Yes they would because owners can inject money into the club to cover for losses as well to increase liquidity. It’s why Chelsea’s owners have gone batshiiiiit. The new rules are more stringent with regard to the percentage of revenue being spent, but owners still can invest money. Plus in United’s case, simply removing interest debt repayments makes a huge difference to what the club can invest in their squad simply from their club revenues. It’s why the Glazers vs the Qataris makes a monumental difference to how we can operate in the transfer market. T
I've nothing against this conversation above as I genuinely do find it interesting and I learn stuff about FFP etc. However... I do think it's a bit sad that we're discussing finances when it comes to football. I must admit I did prefer the olden days when we'd just discuss the games and the players.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes they would because owners can inject money into the club to cover for losses as well to increase liquidity. It’s why Chelsea’s owners have gone batshiiiiit. The new rules are more stringent with regard to the percentage of revenue being spent, but owners still can invest money. Plus in United’s case, simply removing interest debt repayments makes a huge difference to what the club can invest in their squad simply from their club revenues. It’s why the Glazers vs the Qataris makes a monumental difference to how we can operate in the transfer market. T
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d not considered/forgotten about the second part, tbh (wiping the debt), and haven’t ever read anything about new owners being able to inject liquidity. Any idea where I could read about that? I haven’t seen it in any of the summaries of the UEFA rules I’ve found.
I read it on the UEFA website last year.
And that’s always been the case with FFP, it’s how Abramovich was able to built up a debt of £1bn that he could just write off.
I’ll have another dig, thanks
(Although it looks like it isn’t going to make any difference to us in any case!)
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 7 minutes ago
Dazza
The £100-120m for transfers I read as an ambiguation from the accounting balance.
I.e. Given whatever it is the accounts say we can add before we breach the limit, that means we should be able to finance purchases in the region of £100-120m amortised over five/six seasons with fees and wages considered.
If that makes sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the £100-120 million budget figure was very back-of-envelope, subject to salary commitments and mooted before any of the transfers were completed, that could explain why we seem to be spending more freely than anticipated. E.g. if Kane seemed like a possibility at that time, the salary component of the equation would be a lot higher, and that could bring the amount available for transfer fees down considerably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that’s the thing: the way the calculations work, it can only ever be back of the cig packet stuff. It must be a complete nightmare for clubs given the number of variables involved.
I imagine they have some pretty complex Excel spreadsheets they can throw numbers at to see how various combinations of deals (including fees, fee structures, salaries, contract lengths, etc.) might affect the bottom line for FFP reporting, but there’s no way you can plan all of that in advance given how transfer windows play out.
(The geek in me would love to get my hands on one of those!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecting this to Dazza's point about Laurie Whitwell: my impression he's a very diligent reporter who checks out his facts and while he doesn't understand the financial side of the game very well, I think he tries to consult experts to get their interpretation. But you can see how it could be that someone at the club could have given him that ballpark figure, off the record but in good faith, and he wouldn't have been equipped to put the instability of the transfer expenditure in context.
comment by Half a Big Bite - Bobby Firms is gonna getcha (U7237)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
United should never be in danger of FFP, those terrible Glazers never spend a penny do they??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't spend a penny that the club doesn't generate itself, no.
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
I’ll have another dig, thanks
(Although it looks like it isn’t going to make any difference to us in any case!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could be right given what’s happening with the sale.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 7 minutes ago
Dazza
The £100-120m for transfers I read as an ambiguation from the accounting balance.
I.e. Given whatever it is the accounts say we can add before we breach the limit, that means we should be able to finance purchases in the region of £100-120m amortised over five/six seasons with fees and wages considered.
If that makes sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the £100-120 million budget figure was very back-of-envelope, subject to salary commitments and mooted before any of the transfers were completed, that could explain why we seem to be spending more freely than anticipated. E.g. if Kane seemed like a possibility at that time, the salary component of the equation would be a lot higher, and that could bring the amount available for transfer fees down considerably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that’s the thing: the way the calculations work, it can only ever be back of the cig packet stuff. It must be a complete nightmare for clubs given the number of variables involved.
I imagine they have some pretty complex Excel spreadsheets they can throw numbers at to see how various combinations of deals (including fees, fee structures, salaries, contract lengths, etc.) might affect the bottom line for FFP reporting, but there’s no way you can plan all of that in advance given how transfer windows play out.
(The geek in me would love to get my hands on one of those!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecting this to Dazza's point about Laurie Whitwell: my impression he's a very diligent reporter who checks out his facts and while he doesn't understand the financial side of the game very well, I think he tries to consult experts to get their interpretation. But you can see how it could be that someone at the club could have given him that ballpark figure, off the record but in good faith, and he wouldn't have been equipped to put the instability of the transfer expenditure in context.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure; and again, that isn’t really Whitwell’s fault, IMO.
Firstly, how many people, journalists included, really have a cast iron understanding of the details of exactly how it all works. I’ve done plenty of reading, and confess that I certainly don’t.
Secondly, back to those myriad variables!
Maybe I’m being too kind to him because he seems like a genuinely diligent (as you say), honest and likeable guy. But I certainly don’t blame him (and indeed empathise) if he struggles with the minutiae.
As to the wages question and I wonder if *very generally speaking and certainly latter stages of career free agent signings excluded* if for a club like United there isn’t a *somewhat* linear correlation between transfer spend and wages added to the books.
You might think that buying one player for £100m or two players for £100m might add, on average, *ballpark similar* wages to the books. Would be interesting to investigate.
I’m surprised you don’t treat sports journalism with the disdain it deserves.
Agreed, Rosso. My previous post was written in a spirit of 70% defending Whitwell, 30% acknowledging his limitations.
BTW I guess from your previous mention that you listened to the Athletic's Talk of the Devils podcast. I find Whitwell good for club-sourced reporting, Carl Anka the biggest reason to listen because he actually understands football, and Andy Mitten fine when he's talking about regional Spanish clubs and a bit pointless when opining about players.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 17 minutes ago
I’m surprised you don’t treat sports journalism with the disdain it deserves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, I do.
Although I do think that with some journos, if you get right to the source and manage to bypass the papers/outlets they work for, and in doing so their editors, they can be worth at least listening to. I never bother looking at the sports pages of the papers.
Whitwell gets pretty decent access at United, I think. And unlike many, he's pretty clear about when he's speculating and when (and how) he's got something solid. He isn't really one to be casting names about.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Half a Big Bite - Bobby Firms is gonna getcha (U7237)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
United should never be in danger of FFP, those terrible Glazers never spend a penny do they??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't spend a penny that the club doesn't generate itself, no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which club owners do?
So, to summarize, if we don’t get some sales done that will be it for this window. And the January one.
Sounds like Beekys move away hasn’t gone through, not sure if anyone else was interested.
Fred seems the most likely, or first to leave.
Will that alone be enough to get Amrabat over the line, then try and finalise a few more sales after what I presume would be our last signing.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 30 minutes ago
So, to summarize, if we don’t get some sales done that will be it for this window. And the January one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like it could be that way. Certainly not any more €50m-plus splurges without some players being shifted.
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 30 minutes ago
So, to summarize, if we don’t get some sales done that will be it for this window. And the January one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like it could be that way. Certainly not any more €50m-plus splurges without some players being shifted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Something we pretty much knew going into this window. We really do need to shift a lot of players though.
“The second is that there’s likely some spread in the transfer fees paid, which may run beyond this season’s spend”
That wouldn’t make any difference to ffp, just available money that you’ve got.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
“The second is that there’s likely some spread in the transfer fees paid, which may run beyond this season’s spend”
That wouldn’t make any difference to ffp, just available money that you’ve got.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, fair point melts. Won’t make a difference to amortisation.
I’ll edit that bit…
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 39 minutes ago
Or we just get a fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UEFA’s new rules have what they’re calling ‘progressive’ sanctions, with two points which may be significant for United.
Firstly, sanctions are going to be proportionate to the financial situation (read: size) of the offending club, so they’d be able to whack us relatively hard.
Secondly, repeated offences receive a progressively increasing financial penalty.
So in short, if we keep breaking the rules they’re going to whack us harder next time and then progressively harder each time.
I don’t think the club will want to go down that path because a) it’s nice to have a bit of wiggle room in case we get in (more) financial bother down the line, and b) there’s always the chance we pess them off enough at some point that we get demoted from the CL to the EL, for example, which is something else they’re threatening.
Not an immediate concern I don’t think. But we’d be wise not to poke the bear much further.
Pretty good summary of the new regs here -
https://www.footballbenchmark.com/library/overview_of_the_new_uefa_financial_fair_play_regulations
But we’d be wise not to poke the bear much further.
———
Thing is, it kind of works both ways with Europe’s biggest clubs. Hence the new CL format. FFP’s teeth have shown themselves to be quite blunt, and that it’s also been in the interest of a certain few clubs as well.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
Pretty good summary of the new regs here -
https://www.footballbenchmark.com/library/overview_of_the_new_uefa_financial_fair_play_regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I posted that one above. One of the best summaries I've read
Dazza: re-reading that same link (more carefully this time, clearly ), I've found reference to what you were talking about in terms of owners injecting funds:
"One of the most relevant changes compared to the current scenario is the increase of the acceptable deviation over three years from EUR 30m to EUR 60m, keeping unchanged that this loss should be entirely covered by either contributions or equity."
I read that as you can spend EUR 60m over your limit over the three year rolling period, provided your ownership/investors pump the same amount in.
Sign in if you want to comment
Spending and FFP
Page 2 of 3
posted on 1/8/23
Yes they would because owners can inject money into the club to cover for losses as well to increase liquidity. It’s why Chelsea’s owners have gone batshiiiiit. The new rules are more stringent with regard to the percentage of revenue being spent, but owners still can invest money. Plus in United’s case, simply removing interest debt repayments makes a huge difference to what the club can invest in their squad simply from their club revenues. It’s why the Glazers vs the Qataris makes a monumental difference to how we can operate in the transfer market. T
posted on 1/8/23
I've nothing against this conversation above as I genuinely do find it interesting and I learn stuff about FFP etc. However... I do think it's a bit sad that we're discussing finances when it comes to football. I must admit I did prefer the olden days when we'd just discuss the games and the players.
posted on 1/8/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes they would because owners can inject money into the club to cover for losses as well to increase liquidity. It’s why Chelsea’s owners have gone batshiiiiit. The new rules are more stringent with regard to the percentage of revenue being spent, but owners still can invest money. Plus in United’s case, simply removing interest debt repayments makes a huge difference to what the club can invest in their squad simply from their club revenues. It’s why the Glazers vs the Qataris makes a monumental difference to how we can operate in the transfer market. T
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d not considered/forgotten about the second part, tbh (wiping the debt), and haven’t ever read anything about new owners being able to inject liquidity. Any idea where I could read about that? I haven’t seen it in any of the summaries of the UEFA rules I’ve found.
posted on 1/8/23
I read it on the UEFA website last year.
posted on 1/8/23
And that’s always been the case with FFP, it’s how Abramovich was able to built up a debt of £1bn that he could just write off.
posted on 1/8/23
I’ll have another dig, thanks
(Although it looks like it isn’t going to make any difference to us in any case!)
posted on 1/8/23
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 7 minutes ago
Dazza
The £100-120m for transfers I read as an ambiguation from the accounting balance.
I.e. Given whatever it is the accounts say we can add before we breach the limit, that means we should be able to finance purchases in the region of £100-120m amortised over five/six seasons with fees and wages considered.
If that makes sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the £100-120 million budget figure was very back-of-envelope, subject to salary commitments and mooted before any of the transfers were completed, that could explain why we seem to be spending more freely than anticipated. E.g. if Kane seemed like a possibility at that time, the salary component of the equation would be a lot higher, and that could bring the amount available for transfer fees down considerably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that’s the thing: the way the calculations work, it can only ever be back of the cig packet stuff. It must be a complete nightmare for clubs given the number of variables involved.
I imagine they have some pretty complex Excel spreadsheets they can throw numbers at to see how various combinations of deals (including fees, fee structures, salaries, contract lengths, etc.) might affect the bottom line for FFP reporting, but there’s no way you can plan all of that in advance given how transfer windows play out.
(The geek in me would love to get my hands on one of those!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecting this to Dazza's point about Laurie Whitwell: my impression he's a very diligent reporter who checks out his facts and while he doesn't understand the financial side of the game very well, I think he tries to consult experts to get their interpretation. But you can see how it could be that someone at the club could have given him that ballpark figure, off the record but in good faith, and he wouldn't have been equipped to put the instability of the transfer expenditure in context.
posted on 1/8/23
comment by Half a Big Bite - Bobby Firms is gonna getcha (U7237)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
United should never be in danger of FFP, those terrible Glazers never spend a penny do they??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't spend a penny that the club doesn't generate itself, no.
posted on 1/8/23
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
I’ll have another dig, thanks
(Although it looks like it isn’t going to make any difference to us in any case!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could be right given what’s happening with the sale.
posted on 1/8/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 7 minutes ago
Dazza
The £100-120m for transfers I read as an ambiguation from the accounting balance.
I.e. Given whatever it is the accounts say we can add before we breach the limit, that means we should be able to finance purchases in the region of £100-120m amortised over five/six seasons with fees and wages considered.
If that makes sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the £100-120 million budget figure was very back-of-envelope, subject to salary commitments and mooted before any of the transfers were completed, that could explain why we seem to be spending more freely than anticipated. E.g. if Kane seemed like a possibility at that time, the salary component of the equation would be a lot higher, and that could bring the amount available for transfer fees down considerably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that’s the thing: the way the calculations work, it can only ever be back of the cig packet stuff. It must be a complete nightmare for clubs given the number of variables involved.
I imagine they have some pretty complex Excel spreadsheets they can throw numbers at to see how various combinations of deals (including fees, fee structures, salaries, contract lengths, etc.) might affect the bottom line for FFP reporting, but there’s no way you can plan all of that in advance given how transfer windows play out.
(The geek in me would love to get my hands on one of those!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecting this to Dazza's point about Laurie Whitwell: my impression he's a very diligent reporter who checks out his facts and while he doesn't understand the financial side of the game very well, I think he tries to consult experts to get their interpretation. But you can see how it could be that someone at the club could have given him that ballpark figure, off the record but in good faith, and he wouldn't have been equipped to put the instability of the transfer expenditure in context.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure; and again, that isn’t really Whitwell’s fault, IMO.
Firstly, how many people, journalists included, really have a cast iron understanding of the details of exactly how it all works. I’ve done plenty of reading, and confess that I certainly don’t.
Secondly, back to those myriad variables!
Maybe I’m being too kind to him because he seems like a genuinely diligent (as you say), honest and likeable guy. But I certainly don’t blame him (and indeed empathise) if he struggles with the minutiae.
As to the wages question and I wonder if *very generally speaking and certainly latter stages of career free agent signings excluded* if for a club like United there isn’t a *somewhat* linear correlation between transfer spend and wages added to the books.
You might think that buying one player for £100m or two players for £100m might add, on average, *ballpark similar* wages to the books. Would be interesting to investigate.
posted on 1/8/23
I’m surprised you don’t treat sports journalism with the disdain it deserves.
posted on 1/8/23
Agreed, Rosso. My previous post was written in a spirit of 70% defending Whitwell, 30% acknowledging his limitations.
BTW I guess from your previous mention that you listened to the Athletic's Talk of the Devils podcast. I find Whitwell good for club-sourced reporting, Carl Anka the biggest reason to listen because he actually understands football, and Andy Mitten fine when he's talking about regional Spanish clubs and a bit pointless when opining about players.
posted on 1/8/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 17 minutes ago
I’m surprised you don’t treat sports journalism with the disdain it deserves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, I do.
Although I do think that with some journos, if you get right to the source and manage to bypass the papers/outlets they work for, and in doing so their editors, they can be worth at least listening to. I never bother looking at the sports pages of the papers.
Whitwell gets pretty decent access at United, I think. And unlike many, he's pretty clear about when he's speculating and when (and how) he's got something solid. He isn't really one to be casting names about.
posted on 1/8/23
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Half a Big Bite - Bobby Firms is gonna getcha (U7237)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
United should never be in danger of FFP, those terrible Glazers never spend a penny do they??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't spend a penny that the club doesn't generate itself, no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which club owners do?
posted on 1/8/23
So, to summarize, if we don’t get some sales done that will be it for this window. And the January one.
posted on 1/8/23
Sounds like Beekys move away hasn’t gone through, not sure if anyone else was interested.
Fred seems the most likely, or first to leave.
Will that alone be enough to get Amrabat over the line, then try and finalise a few more sales after what I presume would be our last signing.
posted on 1/8/23
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 30 minutes ago
So, to summarize, if we don’t get some sales done that will be it for this window. And the January one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like it could be that way. Certainly not any more €50m-plus splurges without some players being shifted.
posted on 1/8/23
Or we just get a fine.
posted on 1/8/23
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 30 minutes ago
So, to summarize, if we don’t get some sales done that will be it for this window. And the January one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like it could be that way. Certainly not any more €50m-plus splurges without some players being shifted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Something we pretty much knew going into this window. We really do need to shift a lot of players though.
posted on 1/8/23
“The second is that there’s likely some spread in the transfer fees paid, which may run beyond this season’s spend”
That wouldn’t make any difference to ffp, just available money that you’ve got.
posted on 1/8/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
“The second is that there’s likely some spread in the transfer fees paid, which may run beyond this season’s spend”
That wouldn’t make any difference to ffp, just available money that you’ve got.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, fair point melts. Won’t make a difference to amortisation.
I’ll edit that bit…
posted on 1/8/23
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 39 minutes ago
Or we just get a fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UEFA’s new rules have what they’re calling ‘progressive’ sanctions, with two points which may be significant for United.
Firstly, sanctions are going to be proportionate to the financial situation (read: size) of the offending club, so they’d be able to whack us relatively hard.
Secondly, repeated offences receive a progressively increasing financial penalty.
So in short, if we keep breaking the rules they’re going to whack us harder next time and then progressively harder each time.
I don’t think the club will want to go down that path because a) it’s nice to have a bit of wiggle room in case we get in (more) financial bother down the line, and b) there’s always the chance we pess them off enough at some point that we get demoted from the CL to the EL, for example, which is something else they’re threatening.
Not an immediate concern I don’t think. But we’d be wise not to poke the bear much further.
posted on 1/8/23
Pretty good summary of the new regs here -
https://www.footballbenchmark.com/library/overview_of_the_new_uefa_financial_fair_play_regulations
posted on 1/8/23
But we’d be wise not to poke the bear much further.
———
Thing is, it kind of works both ways with Europe’s biggest clubs. Hence the new CL format. FFP’s teeth have shown themselves to be quite blunt, and that it’s also been in the interest of a certain few clubs as well.
posted on 1/8/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
Pretty good summary of the new regs here -
https://www.footballbenchmark.com/library/overview_of_the_new_uefa_financial_fair_play_regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I posted that one above. One of the best summaries I've read
Dazza: re-reading that same link (more carefully this time, clearly ), I've found reference to what you were talking about in terms of owners injecting funds:
"One of the most relevant changes compared to the current scenario is the increase of the acceptable deviation over three years from EUR 30m to EUR 60m, keeping unchanged that this loss should be entirely covered by either contributions or equity."
I read that as you can spend EUR 60m over your limit over the three year rolling period, provided your ownership/investors pump the same amount in.
Page 2 of 3