A look at the impact of the new 2022 Financial Fair Play Rules on Man Utd

DanClancy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,356
Henderson, Willams, Bailly, Elanga and one of McTominay or Fred would generate 100% profit, would like to think that lot should generate somewhere between £80-90m.

Maguire, Wan Bisaka, VDB & Telles if sold with what's left on their book value should generate a profit of circa £25m not too mention taking another circa 32m from the amortisation figure so with both those figures it leaves with a good bit of wriggle room. £32m worth of amortisation would allow United to spend £160m on players if they were all on 5 year contract to replicate those players who've left. Lindelof another player who could generate a decent fee who's book value is very small.

As long as we finish top 4 and have new owners we'll spend big again this summer.
 

Messier1994

The Swedish Rumble
Joined
Oct 7, 2022
Messages
1,367
A twitter thread on how much Newcastle can spend if they finish top 4, they are starting to look a little scary! But still, a long way off. They are living on a cheap squad and very low costs still.
 

spiriticon

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,327
They can make all the rules they want but will they actually punish a top team harshly for breaking them? Not really.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,229
Location
Manchester
Henderson, Willams, Bailly, Elanga and one of McTominay or Fred would generate 100% profit, would like to think that lot should generate somewhere between £80-90m.

Maguire, Wan Bisaka, VDB & Telles if sold with what's left on their book value should generate a profit of circa £25m not too mention taking another circa 32m from the amortisation figure so with both those figures it leaves with a good bit of wriggle room. £32m worth of amortisation would allow United to spend £160m on players if they were all on 5 year contract to replicate those players who've left. Lindelof another player who could generate a decent fee who's book value is very small.

As long as we finish top 4 and have new owners we'll spend big again this summer.
Spot on. You’re correct about Chelsea too even if their fans are burying their heads.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
41,932
Henderson, Willams, Bailly, Elanga and one of McTominay or Fred would generate 100% profit, would like to think that lot should generate somewhere between £80-90m.

Maguire, Wan Bisaka, VDB & Telles if sold with what's left on their book value should generate a profit of circa £25m not too mention taking another circa 32m from the amortisation figure so with both those figures it leaves with a good bit of wriggle room. £32m worth of amortisation would allow United to spend £160m on players if they were all on 5 year contract to replicate those players who've left. Lindelof another player who could generate a decent fee who's book value is very small.

As long as we finish top 4 and have new owners we'll spend big again this summer.
But then that leaves nothing for summer 2024 and maybe even beyond that?
 

DanClancy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,356
But then that leaves nothing for summer 2024 and maybe even beyond that?
@Messier1994 is the expert here and he's already suggested United could sign a £50m player and thats without selling as long as there's CL football next summer. If United have the sort of summer I was suggesting then United will be able to spend heavily the season after, factor in we might have new owners which hopefully would mean the end of the debt and the costs of servicing it. If Ten Hag gets it right this summer then United certainly won't have to worry.
 

Messier1994

The Swedish Rumble
Joined
Oct 7, 2022
Messages
1,367
A thread for Arsenal;

An updated ‘best case scenario for us:
 

Messier1994

The Swedish Rumble
Joined
Oct 7, 2022
Messages
1,367
Last year, we announced the date for the Q2 report on 18 Feb and the report itself on 1 March. The Q2 report will be heavily skewed by no games during the World Cup, but we will also make large FX profits on our debt. Will be interesting to see when it comes out.
 

MiamiSpartan

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,225
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Great, informative thread, @Messier1994 (and respect for the user name, even though I'm a lifelong Red Wings fan).

The large majority of the thread was before the charges against City came out. There were a lot of comments about doing what City did with sponsors, and I think we are seeing that that isn't the way to go under new owners.

In addition to needing those sponsorships to be "fair market value", isn't there also a limit to how much revenue can come from businesses tied to the owners? Or is that just a rule in England, since that's who charged City? I can't recall if that was part of the UEFA investigation that they ultimate avoided.
 

cyril C

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
2,629
Great, informative thread, @Messier1994 (and respect for the user name, even though I'm a lifelong Red Wings fan).

The large majority of the thread was before the charges against City came out. There were a lot of comments about doing what City did with sponsors, and I think we are seeing that that isn't the way to go under new owners.

In addition to needing those sponsorships to be "fair market value", isn't there also a limit to how much revenue can come from businesses tied to the owners? Or is that just a rule in England, since that's who charged City? I can't recall if that was part of the UEFA investigation that they ultimate avoided.
The UEFA investigation was void only because of timeline expired, didn't mean there was no crime. Let's see how the English FA investigation lead to, probably another 20m fine and a slap on the wrist.
 

bringbackbebe

Full Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
1,624
Last year, we announced the date for the Q2 report on 18 Feb and the report itself on 1 March. The Q2 report will be heavily skewed by no games during the World Cup, but we will also make large FX profits on our debt. Will be interesting to see when it comes out.
It's odd that the club chose not to hedge it's foreign debt exposure & is letting fluctuations dictate a good deal of it's profit & loss. I get interest rate parity, but If they have a competitive advantage in borrowing in dollars, they should still be better off.
 

MiamiSpartan

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,225
Location
Miami, FL, USA
The UEFA investigation was void only because of timeline expired, didn't mean there was no crime. Let's see how the English FA investigation lead to, probably another 20m fine and a slap on the wrist.
Yeah, definitely not innocent, as they try to claim. I couldn't remember if it was a statute of limitations thing or some other technicality, so I just said that they avoided the investigation.

If it isn't anything more than just a fine (even a huge fine, which would still mean little to them), I think our potential new owners still want to avoid trying the same thing. I could see the FA being more harsh if another club does it. Not because they're pro-City, but more because it would mean that City being caught didn't deter others.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
5,767
Henderson, Willams, Bailly, Elanga and one of McTominay or Fred would generate 100% profit, would like to think that lot should generate somewhere between £80-90m.

Maguire, Wan Bisaka, VDB & Telles if sold with what's left on their book value should generate a profit of circa £25m not too mention taking another circa 32m from the amortisation figure so with both those figures it leaves with a good bit of wriggle room. £32m worth of amortisation would allow United to spend £160m on players if they were all on 5 year contract to replicate those players who've left. Lindelof another player who could generate a decent fee who's book value is very small.

As long as we finish top 4 and have new owners we'll spend big again this summer.
More like 60-70m for that first lot I think, if you can move them. Doubt we'll sell Wan-Bissaka (and if we do, we'll probably need to buy someone who costs more than we get for him). And in any case, 160 m is not that much - not considering it includes income from selling up to 9 players, and also not considering our needs.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
5,767
More like 60-70m for that first lot I think, if you can move them. Doubt we'll sell Wan-Bissaka (and if we do, we'll probably need to buy someone who costs more than we get for him). And in any case, 160 m is not that much - not considering it includes income from selling up to 9 players, and also not considering our needs.
Duh. Amortisation of course. With which 160m is a lot. Sorry, didn't think straight there.
 

Oh_Dear

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 28, 2023
Messages
33
Thanks! Love a spreadsheet! So if that’s at 140m added to the wage bill of circa 350m we’ve got a fair chunk to spend even without selling provided we get CL - 95m remaining based on FFP revenues of 585m (90% of 650m?) Or are there additional costs I’m missing?

Sell Scott, Maguire, Henderson and AWB that’ll up that kitty very nicely! I’m assuming when you sell the fee gets amortised over their remaining contract length? So if we got 35m for Mctominay with 5 years left it’s +7m for next 5 years? Also assuming any underspend can’t be rolled over?
I think the home grown rule will be a problem if we do this. At the end of the season I assume we'll exit or sell Williams, Jones, Greenwood, Henderson, Maguire, McTominay and Tuanzebe. If so, the 8 players who would qualify as home grown would be Heaton, Shaw, Sancho, Rashford, Elanga, AWB, Mengi and Butland (or Bishop) - the likes of Mainoo, Shoretire etc will still be U-21.
 

Woziak

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
3,109
Update 12 January 2023
So under the new FFP rules, Financial Sustainability Rules (will probably go by "FSR" soon), we will mainly be impacted by two rules, the Football Earnings Rule and the Squad Cost Rule. The other rules are covered by the OP if anyone is interested.

But first, to understand the impact of these rules, it is essential to consider how they are sanctioned. This information is in the OP, but I will repeat the key parts here and expand a bit on the implications this have.

The impact of how the Rules are Sanctioned
How is the Squad Cost Rule sanctioned?
The Squad Cost Rule is a "soft" rule, that is meant to steer clubs to act in a proper way, while the Football Earnings Rule is a strict with sanctions designed so that it should be impossible to constantly breach it (see below).

If a Club breaches the Squad Cost Rule, a fine will be calculated in relation to the extent its breached -- if a Club may say spend 300m on salaries, and instead spends 310m, the extent of the breach is 10m. If you exceed the rule with under 10%, a fine of 25% of the extent is breached will be given (2.5m in our example). If a club constantly breaches the rule, additional sanctions may be determined. But nothing states that they shall be progressive. It seems like it is perfectly possible to breach the rule with say 5% yearly forever.

How is the Football Earnings Rule sanctioned?
The Football Earnings Rule is heavily sanctioned and cannot be disregarded by a Club. What will happen if a club breaches the Football Earnings Rule?

As a first step, the club will be forced to enter into a Settlement Agreement with UEFA. In the Settlement Agreement, the UEFA will establish an action plan to get the club back in compliance with the Rule. The settlement agreement will include one or more sanctions such as fines and restrictions on number of players that can be used in tournaments as well as obligations for the club to clear up its economy. If the conditions of the settlement agreement is not met -- the sanctions are progressive and will ultimately lead to the club being banned from participating in UEFA tournaments.

Looking at the settlement agreements ("SA") entered into by the clubs in breach of the FFP last summer, they require that a club gradually must move to comply with the Football Earnings Rule over a period of three years and that the rules must be complied with after three years. The Club's compliance with the rule will be monitored every 6 months. These SA include a fine equal to 15% of the clubs income from UEFA tournaments. If the Club fails to comply with the provisions of the SA, i.e. for example after 6 months has not reached the set target, the remaining 85% will be withheld. If the breaches continue -- new sanctions shall be imposed on the club, that are stricter than the mentioned sanctions. What is stricter than withholding for example Juventus entire income from participating in the CL? And remember, fines counts as an expense and further restricts a clubs performance under the Football Earnings Rule.

Since the Football Earnings Rule is fairly strict, it only allows for a aggregate loss of 60m over 3 years -- Juventus deficit has been 250m per year the last years and PSG's deficit has been 370m -- I think all clubs must shore up their earnings.

Manchester United's Compliance with the Squad Cost Rule

General
A player impacts our finance in two ways. Firstly, the players wages (including bonuses etc) is a direct cost. Secondly, the Transfer Fee is Amortized over the players contract. If we sign a player for 100m and pay him 10m per year on a 5 year contract, the player's Squad Cost will be 100/5+10m=30m.

The Squad Cost Rule will be implemented in three stages, next year its 90%, the year after that its 80%, before finally going to 70% the year after that.

Performance
This is my projected performance under the Squad Cost Rule:


We are probably up towards 80% this season, like Ducker's estimates, but I am not worried about our performance under the Squad Cost Rule. We are a big club with our 1,000 employees and high revenues. If our squad accounts for 80-90% of our income -- we will have much bigger problems with the Football Earnings Rule.

Manchester United's Compliance with the Football Earnings Rule

General

The Football Earnings Rule is in principle really simple. It is measured over a period of 3 years. During those three years, a Club's loss may not exceed 60m (EUR). In practice it is a bit more complicated -- because not all incomes and expenses are counted under the Football Earnings Rule. So a club can be run with a constant loss -- as long as a large enough extent of the expenses are "good" expenses. "Good" expenses are mainly costs for the Youth Academy (including transfer fees for youth players), the Womens Team and the Stadium.

In addition, all items relevant for the Football Earnings Rule, are not reported separately in our Financial Reports. So any projects must be based on estimates. What is our cost for the Youth Academy and Womens Team? Etc.

We will be measured in relation to the Football Earnings Rule for the first time in the summer in 2024, based on our performance during the 22/23 season and 23/24 season. So our financial performance this and next season will determine if we are compliance with the rule in 2024. Hence these rules must be taken into account as of today, and certainly during next summers' transfer window.

Performance
The last three years we have had a loss of 20m, 92m and 115m (2022). During 22/23 and 23/24 our aggregate loss may only total 60m (EUR). In our last financial year, during which we played in the Champions League, our loss was 115m. Since then we have lost the income from the CL and spent 240m more in the transfer market. Our result for the Q1 this season was minus 24m. Over the coming seven quarters, it can it total hence not be more than 60-24=36m. Complying with the Football Earnings Rule will be a challenge for us. The question is only how big.

This is my estimates -- during which I assume that we will finish Top 4 (which I didn't in my last forecast):


The Conclusion is that we only may occur additional costs of 21m next season. In reality, if we do not sell anyone, it means that we could only sign one player with a combined cost of approximately Lissandro Martinez (18.8m per year). Remember, this is under the assumption that we finish top 4 and make it to the Champions League. If we don't, with the lost money from the Adidas deal and the CL money, we basically have to save 50m just to comply with the rule, without signing a single player.

We are in a bind -- what can help us?
It is as simple as this -- we must sell players to be able to sign players. And we must sell many players.

So how are our earnings impacted if we sell a player? It impacts our earnings in three ways. First of all, the right to register each player is an "intangible asset" in our Balance Sheet. This asset is written down -- amortized -- over the length of the players contract. The amount it is written down with, is an expense. We sign a player for 100m and give him a 5 year contract, the amortization is 20m per year. Second of all, a player is paid a salary which is a direct cost. If we sell the player, we don't have to pay his wages. Third of all, the price we are paid for a player exceeds the players' remaining book value, the exceeding amount is a profit. So in the example above, if we sell the 100m player 2 years into his contract, he will have a remaining book value of 100 - 20 - 20 = 60m. If we sell the player for 80m its a 20m profit, if we sell the player for 40m its a 20m loss (but overall it would still impact our earnings positively since in Y3 we won't be hit with the players amortization cost and wages).

Under the assumption that we sell the following players for the following fee, we would clear up another 100m for next summer. The transfer fees are perhaps modest, but at the same time we haven't exactly been stellar selling players and if we fail to sell a player or two of the below listed it should at best even up.
Harry Magure -- Sold for 25m
Dean Henderson -- Sold for 20m
Donny van de Beek -- Sold for 12m
Aaron Wan-Bissaka -- Sold for 10m
Fred -- Sold for 7.5m
Pellestri -- Sold for 5m



As a result, we could now incur additional costs totaling app. 120m next summer.

What does 120m -- in additional costs -- buy you?
Generally, the players we sign impacts our earnings significantly. I have seen how Chelsea have signed at least some of their new signings to 7 year deals, while we often go with 5 year deal. By doing that, you of course reduce the amortization cost fairly significantly (short term).

Looking at what our current players have cost us, Casemiro's total yearly impact on our earnings are a minus 30m per year in Amortization and Salary, Jadon Sancho minus 35m per year, Antony is minus 26m, Martinez minus 18m a year.

So if we (a) finish top 4 and (b) sell the above players -- we could basically sign an expensive striker and an expensive midfielder, a cheaper depth CB and RB. That would be great.

But what about all the money a new owner can give us?
In brief:
1. Any contribution from a new owner will not improve our earnings per se. If a new owner gifts 681m, we can pay off all our debt. That should save us 40m per year in financing costs. Ultimately, that is only "one" Sancho like signing.

2. What -- some types -- of new owner can do is to sponsor us. Like Abu D does with City. Buy the naming rights for the stadium. Replace Team Viewer as a sponsor. But remember -- such sponsorships may only be calculated at "fair value". It cannot be easy to determine what is fair value, but for a shirt sponsor, it could hardly be double what we make today. And remember, many type of buyers could not sponsor us (like a investment consortium).

3. What a new owner -- can -- do, is what City and Chelsea are doing. I.e. finance good "costs" that doesn't not count in relation to the Football Earnings Rule. If we buy 10 youth players for 150m (15m each), and then sell them after 4-5 years for a total of 50m, it is not a 100m loss but a 50m profit. The investment in the Youth Academy does not count, but any income from selling those players counts.

In addition, if we invest 1.5bn in a new stadium -- which gives us 30m more in revenue per year, it doesn't take 50 years for the investment to be profitable. The 1.5bn does not count as an expense, but the 30m counts as an income. Good expenses doesn't count.

This is a more of a long-term project. But what really will pay off.
Great post but there are also free transfers which can be made as well which in the current climate are more attractive than ever or sophisticated 2 year loan deals which will be one more the norm with FSR becoming 70% in 2 years.
 

Woziak

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
3,109

Another 7 year player contract signed by Chelsea. Will this become a thing?

First of all, let’s look at the difference between signing a player to a 5 year contract and a 7 year contract, let’s say for a 100m player making 200k a month (from the FFP/FSR perspective), here is the total cost per year:
Five-year deal
Y1 - 30m
Y2 - 30m
Y3 - 30m
Y4 - 30m
Y5 - 30m
Total: 150m

Seven-year deal
Y1 - 24m
Y2 - 24m
Y3 - 24m
Y4 - 24m
Y5 - 24m
Y6 - 24m
Y7 - 24m
Total: 170m

It is not something earth shattering, but the amortization costs for a player on a 5 year deal is 40% higher per year than the amortization costs for a player on a 7 year deal. The total cost, including wages, is in our example above 25% higher.

This is a one-off gain — that will last for 5 years if you make a change going from 5 year to 7 year contract. In Y6, the club giving out 5 year deals will have amortized the entire value of the player, while 7 year contract club will still be hit with 24m.

Second of all, let’s speculate a bit on trends we could end up seeing. Ultimately, what will happen on the market is always a result of how desperate and short sighted teams are.

That is impossible to know, but let’s look at what have happened in other sports. The mechanic of the FFP/FSR are very similar to what we have seen in some pro sports in the US. When the NHL introduced a “salary cap” that had the same mechanic — ie it paid off short term to smear costs out over a long period — contracts started to get longer and longer before this happened:
https://www.espn.com/nhl/news/story?id=5392170
Kovalchuk has signed a 17-year, $102 million deal [with the New Jersey Devils]. The Devils will absorb an annual salary cap hit of $6 million -- the average amount per season. However, Kovalchuk will remain on the books through the 2026-27 season. Kovalchuk will earn $6 million each of the next two seasons, $11.5 million for the following five seasons, $10.5 million in the 2017-18 season, $8.5 million for the 2018-19 season, $6.5 million in 2019-20, $3.5 million in 2020-21, $750,000 the following season and $550,000 for the final five years of the unprecedented deal. Should Kovalchuk play until the end of the deal, when he'll be 44, a source clarified to ESPN.com's.

After this, the rules changed. For a while, all winners of that league had players on these type of “cap circumventing deals”, but there is a totally different level of parity in those league so it’s of course not comparable in that sense. But facts are, a team that under the FFP/FSR cost can afford to sign one player for 100m under a 5 year contract, could basically afford to sign 2 players for 100m each — if they given them 10 year contracts. It all comes down to how stupid and short sighted clubs are, and if history is any proof for future behavior — I wouldn’t be surprised to see 10+ year contracts…

Except Cerefin has already said he’s banning contracts of more than 5 years this summer and surely In your example you mean wages of £200k per week not monthky
 

Woziak

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
3,109
I think the home grown rule will be a problem if we do this. At the end of the season I assume we'll exit or sell Williams, Jones, Greenwood, Henderson, Maguire, McTominay and Tuanzebe. If so, the 8 players who would qualify as home grown would be Heaton, Shaw, Sancho, Rashford, Elanga, AWB, Mengi and Butland (or Bishop) - the likes of Mainoo, Shoretire etc will still be U-21.
When you sell it’s not amortised, it becomes a net profit, if we sold Dean Henderson £20m it’s profit as we never paid a penny for the player only players which are bought are amortised, player sales are not as you no longer have to pay their wages and players that have no yet been paid for are shown as a loss or a profit in the way that Messier1994 showed in his earlier Post.

The big thing is the €60m Loss allowed over two seasons, our current debt and servicing the debt has made things incredible difficult, So a new owner clearing the debt would instantly help. It also wouldn’t be unreasonable to have a new shirt sponsor with an additional 15/20% marketing revenue, everything is salvageable but this summer really is critical for a new owners to start to reverse recent trends especially the club losing over £200m In the last two years. The Qatari propaganda spreading the narrative that they would spend £250-300m and SJR only £120m Is not necessarily true but it’s not untrue either, because clearing the debt will help with ‘Football Earning Rule’ instantly.
 

Messier1994

The Swedish Rumble
Joined
Oct 7, 2022
Messages
1,367
Hi guys, hope everything is well.

I did an updated forecast for how much costs we can incur on the transfer market this summer:


The relevant figure is app. £48.2m, which can be put in relation to that the cost for signing a £100m player on a 5 year deal at 200k a week is app. 30m. This mean that our maximum spend this summer -- without selling any players -- would be app. 100-150m.

But remember, if we sell players, it wouldn't impact our transfer budget on a pound in/pound out basis. Just selling Maguire, Henderson and McTominay for say £60m reduces our costs significantly:


This would immediately increase our potential transfer spend to £300m.

With this in mind, I think the information in the El Pais about a week ago is immensely interesting (via google translate):
Sources that advise the Glazers indicate that whether or not it changes ownership, the most valued sports institution in the Anglo-Saxon world is preparing to invest a minimum of 500 million in signing players this summer. United have informed the Qataris of the plan. "United gave us the list of players they wanted to sign," explains a member of the team of coaches who accompany Sheikh Jassim. ...Sheikh Jassim's envoys agreed and approved the credit of 500 million euros that the Glazers have signed with Bank of America, The wave of liquidity is imminent.
But isn't this a complete fantasty? Could we really spend Boehly money? I wouldn't say "easily", but if ETH get ruthless and we sell players to raise capital -- and we sell players not to get rid of them, but to raise capital (Lindelof and AWB) it should definitely be possible. If we make the below sales we could spend 500m, i.e. manage to sell Sancho for 30m (his 350k/week salary amounts to 20-25m basically, so thats like getting 50-60m for him), 20m for Maguire, zero for Martial, 30m for Lindelof, zero for Telles, 25m for Henderson, zero for Bailly and 20m for McTominay.


This would explain why we are connected to RBs and RCBs despite AWB and Lindelof playing really well lately. I mean AWB is our No 1 RB right now, perhaps its Dalot that is going?

With the above said -- this is basically what Raine is telling buyers is possible (and it is) -- without any capital contribution (the money would be drawn from a new credit line) -- it of course don't mean that either Sheik Jassim or Ineos would do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Invictus

Raw

Full Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
25,363
Location
Manchester, UK
Some good analysis there. We can easily get £60m or so from sales I reckon, £300m is more than enough for what we need this summer.
 

DutchSerb

Full Member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
913
Supports
FC Groningen
Hi guys, hope everything is well.

I did an updated forecast for how much costs we can incur on the transfer market this summer:


The relevant figure is app. £48.2m, which can be put in relation to that the cost for signing a £100m player on a 5 year deal at 200k a week is app. 30m. This mean that our maximum spend this summer -- without selling any players -- would be app. 100-150m.

But remember, if we sell players, it wouldn't impact our transfer budget on a pound in/pound out basis. Just selling Maguire, Henderson and McTominay for say £60m reduces our costs significantly:


This would immediately increase our potential transfer spend to £300m.

With this in mind, I think the information in the El Pais about a week ago is immensely interesting (via google translate):


But isn't this a complete fantasty? Could we really spend Boehly money? I wouldn't say "easily", but if ETH get ruthless and we sell players to raise capital -- and we sell players not to get rid of them, but to raise capital (Lindelof and AWB) it should definitely be possible. If we make the below sales we could spend 500m, i.e. manage to sell Sancho for 30m (his 350k/week salary amounts to 20-25m basically, so thats like getting 50-60m for him), 20m for Maguire, zero for Martial, 30m for Lindelof, zero for Telles, 25m for Henderson, zero for Bailly and 20m for McTominay.


This would explain why we are connected to RBs and RCBs despite AWB and Lindelof playing really well lately. I mean AWB is our No 1 RB right now, perhaps its Dalot that is going?

With the above said -- this is basically what Raine is telling buyers is possible (and it is) -- without any capital contribution (the money would be drawn from a new credit line) -- it of course don't mean that either Sheik Jassim or Ineos would do it.
Your posts are always so insightful. Great work! That's definitely good news. I had a feeling we had more than 100-150 when the Rice + Kane + Mount news dropped yesterday, but didn't know how it would/could be possible. Hopefully we do put in a true effort to sell players this time.
 

Dazzmondo

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
8,900
Good to hear. It sounds like we'll be getting at least £30m for each of Henderson and McTominay too so your estimates are probably quite conservative. With all the links we're seeing it's looking like we're going big in the summer and it looks like we're trying to get them all in early which is great. Next season is looking good
 

JoeyJoJoJrShabadoo

Full Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
1,694
Location
Norn Iron
Hi guys, hope everything is well.

I did an updated forecast for how much costs we can incur on the transfer market this summer:


The relevant figure is app. £48.2m, which can be put in relation to that the cost for signing a £100m player on a 5 year deal at 200k a week is app. 30m. This mean that our maximum spend this summer -- without selling any players -- would be app. 100-150m.

But remember, if we sell players, it wouldn't impact our transfer budget on a pound in/pound out basis. Just selling Maguire, Henderson and McTominay for say £60m reduces our costs significantly:


This would immediately increase our potential transfer spend to £300m.

With this in mind, I think the information in the El Pais about a week ago is immensely interesting (via google translate):


But isn't this a complete fantasty? Could we really spend Boehly money? I wouldn't say "easily", but if ETH get ruthless and we sell players to raise capital -- and we sell players not to get rid of them, but to raise capital (Lindelof and AWB) it should definitely be possible. If we make the below sales we could spend 500m, i.e. manage to sell Sancho for 30m (his 350k/week salary amounts to 20-25m basically, so thats like getting 50-60m for him), 20m for Maguire, zero for Martial, 30m for Lindelof, zero for Telles, 25m for Henderson, zero for Bailly and 20m for McTominay.


This would explain why we are connected to RBs and RCBs despite AWB and Lindelof playing really well lately. I mean AWB is our No 1 RB right now, perhaps its Dalot that is going?

With the above said -- this is basically what Raine is telling buyers is possible (and it is) -- without any capital contribution (the money would be drawn from a new credit line) -- it of course don't mean that either Sheik Jassim or Ineos would do it.
Thanks for working on this buddy its massively helped me understand the process
 

Dorris

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
510
Not 100% sure how you’ve worked it out but presumably the 48m is 80% of 60m football profits? That would drop to 70% next year, so circa 42m. Suppose we did claw back 17m amortisation, if we spent 300m that’s 60m added on and presuming we made the same profit next year means we’re in a complete sell to buy situation. There aren’t always going to be McTominays/Henderson’s to sell from the academy at 100% profit.
I think 300m is possible but leaves us highly exposed to failing FFP if we missed out on Champions League for example and our profits dropped.
 

Trumpeter Whydah

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 14, 2022
Messages
290
Supports
Full Members
Great post @Messier1994

Not 100% sure how you’ve worked it out but presumably the 48m is 80% of 60m football profits? That would drop to 70% next year, so circa 42m. Suppose we did claw back 17m amortisation, if we spent 300m that’s 60m added on and presuming we made the same profit next year means we’re in a complete sell to buy situation. There aren’t always going to be McTominays/Henderson’s to sell from the academy at 100% profit.
I think 300m is possible but leaves us highly exposed to failing FFP if we missed out on Champions League for example and our profits dropped.
A) "The cost control rule restricts spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to 70% of club revenues. (The gradual implementation will see the percentage at 90% in 2023/2024, 80% in 2024/2025, and 70% in 2025/2026).

B) Given ETH receives a number of key players this summer - let's say he passed the test and is now given the promised trust - and given most of them are matches, MUFC wouldn't then be in need to aquire at the limit for a decent amount of windows, and instead couple together a few of them to go for precise costy targets. Undenieably what they should be doing anyway.

C) The pipeline of promising academy players is actually quite impressive: Zidane Iqbal, Kobbie Mainoo, Dermot Mee, Mateo Mejia, Isak Hansen-Aaröen, Omari Forson, Marc Jurado, Tyler Fredricson. Also, suppose De Gea leaves in summer 2024, that'd be another 50± chunk right there.

D) Lastly, to absorb risks, MUFC could insure themselves on missing out on UCL, in case they do indeed plan to operate at the limit.

All in all, I think what Messier points us to is that there will be some dearly missed grand mercato muppetry this summer.
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,444
Not 100% sure how you’ve worked it out but presumably the 48m is 80% of 60m football profits? That would drop to 70% next year, so circa 42m. Suppose we did claw back 17m amortisation, if we spent 300m that’s 60m added on and presuming we made the same profit next year means we’re in a complete sell to buy situation. There aren’t always going to be McTominays/Henderson’s to sell from the academy at 100% profit.
I think 300m is possible but leaves us highly exposed to failing FFP if we missed out on Champions League for example and our profits dropped.
Exactly, what we're capable of spending and what we will are two different things. We won't spend close to our limit as there's just too much risk involved.

If we sign duds or the manager doesn't live up to expectations we'll be in trouble. There's also the mindfulness of whether the funds are even necessary, owners tend to limit spending as they'll try for the minimum expenditure required to achieve aims.

I can't see us spending beyond 250 million, that would be a solid amount and allow us to challenge. Another 150 million the year after we should have a very capable team.
 

bringbackbebe

Full Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
1,624
Unlike last year when we were worried about the world cup disrupting the squad, this year, we will be able to generate significant revenue via player sales, possibly 150-200m. Just getting De Gea, Maguire, Martial and possibly Sancho off our books will reduce wage bill by about by 1.3m a week. Even a gross spend of 300m with matching wage outlay will not dent our books. Added bonus if our debt interest is cleared off.
 

rimaldo

All about the essence
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
40,323
Supports
arsenal
surprise, surprise. looks like all the moaning at city was just projection from the manchester club that actually broke the rules.
 

McTerminator

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
902
surprise, surprise. looks like all the moaning at city was just projection from the manchester club that actually broke the rules.
:lol: We only wish we had the same legitimate financial might!

At what point do oppo fans start to sympathise with us having the Glazers :(
 

Edwards6

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 23, 2022
Messages
810
surprise, surprise. looks like all the moaning at city was just projection from the manchester club that actually broke the rules.
If only we had all them fake sponsors instead of owners taking money out of the club
 

tombombadil

Full Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
2,891
Location
Some god forsaken part of Middle Earth
Oh FFS ...

Manchester United have been fined €300,000 (£257,000) by Uefa for committing financial fair play breaches over a four-year period between 2019 and 2022.

The governing body’s club financial control body handed down the punishment after United reported what it describes as “a minor break-even deficit” during the financial years in question. They are among a number of clubs across the continent to be sanctioned in Uefa’s final monitoring of its old financial fair play rules, which were replaced by new regulations last year.

A United statement said: “While disappointed by the outcome, Manchester United accepts this fine for what Uefa acknowledges to be a minor technical breach of its previous financial fair play rules.

“This reflected a change in the way that Uefa adjusted for Covid-19 losses during the 2022 reporting period, which allowed us to recognise only €15m of the €281m of revenues lost due to the pandemic within the FFP calculation.

“Post-pandemic, the club’s revenues have recovered strongly and are forecast to reach a record level in the current financial year. The club continues to support the enforcement of rules to promote financial fair play and sustainability across domestic and European football.”

It is understood United’s stance is that they were unable to adjust for €47m of Covid losses in the 2022 monitoring period because of an unforeseen change in how Uefa treated those losses during the transition to its revised financial sustainability regulatory framework. The losses came on top of €234m of pandemic-related losses across 2019-20 and 2020-21.

Privately United would cite how the Premier League did allow for adjustments for 2022, enabling the club to comply with domestic FFP rules.

Among the other clubs fined were Barcelona, who are required to pay €500,000 for wrongly reporting profits on disposal of tangible assets, other than player transfers, which are not deemed a relevant income under the regulations.

Istanbul Basaksehir were fined €400,000 for not meeting targets they had been set for the 2022 financial year. Meanwhile, Konyaspor and Apoel were fined €100,000 for similar breaches to those carried out by United.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...nited-fined-uefa-financial-fair-play-breaches