1 and 2 years, and the balance of £36,572,000 (2017: £6,045,000) is expected to be paid between 2 and 5 years.
That seems pretty black and white to me in that it appears to be specifically outlining in terms of transfer debt, (associated costs being agent fees, league registration fees etc).
Summary of significant accounting policies
2.19 Trade and other receivables Trade and other receivables are amounts due from customers for goods sold or services performed in the ordinary course of business. Trade and other receivables are recognized initially at fair value, and subsequently measured at amortized cost using the effective interest method, less provision for impairment. If collection is expected in one year or less, they are classified as current assets. If not, they are presented as non-current assets.
F-23
2.22 Trade and other payables Trade and other payables are obligations to pay for goods and services that have been acquired in the ordinary course of business from suppliers. Trade payables are recognized initially at fair value and subsequently measured at amortized cost using the effective interest method. Amounts payable are classified as current liabilities if payment is due within one year or less. If not they are presented as non-current liabilities
F-23
Payments and proceeds for intangible assets primarily relate to player and key football management staff registrations. When acquiring or selling players’ and key football management staff registrations it is normal industry practice for payments terms to spread over more than one year and consideration may also include non-cash items. Details of registrations additions and disposals are provided in note 15. Trade payables in relation to the acquisition of registrations at the balance sheet date are provided in note 23. Trade receivables in relation to the disposal of registrations at the balance sheet date are provided in note 19.
F-9
Acquisition and disposal of registrations also affects our trade receivables and payables, which affects our overall working capital. Our trade receivables include accrued revenue from sponsors as well as transfer fees receivable from other football clubs, whereas our trade payables include transfer fees and other associated costs in relation to the acquisition of registrations.
Page 57
Page 63 seems to indicate purchase obligations too:
£259.186m in less than a year, £99.991m in 1-3 years and £8.147m in 3-5 years with the footnote:
Purchase obligations include current and non-current obligations related to the acquisition of registrations, purchase order commitments and capital commitments. Purchase obligations do not include contingent transfer fees of £66.4 million which are potentially payable by us if certain specific performance conditions are met.
Employee benefit expenses (remuneration) was £295.9m but seems to be separated to trade payables no? got its own section note 7 (F-29) compared to note 23 (F-43) in respect of the trade payables.
And in terms of amortisation, I understand that players are effectively capital assets, with the aim to generate revenue over the life of the asset (their contract due to bosman), same as if I was a candlestick maker with a chisel making 50 candles a year and then went and bought a lathe for £5000 that would last 5 years that could increase my throughput to £2000 a year. Matching principle means have to write off (depreciate) the asset value cost for each year it will benefit me to show a more accurate reflection of the business, as opposed to expending the cost in year 1. Depreciation for tangible assets, amortisation for intangible assets...but that's separate to what I'm looking at which is the cashflow part. With the lathe I might well spread the cost on the books over 5 years, but the shopkeeper's unlikely to accept payment spread over that amount of time, he'd want his money now, and that's what the accounts seems to be outlining to me. That effectively we had a significant short term (within 1 year) amount owed to other clubs in installments, and its not like the principle debt where you easily refinance.
Understood and I’d also like nothing more at United than a group of homegrown talent to lead us back to glory.
Point remains they can’t be held accountable for success this season.
As I’m sure you will remember, the class of 92 did not suddenly emerge in August 1995. They’d been around the first team the season before and already played matches. More importantly they entered an experienced team full of league title winners.
I’d hoped that we’d acquire a midfielder and forward of similar profile to help our current batch. I really don’t understand this yoof only strategy and I think it’s down to deliberate underinvestment, hence my OP
I hope everyone made a lot of money betting on it then, really annoyed that I missed the post predicting this outcome.
Simple, Ed is a business man, he was basically brought in to run a club on minimum spending as possible. What club with ambition let's Lukaku go on deadline day without a replacement?
We lost a major part of our already week midfield in Herrera, even if Fellani wasn't what we needed, didn't mean he should be sold with no replacement.
Face it folks, Ed is here to show the Glazers how much he has reduced in terms of spending and increase in profits. They don't care about success, they care about profit margins and their "restocking" is buying a player here and there just to keep the fans happy.
We lost a major part of our already week midfield in Herrera, even if Fellani wasn't what we needed, didn't mean he should be sold with no replacement.
Face it folks, Ed is here to show the Glazers how much he has reduced in terms of spending and increase in profits. They don't care about success, they care about profit margins and their "restocking" is buying a player here and there just to keep the fans happy.
I genuinely think that if the targets Ole clearly wanted were available he would have had the cash ie Sancho and Longstaff, you clearly tried hard to get both of these but they wouldn't come for different reasons, though neither of them Utds fault. Then for once you wouldnt be taken for a ride, two years ago you'd have got Bale and Dybala in this window on huge cash, but walked away this time. The ones you did get were clearly on Ole's list.
Maybe the club is just prepared to wait for the right people
Maybe the club is just prepared to wait for the right people
He currently lost his interest with Chelsea due to his exile. Club operating with its own money now. Long gone the days of Chelsea buying players left and right.
I know, what I meant was Abramovich back in the day when he was the biggest transfer muppet around.
They are not the only players who could have improved us, without top 4 again I see little chance of the likes of Sancho wanting to join. Arsenal and Tottenham have strengthened too so we're depending on our players finally becoming consistent. I'm not holding my breath.
Last edited:
Then at least make some rational decisions to keep Herrera or sell him and replace him than penny pinch on his contract, treat him disrespect fully and lose him. Offload deadwood matic and get some money back.
Leicester city have better midfield than us, its a shame.
Yeah remember it well, apart from Paul Scholes I was there when all the other class of 92 lads made their debuts, and yeah they did come into a team full of Title winners plus as a group they'd all had invaluable first-team experience playing in Europe because of the stupid 3 foreigner ruling at the time which helped them no end when they eventually started Premier League games.
I'd love to win the Europa League again this year but hope Ole uses the early rounds to give the younger lads as much experience as possible.
And on transfers I just think we're being uber cautious this time around and not just signing star players then worrying about how to fit them into the team framework after purchase - Ole and his staff must be responsibly happy with the midfield options available at the moment because the ones we were linked with mostly(Bruno F and Milinković-Savić), and it was an either or, would only have come in if Pogba had left or looked like leaving, and not to partner him.
It would have been nice to get another forward but I think we've got enough, and if Alexis pulls his finger out......
Deadwood or not we need to fill up our squad, if we let them go we have to replace them with average PL players, these days those players go for over 40m especially for us, so it's better to renew than get into costly negotiations for squad fillers.
Please stop defending the undefendable.
Exactly. It was an absence of strategy, it was clear that AWB and Maguire were identified long back and we got them. The last minute exchange deals for Dybala and Eriksen attempt shows that we really had no idea.
He's spent money, but it hasn't been spent that well or with football clarity/vision in mind. If United want to have a young team mixed with a few older players in the first XI to lead the way, that's fine...but that approach isn't clear. Matic, Sanchez, Mata, Young aren't good enough anymore to lockdown a starting XI position...Pogba isn't the first XI player to lead.
If Woody knows he has a baseline budget that can be supplemented by player sales, then he shouldn't be giving players a wage package that cannot be moved. In addition, he should target a couple big signings every summer instead of 4 amd rebuild gradually while promoting youth players to make up the squad and develop them that way.
If Woody knows he has a baseline budget that can be supplemented by player sales, then he shouldn't be giving players a wage package that cannot be moved. In addition, he should target a couple big signings every summer instead of 4 amd rebuild gradually while promoting youth players to make up the squad and develop them that way.
Okay, sorry
Yes but we as have player like Rashford & martial who have had
Smelling Jones and Periera have also had rises.
Plus not every player had that cut in their contract. It’s rumoured De Gea and Pogba did, but seems like Sanchez didn’t.
So we don’t know.
D'ya reckon? Juve wanted Lukaku badly(or at least Ronaldo did)but they couldn't afford him so offered numerous players in part-exchange, United weren't interested till Juve reluctantly suggested Dybala then we were, if he'd played ball we'd have signed him and rightly so, but you can't blame the club for at least trying, and on Eriksen that was almost certainly driven by Tottenham, they knew he wanted to leave so they probably contacted United to see what we were prepared to offer, but it's not United's fault he's probably already decided to run down his contract down and sign a pre-contract for one of the top clubs in Europe in January - even if there was only a 10% chance either lad would sign we had to at least show interest when the opportunity arose, it didn't work out, but.....
Yes they do, but they also bought the club for £x billion less than what they'll get for it now. They'll easily make enough money to make even the greediest SOaB happy
Money not spent well is the reason for the current state of the club, not the lack of investment. Net spend difference with City over the last 6 years isn't big.
To be fair to them. They cleverly obtained the club by loading the club with debts and milked the brand as best as they could. Its business. If i am a glazer, profit is the only variable that matters. Table position is only a bonus.
Hes correct. Our payables were going to drop faster than receivables, ie, we needed more capital for working capital that was increasing. Cash got absorbed there.
We made 125mn of operating cash flow in fy18 vs 200mn+ in the preceding 3yrs. We are likely to be sub200mn again. This is what sources our new acquisitions
Clearly, Glazers have proven to be terrible owners. Not because of only refusal to invest but more because of a comical management structure and strategy and planning that they have displayed. Even mugs can run this club more efficiently
I have thought that now for a few years. the revamp and in reality a sensible one, to upgrade the youth facilities, scouting youth, etc will bring some much needed 'home grown' talent to the first team. Can also see in the future 3 in 3 out mainly being the target every year. Whether that is financial or a footballing target. Eventually it would work, provided the ole methods of how the team is set up were kept for example. A scattergun approach and change of styles every 2-3 years would never work.
Why does we only receive 60m from Lukaku salesAre we going to start ignoring facts now?
United has been spending a lot the past few windows. Way more than most of our competitors baring City. If United spent any more we will go bankrupt as we have not been that successful with regards to football recently.