Transfer Rumours Let's ignore the big ****ing elephant and blame the latest manager, again. Are we nearly there yet?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Chief said:
Well no, sorry, it isn't.

Our income far outweighs our outgoings, always, so we are well within the FFP criteria.

The reason we were fined was some minor commercial **** up. That's it, fine paid.

United is a money generating monster and the debt is irrelevant to ffp.

Telles and Bailly haven't played for us for two seasons, if they leave on a free it's no loss. They're off the books, the squad is trimmed, job done.

I'd say Elanga is £20 million absolutely tops. That's it. Even then, we'd have done extremely well.
Click to expand...
This contradicts the financial statements from the club. Sure, the club is without a doubt a revenue generating machine. But that is equivocally not the same as “money making” machine which is more adequately represented as profitability. Hence, why our loan keeps ballooning every year.

Last quarter alone, the club was cash flow negative which meant cash on hand decreased and overall loan went up.

Therefore, the debt is extremely critical. But because the full asset is worth more than the debt, it has been structured/collateralized against the club as an asset.

Why this matters? We essentially don’t have that money to just throw around without actually somehow accounting for it. It is why balancing the transfer deficit matters. We can’t keep buying players and selling all of them for a loss while paying crème de la crème wages. It is a road to an eventual hell, especially in a high interest environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glazerfodder
Personally I think it's low for both.

I just don't think we're great at negotiating.

Fck it, only really matters if it's necessary to balance the budget for player purchases. It seems to be the case but who knows.
 
Treble said:
Personally I think it's low for both.

I just don't think we're great at negotiating.

Fck it, only really matters if it's necessary to balance the budget for player purchases. It seems to be the case but who knows.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of this was set up by SAF, specially with younger players. We let some very good prospects go under Fergie for well less than worth simply because he wouldn't hold a players career back when he knew that they would never get enough game time because of the players ahead of them.
 
cytrax said:
This contradicts the financial statements from the club. Sure, the club is without a doubt a revenue generating machine. But that is equivocally not the same as “money making” machine which is more adequately represented as profitability. Hence, why our loan keeps ballooning every year.

Last quarter alone, the club was cash flow negative which meant cash on hand decreased and overall loan went up.

Therefore, the debt is extremely critical. But because the full asset is worth more than the debt, it has been structured/collateralized against the club as an asset.

Why this matters? We essentially don’t have that money to just throw around without actually somehow accounting for it. It is why balancing the transfer deficit matters. We can’t keep buying players and selling all of them for a loss while paying crème de la crème wages. It is a road to an eventual hell, especially in a high interest environment.
Click to expand...

Yes, but, we don't need to sell to appease FFP.

There is an apparent budget for the summer window of £120million.

So the Mount and Onana purchases mean that's nearly spent, we'd need to sell to buy more.

It's a Glazer restriction, not an FFP one.

I actually think balancing the books is a sensible thing to do, what bugs is that's it's those swamp dwelling ****s who have set the restriction.

If we add Henderson and McTominay or Fred to the sales, and chop those out on loan that we'd almost forgotten about, then they can buy a striker and maybe even Amrabat.

Fun times, eh!!
 
I believe the our financial predicament is not simply a resurrection from the Glazers. We have simply spent too much in the last several years that we are now in deficit. And if they aren’t the fricken shtty owners that they are, they would have planned against this. But instead they allowed Woodward to spend all our future earnings while they themselves were all too happy to keep taking the dividends.

Overall, I agree that it’s a positive thing to be cautious to balance the books so that the club can return back to self sustainability without needing transfer loans. Fix that and make champions league qualification consistently, and we’ll be back to cash flow for positive.
 
No, honestly, the only reason we have any debt at all is because the Glazers created the debt in order to finance the purchase.

It didn’t exist before. They didn't have the actual money, so the borrowing is the debt, and it's remained ever since.

We'd have been able to 'afford' our spending ordinarily, although fully accept that instead of just maintaining and even increasing this massive debt, the likes of Ed Woody should have been looking at ways of reducing it, rather than spunking it on daft purchases, and even sillier wages.


But, there would be no debt without the Glazers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytrax and Diego
Chief said:
Hmmmmmmm, whatever could this mean? :huh:

Harry Maguire: Erik ten Hag says Manchester United defender can fight back into team - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66274969
Click to expand...
I saw that yesterday. I think that we are struggling to get any real bids for Maguire because of his salary expectation. But with the captaincy gone, it could free him up mentally to reintegrate himself back to respectable form for the squad. I can see this scenario happening. Only problem is that it appears that Maguire feels entitled to being the captain which could limit his mental receptiveness to get down to earth for the team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glazerfodder
I don't think he does tbf.
Course, he's disappointed, but he's not in the first eleven so shouldn't really expect to be captain.

He's a decent enough squad player, he'll probably be needed often with a Varane injury and the amount of games we'll play.

A bid may then come in. I genuinely can't see him rocking the boat, he's just not the type.

If he feels the need to leave then maybe he'll ask for a transfer, nothing wrong with that.
 
Thinking more about Rasmus…

I read today that Napoli paid €70m for Osimhen from Lille three years ago. At the time, he was 21, had a single season with Lille which resulted in 18 goals from 38 games. Even with hindsight, I’m certain that I would have barked at the valuation. Then in his first season, he scored only 10 goals in 30 games for Napoli (I certainly would have again suggested that we needed a new striker if that was at United). The next season, he started looking the part with 18 goals, and of course last season being the best of his seasons with 31 goals. Most importantly he looks like he can actually become better with goal scoring due to his sheer technical capabilities.

The reason why I’m drawing these parallels is to bring myself back to the point whereby Rasmus at £50m or thereabouts may actually represent smart business by United. From videos that I’ve been watching of the player, he appears to be very strong, scores with both feet, he’s fast with the ball and not afraid to throw himself at the ball to score goals. We certainly don’t have anyone in the squad today that is capable of being that type of striker. So maybe, just maybe, his strong attributes at such a young age is an indication of what Hojlund could become and no better place to do that than at United.

You must log in or register to see media
 
He's clearly got potential and is highly rated, but it's likely he'll be similar in starting and developing to Osimhen.

We could do with a bit of experience in the squad so it's not all on him, it'd be difficult to carry that expectation.

Suppose that would have to come from Rashford, even though he's not an actual centre forward.

Evan Ferguson would be similar, we'd not get much change from £80 million for him. Ridiculous as that sounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytrax
Antony starting on the left against Arsenal, with Garnacho on the right. I've wanted to see him on the left tbh.

Mount as the number 10 by the looks of it. Sancho up front?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
Interesting that the game will end with a penalty shoot out regardless of the final score.
Added entertainment for the crowd and good experience/practice for the players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytrax
Ok so turns out Antony is on the right and Garnacho on left. Mount is left midfield not no.10 role.
 
Treble said:
Absolutely packed atadium tbf so credit them on that.
Click to expand...
First two games are sold out, few tickets still left for the last two.
Massive car trunk party outside the game with reporters from club TV going round doing interviews and giving out signed shirts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Treble
Diego said:
First two games are sold out, few tickets still left for the last two.
Massive car trunk party outside the game with reporters from club TV going round doing interviews and giving out signed shirts.
Click to expand...

Safe to say it's mostly United fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back