Hard times: adjusting to the new reality
- Thread starter Katy Cat
- Start date
-
Hello, Guest! We have a new competition (with tagline and award as prizes) starting.
A new Odds or Evens competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit your predictions. Submissions will be open for the next 7 days, 21 hours, 22 minutes, 4 seconds, and will close on Sep 12, 2026 at 15:00.
That was a one in a lifetime experience mate.
Do you not know the meaning of impossible?
We are still a Tier 1 club in terms of revenue. We can still pay top wages for top players. We are a manager away from winning the league.
We've been saying that for 13 years. This club doesn't know how to hire the right manager.
Ok I change it to almost impossible. Let's hope we are the new Leicester then
Liverpool did it too.
Sensible good value signings were the key to getting them back in contention for the title. We were outspending them in the same period.
Interesting comment in The Athetic today about Utds transfer window, that the impression in football world is that Utd no longer target the top players, but the rung below it. Hoping to uncover gems like Spurs did under Levy's ownership.
The law of averages says we are due one now.
Was the window great, no, was it okay, yes. Did we fill some required gaps, yes. Are there more to fill, yes. Have we added the quality required? I'm going to say probably not.
What has made our window worse has been our rivals and wannabes throwing £100million or more at multiple players while we slum it looking at potential rather than proven quality. I don't mind that, however we do need some proven quality and that's what we're ultimately lacking in comparison to our rivals.
This is a culmination or wreckless spending and disgusting leaching. If we want to move forward as a club, we simply have to get the Glazers gone, until that happens, forget about competing for the big names and big trophies.
What has made our window worse has been our rivals and wannabes throwing £100million or more at multiple players while we slum it looking at potential rather than proven quality. I don't mind that, however we do need some proven quality and that's what we're ultimately lacking in comparison to our rivals.
This is a culmination or wreckless spending and disgusting leaching. If we want to move forward as a club, we simply have to get the Glazers gone, until that happens, forget about competing for the big names and big trophies.
When was the last time we won a real transfer battle since RVP with City also mildly interested? Even if you go back a few years before that, I don't remember any.
We lost the battles for Alcantara, Hazard, Silva, Di Maria (the first time) and for countless other during Fergie's final few years.
This is the new standard for our transfer windows going forward, get used to it. Whoever thinks we're ever winning the league with this kind of spend are delusional, there are levels to this game. Just look at what city did with their midfield this window. Whatever the club is saying about winning the league are just talking shit and have no intentions of going for it, they probably just wanna finish in CL spots to fund their stadium with money that should go to improving our squad..but no.
Liverpool built a quite a competitive side though
Yep sticking with mediocre antisystem managers who destroy the club with mediocrity.
That is buying average / not the right players flooding the club with mediocrity. Or even okay players who lose their confidence after managers going ultra "pragmatic" when the pressure is on (usually right away). This lowers the value of the players after they significantly drop their performance levels and we can look for another manager change and another rebuild from the players perspective, repeat forever.
At least now we are trying to reduce the wage bill and are close to the reset, but need to upgrade Carrick as soon as the new obvious manager candidate show up.
Anyway everything would be absolutely okay if if managed to hire the right manager who play progressive football and has a higher chance to win and entertain and as a result keep player's confidence and values up throughout. Just a manager appointment, can make this club compete easily when Guardiola and Klopp are gone, you'd assume the title is wide open with some top class manager. We have a decent squad, with few holeshere and there, but decent outside chance for a title in the current circumstances, yet we have a manager who shit his pants away to Hull and defend from the own half. This is what we offered 2 year extension to!
All of a sudden you have people saying Tielemans and Santos is shit while a week ago we were super confident we have had a great squad.
We were third last season and are likely to finish third again.
Hard times (70’s and 80’s), create strong men, strong men create good times (90’s and 2000’s), good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times (2013 and counting).
David Silva? Don’t remember we were in for him, that’s a big shame if so.
I remember we were linked with Aguero and Fernando Torres at some point.
The likes of Silva, Aguero, Hazard moved when we were at the peak of our “no value in the market” era, which essentially led to us being so ridiculously unprepared for SAF’s retirement, it was so stupid, that period also coincided with one of the best football talent pools in history, which makes it worse.
players like David Silva, Yaya Toure, Thiago Silva and Eden Hazard should’ve been United players, instead with went for Phil
Jones, Antonio Valencia, Ashley Young and Chicharito (with all due respect), we chose to be petty and skint during a period with so much value in the markets, and then spend all that money on LVG and ETH, an example of utterly horrific decision making and timing for any club to learn from.
Ironically and comedically Liverpool have done the same with being petty and skint under Klopp and spent all their money under Arne Slot and Iraloa, football, eh?
I wouldn’t let some of these people run a barber shop let alone a great football club, such incompetence.
And if anything, it makes me think of how much leeway David Gill got away with whilst still being held in a highly favorable light in the post SAF era.
I’d argue we would have been better off with Woodward instead of Gill during SAF’s last years, what did David Gill even do other than sorting out contracts and transfers for players we had no competition for?
At least Woodward knew how to milk sponsors and the Glazers for money.
Hazard was over agent fees, which was very silly in retrospect given the player he was.
David Silva? Don’t remember we were in for him, that’s a big shame if so.
I remember we were linked with Aguero and Fernando Torres at some point.
The likes of Silva, Aguero, Hazard moved when we were at the peak of our “no value in the market” era, which essentially led to us being so ridiculously unprepared for SAF’s retirement, it was so stupid, that period also coincided with one of the best football talent pools in history, which makes it worse.
players like David Silva, Yaya Toure, Thiago Silva and Eden Hazard should’ve been United players, instead with went for Phil
Jones, Antonio Valencia, Ashley Young and Chicharito (with all due respect), we chose to be petty and skint during a period with so much value in the markets, and then spend all that money on LVG and ETH, an example of utterly horrific decision making and timing for any club to learn from.
Ironically and comedically Liverpool have done the same with being petty and skint under Klopp and spent all their money under Arne Slot and Iraloa, football, eh?
I wouldn’t let some of these people run a barber shop let alone a great football club, such incompetence.
And if anything, it makes me think of how much leeway David Gill got away with whilst still being held in a highly favorable light in the post SAF era.
I’d argue we would have been better off with Woodward instead of Gill during SAF’s last years, what did David Gill even do other than sorting out contracts and transfers for players we had no competition for?
At least Woodward knew how to milk sponsors and the Glazers for money.
Last edited:
I think we have a serious problem with the amount of “old transfers” we still have to pay.
Here is a simplified look at our incoming transfers over the last five years:
2021/22 → Sancho, Varane, Ronaldo: €142m ≈ €29m/year over 5 years, with the payments ending around 2026/27.
2022/23 → Antony, Casemiro, Lisandro, Malacia: €242m ≈ €49m/year, with payments ending around 2027/28.
2023/24 → Højlund, Mount, Onana: €212m ≈ €42m/year, with payments ending around 2028/29.
2024/25 → Yoro, Ugarte, De Ligt, Zirkzee, Dorgu, Mazraoui: €246m ≈ €49m/year, with payments ending around 2029/30.
2025/26 → Sesko, Mbeumo, Cunha, Lammens: €246m ≈ €49m/year, with payments ending around 2030/31.
Obviously, this is a simplified calculation — actual payment schedules are not necessarily spread evenly over five years. But it gives an idea of the problem.
If we use this simplified model, in 2026/27 we would still have roughly €217m of transfer instalments to pay from deals made over the previous five years.
And this is where things become problematic. Over those five seasons, we qualified for the Champions League only twice. That means our actual revenues have been significantly below what the club would have budgeted for.
At the same time, our player sales have been poor:
So you have a combination of:
Look at Chelsea over the same period. They played in the Champions League three times, reached the quarter-finals twice, participated in the extremely lucrative Club World Cup and reportedly generated around €100m from it.
They also spent roughly €1.7bn on transfers while generating around €1.1bn in sales — meaning they recovered roughly 65% of their gross transfer spending through player sales.
United, by comparison, have recovered only around 33%. That's a massive difference.
Chelsea have obviously made plenty of questionable decisions themselves, and I'm not saying their model is necessarily sustainable. But they have had significantly more transfer-market liquidity because they have been much more active and successful in selling players. At some point, you have to pay for the mistakes of the past.
United have spent enormous amounts on players over the last decade, while simultaneously failing to generate enough revenue through Champions League football and player sales.
So when people ask why we couldn't spend another €100m this summer, my answer is simple:
It's not necessarily because INEOS doesn't want to invest. It's because the club is carrying the financial consequences of the previous 10 years of poor management.
You can't spend €200m every summer forever while also carrying hundreds of millions in outstanding transfer commitments, generating relatively little from player sales, missing out on Champions League revenue, and potentially financing a new stadium.
At some point, the bill comes due. And I think we're seeing that bill now.
Here is a simplified look at our incoming transfers over the last five years:
2021/22 → Sancho, Varane, Ronaldo: €142m ≈ €29m/year over 5 years, with the payments ending around 2026/27.
2022/23 → Antony, Casemiro, Lisandro, Malacia: €242m ≈ €49m/year, with payments ending around 2027/28.
2023/24 → Højlund, Mount, Onana: €212m ≈ €42m/year, with payments ending around 2028/29.
2024/25 → Yoro, Ugarte, De Ligt, Zirkzee, Dorgu, Mazraoui: €246m ≈ €49m/year, with payments ending around 2029/30.
2025/26 → Sesko, Mbeumo, Cunha, Lammens: €246m ≈ €49m/year, with payments ending around 2030/31.
Obviously, this is a simplified calculation — actual payment schedules are not necessarily spread evenly over five years. But it gives an idea of the problem.
If we use this simplified model, in 2026/27 we would still have roughly €217m of transfer instalments to pay from deals made over the previous five years.
And this is where things become problematic. Over those five seasons, we qualified for the Champions League only twice. That means our actual revenues have been significantly below what the club would have budgeted for.
At the same time, our player sales have been poor:
- 2025/26: €55m
- 2024/25: €77m
- 2023/24: €121m
- 2022/23: €58m
- 2021/22: €23m
- 2020/21: €31m
So you have a combination of:
- Lower revenues because of fewer Champions League matches and less matchday/broadcast revenue.
- Huge transfer commitments from previous summers that are still being paid.
- Poor player sales, meaning we generate very little cash from the squad.
- Lower player values, because several of our expensive signings have not performed as expected.
Look at Chelsea over the same period. They played in the Champions League three times, reached the quarter-finals twice, participated in the extremely lucrative Club World Cup and reportedly generated around €100m from it.
They also spent roughly €1.7bn on transfers while generating around €1.1bn in sales — meaning they recovered roughly 65% of their gross transfer spending through player sales.
United, by comparison, have recovered only around 33%. That's a massive difference.
Chelsea have obviously made plenty of questionable decisions themselves, and I'm not saying their model is necessarily sustainable. But they have had significantly more transfer-market liquidity because they have been much more active and successful in selling players. At some point, you have to pay for the mistakes of the past.
United have spent enormous amounts on players over the last decade, while simultaneously failing to generate enough revenue through Champions League football and player sales.
So when people ask why we couldn't spend another €100m this summer, my answer is simple:
It's not necessarily because INEOS doesn't want to invest. It's because the club is carrying the financial consequences of the previous 10 years of poor management.
You can't spend €200m every summer forever while also carrying hundreds of millions in outstanding transfer commitments, generating relatively little from player sales, missing out on Champions League revenue, and potentially financing a new stadium.
At some point, the bill comes due. And I think we're seeing that bill now.
It’s been obviously coming for years and accelerated with the money burnt under Ten Hag.
I’ve no faith INEOS or the current exec team whatsoever but pretty sure we’d be in an even bigger mess without them getting a handle on it over the last couple of years.
I’ve no faith INEOS or the current exec team whatsoever but pretty sure we’d be in an even bigger mess without them getting a handle on it over the last couple of years.
It sounds a hell of a lot more realistic than 'United have limitless pots of money they can spend in transfer windows, could easily buy their way back to the summit of football where there would be even greater income on offer, even greater prestige and all the benefits that allows, but are simply choosing not to do it" How would that make any sense at all?
It's not my money, obviously, but in any case I would rather buy decent players within our means and avoid transfer bans or being branded cheats for just ignoring the rules and paying £100 million for the Elliot Anderson's and Declan Rice's of the world, even in the unlikely event that the club does still have the ability to pay stupid fees and it's being hidden from us.
Getting someone like Tielemans for £30 million is probably the equivalent of picking up Cherki for the same for where we're at just now. We've been incredibly patchy over the years and are no longer among the clubs genuinely competing for the biggest honours in recent times, so we're not going to get some of the top tier talent when better teams are happy to pay the buyout and are willing/able to pay the same or better wages, that's just the harsh reality despite our historic standing.
Chelsea are farming players, lots of players are going to come and go there and it's not a model I agree with. Thinking of players as Chelsea rejects is a poor train of thought though, development is not linear, some of potential that left Chelsea went on to become some of the best players and lots likely will become really good players, even if not necessarily the best in the world. Same for City, happy to sell the likes of Palmer and Alvarez, they might be City rejects but I'd happily have them at United at the moment given their abilities.
I'm not going to argue that the ownership are making all the right decisions all the time, we should have stretched ourselves for a left back and back up striker and not doing so will likely come back to bite us at some point this season...but it was never realistic to upgrade a whole defence, and midfield and add a couple of attackers to that as well. Whilst I realise that some players do change their team by such numbers in one window, that's usually a promoted team or a team that's been gutted of their best players after overachieving. For the level of players United need to genuinely upgrade, it's simply not feasible to buy that many players in one window, especially if people are expecting us to be shopping for players that are upward of £80 millon.
I do become very confused by the mixed message from a fan base that demands scouting be used to allow for slightly cheaper, less obvious signings on one hand, but then moans about not paying ridiculous sums for players that have had basically one good season (in the case of Anderson and Fernandes), and that's assuming we'd have been their top choice had we paid the stupid fee anyway. You could be sure that had we signed them, when they didn't turn in incredible performances every week, or raise the level of the team to meet unrealistic expectations there'd be yet more moaning that the club had overspent on "bang average" players.
Yes we were potentially a bit lucky to get Champions League football, but we were never going to be in a position to make all the upgrades required to become a team that can challenge for the league and champions league in this one window, dropping a couple of hundred million on two overpriced midfielders wouldn't have got us there either.
End of they day, the vast majority of us don't really know what's happening at the club, or anything about running a football club. We should probably do more supporting of the club and team rather than slating every single questionable decision or performance as if it's the worst possible outcome.
I'm aware there's quite a bit of opinion and hyperbole in there, but it's an honest opinion in response to an online fan base that gets more and more like a Goldbridge reel no matter what happens.
That has some valid points of course, but you're overreaching. Because it's not the case that the transfer market is simply a circus driven by fickle fans, or that you can do just as well if you do your homework and carry out "smart, data driven signings". In the end, the top, title winning clubs are the ones that have the top players. And the top players, generally speaking, cost the most money. To win league titles, you have to do smart, data-driven signings AND spend a lot of money. There is still no way around that, and United is not going to win the PL with a squad built around 50 m signings.
Liverpool broke 2 transfer World recurd to win the league, hardly an advert for not spending
I think that's pretty clear. We want to be a top 4/5 club without spending too much and that's it
The Glazers destroyed us before fergie retired, he just papered over the cracks. You look at the quality players transferred between 09-13 and there was only rvp we had a sniff of
So many fans have bought in to it though. They really think our penny pinching will lead us to glory
If it's true that we are essentially 1.4bn in debt with basically zero cash on hand.. the fact we even spent 150 million sounds kinda good?
There was incredible value in the market then, we were just skint. Hazard, sanchez, David Silva, yaya toure, aguero, Robben, sneijder, ozil, plus many others. We've been screwed by the glazers for 20 years, not just since sir Alex retired
Yes, that was after years of sensible priced signings allowed them to do this. Robertson £8m Matip Free, Trent Free, Fabinho £40m, Henderson £16m, Wijnaldum £35m, Mane £30m Fiminio £30m Salah £35m That was the core of their title winning team.
Why were we skint during safs last years but suddenly able to spend big when LVG took over?
Sounds like we were never skint and the glazers just didn't want to spend until they were forced to when Moyes missed out on CL football
I doubt it. I'd say between 5th and 10th
All this was done in 3 years, we're already 2 and half years in with Ineos so im guessing next summer we will be buying two players for 150m+ each then?
Pretty much, I wordered it poorly. The glazers greed has destroyed us for 20 years with no signs of letting up
Not when you consider it's less than 9 other PL clubs, among whom are Hull and Ipswich.
I doubt Hull and Ipswich are in 1.4bn of debt with plans for a new 1bn stadium
Who is finishing above us? Have you actually looked at other teams?
Liverpool, Villa and Spurs haven't won a game yet. Villa and Spurs haven't even scored a goal yet!
We have got a far better squad than every team bar Arsenal. City and Chelsea are similar to us.
No. But then they don't exactly have our revenue either. Or a stated aim to win the PL in 2028.
Having the coach they did helped. Do that with Slot at the helm and you're in trouble.
To point out the obvious, if we are similar to City and Chelsea, then we don't have a far better squad than every team bar Arsenal, do we.
Didn't Slot win the league in his first season with Klopps squad?
Revenue isn't really the issue here.
With the right signings next summer we can compete for the title in 2028. Eventually the age of Arsenals squad will start to catch up with them. I'd expect them to win the league again this year and next but come 2029 and 2030 there's no reason we can't finish ahead of them.