‘No value in the market’ - 2026

[Rozay]

I honestly think they thought we could sign Anderson for 80m and Fernandes for 50m

Yea tbh that’s probably the case.

 

[Heliax]

Yea tbh that’s probably the case.

The former always seemed unlikely, but if you asked anyone on this forum two months ago, 50m for Fernandes would've represented a fair fee for him. West Ham being ambitious and Spurs being desperate have really hurt us this window (both for us not getting MF and the knock-on effect for midfielder valuations).

 

[Gavinb33]

Ineos just aren’t able to read a room at all in regards to the reality of current day transfers and the fact other clubs in the PL don’t need to sell any more as well as the fact we’re not as desirable as we once was, at best we’re a CL spot club and to push on we can’t be cheap cnuts and expect players to want to join us because of who we once were.

I’m not one for being in panic mode but the way Ineos are acting is basically setting Carrick to fail as it’s clear we need quality in midfield and reality is other clubs know our needs too, if Ineos spend all window chasing players then telling them this is the limit of whats on offer because they should be grateful to play for United we’ll end up with Tyler Adams and Baleba alongside Ederson as our big midfield rebuild then fire Carrick when we struggle navigating four competitions.

We bought successfully from 2 PL club's last season, I can't believe Fernandes has collectively given everyone a nervous breakdown

 

[NicolaSacco]

Is there some reason why fees seem higher this summer (admittedly from a very small sample size). It’s about 5 years since Covid; is that in anyway relevant?

 

[Welsh Devil]

One thing I can’t understand about Manchester United…

Sir Jim Ratcliffe has specifically made the point that there is a strong correlation between wage bill on the pitch and success / trophies (on his Talk of the Devils interview).

Given this, why are we continually hearing that we want to get the wage bill down and missing out on targets due to wage demands?

 

[ron86]

One thing I can’t understand about Manchester United…

Sir Jim Ratcliffe has specifically made the point that there is a strong correlation between wage bill on the pitch and success / trophies (on his Talk of the Devils interview).

Given this, why are we continually hearing that we want to get the wage bill down and missing out on targets due to wage demands?

PR spin, they know we can't compete at the very top financially anymore. They were correct in getting average players off high salaries but you need a number of very good players on high salaries, a team of 11 Bruno level players earning big bucks would be competing

 

[Roboc7]

PR spin, they know we can't compete at the very top financially anymore. They were correct in getting average players off high salaries but you need a number of very good players on high salaries, a team of 11 Bruno level players earning big bucks would be competing

Yeah you do need very good players but you also don’t need to be paying elite salaries to players like Tonali and Fernandes. They’ve got to find the right balance and make sure that the biggest earners are the best players not just at Utd but in the league.

Arsenal managed to rebuild by spending less on wages and fees and then splashing out on players like Rice. That’s not easy to do though and just have to see what happens.

Spurs have gone down the other route and their wage bill is going to shoot up massively let with every new signing and renewal.

 

[ron86]

Yeah you do need very good players but you also don’t need to be paying elite salaries to players like Tonali and Fernandes. They’ve got to find the right balance and make sure that the biggest earners are the best players not just at Utd but in the league.

Arsenal managed to rebuild by spending less on wages and fees and then splashing out on players like Rice. That’s not easy to do though and just have to see what happens.

Spurs have gone down the other route and their wage bill is going to shoot up massively let with every new signing and renewal.

We don't have that balance though. Arteta has spent the best part of a billion, it's not like he has built it on the cheap. We will just have to see how things pan out, I just don't see them ever investing enough in a short space of time to have us competing. Bruno is 32 and will also need to be replaced soon, Cunha and Mbeumo are 27 and at their peak, we will waste our good players peaks by being too weak elsewhere

 

[Roboc7]

We don't have that balance though. Arteta has spent the best part of a billion, it's not like he has built it on the cheap. We will just have to see how things pan out, I just don't see them ever investing enough in a short space of time to have us competing. Bruno is 32 and will also need to be replaced soon, Cunha and Mbeumo are 27 and at their peak, we will waste our good players peaks by being too weak elsewhere

Their initial spending was more modest and it has really ramped up from 2023 onwards. They’ve spent 900 odd million since he joined in 2019 so when you work out the cost over each transfer window it is not outrageous and they’ve only bought one player over 70m.

I would guess we will have spent a similar amount or most likely considerably more over next 5-6 years. We must have even spent close to half that since INEOS took over.

 

[davidmichael]

Spending money isn't a guarantee of anything. By all means, the owners should invest some cash, and we should spend £500m or whatever, but you still have to spend it well. Whatever people think of the Glazers spending money on transfers hasn't been the issue, it's been spending it well.

The natural course correction isn't to be cheap, but to try to spend better.

Of course it isn’t as PSG have shown recently since abandoning their galacticos approach BUT we’ve got squad so devoid of quality that if we’re expected to challenge for a CL spot again next season Ineos are going to have to read the room, we’re not in a position of power anymore where we’re the top destination for players and other clubs don’t need to sell like they used to do

What would you prefer as a window:

Tchouameni and Ederson,
Or
Ederson, Baleba/Berge, Adams and a left back?

Do you think we’d get Baleba, Adams and a left back for the price of Tchouameni then ? As you’re looking at £125+ million for that three as Brighton won’t sell Baleba for less than £70 million at best despite his terrible seaaon whilst the most reported figure for Tchouameni by credible journos is £85 million

From April. I think it’s fair to say that this is what we all expected.

Problem is Ineos were arrogant in thinking we’re the top destination for all players still like when we were in a position of power, this whole ‘we only want players who only want United’ thing is fecking ridiculous as over the past 12-13 years we’ve been a joke and a lot of current players spent their childhood watching others winning the big trophies.

 

[Roboc7]

Of course it isn’t as PSG have shown recently since abandoning their galacticos approach BUT we’ve got squad so devoid of quality that if we’re expected to challenge for a CL spot again next season Ineos are going to have to read the room, we’re not in a position of power anymore where we’re the top destination for players and other clubs don’t need to sell like they used to do

Do you think we’d get Baleba, Adams and a left back for the price of Tchouameni then ? As you’re looking at £125+ million for that three as Brighton won’t sell Baleba for less than £70 million at best despite his terrible seaaon whilst the most reported figure for Tchouameni by credible journos is £85 million

Problem is Ineos were arrogant in thinking we’re the top destination for all players still like when we were in a position of power, this whole ‘we only want players who only want United’ thing is fecking ridiculous as over the past 12-13 years we’ve been a joke and a lot of current players spent their childhood watching others winning the big trophies.

It wasn’t arrogance, it worked last year with Mbeumo, Sesko and Cunha and we were in a much worse position. I think most people expected Fernandes to do the same, no one was terrified of Spurs beating us to his signature. It’s been a successful strategy on the whole and I’m sure it will work with other players as well.

 

[davidmichael]

It wasn’t arrogance, it worked last year with Mbeumo, Sesko and Cunha and we were in a much worse position. I think most people expected Fernandes to do the same, no one was terrified of Spurs beating us to his signature. It’s been a successful strategy on the whole and I’m sure it will work with other players as well.

Blatantly briefing about Anderson being our top target thinking for months that would be enough to make him choose us over City or doing the same with Matheus IS arrogance in thinking we’re the top destination for players, in order for it to work it would need us to be successful so players see we’re a top club again.

It hasn’t been a successful strategy as there’s been about the same amount of misses since Ineos have been in like Zirkzee, Ugarte and Yoro as well as hits like Cunha, Sesko, Heaven and Mazraoui and then some the jury are out on in De Ligt, Mbeumo and Dorgu and I don’t include Lammens as it’s well known he was a Coton recommendation after years of scouting.

 

[Gavinb33]

Blatantly briefing about Anderson being our top target thinking for months that would be enough to make him choose us over City or doing the same with Matheus IS arrogance in thinking we’re the top destination for players, in order for it to work it would need us to be successful so players see we’re a top club again.

It hasn’t been a successful strategy as there’s been about the same amount of misses since Ineos have been in like Zirkzee, Ugarte and Yoro as well as hits like Cunha, Sesko, Heaven and Mazraoui and then some the jury are out on in De Ligt, Mbeumo and Dorgu and I don’t include Lammens as it’s well known he was a Coton recommendation after years of scouting.

Coton is a scout what do you think scouts do? I mean to denigrate a transfer because a player was scouted is really something

 

[Champ]

Of course it isn’t as PSG have shown recently since abandoning their galacticos approach BUT we’ve got squad so devoid of quality that if we’re expected to challenge for a CL spot again next season Ineos are going to have to read the room, we’re not in a position of power anymore where we’re the top destination for players and other clubs don’t need to sell like they used to do

Do you think we’d get Baleba, Adams and a left back for the price of Tchouameni then ? As you’re looking at £125+ million for that three as Brighton won’t sell Baleba for less than £70 million at best despite his terrible seaaon whilst the most reported figure for Tchouameni by credible journos is £85 million

Problem is Ineos were arrogant in thinking we’re the top destination for all players still like when we were in a position of power, this whole ‘we only want players who only want United’ thing is fecking ridiculous as over the past 12-13 years we’ve been a joke and a lot of current players spent their childhood watching others winning the big trophies.

Hence the reason I put Berge in there as well, as he'll be a better option at a lower cost for me..
I think we can get those players for the same price as Tchouameni, which would be a better window than just two players.

INEOs haven't thought that at all...what are you actually basing that on?
They are saying they want to buy players who want to play for the club rather than just come for the big wages, that's not arrogant, it's sensible.

 

[Roboc7]

Blatantly briefing about Anderson being our top target thinking for months that would be enough to make him choose us over City or doing the same with Matheus IS arrogance in thinking we’re the top destination for players, in order for it to work it would need us to be successful so players see we’re a top club again.

It hasn’t been a successful strategy as there’s been about the same amount of misses since Ineos have been in like Zirkzee, Ugarte and Yoro as well as hits like Cunha, Sesko, Heaven and Mazraoui and then some the jury are out on in De Ligt, Mbeumo and Dorgu and I don’t include Lammens as it’s well known he was a Coton recommendation after years of scouting.

The vast majority of the reporting on Anderson has always been that he was going to City, it was obvious for months, we didn’t even bid for him.

It’s not arrogance because it has worked and been a successful method, it’s got them players they wanted to sign and avoided bidding wars, that’s a fact. Saying it’s arrogance just isn’t correct it’s a proven method to obtain players, the success of how those players perform is a different matter.

Just because it didn’t work with Fernandes doesn’t mean it won’t work on other players, the general consensus everywhere was Fernandes would rather play for us than Spurs. We also didn’t employ this tactic when we were up against Madrid for Yoro so a lot of this moaning you only really applies to one example.

 

[davidmichael]

Coton is a scout what do you think scouts do? I mean to denigrate a transfer because a player was scouted is really something

Coton had been scouting Lammens for years as I stated in that post therefore I wasn’t including Lammens in the Ineos signings based on it being a long term pre Ineos thing, that shouldn’t be to hard to understand

 

[sparx99]

Coton had been scouting Lammens for years as I stated in that post therefore I wasn’t including Lammens in the Ineos signings based on it being a long term pre Ineos thing, that shouldn’t be to hard to understand

Except the previous regime consistently ignored our scouts and went with the likes of Onana cos the coach knew him. So this was a demonstrable change of approach where in years past we may have seen Lammens sign elsewhere and be crying that we should have paid 20m instead of the 60m being quoted by the PL club he joined.

 

[lilcurt]

Genuine question, as I honestly can't see an answer to this question.

Based on the clubs current strategy, what is the end? How do they feel they reach the point of having a title winning team?

We are a club with a glittering history, but that doesn't win you trophies in the present.

We are starting from a debt ridden position, with ambitions of piling on more debt for a new stadium.

We have a playing squad that as the start of the window was arguably 4th or 5th best.

We seem to have a strategy of wanting premier league proven players, yet we now seemingly aren't willing to pay big transfer fees and wages (knowing the PL market is inflated).

We watch out competitors sign our first, second and third choice targets, and seemingly move on to inferior or unproven potential.

What is the vision? What am I missing? How does this strategy result in us returning and remaining competitive at the very top of the game?

 

[Gazza]

Genuine question, as I honestly can't see an answer to this question.

Based on the clubs current strategy, what is the end? How do they feel they reach the point of having a title winning team?

We are a club with a glittering history, but that doesn't win you trophies in the present.

We are starting from a debt ridden position, with ambitions of piling on more debt for a new stadium.

We have a playing squad that as the start of the window was arguably 4th or 5th best.

We seem to have a strategy of wanting premier league proven players, yet we now seemingly aren't willing to pay big transfer fees and wages (knowing the PL market is inflated).

We watch out competitors sign our first, second and third choice targets, and seemingly move on to inferior or unproven potential.

What is the vision? What am I missing? How does this strategy result in us returning and remaining competitive at the very top of the game?

In my opinion, the goal of the club is to qualify for the Champions League more often than not. That's the realistic height of our capabilities financially and therefore the scale of our ambition.

Keep the CL money coming in (or Europa at minimum), continue to look for more revenue opportunities (Amazon documentary, future TV or social media deals, tours or overseas games), get the new stadium and surrounding area built, make use of current OT space for more revenue opportunities (turn it into residential or commercial space). Sign a marquee player every 2 years or so to keep engagement high.

^ I believe that's the agenda for the club for the next ten years or thereabouts. It's possible we could get very lucky in the recruitment and challenge for a title along the way, but it's not likely, and the club will see CL qualification as success for the foreseeable.

I'm much cheerier in person!

 

[Frosty]

In my opinion, the goal of the club is to qualify for the Champions League more often than not. That's the realistic height of our capabilities financially and therefore the scale of our ambition.

Keep the CL money coming in (or Europa at minimum), continue to look for more revenue opportunities (Amazon documentary, future TV or social media deals, tours or overseas games), get the new stadium and surrounding area built, make use of current OT space for more revenue opportunities (turn it into residential or commercial space). Sign a marquee player every 2 years or so to keep engagement high.

^ I believe that's the agenda for the club for the next ten years or thereabouts. It's possible we could get very lucky in the recruitment and challenge for a title along the way, but it's not likely, and the club will see CL qualification as success for the foreseeable.

I'm much cheerier in person!

That does seem possible.

Although it doesn't really scream 'legacy' considering Jim's age. What does he get out of this? Naming the stadium after himself?

 

[Gazza]

That does seem possible.

Although it doesn't really scream 'legacy' considering Jim's age. What does he get out of this? Naming the stadium after himself?

Personally, I think the legacy thing applies only up to a point; he won't invest the kind of money United need to really climb out of this hole, even if he wanted to. Money to spruce up Carrington and top up the credit facility? Sure. But I don't think he has the incentive or inclination to invest more than INEOS is already doing.

As far as what he gets out of it - he gets to run the football operations at Man Utd. I'd imagine it's simply more fun than playing with Nice or the other ventures he is involved with. With the Glazers still there, he doesn't even need to take a reputational hit, since the damage was done by the Glazers long before Ratcliffe appeared on the scene.

I might sound cynical but I'm not even blaming Ratcliffe and co. I'm sure they're trying their best and I don't think this is anything more nefarious than a business that has been run into the ground and is now too deeply entrenched to get out of it completely.

 

[scottydoesntknow]

Admitedly the market is over inflated in part due to Elliot Andersons huge fee which will be used as a bench mark. We had so much time to get our priorities in place knowing we need a full midfield rebuild before the market went crazy but as always we linger around trying to knock a quid off the transfer fee and get left behind while all our priority targets choose other clubs. If our strategy is to fall further behind our competition then we're doing a great job. I agree its about being smart in the transfer window and no one wants to get ripped off but if you have the chance to get a Porsche but choose to continually buy Ford Focus's with an engine light on that you need to scrap every two years then you're going nowhere.

 

[YankeeShakes]

That's about right.
And that is football for ya. The vast preponderance of clubs make losses. On a regular basis. And the vast majority of clubs aren't run to mask profits to begin with- they are non profits designed to produce spectacle, to be the best they can be. If they have money, they will find a way to spend it and then some.
The UEFA and PL fair play tests recognize this by stipulating that clubs just have to break even, and even then clubs are allowed to ignore certain costs.
In truth, Clubs, in general, are running below breakeven. They are not covering costs. Generally, there is "no value" in the market. The big costs, player salaries and transfer fees, are set around breakeven. In fact, the sugardaddy clubs, by manufacturing bogus commercial revenue are probably pushing these costs beyond breakeven for the market as a whole. The clubs that complain about no value in the market are those owned by shareholders who do not want to put money into the club's they own.
Some owners don't mind pumping money in to their clubs and indeed the majority of PL owners fall into that category. Some owners, on the other hand
are different. They talk about profitability as if its absence is an abomination, a threat to the very existence of the institution. It's almost a moral imperative that the club turns a profit. Of course, clubs that regularly turn profits don't tend to require funding from the owners, which, of course is convenient for the owners.
The thing about football, is that lack of profit or loss making doesn't cause big clubs to go bust. They always survive.

Quote:
"They talk about profitability as if its absence is an abomination, a threat to the very existence of the institution. It's almost a moral imperative that the club turns a profit. Of course, clubs that regularly turn profits don't tend to require funding from the owners, which, of course is convenient for the owners."

Why would owners, who've paid £100's of millions (in some cases £billions) to buy a club not expect to make a profit from their investment. Excluding the sugar daddy clubs of course (city, psg, and now Newcastle)

In fact they'll expect to make a bigger return on investment than simply putting the £millions (or £billions) into a bank account and earning interest.

Furthermore, being businessmen, they're fully aware that in order to make that money (sponsorships, matchday income, tv revenue, merchandising etc) the club needs to be successful and winning trophies.

These businessmen owners haven't paid £100's of millions just so that occasionally they can go and watch a match.

 

[WPMUFC]

The other side of me does worry though that we thought we could bargain shop the relegated teams or Bournemouth type teams and just didn't see the Anderson move impacting that much and now we blown through option A-B-C and D with really limited options left AND we are now stuck with Rashford/Ugarte wages on the books.

MUFC now being linked with a Chelsea fringe player (Santos) for 50m. I do not like where this window is going.


I don't think we are genuinely going to go for him, especially at that price, but there are reports from Romano and The Guardian so he likely features somewhere on our scouting. I worry the above may be coming true with every passing update.

 

[golden_blunder]

The former always seemed unlikely, but if you asked anyone on this forum two months ago, 50m for Fernandes would've represented a fair fee for him. West Ham being ambitious and Spurs being desperate have really hurt us this window (both for us not getting MF and the knock-on effect for midfielder valuations).

Not correct. Many of us thought around 65m guaranteed may have been a runner. 40-50 was never going to happen as he cost them 40 a year ago and they owe Southampton 15% of any sell on fee. 50 was never a runner in my mind at least

 

[wolvored]

I think the long term vision is regular top 4 and a gradual process to get tier B/C players, (cheaper than tier A) and hope a Mainoo quality player comes through every season. If they think they are winning the league in 2028 then they really are delusional.
Whether after 4/5 years of continual top 4 is reached and makes the club more attractive to tier A players along with the increased money regular top 4 generates, happens could be another thinking bythem

 

[ron86]

Genuine question, as I honestly can't see an answer to this question.

Based on the clubs current strategy, what is the end? How do they feel they reach the point of having a title winning team?

We are a club with a glittering history, but that doesn't win you trophies in the present.

We are starting from a debt ridden position, with ambitions of piling on more debt for a new stadium.

We have a playing squad that as the start of the window was arguably 4th or 5th best.

We seem to have a strategy of wanting premier league proven players, yet we now seemingly aren't willing to pay big transfer fees and wages (knowing the PL market is inflated).

We watch out competitors sign our first, second and third choice targets, and seemingly move on to inferior or unproven potential.

What is the vision? What am I missing? How does this strategy result in us returning and remaining competitive at the very top of the game?

I honestly think our strategy moving forward is to qualify for the cl regularly and win the odd Cup. We can't compete at the top with this ownership. I do wonder whether it has surprised Jim, the resources needed.
As I stated in another thread, you have to spend big nowadays to compete at the very top. You also need to spend that wisely, since psg got Campos in they've bought a lot better but still spent the best part of a billion. Even spending big money wisely won't guarantee success as all top teams are spending bucket loads. The thing is though, not spending big will guarantee that you won't be consistently competing at the very top.

 

[KStandBarmyArmy1993]

Not correct. Many of us thought around 65m guaranteed may have been a runner. 40-50 was never going to happen as he cost them 40 a year ago and they owe Southampton 15% of any sell on fee. 50 was never a runner in my mind at least

65 million is still too much for Fernandes given the role he'd probably play next season. He's not getting in over Mainoo, clearly not ready to displace Bruno and he's not the Casemiro replacement we need.

I honestly think our strategy moving forward is to qualify for the cl regularly and win the odd Cup. We can't compete at the top with this ownership. I do wonder whether it has surprised Jim, the resources needed.
As I stated in another thread, you have to spend big nowadays to compete at the very top. You also need to spend that wisely, since psg got Campos in they've bought a lot better but still spent the best part of a billion. Even spending big money wisely won't guarantee success as all top teams are spending bucket loads. The thing is though, not spending big will guarantee that you won't be consistently competing at the very top.

We spent "bucket loads" between 2014 and 2024 and the vast majority of signings had feck all impact.

It makes sense to have a rethink and not just go all in on several signings each year that aren't as close as possible to being "guaranteed" successes.

I always go back to the period between August 2005 and August 2006 when we signed the likes of Park, Evra, Vidic and Carrick for relatively small amounts of money when Chelsea were seemingly out of reach and signing big name players every year.

Yes, we will inevitably need to spend big but it feels like many want us to sign players purely for the sake of it rather than actually signing players that build on the relative successes of last season.

 

[The Midnight Rambler]

65 million is still too much for Fernandes given the role he'd probably play next season. He's not getting in over Mainoo, clearly not ready to displace Bruno and he's not the Casemiro replacement we need.


We spent "bucket loads" between 2014 and 2024 and the vast majority of signings had feck all impact.

It makes sense to have a rethink and not just go all in on several signings each year that aren't as close as possible to being "guaranteed" successes.

I always go back to the period between August 2005 and August 2006 when we signed the likes of Park, Evra, Vidic and Carrick for relatively small amounts of money when Chelsea were seemingly out of reach and signing big name players every year.

Yes, we will inevitably need to spend big but it feels like many want us to sign players purely for the sake of it rather than actually signing players that build on the relative successes of last season.

I get the sentiment but this team doesn’t have Rio, Neville, Rooney, Ronaldo, Scholes, Giggs and Ruud to build on.

 

[Chungy]

Not sure which topic to write this in, so doing so here.

I think another huge issue for Man Utd that most don't appreciate is the terms of the transfer fees we can afford.
With a few rumours (that I think are true) concerning overspending our budget in previous transfer windows and having remaining payments for previous transfer fees, I think that in some negotiations, overall transfer fees may not be as important as the terms of payment.

I think that we could probably afford to pay a higher transfer fee for some players (that we think are worth it), but it may become problematic if the selling clubs want all/most of the transfer fee upfront.

If you think about the extra revenue from the Champions League and savings from wages. Those will only be realised as the season goes on. Chances are that extra revenue/saving can be used in transfer fees this summer, but probably only payable later. Thus why the Fernandes deal was so problematic.

Yes, rage at the owners for poor financial planning/buys/sells previously, or leeching off our club (which I truly agree with). But until there are new owners plowing 100s of millions into the club, that reality probably won't change anytime soon.

 

[Redjazz]

Quote:
"They talk about profitability as if its absence is an abomination, a threat to the very existence of the institution. It's almost a moral imperative that the club turns a profit. Of course, clubs that regularly turn profits don't tend to require funding from the owners, which, of course is convenient for the owners."

Why would owners, who've paid £100's of millions (in some cases £billions) to buy a club not expect to make a profit from their investment. Excluding the sugar daddy clubs of course (city, psg, and now Newcastle)

In fact they'll expect to make a bigger return on investment than simply putting the £millions (or £billions) into a bank account and earning interest.

Furthermore, being businessmen, they're fully aware that in order to make that money (sponsorships, matchday income, tv revenue, merchandising etc) the club needs to be successful and winning trophies.

These businessmen owners haven't paid £100's of millions just so that occasionally they can go and watch a match.

You are conflating things; owners who have paid millions (or even billions) may make big profits from their investment, but the profit\return they make is not fundamentally linked to a club's financial performance. Case in point: there is no through line between the price the Glazers paid when acquiring the club and its current valuation in terms of the usual metric multiples like EBITDA and turnover. Many of the world's elite clubs have consistently negative EBITDAs (essentially loss making on a cash basis), but of course, their valuations are not negative. Very few PL clubs turn a profit. And none of the current PL clubs have consistently done so. But none could be bought for a pittance.
Spiel that revolves around stating that football clubs are just like other businesses is dull, insipid, dumb thinking.

There is no financial performance metric that will explain the current valuations that some clubs have.
Clubs like United should be considered prestige assets. Like high end Art, you might expect their values to spiral because of demand, but don't expect an income. Indeed while you are an owner you can expect to pay substantial maintenance fees.
The majority of clubs in the world are not run for profit. They do not have financial shareholders. Their goal is to be the best they can be at football.
If they have money it will be spent.
For-profit clubs, like ourselves, have to compete for players in a market where costs like salaries and transfer fees are at breakeven. As I said, the sugar daddy owners have probably driven costs beyond breakeven. The impact of Sugar daddies can't be excluded.
There is plenty of footballing value in the market but that footballing value might not equate to good financial value.
Clubs expecting to get financial value in the transfer market are swimming against the current. It doesn't mean that bargains are never available but expecting
to get value (financial as opposed to footballing) for players that are in demand is a bit special.

 

[ron86]

65 million is still too much for Fernandes given the role he'd probably play next season. He's not getting in over Mainoo, clearly not ready to displace Bruno and he's not the Casemiro replacement we need.


We spent "bucket loads" between 2014 and 2024 and the vast majority of signings had feck all impact.

It makes sense to have a rethink and not just go all in on several signings each year that aren't as close as possible to being "guaranteed" successes.

I always go back to the period between August 2005 and August 2006 when we signed the likes of Park, Evra, Vidic and Carrick for relatively small amounts of money when Chelsea were seemingly out of reach and signing big name players every year.

Yes, we will inevitably need to spend big but it feels like many want us to sign players purely for the sake of it rather than actually signing players that build on the relative successes of last season.

First of all, Fernandes' stats are elite compared to mainoo, he would start ahead of him.
Regarding us spending bucket loads, that's exactly why I said it ALSO needs to be spent wisely. Yes we got good deals on players around 06, that was added to the best player in the world at the time in cr7, the best young striker in the world in Rooney, the world's most expensive and best defender in Rio, a world class mf in Scholes, top class players in Giggs and Carrick, a top gk in van de saar. You don't win with 11 park signings, they are added to top class players

 

[Herman Toothrot]

PR spin, they know we can't compete at the very top financially anymore. They were correct in getting average players off high salaries but you need a number of very good players on high salaries, a team of 11 Bruno level players earning big bucks would be competing

Because three of our biggest wage expenditures were not on the pitch. Simple as that.

 

[golden_blunder]

65 million is still too much for Fernandes given the role he'd probably play next season. He's not getting in over Mainoo, clearly not ready to displace Bruno and he's not the Casemiro replacement we need.


We spent "bucket loads" between 2014 and 2024 and the vast majority of signings had feck all impact.

It makes sense to have a rethink and not just go all in on several signings each year that aren't as close as possible to being "guaranteed" successes.

I always go back to the period between August 2005 and August 2006 when we signed the likes of Park, Evra, Vidic and Carrick for relatively small amounts of money when Chelsea were seemingly out of reach and signing big name players every year.

Yes, we will inevitably need to spend big but it feels like many want us to sign players purely for the sake of it rather than actually signing players that build on the relative successes of last season.

60/65 would have been a fair price in the market. As I said it was a pipe dream expecting him for 50 or less

 

[KStandBarmyArmy1993]

First of all, Fernandes' stats are elite compared to mainoo, he would start ahead of him.
Regarding us spending bucket loads, that's exactly why I said it ALSO needs to be spent wisely. Yes we got good deals on players around 06, that was added to the best player in the world at the time in cr7, the best young striker in the world in Rooney, the world's most expensive and best defender in Rio, a world class mf in Scholes, top class players in Giggs and Carrick, a top gk in van de saar. You don't win with 11 park signings, they are added to top class players

I don't watch West Ham more than a few times a season but I just don't think he's "that" good. Again, he has the potential to be amazing for Spurs but he's still very young. He's just not worth 85 million and Mainoo at the very least, is better suited to how Carrick wants us to play.

I keep saying this but I'm not sure why people are losing their minds over him. It certainly wouldn't be an example of us spending money wisely.

Go back to 2006 and the consensus was very different to how you said and there was just as much of a collective meltdown. Ronaldo was a show pony, Vidic and Evra weren't suited to the Premier League, Park was only signed to sell shirts in South Korea and Carrick wasn't fit to lace Keane's boots. Giggs was past it and there was doubts about whether Scholes was ever gonna be back at 100% after a period out injured.

Also, on a wider point, worth pointing out that even during the peak of the "no value in the market" days under Fergie, we never finished outside the top 2 and still reached a Champions League final. Granted, it wasn't exactly vintage United but it was still pretty good.

 

[golden_blunder]

I don't watch West Ham more than a few times a season but I just don't think he's "that" good. Again, he has the potential to be amazing for Spurs but he's still very young. He's just not worth 85 million and Mainoo at the very least, is better suited to how Carrick wants us to play.

I keep saying this but I'm not sure why people are losing their minds over him. It certainly wouldn't be an example of us spending money wisely.

Go back to 2006 and the consensus was very different to how you said and there was just as much of a collective meltdown. Ronaldo was a show pony, Vidic and Evra weren't suited to the Premier League, Park was only signed to sell shirts in South Korea and Carrick wasn't fit to lace Keane's boots. Giggs was past it and there was doubts about whether Scholes was ever gonna be back at 100% after a period out injured.

Also, on a wider point, worth pointing out that even during the peak of the "no value in the market" days under Fergie, we never finished outside the top 2 and still reached a Champions League final. Granted, it wasn't exactly vintage United but it was still pretty good.

From reading this post I feel that you need to move on 20 years. It’s my opinion that the quality of the league has got higher, what
I mean is that even the smaller teams are harder to beat, with them having coaches with different ideas and better players in their squads.

If Carrick can manage to get top 4 again with the same squad then it will be because he and his team are pulling a blinder. The squad has big holes in it and so far this summer we appear to be being left behind.

 

[ron86]

I don't watch West Ham more than a few times a season but I just don't think he's "that" good. Again, he has the potential to be amazing for Spurs but he's still very young. He's just not worth 85 million and Mainoo at the very least, is better suited to how Carrick wants us to play.

I keep saying this but I'm not sure why people are losing their minds over him. It certainly wouldn't be an example of us spending money wisely.

Go back to 2006 and the consensus was very different to how you said and there was just as much of a collective meltdown. Ronaldo was a show pony, Vidic and Evra weren't suited to the Premier League, Park was only signed to sell shirts in South Korea and Carrick wasn't fit to lace Keane's boots. Giggs was past it and there was doubts about whether Scholes was ever gonna be back at 100% after a period out injured.

Also, on a wider point, worth pointing out that even during the peak of the "no value in the market" days under Fergie, we never finished outside the top 2 and still reached a Champions League final. Granted, it wasn't exactly vintage United but it was still pretty good.

I agree, I don't think he's worth 85m, more like 60-65m. We talk about being data driven though, and his data shows him to be far ahead of mainoo.
You say the consensus was different, but do you honestly believe we have players close to that level now? Maybe Bruno but he's 32 and won't have long left.
We carried on due to fergie, we don't have that now. If you honestly believe we can compete consistently with the best in Europe while spending half of what they do, I just have to say I couldn't disagree with you any more. I feel it's naive and unrealistic. Unless we get new owners we will have another decade without a title at least

 

[Heliax]

Not correct. Many of us thought around 65m guaranteed may have been a runner. 40-50 was never going to happen as he cost them 40 a year ago and they owe Southampton 15% of any sell on fee. 50 was never a runner in my mind at least

I agree that 60-65m guaranteed would have gotten us over the line, but many were hopeful of a relegation discount from West Ham, even cheering on Spurs to stay up, with getting a cut-price fee for MF partially in mind. Fair point about the sell on - I didn't factor that into my own thinking.

 

[Redjazz]

Not sure which topic to write this in, so doing so here.

I think another huge issue for Man Utd that most don't appreciate is the terms of the transfer fees we can afford.
With a few rumours (that I think are true) concerning overspending our budget in previous transfer windows and having remaining payments for previous transfer fees, I think that in some negotiations, overall transfer fees may not be as important as the terms of payment.

I think that we could probably afford to pay a higher transfer fee for some players (that we think are worth it), but it may become problematic if the selling clubs want all/most of the transfer fee upfront.

If you think about the extra revenue from the Champions League and savings from wages. Those will only be realised as the season goes on. Chances are that extra revenue/saving can be used in transfer fees this summer, but probably only payable later. Thus why the Fernandes deal was so problematic.

Yes, rage at the owners for poor financial planning/buys/sells previously, or leeching off our club (which I truly agree with). But until there are new owners plowing 100s of millions into the club, that reality probably won't change anytime soon.

It is all possible but I would argue that actual cash availability is more relevant than the timing of monies in and out.
For one thing, the club has a 400m RCF, or credit card, that is designed primarily to deal with money timing issues- use the credit card to pay now and pay back the credit card when the income arrives.
Thing is we have increased the borrowing capacity on the card from about 250m to 400m in pretty short order. The club is using it as a long term debt instrument rather than a short term credit card.
The club's net transfer debt of 360m in the latest interim report (Q3 2026) is a record high. About 200m of net transfer spend is due within one year. Our actual net transfer spend for the first 9 months of 2026 was 115m. An expected 200m of cash profits is expected to support all that (and debt interest, capital investment).
We remain in a cash bind and are using various levers to spend more than we are currently generating; from increasing the borrowing capacity on the RCF, backloading payment plans on transfers in, even selling long term transfer debt due to us at a discount.

 

[golden_blunder]

It is all possible but I would argue that actual cash availability is more relevant than the timing of monies in and out.
For one thing, the club has a 400m RCF, or credit card, that is designed primarily to deal with money timing issues- use the credit card to pay now and pay back the credit card when the income arrives.
Thing is we have increased the borrowing capacity on the card from about 250m to 400m in pretty short order. The club is using it as a long term debt instrument rather than a short term credit card.
The club's net transfer debt of 360m in the latest interim report (Q3 2026) is a record high. About 200m of net transfer spend is due within one year. Our actual net transfer spend for the first 9 months of 2026 was 115m. An expected 200m of cash profits is expected to support all that (and debt interest, capital investment).
We remain in a cash bind and are using various levers to spend more than we are currently generating; from increasing the borrowing capacity on the RCF, backloading payment plans on transfers in, even selling long term transfer debt due to us at a discount.

Crikey. That gives grim context to this summers activity. Both your post and the previous guy, do t know who is right on the nail but they are both grim