How much can we spend? (before we jeopardize our finances)

7even

Resident moaner, hypocrite and moron
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
3,920
Location
Lifetime vacation
We are quick to criticize Woodward and why he don’t bite the bullet and spend 120m on Sancho. Walk in park for a club of our size isn’t it?

I give you a link to MUFC annual reports. I also provide us with some key numbers then I ask those of you who’re interested to give your opinion what’s wise to spend this summer.

MUFC Annual reports

Key numbers.
Annual net profit fiscal year 2019/20 = £18,8m
Net profit 9 month up to 31 Mars 2020 = £13,2m

Net profit Q3 2019 = £7,6m
Net loss Q3 2020 = £22,8m

Cash reserves end of fiscal year 2019/20 = 307,6m
Cash reserves 31 Mars 2020 = £90m
(The difference is close to the fees we paid for Harry Maguire, AWB and BrunoF)
In Mars 2020 we took a revolving credit of £150m to secure our cash flow.


1. How much should we maximum pay in our first installment to Dortmund if the final fee is €120m?

2. What is a sensible payment structure from your perspective?

3. 1 expensive star or 3 quality squad players in areas where we are weak. What’s your thoughts?

4. In fiscal year 2019/20 we bought Maguire, AWB and Bruno for fees close to 200m. Is that a sign of confidence against Ole or are this only minimum acceptance spendings according to your view.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
25,196
IMO we should take a bit of risk and stretch our finances if we can land Sancho. He might be the difference between CL and no-CL which should make lot of money for the club.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
42,057
Location
CA
Taking a debt to sign players is not a good idea IMO, especially with this insecurity when it comes to finances (covid is here to stay for another year).

When you look at the difference between Q3 2020 and Q3 2019, the difference is 30m. Providing that this happens for the entire year, we are talking for more than 100m difference.

I wouldn't mind playing it safe.
 

Crashoutcassius

Full Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2013
Messages
7,529
Location
playa del carmen
accounting profits etc dont matter massively, what matters is our cash flow per season, which hovers around 100m spare every season. think fans worry a bit too much about the account side of it, reports profits which include phased payments and tax assets etc etc etc. our cash flow may be down this year, but we can look to next year with CL... straight forward to predict what cash flow would be, especially since gate receipts, while not nothing, aren't the be all and end all.

we should have enough spend 120m any champions league year for many consecutive years but I agree with the general idea that we can't have huge summers every summer and eventually we have to buy to sell, we have to clear wages etc. Last year with bruno , lukaku, maguire, awb and james + agent fees I'm sure we slightly overspent for a non CL year, but the year before we underspent
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
32,425
Taking a debt to sign players is not a good idea IMO, especially with this insecurity when it comes to finances (covid is here to stay for another year).

When you look at the difference between Q3 2020 and Q3 2019, the difference is 30m. Providing that this happens for the entire year, we are talking for more than 100m difference.

I wouldn't mind playing it safe.
That's an understatement, it's a horrific idea. We just wrote off a £30m investment in Sanchez (+ wages) after 18 months. You can't write off your debts like that and it would feck us up for a long time.
 

AshRK

Full Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,012
Location
Canada
There is no guarantee we would have CL football for 2021-22 so better strengthen now than play safe for the future. We did the same mistake in 18-19 by just signing Fred and not sacking Jose. It's like whenever we get the CL football we try acting smart and end up paying more. I would break the bank for sancho if it is matter of 30-40 million soending extra. If your budget itself is 50 odd.million then it's a worrying thing.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
42,057
Location
CA
That's an understatement, it's a horrific idea. We just wrote off a £30m investment in Sanchez (+ wages) after 18 months. You can't write off your debts like that and it would feck us up for a long time.
It kind of depends. Normally, I wouldn't mind it cause the revenue would increase. But with corona, all bets are off, and the situation might degrade much worse. I think empty stadiums for the next season is virtually certain and that will hurt. But also TV money might suffer (a depression means people spend less, so less money for the TVs), and the non trivial chance of season being stopped/cancelled again, so there is no guarantee that we will go back to where we were (in revenue) for another 2 years.

As much as I like us to sign Sancho, we do not need to go nuts for that. Would be much worse if-then n 12 months we would be forced to sell him, or Mason or Martial in order to pay the debt. Though if we reach that position we might become affordable again, but you can never know if that is good or bad.
 

Green_Red

Full Member
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
7,838
Net profit of £18.8 million is decent considering we spent how much on Maguire, Wan Bissaka, Fernandez and James?

Can we afford €120 million on Sancho? I'd say 120% we can.
 

kundalini

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
4,649
It would be wise to spend nothing in the transfer market this summer. Wait until Old Trafford is close to full capacity then spend.

Known cost of Coronavirus so far (including TV rebate and no pre-season tour) is about £40m. Matchday revenue most years is about £110m.

When will fans be allowed back in the stadiums ? What percentage of capacity will be allowed for social distancing ?

Even under a ridiculously optimistic scenario, you are looking at the Coronavirus costing United £100m. 50% capacity in the 2nd half of the season would mean a total cost around £120m. No fans next season £150m. Then there is the possiblity that the economic conditions impact the next round of broadcasting or sponsorship deals.
 
Last edited:

In Rainbows

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
5,445
It kind of depends. Normally, I wouldn't mind it cause the revenue would increase. But with corona, all bets are off, and the situation might degrade much worse. I think empty stadiums for the next season is virtually certain and that will hurt. But also TV money might suffer (a depression means people spend less, so less money for the TVs), and the non trivial chance of season being stopped/cancelled again, so there is no guarantee that we will go back to where we were (in revenue) for another 2 years.

As much as I like us to sign Sancho, we do not need to go nuts for that. Would be much worse if-then n 12 months we would be forced to sell him, or Mason or Martial in order to pay the debt. Though if we reach that position we might become affordable again, but you can never know if that is good or bad.
After next season

-No Rojo, Mata wages
-Can sell Dalot, Smalling, Lingard, and possibly TFM (or let him go on a free)

Don't think we would need to sell any impactful players. And if we needed to, we would sell Henderson before any of Rashford, Martial, or Greenwood. We already got rid of Sanchez's wages too.
 
Last edited:

LVGSdive

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
442
Taking a debt to sign players is not a good idea IMO, especially with this insecurity when it comes to finances (covid is here to stay for another year).

When you look at the difference between Q3 2020 and Q3 2019, the difference is 30m. Providing that this happens for the entire year, we are talking for more than 100m difference.

I wouldn't mind playing it safe.
I agree with you. Money doesn't fall out of the sky and there's no guarantee that another virus won't come along. This is probably the wake up that football needed as the transfer fees and salaries were getting out of control.
 

7even

Resident moaner, hypocrite and moron
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
3,920
Location
Lifetime vacation
@kundalini
Wise words my friend. Sadly not many muppets are interested in our financial reality.

I listen to Mark Goldbridge, the presenter of The United Stand and honestly so much clueless crap. They all just talk, talk and talk without any professional analyses. Fabrizio Romano, Christian Falk and the Norwegian bloke Jan Aage Fjortoft are probably specialists in writing Tweets but apart from that they just repeat what other says. No consequence analysis of the impact of their suggestions whatsoever.

If we just do a simplistic cash flow analysis from Mars 31 until December 31 (2020) we will see that the uncertainty is huge.

Cash reserves 31 Mars - £90m
Revolving credit - £150m
Q4 losses could be everything from a couple of millions up to £30-40m. Right now probably only the top brass at the club knows those numbers.
TV rebate and no pre season tour can cost us up to £40m according for reports.
Match day revenue will probably take a huge hit. Everything from £20m to three figure millions numbers are possible. If we lose half of it then the club must tighten their budget.
Sanchez out was a must but CL qualification isn’t only more money it also cost us wages in form of more bonuses to the squad.
We probably need to off load at least two three more players before the squad is manageable in financial terms. More academy players will probably be squad members rather sooner then later like Mengi and Mejbri

In a worst case scenario our cash reserves can be down to single figures if the Pandemic continues with a second wave. Then we rely on a expensive revolving credit. Any decent financial analyst will wave red flags when we enter that stage.

I honestly don’t know all the ins and outs of our finances but the figures who are publicized gives us a decent view and so far the future is full of uncertainty.
 

davidmichael

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2015
Messages
1,800
Just seen that Liverpool apparently aren’t interested in buying any midfielders but Thiago is available for £30 million, I’d much rather bring Thiago in than go over the top spending wise with Grealish.

I’ve seen in numerous places that Inter want Smalling and are happy to pay £23 million whilst Monaco apparently want £30 million for Benoit Badiashile, by also getting Jones and Rojo off the wage bill again that’s a very achievable signing money wise.

The only signing that will cost us serious money is Sancho yet by getting rid of Dalot, Fosu-Mensah, Jones, Smalling, Rojo and one of Pereira or Lingard on top of just getting Sanchez‘s monstrous wages off the wage bill then again it’s very achievable.

An outlay of £168 million for 3 players whilst recouping around £50 million whilst saving on Sanchez’s wages in my mind is an easy thing to do but the problem we have is Woodward and Judge only seem to he able to work on one deal at a time.
 

Womp

idiot
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
8,014
Location
Sydney, Australia
I'd say realistically, I see us spending at most 80m this summer, probably a little more if we get some decent funds for sales in.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
42,057
Location
CA
After next season

-No Rojo, Mata wages
-Can sell Dalot, Smalling, Lingard, and possibly TFM (or let him go on a free)

Don't think we would need to sell any impactful players. And if we needed to, we would sell Henderson before any of Rashford, Martial, or Greenwood. We already got rid of Sanchez's wages too.
You are talking for 20m in transfers there. And Pogba is gonna increase his salary, likely Bruno in a year will get a new contract considering that he is under 100k/week.

If virus continues for another year, I think that all players will cost half as much as they cost now. Pretty much every club is gonna work with losses, and that can be done for half a season, but now for multiple seasons.

There are reasons why no club is willing to spend this summer. The uncertainty is extremely high. Would love Sancho here, but not at the cost of jeopardizing the future.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
42,057
Location
CA
Just seen that Liverpool apparently aren’t interested in buying any midfielders but Thiago is available for £30 million, I’d much rather bring Thiago in than go over the top spending wise with Grealish.

I’ve seen in numerous places that Inter want Smalling and are happy to pay £23 million whilst Monaco apparently want £30 million for Benoit Badiashile, by also getting Jones and Rojo off the wage bill again that’s a very achievable signing money wise.

The only signing that will cost us serious money is Sancho yet by getting rid of Dalot, Fosu-Mensah, Jones, Smalling, Rojo and one of Pereira or Lingard on top of just getting Sanchez‘s monstrous wages off the wage bill then again it’s very achievable.

An outlay of £168 million for 3 players whilst recouping around £50 million whilst saving on Sanchez’s wages in my mind is an easy thing to do but the problem we have is Woodward and Judge only seem to he able to work on one deal at a time.
You didn't count the salaries of those 3 players that we sign, so we are talking probably around 200m to pay. Remove 50 million from deadwood (if we can sell them) and another 15m or so from Sanchez, it is still over 100m. We have less than 100m in bank (and no one is crazy enough to spend all that in this time) and likely projected to lose 100m more because of the corona.

That is why spending 120m euros on Sancho at this stage is extremely risky. To be fair, I trust the club in this aspect, I don't think they will spend money that we cannot afford. I think though that if we sign Sancho, that will be all for this transfer, and IMO we won't sign Sancho unless BVB lowers their demands.
 

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
3,705
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
Jeopardise our finances in what sense? The club isn’t in danger of going bust if we sign Sancho. We’ve taken a low interest loan out to cover the Corona losses assuming fans aren’t back in the stadium until early next year.
 

In Rainbows

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
5,445
You are talking for 20m in transfers there. And Pogba is gonna increase his salary, likely Bruno in a year will get a new contract considering that he is under 100k/week.

If virus continues for another year, I think that all players will cost half as much as they cost now. Pretty much every club is gonna work with losses, and that can be done for half a season, but now for multiple seasons.

There are reasons why no club is willing to spend this summer. The uncertainty is extremely high. Would love Sancho here, but not at the cost of jeopardizing the future.
The wages lost by those players would exceed the wages of Pogba, Sancho, and Bruno. We already got rid of Sanchez who covers a sizeable portion. We're going to get rid of 6 players.

And like I said, if we wanted to sell someone, we would sooner sell Henderson than those you listed.


You've presented a false dichotomy of Sancho or jeapordizing our future. We're clearly looking to spend money right now, we just don't know how much we're willing to let go of. So like I said, if we really wanted, we could sell Henderson and lose the wages of those other players, which should cover the cost of the increase in wages you listed, plus the transfer fees we're willing to pay right now.

We already have Romero at the club too. So if United really wanted to budget, they could wait until de Gea's contract expires after 3 more seasons which would be another huge contract off our books. We have a great young keeper in Kovar right now aside from the 3 other keepers.

I see no reason to panic and I'm not just scoffing off the covid situation, hence why I've included many players' situations.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
42,057
Location
CA
Jeopardise our finances in what sense? The club isn’t in danger of going bust if we sign Sancho. We’ve taken a low interest loan out to cover the Corona losses assuming fans aren’t back in the stadium until early next year.
To cover the losses, but not to spend on transfers. The best case I see is Sancho in, and a few of deadwood out.
 

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
3,705
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
To cover the losses, but not to spend on transfers. The best case I see is Sancho in, and a few of deadwood out.
Taking it out means we have the capability to spend what we were going to spend over the next few years and with corona discounts and less clubs investing now is the perfect time to play catch-up. The financial stability of the club isn’t at risk provided fans return to stadiums next year. This club is a colossus financially and unlike other big clubs we’re lucky to not be funding large stadium projects at the moment.

I think we’ll sign Sancho, a CB, a cheap young LB and a midfielder providing we can get rid of the high number of players no longer required for adequate fees. The club haven’t briefed that we’re skint which they would do if we weren’t prepared to invest and I do think the anti-Woodward/Glazier atmosphere last year will have shaken them a bit. It was pretty toxic.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
42,057
Location
CA
Taking it out means we have the capability to spend what we were going to spend over the next few years and with corona discounts and less clubs investing now is the perfect time to play catch-up. The financial stability of the club isn’t at risk provided fans return to stadiums next year. This club is a colossus financially and unlike other big clubs we’re lucky to not be funding large stadium projects at the moment.

I think we’ll sign Sancho, a CB, a cheap young LB and a midfielder providing we can get rid of the high number of players no longer required for adequate fees. The club haven’t briefed that we’re skint which they would do if we weren’t prepared to invest and I do think the anti-Woodward/Glazier atmosphere last year will have shaken them a bit. It was pretty toxic.
I guess we will wait and see.

I don’t see how fans will be allowed to go into stadiums without mass vaccinations. So not for another year.

Fans not being allowed to the stadium means that any protest will be small.
 

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
3,705
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
I guess we will wait and see.

I don’t see how fans will be allowed to go into stadiums without mass vaccinations. So not for another year.

Fans not being allowed to the stadium means that any protest will be small.
I’m an optimist and hoping with better treatments and possibly a vaccine that by March next year we’ll be getting back to normal. I think there’ll be reduced crowds allowed in before that, but you’d think even if it was permanent clubs would find a way to make money from broadcasting the games. Clubs in Scotland are streaming their home games for a fee. I’d have thought amazon would be all over buying more games next year if the PL decided to show all the games but maybe that’s against the terms of the current TV deal.
 

Snuffkin

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Messages
466
At least we didn't build a new stadium. The roof can leak as much as it wants now.
 

7even

Resident moaner, hypocrite and moron
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
3,920
Location
Lifetime vacation
Q3 Borussia Dortmund

In their own words...

Transfer deals are an important part of Borussia Dortmund's business and, as in previous years, represent a significant source of income. However, in view of the developments in the economic environment, Borussia Dortmund on principle only takes transfer income into limited account in its planning. The transfer policy nevertheless presents significant opportunities to generate substantial income. Consequently, transfer deals are always assessed against the background of the current season. High transfer sums often go hand in hand with a drop in quality within the team, but it cannot be ruled out that value-driven transfers will be concluded contrary to the Company's sporting interests. Given Borussia Dortmund's sustained success, its players are increasingly piquing the interest of other top clubs.
The COVID-19 crisis is also influencing the transfer market. It cannot be ruled out that transfer sums for players will decrease temporarily on account of the economic uncertainties. According to the International Centre for Sports Studies, it is possible that transfer sums for players in Europe's leagues will decline by several million euros. The postponement of the European Championship until the summer of 2021 affords the Bundesliga clubs the opportunity to extend the season into July 2020. This would also significantly postpone the summer transfer window, and it would need to be clarified how expiring contracts should be treated. FIFA is currently addressing this issue and is expected to release guidance on the matter in the coming weeks. Despite the expected potential losses and the uncertainty as the situation continues to unfold, the European leagues remain attractive for talented young players. Current expectations are that there will be quite a bit of activity on the transfer market in the summer of 2020 but that the record transfer fees seen in previous seasons will not be paid.
 

7even

Resident moaner, hypocrite and moron
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
3,920
Location
Lifetime vacation
Borussia Dortmund has a cash reserve of €18m in Mars 31 2020.

From what I can see they need to sell if they don’t want to use credits. In their own words its part of their Business plan to sell players every year. (see BD Annual report 2019 or Q3 2020)

As at 31 March 2020, Borussia Dortmund held unrestricted cash funds of EUR 18,781 thousand. Borussia Dortmund also had access to an additional EUR 60,000 thousand in overdraft facilities which had not been drawn down as at the end of the reporting period.
Cash flows from financing activities amounted to EUR -8,585 thousand. This primarily consisted of the dividend distribution in November 2019 and the payment of lease liabilities.
 

cyril C

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
1,667
We got 100m+ on match day ticket sale, are you assuming most of it would be secured next season? If all existing members are willing to pay 1000 GBP subscription even by watching games at home, hence 100m is secured, then for sure bid whatever price Dortmund asked for, including their agent fees.

Even TV money is at risk to a certain extent.

If you notice how Liverpool, the current Champion, tighten their belt, you should have noticed something is happening, right?
 

Leftback99

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
5,741
I'd be very surprised if our net spend this summer is higher than £70m, much lower if we don't get Sancho. The smarter move might be to wait until January or next summer to see how things look.
 

cyril C

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
1,667
Borussia Dortmund has a cash reserve of €18m in Mars 31 2020.

From what I can see they need to sell if they don’t want to use credits. In their own words its part of their Business plan to sell players every year. (see BD Annual report 2019 or Q3 2020)

As at 31 March 2020, Borussia Dortmund held unrestricted cash funds of EUR 18,781 thousand. Borussia Dortmund also had access to an additional EUR 60,000 thousand in overdraft facilities which had not been drawn down as at the end of the reporting period.
Cash flows from financing activities amounted to EUR -8,585 thousand. This primarily consisted of the dividend distribution in November 2019 and the payment of lease liabilities.
Different Clubs have different strategy. BM never like selling, or forced into selling (ask Hargreaves). But they will be direct and honest to a certain extent. Dortmund sell 1 star every season despite their relative success in Bundesliga and CL. We also need to understand their logistics, such as need to pay out 20%(?) to City, and possibly more (20-30%???) to Agent. Which is how they can successfully, and relatively effortlessly, in recruiting good prospects. So 100m only means 50m to their pocket, or 40m net profit.

That's why it is so important to identify suitable players, Plan A to Plan C at least, instead of being forced into a deal.

Because don't tell me Sancho is the only right wing in the world. There should be mature options (Willian, Costa...), younger option (??) If you do your homework RIGHT, you can find jewel, just like Bruno.
 

DickDastardly

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
695
Location
Mean machine 00
Supports
UTD
Even better.

Get the club bankrupt.

Saudi takeover.

Oil money comes flying in.

Buy everbody, buy VAR, more penalties, buy Klopp and Guardiola = win the treble in 2021.

Easy.
 

Escobar

Poster originally known as Michel04
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
24,253
Location
La-La-Land
We got 100m+ on match day ticket sale, are you assuming most of it would be secured next season? If all existing members are willing to pay 1000 GBP subscription even by watching games at home, hence 100m is secured, then for sure bid whatever price Dortmund asked for, including their agent fees.

Even TV money is at risk to a certain extent.

If you notice how Liverpool, the current Champion, tighten their belt, you should have noticed something is happening, right?
It is not an easy situation tbh. On one hand I understand if United is also a bit cautious, on the other hand, we badly need to spend if we want to be more competitive, qualify for the CL and play for some trophies. Which will generate more money, too. If United want to protect the business now and spend carefully, I also support that
 

flappyjay

Full Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
3,462
Taking a debt to sign players is not a good idea IMO, especially with this insecurity when it comes to finances (covid is here to stay for another year).

When you look at the difference between Q3 2020 and Q3 2019, the difference is 30m. Providing that this happens for the entire year, we are talking for more than 100m difference.

I wouldn't mind playing it safe.
Not surprising as match day revenue is about 100m a year. People overlook it though.
 

SteveW

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
7,094
Bring Sancho and we have an attack that could last 10 years. We perhaps need another AM but generally the typically most expensive part of the team will be in place for a long long time. It won't need much investment going forward.

So get it done and let it be smoothed out over the next few years when we win't have to spend quite as heavily.
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
5,588
This is the Manchester United's money, the first priority should always be to think what is best for Manchester United football club, the rest follows.

At this moment, it is best for Manchester United to invest its money on playing staff. Why should the shareholders keep getting the same dividend ? The money that goes to them should be invested back into the club.

Stop making excuses up for the Glazers, we have money, we do not want to spend it.

The £150m loan does not worry me, we have millions of £ of debts and that is how we operate, if we can take advantage of low interest rates and get a loan, then that is good business.

This is the biggest club in the world and we are giving excuses to not spend £100m in a summer?
 

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
18,643
As of 31 March 2020, the club has £356.4m in outstanding unamortised transfer fees of players we previously signed. These costs will need to be run through the books in the coming years.

In that context, I can't see us going too crazy in the market for the foreseeable future. We have already spent a huge amount of money. Covid just makes things even more tricky.
 

Leftback99

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
5,741
This is the Manchester United's money, the first priority should always be to think what is best for Manchester United football club, the rest follows.

At this moment, it is best for Manchester United to invest its money on playing staff. Why should the shareholders keep getting the same dividend ? The money that goes to them should be invested back into the club.

Stop making excuses up for the Glazers, we have money, we do not want to spend it.

The £150m loan does not worry me, we have millions of £ of debts and that is how we operate, if we can take advantage of low interest rates and get a loan, then that is good business.

This is the biggest club in the world and we are giving excuses to not spend £100m in a summer?
It's not giving them excuses it's just basic financial sense for the future of the club. If there was a certain end date to COVID and getting fans back in the stadium it would be a different picture. On dividends, without fans in the stadium we will be making losses so no dividend anyway.
 

cyril C

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
1,667
It is not an easy situation tbh. On one hand I understand if United is also a bit cautious, on the other hand, we badly need to spend if we want to be more competitive, qualify for the CL and play for some trophies. Which will generate more money, too. If United want to protect the business now and spend carefully, I also support that
In comparison with many other clubs, MU is in fact in spending mood, just not as crazy as someone hope to be, or as idiotic as Dortmund thinks we are.

The original thread asked us how much we should package the offer, even if we do agree with 100m as the final number, it must be packaged over 3 seasons. In similar deal as Martial, it could be

60m cash +
30m on performance, such as 50 goals+assist. Hence this may take longer than 1 season to satisfy but if Sancho really ticks the box, this should be met in 1.5 season.
+ 20m on personal performance such as nomination for XXX, which may never be met.

My guess is that Dortmund needs the money so much that they don't agree with any optional milestone, but straight cash in 2 seasons.

Now tell me, is Sancho the ONLY right wing in the world?
 

Zlatattack

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
5,309
We're finally building something good - now is the time to take a financial risk.