Why we dont need to sell Bruno to meet FFP rules

sixdwarf

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2022
Messages
2,014
Let's not kid ourselves about how much money we have in relation to Financial Fair Play and that somehow we are desperately poor and have to sell the likes of Bruno to allow us to bring in new players. We are still one of the biggest revenue generating clubs in the world.

Some say we have already spent loads this year and how can we afford it all.

Here's a wee explainer.

We are expected to pay £62m for Cunha. But because he is getting a long five year contract under FFP due to something called amortisation the actual cost in terms of FFP only counts as a fifth of £62m or just over £12m in this year. Yes TWELVE million.

Premier clubs are allowed to spend up to 85% of revenue on squad costs in the 2025/26 season. That includes player wages and transfers.

Ratcliffe has said United's player wage bill is £250m. Some analysts say it is actually under £200m. But our revenues in 2023/24 were a huge £620m. 85% of that is £527m.

Now £154m is still owed in instalments payments this calendar year for players we bought in the past.

So if you do the maths we would appear to have at least £216m to play with for transfers and associated wages and agent fees this year. And £12m for Cunha doesn't put a great dent in that.

So as you can see there is plenty of scope to do deals, especially if we sign players on longer five year contacts. The maximum allowed is five years. Chelsea managed to sneak in deals for even longer to get around FFP.

The upshot is. We don't need to sell Bruno or Garnacho or Mainoo to meet FFP. And there is plenty of scope to boost the transfer fund, with other sales of people like Antony, Sancho and Rashford who lets face it don't want to be here to further bolster Amorim's player armoury.
 
Ratcliffe also said during the Neville interview that we will have to pay £90m in transfer fees this summer for players already here from ETHs signings. All these payments over the years add up quickly and it’s added up to almost £100m. So anyone we buy is in addition to this.
 
sixdwarf said:
Let's not kid ourselves about how much money we have in relation to Financial Fair Play and that somehow we are desperately poor and have to sell the likes of Bruno to allow us to bring in new players. We are still one of the biggest revenue generating clubs in the world.

Some say we have already spent loads this year and how can we afford it all.

Here's a wee explainer.

We are expected to pay £62m for Cunha. But because he is getting a long five year contract under FFP due to something called amortisation the actual cost in terms of FFP only counts as a fifth of £62m or just over £12m in this year. Yes TWELVE million.

Premier clubs are allowed to spend up to 85% of revenue on squad costs in the 2025/26 season. That includes player wages and transfers.

Ratcliffe has said United's player wage bill is £250m. Some analysts say it is actually under £200m. But our revenues in 2023/24 were a huge £620m. 85% of that is £527m.

Now £154m is still owed in instalments payments this calendar year for players we bought in the past.

So if you do the maths we would appear to have at least £216m to play with for transfers and associated wages and agent fees this year. And £12m for Cunha doesn't put a great dent in that.

So as you can see there is plenty of scope to do deals, especially if we sign players on longer five year contacts. The maximum allowed is five years. Chelsea managed to sneak in deals for even longer to get around FFP.

The upshot is. We don't need to sell Bruno or Garnacho or Mainoo to meet FFP. And there is plenty of scope to boost the transfer fund, with other sales of people like Antony, Sancho and Rashford who lets face it don't want to be here to further bolster Amorim's player armoury.
Click to expand...
You don’t appear to be including the interest on your larger debt. That is the real killer on United. You DO have a payroll issue, but not as bad as the one Villa is in where their payroll is apparently 90% of revenue by itself unless they shed costs, but still an issue.

I think the debt issue is somewhere between 60-85m per year in maintenance.

I don’t know know a ton about United’s finances, just that I’ve heard they are bad (I am familiar with the Glazers so this doesn’t surprise me), but the debt maintenance is something I didn’t see listed that I know is in United’s calculation.
 
RDCR07 said:
Ratcliffe also said during the Neville interview that we will have to pay £90m in transfer fees this summer for players already here from ETHs signings. All these payments over the years add up quickly and it’s added up to almost £100m. So anyone we buy is in addition to this.
Click to expand...
Yes..that is covered in the explainer.
 
Bluelion7 said:
You don’t appear to be including the interest on your larger debt. That is the real killer on United. You DO have a payroll issue, but not as bad as the one Villa is in where their payroll is apparently 90% of revenue by itself unless they shed costs, but still an issue.

I think the debt issue is somewhere between 60-85m per year in maintenance.

I don’t know know a ton about United’s finances, just that I’ve heard they are bad (I am familiar with the Glazers so this doesn’t surprise me), but the debt maintenance is something I didn’t see listed that I know is in United’s calculation.
Click to expand...
The interest is a killer, in that it would on theory much more money to play with. But this is what we have to play with potentially outside that. Mbuemo is the next player we are linked with. He is valued at £50m. Sign on a five year contact and it only counts as £10m this year in terms of FFP/PSR (Profit and Sustainability).
 
Nobody suggested selling Bruno for PSR reasons.

The reason some of us consider it as a possibly good idea is his age, lack of suitability for Amorim’s system and that it allows us to build a younger team rather than one relying on his individual brilliance.
 
I thought it was decided that PSR is staying next season and the squad cost ratio was coming in for the 26/27 season. Obviously if I’ve missed something then fair enough, but if it’s still the three year cycle then your whole post is wrong.

Even if it is SCR, you’ve used the revenue from the year we had CL football. So you can immediately take £100 million off that for tv/prize money, match day income, along with penalties from sponsors. Appreciate the 25% wage reduction for no CL football, but even then you can’t use the 22/23 revenue as a marker for next year.

Even if we use the 22/23 revenue as a baseline for next year, you’ve only included transfers. You’ve not included wages of incoming players or other things like sacking staff. If you don’t get any home games in the cup, that’s another potential drop of 20 million of match day income. If we have another season like this, we will drop 30 million off the 22/23 premier league prize money.

I’m basically saying sorry, but your sums are pointless and you should leave it to the experts.

That said, I’m not worried about PSR this year. Once we made the decision to sell Rashford and/or Garnacho we literally don’t have the money to spend to breach PSR. We also have potentially significant add ons for Greenwood, Alvaro as well as getting the deficits for Sancho and Antony off the books.
 
sixdwarf said:
Let's not kid ourselves about how much money we have in relation to Financial Fair Play and that somehow we are desperately poor and have to sell the likes of Bruno to allow us to bring in new players. We are still one of the biggest revenue generating clubs in the world.

Some say we have already spent loads this year and how can we afford it all.

Here's a wee explainer.

We are expected to pay £62m for Cunha. But because he is getting a long five year contract under FFP due to something called amortisation the actual cost in terms of FFP only counts as a fifth of £62m or just over £12m in this year. Yes TWELVE million.

Premier clubs are allowed to spend up to 85% of revenue on squad costs in the 2025/26 season. That includes player wages and transfers.

Ratcliffe has said United's player wage bill is £250m. Some analysts say it is actually under £200m. But our revenues in 2023/24 were a huge £620m. 85% of that is £527m.

Now £154m is still owed in instalments payments this calendar year for players we bought in the past.

So if you do the maths we would appear to have at least £216m to play with for transfers and associated wages and agent fees this year. And £12m for Cunha doesn't put a great dent in that.

So as you can see there is plenty of scope to do deals, especially if we sign players on longer five year contacts. The maximum allowed is five years. Chelsea managed to sneak in deals for even longer to get around FFP.

The upshot is. We don't need to sell Bruno or Garnacho or Mainoo to meet FFP. And there is plenty of scope to boost the transfer fund, with other sales of people like Antony, Sancho and Rashford who lets face it don't want to be here to further bolster Amorim's player armoury.
Click to expand...
Squad Cost Ratio doesn't start til the 2026-27 season, so I'm afraid your post is wrong.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c30demg4pv2o
 
sixdwarf said:
Let's not kid ourselves about how much money we have in relation to Financial Fair Play and that somehow we are desperately poor and have to sell the likes of Bruno to allow us to bring in new players. We are still one of the biggest revenue generating clubs in the world.

Some say we have already spent loads this year and how can we afford it all.

Here's a wee explainer.

We are expected to pay £62m for Cunha. But because he is getting a long five year contract under FFP due to something called amortisation the actual cost in terms of FFP only counts as a fifth of £62m or just over £12m in this year. Yes TWELVE million.

Premier clubs are allowed to spend up to 85% of revenue on squad costs in the 2025/26 season. That includes player wages and transfers.

Ratcliffe has said United's player wage bill is £250m. Some analysts say it is actually under £200m. But our revenues in 2023/24 were a huge £620m. 85% of that is £527m.

Now £154m is still owed in instalments payments this calendar year for players we bought in the past.

So if you do the maths we would appear to have at least £216m to play with for transfers and associated wages and agent fees this year. And £12m for Cunha doesn't put a great dent in that.

So as you can see there is plenty of scope to do deals, especially if we sign players on longer five year contacts. The maximum allowed is five years. Chelsea managed to sneak in deals for even longer to get around FFP.

The upshot is. We don't need to sell Bruno or Garnacho or Mainoo to meet FFP. And there is plenty of scope to boost the transfer fund, with other sales of people like Antony, Sancho and Rashford who lets face it don't want to be here to further bolster Amorim's player armoury.
Click to expand...

I suspect that after all is said and done, we will learn that our financial issues were completely overplayed in the media and United's (SJR primarily) comments about having limited resources were little more than a way to trick selling clubs into believing United didn't have money to spend.
 
Raoul said:
I suspect that after all is said and done, we will learn that our financial issues were completely overplayed in the media and United's (SJR primarily) comments about having limited resources were little more than a way to trick selling clubs into believing United didn't have money to spend.
Click to expand...
Our finances are publicly reported. Perhaps some of the specifics that the media / SJR brought up were exaggerated (i.e., United running out of cash by Christmas), but broadly speaking, the club is not in a strong financial position, and continues to trend in the wrong direction.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Our finances are publicly reported. Perhaps some of the specifics that the media / SJR brought up were exaggerated (i.e., United running out of cash by Christmas), but broadly speaking, the club is not in a strong financial position, and continues to trend in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...
It's fine to paint a gloomy financial picture publicly to try and get rid of the United premium as long as it works. But i think these inflated prices are more down to club transfer policy incompetence than anything else. Liverpool haven't had this issue. Neither City. Nor a host of clubs whose transfer dealings are more potent and competent than ours (to date).
I don't think we need to fib about running out of cash. Unless we need to justify horrendous cuts to staff. And if it is for that reason then that's really disgraceful.
But I remain an optimist for how we conduct matters this season. I think Cunha could be amazing.
Having said that how does he fit in our system with Amad?
We need a striker and we need a new keeper. At least.
 
Bluelion7 said:
You don’t appear to be including the interest on your larger debt. That is the real killer on United. You DO have a payroll issue, but not as bad as the one Villa is in where their payroll is apparently 90% of revenue by itself unless they shed costs, but still an issue.

I think the debt issue is somewhere between 60-85m per year in maintenance.

I don’t know know a ton about United’s finances, just that I’ve heard they are bad (I am familiar with the Glazers so this doesn’t surprise me), but the debt maintenance is something I didn’t see listed that I know is in United’s calculation.
Click to expand...
I'm open to being wrong if you have some credible source that says otherwise, but I don't believe the interest repayments are even close to being that high.

In the 5 years following the Glazer takeover, the debt repayments were about £70m because the debt was super expensive (PIK loans).

However, the credit was renegotiated in 2010 and our payments dropped to a more manageable £20m or so.

By the way, this is something that is often missed by rival fans when we talk about the Glazer takeover and they don't get why we're annoyed....we spent £350m servicing debt between 2005-2010 and had a positive net spend during that period.

Imagine what we could have done with £350m during that period, when the rate for someone like Aguero or Hazard was about £30m odd.
 
Lentwood said:
I'm open to being wrong if you have some credible source that says otherwise, but I don't believe the interest repayments are even close to being that high.

In the 5 years following the Glazer takeover, the debt repayments were about £70m because the debt was super expensive (PIK loans).

However, the credit was renegotiated in 2010 and our payments dropped to a more manageable £20m or so.

By the way, this is something that is often missed by rival fans when we talk about the Glazer takeover and they don't get why we're annoyed....we spent £350m servicing debt between 2005-2010 and had a positive net spend during that period.

Imagine what we could have done with £350m during that period, when the rate for someone like Aguero or Hazard was about £30m odd.
Click to expand...
Most recent half year accounts suggest our annual debt repayments are £38M.
 
Lentwood said:
Or we refinance it, and it goes down again...impossible to say really, depends on availability of credit
Click to expand...
The interest rate environment is significantly higher than it was when we last refinanced, so our rates are unlikely to go down anytime soon
 
Big Ben Foster said:
The interest rate environment is significantly higher than it was when we last refinanced, so our rates are unlikely to go down anytime soon
Click to expand...
We just can't possibly know that. The Bank of England base rate in the UK for example has come down from 5% to 3% in the last 12-months and in either case, the cost of credit for a man like Ratcliffe and a club like United is calculated entirely differently than it would be for your standard entrepreneur or UK business.

Either way, can't really remember what this debate was about...but I personally don't expect any issues if we wanted to refinance our debt in the near to mid future.
 
City are spending 70m on another player, that’s the first of god knows how many this summer. Add to that the 250m the spent in January and the 115 charges they still have to answer for. Why is there not total uproar about this? We sign Cunha and (hopefully) Mbeumo and every other football fan loses their shite. We are having to be very careful about only spending the money we can afford to spend yet the same rules don’t seem to apply to City, why?
 
sparx99 said:
Nobody suggested selling Bruno for PSR reasons.

The reason some of us consider it as a possibly good idea is his age, lack of suitability for Amorim’s system and that it allows us to build a younger team rather than one relying on his individual brilliance.
Click to expand...

Every top team relies on individual brilliance. This is why top players are paid the most.

Who would know more about suitability of a player more than the manager himself?

Amorim had the chance to say... yep take the £100m, Bruno you dont fit into my system, he didn't because he believes he is an important player for him.

Bruno being at United does not stop us building a young team around him.

There is no football team that is successful without individual brilliance... its just a fact.
 
Lentwood said:
We just can't possibly know that. The Bank of England base rate in the UK for example has come down from 5% to 3% in the last 12-months and in either case, the cost of credit for a man like Ratcliffe and a club like United is calculated entirely differently than it would be for your standard entrepreneur or UK business.

Either way, can't really remember what this debate was about...but I personally don't expect any issues if we wanted to refinance our debt in the near to mid future.
Click to expand...

It’s 4.25%, and was probably at <1% when we last did our refinancing.
 
So where is the money for the new stadium coming from?

I dont think we do, or will ever come close to spending every possible £ on transfers and wages
 
IRELANDUNITED said:
City are spending 70m on another player, that’s the first of god knows how many this summer. Add to that the 250m the spent in January and the 115 charges they still have to answer for. Why is there not total uproar about this? We sign Cunha and (hopefully) Mbeumo and every other football fan loses their shite. We are having to be very careful about only spending the money we can afford to spend yet the same rules don’t seem to apply to City, why?
Click to expand...
Because City are state backed, they will sue anyone for saying anything remotely close to framing them as guilty. We know from Journalists themeselves that City hound them whenever they dare to say anything negative. As for the average fan, City is just a small insignificant state club, they're nothing compared to the behemoth that is Manchester United. Our club destroyed so many fans ambitions in the 90s and 2000s. We're a worldwide phenomenon and jealously comes into it massively. Anything happening at United is major news. Journalists can and do say what they like and it generates huge interest because of the size of the club.

I think also fans are just sick of the City thing. It has dragged on for so long, everyone is bored. We can all see they are cheating scum and are just being allowed to continue without punishment. There's nothing left to be said on that that hasn't already been said. They're a boring, soulless club.
 
I don't think we need to, as long as we can sell players we don't need.
Although after hearing how Al Hilal president phoned Bruno personally, why can't we have Jimmy on the phone tapping up players?
 
sixdwarf said:
Let's not kid ourselves about how much money we have in relation to Financial Fair Play and that somehow we are desperately poor and have to sell the likes of Bruno to allow us to bring in new players. We are still one of the biggest revenue generating clubs in the world.

Some say we have already spent loads this year and how can we afford it all.

Here's a wee explainer.

We are expected to pay £62m for Cunha. But because he is getting a long five year contract under FFP due to something called amortisation the actual cost in terms of FFP only counts as a fifth of £62m or just over £12m in this year. Yes TWELVE million.

Premier clubs are allowed to spend up to 85% of revenue on squad costs in the 2025/26 season. That includes player wages and transfers.

Ratcliffe has said United's player wage bill is £250m. Some analysts say it is actually under £200m. But our revenues in 2023/24 were a huge £620m. 85% of that is £527m.

Now £154m is still owed in instalments payments this calendar year for players we bought in the past.

So if you do the maths we would appear to have at least £216m to play with for transfers and associated wages and agent fees this year. And £12m for Cunha doesn't put a great dent in that.

So as you can see there is plenty of scope to do deals, especially if we sign players on longer five year contacts. The maximum allowed is five years. Chelsea managed to sneak in deals for even longer to get around FFP.

The upshot is. We don't need to sell Bruno or Garnacho or Mainoo to meet FFP. And there is plenty of scope to boost the transfer fund, with other sales of people like Antony, Sancho and Rashford who lets face it don't want to be here to further bolster Amorim's player armoury.
Click to expand...
We've agreed to pay for Cunha in three installments over two years, which is £20.6m per installment.

This has never been about FFP though, it's about ridding the squad of players who don't fit the system Amorim wants to play, or they have poor attitudes/ mentalities.
 
Lentwood said:
I'm open to being wrong if you have some credible source that says otherwise, but I don't believe the interest repayments are even close to being that high.

In the 5 years following the Glazer takeover, the debt repayments were about £70m because the debt was super expensive (PIK loans).

However, the credit was renegotiated in 2010 and our payments dropped to a more manageable £20m or so.

By the way, this is something that is often missed by rival fans when we talk about the Glazer takeover and they don't get why we're annoyed....we spent £350m servicing debt between 2005-2010 and had a positive net spend during that period.

Imagine what we could have done with £350m during that period, when the rate for someone like Aguero or Hazard was about £30m odd.
Click to expand...
United were a publicly listed company before and were paying dividends to the shareholders, so you would need to take that money away from the £350m.
 
Ekeke said:
So where is the money for the new stadium coming from?

I dont think we do, or will ever come close to spending every possible £ on transfers and wages
Click to expand...
Aren’t stadium investments excluded from PSR calculations. So SJR and Ratcliffe can, in theory, fund that themselves (though they absolutely will not and will probably rely on naming rights, government funding and other ventures to pay for the most of it).
 
sixdwarf said:
Let's not kid ourselves about how much money we have in relation to Financial Fair Play and that somehow we are desperately poor and have to sell the likes of Bruno to allow us to bring in new players. We are still one of the biggest revenue generating clubs in the world.

Some say we have already spent loads this year and how can we afford it all.

Here's a wee explainer.

We are expected to pay £62m for Cunha. But because he is getting a long five year contract under FFP due to something called amortisation the actual cost in terms of FFP only counts as a fifth of £62m or just over £12m in this year. Yes TWELVE million.

Premier clubs are allowed to spend up to 85% of revenue on squad costs in the 2025/26 season. That includes player wages and transfers.

Ratcliffe has said United's player wage bill is £250m. Some analysts say it is actually under £200m. But our revenues in 2023/24 were a huge £620m. 85% of that is £527m.

Now £154m is still owed in instalments payments this calendar year for players we bought in the past.

So if you do the maths we would appear to have at least £216m to play with for transfers and associated wages and agent fees this year. And £12m for Cunha doesn't put a great dent in that.

So as you can see there is plenty of scope to do deals, especially if we sign players on longer five year contacts. The maximum allowed is five years. Chelsea managed to sneak in deals for even longer to get around FFP.

The upshot is. We don't need to sell Bruno or Garnacho or Mainoo to meet FFP. And there is plenty of scope to boost the transfer fund, with other sales of people like Antony, Sancho and Rashford who lets face it don't want to be here to further bolster Amorim's player armoury.
Click to expand...
Antony, Rashford and Sancho might generate 0 this summer due to their high wages.
 
romufc said:
Every top team relies on individual brilliance. This is why top players are paid the most.

Who would know more about suitability of a player more than the manager himself?

Amorim had the chance to say... yep take the £100m, Bruno you dont fit into my system, he didn't because he believes he is an important player for him.

Bruno being at United does not stop us building a young team around him.

There is no football team that is successful without individual brilliance... its just a fact.
Click to expand...

I meant a team that doesn't rely on one player. When Bruno has an off-day, we are toothless. No alternative on the bench can do what he does from midfield. It's the difference between being a 'one-man team' and just a better one.

That and Bruno likely not being a starter when we are back at the top.

Regardless, keeping him is fine. I'm happy enough. I just don't think it would have been all doom & gloom.
 
sparx99 said:
I meant a team that doesn't rely on one player. When Bruno has an off-day, we are toothless. No alternative on the bench can do what he does from midfield. It's the difference between being a 'one-man team' and just a better one.

That and Bruno likely not being a starter when we are back at the top.

Regardless, keeping him is fine. I'm happy enough. I just don't think it would have been all doom & gloom.
Click to expand...

But that isn't Brunos fault, we have had good players who have never turned up, or been very inconsistent. Pogba, Martial, Rashford.. etc.. then we sign players and they are not great, Sancho, Hojlund, Zirkzee etc...

I dont know why people keep making comments about Bruno.. first it was we will never win anything... then it got changed to win a significant trophy PL or CL.

I dont think it would have been all doom and gloom either, we have recovered from losing bigger and better players.
 
4046e71e6f1e5801536f897b21b856e8.png
 
bosskeano said:
100% agree that we currently don't have the right set of players at the 10 or 9 roles....hopefully that changes thsi summer with cunha, mbeumo and gyorkeres

bruno is our best player but he also doesn't exactly fit in this system.....

Personally, i believe if Fergie was still teh gaffer and given the age of Bruno, fergie would have moved him on this summer to start the rebuild
Click to expand...

Agree on Fergie. I mean, he ditched Stam and Becks prematurely, so anything would've been possible. In this case, the market is far more expensive and lacking in quality for 100m to instantly replace the productivity of a player of Bruno's calibre. There are no Rio or young CR7 calibre replacements for players we sell this summer.
 
bosskeano said:
100% agree that we currently don't have the right set of players at the 10 or 9 roles....hopefully that changes thsi summer with cunha, mbeumo and gyorkeres

bruno is our best player but he also doesn't exactly fit in this system.....

Personally, i believe if Fergie was still teh gaffer and given the age of Bruno, fergie would have moved him on this summer to start the rebuild
Click to expand...
Please dont use Fergie's name when an argument needs strengthening ..
Fergie never sold a good player for money especially a player who gave everything to the club. If a player is half good enough but is loyal to the club, Fergie figured out a way in the team.

Coming back to Bruno, we will struggle a lot if he leaves. People have short-term memories but Bruno's value to the club cannot be underestimated.
Worst of all, People are assuming Cunha and Mbeumo will hit the ground running on day one, which is almost hoping for a miracle. They could well be turn out to be flops or might take 1-2 seasons to come to full form. Amorim could well be sacked, and the new manager might prefer 4-3-3 in which Bruno will again become a very crucial figure.

Does not matter who we sign, we cannot afford to sell Bruno atleast for a couple of seasons if we have any hopes of getting to the top half of the table.
 
Raoul said:
Agree on Fergie. I mean, he ditched Stam and Becks prematurely, so anything would've been possible. In this case, the market is far more expensive and lacking in quality for 100m to instantly replace the productivity of a player of Bruno's calibre. There are no Rio or young CR7 calibre replacements for players we sell this summer.
Click to expand...
agreed however we don't have european mid week games so the added depth to fill glaring holes would help simply bc they'd have time to embed into the squad with training sessions. the saudis would pay you 100m up front that could, if re-invested wisely, get you 2-3 players of quality to sort of "balance" out the squad
 
Infestissumam said:
some people don't want to hear this, but Bruno not taking the Saudi offer has made this summer window a lot harder. Those 100m would have been a massive help to plug a couple of holes ... now we have a questionable fit in midfield and need to somehow find takers for our deadwood to fund incomings. Not ideal.
Click to expand...
Another way to look at it is, that with £100m incoming for Bruno, the need to ship out the deadwood wouldn't have been so pressing, and most, if not all, would probably have stayed.
Now, it's double important that Rashford, Sancho, Antony etc etc are shipped off, so more effort and focus will be put into this.
 
Infestissumam said:
some people don't want to hear this, but Bruno not taking the Saudi offer has made this summer window a lot harder. Those 100m would have been a massive help to plug a couple of holes ... now we have a questionable fit in midfield and need to somehow find takers for our deadwood to fund incomings. Not ideal.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. As good as he's been we should have moved on that money would allowed us to fix the midfield or at least bring in one top CM.
 
Infestissumam said:
some people don't want to hear this, but Bruno not taking the Saudi offer has made this summer window a lot harder. Those 100m would have been a massive help to plug a couple of holes ... now we have a questionable fit in midfield and need to somehow find takers for our deadwood to fund incomings. Not ideal.
Click to expand...
Some people don’t want to hear this - but keeping our best player and captain is a good thing.

Remember when West Ham won the transfer window a couple of years back, how did that work out? Interestingly they got a massive windfall by selling their best player and their captain…
 
Infestissumam said:
some people don't want to hear this, but Bruno not taking the Saudi offer has made this summer window a lot harder. Those 100m would have been a massive help to plug a couple of holes ... now we have a questionable fit in midfield and need to somehow find takers for our deadwood to fund incomings. Not ideal.
Click to expand...

The 100m from making the CL would've also made things easier. But the fact remains we still have to sell players because they're not actually playing for us and we still have to pay 15-20m a year of their partial wages while they're on loan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.