Why is Woodward not spending more?

[Andersons Dietician]

I do t think it’s a case of not spending. They’ve always said from Ed and now to Ole that if the right player is available then the money is there.
It’s about not spending money for the sake of it and Maybe the player we think is the one doesn’t want to come or the team they currently play for don’t want to sell or grossly over value that player.

It’s not easy just to go out and recruit 5 or 6 players in 1 window especially not at the level of player we would be shopping for.

 

[Class of 63]

Not really. Dembele yes but Haller was all pure bullshit and Dybala isn't even a pure striker who leads the line. We only got interested in him because Juve said he was available, that is what I mean by having no direction, we never wanted Dybala but once Juve offered him we decided to go hard for him.

Haller wasn't bullshit at all, United scouts had been watching his partner Jovic most of last season and Haller who United were aware of since his French youth days impressed the more of the two, not a must buy, but somebody definitely to keep an eye on, and if he hadn't gone to West Ham we'd probably have looked at him again next season.

And United have wanted Dybala since he was 17, even trying to bring him over before he went to Italy, and tried to sign him when he left Palermo but once he'd gone to Juve he was probably classed as not gettable, but things change, and even though his form dipped last year he is still one of the best forwards in the World and if United hadn't shown some interest(I wouldn't say go hard as we walked away inside 48 hours) once he was reluctantly offered and the news had eventually got out we had no interest we'd have had fans burning effigies of Ed Woodward outside Old Trafford.

 

[kundalini]

2 successive summer transfer windows with much lower than expected transfer spends from Woodward/Glazer's.

Its even more curious this time around, given we've taken 4 high salary players off the wage bill (Fellaini, Valencia, Herrera, Lukaku) and received £75m transfer fee for Lukaku.

What is the real reason for this? Why isn't Woodward/Glazer's spending more? Is the club in financial trouble?

Because 'no value' or 'difficult market' don't cut it for me, given our income, squad weaknesses and competitive context.

I find it weird that whenever the financial results get announced, there are about 10 comments on here, with perhaps 3 people having gone to the trouble of actually reading the official documents. Then when it comes to the transfer window, the forum is full of ridiculous posts written by contributors who clearly haven't got a clue about the financial situation of the club. Journalists are no better. If you bother to go through the financial accounts, our transfer spending comes as no surprise.

Wherever you look in the accounts, https://ir.manutd.com/financial-information/quarterly-reports/2019.aspx whether it is in the potential add-ons due, or the unamortized balance of transfer spending, the club's official position is worse than I expected, given the supposed facts when deals are announced. United are a club with huge revenue but astonishing costs too. Opting for LVG and Mourinho was very expensive, not simply in terms of their own salaries and pay-offs, but the type of players they recruited, the agent fees, the transfer costs, the star salaries.

So I would suggest that you read the club's financial accounts in detail, then make an estimate of how much you think the club can afford to spend. It won't be anything like the £150m to £200m nonsense that gets quoted on here and elsewhere. Even £120m would have been on the high side before the costs of Mourinho's departure are subtracted. Mark Ogden's £100m figure was fairly close to the figure you'd get from looking at the accounts.

The club spends the money it has. Whether it spends it sensibly, is a different matter.

If you want a decent understanding of transfer budgets, don't look at one single year, instead look at net spend over say 5 years. Real Madrid's net spend was almost nothing for 4 years then they spent a lot; what a surprise! Liverpool spent a lot after they sold Coutinho for a huge fee, then spent nothing this summer.

Ask a Leeds fan if they think a football club should behave with a degree of financial caution in the transfer market. They are still paying the price of their recklessness, over a decade later. Portsmouth likewise.

If you want to criticise Woodward, take aim at Alexis Sanchez's salary, a new 2 year deal for Mata, Ashley Young getting another year, Mourinho's unnecessary new contract and several other less than wise contracts agreed over the last few years.

 

[Jezpeza]

What is better getting £400m-£500m in one go or getting £20m p.a from an asset depreciating in value? If they receive a £4bn offer or thereabouts they would be stupid to turn it down. Five more years of this rot the club will hardly be worth a billion and fan disillusionment will result in less marketability as negative press on fan revolt ensue.

Im with you mate i just dont think they will sell it is all. We’d need someone seriously rich to buy us because if its someone who leverages a load of loans to buy us it will be just as bad if not worse.

Something i pointed out earlier this summer which many on here pompously rubbished is that we have spent on net average 57 million a year on transfers under the Glazers. This summer was 15 for James, 55 AWB and 80 Maguire, which is 150, now 73 comes back for Lukaku which brings net to 77. We still may sell darmian and rojo etc abroad in the next 3 weeks.

Leicester were very clear about their price for Maguire very early on. We just wasted time so we could appear to run out of time at the end of the window as an excuse for stopping the spending. If we genuinely had targets and are serious wed sign them now outside of the window and then complete on January 1st. But we wont. Thats where we are at.