It'd only lack an attacking player (striker or right winger) for me, James cannot be expected to be performing like a starter would, at least not at the beginning
100m budget for 2019 Summer window
- Thread starter bond19821982
- Start date
Yeah, I don't really want to progress further into finance where I currently work, so was trying to look into getting into something like this. It's not all that dissimilar to what's going on in asset management. I have some clients who claim their risk management is that they know everything about the companies they invest in... That's starting to not cut it any more to win business. I think as younger managers find success with statistical analysis and the come more successful/make more money, it will change.
Your last part is just fecking mad, why would someone not want to know if they are close to an injury?!!
<<100m budget>>
James: 15m
Wan Bissaka: 50m
Alderweireld: 25m
Rabiot: 0m
TOTAL: 90M
Sell Lukaku for 70m and use that money to buy Fernandes.
Sell Darmian, Rojo, Bailly, Jones, Young, Matic, Pereira, and Sanchez (plus the 10m left of the transfer budget)... Buy Ndidi (40m) and Tierney (25m)
James: 15m
Wan Bissaka: 50m
Alderweireld: 25m
Rabiot: 0m
TOTAL: 90M
Sell Lukaku for 70m and use that money to buy Fernandes.
Sell Darmian, Rojo, Bailly, Jones, Young, Matic, Pereira, and Sanchez (plus the 10m left of the transfer budget)... Buy Ndidi (40m) and Tierney (25m)
FIRST ELEVEN
De Gea
Wan Bissaka - Alderweireld - Lindelof - Shaw
Ndidi
Rabiot - Pogba
Fernandes
Rashford - Martial
BENCH
Romero
Dalot - Smalling - Tuanzebe - Tierney
McTominay - Fred
Lingard - Mata - James
Greenwood
De Gea
Wan Bissaka - Alderweireld - Lindelof - Shaw
Ndidi
Rabiot - Pogba
Fernandes
Rashford - Martial
BENCH
Romero
Dalot - Smalling - Tuanzebe - Tierney
McTominay - Fred
Lingard - Mata - James
Greenwood
Turns out this is bullshit.
It probably is but we could still end up selling Lukaku and Pogba meaning out net spend will be less than £100m
Lock it up
What a surprise.
The idea that we had 100m to spend this summer was always either a huge oversimplification (well past the point of being useless) or horseshit designed to get clicks. It just isn't how transfers get budgeted. Net spend is also an irrelevant concept in this context.
Assuming all transfers are not paid first year , this could be right
AWB : 35-40
Maguire-:50-60
James : 10
Longstaff : 10-15
With some sales, we could just be around 100m mark.
AWB : 35-40
Maguire-:50-60
James : 10
Longstaff : 10-15
With some sales, we could just be around 100m mark.
It's a fecking joke if our budget is 100m We have a ridiculous income and we need to absolutely use it now.
Was AWB not an initial fee of £45? Maguire will be at least £70M.
Its categorically NOT right, the financial treatments of transfers and budgeting thereof just doesn't work like this.
So many fans mistake the movement of money for the impact on finances. There are so many other factors to consider that it would be far too basic to budget in this manner.
It was just a clickbait fairytale that so many fans have fallen for and got their knickers in a twist over.
Can everyone just show a little patience, I will judge transfer dealings on August 9th and not before.
Your income is huge but so is your debt which does need servicing, your wage bill has increased massively over the last 2 seasons also, and looks to increase further. Of course there is still money there, United is a money making machine but the Glazers will want their cut.
Initial fee still can be paid in installments, though? 45 m is the guaranteed amount which they will get ? That's my understanding.
Why not at 17.01 on the 8th August?
Yeah I would say so, I wish it was all a bit more transparent, I don't see what the clubs would have to lose by showing the details of the deal. It would stop all the BS media hacks inflating things.
Adding a little buffer in-case of any misfiring fax machines!
Wise man.
It is?
So far we have spent £65M on James and Bissaka.
So, we are still well under £100M.
In a month's time, we'll know the actual figure.
If this were true, I'd be expecting something like this (assuming the rumoured fees and add-ons are about right):
In:
James - £15m (£2m add-ons)
Wan-Bissaka - £45m (£5m add-ons)
Longstaff - £20m (£5m add-ons)
Maguire - £70m (£5-10m add-ons)
Fernandes - £50m~
Out:
Lukaku - £75m
Darmian - £10m
Rojo - £10m
Herrera - Released
Valencia - Released
Net Spend: £105m
Seems like it could be about right. There's rumours of Ben Yedder too of course which would put us at more like £140m net spend, so there'd likely have to be some further departures.
However, I think that departure would be Pogba and we wouldn't reinvest the money we got for him, making our net spend probably less than the likes of Spurs and Leicester
In:
James - £15m (£2m add-ons)
Wan-Bissaka - £45m (£5m add-ons)
Longstaff - £20m (£5m add-ons)
Maguire - £70m (£5-10m add-ons)
Fernandes - £50m~
Out:
Lukaku - £75m
Darmian - £10m
Rojo - £10m
Herrera - Released
Valencia - Released
Net Spend: £105m
Seems like it could be about right. There's rumours of Ben Yedder too of course which would put us at more like £140m net spend, so there'd likely have to be some further departures.
However, I think that departure would be Pogba and we wouldn't reinvest the money we got for him, making our net spend probably less than the likes of Spurs and Leicester
Last edited:
<Out>
Pogba- 150m
Lukaku- 70m
Darmian- 15m
Rojo- 15m
Transfer Kit (Remaining): 35m
TOTAL: 285M
<In>
De Ligt - 75m
Havertz - 100m
Sancho - 110m
TOTAL: 285M
Also, I would sell players with 1 year remaining in their contract like Matic, Bailly, Grant, etc and use that money to buy a CDM.
Pogba- 150m
Lukaku- 70m
Darmian- 15m
Rojo- 15m
Transfer Kit (Remaining): 35m
TOTAL: 285M
<In>
De Ligt - 75m
Havertz - 100m
Sancho - 110m
TOTAL: 285M
Also, I would sell players with 1 year remaining in their contract like Matic, Bailly, Grant, etc and use that money to buy a CDM.
Seriously what's the point of posts like these? Go and do this in Fifa 19 or PES...
The argument of how the transfer fees and budgets is pointless. We can only go on what we see. The money doesn't seem to be there. This is a repeat of last season. The club declaring there's money to spend. We end up spending not that much and after the window closes there's an excuse that there's no value in the market. From the looks of things, we won't see another transfer till one of Lukaku and Pogba are sold.
Inter will hopefully pay us £70m for Lukaku soon, which will take our net spend to zero.
Where does the £100m figure come from? I doubt Ed or anybody at United who knows the real number would be publishing the number, as it puts you in a disadvantage in any negotiation if your budget is known. This number is a reasonable guess put out by a journalist, but doesn’t come from anyone at the club with real knowledge.
We just recently made a big offer for Harry Maguire after spending over £60m on James/AWB all this talk of no money available is hogwash to avoid clubs trying to extort us our problem is the one transfer at a time policy which is extremely slow
This is looking more and more true as the weeks go by in this window, seems like we are delaying everything until we first get money from the sales of players like Pogba and Lukaku, as it was documented with Tielemans agent that the club asked him to wait until after the possible Pogba sale, pathetic really considering you dont see Leicester saying to him please wait until we sell Maguire.
I would argue it was definitively proved false when we bid £70m for Maguire.
No I don't think so, I'm sure Woody did say that there was a transfer budget but the was also additional funds set aside for a marquee signing too.
So Maguire might be seen as a marquee signing, or the bid may have been dependent on selling Lukaku, or the bid was a bluff, so that United could say that they were prepared to spend big money, but Leicester weren't selling.
We clearly don't have much of a budget otherwise we wouldn't waste valuable time haggling over £5m/£10m here and there. Bear in mind we spent about £50m net last summer - you would expect we should have £200m+ this summer even before sales but I think the actions of the board currently demonstrate this clearly is not the case
I have said elsewhere that I think the Glazers committed funds post-SAF with a view to paying for those transfers over a period of 4/5 years i.e. we'll spend £400m, that will see us through for a few seasons and guarantee CL football and we won't need to spend much on top. Problem is this is incredibly naive given the transfer inflation post TV deal - top clubs are spending £400m on 2/3 players these days
I have said elsewhere that I think the Glazers committed funds post-SAF with a view to paying for those transfers over a period of 4/5 years i.e. we'll spend £400m, that will see us through for a few seasons and guarantee CL football and we won't need to spend much on top. Problem is this is incredibly naive given the transfer inflation post TV deal - top clubs are spending £400m on 2/3 players these days
I'm wondring where the suppossed £100m we had last year for the right defender went? I think that money should still be available and added to whatever our budget for this summer is.
There is no evidence of this other than media rumours.
Where did you here this to please?
After the Moyes season when the Glazers opened their wallets we've averaged 100M in net spend. Question is if we manage to sell anyone and if those funds are added to the transfer budget. I think we'll end up spending 130-140M this window considering the meager 30M net spend last summer.
Whereas this £100 million budget story has been confirmed by Woodward...
Hey! We all believe that ESPN sources are more trustworthy than Simon Stone.
If the bbc reporting both our bid and leicester rejecting it isn't evidence, i wonder what is in your book?
Video footage? Ole telling you personally?
The only thing true about what you just wrote is that our wage bill has increased massively over the last 2 years.
Which means major backing from the owners. Its a far better sign of this than gross transfer spend or fecking "net spend" which should be banned from this forum because of its irrelevance.
Otherwise what you just stated is simply not correct:
First:
United does not have a "huge debt" anymore. The yearly interest costs for the club is around 20m yearly.
Its nothing and its on the level that its actually financially sound to carry that level of debt for a company of Uniteds size. It gives the club tax benefits and other financial possibilities as well. It would be financially stupid to finance this by equity instead.
Secondly:
There is no evidence that the Glazers "wants their cut", if you by that mean dividends. The club has given dividends only the last three or four years and it has never been over 20-25m yearly. Thats also nothing for a company valued at 4,1 bn USD. Its actually quite horrible for the investors including the Glazers.
It also pretty much coincides with the time that United has been listed on the NYSE. There are other owners that need to be satisfied as well and without being ITK about Cayman Island company law combined with NYSE regulations might very well require some form of dividends if the company makes profit.
Thirdly:
I dont know how people dont understand by now that the Glazers dont own the club to bleed it via dividends.
If they are they are doing a terrible job of it. They should keep the wage bill down and maximize the dividends then. But they dont.
And its not because they are good people or great owners, its because the profit for them is in the increase of the asset value of United.
United is worth 3bn more now since they bought the club. Give it 5 more years it might be worth 2 bn more if managed correctly. Thats where the money is for them, not by "bleeding" the club of a petty 20m in dividends every year. It would take 50 years just to make one billion by taking out that amount in dividends.
Thats not even in the picture in comparison.
End rant.
I never said that.