100m budget for 2019 Summer window

lewwoo

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
1,532
Location
Bridgwater
Where are all the profits going? I thought we had the highest turnover in the league. Why is nothing being invested back in to the team.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
38,400
Location
Munich
Purse string have been tightened, its been evident since last summer really.

Our netspend this summer is £70m at the moment. This is without taking into account £10m which the club got for Fellaini in January. Rojo goes for rumored £25m? Our spend in calendar year 2019 would be a measly £35m. Just not good enough for a team which finished 6th last season.

Top reds/match going fans will still stand up and applaud everyone though, so it's unlikely we're gonna come out of this mess anytime soon.
It is 80-90m at the moment. 10m was on bonuses for Lukaku, so that money won't come until the conditions for the bonuses are satisfied. We also gave 5m to Everton for him. And finally, we also also paying 5-10m for that French kid.

I'll believe when I see it that we are selling Rojo for 25m. We will be laughing if we get 15m for him.
 

prateik

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
35,725
We have nearly 200m in cash/equivalents. We have money. We are profitable.

The - we are skint- argument is just wrong.

If Woody had delivered a CM, this would have been a pretty decent window.


It's not that we dont have the money.. It must be that Woody doesnt want to get taken to the cleaners signing duds anymore.

The fact that we couldnt identify a top midfielder or convince him to join is concerning though.

Longstaff is still a possibility ... or not.
 

Kush

Full Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
2,612
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
We finished 6th last season, SIXTH. That's four out of six times we've failed to finish in Top 4 in past 6 seasons.

Club knew Lukaku was going to be sold, then why the feck was no replacement lined up? Club got rid of Fellaini and lost Herrera on a free, why were no midfielders lined up? This is called poor planning and epitomizes how we've been run for past 6 years. But carry on championing how positive its for us to act in the market like we are.

It is 80-90m at the moment. 10m was on bonuses for Lukaku, so that money won't come until the conditions for the bonuses are satisfied. We also gave 5m to Everton for him. And finally, we also also paying 5-10m for that French kid.

I'll believe when I see it that we are selling Rojo for 25m. We will be laughing if we get 15m for him.
Net spend is being pointed out to drive home the point we've been outspent by 5-6 PL clubs. 3 of them are our direct rivals no less. We need more given the dire season we just had, additional £10m on top of current figure of net spend doesn't change that.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
20,283
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.
The issue with the article isn't the idea that we'd have a budget. It's the idea that a budget would be expressed in such a stupid, inaccurate and useless way.

Not only does the idea of a 100m budget ignore most of the costs of conducting a transfer, it ignores the fact that transfer costs are spread across multiple years.

The idea behind the article is essentially that budgeting can be boiled down to "how much money will they spend from their money pool?". Which is stupid.
 

Mainoldo

Full Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
14,004
I dislike Woody as much as the next fan, but as far has that infamous phrase goes, he was proven right.

It's just that the strategy of who we bought / how we went about it was completely flawed.
How do you mean so I follow?
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
51,394
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.

McTominey has been playing really good for almost a year now, and Fred needs to either prove his worth or we should get rid of him. Enough with 50m pounds players who cannot even make the bench.

I think that we will be fine in the attack. Between Martial, Rashford, Lingard, Mata, James, Lingard, Greenwood, Gomes, Sanchez (and if needs be Dalot and Chong) we are fine for 3-4 positions. If Rashford gets injured, Martial can play in attack, and someone (Sanchez, Chong or Gomes) play in the left-wing. Or just play Greenwood in the attack. I don't see how it would have been a good idea to spend 50m or so in some good but not great striker when we have Greenwood.
If we couldn't find anyone better to what we've got then giving Herrera what he asked for would have made sense. Sure his salary demands might have been OTT but there again, we could have afforded it IF we refused to give non players like Jones and Mata a new contract. However I can think of many signings who could have improved us from Tielemans, Rabiot right to Ndombele. Even second tier players like Kessie could do the trick.

That would have allowed us to beefen up an already weak CM whose set to get weaker with Matic growing 1 year older and with Pogba more focused on leaving then staying. Its totally unacceptable for a top club to lose 2 CM and not replacing them.

Regarding RW, we're once again without a top RW. Meanwhile upfront we'll be relying on a kid and a has been to cover for Rashford, the latter, not exactly being a Thierry Henry or a RVN.
 

Lynty

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
1,038
We have nearly 200m in cash/equivalents. We have money. We are profitable.

The - we are skint- argument is just wrong.

If Woody had delivered a CM, this would have been a pretty decent window.


It's not that we dont have the money.. It must be that Woody doesnt want to get taken to the cleaners signing duds anymore.

The fact that we couldnt identify a top midfielder or convince him to join is concerning though.

Longstaff is still a possibility ... or not.
I haven't heard anyone saying we are skint.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
38,400
Location
Munich
Net spend is being pointed out to drive home the point we've been outspent by 5-6 PL clubs. 3 of them are our direct rivals no less. We need more given the dire season we just had, additional £10m on top of current figure of net spend doesn't change that.
Only Arsenal (as things stand, providing that Lukaku goes to Inter and Majbri comes at United) has marginally net spend more than us from our rivals, with Villa being the other club in EPL spending more than us. Liverpool and Chelsea have a negative net spent (especially Chelsea who are at -70m), City and Spurs are at around 45m.
 

bond19821982

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
3,118
If we couldn't find anyone better to what we've got then giving Herrera what he asked for would have made sense. Sure his salary demands might have been OTT but there again, we could have afforded it IF we refused to give non players like Jones and Mata a new contract. However I can think of many signings who could have improved us from Tielemans, Rabiot right to Ndombele. Even second tier players like Kessie could do the trick.

That would have allowed us to beefen up an already weak CM whose set to get weaker with Matic growing 1 year older and with Pogba more focused on leaving then staying. Its totally unacceptable for a top club to lose 2 CM and not replacing them.

Regarding RW, we're once again without a top RW. Meanwhile upfront we'll be relying on a kid and a has been to cover for Rashford, the latter, not exactly being a Thierry Henry or a RVN.
Tielemans and McT are both B2B and I think they wants to give McT an opportunity.

Rabiot and Ndombele became a pipe dream the moment we lost top 4.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
51,394
Tielemans and McT are both B2B and I think they wants to give McT an opportunity.

Rabiot and Ndombele became a pipe dream the moment we lost top 4.
I think Mct can easily drop as a DM if needed. I also don't understand the hype around him either. He's a good squad player who can one day become a valid first teamer but he's hardly a Roy Keane and probably he'll never be.

There are others such as Rice for example or Kessie for example. Meanwhile as no 10 I wouldn't have mind someone like Suso (whose got a ridiculous minimum signing on fee) or Bruno. All of which would have been great additions to the team.

Lets face it, we didn't spent money because we didn't want to.
 

bond19821982

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
3,118
I think Mct can easily drop as a DM if needed. There are others such as Rice for example or Kessie for example. Meanwhile as no 10 I wouldn't have mind someone like Suso (whose got a ridiculous minimum signing on fee) or Bruno.

Lets face it, we didn't spent money because we didn't want to.
Ofcourse, I am with you on it. It has been a disaster. Esp given that Arsenal and Chelsea didn't strengthen enough and we had a straight shot to top 4.

Next year, Pogba will leave and we will still sitting on a pile of cash doing nothing.
 

Sterling Archer

Full Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
4,280
Only Arsenal (as things stand, providing that Lukaku goes to Inter and Majbri comes at United) has marginally net spend more than us from our rivals, with Villa being the other club in EPL spending more than us. Liverpool and Chelsea have a negative net spent (especially Chelsea who are at -70m), City and Spurs are at around 45m.
City is closer to 100m. Get it right before you make excuses

Rodri 79
Cancelo 74
Angelino 13
Stefan 9
175

Danilo -42
Luiz (dm) -19
Delph -10
Garcia -4.5
Mari -1.5
-77
 

Kush

Full Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
2,612
Only Arsenal (as things stand, providing that Lukaku goes to Inter and Majbri comes at United) has marginally net spend more than us from our rivals, with Villa being the other club in EPL spending more than us. Liverpool and Chelsea have a negative net spent (especially Chelsea who are at -70m), City and Spurs are at around 45m.
Wrong on so many counts, beyond Arsenal and Villa there are 3 clubs at least who'd have outspent us.

First and foremost, Wolves net spend is £86.5m at the moment. That's without accounting for possible Kessie transfer at £26m which would push it north of £100m
https://www.transfermarkt.co.in/wolverhampton-wanderers/transfers/verein/543

Second, City net spend is £80m at the moment https://www.transfermarkt.co.in/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281

Third, Spurs net spend is £37m at the moment but Le Celso and Sessengon signings are imminent which would again push their net spend north of £100m.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.in/tottenham-hotspur/transfers/verein/148

Also, if Everton do sign Zaha in next few hours then they'd also leapfrog us.

Chelsea have a transfer ban and they've signed 2 players for first team in 2019, same as us. Liverpool haven't strengthened but they haven't weakend either, all their key players are still there and they finished 30+ points ahead of us last season.
 

Sterling Archer

Full Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
4,280
Wrong on so many counts, beyond Arsenal and Villa there are 3 clubs at least who'd have outspent us.

First and foremost, Wolves net spend is £86.5m at the moment. That's without accounting for possible Kessie transfer at £26m which would push it north of £100m
https://www.transfermarkt.co.in/wolverhampton-wanderers/transfers/verein/543

Second, City net spend is £80m at the moment https://www.transfermarkt.co.in/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281

Third, Spurs net spend is £37m at the moment but Le Celso and Sessengon signings are imminent which would again push their net spend north of £100m.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.in/tottenham-hotspur/transfers/verein/148

Also, if Everton do sign Zaha in next few hours then they'd also leapfrog us.
Thank you.

All this needs to be considered also along with the fact that United finished 30+ off city and Liverpool. We need to buy. They don't
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
51,394
Ofcourse, I am with you on it. It has been a disaster. Esp given that Arsenal and Chelsea didn't strengthen enough and we had a straight shot to top 4.

Next year, Pogba will leave and we will still sitting on a pile of cash doing nothing.

With all this hype surrounding kids I won't be surprised if we end up barely ever playing them at all. Next year our rebuilding will be massive, we'll need an entire midfield to rebuild (RW as well) and probably a scorer as well. I doubt Ole would still be here though which means all the work around these kids will be for nought.

Ole should have been less idealistic and more realistic. He should have added 2-3 other players who would have secured our top 4 spot and only then play the kids
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
38,400
Location
Munich
@Sterling Archer , @Kush you're right, the website I checked had not been updated today.

Here is from transfermarket: https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1

United is first at 159m euros. Remove around 70m for Lukaku (10m is on variables, so we have no idea if we will ever get that money), add 5-6m which we are giving to Everton (sell-on clause), and around 10m for Mejbri, this puts us at around 105m euros (95m if Mejbri doesn't come). Which is second only to Aston Villa.

Arsenal are at 99m, Wolves at 93.6m, Spurs at 40m (let's add the money for their signings which they haven't made when they make them), City at 86m.
 

SammyUnited_83

Full Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
3,199
How do you mean so I follow?
He spent a feck load of money, paid agents, paid the wages.

Hence why we got Falcao, Di Maria, Pogba, Sanchez (list goes on). All of those players were linked elsewhere, but we completely blew them away with ££'s.

Unless we all think they signed for the Reds because they loved us.
 

Mainoldo

Full Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
14,004
He spent a feck load of money, paid agents, paid the wages.

Hence why we got Falcao, Di Maria, Pogba, Sanchez (list goes on). All of those players were linked elsewhere, but we completely blew them away with ££'s.

Unless we all think they signed for the Reds because they loved us.
Okay understood but what was our targets? Clearly he hasn’t got them regardless of the ££’s and agents.
 

fps

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
2,033
Poor frankenstein. He left Leicester thinking he'll be joining a better side
That is really, really out of order, and doesn't even get that the scientist is Frankenstein, not the creation.
 

Sterling Archer

Full Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
4,280
@Sterling Archer , @Kush you're right, the website I checked had not been updated today.

Here is from transfermarket: https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1

United is first at 159m euros. Remove around 70m for Lukaku (10m is on variables, so we have no idea if we will ever get that money), add 5-6m which we are giving to Everton (sell-on clause), and around 10m for Mejbri, this puts us at around 105m euros (95m if Mejbri doesn't come). Which is second only to Aston Villa.

Arsenal are at 99m, Wolves at 93.6m, Spurs at 40m (let's add the money for their signings which they haven't made when they make them), City at 86m.
I get the intention, mate, we want to look on the bright side. Usually I'm all for making the best of it. But we're well past that and I think any message of temperance now only keeps Ed and Glazers at the helm longer and United down.

Europa League and Champions League finals this past year were contested by all English clubs. We were nowhere to be seen, over thirty points from the top in the league. We've since lost players that, like them or not, contributed and needed replacing.

Instead we will be outspent for yet another season by a newly promoted team.

If our message has always been, we need to operate under strict financial constraints the fans and manager could set our expectations accordingly. I would genuinely have been fine with Lemina coming in, for instance, even Max Aarons instead of AWB. But the problem is the obscene boasting from Woodward in the past, Ole talking about big changes in the summer and then none of that happening. The constant links to top players that then turn us down. Lukaku just going and training at a different club.

Its not okay. It's embarrassing. And stinks of poor poor behind the scenes management that's without doubt now, at the heart of why previously successful managers haven't stayed here long and Ole's future looks grimmer by the minute

Don't let it continue by propagating moot points that make Ed and Glazers seem like they're doing the best thing for the club. They're not. They're killing Manchester United.
 

TRUERED89

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
1,839
Location
England
With Lukaku's fee, Rojo getting sold, and also Zaha sell on clause, our net spend could be as low as £25m or less! Pathetic, we deserve to be in the fecking Emmerdale cup (EL)!
 

Rooney1987

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
5,630
Location
Bradford
Outspent by Aston Villa and Wolves even though we generate more money than any other club in the world.. Now thats the way to make United big again.. Why dont they just fecking sell and feck off
Mark Odgen was speculating that they might be planning to for the reason they've spent so little of the clubs revenue. They've spent the clubs money (not there own) before why stop now. With all rumours about Jim Ratcliffe or the Saudis buying United. I really hope they sell.
 

Kush

Full Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
2,612
@Sterling Archer , @Kush you're right, the website I checked had not been updated today.

Here is from transfermarket: https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1

United is first at 159m euros. Remove around 70m for Lukaku (10m is on variables, so we have no idea if we will ever get that money), add 5-6m which we are giving to Everton (sell-on clause), and around 10m for Mejbri, this puts us at around 105m euros (95m if Mejbri doesn't come). Which is second only to Aston Villa.

Arsenal are at 99m, Wolves at 93.6m, Spurs at 40m (let's add the money for their signings which they haven't made when they make them), City at 86m.
Why are you including variables and addons for players we've signed and deducing it from those we have sold? That's so disingenuous.

We dropped £80m on Maguire, £50m on AWB and £15m on James for a total expenditure of £145m. Remove the guaranteed Lukaku money which is £65m base, that net spend goes down to £80m. Add the overall cost its in ~£70m region. Fact of the matter is, we finished 6th last season and we would've been outspent by 5-6 PL clubs this season, 4 of them which are our straight up rivals. There's no excuse for it.
 

Hackman2210

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
23
Supports
cardiff city
Such a bad window for us, I dont really think Dan James makes us any better, hes a project player, he isnt coming into play 40+ games. AWB and Harry Maguire make us much better at the back but the midfield is still unbalanced and heavily dependent on the consistently inconsistent Pogba. Up front I can see Rashford getting 20 goals, Martial 10-15 and greenwood double figures provided he plays enough. 4th place is there for the taking but we are in a fight with Everton, Arsenal, Chelsea, Wolves. I'm baffled by the lack of transfer spend this window. Do the board want us to succeed?? We've only spent £75million and theres money for Rojo and maybe Darmian coming in. So £60million net...........crap.
 

UnofficialDevil

Anti Scottish
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
13,161
Location
Not anti Scotish, just posted a lot against Moyes.
Mark Odgen was speculating that they might be planning to for the reason they've spent so little of the clubs revenue. They've spent the clubs money (not there own) before why stop now. With all rumours about Jim Ratcliffe or the Saudis buying United. I really hope they sell.
So do I. But I think we will be let down there as well. Fingers crossed they will feck off though.
 

Jezpeza

Full Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
469
With all this hype surrounding kids I won't be surprised if we end up barely ever playing them at all. Next year our rebuilding will be massive, we'll need an entire midfield to rebuild (RW as well) and probably a scorer as well. I doubt Ole would still be here though which means all the work around these kids will be for nought.

Ole should have been less idealistic and more realistic. He should have added 2-3 other players who would have secured our top 4 spot and only then play the kids
I dont even know if he will play them - Gomes, Chong and Garner were all back with the Youth team in the EFL trophy the other night
 

UnofficialDevil

Anti Scottish
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
13,161
Location
Not anti Scotish, just posted a lot against Moyes.
@Sterling Archer , @Kush you're right, the website I checked had not been updated today.

Here is from transfermarket: https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1

United is first at 159m euros. Remove around 70m for Lukaku (10m is on variables, so we have no idea if we will ever get that money), add 5-6m which we are giving to Everton (sell-on clause), and around 10m for Mejbri, this puts us at around 105m euros (95m if Mejbri doesn't come). Which is second only to Aston Villa.

Arsenal are at 99m, Wolves at 93.6m, Spurs at 40m (let's add the money for their signings which they haven't made when they make them), City at 86m.
We have been outspent by Aston Villa and Wolves even though we generate more money than any other club in the world. We finished 6th! last year 6th! Madrid finished 3rd last year and have net spent 190m so far! Thats how you do it. How can you possibly defend these clowns.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
5,985
Location
Between a rock and the Nou Camp
We have been outspent by Aston Villa and Wolves even though we generate more money than any other club in the world. We finished 6th! last year 6th! Madrid finished 3rd last year and have net spent 190m so far! Thats how you do it. How can you possibly defend these clowns.
Revan is not a Dark Lord. It is an anagram of the the word "Nevar" which is to snow in Espanol. this is symbolism that Ed Plans to freeze United's rise as a relevant club by snowing on your parade as opposed to raining on it :devil:
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
38,400
Location
Munich
Why are you including variables and addons for players we've signed and deducing it from those we have sold? That's so disingenuous.

We dropped £80m on Maguire, £50m on AWB and £15m on James for a total expenditure of £145m. Remove the guaranteed Lukaku money which is £65m base, that net spend goes down to £80m. Add the overall cost its in ~£70m region. Fact of the matter is, we finished 6th last season and we would've been outspent by 5-6 PL clubs this season, 4 of them which are our straight up rivals. There's no excuse for it.
It is not a variable for Lukaku though. 5m is going to Everton, which means that we are getting 60m, not 65. So 145- 60 = 85m net spent. Add the money for Majbri, and it goes to 90m+.
 

Stubble

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
289
If it ends up at £70m or less net spend that's appallingly bad considering we spent pretty much naff all last window as well. I'm not really sure what the club's doing - this is a very poor effort of attempting to make up the difference to top 4. The club must realise persistent failure to attain at least top 4 will start to impact all those lucrative deals just as it seems to be impacting attracting top talent. Maybe a club sale really is on the cards. It's a complete Shambles...
 

Jezpeza

Full Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
469
If it ends up at £70m or less net spend that's appallingly bad considering we spent pretty much naff all last window as well. I'm not really sure what the club's doing - this is a very poor effort of attempting to make up the difference to top 4. The club must realise persistent failure to attain at least top 4 will start to impact all those lucrative deals just as it seems to be impacting attracting top talent. Maybe a club sale really is on the cards. It's a complete Shambles...
Strange window.i can accept that we need a few transfer windows to sort the team out. That said, We have 265mil sat in the bank. Not like we cant spend some and earn it back. happy with the two main signings but would have thought we would get one more at least. Still holes in midfield and at RW
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
23,105
People genuinely think we were just pretending to make these bids that would've seen us spend over £100m. :lol: