Our net spend being lower doesn't translate to not having holes. As far as I know Pereira isn't on a big wage and you are not replacing Lingard or Martial cheaply, if you consider the fact that they both signed extensions as starters. So we have two issues, you judge things without taking into account context and you jump to conclusions that are not actually obvious.
For United ofcourse it isn't a huge wage, for let's say a club at Ajax, he'd be one of the better paid players which doesnt make sense for the clubs of his calibre I'd say. I quite like him btw.
With Lingard and Martial, I think it was reasonably poor planning and maybe the lack of a technical director or DOF, Lingard should never have been a long-term starter for the level we wanted to grow to. As for Martial, fair enough, it was difficult to envision he'd fall back by this much but both neither speak of the magnitude if their pay rises. Some would say a starter at United should earn this, others may look at what a player of his calibre typically earns.
I think it's fair to say if we were able to sell players for a significant amount, we could have done more incoming business as well, which a lot of journo's were reporting as well. But could well be all false and baseless assumptions.
If we get exact numbers then yes. At this point only factual information we get is total wages spent by the club, which is reported by the club.
Personally, I'll do my due diligence to look at situations at the ones you mentioned, but I do think there are decent approximations of contracts out there in order to converse with other fans. Tom seems to agree seeing that he quotes some of them, and I must admit he's done more research than I've done.
Ok I'll stop being a jerk.
I have to go to lunch, but the very short answer is that while Manchester United have certainly been affected by the Corona pandemic, the Deloitte reports say that Manchester United sits with a wage bill of around 56% (up from 50%).
The cost of a player is amortized over the entire contract length and is budgeted depending on structure of payment (common payment terms for large transfers is 3-5 years). But if we assume that West Ham says "Ok 4 years is fine" The clubs budget will look something like this (summarized) signing fee, annual salary, <other related player costs> (year 1) (year 2) (year 3) - All equal as default unless there is a reason to budget differently. The transfer fee is agreed on as 80m paid in 4 installments of 20m over 4 years.
So the Cost of the player for year 1 is: Transfer feee + all related costs. Not 80m
The point to knowing if the club can afford a player is to look at EBIDTA. The club also has to comply with FFP. Manchester United currently has a wage budget of 56% according to the most recent Deloitte report, with the EPL clubs having to offset £500m collectively permanently from the previous fiscal year due to broadcast reimbursement.
Manchester Uniteds budget is enormous. And all players within the club are being paid by qualification within the wage structure. The wage structure is carefully budgeted and has a lot of safety margin before it risk being uncompliamt with FFP, currently we are nowhere near. A player like Phil Jones who earns £75k weekly is one of the lowest paid first team players in the club.
Martials contract is est valued at £13m a year. That accounts for about 1.63% of the 2019 fiscal income, but 2.07% of 2020. The Covid pandemic is affecting the clubs operating budgets and safety limits. Signing a new player like Declan Rice at a similar contract for 80m (just an example number) is a risk/reward calculation that the club (Glazer family) was not willing to take. There is still uncertainty around Covid and potential fallout.
Players like Juan Mata and Edison Cavani are leaving the club next year and taking big salaries with them. They do not pose any great deterrent to taking on a new contract. Juan Matas contract is reduced to £100k (down from £160k).
A player like Cristiano Ronaldo has already paid for himself through commercially licensed football jerseys before his home debut, with the club taking in an reported £13.1m in licensed shirt sales, hereby offsetting his transfer fee. Other expected income such as further mechandise sales and commercial opportunities will pay for the players salary and more, plus the potential of going deep in the CL.
A CDM, while absolutely a necessity, is a higher risk investment. Ronaldo is essentially a bank, while Declan Rice, talented as he may be, offers the investment safety of a house with a unlocked door. The frame is there but no one knows how he will actually impact the team to an absolute certainty.
Personally I believe that the team both could, and should have invested in a CDM, but I can respect that many factors come on, primarily uncertainty around revenue stream. The club took out a loan last year to ensure stability, and while that loan is not a problem, they don't want to sit with a greater short term expense than budgeted, no one likes surprises.
The club is also finally reported to be undertaking massive renovations of Old Trafford and the surrounding grounds, that money also comes from the clubs own coffers unless they plan to take up more financing loans.
The larger point I'm trying to make is that you can think of a big name signing as 2% (rounded up for simplicity) of the clubs operating budget for the next 5 years. A club like Manchester United prefers to sit at 50%, but Covid impacted everything. If they however want to, they absolutely can go out and make solid investments. The only hurdle is: Cash at hand, Cash flow, and willingness to take on more risk%.
Squad players in Manchester United to make a lot of money, but in the larger structure, they are reasonably paid compared to their teammates, which is the only comparable metric we can look at when judging what a player should be paid.
Thanks for the post, very insightful and thanks for the effort you put in. If you missed your lunch break you deserve another one.
I do think though there are huge gulfs in quality and status amongst players in the 1st team, the salary differences with the top earners and squad players are reasonable though I doubt any other club would pay Jones, Mata those fee's.
I think Covid has indeed had a clear impact and it's terrific the club is still able to strengthen the team, do work on and around Old Trafford.
I don't think the club can't afford these wages, however we go on to extend some of the contracts of these players that (to me) barely add value (in games, as they barely play or aren't good enough). Jones has been struggling with injuries for years, nor was his level great, why give him a bigger contract than any other club would and now you're stuck. Mata barely plays, has been old and downhill for years, we actually have lots of players in his position as well now, young players with plenty potential, resale value, who would be on lower wages, that's 10m per season on players that.. yeah.
The keeper situation as well.
I have a feeling when we add these things together, the club could save some money (whilst we arent in a bad situation at all), and that could contribute towards players that add more value.
But possibly that's wrong and I don't mind being corrected at all.
Covid probably has made it more difficult for clubs that would buy these players. However we have never really done great with selling players, which is partially also because we aren't a selling club anyway. But we can still look at some of the business Chelsea, Liverpool, Real get up to.
