Woodward.
33
I hadn’t thought about it before but it’s bonkers
I remember when Roy Keane, there or thereabouts the best player in the country at the time, dug his heels in over his contract and there was huge hoopla over the finally agreed 55K a week he was eventually granted. The highest paid player at the time.
That just shows how much player salaries have jumped in the last twenty years. Where the most important player at United was getting a record breaking 55K a week for a team that would win the treble, and now we are giving out 65K a week for a youth player with a handful of games.
That just shows how much player salaries have jumped in the last twenty years. Where the most important player at United was getting a record breaking 55K a week for a team that would win the treble, and now we are giving out 65K a week for a youth player with a handful of games.
The Williams contract was absurd, as is our wage structure, but at a macro level, wages in football have more or less kept up with the revenue growth in the sport. From what I recall, I don't believe player spending as a percentage of revenue has shifted materially among European top division clubs.
But at least both were promising players from elsewhere who came in for £35-50million fees.
Some academy kid being given the wage of a decent squad player is hilariously idiotic.
Give him the £5k a week he deserves and then increase it once he's even vaguely proven himself. Not just storm in top level after 15 games or so.
We used to laugh at the Leeds stories with fish tanks and Seth Johnson but we're much worse.
55k? Thought it was well reported at 50k.
Not a big distinction, but feels odd you've gone in so precise.
More or less, I agree that to be somewhat the case, although…..back at the turn of the millennium United were spending slightly less than 50% of gross revenue on wages. In 21/22 that number was 66%. In percentage terms that’s quite an increase. That was also a treble winning squad, so included large bonuses. In real terms, wages to turnover ratios have risen 30% in the intervening period. So I think it is fair to say that cost discipline has been a major issue for the club in the last decade or so, especially given the paucity of returns on the field.
This number dipped to 51% briefly in 22/23 with CL revenue but is set to rise again. If I remember correctly, David Gill used to talk about the importance of keeping that number anchored to 50% or lower, but if we look at the last decade, it has risen above it on numerous occasions, and by a large margin. The acceptable ratio now seems to be more like 60-65%.
Two approaches that I expect Berrada to bring in that will positively impact this are:
1. Having a much closer correlation between remuneration and success on the field, with immutable principles on all contracts related to appearances, various individual and collective KPI’s, European qualification etc. Essentially reducing the guaranteed base of all players and making contracts highly incentivised by default. This is something we currently only do sporadically as far as I am aware.
2. Not awarding more than 1+1 contracts to players over 30. This used to be a locked in stone policy of the club but in recent times we have given out a 4+1 contract to a 30 year old Casemiro, for example, on 350k a week. Under Ferguson and Gill that would not have been more than a 2 year plus one deal, if it happened at all. And wouldn’t have involved a 60+10m transfer fee. I therefore fully expect the club to largely avoid spending any significant fees on players over 28, nor award more than a 1+1 on any time they have at the club beyond 30. Keeping 30+ year olds on rolling one year deals. That was good enough for all time great players like Keane, Giggs, and Scholes.
This approach avoids us being lumped with considerable expenses on the books that has little utility or resale value. Casemiro, for example, will cost us approximately 32m a season in combined wages and amortised transfer fee over the next two years. 64m in total, yet to go out for a player most deem surplus to requirements and difficult to sell.
I would additionally expect the club to focus on signing players aged 21 to 26, who can contribute immediately and have room for growth and development, whilst retaining resale value. I would also expect those players to not only come in on the aforementioned heavily incentivised deals, but also on slightly longer contracts (5 to 6 years), to spread player costs over the maximum allowed amortisation schedule. These shifts will improve our FFP position significantly.
It is wages, as much or more, than transfer fees, that will improve our FFP and cash flow positions. If we are able to sell Casemiro for 30m to Saudi Arabia, for example, that will neutralise his remaining transfer obligation, and along with getting his, Varane’s and Martial’s wages off the books for next season, will improve our FFP position by 46m a season right there.
That 46m can translate into a 100m player easily, with to room to spare. For example, if one was to sign Joao Neves for 80m, and give him 120k a week - reasonable numbers (if maybe a little high on the wages), on an initial 5 year contract; the cost would be 21.75m a season. 16m in amortised signings costs and 5.75m a season in player wages (based off bi-monthly 120k p/wk wages - 48 or 24 pay periods p/a). So in reality the shifting of Martial (250k p/wk, Varane 350k p/wk, and Casemiro 350k p/wk - plus 30m transfer fee), can be easily spun into two 80m players on 120k a week (the lower wages because they are younger and coming from smaller teams). In real terms those three players and that one transfer fee, can have the same book costs of Joao Neves and about 80% of Florian Wirtz. (You’d have to find the remaining 20% from your existing budget or other cost cuts).
From a squad building perspective, it’s not that difficult. People baulk at the fees cited for a player like Neves, seeing that we have maybe 100m to spend and we can’t blow 80m on just one player; but that’s not how the accounting of the transfers works. As I’ve just illustrated.
We can take it even further and factor in what the sale of a homegrown player like Rashford would do for us in the market. Let’s say we shift him for 75m, that entire income can go on the books this year. Plus his 17m in saved wages, just for this year. That means we have 92m this year to spend to replace him, including wages. But the incoming player will have his transfer fee amortised over the course of his 5 year deal, which means that Rashford could convert into four 75m players each on 120k a week, with room to spare, on an ffp basis.
Longer term, that isn’t a smart way to build because you’ll be paying those fees for 5 years and down the line you’ll run out of wiggle room because you are carrying multiple multi year amortised transfer fees. But it illustrates how easy it is to convert the transfer fee and wages of one high profile, overpaid, academy produced player, into multiple massive signings. It also highlights the importance of resale value once the amortisation period has ended.
This summer I would expect most players that are still within their initial contract period, and were bought for significant sums - Onana, Højlund, Mount, Antony, for example - to stay put (the exception being Casemiro), and for the club to focus on releasing/selling underperforming, older, academy produced, or fully amortised players from the squad. As these will have the greatest impact on our FFP manoeuvrability. Selling Antony, for example, for 30m, isn’t going to help us much at all. It’s less than the remaining amortised player costs. But selling McTominay for the same fee, would result in 33m of FFP wiggle room this season which, as previously shown, could be parlayed into a 75m player on around 200k a week (5 year deal) in FFP terms.
Oh of course, at club level I completely agree - our spending in recent years has ballooned without much to show for it. My comment was more about the broader landscape. Seems like we're on the same page overall.
Absolutely.
99% of my post wasn’t actually relevant to what you wrote to be fair. I just started talking about football finance, in a thread about Brandon Williams, and got carried away. Haha.
The most baffling part of the whole thing was that he came in that season, played a lot of games and did okayish, got a bumper contract for some reason & then the next season Ole didn't play him much. Why did Ole sign off on new bumper contract if he didn't intend to use him a whole lot?
Never realised the contract he was on! Absolutely absurd.
Don’t dare consider using that year extension.
Don’t dare consider using that year extension.
A lot of players were extended in that time period that Ole never had any intention of playing (Bailey, Jones), but it was probably more the idiots upstairs than Ole requesting it
I'm sure Ole at the time mentioned Williams had lost his way a bit. Or words similar to that.
No wonder he was high as a kite.
The club adopted an accounting approach over the last decade where the salaries paid were assessed against the cost to replace leading to bonkers figures. Williams for examples £65k a week sounds nuts but if you compare it to buying a good back up full back and paying their salary it’s cheaper overall therefore considered acceptable. Rubbish.
The club adopted an accounting approach over the last decade where the salaries paid were assessed against the cost to replace leading to bonkers figures. Williams for examples £65k a week sounds nuts but if you compare it to buying a good back up full back and paying their salary it’s cheaper overall therefore considered acceptable.
The club adopted an accounting approach over the last decade where the salaries paid were assessed against the cost to replace leading to bonkers figures. Williams for examples £65k a week sounds nuts but if you compare it to buying a good back up full back and paying their salary it’s cheaper overall therefore considered acceptable.
you can say that again
Some things cannot be said often enough.
you can say that again
Not going to repeat to not derail the thread, just wanted to say thank you for laying it out in such an understandable way. I have nothing to do with Accounting so those things sound fascinating.
Someone has 2 accounts on here….
We seem to have paid this kid north of 10m pounds despite him not kicking a ball for us in the premier league for nearly 4 years. It's lottery win stuff.
Hopefully he's been smart with the money and he should be set up for life. I don't think it's wrong to say the contract ruined his career. The motivation just went.
Hopefully he's been smart with the money and he should be set up for life. I don't think it's wrong to say the contract ruined his career. The motivation just went.
The club adopted an accounting approach over the last decade where the salaries paid were assessed against the cost to replace leading to bonkers figures. Williams for examples £65k a week sounds nuts but if you compare it to buying a good back up full back and paying their salary it’s cheaper overall therefore considered acceptable.
And this is why you don't let accountants run football clubs. Not if you're interested in actually doing well in the football bit anyway.