I would also like to know where the mentioned £300m investment has gone.
Wot a signing? - Summer 2024 edition | Most successful jinx thread 2024
- Thread starter Sassy Colin
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
I would also like to know where the mentioned £300m investment has gone.
Well at least test what they can get for him and see if it's plausible, there's zero signs that we're interested in selling him when he's not up to the standard
In the beginning of the summer there was a brief that only Garnacho, Mainoo, Hojlund, Amad and Dalot are not for sale. I'm pretty sure he was listed as one of the players we'd be happy to sell, but there's zero interest because he's on massive wages. He's currently absolutely unsellable.
Only 200 of it has come into the club so far. But it's planned that another 100 is added towards the end of the year. (This is a smart way of doing it since they can maximize the value these investments can give our PSR.)
But so far the biggest chunk of it went to pay off our revolving credit used to buy players during covid etc. The terms were up, could have negotiated a further deal, but decided to pay up instead so there's less interest going out going forward.
And some chunk of it is going towards upgrading Carrington now. (And possibly the exploratory work done to assess the plans for our new stadium).
Money was never intended to be for buying players, as it isn't really allowed to inflate your funds this way. But this allows us to use more of our own money going forward.
That’s a bit disappointing and not how it was presented when Ineos and Qatar were bidding as far as my memory serves.
Aren’t new owners allowed to pump money in as an initial investment for player acquisitions?
Nope, that was never really on the table. People were dreaming up scenarios where Qatar would pump in money.
Under the current PSR rules, clubs in the Premier League are only allowed to spend 70% of their revenue on player purchases/salaries. (Investment doesn't count as revenue.)
And clubs are allowed to lose £15 mill across 3 years, or up to £105m if that £90m is covered by the owners injecting their own funds by subscribing to new shares (as Ratcliffe is already doing. He's maxing out the investment that can benefit the club under PSR rules).
What some people hoped was that Qatar would bring inflated "fake" sponsorship deals to the club, that would be counted as revenue. Like what City has allegedly done. But until we see the results of their court case it would be dumb to try to do this now. We're too late to cheat. Besides these sponsorships would still have to be considered near market rate to be approved to count for PSR, and considering we already have some of the best sponsorship deals in the market as one of the most popular clubs in the world, we couldn't just get a deal that pays double of what we get now and hope to get it approved. Was different for City who didn't have the biggest deals to start with, and through the new owners network they could get City bigger sponsorship deals before they would naturally be able to get them from becoming a bigger club delivering better results. It speeded up their rise from a mediocre club to a big one. We're already one of the biggest clubs, so we couldn't benefit much in short term no matter how rich our owners would be.
But if the club is run better, we don't overpay fees and salaries for squad players, we build a new stadium that would bring in higher revenues and so on. Then the club can spend more on future player purchases.
I have issues with your last paragraph tbh. I’m not sure spending £2bn on a new stadium is going to be anything other than disastrous to our squad building over the next ten/twenty years, given all the rest of the info you’ve laid out there.
We saw the effect it had on Arsenal, and we’re being much more adventurous. Furthermore, when Arsenal went into their austerity period, they were a recently successful club. They hadn’t already spent 12 years in the doldrums.
10 years of austerity for us on top of what we’ve been achieving in the recent past, and that new 100k seater stadium is going to be a folly in the original sense of the word.
It depends a bit on how the new stadium is funded.
The Swedish Rumble on twitter who is better at this number stuff than I am, laid out the case for how it will probably work, and how it will slightly increase our spending straight away, and then even more for every year that passes.
You seriously didn’t think it was all for transfers did you?
50m is going on renovating carrington
Another 50m supposedly going on fixing bits of OT & paintwork
Something like 120m used to clear space on the credit line
As people have said, other clubs are being just as cautious with FFP regulations so it is making the market difficult but the outgoings have been disappointing.
Really hoped one of Maguire and Lindelof might leave, Sancho could be an absolute disaster if he stays and doesn't get regular play time and sulks. AwB looks certain to go but Mctominay and Casemiro could end up staying.
Really hoped one of Maguire and Lindelof might leave, Sancho could be an absolute disaster if he stays and doesn't get regular play time and sulks. AwB looks certain to go but Mctominay and Casemiro could end up staying.
I honestly did think it would be for transfers, yes.
Anybody looking at the team from the outside, with a mind to improve things, would surely allocate a hefty budget to fixing something that is clearly not fit for purpose.
Our squad isn’t great, it needs some serious work. I genuinely hoped they’d be more swiftly decisive than they’ve ended up being.
But the above toddler tantrum notwithstanding, I’m still hopeful they will address it in the next few windows, and I suppose just have to calm my tits.
Yep I’d think so.I thank you 