The same I reckon- £100m plus whatever we raise from selling the deadwood that we couldn’t sell this year.
MUFC are looking at a budget of about £100m, due to FFP (The Athletic)
- Thread starter jamesjimmybyrondean
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
I don’t blame players getting their money from our club if we can only sell footballers on their way down in the game.
In the past top players used to admit the only way is down from United in a sporting sense. Now it’s purely money orientated why we are a ‘final destination’.
Seemingly our budget from now on with the leeches is upper mid table. That fact we even got close to FFP given our resources is mind blowing.
All while Chelsea break transfer records galore twice a season. Chelsea are poor currently on the field but you can see the divergence in intent to be successful now.
Won’t pay off this season but will eventually you imagine and they’ll overtake us.
Their youth system beats ours too which is a massive bonus for City and Chelsea.
In the past top players used to admit the only way is down from United in a sporting sense. Now it’s purely money orientated why we are a ‘final destination’.
Seemingly our budget from now on with the leeches is upper mid table. That fact we even got close to FFP given our resources is mind blowing.
All while Chelsea break transfer records galore twice a season. Chelsea are poor currently on the field but you can see the divergence in intent to be successful now.
Won’t pay off this season but will eventually you imagine and they’ll overtake us.
Their youth system beats ours too which is a massive bonus for City and Chelsea.
I am captain hindsight now. According to transfermarkt we spent 206 mil euros.
Hojlund-75 mil
Mount - 64 mil
Onana - 52 mil
Amrabat - 10 mil
Altay - 5 mil
For that money we could have got:
Kane, Amrabat and Kim. Or Osimhen, Maddison and Amrabat.
What if....
Hojlund-75 mil
Mount - 64 mil
Onana - 52 mil
Amrabat - 10 mil
Altay - 5 mil
For that money we could have got:
Kane, Amrabat and Kim. Or Osimhen, Maddison and Amrabat.
What if....
We couldn't get Kane.
Kane went for that price because he wasn’t going to an English team, competing with spurs. Levy would not have engaged with United unless it was for extremely silly money.
And that’s before his salary
There is a reason why Kane and Osimhen talk died down pretty quick once the window opened. Kane wasn't going anywhere in the Prem and Osimhen just wasn't going anywhere. We also weren't signing another centre back unless Maguire left. The only player then would be Maddison who we would need even less than Mount.
You're not being captain hindsight you're being captain unrealistic.
You really can't just look at transfer fees in isolation. Even if Kane were obtainable, his wage packet would have been massive - that needs to be factored into the numbers.
Plus the fact he would cost 40%> more to an EPL "rival" as perceived by Levy.
If Kim/Onana is 50 mil and Amrabat is 10 then it means that we would have 150 mil for striker. Is it silly or not, it is matter of opinion.
Imo, 100 mil for a player who is "only" part of first team (like Antony) is silly money but player who is game changer and who transforms complete team, is worth every cent which you can afford.
As i said already; between Kane(or even Osimhen)/Fred/De Gea and Onana/Hojlund/Mount, i choose first option any day of the week.
I just do not think we could attract Kane, I do not think he would want to come here.
Again, it's not a simple comparison. Kane on 400k/week = 20m/year, which in FFP terms is the equivalent of an additional 100m transfer fee.
Kane's wages alone in relation to Hojlund - on top of the much bigger transfer fee required because we are in the Prem - meant it would be costing the club astronomical fees year on year over the course of his contract, Hojlund year on year costs a fraction of the price and we are as poor as they come really, don't let this transfer window's total spend fool you.
I disagree with both. According to multiple media stories, Kane was open for move to United. Osimhen said himself that he is keen to PL.
Also Napoli was willing to accept 130-150 mil for Osimhen. Now, only question left is Levy. If we had offered 120-130 mil; do you really think that Levy would rather lose 30 mil and sell him to Bayern?
Yes, i know that this is all one big "what IF" talk and what is done is done but can't help myself thinking that we messed up this window and we are now paying the price on the pitch.
It’s a bit late in the day to be waking up with your head in your cornflakes
Everyone when they make this argument forgets we are paying Mount 250k a week basic going to 300k with bonuses.
We did not need him and could have got a better striker with the money or even a CB
Many people said this during the summer and were shut down.
Club used PR to justify not going for a world class striker and fans ate it up.
Levy will rather lose 10 or 20 mil euros than sell to us. Yeah, right.
Same PR was used for Osimhen. He is "unrealistic" but all of sudden, Napoli was open to sell him to Saudi Arabia for 140 mil.
. I don't understand what you mean with this exactly but you did make me laugh.Dreaming
When someone is dreaming you can say that they woke up with their head in their CornflakesOr Osimhen.
Kane wouldn't have significantly changed the performances in the 5 games so far.
Has anyone ran the numbers from our latest financial reports - is there much left in the budget to try and fix some of this mess in the upcoming windows?
We know our budget was £100m, but we spent in excess of that last summer. It was the same the summer before, where we again overspent - so the purse strings will need to get tightened at some point, so we don't fall foul of FFP?
We know our budget was £100m, but we spent in excess of that last summer. It was the same the summer before, where we again overspent - so the purse strings will need to get tightened at some point, so we don't fall foul of FFP?
The question I ask myself is, is there even any point in spending more money until big changes are made to the football side of the club? I.e Ratcliffe brings in his own guys and the manager is replaced? All we ever seem to do is waste money. We'll end up in financial ruin the way we're going
I'm not talking about January. Even next summer with Ratcliffe's guys in, it seems like they'll be operating in a straight jacket with the mess we've made in the last 2-3 summers.
We didn’t overspend.
We got about £30m in straight profit for Elanga and Henderson, the amortisation for Mount, Onana, Hojlund comes to around that amount or a bit more, then the £8m fee for Amrabat. If anything, we probably have a bit of room for another £30m ish signing partly due to getting De Gea and Ronaldo contract off the books.
More about the type of players we sign than managers to be honest. If you sign younger highly rated prospects, if they don't work out, you can sell for good money, our issue is in the last five or so seasons we have signed Casemiro, Varane, Ronaldo, Cavani, Matic, Sanchez, Zlatan - all of these guys were coming in on obscene wages, all of them included obscene fees, even the free agents and what have we recouped from them? The only hope is the Saudi league coming in for Varane + Case.
Think of players we're linked with now, at least they are in a better age bracket (Todibo, Onana, Araujo) as long as the Griezmann rumours aren't true!
Looking at the current squad in terms of potential outgoings to increase budget for January/next season: I only really see McTominay, Casemiro, and Varane. Anyone else?
Other players who realistically command a nice fee (Fernandes, Rashford etc) are most likely not to be sold any time soon.
Other players who realistically command a nice fee (Fernandes, Rashford etc) are most likely not to be sold any time soon.
Owners are allowed to invest £90m over a three year period to balance with FSR. We've just never done that. Plus we do have sellable assets and big salaries that will probably come off the books. I don't think we're as stretched as we're led to believe.
There needs to be a huge pivot in recruitment strategy, obviously, but I'm sure there will be money there. Maybe not enough to realistically compete for proven PL talent, but that's where being smarter would help.
There needs to be a huge pivot in recruitment strategy, obviously, but I'm sure there will be money there. Maybe not enough to realistically compete for proven PL talent, but that's where being smarter would help.
We need to get some breathing room with FFP. A club our size should not be up against the limit each season.
Having some money come in from the ownership will make a big difference. We haven't once used that capacity, as far as I know, which is why we're struggling now.
Even if you give this guy 500mil we still be out of Europe by December and wondering what is out game plan come August. Even if you assemble a group of lions they cannot be headed by Eric Ten Hag the sheep. 100 mil, 200 mil, 300 mil or even a billion will not suddenly turn him into a good manager. People completely found him out and his school boy 1 man midfield tactics after just one season. Save the money, fire him and get rdy for summer.
Sancho?
This isn't another sack EtH thread nor what we are talking about.
I didn't see your post. But yeah, this is what I meant.
The club has money, but not enough to put any aside for infrastructure finance costs, without completely cutting transfer spending
I think we do have a sizeable transfer debt, that’s where getting the cash flow can be tricky. Luckily, Maguire and McTominay probably proved to potential suitors that they have value and if we have any wits about us we should get 50-60m for them and thank our lucky stars. Then if both Case and Varane are off the books, that’s £30m in wages annually plus whatever fees we get for them. If we decide to go for potentials and do away with 200k+ wages we can sort out our finances relatively quickly, but I doubt the fanbase have the patience for that.
Overspending has more to do with the actual cash available or spent than it has to do with accounting tools like amortization.
Can we just ban anyone that says "we could have got Kane for £100m".
Which I followed up with my next post re: transfer debt. It’s only an issue with cashflow if the selling club demands a large chunk upfront or all of it in cash (Maguire’s deal). We don’t know the payment structures for the deal we did in the summer, however, so just working off the publicly available numbers (reported fees n wages), the notion that we overspent in the summer is baseless.
For saying it three months ago? A bit harsh.
Unless we get him off to Saudi, think it'll be a loan with a subsidised salary.
I dunno, it was stupid 3 months ago. Then again Scholes told us last night that we should have just bought Rice and Kane for £200m like it was that easy.
Maguire, Dalot, Varane, Casemiro, VDB, Sancho & Martial are earning over £80m a season in wages between them. Bringing in replacements should half that figure as we're unlikely to be going for too many huge names. Thats gives them a bit of wriggle room too, selling McTominay is the big one as profit on Varane would be minimal and they might be lucky to break even on Casemiro/Sancho.