Na that’s bull we aren’t broke. We probably went back on our word because he has been a calamity.
If we were actually broke, its cheaper to let DDG sign a new contract and carry on rather than dropping major stacks on a new GK.
Rasmus Højlund | Signed for United
- Thread starter Zoo
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
- Status
If we were actually broke, its cheaper to let DDG sign a new contract and carry on rather than dropping major stacks on a new GK.
Sigh, again, we have about 100-120 budget with pretty poor cash reserves. This has been reported by multiple people including the official earnings report. In the grand scheme of things yes we are flat broke which is why are we able to do the Mount deal but now we are hmming and ahhing over what to do next because we don’t have the money to do everything we want. If we had all the money we want to sign Kane etc why tf are we trying to keep De Gea, we’d be looking at signing Onana right now, which granted we are soing, but from all accounts we seem to be deciding on whether we go for a GK or a Striker right now because we can’t afford both without sales.
Unless something drastic happens with the takeover we cannot afford Harry Kane right now, it’s really that simple and nobody can get their heard around this. Thinking we have unlimited money and budget when we don’t
I give up it’s like talking to a brick wall
I think we need to move on from De Gea
You're saying this but also claiming we don't have cash. I don't understand why or how you can say this.
It's well reported cash isn't the issue, especially after the investor call a couple weeks ago which gave updated financials.
FFP is the sticking point but the extent to which it is needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Steady on. I mean how on Earth can you conclude that? I have seen a few clips and some game-time, and he looks useful, very useful. Let's just accept that, make sure we sign him first, and then take it from there.
Mo Salah is one of the best the Premiership has seen. Give these young, emerging talents time. Because all this hype sets unrealistic expectations and we know how fans can be.......
I’m sighing at people believing the same shite as last Summer. We can’t afford Harry Kane as they are asking for £100+ for a player in the final year of his contract. Doesn’t mean we’re flat broke.
What?
You reckon its cheaper to sign a new GK than giving DDG a new contract?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
A very good signing, if we can pull it off. Yet somehow I still see Levy cracking at the last moment and begging to take our cash for Harry. Cash plus Maguire.
It’s been well reported the opposite actually. We have access to 70 mill in on hand cash and 260 on our revolving credit facility (which is how we usually fund our transfers).
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
But we're not using our credit facility are we? Does it look like we are? It's also been reported the Glazers dont want to use it because of the sale, and so far we aren't. Provided we only have 70mill in cash where lets say we hand over 20/30 mill of that to Chelsea for the Mount deal, can you not see how we are pretty flat broke? 70 mill cash is absolutely appalling.
So we have 70mill cash, as reported in the updated financials.. but we aren't flat broke?
Flat broke no, but we can see it from where we are. The steps from here on in by the Glazers will determine what the future looks like.
As for Hojlund can we not offer them Amad back with 20m on top ?.
What a terrible suggestion
We had similar in the coffers last season yet we spent 220 mill. Arsenal ended 2022 with 30 mill in their cash reserves.
That (bolded part) is fair. I don't have problem with people coming to the conclusion that he's the higher potential. But we don't know if or when he'll realise his full potential. If we had gone out and signed Kane, I think he would be a great understudy. But we're basically strikerless at the moment and if we have to sign one player, I'd rather someone a bit more well-rounded and ready for the present. Even if they have lower ceiling than Hojlund. We need a striker that will be ready to consistently lead the line next month, not next year or in 2 years time.
Because we used the credit facility. But so far all things considered and reported, the Glazers are reluctant to use it this year because of the sale.
We owe like - what is it 200/300 mill in transfer fees still? We are broke. Why do you think the Glazers are even contemplating selling?
We're being fecked by our inability to offload the dross we've stockpiled on big wages. Thanks Woody and thanks Joel and Avram for keeping him in that role for so long.
I mean how on Earth can you conclude that?
Same way you can't conclude he can't be a Salah.
Anyway.How the guys plays especially how calm he is in front of goal is like young Salah. That's why I said he can blossom to be a Salah. Very profilic goalscorer especially one on one. Same way we/I can say, Garnacho may not reach the Cristiano heights but he can blossom to be like Cristiano and hit the world class player ceiling while for someone like Sancho we are dead sure he will never hit those heights.
Yes, but the possibility is there. Hence why I referred to him as a potentially "World Class player", or "top class player". The club's reluctance to meet the prospective fee is purely down to the Glazer's. Same reason why we are hesitating on Onana. Sure, City have even won a title without a recognised striker. However, I'm yet to see this club be successful without a top class striker, so signing one, or at the very least a player who has the potential to develop into one is key.
It literally says the issue is FFP. To avoid falling foul of the current regs we are limited to a net spend of around 100M this window, it is not that we could not spend more just that we would then incur sanctions etc. We do have sellable assets and cashing in on some of those could alter the budget dramatically but so far no movement has been made and so we are limited to around 50M left in the kitty for a Striker and/or Goalkeeper. Due to the very positive way homegrown players like Henderson impact the budget if sold coupled with the fact that we can amoritize deals for incoming players it is entirely possible we end up spending 200M+ in this window but we have to proceed carefully until we can get some outgoing sales confirmed. Our biggest failing is how slow we are to get our outgoing business done.
This is definitely not why they are selling. They will be considering the full value generating potential of the asset over the next X years. In the last 10 years improvements in Manchester Uniteds cash flows and asset value have been driven first and foremost by (1) the footbal market - all top-level footballing assets have increased a ton in value, and (2) better monitization of the commercial appeal and fan base. Onfield success is likely to be a much bigger driver going forwards, and if they are smart they will know that they are not the right owners to provide that. Thus the selling.
The short term liquidity issues surely factor into their calculations, but are not as important as you suggest.
You seem to be changing your mind but just to make it clear, the cash isn't the issue. The FFP is.
Regardless of how you word it - my original point still stands that we are pretty broke all things considered and cannot go around splashing 100+mill on Kane like people seem to believe we can when we are currently deciding whether or not to resign De Gea because we cannot afford both a new First Team GK and ST
70mill in cash is completely broke for a club like United where the owners don't want to and have never put any cash in themselves or don't want to use a credit facility or where owe hundreds of millions in transfer fees and debts. Cash is absolutely the issue even if FFP is as well. Can we spend? Yes, but there's only so far you can stretch 70mill or more when we don't look to be selling any of our more worthwhile assets yet and we've already signed Mason Mount. Hence my original point of we aren't in a financial position to just go and spend 100mill on Kane as some are suggesting we can do when we are looking at resigning De Gea if we cannot afford a First Team GK and ST at the same time
Is that confirmed?
FFP is an excuse. It really isn't as much of a hindrance as they're making out. It's nowhere near a point where the max we can spend is £100m all in.
The real problem is the Glazers. They're reluctant to release any more funds while the sale is still ongoing.
Under the table payments
Jeez some of his bad points are worrying,makes me wonder who is the best we can get realistically
And I never discounted said possibility - simply posited that we could be signing him without expecting him to become so. If you look at this exchange you'll see I didn't quote or engage with you - I saw someone else refer to Hojlund as potentially world class and questioned that label, then once the poster elaborated that he sees world class qualities in Hojlund I said I've not seen it, but fair enough. At no point did I say it's ludicrous to think so. Your first post to me was a snarky remark about us not trying to sign a potentially average striker - to which I said there's a lot in-between between average and world class.
Glazers have been at United for close to two decades - and we've not shied away from paying big sums. One could argue this year is different due to the prospective sale of the club, but we've just agreed a £55+5M deal for a player with one year left on their contract. Journalists are adamant "United will not overpay", which translates to an assessment on the player's current ability and potential.
Regarding United not being successful without a top class striker - and it being key - may be true, but it's a different argument to the one I was having.
Yeah no Kane without a takeover and by the time it gets sorted window will have shut
My point was obvious. For us to be interested in signing a 20 year old striker who performed pretty well in Serie A last season, we obviously see potential in him. Seeing as his market value is assumed to be around £50m, we obviously expect big things from him in the long term. You can quibble on terminology all you like, but it's clear that we would be signing him with a view to him developing into a top class striker.
Simply put, this year is different. There is very little cash available. The reason Højlund is so far up our list is testament to that. £50m is not overpaying for Højlund. That is the going rate for a young forward performing pretty well both in a top domestic league and internationally. The Glazer's penny pinching is not a mirror into ten Hag's thoughts on the player's potential.
Your example was Gabriel Jesus and Arsenal. I'm fairly confident that City signed Jesus with a view of developing him into a 'World Class' or 'top class' striker. Just as we would hope to do with Højlund. Whether Jesus has lived up to that or not is immaterial.
70m is not broke. There is also a RCF that we can use, credible journalists have explained that cash is not our problem, FFP is.
Also we don't pay fees upfront, but in installments. So strucutred payments being possible make our moves very possible if FFP is not hindering us.
I wish I was that broke!!!!
When SAF was here, not every player had to be world class. They just had to a) have the right mentality, b) have the attributes to be able to carry out their prescribed role in the team. Many of his signings were not world class, but they performed very well in the team. I think ETH has seen a player that has all the key footballing attributes he is looking for in a striker, a good mentality, and is desperate to play for the club. Other strikers may be great strikers, but be lacking in some areas. For example, Haaland and Osimhen may be great players, but their hold up play may be a bit suspect, etc. If we had two goal-scoring wingers (Rashford and MG) and a goal scoring midfielder like Bruno, the key is for all these players to chip in with 15-20 goals each, and suddenly we are massively improved on the last couple of seasons.
It seems like that big wages policy is still on-going after Woody left. So it's probably not him?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The bit about Greenwood is the most clickbaity thing I've ever seen. When you open the link, the sum total of information about him is this:
That's literally everything about him. Fair play to Graeme. He's duped me.
To be fair he’s not wrong. It probably is something on the agenda that utd are deciding what to do. There’s no final decision been made yet.
- Status