Summer Transfer Budget?

Who were the rivals that didn't reduce their spending in comparison to us after we finished second?

In the last 4/5 years Liverpool have only really spent big money on Nunez (A flop!) and Szoboslai. The rest of their signings have been around the £35/40m mark.

I agree that being scared to spend money is not the answer, but how much, and who we sign is very important.

How can you possibly say "The less money we spend the more years it will take too" when spending huge amounts of money is what got us in this mess in the first place!

Spending a small sensible sustainable amount is the way forward.

Yes and they made a lot of them, including one which we refused to do in a Jan window by the way.

Spending money poorly is what got us in this mess, not spending alot.
 
I think we will spend around EUR200m with more than half of it coming from sales. This would be similar to what we did in 2024. Hopefully, we will reduce our wage bill at this summer.

Rashford - 40m
Zirkzee - 40m
Antony - 25m
Malacia - 5m
Some mix of youth players) - 15m
Sancho - 25m

Will look to also sell Casemiro, Shaw, Mount but unlikely to find takers.
Problem with this is in the summer we will still have £34m for Antony on the books so even if we manage to sell for £25m we will be (inevitably making a loss) , Sancho will still be £14.6m on the books, so the 2 players together will be practically net zero.

Not sure anyone is paying anywhere near £40m for Zirkzee, sure he was brilliant at Bologna and may go back to Italy and excel but teams will know it hasn't worked here, his performances have not been stellar, they are certainly going to try and screw us, added in he is on £105k per week, which narrows the pool of clubs, or we will end up paying him off to leave. I think it more likely we will sell for £25m rising with addons and probably have to pay him a couple of mil to compensate dropping his salary, that still leaves £32m for him on our books, again at best bet zero but maybe a small loss.

Malacia around £6m left on the books, so again £5m is around net zero.

Add in Casemiro who we will need to sell for £17.5m to break even, and Mason Mount who we would need to sell for £36m to break even, Shaw would be pure profit if he could be sold.

The outstanding cost of the player is deducted at the point of sale so the only players we making money on are youngsters and Rashford, IF he actually plays well enough to attract interest in the summer from somebody willing to meet his wage demands.

So in your example above we would be making probably £55m profit (and maybe less with losses as above) not £100m

That is not a disaster as we would have cleared our books down, shifted a lot of wages (around £93m over the remainder of the contracts) and some £85.6m+ in player debt off our books, more if we sell Case and/or Mount

The £55m would allow us to amortise the cost up to £275m (not accounting for agents fees and wages)

So I think it more likely we will spend somewhere in the region of £150m, Gyokeres, Quenda and maybe Ignacio, maybe a kid or 2 as well, I cannot see us spending £70+ on players like Cunha where other clubs will price us out

I can see us buying from Sporting because the players will want to come because of Amorim, I am less wary of this than I was with ETH buying players he knew, because I believe that INEOS will have oversight and will not buy players that do not make sense financially or based on scouting reports.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is buying Rashford. Wages are too high and he's on a Jesse Lingard trajectory.

Antony might be sold, probably around £20m and I think Brexit Jim will be hawking Garnacho and Mainoo around Europe.

Malacia might bring in a few million, and Casemiro might fetch a small fee.

I expect that we'll sell at least one of Garnacho or Mainoo, so let's say that, combined with Malacia and Antony might bring in around £90-100m.

I think Jim will want to limit spending, so that some of the recouped money can be diverted to other parts of the club, so I think we spend maybe £70m.

If we can also shift some dead weight like Zirkzee or Dalot, then maybe closer to £100m.
 
This season, we paid:
Lindelof wages: £120k (6.24m)
Eriksen wages: £150k (7.8m)
Sancho wages: £150k (7.8m)
Evans wages: £65k (3.38m)
Heaton wages: £45k (2.34m)

5 of these players are guaranteed leaving. That’s total of freeing £27.56m per year money from our book, which equivalent to £137.8m transfer fees.

If we sell:
Casemiro for at least £14.75m (our remaining book to pay to Real Madrid is £14.75m). 350k pw wages
Antony going out loan again because I doubt Betis can even afford £38m to sign Antony, so he’s probably going on loan again.
Rashford for at least £40m (use the fees to pay off our remaining book on Antony £38m). 300k pw wages

That’s total of freeing £650k worth of wages, which equivalent to £600k worth of wages plus £15m transfer fees.

So what I think is probably be £152.8m (£137.8 + £15m) and £600k worth of wages.

£153m with £600k worth of wages can give us 3 starting XI players:
We definitely need top striker so if we spend it on Osimhen who has £63m released clause (€75m), it will give us £90m left to spend on 2 more players. I believe if we get it right, 3 very good signings could transform the team back to top 4 challengers.
 
Problem with this is in the summer we will still have £34m for Antony on the books so even if we manage to sell for £25m we will be (inevitably making a loss) , Sancho will still be £14.6m on the books, so the 2 players together will be practically net zero.

Not sure anyone is paying anywhere near £40m for Zirkzee, sure he was brilliant at Bologna and may go back to Italy and excel but teams will know it hasn't worked here, his performances have not been stellar, they are certainly going to try and screw us, added in he is on £105k per week, which narrows the pool of clubs, or we will end up paying him off to leave. I think it more likely we will sell for £25m rising with addons and probably have to pay him a couple of mil to compensate dropping his salary, that still leaves £32m for him on our books, again at best bet zero but maybe a small loss.

Malacia around £6m left on the books, so again £5m is around net zero.

Add in Casemiro who we will need to sell for £17.5m to break even, and Mason Mount who we would need to sell for £36m to break even, Shaw would be pure profit if he could be sold.

The outstanding cost of the player is deducted at the point of sale so the only players we making money on are youngsters and Rashford, IF he actually plays well enough to attract interest in the summer from somebody willing to meet his wage demands.

So in your example above we would be making probably £55m profit (and maybe less with losses as above) not £100m

That is not a disaster as we would have cleared our books down, shifted a lot of wages (around £93m over the remainder of the contracts) and some £85.6m+ in player debt off our books, more if we sell Case and/or Mount

The £55m would allow us to amortise the cost up to £275m (not accounting for agents fees and wages)

So I think it more likely we will spend somewhere in the region of £150m, Gyokeres, Quenda and maybe Ignacio, maybe a kid or 2 as well, I cannot see us spending £70+ on players like Cunha where other clubs will price us out

I can see us buying from Sporting because the players will want to come because of Amorim, I am less wary of this than I was with ETH buying players he knew, because I believe that INEOS will have oversight and will not buy players that do not make sense financially or based on scouting reports.
With the book value figures, you're failing to take into account the fact that if we keep the players in question next season, we're committing to an extra year of amortization and wages.

Therefore, the relevant figures for PSR breakeven purposes need to be net of that year of amortization and wages - meaning the actual breakeven amount is much lower than the figures you've shown above.
 
I was thinking about this on the commute before, all the more after Andy Mitten's comments, and asking myself 'how do it get this bad?'

And, really, so much of it comes down to how the combination of ETH, Arnold and Murtough set out to clear-out our 'deadwood' and re-build (how often do those terms recur in the Caf's lexicon?) and got it so disastrously wrong. If we think of this in terms of investment and assets, here's how it looks to me...

2022: We sign Malacia (£13m: about to leave on loan); Eriksen (a free: being released in the summer); Martinez (£47m: barely played since his first season and, sadly, now dealing with an injury that could finish his time here); Casemiro (a shocker: £60m on a player who doesn't play, who we're desperate to offload); and Antony (~£80m: one of the worst deals in PL history, now on loan and with no future here) - £200m wasted on 5 players, with zero assets, barely 2.5 years on.

2023: Mount (£55m: a mad decision for a player in the final year of his contract, who is almost permanently injured and who has barely played since arriving); Onana (~£43m, but 'free' had we signed him at the end of his Ajax deal: a keeper we will need to replace sometime soon); and Højlund (£64m: promising first season but has struggled horribly for months now) - that's ~£162m with, I'd say, most people, now saying none of these 3 are likely to players we can build on.

I've skipped 2024 for obvious reasons - mostly, it's too early to make informed judgements - but, sheesh, this is £350m+ for almost nothing in tangible assets.

This really hurts.

At the time these signings were made the only ones I was really onboard with were Onana and Martinez and maybe Malacia as he was so cheap (I never actually thought he looked that good and thought we would at least make a small profit on him, lol).

All the others had serious questions marks on them either due to age, fee or injury record, they were just really really dumb signings. That’s not to say I didn’t think Hojlund or even Antony would end up being good players for us, I’m quite an optimistic fan generally, but the fees were at least double what we realistically should have paid for either player and anyone could see that at the time.

From the two windows since INEOS took over, I feel confident that we won’t make mistakes at such a scale moving forward. But the damage done by the last 3 or 4 years (including the Sancho, Ronaldo, Varane summer) has been catastrophic. I think the only way out of it is through some extremely good /lucky scouting and hope that someone academy can become 1st teamers.
 
This season, we paid:
Lindelof wages: £120k (6.24m)
Eriksen wages: £150k (7.8m)
Sancho wages: £150k (7.8m)
Evans wages: £65k (3.38m)
Heaton wages: £45k (2.34m)

5 of these players are guaranteed leaving. That’s total of freeing £27.56m per year money from our book, which equivalent to £137.8m transfer fees.

If we sell:
Casemiro for at least £14.75m (our remaining book to pay to Real Madrid is £14.75m). 350k pw wages
Antony going out loan again because I doubt Betis can even afford £38m to sign Antony, so he’s probably going on loan again.
Rashford for at least £40m (use the fees to pay off our remaining book on Antony £38m). 300k pw wages

That’s total of freeing £650k worth of wages, which equivalent to £600k worth of wages plus £15m transfer fees.

So what I think is probably be £152.8m (£137.8 + £15m) and £600k worth of wages.

£153m with £600k worth of wages can give us 3 starting XI players:
We definitely need top striker so if we spend it on Osimhen who has £63m released clause (€75m), it will give us £90m left to spend on 2 more players. I believe if we get it right, 3 very good signings could transform the team back to top 4 challengers.
You seem to be conflating PSR and cash flow repeatedly in here. Just because a sale gives us PSR headroom doesn't mean the cash is there to spend. Saving £27m on wages is great, but that doesn't magically fund £137m of transfers when cash is already tight.
 
You seem to be conflating PSR and cash flow repeatedly in here. Just because a sale gives us PSR headroom doesn't mean the cash is there to spend. Saving £27m on wages is great, but that doesn't magically fund £137m of transfers when cash is already tight.
Feel free to let me know what I miss.

£27.56m x 5 years is £137.8m total in 5 years. Why club like United can’t even afford to spend £27.56m per year in transfer fees? We could easily earn it through one of our sponsorship.
 
Feel free to let me know what I miss.

£27.56m x 5 years is £137.8m total in 5 years. Why shouldn’t club like United can’t even afford to spend £27.56m per year in transfer fees?

In accounting terms yes. In practice, you are still spending an extra £110m that the club doesn't have in it's coffers right now.

No club has an unlimited credit facility, United are in huge debt because of the borrowing and interest they are paying back and this sort of action only compounds that further.
 
Feel free to let me know what I miss.

£27.56m x 5 years is £137.8m total in 5 years. Why shouldn’t club like United can’t even afford to spend £27.56m per year in transfer fees? We could easily earn it through one of our sponsorship.
You were talking about spending £137m on transfers this summer. From a cash flow perspective, therefore, you're assuming the selling clubs wouldn't mind being paid on a five-year installment plan. Good luck with that. Then there's also the matter of wages for the replacements, as I assume they won't be playing for free.
 
You were talking about spending £137m on transfers this summer. From a cash flow perspective, therefore, you're assuming the selling clubs wouldn't mind being paid on a five-year installment plan. Good luck with that. Then there's also the matter of wages for the replacements, as I assume they won't be playing for free.
That’s how we have paid to clubs via 5 year instalment to all our players. Therefore, it’s proven there are selling clubs that accept this kind of payment. Otherwise, chelsea wouldn’t be able to afford what they did recently in the past 2 years.

If you read my original post you replied (the whole thing, not just half), I explained to you how we could get the wages for replacements. So yes, I never assume they would be playing for free.
 
That’s how we have paid to clubs via 5 year instalment to all our players. Therefore, it’s proven there are selling clubs that accept this kind of payment. Otherwise, chelsea wouldn’t be able to afford what they did recently in the past 2 years.

If you read my original post you replied (the whole thing, not just half), I explained to you how we could get the wages for replacements. So yes, I never assume they would be playing for free.

What's your source for this?
 
I was thinking about this on the commute before, all the more after Andy Mitten's comments, and asking myself 'how do it get this bad?'

And, really, so much of it comes down to how the combination of ETH, Arnold and Murtough set out to clear-out our 'deadwood' and re-build (how often do those terms recur in the Caf's lexicon?) and got it so disastrously wrong. If we think of this in terms of investment and assets, here's how it looks to me...

2022: We sign Malacia (£13m: about to leave on loan); Eriksen (a free: being released in the summer); Martinez (£47m: barely played since his first season and, sadly, now dealing with an injury that could finish his time here); Casemiro (a shocker: £60m on a player who doesn't play, who we're desperate to offload); and Antony (~£80m: one of the worst deals in PL history, now on loan and with no future here) - £200m wasted on 5 players, with zero assets, barely 2.5 years on.

2023: Mount (£55m: a mad decision for a player in the final year of his contract, who is almost permanently injured and who has barely played since arriving); Onana (~£43m, but 'free' had we signed him at the end of his Ajax deal: a keeper we will need to replace sometime soon); and Højlund (£64m: promising first season but has struggled horribly for months now) - that's ~£162m with, I'd say, most people, now saying none of these 3 are likely to players we can build on.

I've skipped 2024 for obvious reasons - mostly, it's too early to make informed judgements - but, sheesh, this is £350m+ for almost nothing in tangible assets.

For the context we're in now, I think the Antony & Casemiro and deals provide the key learning points.

As per outlets like The Athletic, they were signed off the back of a late, panicked increase in our transfer budgeting following bad early results under ETH.

Whereas at that point we should have demonstrated a willingness to suffer in the short term in order to prioritise long term team building and financial responsibility. If that meant falling back and missing out on European football in ETH's first season, fine. That's the cost of thinking long term.

And in Casemiro's case, there was an obvious profile mismatch too. Well run clubs who are multiple years away from challenging for titles don't spend stupid money on 30 year old DMs. Other transfers have had worse impact, but none were as obvious ill-conceived as that one. He was almost the polar opposite of the profile of signing we should have been making at that point if our focus was on proper team building rather than fear of a bad season ahead.

Those signings are what come from an unwillingness to bear through extended short term struggles, and an over-focus on the financially-driven short term need for CL football.

Compare that to a team like Arsenal, who in Arteta's initial years went three seasons straight without finishing in the top four, and during that time willfully took the financial hit of mutually terminating about a dozen players' contracts to get them out of the club.

Realistically, our club hierachy & owners (and probably fans) would never have had the stomach for that sort of serious rebuild. And it showed in the transfers we made over the last decade.

Hopefully the absolute nadir we've hit this season will change things.
 
In accounting terms yes. In practice, you are still spending an extra £110m that the club doesn't have in it's coffers right now.

No club has an unlimited credit facility, United are in huge debt because of the borrowing and interest they are paying back and this sort of action only compounds that further.
23/24 we generated £265m revenue from sponsorship alone (not to take into account from matchday tickets and broadcasting)
 
Why did United decide to pay more on Zirkzee than his release clause? Is it because they did it so they could pay it in 5 years instalment?
Three years of installments in his case, not five. That hasn't been standard across all our transfers, either.
 
£265m revenue from sponsorship alone, still can’t afford £27m per year transfer fees?
We've been making losses over the last few years, our cash position is poor, and we have transfer debts coming due, so it's not as simple as looking at a revenue figure and drawing conclusions from it
 
Three years of installments in his case, not five. That hasn't been standard across all our transfers, either.
3 years or 5 years or 4 years, if it means it helps the club financially in purchasing players in transfer windows, it doesn’t matter how many years. The point clubs tend to do these instalment to be able to afford players.
 
£265m revenue from sponsorship alone, still can’t afford £27m per year transfer fees?

What has revenue got to do with anything if your existing expenses are also very high?

United are paying a fortune already in player amortisation costs before any additional purchases, in addition to high wages, high operating costs, high interest payments on debt.

The club has made an operating loss of over £225m over the past 3 seasons so no, they cannot afford to add £27m on top of that every year just because they have strong commercial income.
 
We've been making losses over the last few years, our cash position is poor, and we have transfer debts coming due, so it's not as simple as looking at a revenue figure and drawing conclusions from it
What has revenue got to do with anything if your existing expenses are also very high?

United are paying a fortune already in player amortisation costs before any additional purchases, in addition to high wages, high operating costs, high interest payments on debt.

The club has made an operating loss of over £225m over the past 3 seasons so no, they cannot afford to add £27m on top of that every year just because they have strong commercial income.

So how much do you think we will be able to spend this summer?
 
3 years or 5 years or 4 years, if it means it helps the club financially in purchasing players in transfer windows, it doesn’t matter how many years. The point clubs tend to do these instalment to be able to afford players.
It does matter, because the figure you plucked from thin air explicitly assumed we'd be able to pay all our transfer fees over a five year period.
 
3 years or 5 years or 4 years, if it means it helps the club financially in purchasing players in transfer windows, it doesn’t matter how many years. The point clubs tend to do these instalment to be able to afford players.

Err... yes it does. That's like me saying you should go and spunk £10k on a Vegas holiday on your credit card and just pay it back over the next 20 years because 'it doesn't matter'. Eventually you're going to end up paying double that amount back.

There's a couple of reasons United cannot compete with the likes of City and Arsenal in the transfer market at present - one is the high spending (with poor return for their investment) in the last couple of season's under ETH. The second is the interest they are paying on existing debt. Adding to that is only going to compound the issue.
 
So how much do you think we will be able to spend this summer?
I don't have an exact figure, but barring an additional capital injection (unlikely), I think it will be less than most fans are expecting, and it will rely on player sales - probably including at least one unpopular sale that will generate significant cash.
 
So how much do you think we will be able to spend this summer?

This is not a question anyone can answer with any confidence. It depends entirely on player sales, where the club finish in the league, whether they have European football next season, where they end up in terms of net interest payments this season (which fluctuates heavily based on the market as it is leveraged against USD rates), whether the share sale costs where allowed as a deductible from PSR etc etc.
 
It does matter, because the figure you plucked from thin air explicitly assumed we'd be able to pay all our transfer fees over a five year period.
Err... yes it does. That's like me saying you should go about and spunk £10k on a Vegas holiday on your credit card and just pay it back over the next 20 years because 'it doesn't matter'. Eventually you're going to end up paying double that amount back.

There's a couple of reasons United cannot compete with the likes of City and Arsenal in the transfer market at present - one is the high spending (with poor return for their investment) in the last couple of season's under ETH. The second is the interest they are paying on existing debt. Adding to that is only going to compound the issue.

Of course it doesn’t. One player can still be paid via 3 years instalment, while the other 2 can still be paid via 5 years instalment. This can be andjusted by reducing the wages budget. Again, the point clubs tend to do these instalment to be able to afford players. If a selling club refuses to take 5 years instalment, then move on to another target.

This is not a question anyone can answer with any confidence. It depends entirely on player sales, where the club finish in the league, whether they have European football next season, where they end up in terms of net interest payments this season (which fluctuates heavily based on the market as it is leveraged against USD rates), whether the share sale costs where allowed as a deductible from PSR etc etc.

I don't have an exact figure, but barring an additional capital injection (unlikely), I think it will be less than most fans are expecting, and it will rely on player sales - probably including at least one unpopular sale that will generate significant cash.

I didn’t ask you guys to give me confidence answer or exact figure, I asked the numbers based on your opinion. Hence why my number was based on my opinion, which is why I said ‘’so what I think is probably be £…’’

Are we not allowed to share the number based on what we think?
 
Of course it doesn’t. One player can still be paid via 3 years instalment, while the other 2 can still be paid via 5 years instalment. This can be andjusted by reducing the wages budget. Again, the point clubs tend to do these instalment to be able to afford players. If a selling club refuses to take 5 years instalment, then move on to another target.





I didn’t ask you guys to give me confidence answer or exact figure, I asked the numbers based on your opinion. Hence why my number was based on my opinion, which is why I said ‘’so what I think is probably be £…’’

Are we not allowed to share the number based on what we think?

My personal opinion accounting for the Sancho sale + players leaving at the end of their deals (Eriksen, Lindelof, Evans) is almost nothing without further sales.

I've already done a mini-breakdown here on where I think 24/25 finances might land so I won't rehash this (even though this is highly speculative as I already mentioned) - long story short is I think they will scrape by again by the skin of their teeth PSR wise, but this is only going to get worse going forward once the 22/23 season and the £12m PSR net profit posted here is dropped from the workings and that is why I don't think they have any capacity to spend really beyond what they bring in this summer. This is based on an expected drop in revenue because I doubt they'll have any European football next year as well as continued high interest payments.

In order to try and fix things on the pitch they are obviously going to have to try and stretch incomings to some degree, but I think it's very easy to say 'we made a £20m profit on this player so we can now spend £100m' without seeing the long-term impact.

A lot of people seem to think that is you sell Rashford, Antony, Malacia, get Casemiro's wages off the books and you're getting ~£110m back in the process across transfer fees and wages that this automatically means you can spend £550m and it doesn't work like that. I'd suggest with INEOS policy of being risk-averse and trying to balance the books that you're probably looking at them spending 1/3rd of that instead in that scenario.
 
Feel free to let me know what I miss.

£27.56m x 5 years is £137.8m total in 5 years. Why club like United can’t even afford to spend £27.56m per year in transfer fees? We could easily earn it through one of our sponsorship.
I'm not expert on this sort of thing but the whole "x5 years" is why we're in such a shitty financial position in the first place, is it not?

Every transfer window, we're already paying off previous deals before we've even spent any money.

This is why I disagree with selling off academy players. The cash boost is short term.
 
We are broke. I expect one WC signing and thats only if there is an aailable WC player willing to join a team fighting for a top ten. I don't think we can afford a squad much stronger than what we have in one season. Better be prepared to spend anther season or two at the bottom of the table (top ten at best). I hope the club will prove me wrong.
 
As some explained we owe about 150m this summer, which is a lot.

Anyone thinking we will make good money from selling isn't in the real world. We have completely failed to sell Rashford for 40m, we have been forced to plan out players because teams don't want them, only Sancho is a certain sale for us.

Remember we tried to sell Pogba, a player so many fans called world class, we got nothing. Only 1 team wanted him and regretted it very quickly, and now no one wants him. So many have short memories.
 
According to the club accounts for Q1 we also made nowhere near as much as people thought last summer. We only booked £36m profit, despite the sales of McTominay, Greenwood and others.

Will be interesting how it is explained in the year end figures.
 
According to the club accounts for Q1 we also made nowhere near as much as people thought last summer. We only booked £36m profit, despite the sales of McTominay, Greenwood and others.

Will be interesting how it is explained in the year end figures.

Yeah I wondered about that. Did some of it slip to Q2? We sold 80-90m of pure profit players.
 
Yes and they made a lot of them, including one which we refused to do in a Jan window by the way.

Spending money poorly is what got us in this mess, not spending alot.
Pretty sure there isn't too much substance in separating those two issues. I mean, look at how much we spent over the years, how can the amount of money spent not be an issue? I am honestly starting to think that a few fans still think our approach of throwing money on problems isn't an issue per se - it is only an issue because we "happened to be unlucky with the particular players we brought in"...

So I think it more likely we will spend somewhere in the region of £150m, Gyokeres, Quenda and maybe Ignacio, maybe a kid or 2 as well, I cannot see us spending £70+ on players like Cunha where other clubs will price us out

I can see us buying from Sporting because the players will want to come because of Amorim, I am less wary of this than I was with ETH buying players he knew, because I believe that INEOS will have oversight and will not buy players that do not make sense financially or based on scouting reports.
Nice, so we just continue with the same things that turned out to be a problem with ETH but this time we just have slightly better reasons so might as well give it another shot? Why not try to bring Woodward or LVG as consultants?

There is simply no reason to think that the players you mentioned are the only ones that fit Amorims system. And if they are the ones, my alarmbells go off like crazy. We have to step away from cornering ourselves with bullshit premises. Like we need that specific 17/18 year old because he'll be perfect and then thats set for the next 10 years. That never works.
 
Last edited:
Nice, so we just continue with the same things that turned out to be a problem with ETH but this time we just have slightly better reasons so might as well give it another shot?
It's a recipe for disaster. If we double down (quadruple down?) on that strategy again, we're done.
 
Yeah I wondered about that. Did some of it slip to Q2? We sold 80-90m of pure profit players.
No none would have been after September. Maybe we just didn't sell them for as much as was announced.

Alvaro to Benfica was Q4 i think.

Maybe payoffs and agent fees were significant.

The only other I could think was we've somehow written off loss on Sancho already.
 
No none would have been after September. Maybe we just didn't sell them for as much as was announced.

Alvaro to Benfica was Q4 i think.

Maybe payoffs and agent fees were significant.

The only other I could think was we've somehow written off loss on Sancho already.
I wonder if the cost accounting standards we use for financial reporting are different from the ones used for FFP/PSR purposes. Could explain the discrepancy.