MUFC are looking at a budget of about £100m, due to FFP (The Athletic)

[Nytram Shakes]

If the budget is £100 million every summer then at best the club will stand still. But when everyone else is spending the same amount and in a few cases a lot more...the chance of the club going backwards is also a likely outcome.

It's why the scrutiny on the manager is a bit daft. United's aim is to finish Top 4, do that and everyone has done their job.

You do realise we spent 200+ million last year, and FFP is based on how much money the club can actually afford to spend. What people are actually saying is we want united to spend more then they can afford to.

 

[aeh1991]

I can't even imagine the meltdowns we would have had here if the club bought a player from a club in the Eerste Divisie.

a league winning press-resistant, playmaking CM with tons of potential for 20m? I doubt that there would have been any meltdown

 

[RuudTom83]

You do realise we spent 200+ million last year, and FFP is based on how much money the club can actually afford to spend. What people are actually saying is we want united to spend more then they can afford to.

The point I made was spending 100 million in the Prem is probably not going to improve the final league position.

As you pointed out last season the club spend a lot more and look what happened…they went from 6th to 3rd.

So kinda proving my point.

As for FFP and spending more…I never made a comment on that in my post.

 

[golden_blunder]

a league winning press-resistant, playmaking CM with tons of potential for 20m? I doubt that there would have been any meltdown

You haven’t been here long enough

 

[bringbackbebe]

Could be off a bit here, but I think 1/6th of our revenue as net transfer budget has always been our strategy from early 90s till Woody came in as CEO. 100m is a fair transfer budget to work with. Anything more and it's leverage to the manager to make more mistakes.

 

[Garethw]

Could be off a bit here, but I think 1/6th of our revenue as net transfer budget has always been our strategy from early 90s till Woody came in as CEO. 100m is a fair transfer budget to work with. Anything more and it's leverage to the manager to make more mistakes.

The trouble is that £100m barely gets you an exciting prospect like Caicedo now.

With the seismic shift in average transfer fees recently it just makes the whole business model even more unsustainable for the Glazers.

 

[glasgow 21]

You do realise we spent 200+ million last year, and FFP is based on how much money the club can actually afford to spend. What people are actually saying is we want united to spend more then they can afford to.

Well i beg to differ. The running of the club is on the door step of the Glazers plain and simple. We spent 50m on signing new players last year (considering 4 year contracts). Just because you spent 20 grand on a car 2 years ago doesn't mean you can't buy another 30 grand car this year for the wife if you can suck up the payments. The problem is we are skint and Glazers are all out of options.

 

[Paul778]

The trouble is that £100m barely gets you an exciting prospect like Caicedo now.

With the seismic shift in average transfer fees recently it just makes the whole business model even more unsustainable for the Glazers.

He's quoting net remember. Basically as prices increase you need to be able to win stuff AND sell on your players for some value. Its imperative we get our recruitment side working a lot more like Brighton.

The days of signing players and them staying at the club for 10+ years is so much more difficult now

 

[DanClancy]

Every other big club subsidise their transfer budget by selling players, the last decade has been a disaster from that point of view. Part of that problem is obviously caused by paying players too much but we've also sent players out on loan instead of selling them. Suspect a decision taken by the Glazers with the balance sheet in mind.

 

[Crimson King]

Well i beg to differ. The running of the club is on the door step of the Glazers plain and simple. We spent 50m on signing new players last year (considering 4 year contracts). Just because you spent 20 grand on a car 2 years ago doesn't mean you can't buy another 30 grand car this year for the wife if you can suck up the payments. The problem is we are skint and Glazers are all out of options.

You can also offset some of the FFP through an injection of funds by the ownership, which would allow you to spend more. The Glazers never so that though.

 

[Mainoldo]

You can also offset some of the FFP through an injection of funds by the ownership, which would allow you to spend more. The Glazers never so that though.

Eitherway other clubs sell well. The injection of cash doesn’t account for this.

Chelsea or City currently don’t need an injection of cash.

We have players that are top 6 quality. They should be sold.

 

[VanGaalyTime]

Seems pretty simple to me, and this is what City and Chelsea do well:

1. Young player does well for youth team
2. Young player picked in match day squad
3. Young player gets minutes of PL matches and maybe starts a cup game or two
4. Young player has a promising performance either in PL or on loan
5. Club puts player on the market at his peak (relative) value.

 

[RedOrange]

If the bigger clubs are overly constrained artificially and if FFP is not applied equally across the board, you will get fan unrest (see a bit in this thread already). If this is a sweeping movement and there is no hope, then and only then will the super league be able to come to pass.

They aren't. United just carried on as normal during COVID thinking they could write off a bunch of expenses for FFP, and it ended up blowing up in their faces. The FFP constraints won't be a problem soon, as FFP operates over a 3 year window and the lower revenue/losses from '20/'21 won't be considered anymore. IIRC Barcelona were having a similar problem, because La Liga has an even more stringent policy than FFP does, which is what led to them trying to offload players and selling future revenues.

Anyways, expect to see a much larger transfer spend and/or Maguire, van de Beek and Sancho to be flogged off next summer as the FFP issues will be all cleared up.

 

[RedOrange]

Eitherway other clubs sell well. The injection of cash doesn’t account for this.

Chelsea or City currently don’t need an injection of cash.

We have players that are top 6 quality. They should be sold.

The main reason United doesn't sell is that we actually need all the quality players that are in the squad. City can sell most of their players and use the money to subsidize the purchase of a better one. If United sell a quality player he needs to be replaced with a more expensive one, and unless there's a profit on the two transactions it's just less money to spend on the other gaping holes in the squad.

 

[tomaldinho1]

What did we end up spending in the end about double The Athletic's quoted budget?

 

[Sarni]

a league winning press-resistant, playmaking CM with tons of potential for 20m? I doubt that there would have been any meltdown

You meant Orkan Kokcu, a Benfica midfielder who was signed by then from Feyenoord. Ozan Kokcu is his older brother that plays for Eindhoven (not PSV).

 

[Sarni]

The trouble is that £100m barely gets you an exciting prospect like Caicedo now.

With the seismic shift in average transfer fees recently it just makes the whole business model even more unsustainable for the Glazers.

Caicedo is an outlier, good players don’t have to cost that much and other players are consistently getting great talent at much lower prices. He’s the most expensive player sold in the last three years I think. City have got multiple good players in the £40m to £60m bracket, repeatedly.

Caicedo himself could have probably been signed at the start of window for £80m or so.

 

[Plastic Evra]

What did we end up spending in the end about double The Athletic's quoted budget?

I think the balance is at 128m£ approx this summer ? Club was hoping more for Fred and getting DvdB out, but would have paid similar amounts in excess to get Amrabat on a full transfer.
No crystal ball needed to guess United budget every summer is somewhere around 150m give or take... Don't know if their sources for 100 were solid though you could imagine the management deciding on that with a 10-20% cushion in the back pocket.

 

[Revan]

Seems pretty simple to me, and this is what City and Chelsea do well:

1. Young player does well for youth team
2. Young player picked in match day squad
3. Young player gets minutes of PL matches and maybe starts a cup game or two
4. Young player has a promising performance either in PL or on loan
5. Club puts player on the market at his peak (relative) value.

This is obviously the winning strategy but the problem is that both United board and the fans think that any young player who showed an once of talent ‘will lock the position for the next 10 years’, followed by inevitably losing him for 700k (if lucky) after a couple of loan spells and two seasons in the bench.

Add to that some stupid high transfers on average players and our total inability to sign starters that do not cost 50m+ (where are our Akanji, Gundogan, Kovacic, Alvarez) and unsurprisingly we are in a non sustainable mess.

 

[jesperjaap]

How can we possibly get a big budget in the current climate with our record of selling players?

Dan James is literally the only decent sale we have made since Ronaldo and Ronaldo in retrospect and as Madrid have even admitted went far cheaper than he should ave done.

That is one good sale in thirteen seasons, every other big sale was at a significant loss.

And just look at our outgoing fromt he time of Tan Hag (obiously most of which is nothing to do with him).

21 players I believe have left the club, almost half of those have been free transfers and we are not talking about youth players surplus or all just old players, there are names like Ronaldo, DeGea, Pogba, Lingard, Bailly. Of the rest only thee have gone over £10m, all for me for a good £5-10m less than they should have done.

All the rest we have literally had to give away, something it appears we are actually unable to do with the likes of Martial and VDB....and we turned down £30m for McTominay as well.

That is all a shambles and come next summer there are definately unless somethig happens from abroad still a godo 10players we wil be wating to shift in the summerand for differing reasons, most of them will hold little value.

Those problems lie on the club and previous managers, not Ten Hag. The last 10years we have had a history of buying the wrong players, often on big wages and not being ruthless enough to move them on early, though it has been hard to do so.

What I do fear though is that the last two summers that wont have actually changed. Within the next year or two I would not be surprised to see added to that list Eriksen, Malacia, Casemeiro, Antony and Mount....excluding Evans as its a one year deal....that is half of Te Hags signings over just 12months

 

[Roboc7]

This is obviously the winning strategy but the problem is that both United board and the fans think that any young player who showed an once of talent ‘will lock the position for the next 10 years’, followed by inevitably losing him for 700k (if lucky) after a couple of loan spells and two seasons in the bench.

Add to that some stupid high transfers on average players and our total inability to sign starters that do not cost 50m+ (where are our Akanji, Gundogan, Kovacic, Alvarez) and unsurprisingly we are in a non sustainable mess.

We don’t spread money around which is a huge issue, recruitment is hit and miss whatever you are spending. All our money goes on very expensive players who are expected to be a guaranteed fix for whatever role and when they aren’t their huge fee and wages make them unsellable.

Edu has had plenty of flops at Arsenal but hey picked up Martinelli, Odegaard, Saliba and Gabriel for about 15m more than they spent on their biggest flop Pepe. It helps to cancel out the flops, we don’t do that.

City and Chelsea see youngsters as financial investments, they recruit in volume and unless the players are exceptional they sell for a decent fee. Even likes of Sancho and Lavia who they list for small fees from their FFP perspective made them healthy profits.

I don’t think we have any plan beyond whatever the current window is and it shows time and time again.

 

[Mainoldo]

The main reason United doesn't sell is that we actually need all the quality players that are in the squad. City can sell most of their players and use the money to subsidize the purchase of a better one. If United sell a quality player he needs to be replaced with a more expensive one, and unless there's a profit on the two transactions it's just less money to spend on the other gaping holes in the squad.

I understand what you are saying but £60m net spend is still £60m net spend. So regardless of you selling Maguire for £30m and buying a replacement for £50m you aren’t losing out at all.

FFP requires you to not sell less than the assets market value and as we know buying a player, their value is split over their contract.

So sorry I disagree.

 

[glasgow 21]

I think the balance is at 128m£ approx this summer ? Club was hoping more for Fred and getting DvdB out, but would have paid similar amounts in excess to get Amrabat on a full transfer.
No crystal ball needed to guess United budget every summer is somewhere around 150m give or take... Don't know if their sources for 100 were solid though you could imagine the management deciding on that with a 10-20% cushion in the back pocket.

Now this is a rough go at it, to follow up your info.
Outgoings wages saved 49m/ year
Against in coming wages 30m
Reduction of 19m in wages.

 

[Plastic Evra]

Now this is a rough go at it, to follow up your info.
Outgoings wages saved 49m/ year
Against in coming wages 30m
Reduction of 19m in wages.

Wage bill considerations certainly most welcomed for MU and their accounts.
Though there's also other costs (agent fees, signing bonus) that are not advertised but probably weighing that transfer bill in the red.

It's a little bit like box office numbers, we're given only very partial information, that's the shiny keys we all lose our minds on.

 

[RedOrange]

We don’t spread money around which is a huge issue, recruitment is hit and miss whatever you are spending. All our money goes on very expensive players who are expected to be a guaranteed fix for whatever role and when they aren’t their huge fee and wages make them unsellable.

This was definitely true of Woodward, who, if he was still in charge, would have been utterly played by Levy dangling Kane on a string for the whole window until he either handed over the entire transfer budget for him or gave up at the last minute and panic bought some other shite players the manager wasn't looking for on deadline day. This year they spread the money around the pitch on players that were actually needed. Fans can feel free to disagree with the Mount signing, but it's not the club's fault all the bedwetting muppets on the Caf think we need 2 holding midfielders despite no other big clubs playing like that.

The consensus was that the squad needed a GK, a CM, and a ST and they got all 3 plus a holding midfielder. That's a better window than we've had in a while.

 

[Plastic Evra]

This was definitely true of Woodward, who, if he was still in charge, would have been utterly played by Levy dangling Kane on a string for the whole window until he either handed over the entire transfer budget for him or gave up at the last minute and panic bought some other shite players the manager wasn't looking for on deadline day. This year they spread the money around the pitch on players that were actually needed. Fans can feel free to disagree with the Mount signing, but it's not the club's fault all the bedwetting muppets on the Caf think we need 2 holding midfielders despite no other big clubs playing like that.

The consensus was that the squad needed a GK, a CM, and a ST and they got all 3 plus a holding midfielder. That's a better window than we've had in a while.

I wonder if we could spread it further in other windows. Højlund was already a compromise or at least a (hopefully) cost effective choice but objectively we maybe needed two strikers... Though I'm sure people would moan about United paying two mediocre stop gaps (for 35m£ each) if we did that.
Given our near abysmal record on big signings last decade, maybe we should try a different approach of taking more chances at more players but at reasonable prices.

 

[aeh1991]

You meant Orkan Kokcu, a Benfica midfielder who was signed by then from Feyenoord. Ozan Kokcu is his older brother that plays for Eindhoven (not PSV).

Yes, my bad. I meant Orkan. He seems to be playing well already. Very likely the next expensive Benfica export alongside Joao Neves and Antonio Silva.

 

[sourdough satellite]

This was definitely true of Woodward, who, if he was still in charge, would have been utterly played by Levy dangling Kane on a string for the whole window until he either handed over the entire transfer budget for him or gave up at the last minute and panic bought some other shite players the manager wasn't looking for on deadline day. This year they spread the money around the pitch on players that were actually needed. Fans can feel free to disagree with the Mount signing, but it's not the club's fault all the bedwetting muppets on the Caf think we need 2 holding midfielders despite no other big clubs playing like that.

The consensus was that the squad needed a GK, a CM, and a ST and they got all 3 plus a holding midfielder. That's a better window than we've had in a while.

Every club needs 2 players for every position, because injuries and suspensions. And prior to Amrabat, we only had Casemiro as an actual holding mid.

 

[Redstain]

I really don't understand the ins and outs of FFP but is there any reason why United's financial fair play restrictions this season won't repeat itself next season and potentially following campaigns after that ?

Feels like the issue is one the club haven't addressed; high NET spend + poor sales to balance the books = discrepancy.

Simple reason for why during two consecutive major windows, loanees are needed for major first team positions. All the players that were potentially open for sales this season Scott, Maguire, Sancho (ish) now represent less value next year unless by some miracle they perform extraordinarily.

 

[Plastic Evra]

I really don't understand the ins and outs of FFP but is there any reason why United's financial fair play restrictions this season won't repeat itself next season and potentially following campaigns after that ?

Feels like the issue is one the club haven't addressed; high NET spend + poor sales to balance the books = discrepancy.

Simple reason for why during two consecutive major windows, loanees are needed for major first team positions. All the players that were potentially open for sales this season Scott, Maguire, Sancho (ish) now represent less value next year unless by some miracle they perform extraordinarily.

FFP is assessed over a 3 year window, unless I'm mistaken, and this includes COVID years where some of the usual revenue was depressed (stadium gates I assume) and I believe some mistakes made in specific COVID accounting writes off. Moving out of this means our revenue levels over 3 years should look much better. Still an issue there's a lot of negative net spend piling on year after year, but maybe not as extreme than this season.

 

[r0663664]

Just put 50 million aside for 3-4 youth players on low wages, if they aren't good they will be easy move. Our problem is spending huge on young players who think we think will becomes XI therefor offering huge wages and ultimately we are unable to move them and they leave of free transfer. This is the reason why we suck!

 

[Jericholyte2]

Eitherway other clubs sell well. The injection of cash doesn’t account for this.

Chelsea or City currently don’t need an injection of cash.

We have players that are top 6 quality. They should be sold.

The problem with that is that others (City especially) have Top 6 quality players to spare. They can sell those players without really impacting the core of their squad.

Any player who would qualify for that category with us is a player we’d desperately want to keep ahold of due to the lack of strength in depth.

The players that we’d readily sell are not of that standard (whilst being on wages comparable to Top 2 quality players) and so we struggle to sell.

 

[Adamsk7]

Our poor recruitment has come home to roost. City, Chelsea, Liverpool etc have quality players that are still worth money - bring someone in and sell someone who isn’t quite as good. At the moment we are bringing players in and selling crap ones that have been here for ages on monster contracts. Timing is important - if a player isn’t performing, sell them so that their duff season can be deemed an outlier rather than the norm and more clubs will take a punt.

however, I will say we aren’t alone. Arsenal have been in the same situation clearing out their deadwood. This season we have done alright and got rid of a lot of players who have no right being here. Once we learn how to use Onana, Amrabat, Mount and Hojland better and get some injured players back, we’ll be fine.

 

[Mainoldo]

The problem with that is that others (City especially) have Top 6 quality players to spare. They can sell those players without really impacting the core of their squad.

Any player who would qualify for that category with us is a player we’d desperately want to keep ahold of due to the lack of strength in depth.

The players that we’d readily sell are not of that standard (whilst being on wages comparable to Top 2 quality players) and so we struggle to sell.

Disagree. Both City and Chelsea have been selling bog standard players for fun. Cole Palmer will probably be no more impactful than Scott McTominay but one club knows how to move around the market the other doesn’t.

 

[Jericholyte2]

Disagree. Both City and Chelsea have been selling bog standard players for fun. Cole Palmer will probably be no more impactful than Scott McTominay but one club knows how to move around the market the other doesn’t.

Not comparable players though. Whilst Palmer doesn’t scream of a generational talent or much special, he’s arrived with quite a bit of hype, is an attacking player, and when given a chance he scored the winner in a Community Shield game. Add to that the prospect of moneybags Boehly wanting to buy every young prospect in world football, and you get a £45m sale.

Contrast that to McT. He’s had 4-5yrs of PL game time at United an PL managers know exactly what you do /don’t get from him. Then throw in the wages he’ll be on and you quickly create an upper limit of what team will bid for him.

 

[Tyrion]

Shouldn’t FFP benefit us relative to other clubs as we have a high turnover?

It should but the Glazers, Arnold and Murtaugh have been so bad at recruitment that they've wasted so much money it outweighs that advantage. There was another thread showing we've the biggest net spend in the last decade or so.

It’s a £4bn profit.

Again. They’ve fecked the club. But they haven’t mismanaged according to their plan. They’re happy to sell a club they set fire to. They don’t care. Never have.

I think they have. They've spent so much on transfers that the club should be successful which would have made them money. They've appointed and trusted the wrong people. Now they've mismanaged the cash cow to the point that it needs serious investment/better management and they have never been capable of either.

 

[Messier1994]

I really don't understand the ins and outs of FFP but is there any reason why United's financial fair play restrictions this season won't repeat itself next season and potentially following campaigns after that ?

Feels like the issue is one the club haven't addressed; high NET spend + poor sales to balance the books = discrepancy.

Simple reason for why during two consecutive major windows, loanees are needed for major first team positions. All the players that were potentially open for sales this season Scott, Maguire, Sancho (ish) now represent less value next year unless by some miracle they perform extraordinarily.

Like someone said above, the big difference is that when we go into next season — the 21/22 season is no longer on the books. The problem with that season was a combination of the pound tanking (since we have 650m debt in USD this impacts our result significantly), firing two managers in one season and not doing well on the pitch.

I would actually be surprised if we didn’t spend £300m on transfers next season (of course with the caveat that players on insane wages could eat into that, giving Mbappe 1.5m per week is like signing two guys for 100m on 200k a week) if we again qualify for the CL.

And that is also very much in line with the transfer budget we have had under the Glazer adjusted for inflation.

We do have a very steady financial position. What we cannot do is finance a new stadium while trying to catch up on the pitch.

 

[roseguy64]

It should but the Glazers, Arnold and Murtaugh have been so bad at recruitment that they've wasted so much money it outweighs that advantage. There was another thread showing we've the biggest net spend in the last decade or so.



I think they have. They've spent so much on transfers that the club should be successful which would have made them money. They've appointed and trusted the wrong people. Now they've mismanaged the cash cow to the point that it needs serious investment/better management and they have never been capable of either.

Umm...
This is a much better explainer.

https://theathletic.com/4819225/2023/08/31/manchester-united-transfer-news-ffp-amrabat/

 

[Redstain]

Like someone said above, the big difference is that when we go into next season — the 21/22 season is no longer on the books. The problem with that season was a combination of the pound tanking (since we have 650m debt in USD this impacts our result significantly), firing two managers in one season and not doing well on the pitch.

I would actually be surprised if we didn’t spend £300m on transfers next season (of course with the caveat that players on insane wages could eat into that, giving Mbappe 1.5m per week is like signing two guys for 100m on 200k a week) if we again qualify for the CL.

And that is also very much in line with the transfer budget we have had under the Glazer adjusted for inflation.

We do have a very steady financial position. What we cannot do is finance a new stadium while trying to catch up on the pitch.

Ok this makes sense, hopefully the stadium reinvestment is enough to keep the Glazers leg out the door concerning the club sale.

 

[croadyman]

Be interesting to see what the budget is for next summer if the leeches are still here