Manchester United Thread 25/26 - Teamtalk/Transfers/Gossip Mod Note in OP 26.09.24

With just Eriksen, Evans and Lindelof leaving in the summer we will free up 15-18m in wages, which would give us an amortised 75m in terms of squad cost addition for next season - ie. we coulld buy two 30m players on 120k a week with that budget space.

I think Rashford will be sold which willl give us some sort of transfer bump - 25-30m after a payoff to him I would guess. That would free up another amortized 75million (he is paid 350k a week apparentlly so 18m freed up) plus a PSR space ofr 125m to 150m.

So with just the free agents leaving, and Rashford going which is likely imo, from a PSR perspective we would have HUGE room to do things at a basic level. 275m amortized squad cost. Now, we couldn't use all of that - it would be insane cause we would need to generate a similar PSR bump the following season to continue to fund it.

But where it gets even more complex is how this season looks financially and Juy 1st. In the current cycle we have base losses of 115m (2021/22), 30m (2022/23) and 115m (2023/24) - with various PSR ammendments and allowances eating up those losses - the 21/22 figure will drop off going into next season so if this season is closer to 22/23 then our base PSR calculations look WAY better immediately.

On top of that the cost cutting that INEOS have driven is said to have shaved 60m off the operating costs. I don't know if that is true - but if it is then again we will be closer to breakeven or just 'acceptable' losses this season and a lower burn rate next season.

So there are various reasons to think United could have a very healthy budget going into the summer - and it could be why INEOS have done not enought (imo) this month. (1) the psr being tight due to the 21/22 losses counting and (2) the potentially much healthier position in the summer allowing us to spend far more and bring in a far better talent of player.

If we can move on (properly) Casemiro and Antony as well - again that could create huge space when comparing to the current budget.

I wonder if they'll consider selling the naming rights to Old Trafford. Barcelona bring in ~€60m/year from Spotify.

It is most likely going to happen for the new stadium anyway in 6-7 years time, so why not bring it forward. I think they are going to have to begin pulling levers like this to finance the team and support the new stadium costs.

How do folks here see the Glazers future?

Does United's current (and possibly ongoing) malaise give them any incentive to actually feck off, or to at least further reduce their shareholding before it's value tanks any further?

Ruben Curley was sold to Stoke last night quite late, was out of contract in the summer and has had injuries so I doubt he went for much.

I hope that when the first 3 years of ineos deal is up there will be some kind of negotiating done to get Glazers out one way or the other.

For all people's giving out about ineos the fact is the club was going down a huge hole without any cash injection the way it was been run and no one else was lining up to pay what the glazers wanted. They did a deal with the devil that allowed them get control of things and invest cash to hopefully get the club back to a better place.

Have the made mistakes? Yes big time but I personally feel they have earned the right to soem kind of chance to put it right because they are the only people outside of fans to have actually put money in to help the club.

Sjr wants the club to run like a business and to be self sustaining I'm sure of that and it's painful but not for his own gain let's be realistic there's no way he is getting 2bn back out of united in his lifetime no chance.

No idea. but have to think we could see some decent movement before August. The 18 month exclusion on them selling or looking to sell to anyone apart from SJR ends around then. Now I dont think the glazers will actively look to sell eslewhere but that timeline could form a sort of trigger on another round of share purchases. Whatever about Joel and Avram, I reckon the rest of them would only be too happy to sell.

And I certainly don't understand how we can look at the stadium project without a significant change in ownership because we need the finances of the club to be in a much better place to start that imo. And we aren't getting rid of the ownership debt to til INEOS (or other) are majority if not full owners.

I think it is at least arguable that a left wing back has greater potential to improve our overall play and therefor attacking threat and chance creation than a striker does.

I think we needed a LWB and a forward, but imo the LWB was non-negotiable.

Also, potentially would we prefer to try sign Delap, Osimhen or Samu in the summer vs… Mortata? Tel? now?If the signing now financially blocks a summer move.

One reason I was high on getting Tel was goal scoring POTENTIAL (his record has been poor) but he also fits in the 10 spots so wouldn't have blocked a striker. If we could have got Cunha this month I'd have loved it for the same reasons as Tel.

In relation to the striker…I was watching Stretford Paddock and Jay and Joe, who are two of the most sensible and they made a great point. The good season Rashford had, United still only scored 58 league goals (finished 3rd) and the following year with no goalscorer essentially we got 57 league goals (and finashed 8th).

So one goalscoring forward is not going to be our panacea. We had one and scored relatively shag all goals, our goal scoring problems are more systemic.

I am surprised Spurs still proceeded with a deal after he rejected them.

Yes that's really obvious to see.

Although I think a trick was missed in not going for Kane when they could've got him in 2023 (his preference was to stay in the PL imo). They could've signed Kane instead of Hojlund and went for a GK like Raya instead of Onana (who was half the price and less wages). Kane was the one player available that would've helped plaster over many cracks and would be extremely useful to us now. He would've scored 1 in 2 at a minimum (probably closer to 1 in 1) and knitted our attack. Sometimes it's a smart play to buy an older peak player and that would've been one such occasion. I think there's a high chance it would've happened if it hadn't been for Antony and Casemiro the previous Summer.

I believe they have first option if Glazers sell

https://www.goal.com/en/lists/how-glazers-force-sir-jim-ratcliffe-out-man-utd-18-months-explained/bltfdb37a1f96f3bf14

Shaw can be a great replacement for Martinez, if he doesn't end up on the next hospital bed over from him…

A fit and on form Shaw could actually be better for us at LCB than Martinez. Quicker, better dueler, taller. I certainly think if he does have a roll with us medium term it is as a LCB rather than LWB (even before Martinez's injury).

Fit and on form is a big ask though, more the fit piece to be fair. If Shaw played on Friday and then we heard on Monday he had a hamstring or calf issue there wouldn't be a surprised person in all of the fandom.

I wonder if we will see Shaw and Heaven split 45's on Friday night.

They have first option, and anyone buying the Glazer shares has to pay the same premium as INEOS did, and hten INEOS can chose to buy the new batch for the same figure they agreed previously, and I think the drag along rights the glazers have if they sell elsewhere mean anyone buying the Glazer shares has to buy ALL the glazer shares, all the SJR shares and ALL the public shares. it has to be a full buyout of everything, in order to trigger the drag along. On the other hand, anyone buying just hte glazer shares and leaving INEOS in place have to abide by all the legal aggreements the Glazers and INEOS have in place - so INEOS would retain sporting control. In a potentially toxic relationship, but its another lever that INEOS have in terms of making it unattractive for someone else to buy out the glazers.