Woodward, Glazers....

MDFC Manager

Full Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
24,046
For Haaland, I get that we didn't want the clause (I will assume it's the same amount as it is in Dortmund), but worst case scenario we'd make at least 30-40 million, potentially even more, out of him, which would be a good bonus on it's own, able to fund his replacement. Same for Reguillon, if Madrid wants a 60 mil buy back, then that's an easy 30 mil to make there.

For Bellingham, the Glazers simply refused to pay the amount, it's my impression that the player did want to come to United, and that Solskjaer was ready to make him a first team player.
So much wrong here mate. If the argument is that Glazers are looking at ways to make money, surely they'd be queueing up for Haaland and Reguillon.

As for Bellingham, we even got out Fergie to meet and greet him and his dad at Carrington. The most reliable journalists said he chose Dortmund over us, not because of money.
 

MDFC Manager

Full Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
24,046
Mourinho got Lukaku, Matic, Sanchez and Lindelof during his second season. The investment in Sanchez isn't accounted for in those net spend arguments, nor is the increase of the wage bill by +100m. So even when people talk about the third season where we signed Fred and Dalot people ignore the fact that Sanchez signing bonus and wages impacted that summer and that the club didn't had a lot more money since it was allocated to wages.
Very good point actually, thanks.
 

Hernandez - BFA

The Way to Fly
Joined
Jan 5, 2011
Messages
17,290
I just want to sign someone before our game. Just to get hopes up again before the season starts. It feels like the VDB was months ago.
 

Marcus

Full Member
Joined
Oct 3, 1999
Messages
6,085
Someone should interview the Glazers on live TV and ask the following questions. Do you want United to win the league? Will you do all you can to make that happen? The reaction (not words) will be telling.
 

Strelok

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
5,279
Mourinho got Lukaku, Matic, Sanchez and Lindelof during his second season. The investment in Sanchez isn't accounted for in those net spend arguments, nor is the increase of the wage bill by +100m. So even when people talk about the third season where we signed Fred and Dalot people ignore the fact that Sanchez signing bonus and wages impacted that summer and that the club didn't had a lot more money since it was allocated to wages.
Yeah no money for new signing but plenty to pay off debts, interests and dividends?
 

united_99

Takes pleasure in other people's pain
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
9,565
Someone should interview the Glazers on live TV and ask the following questions. Do you want United to win the league? Will you do all you can to make that happen? The reaction (not words) will be telling.
They might answer that we have the most expensive midfielder and the most expensive defender in the league and that our wage bill was / is ridiculously high, etc. ...
The more important question to ask would be why are United underperforming despite all the money spent. They need to establish the right structure, so the money is spent wisely.
 

Matthew84!

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
1,161
Location
England, herefordshire
I really think its time the fans spoke up, yes the Glazers have spent money in the past but they got Ed to spend it on marque signings for shirt sales, 1 good transfer window last summer, if they can't back the team like they should as we are supposedly 1 of the richest clubs its time they sold up.
 

Andycoleno9

matchday malcontent
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
28,576
Location
Croatia
Someone should interview the Glazers on live TV and ask the following questions. Do you want United to win the league? Will you do all you can to make that happen? The reaction (not words) will be telling.
This. Hm, did they had any interviews in last few years?
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
Yeah no money for new signing but plenty to pay off debts, interests and dividends?
We spent plenty for new signings and spent plenty on wages, we also spend around the same proportion on the team 95% of our revenues. Now the question that we should ask ourselves is how did we manage to allocate +100m more per year on wages while not improving the team significanly? While keeping in mind that those 100m are as much millions that won't be available to spend on transfer fees.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
31,604
Location
Ginseng Strip
Someone should interview the Glazers on live TV and ask the following questions. Do you want United to win the league? Will you do all you can to make that happen? The reaction (not words) will be telling.
Even if they'd agree to it (they won't, the parasites don't do interviews), they'd easily wiggle their way through the questions with the usual vacuous nonsense. "The manager will be given every bit of support he needs", "Ed working day and night on transfer business", etc. Its a futile exercise. Covid-19 has also given them a blessed get out of jail card where they can simply pin any frustration on financial uncertainties caused by the pandemic.

The only remotely penetrating question to ask them/Woodward is why we've been less proactive and busy in the transfer market than most clubs, even those with considerably less financial prowess and pulling power.
 

Strelok

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
5,279
We spent plenty for new signings and spent plenty on wages, we also spend around the same proportion on the team 95% of our revenues. Now the question that we should ask ourselves is how did we manage to allocate +100m more per year on wages while not improving the team significanly? While keeping in mind that those 100m are as much millions that won't be available to spend on transfer fees.
It's a good question but imo the question what if we didn't have to pay all that silly debts, interests, dividends money is also a valid question. Especially in this windows, which supposedly is our crucial step back to the top.

How many signing we've made and how much we've spent this summer? I'd love to be proved wrong but my impression is VDB is all we'd get this summer.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
But since they took over the amount of money that has been paid to Glazers including loan repayments would have gone into the team if we were owned by a state.
Heh - obviously, yes. But that's an entirely different debate. Being owned by a state isn't the only viable alternative to a model where the owners - basically - run the club as a business. Liverpool's owners do the latter, to state an obvious example. Their recent success isn't down to them outspending their closest rivals (in fact, it's the opposite - City and United clearly operate with bigger budgets), or throwing every penny (or cent) they make on big signings/contracts.

It's a combination of being financially competitive (which you obviously have to be - and Liverpool have spent plenty of money) and hiring competent people in key positions.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
It's a good question but imo the question what if we didn't have to pay all that silly debts, interests, dividends money is also a valid question. Especially in this windows, which supposedly is our crucial step back to the top.

How many signing we've made and how much we've spent this summer? I'd love to be proved wrong but my impression is VDB is all we'd get this summer.
No, finance costs and dividends aren't a good question because people overestimate them, especially since people seem to think that if they didn't exist the money would go toward transfer fees when the majority of it would be taxed. The money generated wouldn't even allow you to purchase one more VDB.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
It's not just champions League money though it's all the commercial deals that are tied around getting into the champions League and the money it generates; Adidas being the most well known example.
Yes, but the evidence actually indicates that being in-and-out of the CL for the entire post-SAF era hasn't had much of an impact on the "brand". Of course, the Adidas deal is an example of the club losing income - directly - from not being in the CL, but the overall picture is that what we've done on the pitch has been less detrimental to the business than one might think. So far, one must stress - the long term effects of being an also-ran is difficult to predict in detail, but there must be effects (we're losing the kids these days - a random kid, worldwide, is much more likely to become a City fan than a United fan at the moment).

Anyway, this is about the specific argument that the owners only care about the proverbial 4th place trophy - and that their spending reflects this - and in order to back up that argument properly, one has to explain certain factors: the record transfers, the enormous wage bill (at times under Woodward we have had the biggest wage bill in the world), the policy of offering improved contracts to sick-notes and under-performers. What is all that? Do they think this is necessary in order to barely be a top four contender?
 
Last edited:

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
The money generated wouldn't even allow you to purchase one more VDB.
Exactly. But people don't look at the actual numbers involved, they just cry "debt!" * and assume that if you remove said debt from the equation, we magically become able to sign a couple of Neymars with ease every window - because, you know, United are rich (but the Glazers steal all our money).

* Or "dividends!"
 
Last edited:

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
18,444
Supports
Mejbri
Exactly. But people don't look at the actual numbers involved, they just cry "debt!" and assume that if you remove said debt from the equation, we magically become able to sign a couple of Neymars with ease every window - because, you know, United are rich (but the Glazers steal all our money).
The Glazers do take away United's profit. They spent hundreds of millions on servicing the debt they loaded onto the club, they've probably taken out close to a hundred million themselves directly, and they've mismanaged hundreds of millions on a diabolical spending spree lead by completely incompetent people they've hired.

I think people need to stop characterising those who hate the Glazers as some johnny come lately fans who want a star signing every window. We hate them because they are cnuts.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
We hate them because they are cnuts.
I have zero problems with that. I was firmly against the takeover at the time - and I have no love for 'em these days. However, the point resides in what you say here:

...and they've mismanaged hundreds of millions on a diabolical spending spree lead by completely incompetent people they've hired.
THAT is the problem. Which people keep saying in this thread - hardly anyone thinks they're great owners. What some challenge is the idea that they have been penny pinching unduly in the Woodward era.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
18,444
Supports
Mejbri
I have zero problems with that. I was firmly against the takeover at the time - and I have no love for 'em these days. However, the point resides in what you say here:



THAT is the problem. Which people keep saying in this thread - hardly anyone thinks they're great owners. What some challenge is the idea that they have been penny pinching unduly in the Woodward era.
Sure, they haven't, on the whole. But, as people have pointed out, they've reigned in that spending as soon as CL qualification is ensured. That's what gets people riled, because it lays bare that we have no sporting ambitions as a club. But we'll agree on the main point, they are terrible terrible owners.

We won't win a major title under their ownership without a manager as brilliant as SAF, and there is none.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
We won't win a major title under their ownership without a manager as brilliant as SAF, and there is none.
You're right. We won't. Unless they're willing to change things up with regard to who they hire - in what roles.

Jury's out on Ole as a manager (as far as I'm concerned, anyway), but it's obviously extremely unlikely he'll turn out to be SAF Mk2. There are some signs that something has changed, though, with his appointment (I don't mean him, as such, but a change of direction with regard to recruitment). Too early to tell, though - we can only hope.

I might add this (one more point that has been made before in threads like this one): there really isn't any obvious reason why the Glazers should be opposed to changing the structure at United. The obvious example: hiring a DOF, moving away from the "model" which worked under SAF, etc. They have had the better part of a decade, now, to conclude that whatever "model" they think this is...isn't working under managers who aren't SAF (they can't have failed to notice that we're a bit shite these days, and aren't winning big trophies anymore).
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
Sure, they haven't, on the whole. But, as people have pointed out, they've reigned in that spending as soon as CL qualification is ensured. That's what gets people riled, because it lays bare that we have no sporting ambitions as a club. But we'll agree on the main point, they are terrible terrible owners.

We won't win a major title under their ownership without a manager as brilliant as SAF, and there is none.
That point is wrong though because again people use the fictitious net transfer spend as a metric while not taking into account actual spendings such as increased wage bills and installments. For example the season where everyone claims that Mourinho wasn't backed the 2018/2019 season United spent 178m on intangible assets which is more than the previous season. One of the major issues with fans and seemingly a bunch of terrible journalists on twitter is that they give more weight to made up and useless metrics than actual figures and the simple notion that you may have spendings already scheduled, that's why clubs that aren't owned by sugar daddies tend to not spend big every year.
 

Strelok

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
5,279
No, finance costs and dividends aren't a good question because people overestimate them, especially since people seem to think that if they didn't exist the money would go toward transfer fees when the majority of it would be taxed. The money generated wouldn't even allow you to purchase one more VDB.
If we use the money to pay debts, interests and dividends to buy players or invest into our infrastructures would that money still be taxed?

Guess you didn't read the previous posts. For the last 10 years we paid north £800m for such. Or £80m a year. We can buy 2 more VDB with that money. A year.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
If we use the money to pay debts, interests and dividends to buy players or invest into our infrastructures would that money still be taxed?

Guess you didn't read the previous posts. For the last 10 years we paid north £800m for such. Or £80m a year. We can buy 2 more VDB with that money. A year.
Yes, we would pay more taxes on our revenue. And no the club hasn't spend north of 800m, it's around 500m with 167m of it in 2011. Also the club only started to pay dividends yearly in 2016 from that point dividends plus interest paid have remained around 40m per year and that doesn't include finance incomes.
 

altodevil

Odds winner of 'Odds or Evens 2023/2024'
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
17,350
The Glazers do take away United's profit. They spent hundreds of millions on servicing the debt they loaded onto the club, they've probably taken out close to a hundred million themselves directly, and they've mismanaged hundreds of millions on a diabolical spending spree lead by completely incompetent people they've hired.

I think people need to stop characterising those who hate the Glazers as some johnny come lately fans who want a star signing every window. We hate them because they are cnuts.
Well said
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
18,444
Supports
Mejbri
You're right. We won't. Unless they're willing to change things up with regard to who they hire - in what roles.

Jury's out on Ole as a manager (as far as I'm concerned, anyway), but it's obviously extremely unlikely he'll turn out to be SAF Mk2. There are some signs that something has changed, though, with his appointment (I don't mean him, as such, but a change of direction with regard to recruitment). Too early to tell, though - we can only hope.

I might add this (one more point that has been made before in threads like this one): there really isn't any obvious reason why the Glazers should be opposed to changing the structure at United. The obvious example: hiring a DOF, moving away from the "model" which worked under SAF, etc. They have had the better part of a decade, now, to conclude that whatever "model" they think this is...isn't working under managers who aren't SAF (they can't have failed to notice that we're a bit shite these days, and aren't winning big trophies anymore).
Yeah, I agree with that. If you own a business and have seen it mismanage funds at an astronomical level, you re-think your strategy. As it is, they seem have have "re-thought" it and decided the only change needed is to trust in Ole, which is no different to the strategy before, just a different name in the managerial seat. Sure, Ole has identified some good players, but we're still overspending and we're no nearer to shipping out deadwood.

That point is wrong though because again people use the fictitious net transfer spend as a metric while not taking into account actual spendings such as increased wage bills and installments. For example the season where everyone claims that Mourinho wasn't backed the 2018/2019 season United spent 178m on intangible assets which is more than the previous season. One of the major issues with fans and seemingly a bunch of terrible journalists on twitter is that they give more weight to made up and useless metrics than actual figures and the simple notion that you may have spendings already scheduled, that's why clubs that aren't owned by sugar daddies tend to not spend big every year.
Sure, that Sanchez transfer killed our third summer window, I take that point. However, do you see any hint of the club being as desperate to close the gap on the front two, as it is to ensure top 4? I'm not particularly saying so and so wasn't backed, I'm saying once top 4 is achieved, we plateau. It's not about spending, per se, it's about how much effort you put into progressing. I'm not sure the club is willing to take the financial hit they need to, to get rid of of 6-8 players who have shown they offer no contribution to the team's progression. If you have authentic sporting ambitions, you do all you can to keep progressing.

Briefing that it will take however long for you to become competitive is fine if you want to bring down expectations, but you've also got high profile players at the club and those players aren't going to waste their careers waiting for you to get a team together to become competitive.
 

Strelok

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
5,279
Yes, we would pay more taxes on our revenue. And no the club hasn't spend north of 800m, it's around 500m with 167m of it in 2011. Also the club only started to pay dividends yearly in 2016 from that point dividends plus interest paid have remained around 40m per year and that doesn't include finance incomes.
You have a source/link for that?

And hell no we don't pay tax on our revenue. We pay tax on our profit.

No that is last 10 years, Glazers bought Utd in 2005 and have taken over 1bn out of the club since. This is an article from 2018.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2018/oct/04/glazers-manchester-united

Since then they have added to that bill.
This article states that the Glazers have taken out over £1bn from United by 2018. Or £77m a year. We could buy two Aguero for that money in 2011.
 

fezzerUTD

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
1,331
So much wrong here mate. If the argument is that Glazers are looking at ways to make money, surely they'd be queueing up for Haaland and Reguillon.

As for Bellingham, we even got out Fergie to meet and greet him and his dad at Carrington. The most reliable journalists said he chose Dortmund over us, not because of money.
There is an article where it says Ole wanted him but Woodward and Glazers wouldn't sanction the money for such a young player which wouldn't be playing enough in the first team to warrant the wages/fee.
 

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
13,979
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
It’s impressive seeing people try to spin spending 700m on interest rates for debt purely due to the Glazers as not a big issue. Let alone the dividends and consultancy fees they give themselves. 850m just for the privilege to be owned by them...bargain!
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
That point is wrong though because again people use the fictitious net transfer spend as a metric while not taking into account actual spendings such as increased wage bills and installments.
Correct (again).

Buying Pogba (for a record fee at the time) will still impact the books several years later - just an obvious example.

This is pretty basic - but people don't seem to get it.

The financial impact of purchasing Player X is spread out across multiple seasons. I don't particularly enjoy using the "this isn't a video game" cliche - but: this isn't a video game. United don't have a "transfer chest" of X million pounds that can (or should be, according to muppets) be blown in a particular window - and then, magically, this "chest" is fully replenished when the next window comes along.
 

AshRK

Full Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
12,097
Location
Canada
I can never take people seriously who are still somehow defending Glazers. But but but they spent 80m on Maguire is one of the lamest argument. It's the club's money that is been used. The data by swiss ramble does confirm they have spent absolutely nothing on this club. Our stadium is in tatters and nothing has been done to fix that. When the likes of Manchester city and chelsea were buying agueros and hazards our owners were using the clubs money to pay off the debts while buying Oberton and bebe.

We could and should have been the most dominant club im europe and here we are. But yes it's only the manager's fault as glazers and Woodward are doing a fabulous job.
 

sparx99

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,852
This is a classic case of people arguing when both things are correct.

The Glazers are bad owners. The Glazers do take money out of the club.

However, they’ve also spent enough for us to be more competitive than we are.

Ultimately, being successful at the top level needs highly successful recruitment and top level coaching to take advantage of it. We’ve largely had neither.
 

sparx99

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,852
Correct (again).

Buying Pogba (for a record fee at the time) will still impact the books several years later - just an obvious example.

This is pretty basic - but people don't seem to get it.

The financial impact of purchasing Player X is spread out across multiple seasons. I don't particularly enjoy using the "this isn't a video game" cliche - but: this isn't a video game. United don't have a "transfer chest" of X million pounds that can (or should be, according to muppets) be blown in a particular window - and then, magically, this "chest" is fully replenished when the next window comes along.
Don’t insult video games! Football manager handles transfers in exactly this way! Payments are spread over multiple seasons and a higher wage bill reduces the transfer budget.

For an accurate analogy you should be saying ‘this isn’t the pub’ or ‘this isn’t The Sun newspaper’. Those are the places where football finances are fantasy.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
This is a classic case of people arguing when both things are correct.

The Glazers are bad owners. The Glazers do take money out of the club.

However, they’ve also spent enough for us to be more competitive than we are.

Ultimately, being successful at the top level needs highly successful recruitment and top level coaching to take advantage of it. We’ve largely had neither.
Exactly, they are staggeringly bad at sport management but it's not due to a lack of spending, just a lack of competency.
 

L1nk

Full Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Messages
5,064
This is a classic case of people arguing when both things are correct.

The Glazers are bad owners. The Glazers do take money out of the club.

However, they’ve also spent enough for us to be more competitive than we are.

Ultimately, being successful at the top level needs highly successful recruitment and top level coaching to take advantage of it. We’ve largely had neither.
Very true, at board level, the Glazers are absolute parasites, and Woodward, whilst helping to get some transfers over the line, has clearly shown he does not have an aptitude for the football side of this job at all, neither does Matt Judge.

This then trickles down into other stupid decisions as well, and you can see that Woodward has no clue in what happens with contracts of players we already have, somehow we end up grossly overpaying for players nowhere near good enough for the team, or who haven't even done anything remotely to earn the wage we've given them. Giving Phil Jones a new contract for example, basically all Woodward is seeing is an asset, he doesn't see a garbage, always injured, player, he see's an asset that he wants to make money off and cannot stand to lose on a free, so he gave Jones a new contract, and for what?

Of course, we have spent money, some would say large amounts, irrespective of where it came from, but aside from Woodward and Judge's poor recruitment we haven't exactly had the best managers either, which, again, is the fault of the higher ups, but alot of these managers did get players that they wanted, it's just that the players have been so crimincally underwhelming, i'm absolutely mind boggled as to how we've spent much money to just end up with the squad we've mostly ended up with up until this season.

The Glazers are never likely to go away as long as they are milking cash from us, however, i can see most problems being sorted at United if they were just willing to put an actual footballing structure in place, and by that I mean a person, a DoF if you will, that oversees all the operations pertaining to the footballing side, and let Woodward stick to the business side, which he clearly excels at. This would seem like the most obvious thing for the Glazers to do, yet they persist on sticking that financial banker mate in charge of footballing operations, despite having never done anything in this capacity before in his life. It boggles the mind, if they kept him to the business side he can just stick to making them money on the side which is what he is good at, and with a proper footballing structure in place we can begin to become competitive again I feel, because we'll have someone who knows what actually needs to be done, and not someone who is tripping on power with absolutely no clue as to the ins and outs of the footballing world, Van Gaal himself, regardless of what you think of him, has done it all in the game, and he said Woodward just has absolutely 0 clue, which I have no doubt is true.

Just shunt Woodward to the side and get some proper people in place for crying out loud.
 

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
13,979
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
This is a classic case of people arguing when both things are correct.

The Glazers are bad owners. The Glazers do take money out of the club.

However, they’ve also spent enough for us to be more competitive than we are.

Ultimately, being successful at the top level needs highly successful recruitment and top level coaching to take advantage of it. We’ve largely had neither.
Bang on. However what I would add is the leveraged takeover put this club at risk of financial ruin and they are absolute leeches. It also meant we couldn’t strengthen sufficiently post Ronaldo. However, the interest payments/dividends are no longer an issue to the club’s ambitions. We spend more than enough to compete at the top level. I am concerned that may now stop though just when it appears we have our recruitment issues sorted!
 

glazed

Eats diamonds to beat thermodynamics
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
7,526
i can see most problems being sorted at United if they were just willing to put an actual footballing structure in place, and by that I mean a person, a DoF if you will, that oversees all the operations pertaining to the footballing side, and let Woodward stick to the business side, which he clearly excels at. This would seem like the most obvious thing for the Glazers to do, yet they persist on sticking that financial banker mate in charge of footballing operations, despite having never done anything in this capacity before in his life. It boggles the mind
The problem is that the two are mutually incompatible. You either build a machine for finishing fourth and maximising profit or one for winning the league. But they are pretty different looking.
 

Lemansky

Full Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
970
The problem is that the two are mutually incompatible. You either build a machine for finishing fourth and maximising profit or one for winning the league. But they are pretty different looking.
I disagree with this. Building for top 4 in the future will be the same as building for winning the league as the top 4 candidates will all spend heavily. There is no top 4 anymore with the Arsenal approach the last 10 years.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
Don’t insult video games! Football manager handles transfers in exactly this way! Payments are spread over multiple seasons and a higher wage bill reduces the transfer budget.

For an accurate analogy you should be saying ‘this isn’t the pub’ or ‘this isn’t The Sun newspaper’. Those are the places where football finances are fantasy.
Hehe - sorry! I have never played FM (believe it or not).

I believe the analogy still stands, though - as video games in general tend to be as realistic as...Hollywood, I suppose.

My actual experience with football video games and transfers comes from playing PES back in the day - where you certainly didn't have to worry about amortization and whatnot when trying to sign Messi.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
The problem is that the two are mutually incompatible. You either build a machine for finishing fourth and maximising profit or one for winning the league. But they are pretty different looking.
I don't think it's true because CL prize money brings a lot of money, as well as CL TV incomes. In reality the fact that United failed to be a perennial CL QF team demonstrates how bad the Glazers/Woodward have done in the last 7 years because they have left an awful lof money on the table, the kind of money that would have increased their dividends substantianlly and increased the club capacity to strengthen.