g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });

David Brooks

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
People acting like he's going to cost £10m. They sold Ake for £41m ffs!
Yeah this is the issue. He's not going to come cheaper than 30 to 35m so we should steer clear. In fact if it's just to bolster the squad we'd be better off signing Ryan Fraser who has just left Bournmouth on a free transfer as squad cover than spending 35m on Brooks. Don't think we're in a position to spend so much on a player who doesn't even get in the first team. The climate has changed due to covid. We've lost over 100m.
 

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
Dwight McNeil is another decent looking player who probably isn't good enough for the first 11 but will cost too much to sit on the bench. We really need to be scouting further afield to pick up some bargains. British players come with a premium.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
53,556
That’s probably what opposing fans said when Liverpool signed Robertson.

Maybe we should just continue to buy expensive overhyped players for £50m on massive wages. Worked really well post Fergie.
Robertson went for about 7m.
You're not picking Brooks up on the cheap.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
89,312
Location
Centreback
Settle down people. Nobody is suggesting that buying a player like Brooks is an alternative to signing Sancho.

The barrier to signing Sancho is that they are asking silly money for him and all up front by the sound of it.
 

E-mal

Full Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
3,956
He's good too and im surprised we arent linked with him as well. I figured we would be this summer. But he plays on the left as a normal winger while Brooks plays on the right coming inside and has also been used centrally
His best games have been as a CAM, he can also play from the right but mostly from the left of course.
 

sewey89

Incorrectly predicted the de Jong transfer 2022
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
10,684
Location
Chesterfield
I see this as more of a Wijnaldum/Ox type signing than a Robertson one. He's a good player who will improve our squad. We need to improve our squad as much as we need to improve our first 11.
 

The Red Thinker

Full Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
4,151
Location
Knowhere
Yeah this is the issue. He's not going to come cheaper than 30 to 35m so we should steer clear. In fact if it's just to bolster the squad we'd be better off signing Ryan Fraser who has just left Bournmouth on a free transfer as squad cover than spending 35m on Brooks. Don't think we're in a position to spend so much on a player who doesn't even get in the first team. The climate has changed due to covid. We've lost over 100m.
Okay. Allow me to please inform you that THAT is not how budgets work. Nor finance for that matter.

Transfer money is accounted for well in advance. The amount of money that is made or is approximately going to be made was well known to MUFC when the lockdown started. Their projections will have notified them, and they would have kept aside what we call a "warchest".

Operating income and costs are another cost vertical. If money is being borrowed for that (as every club on planet earth is doing at the moment) then that is reality. But we are not in a poor financial position. It's just that we do not have assets to liquidate or rather we do not want to liquidate assets to pay for that debt. Debts like operating costs will be easy to pay off once business returns considering the amount of money we earn.

Say what you want about Glazers and Ed Woodward, but they are financial geniuses. Glazers run banks (scumbags who know to play the system) and Woodward is in the football economy world, a titan. There is one thing neither can afford despite all the press about money being taken from the club - it is the devaluation of the club. End of the day, they want to increase its value and sell someday. So it is foolish to devalue it for short term gain, they are not doing that either.

Back to the Warchest. This money was already made available months ago and unlike your household wallet, can't just be moved willy nilly for other payments. Unless your house is on fire, which United clearly is not. You do not get into a conversation of 120 million Euros if you thought this was going to happen beforehand.

So rest assured, we have the money. A budgeted amount. Us losing 100 million in operating costs or in quarterly results will have no impact as budgets are made yearly not quarterly. Bankers may not know football, but they know money.
 
Last edited:

Judas

Open to offers
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
36,265
Location
Where the grass is greener.
The kind of smug "we're better than that" comments from people in here are without a doubt the same people who slagged off similar signings Liverpool made, and we all know how that went for them.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
53,398
Location
Hope, We Lose
His best games have been as a CAM, he can also play from the right but mostly from the left of course.

If you're talking about McNeil then



He literally played 1 single game in the league in a central position. And just 3 on the right
 

r3idy

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
1,320
Location
Near Old Trafford
Hmm not seen too much of this guy if I am honest but if we are looking as potential squad fillers, really like the look of Noel Cantwell at Norwich. Direct, strong with an eye for goal. Different kinds of player maybe

Dwight McNeil is a massive Utd fan as well. Not that it should have any bearing on it mind.
 

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
Okay. Allow me to please inform you that THAT is not how budgets work. Nor finance for that matter.

You cannot look at debt and say that is entirely a bad thing either. Debt is bad for you as an individual but debt when it is PIK (payment-in-kind) Debt, then you don't have to owe money through cash especially as a giant company with massive revenue. It is owed through bonds. So payment in bonds. Therefore, you pay the interest of your debt in the form of bonds. Not cash. So Debt and transfer warchest have no relation. So keeping debt at a certain level gives you access to certain premium interest payment schemes. This they have calculated and are paying. Would it be best debt free? 100%. But is Manchester United being destroyed financially? Absolutely not.

Now let's move to operating costs and cash flow, and of course transfer budgets.

Manchester United is largely using PIK Debt. When they budget for things like transfers, it is usually not bonds, but cash. This money is accounted for well in advance. The amount of money that is made or is approximately going to be made was well known to MUFC when the lockdown started. Their projections will have notified them, and they would have kept aside what we call a "warchest".

Operating income and costs are another cost vertical. If money is being borrowed for that (as every club on planet earth is doing at the moment) then that is reality. But we are not in a poor financial position. It's just that we do not have assets to liquidate or rather we do not want to liquidate assets to pay for that debt. Debts like operating costs will be easy to pay off once business returns considering the amount of money we earn.

Say what you want about Glazers and Ed Woodward, but they are financial geniuses. Glazers run banks (scumbags who know to play the system) and Woodward is in the football economy world, a titan. There is one thing neither can afford despite all the press about money being taken from the club - it is the devaluation of the club. End of the day, they want to increase its value and sell someday. So it is foolish to devalue it for short term gain, they are not doing that either.

Back to the Warchest. This money was already made available months ago and unlike your household wallet, can't just be moved willy nilly for other payments. Unless your house is on fire, which United clearly is not. You do not get into a conversation of 120 million Euros if you thought this was going to happen beforehand.

So rest assured, we have the money. A budgeted amount. Us losing 100 million in operating costs or in quarterly results will have no impact as budgets are made yearly not quarterly. Bankers may not know football, but they know money.

Hahahahahahaha.....What a load of waffle to say practically nothing. And I never said we were being 'destroyed' by covid either did I? Nice addition there though. ;)

I said we were being impacted by it and we clearly are. There's no way on earth we're going to splash 150-200m this window like we don't have a care in the world. No club will bar maybe Chelsea and they have special circumstances.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
53,398
Location
Hope, We Lose
As for McNeil, he plays left wing/left midfield in a 4-4-2 and already does some defensive work so I would speculate that he could play left wingback in our 5-3-2 / 3-4-1-2 system

Of course that isnt our most used system so even if he was first choice in that role, it would still be more of a squad player role. A sub for Rashford
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,288
Location
...
This is the sort of squad quality we need. Would prefer him to the Peaky Blinder.
 

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
19,939
Yikes. He has talent, but we probably shouldn't be signing a player after such a major injury and long time out. Let him prove himself again first.
 

E-mal

Full Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
3,956
If you're talking about McNeil then



He literally played 1 single game in the league in a central position. And just 3 on the right
Yeah, look at the rating while playing in that central position. I think it was against Palace, he was unplayable in that game.
 

jesperjaap

Full Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
5,771
Can’t imagine for one second Brooks moving for anywhere near £40m. Halve it.

Well I think at best it will be somewhere in between around £30 with premiership prices regardless of them being relegated, we shall see
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,824
He has 2 years left on contract. Also player and his agent must be really dumb if they didn't have release clause based on relegation.
 

Red00012

Full Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
12,399
Yikes. He has talent, but we probably shouldn't be signing a player after such a major injury and long time out. Let him prove himself again first.
Well this is where the transfer fee should be negotiated . I wouldn’t be paying more than £25 million for him anyway.
 

Leftback99

Might have a bedwetting fetish.
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
14,611
Okay. Allow me to please inform you that THAT is not how budgets work. Nor finance for that matter.

Transfer money is accounted for well in advance. The amount of money that is made or is approximately going to be made was well known to MUFC when the lockdown started. Their projections will have notified them, and they would have kept aside what we call a "warchest".

Operating income and costs are another cost vertical. If money is being borrowed for that (as every club on planet earth is doing at the moment) then that is reality. But we are not in a poor financial position. It's just that we do not have assets to liquidate or rather we do not want to liquidate assets to pay for that debt. Debts like operating costs will be easy to pay off once business returns considering the amount of money we earn.

Say what you want about Glazers and Ed Woodward, but they are financial geniuses. Glazers run banks (scumbags who know to play the system) and Woodward is in the football economy world, a titan. There is one thing neither can afford despite all the press about money being taken from the club - it is the devaluation of the club. End of the day, they want to increase its value and sell someday. So it is foolish to devalue it for short term gain, they are not doing that either.

Back to the Warchest. This money was already made available months ago and unlike your household wallet, can't just be moved willy nilly for other payments. Unless your house is on fire, which United clearly is not. You do not get into a conversation of 120 million Euros if you thought this was going to happen beforehand.

So rest assured, we have the money. A budgeted amount. Us losing 100 million in operating costs or in quarterly results will have no impact as budgets are made yearly not quarterly. Bankers may not know football, but they know money.
Projections can change. Missing out the Europa league final just a few days ago potentially cost us £10m+.

If I budget for a new car (transfer) but then have to take a pay cut for an unknown period of time (fans back in stadium) my budget reduces or I don't buy the car until I have more certainty. Obviously more things to consider when buying a player but the basics are the same.
 

youngrell

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
3,615
Location
South Wales
Brooks would be a smart signing if he can maintain fitness.

He can cover both the right wing and the centre to give us more depth, and he would also be a good stop gap on the right should the Sancho transfer fail to materialise until next summer.

Having watched him a number of times live for Wales, I can attest to his ability. Gets past players with relative ease and has a good cross and shot with his left when he cuts in. Very classy player and quite direct too which suits our attack. Just a tad lightweight.
 

DWelbz19

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
34,139
He’s alright for a sensible fee. Played 9 games last season which must factor into the pricing.
 

hubbuh

New Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
6,110
Location
UK, hun?
As a statement signing, the statement would be "We're happy to compete for top 4 each year and keep things ticking over."
It's obviously not intended as a statement signing, though. I imagine the fee would be somewhere between £20-30m, and he'd be coming in to replace Pereira/Mata as an option from the bench and challenge Greenwood (and James, though he obviously isn't considered a starter). Regardless of whether or not we get Sancho, we need better options from the bench. Not every signing is a Sancho or a Bruno.

That being said, I'm extremely apprehensive about bringing in a player that just missed 11 months through serious injury.
 

Redcy

Full Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
2,614
I think if we bring brooks in it will be as a Sancho replacement, presumably with the intention to strengthen other positions such as midfield and CB, in place of spending 120m on Sancho.
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
8,089
Location
Denmark
I'm thinking this too, they're not known for breaking stories are they?
Collecting and contextualising rumours from other outlets is their MO. Which they do well. But with all due respect for the work Sport Witness do, this story sounds like they got giddy about having a rare exclusive. It's so short on any details and sounds more like hearsay than anything else.
 

Berbasbullet

Too Boring For A Funny Tagline
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,377
So I take it we’re hoping he’s a grealish alternative and not Sancho?
 

LonelyFire

Full Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
4,565
Location
Scotland
Equally, if not more important imo.

Our first 11 is good, our squad isn't. We need 2/3 starters but we need probably 5/6 in total
I’d argue we need a first 11 player in at least two positions - centre back and right wing. So, in this case, Brooks as a Sancho alternative doesn’t make sense.

There is no way we’d buy both.
 

Redcy

Full Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
2,614
I’d argue we need a first 11 player in at least two positions - centre back and right wing. So, in this case, Brooks as a Sancho alternative doesn’t make sense.

There is no way we’d buy both.

I think you just said it, if we buy Brooks we won't buy Sancho, more likely we decide to change our goals. We t hen hope we can get Sancho next year, if he doesn't come this year though I just don't see him ever coming to us.
 

Solius

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Staff
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
86,925
Very on board with this if true. He's a very tidy player and I've liked the look of him for us for ages. Cheaper than Grealish as well.
 

LonelyFire

Full Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
4,565
Location
Scotland
I think you just said it, if we buy Brooks we won't buy Sancho, more likely we decide to change our goals. We t hen hope we can get Sancho next year, if he doesn't come this year though I just don't see him ever coming to us.
It’s now or never with Sancho - we won’t get him next season.
 

Devil81

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
6,702
Other than some random Manchester United unofficial twitter account I've seen zero evidence this is even worth talking about.
 

Riz

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
4,245
Location
UK
Other than some random Manchester United unofficial twitter account I've seen zero evidence this is even worth talking about.
Yeh is there anybody credible at all linking us with him aside from Sportswitness?
 

Ikon

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
2,420
He can cover both the right wing and the centre to give us more depth, and he would also be a good stop gap on the right should the Sancho transfer fail to materialise until next summer.
Sorry mate, do you really think that Sancho would be available to United next summer, if we can't manage to thrash out a deal this summer, when United are the only buyers..?
As far as Sancho goes, its now or never.