We actually don't owe £258 million in transfer fees

[AlexUTD]

There was murmurings that the club was happy to buy an elite level centre back (Varane) upwards of £100m but the targets that Jose put forward weren't of that level (Alderweireld and Maguire).

Makes zero sense.

 

[Ducklegs]

Makes zero sense.

Of course it does.

If i had a 2004 ford focus 1.6 with 80k on the clock and FSH and i wanted a new car, why would i go out and spend 6k on another 2004 1.6 ford focus with 80k on the clock and FSH, when i go and spend 10k on a brand new ford focus ST3?

Or in other words, the club didnt think spending 30 to 40 million each on those two would improve us at at all, but $100 million on Varane would.

 

[arthurka]

Not much wrong with this at all. Of course you don´t pay the sum right away it has all to do with cash flow. When enough flow is available it isn´t a problem.
When Utd stop generating so much money I will start to worry but now this isn´t even a thing. All normal football clubs (not including Chelsea, PSG and City) will be dealing this way.
What they are doing is leveraging future payments, while the club generates 600 m/year or something this won´t be a problem.
Money that you owe is even deductible from profits so you need to pay less tax so it´s not all bad really.

But I feel the club is in a tight spot really, we cannot afford not to spend, we really need to be competitive and stay relevant to get top cash flow long term so it really is a bit of catch 22.

 

[Cloud7]

Either you back a manager or not, you do not back 50%. So there could be another reason also moneywise.

That is patently not true. It was discussed to death while Mourinho was here that no manager is ever always backed 100%.

 

[Acole9]

Who cares if we do, I'm sure the club know what they're doing.

 

[AlexUTD]

That is patently not true. It was discussed to death while Mourinho was here that no manager is ever always backed 100%.

That is what i am trying to say, Glazers hold back money cause of debt etc.

 

[AlexUTD]

Of course it does.

If i had a 2004 ford focus 1.6 with 80k on the clock and FSH and i wanted a new car, why would i go out and spend 6k on another 2004 1.6 ford focus with 80k on the clock and FSH, when i go and spend 10k on a brand new ford focus ST3?

Or in other words, the club didnt think spending 30 to 40 million each on those two would improve us at at all, but $100 million on Varane would.

Good thing we dont have a DoF, or we would be making shrewd signings instead.

 

[Cloud7]

That is what i am trying to say, Glazers hold back money cause of debt etc.

No they hold back because at some point a manager has to work with what he has and not constantly demand new toys, not because the money isn’t there. The club were well within their right to not spend another 150 million on Mourinho when he wasn’t making proper use of the players he already had.

 

[devilish]

Either you back a manager or not, you do not back 50%. So there could be another reason also moneywise.

if you think that the manager always get what he wants then you're wrong. Even SAF had the board blocking some of the transfers he wanted. He just got on with his job and kept winning.

 

[RedCurry]

From our annual financial report itself:

In addition, transfer windows for acquiring and disposing of registrations occur in January and the summer. During these periods, we may require additional cash to meet our acquisition needs for new players and we may generate additional cash through the sale of existing registrations. Depending on the terms of the agreement, transfer fees may be paid or received by us in multiple installments, resulting in deferred cash paid or received. Although we have not historically drawn on our revolving facility during the summer transfer window, if we seek to acquire players with values substantially in excess of the values of players we seek to sell, we may be required to draw on our revolving facility to meet our cash needs.

Acquisition and disposal of registrations also affects our trade receivables and payables, which affects our overall working capital. Our trade receivables include accrued revenue from sponsors as well as transfer fees receivable from other football clubs, whereas our trade payables include transfer fees and other associated costs in relation to the acquisition of registrations.

Also from the annual report,

Trade Payable, 2018: £266,316,000
Trade Receivable, 2018: £133,505,000

Means others also owe us money.

Source: https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/documents/2018-mu-plc-form-20-f.pdf

 

[devlinadl]

From our annual financial report itself:



Also from the annual report,

Trade Payable, 2018: £266,316,000
Trade Receivable, 2018: £133,505,000

Means others also owe us money.

Source: https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/documents/2018-mu-plc-form-20-f.pdf

Trade payable and receivables do not just refer to transfer fees.

At note 23 (page F-43), the amount payable due to transfer fees is £258.3m. At note 19 (page F-40), the amount receivable due to transfer fees is £29.2m, so the net amount is £229.1m. In addition, there are conditional payments due of £66.4m (at page 63).

At the end of the previous season (2017), the equivalent numbers were £179.1m and £46.3m, for a net amount of £142.8m. The net position has worsened by £86.3m in one season.

To give a comparison, I checked the Man City accounts for the same period (to the extent you trust them). At notes 15 and 16, the amount payable due to transfer fees is £140.6m. At note 14, the amount due due to transfer fees is £80.1m, so the net amount is £80.5m. In addition, there are conditional payments due of £158.9m (at note 22).

 

[ravelston]

It's important to remember that the Financial Year closes on Jnue 30th. At that time we may have completed several transactions, but the money may not have moved yet. You get a better sense of where we actually are by looking at the Q1 2019 figures. From them you can see that transfer related payables are down to 129m - means that around 129m of the 258m had already been paid - probably within a week or two of the year end.

 

[fishfingers15]

From our annual financial report itself:



Also from the annual report,

Trade Payable, 2018: £266,316,000
Trade Receivable, 2018: £133,505,000

Means others also owe us money.

Source: https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/documents/2018-mu-plc-form-20-f.pdf

Eerily, almost exactly 50%. 367,000 more.

 

[Bestietom]

I remember reading some years ago that Real owed monies to us for Beckham. Most clubs deal in instalments for big transfers.

 

[United_We_Stand]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

But although United did owe a huge sum at the end of last season, things have now changed.
In their latest accounts, for the first quarter of the new financial year, that transfer debt had been reduced to £129m.
United were also owed £26m from other clubs in September, meaning a net transfer debt of £103m.
Given United’s revenues in the three months to September were £135m, a figure likely to be matched or even exceeded in the second quarter of the year, the club are insistent that Ole Gunnar Solskjaer will not be forced to sell in order to buy any players in the next fortnight.

 

[Fridge chutney]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Papers always sensationalize the most mundane things about our club.

Headline: CLUB AMORTIZES ASSET PURCHASE IN STANDARD ACCOUNTING MOVE

Doesn't quite read the same.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

Not much wrong with this at all. Of course you don´t pay the sum right away it has all to do with cash flow. When enough flow is available it isn´t a problem.
When Utd stop generating so much money I will start to worry but now this isn´t even a thing. All normal football clubs (not including Chelsea, PSG and City) will be dealing this way.
What they are doing is leveraging future payments, while the club generates 600 m/year or something this won´t be a problem.
Money that you owe is even deductible from profits so you need to pay less tax so it´s not all bad really.

But I feel the club is in a tight spot really, we cannot afford not to spend, we really need to be competitive and stay relevant to get top cash flow long term so it really is a bit of catch 22.

Just to be an accounting geek...money you owe has no baring on tax from a cash perspective

From my understanding players are typically amortized over the life of their contract as an asset. Thus whether you pay on day 1 as they arrive or the last day of year 5 the accounting impact will be the same. The only way this wouldn't be the case is where there are milestones to be achieved (e.g. number of goals to score) and even then that would come down to individual agreement or tax treatment as often these areas are open to some interpretation. Some clubs may agree to only recognise on completion of the goal, some assessing each year as a proportion of completion of the targets.

I'm sure there are some white papers that provide more direction, but just my general understanding of various companies is these things are not as explicit as you would expect.

Either way it's a moot point, as generally makes up a far smaller element of the deals.

But to back your point...yes eventually the cost of players is tax deductible so if Corp tax is 20%, you only really pay 80% of the quoted price assuming you have profits.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

Papers always sensationalize the most mundane things about our club.

Headline: CLUB AMORTIZES ASSET PURCHASE IN STANDARD ACCOUNTING MOVE

Doesn't quite read the same.

The real story here is £196m in player sales....how have we achieved that....! Not bad considering we seem to give most players away for chub change...or so the media would have you believe.

 

[AlexUTD]

No they hold back because at some point a manager has to work with what he has and not constantly demand new toys, not because the money isn’t there. The club were well within their right to not spend another 150 million on Mourinho when he wasn’t making proper use of the players he already had.

if you think that the manager always get what he wants then you're wrong. Even SAF had the board blocking some of the transfers he wanted. He just got on with his job and kept winning.

So you KNOW that we did not use more money in the summer on a CB, a position we badly need a leader and a class player because the club had the funds but did want to spend? Would love to see that proof since you are so sure of this.

SAF is a legendary coach who can make diamonds out of charcoal. "no value in market" was because the Glazers had to pay down some of the high intrest and debt the first years and thanks to SAF the owners got away with it and we won. (the squad was full of winners also).

 

[Interval]

Papers always sensationalize the most mundane things about our club.

Headline: CLUB AMORTIZES ASSET PURCHASE IN STANDARD ACCOUNTING MOVE

Doesn't quite read the same.

Amortization cannot show up in payables. You're confusing the two. You amortize assets not liabilities.

 

[devilish]

So you KNOW that we did not use more money in the summer on a CB, a position we badly need a leader and a class player because the club had the funds but did want to spend? Would love to see that proof since you are so sure of this.

SAF is a legendary coach who can make diamonds out of charcoal. "no value in market" was because the Glazers had to pay down some of the high intrest and debt the first years and thanks to SAF the owners got away with it and we won. (the squad was full of winners also).

I am referring to long before the Glazers, specifically Gabriel Batistuta and Marcelo Salas. Both were SAF's targets, both made far more sense then some 29 year old CB whose being rated 60m+ when the summer after he would be worth 25m and both were shot down by the board. SAF was occasionally FORCED to sell first team players too. He did it with Stam for example and that was confirmed by the player in person. Which is, of course, regrettable but normal. Business has ups and downs and its up to its employees to get on with it. That's why the club pay their managers handsomely. But there again SAF was truly special not some cry baby who needed to buy success.

Mou was given 60m to sort CB out and we were back to square one. He was given 180m to sort CM out and we were back to square one too as Pogba was on his way out, Matic performances were nosediving and he didn't even gave 50m rated Fred a sniff of first football. So many millions were thrown in the bin from Bailly to Mkhitaryan, from Sanchez to Pogba (great talent but badly utilised by Mou) right to Fred. Meanwhile we had many top players whom 'for some reason' weren't signing new contracts. DDG and Martial to mention a few. The only players who seem to be happy with Mou as manager were the Belgian dumb duo and thank god he wasn't allowed to buy Perisic and nainggolan because they are both having a horrific season this year. So seriously I can't blame the club for not trusting him with money. He would have wasted it

 

[Fridge chutney]

Amortization cannot show up in payables. You're confusing the two. You amortize assets not liabilities.

Good thing I'm not an accountant then.
I didn't look at the income statement or balance sheet. What is the club doing from an accounting perspective in this case?

 

[Flytan]

Imagine thinking this actually matters.

Do these people really think United just has 89M in cash under their mattress and sent it in a bunch of suitcases for Pogba? If we were behind in paying 100M in transfer fees, sure it would be a story.

 

[RedCurry]

Trade payable and receivables do not just refer to transfer fees.

At note 23 (page F-43), the amount payable due to transfer fees is £258.3m. At note 19 (page F-40), the amount receivable due to transfer fees is £29.2m, so the net amount is £229.1m. In addition, there are conditional payments due of £66.4m (at page 63).

At the end of the previous season (2017), the equivalent numbers were £179.1m and £46.3m, for a net amount of £142.8m. The net position has worsened by £86.3m in one season.

To give a comparison, I checked the Man City accounts for the same period (to the extent you trust them). At notes 15 and 16, the amount payable due to transfer fees is £140.6m. At note 14, the amount due due to transfer fees is £80.1m, so the net amount is £80.5m. In addition, there are conditional payments due of £158.9m (at note 22).

Good post. Comparison with City doesn't necessarily say too much because they could have bought players outright. Like our report said, "if we seek to acquire players with values substantially in excess of the values of players we seek to sell, we may be required to draw on our revolving facility to meet our cash needs."

 

[MrPooni]

So you KNOW that we did not use more money in the summer on a CB, a position we badly need a leader and a class player because the club had the funds but did want to spend? Would love to see that proof since you are so sure of this.

Woody already briefed the media on this after the close of the window arguing he did not agree with Jose's targets, suggesting he'd rather pay £100 million for the likes of Varane than an inflated fee for the likes of Maguire. This lines up perfectly with his tedious Galactico-lite transfer strategy to be honest but clearly you're not going to accept this because of how fixated you are on this "we're broke" narrative. We've been pissing away money like it's going out of fashion for half a decade now and it's still not enough apparently.

 

[Andycoleno9]

Journalism today is pathetic. Some random guy posts a tweet and that is news

 

[MadDogg]

Either you back a manager or not, you do not back 50%. So there could be another reason also moneywise.

No manager gets 100% of what they want. Fergie missed out on plenty of players over the years. The club will, and rightfully so, do an analysis on the player and decide how much they are willing to pay. If the selling club isn't willing to accept that there isn't much we can do about it unless we are happy to waste money spending absolutely massively over-the-odds. And once we do that, selling clubs know you will do that and will hike the prices up even more. It happened at the beginning of this season. It happened five years ago. It happened 10 and 20 years ago.

The difference is that Fergie got on with it and either made do with what he had or had other options that the club were able to buy.

 

[AlexUTD]

I am referring to long before the Glazers, specifically Gabriel Batistuta and Marcelo Salas. Both were SAF's targets, both made far more sense then some 29 year old CB whose being rated 60m+ when the summer after he would be worth 25m and both were shot down by the board. SAF was occasionally FORCED to sell first team players too. He did it with Stam for example and that was confirmed by the player in person. Which is, of course, regrettable but normal. Business has ups and downs and its up to its employees to get on with it. That's why the club pay their managers handsomely. But there again SAF was truly special not some cry baby who needed to buy success.

Mou was given 60m to sort CB out and we were back to square one. He was given 180m to sort CM out and we were back to square one too as Pogba was on his way out, Matic performances were nosediving and he didn't even gave 50m rated Fred a sniff of first football. So many millions were thrown in the bin from Bailly to Mkhitaryan, from Sanchez to Pogba (great talent but badly utilised by Mou) right to Fred. Meanwhile we had many top players whom 'for some reason' weren't signing new contracts. DDG and Martial to mention a few. The only players who seem to be happy with Mou as manager were the Belgian dumb duo and thank god he wasn't allowed to buy Perisic and nainggolan because they are both having a horrific season this year. So seriously I can't blame the club for not trusting him with money. He would have wasted it

I agree with you and understand why the club would be reluctant to use more money after bad buys, but then they should sack the manager if they wont back him in my eyes.

Fergie never complained public, he was smart. Mourinho complained about the team publicly and never took his share of blame, fecking outdated clown in my eyes. Mourinho did not get the best out of the players, Solskjaer at the moment is. I think it would be easier to back a manager when you see the players actually does well under him of course.

Woody already briefed the media on this after the close of the window arguing he did not agree with Jose's targets, suggesting he'd rather pay £100 million for the likes of Varane than an inflated fee for the likes of Maguire. This lines up perfectly with his tedious Galactico-lite transfer strategy to be honest but clearly you're not going to accept this because of how fixated you are on this "we're broke" narrative. We've been pissing away money like it's going out of fashion for half a decade now and it's still not enough apparently.

Well the club should hire a DoF who understands football. Who can identify the right players for the club. Feels like the club has used the scattergun approach the last years when it comes to buying players and hiring managers, no decent research just get someone by their reputation.

No manager gets 100% of what they want. Fergie missed out on plenty of players over the years. The club will, and rightfully so, do an analysis on the player and decide how much they are willing to pay. If the selling club isn't willing to accept that there isn't much we can do about it unless we are happy to waste money spending absolutely massively over-the-odds. And once we do that, selling clubs know you will do that and will hike the prices up even more. It happened at the beginning of this season. It happened five years ago. It happened 10 and 20 years ago.

The difference is that Fergie got on with it and either made do with what he had or had other options that the club were able to buy.

Mourinho was stupid, how can you cry about the team is not good enough in the summer and go into the season and expect the team to be "motivated".

 

[MrPooni]

I agree with you and understand why the club would be reluctant to use more money after bad buys, but then they should sack the manager if they wont back him in my eyes.

Fergie never complained public, he was smart.

You must be relatively young or have a short memory because Fergie complained about our transfer activity all the time under the plc, so much so that Kenyon would sometimes publicly chastise him, effectively telling him to wind his neck in e.g.

Sir Alex Ferguson will not be allowed to expand his squad this summer, even though he believes it is too weak to compete in Europe.

Last month, the Manchester United manager complained that he had only 18 outfield players to choose from, leaving him at a disadvantage compared to the likes of Real Madrid and Juventus. However, despite the club yesterday announcing a 32 per cent increase in profits before player disposals in the six months to 31 January, the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, said he will not sanction any transfers unless the squad size is kept at current levels.

"It is fair to say that if Sir Alex wants to buy someone, he will have to sell someone else," Kenyon said. "You can only field 11 players at one time and we have 24 in our squad, which, when it is supplemented with some of our younger players, we feel is the right number to get through 70-plus games a year."

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...on-told-to-sell-before-he-can-buy-113315.html

Imagine if Woodward or the Glazers came out with that kind of tripe in todays age? This place would be on fire.

Well the club should hire a DoF who understands football. Who can identify the right players for the club. Feels like the club has used the scattergun approach the last years when it comes to buying players and hiring managers, no decent research just get someone by their reputation.

I agree wholeheartedly but that's a structural issue and has nowt to do with this BS narrative that we don't have any money to spend. I guarantee you if we were as broke as you're implying, the last thing we'd be doing is spunking money the way we have been over the past few seasons.

 

[klayton88]

On top of that we owe about £316m to Sanchez.

 

[Impulse]

On top of that we owe about £316m to Sanchez.

Isn't that just his weekly wage?

 

[devilish]

I agree with you and understand why the club would be reluctant to use more money after bad buys, but then they should sack the manager if they wont back him in my eyes.

Fergie never complained public, he was smart. Mourinho complained about the team publicly and never took his share of blame, fecking outdated clown in my eyes. Mourinho did not get the best out of the players, Solskjaer at the moment is. I think it would be easier to back a manager when you see the players actually does well under him of course.
.

The key phrase here is he was smart.

What's the point complaining? If the club isn't willing or capable to sign the big name he wanted then there's little he could do. By complaining he would only burn bridges with the player he already have by deeming them as not good enough for the job. So under such circumstances the only way forward is to rally the troops and hope they can do the job

 

[NoLogo]

Journalism today is pathetic. Some random guy posts a tweet and that is news

Nah, don't buy into that narrative. "Football journalism", on the other hand, I largely agree with that sentiment. That's why I only really read one or two sources that don't participate in all the football gossip.

 

[LingardsBoots]

That's bollocks. If you love the club you want to know that it's in good shape both on and off the pitch. Nobody wants their club to 'do a Leeds'.

You don't have to believe everything you read - just the stuff from reasonable sources.

Man United are always in good shape, the club is a licence to print money and those shrewdy businessmen the Glazers milk it to the full.
They ain't going anywhere soon and we are never going to do a Leeds and that's not bollcoks.

 

[RoadTrip]

I’m not any sort of expert, but scanning through the Manchester United plc Interim report (unaudited) for the three and nine months ended 31 March 2018

https://ir.manutd.com/financial-information/quarterly-reports/2018.aspx

Transfer fees payable
Under the terms of certain contracts with other football clubs in respect of player transfers, additional amounts would be payable by us if certain specific performance conditions are met. We estimate the fair value of any contingent consideration at the date of acquisition based on the probability of conditions being met and monitor this on an ongoing basis. The maximum additional amount that could be payable as of 31 March 2018 is £60.9 million.

This is only referring to contingent liabilities. That is, a possible liability but is not likely enough to be included in the actual primary financial statements.

These are possible fees we aren’t yet obliged to pay. So things like performance or appearance based add-ons, etc.

To get the full picture you need to find and add in guaranteed fees payable which will likely be held in trade payables. A quick look at the disclosures, as at Q1 19 it was £130m approx. See note 21 in the 3m ended 30 Sep 18 report.

Then look at note 27.3 you’ll see contingent fees are approx. max £66m.

In total therefore we could have a maximum cash outflow of £196m. and that’s not all today or even all this year. Likely to be over a couple of years.

But anyway it’s all irrelevant as this is just how business works.

In terms of the £258m, that figure is actually 100% correct. See y/e 30 June 18 10-K SEC filing where it says that in the trade payables disclosure note. And actually that doesn’t include any contingent fees either so you could have even added more to that.

 

[RoadTrip]

We don't owe it in one go but we owe it over coming seasons, that's how accounting works, you amortise your assets, you don't buy them upfront like you're shopping at a store. It's perfectly normal and done by all businesses, every PL club will have something similar, maybe even more at somewhere like City. We only actually owe something like £86m over the course of this season.

I mean it doesn’t have anything to do with amortising your assets. But the rest is correct.

 

[RoadTrip]

Pretty much all transfer fees, agent fees a d signing fees are amortized usually over the length of the contract.

So pretty much all clubs "owe millions". I'd assume the likes of City's are around 500m or so getting given there spending over the last 5 years.

Again the fees payable has nothing to do with the amortisation of the asset.

 

[RoadTrip]

Good thing I'm not an accountant then.
I didn't look at the income statement or balance sheet. What is the club doing from an accounting perspective in this case?

Very high level summary of accounting for players in general. Let’s take one made up scenario as an example.

I sign Paul Pogba for £100m.
I agree a 5 year deal.
I agree that if he plays 10 or more career international games I will pay the seller another £20m in fees.
I agree to pay £50m today and £50m next year.

There’s three accounting sides to this.

1) Accounting for the transfer fee excluding his potential £20m extra:

I paid £50m today so my cash goes down by £50m.
I still have to pay £50m so that increases my trade payables £50m. Until I actually pay them that cash it remains as £50m in trade payables.

2) Accounting for the asset (Pogba).

When I buy Pogba I’m not receiving all the benefits of that purchase today. I’m receiving it over the life of his contract.
I got an asset that cost £100m so I increase my asset on day one by £100m.
He has a 5 year deal and therefore if he doesn’t sign a new deal he will be worth nothing to the club after 5 years as he could walk away for a free transfer. Therefore the asset is AMORTISED over the length of his contract and so every year I charge £20m as an expense in my income statement and correspondingly reduce the asset by £20m.
Say Pogba signs a new deal after year three. The asset amount is currently £40m after 3 years of amortisation. Say his new deal is 5 years long, all that means is that the remaining £40m of asset is amortised over the new 5 year period I.e £8m a year.

3) Accounting for the 20m fee.

When I buy the asset it is not guaranteed that he will play those caps. Ignoring for a second if it’s probably or possible that he will, assuming it’s onky possible and not probable, the way Accounting works is that this does not hit any balance sheet line. Instead it’s just disclosed as a contingent liability I.e one which may be paid but it’s only possible it will be paid.

To link this back to this article, the article is saying as at 30 June 2018 we had £258m in fees payable. I.e the accounting discussed in 1) above. If you look at a United audited financial statements for the year ended 30 June 18, that figure is 100% correct.

In Q1 (30 Sept. 18) that was down to approx. £130m. In terms of contingent fees (as discussed in 3) above) that is about £66m.

Bottom line though is that none of this matters. If the amount was obscenely high it could show we were buying players without the cash to afford them. But that’s exactly the same as taking on debt. You can do it properly (I.e using a credit card and pay it off each month) or poorly (let the credit card bill rack up and continue spending even though you can’t afford it and eventually get fecked).

Ultimately I’m sure we have fees receivable in our trade receivable line which would net this off a lot. And if you consider Uniteds financial position there’s just nothing to worry about. It’s a standard way clubs do business. And it’s just a click bait article.

 

[Adisa]

Journalism is in the gutter.

 

[Tom Cato]

I dont know if the amount is correct. But:

Whenever a player is sold, the amount is never paid out in full. The reason for this is often that the money have other uses. Funds are always invested. Wether it be new players, training grounds, stadium upgrades and maintenance, advertisement, etcetera.

If you pay £100m flat for a player in full, that's £100m, and all you have to show for it is one player. If you purchase said player for £100m, and pay £20m upfront and £20m in quarterly installments, then you have £80m immediately to spend on other upgrades, other players under the same deals, etc. All of this is linked up to the clubs cash flow. The thing about a club like United is that all major expenses are budgeted minimum 1 year in advance, for large projects several years.

It should be noted that the Glazier family's acccountants run a fiscally sound ship.

In the 2018 fiscal year, Manchester United profited £44.1m, down from £80m the previous year (the downgrade is related to taxing changes, and increase in salaries).

In the current fiscal year, United estimate a revenue of around £630m~, up from the previous record in 2018 at £590.

So whatever these shock and awe articles say, Manchester United do not have to sell anyone to pay off any transfer debts, as the club makes incredible revenue, and is ran by a fiscally responsible owner that makes a very solid profit.

In other words, all is well in Manchester.