Cassidy
No longer at risk of being mistaken for a Scouser
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2013
- Messages
- 31,249
After selling Rojo for 25m what would our actual expenditure be?
Roughly 40m?
Roughly 40m?
I doubt anyone believes we have a strict budget anyway and we can probably spend more if a certain player becomes available. It’s more of the fact that we’re not improving obvious areas of weakness which makes people that we’ve tightened the purse strings.Yes, but it would have set our transfer budget to 140-155m pounds (initially it was reported Lukaku + 15m for Dybala).
United has around 200m pounds in the bank. It is financially irresponsible to just leave the money there (inflation and all that). The reasons why we have not to spend more is if the main targets didn't want to come here (or either the clubs or the players required an absurd amount of money for them). But providing that we wanted a player, the club sold him at a reasonable price and the player asked for reasonable wages (reasonable doesn't mean cheap, see Maguire), we would have signed that player. Case, Dybala. We wanted him, Juve was reasonable, but Dybala apparently asked for 350k+ salary (or didn't want to come at all).
Pepe? He was available. I’m sure Ole would take a winger and another striker given the opportunity. I’m sure he’d sign a midfielder or two as well. Why aren’t we replacing Herrera and Matic? If he’s happy with our midfield then he’s brain dead.On who?
Therein lies the issue.
We had to wait to sell Lukuku, because there would be room in the squad if the deal didn’t go through. Let’s be honest, most of us didn’t think Inter would actually come up with the money - I thought he would be here this season (although very glad he’s not).
It's called going 'over budget' apparently...Explain then how the deal for Dybala (which apparently Juve accepted) makes sense then? Cause that signing would have nullified the money we got from Lukaku.
We spent less than 100m because Dybala didn't want to come here. If he would have accepted coming here, our net spend would have been 140-150m pounds (not counting agent fees and signing on fee).
So yep, it was and it is bollocks.
Correct. Then add 10m for Fellaini, 10m for Darmian and the £ from a Zaha-sale and it's a profit! Well played Ed.After selling Rojo for 25m what would our actual expenditure be?
Roughly 40m?
That's another matter, though I agree with you. We significantly improved the defense (I actually think that we will also play better cause of that, especially with Maguire being great at passing from the back), but the midfield is weaker with Herrera going and Matic becoming useless (though McTominay has stepped in). The attack should hopefully be stronger, we should expect some of Martial, Rashford, Gomes, James, and Greenwood (maybe Dalot too, considering that his best performances last season came from the right wing) to step in.I doubt anyone believes we have a strict budget anyway and we can probably spend more if a certain player becomes available. It’s more of the fact that we’re not improving obvious areas of weakness which makes people that we’ve tightened the purse strings.
Turns out it was all bollocks.Why ? Its total bs and all iv read today on here is people posting about it .
Me too. It is clear that both AWB and Maguire are players we really wanted and that massively improve us. It also shows that we are finally acting responsibly instead of just throwing money at the problem and hoping that the problem goes away.It's called going 'over budget' apparently...
I'll be honest I'm hoping we sell even more players so the net spend this summer is £0. I mean if there's going to be a meltdown over net spend may as well do it properly
Seriously am I the only one who sees the club operating properly as a positive? We bought Lukaku for 75m and sold him 2 years later only taking a 3m loss (if the rumours about Everton getting 5m are true). We've walked away from deals which would have caused even more disproportion in the wage structure (Dybala) whereas previously (Sanchez) we ignored such things
Yes we're short in midfield and attack but if we've levelled up the defence the way we have for just £73m that's a good thing is it not? Obviously it's a glass half empty crowd here but if the money we've made back from Lukaku means money for someone like Sancho and the right midfielder next summer then I'm all for it
So you're happy in having Pogba as our only decent CM, no quality RW and no cover for Rashford?Me too. It is clear that both AWB and Maguire are players we really wanted and that massively improve us. It also shows that we are finally acting responsibly instead of just throwing money at the problem and hoping that the problem goes away.
You literally only read the first line. Going 'over budget' is a common term in the workplace.Explain then how the deal for Dybala (which apparently Juve accepted) makes sense then? Cause that signing would have nullified the money we got from Lukaku.
We spent less than 100m because Dybala didn't want to come here. If he would have accepted coming here, our net spend would have been 140-150m pounds (not counting agent fees and signing on fee).
So yep, it was and it is bollocks.
What's responsible in letting arsenal and spurs strengthen in the positions we needed.Me too. It is clear that both AWB and Maguire are players we really wanted and that massively improve us. It also shows that we are finally acting responsibly instead of just throwing money at the problem and hoping that the problem goes away.
Acting responsibly is super unsexy though isn't it.Me too. It is clear that both AWB and Maguire are players we really wanted and that massively improve us. It also shows that we are finally acting responsibly instead of just throwing money at the problem and hoping that the problem goes away.
Funny and sad at the same time.What a brilliant performance by Woodward.
So close to the magic 0 net spend marker. Job well done!
this to me is even worse as this year alone we have given new contracts to Rojo, Jones, Young, Mata and Pereira when they should all have been let go. I have no clue what our strategy is. Is it to maintain our wage bill by keeping players who are not good enough and then inhibiting our ability to sing new players due to this wage bill. sounds like a planYou are correct, its more like bullshit.
We have cash at hand at almost 200m according to the last quarterly statement. Its almost financially irresponsible to be fair to operate with that much cash even if our turnover is bigger than anyone elses in the PL.
The transfer fees is not the issue. Our wage bill is. I seriously dont get why people cant get around to this fact. We have signed Rashford and (most likely) De Gea up to new expensive contracts as well as not paying Maguire (especially) and Wan-Bissaka exactly peanuts. We have lost Herrera who was on nothing money and Fellaini who got a big fecking raise from Mourinho but was just paid for like 6 months. So we have increased our wage bill yet again and we will prob be touching 310m or something now.
"Net spend" means nothing.
EDIT
I forgot Valencia who actually was on a half-decent contract as well. We will still have increased our wage bill this year. If Lukaku does leave I guess we will be at more status quo.
This would be amazing if in the same window we did not lose over 80 first team appearances from our midfield and forward line last season and then not replace them. If this would have been done, something that should not have been too difficult with 84 days to do it, then this window would have been very good and the club really would have been acting responsible.Me too. It is clear that both AWB and Maguire are players we really wanted and that massively improve us. It also shows that we are finally acting responsibly instead of just throwing money at the problem and hoping that the problem goes away.
We have 200m pounds lying in the bank. Of course, it makes perfect sense to keep some of them in case of emergency, but 200m is a bit too much. So, the money is definitely there.Acting responsibly is super unsexy though isn't it.
Seriously, I agree with this, as long as it is a case of our being financially responsible and not that the money isn't there. I find it difficult to defend our not replacing Lukaku if indeed this doesn't happen. Unless our kids step up and become a productive part of the squad from right now, we do look light in the attacking half.
There wasn't a single player they signed, that we wanted to sign. Going for players that weren't really in our plans is arguably the main reason why we are in this mess.What's responsible in letting arsenal and spurs strengthen in the positions we needed.
We also threw money at the problem on Maguire and AWB when clearly they were not worth the money and we got taken to cleaners.
And as I said, we would have signed Dybala if he wanted to come here, and we at least opened the bid for Longstaff with 25m (if there was a chance to sign him, he would have cost more), so we would have gone over the budget for around 70m pounds or so, which is almost the double of the entire budget, and makes the theory that we had only 100m to spend a bit nuts.You literally only read the first line. Going 'over budget' is a common term in the workplace.
Do you really think a multi-billion £ organisation with a Financial invester/accountant as Executive Vice-Chairman, is not going to chair a meeting after the worst season in years and outline a stratergy/financial plan for the coming years?
And during an already inflated transfer market, this same Executive Vice-Chairman is not going to discuss a realistic budget for the coming window. Instead we are just going ot wing it and see what happens?
Whats more plausible here? That we entered the market with a budget discussed, or without one?
It just happens that £100m, coincidentally or not, looks to be the ball park figure.
And half the caf lost their mind everytime Lukaku and Fellaini were playing. They won't be missed, and I think that Lukaku's appearances will be easily replaced by those of James, Gomes and Greenwood (with Rashford/Martial occupying left wing and No. 9).This would be amazing if in the same window we did not lose over 80 first team appearances from our midfield and forward line last season and then not replace them. If this would have been done, something that should not have been too difficult with 84 days to do it, then this window would have been very good and the club really would have been acting responsible.
It is around 80m at the moment (providing that Lukaku's signing goes through).Our net spend is practically zero so 100 budget is optimistic
Liverpool are about + £20mSo thats:
Would love us to win the "Net spend league" this year. Any other clubs close to that?
I'm more of the opinion that Maguire, AWB, James and Longstaff were the targets before the window opened (once it was established Sancho was off the table this year) and Lukaku was being pushed out. Which would have brought our net spending to approx £100mAnd as I said, we would have signed Dybala if he wanted to come here, and we at least opened the bid for Longstaff with 25m (if there was a chance to sign him, he would have cost more), so we would have gone over the budget for around 70m pounds or so, which is almost the double of the entire budget, and makes the theory that we had only 100m to spend a bit nuts.
That's what's idiotic isn't it? Clearly Ndombele, Nicolous pepe are better than what we have in our team in matic, mctominay, fred and Lingard and mata.There wasn't a single player they signed, that we wanted to sign.
That might be well, the case. Maybe identifying 3-4 players that we wanted, but willing to splash the cash if a player we cannot miss suddenly becomes available.I'm more of the opinion that Maguire, AWB, James and Longstaff were the targets before the window opened (once it was established Sancho was off the table this year) and Lukaku was being pushed out. Which would have brought our net spending to approx £100m
Dybala wasn't anticipated before this 'budget' was set and was an oppurtnity that we couldn't miss. If we had to dip into unallocated resources to make it happen, we would have.
Don't get me wrong I agree with a lot you say but I still dont think it is a very good window and I bet behind closed doors Ole would say the same.And half the caf lost their mind everytime Lukaku and Fellaini were playing. They won't be missed, and I think that Lukaku's appearances will be easily replaced by those of James, Gomes and Greenwood (with Rashford/Martial occupying left wing and No. 9)
I believe that Herrera will be missed but then, and we should have replaced him.
No, is not. Matic was better than Fellaini, but it wasn't a good signing. Bailly was better (at that time) than Evans, but it wasn't a good signing. Lukaku was better than Rashford but it wasn't a good signing. Heck, Sanchez was better than Martial (back then) but it wasn't a good signing. Di Maria was better than anything we had but wasn't a good signing. I can go on forever.That's what's idiotic isn't it? Clearly Ndombele, Nicolous pepe are better than what we have in our team in matic, mctominay, fred and Lingard and mata.
It's just a poor excuse of not spending money and getting beat because the players think we are not in a position to win and better their careers. Who is responsible for this when they see such dross collected in the team and huge contracts given to deadwoods like Jones, mata, lingard. Young and Matic with Pogba wating out publically.
Whats wise in that. Why does Woodward have excuses all the time ?
I agree that it wasn't a good window, but I think we improved 2 positions where we were really bad at, and we have a few promising young players. Remember in 2006 we signed only Carrick, and went from crap to arguably the best team in Europe. I don't think that this is happening right now (there are a few other positions we need to improve), but I much prefer this than just spending money on random players which on 1 year we would want to get rid off.Don't get me wrong I agree with a lot you say but I still dont think it is a very good window and I bet behind closed doors Ole would say the same.
Let's hope the players you mentioned do share those appearnaces and we are not seeing the starting 11 week in week out consisting of Mata and Lingard.
our B team will soon be our A team.We might sell Darmian.. but that money has already been spent on Hannibal.
Probably getting a loan fee for Deano as well..
Good job Woody.
I said that midfield is an area we should have improved, but bar Rabiot I don't know a really quality midfielder that was available this summer.So you're happy in having Pogba as our only decent CM, no quality RW and no cover for Rashford?
Nope, I agree with you. We clearly targeted two specific players to improve our defence and landed both. We went after a promising talent in James and got him. What we didn't do was overpay for players (as good as they are) like Dybala, SMS, Longstaff, Inaki, Icardi, Bruno, Rice, et al in terms of hefty fees or massive wage packets. I'm actually quite pleased to see us put our foot down towards the agents looking for a quick payday out of us - about time.It's called going 'over budget' apparently...
I'll be honest I'm hoping we sell even more players so the net spend this summer is £0. I mean if there's going to be a meltdown over net spend may as well do it properly
Seriously am I the only one who sees the club operating properly as a positive? We bought Lukaku for 75m and sold him 2 years later only taking a 3m loss (if the rumours about Everton getting 5m are true). We've walked away from deals which would have caused even more disproportion in the wage structure (Dybala) whereas previously (Sanchez) we ignored such things
Yes we're short in midfield and attack but if we've levelled up the defence the way we have for just £73m that's a good thing is it not? Obviously it's a glass half empty crowd here but if the money we've made back from Lukaku means money for someone like Sancho and the right midfielder next summer then I'm all for it