g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });

Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2023/24

K Stand Knut

Full Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
5,234
Location
Stretford End
Nobody will pay £70m for Rashford because he’s garbage.

Nobody from Europe can afford him at that price and I think we’d be foolish to sell him within England.
 

Lennon7

nipple flasher and door destroyer
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
10,480
Location
M5
K Stand Knut said:
Nobody will pay £70m for Rashford because he’s garbage.

Nobody from Europe can afford him at that price and I think we’d be foolish to sell him within England.
Click to expand...
Why would we? Get rid and sell him to Burnley. feck I’d even sell him to City
 

K Stand Knut

Full Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
5,234
Location
Stretford End
Judas said:
What if a PL team offered over 70m? (Not that I believe that would happen)
Click to expand...
Well, that’s a no-brainer and would be the only reason I’d be ‘happy’ to see him sold in England.

Only two clubs are stupid enough for that

EDIT - I’d try and drum up interest from a European club for less
 

mazhar13

Kermit Inc. 2022
Scout
Joined
Sep 10, 2013
Messages
37,090
Location
Toronto, ON, Canada
SAF is the GOAT said:




Saw that he was linked to us so I posted it
Click to expand...
The free agency Tweet made sense. This is more specific to Newcastle, and since the link is tenuous, it's better off being posted in the England/Scotland thread. If Newcastle were actually advancing in their interest, then it'd make sense to post it in here.
 

VWW

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
120
Reading that Athletic article from Crafton, Ratcliffe is ending working from home and forcing all staff back into the office.

I dont like this, not only is that syle of working out of date but normally when companies insist this, its because they will start laying people off in a few months. The getting people back to the office demand is just a ploy to get some people to leave voluntarily before they start the layoff process. Its one of the reasons Patrick Stewart left because he was against this idea.

I wasnt keen on him winning ownership of the club but I have been encouraged by the appointments he has made. This is just not nice although I shouldnt be surprised given his history and tory support.
 

roseguy64

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
12,327
Location
Jamaica
VWW said:
Reading that Athletic article from Crafton, Ratcliffe is ending working from home and forcing all staff back into the office.

I dont like this, not only is that syle of working out of date but normally when companies insist this, its because they will start laying people off in a few months. The getting people back to the office demand is just a ploy to get some people to leave voluntarily before they start the layoff process. Its one of the reasons Patrick Stewart left because he was against this idea.

I wasnt keen on him winning ownership of the club but I have been encouraged by the appointments he has made. This is just not nice although I shouldnt be surprised given his history and tory support.
Click to expand...
Yeah this move along with the Cup Final benefit going is pointing in that direction. Especially since there is no space for all those employees at the club's offices. They'd have to spend money to undo the space reduction that was done with the WFH policy or rent out office space.

Doesn't sound great for cost-cutting.
 

pascell

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
14,266
Location
Sir Alex Ferguson Stand
VWW said:
Reading that Athletic article from Crafton, Ratcliffe is ending working from home and forcing all staff back into the office.

I dont like this, not only is that syle of working out of date but normally when companies insist this, its because they will start laying people off in a few months. The getting people back to the office demand is just a ploy to get some people to leave voluntarily before they start the layoff process. Its one of the reasons Patrick Stewart left because he was against this idea.

I wasnt keen on him winning ownership of the club but I have been encouraged by the appointments he has made. This is just not nice although I shouldnt be surprised given his history and tory support.
Click to expand...
Is this in the Transfer Tweets thread because it's here we go on United staff going from working at their kitchen tables to office desks?
 

VWW

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
120
pascell said:
Is this in the Transfer Tweets thread because it's here we go on United staff going from working at their kitchen tables to office desks?
Click to expand...
I was responding to the tweet with the Athletic article that Mazhar posted here. I cant quote the tweet as I dont have permission to. Didnt know where else to respond to it.
 

Big Ben Foster

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
13,154
Location
BR -> MI -> TX
Supports
Also support Vasco da Gama
Sassy Colin said:
Alright, so if we can sell Rashford and MuckyT for £120M, we can spend £600M in the summer? If you say so.
Click to expand...
From an FFP perspective, yes - we'd be in the clear next season if we did that. The problem, of course, would be cash flow as well as funding the amortization outlay for the other years. So with all things considered, probably not.
 

lysglimt

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,391
Big Ben Foster said:
From an FFP perspective, yes - we'd be in the clear next season if we did that. The problem, of course, would be cash flow as well as funding the amortization outlay for the other years. So with all things considered, probably not.
Click to expand...
Well we would actually be in the clear for almost 2 years - as the amortization cost would be £120 million a year and we are allowed to run a deficit of about £100 million over 3 years :) (if we take for granted that we break even on FFP for the last 3 seasons - which we dont do)

No seriously - this is why what Chelsea did was SORT of clever (and why FFP only considers 5 year contracts now ) .

Let's say for case of argument they signed just 5 players for £100 million each on 10 year contracts last summer - and then sold us Mount for £60 million (he is pure profit)

The cost in terms of FFP will be £10 million each season pr player signed - so £50 million in total pr season for 10 years. Short term this is brilliant - long term ..... not.... as they need to include these players in their FFP cost for 10 years. But short term - as long as Chelsea sell home grown talent for £50 million a year - they break even in terms of FFP against the 5 hypothetical players they signed.

The problem is of course that they need to sell £50 million of homegrown talent simply to cover the cost of the players they signed last summer - if they were to sign another expensive player for £100 million - they now need to conjure up £20 m (£100 m divided by 5 years) extra to cover that cost. So chances are that Chelsea need to sell at least one expensive homegrown player each year to be compliant with FFP

And let's be realistic - they haven't got that many anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.