22 Jan 2020 12:31:42
Couple of questions for the Eds
As we seem to be haggling with Sporting over a few million here or there, would that suggest that Fernandes was not our top target and we are signing him because he is available? Surely if Ole was telling the powers that be that Fernandes was his primary target they would just pay whatever it takes?
Also, why are we not more proactive with transfers when the the window is shut? Is this down to us not having a DoF? Liverpool seem to negotiate when the window is shut so the player arrives as soon as the window is open a la Minamino.
Lastly, do you know if .............
Thanks in advance
Believable0
Unbelievable0
{Ed002's Note - (a) You are thinking rather too much about this. As I have explained, Manchester United are keen on the player but not at the asking price. There was no clear "first choice", but they have had interest in other AM players as well. (b) It is nothing to do with Liverpool, but MU is run on an amateur basis (you can search the page for "amateur". (c) I am njot going to start answering questions about random players.}
22 Jan 2020 13:03:05
As far as rumour goes apparently negotiations were entered into on a price. That price was allegedly raised by Sporting after negotiations began causing issues.
The latest rumour is that Jorge Mendes is now involved in Sportings transfer dealings and although he has had zero input into the Bruno deal he is demanding a fee which Sporting are trying to add on and pass to United. United want nothing to do with Mendes anyway but also feel it isn't their fee to pay and it's an issue for Sporting.
The above is all rumour and hearsay but this is a rumours page. Would be interested to see Ed's view on the alleged Mendes interference. or otherwise.
Agree0
Disagree0
{Ed002's Note - Someone has been misleading you rather. The price was not raised during negotiations. The price was set by Sporting based on how he is playing this season. Jorge Mendes is an advisor to Sporting - as he is to a number of clubs.}
22 jan 2020 16:00:00
ed. sporting are buying a striker for 7m euros i thought they had major financial problems so i'm confused as to how they can do any deals if they have to pay their debt in january is this accurate thanks.
Agree0
Disagree0
{Ed002's Note - The had payments to guarantee at the end of December and again in June.
22 Jan 2020 16:35:59
So they don't need to sell BF this window then well for me this deal isn't happening it would have been sorted by now if we really wanted hom that much. I'm totally disillusioned with whoever it is dealing with these transfers its totally amateurish embarrassing thanks ED.
Agree0
Disagree0
{Ed002's Note - I am really not sure what you issue is with the situation. Perhaps not thinking about money would ease it for most of the MU supports.}
22 Jan 2020 00:02:30
Sky sports saying that we have / are going to bid 30mill for jude Bellingham, don't know how true this is, time will tell. Seems a lot for a 16 year old but haven't seen much of him so don't know how good he is. Only thing I will say is that we need players who can contribute now, I'm not sure he can do that.
Believable0
Unbelievable0
22 Jan 2020 08:17:49
Don’t worry he’ll be 22 by the time Woodward and Judge close the deal.
Agree10
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 08:35:34
30m for a 16 year old is more than outrageous.
Agree1
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 08:49:00
I agree especially as we need someone to contribute now, not in a year or 2. Its even more baffling given the current noises from the club about overspending etc and how we don't want to inflate future fees. we don't see value in bruno (hello ken lol) at 60mill but do see value here.
Agree0
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 08:58:20
we need both players for now and the future,
this is one of the reasons we are in this mess.
Agree1
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 09:20:28
I jus don't understand how they equate value in transfers. bruno is too expensive yet this deal is fine. I have nothing against the bellingham transfer I just don't get how one is seen as value the other not. its not as if bruno is 27/ 28 he's 24 so still a good age.
Agree1
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 10:07:53
Considering inflation and how much we paid for a 18 year old Luke Shaw nearly 6 years ago. I think around 30m is about right.
He is super talented and English, he can play in any position in midfield or across the forward line.
Whilst I agree he might not be ready now, by the time he is he will be worth 100m+ which is what we would be expected to pay for a 19 year old Sancho.
Sign him, loan him back to Birmingham on an 18 month loan deal allowing him to finish this season and play next season every week.
Agree8
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 10:35:42
The fact we see value in this transfer but not in the requested amount for Mr fernandes is absolutely ridiculous. We have plenty of young talent of our own, we need ready made players.
Agree0
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 10:36:43
Norn, that's simple. We sign Bruno for 70m while paying him 10m a year. In 5 years time we will have spent 120m on him in wages and fees. How much do you think we could sell him for in 5 years time when he's about to turn 30? Maybe 50m.
Now look at Bellingham, we spend 30m on him now and pay him 5m a season. In 5 years time he will have cost us 55m and will be about to turn 22. How much could we sell a 22 year old top England international for? 120-150m? easily.
Meaning in theory Belling could be sold for a profit of 100m in 5 years time, while Bruno would be sold at a lost 60-70m.
Now ask yourself, if you were an investor in a business would you pick investing in the asset that could make you 100m profit in 5 year time or the one that could be sold at a loss 70m?
When you look at it like that its not hard to see why the club might be more prepared to spend 30m on Bellingham than 60-70m on Bruno. We aren't being run by fans or even football people, but cold hard investors.
Agree5
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 10:51:34
doesnt make sense when we have a 17 year old hannibal mejbri playing a similar role and getting rave reviews and has massive potential.
Agree1
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 11:07:28
Your analysis is 100% correct shappy and that's the problem.
Everything we do is based on a mathematical equation that relates to profit, not how it will improve the team/ product on the pitch.
Agree1
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 11:36:17
I have a couple of friends who are birmingham city season book holders and they have been raving to me for couple seasons about this kid they say he's better than pogba was at his age high praise indeed and he's MOTM every time he plays.
I'm all for this signing but only if we get fernandes aswell we need him now.
Agree0
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 11:50:50
Agree Shappy: everything we do is measured in business assets (hence players being given new contracts when they don’t deserve them)
You’d think that they’d realise that business assets are only worth something if the business is successful, hence the need to ensure short term success also, both on and off the pitch, as the value of the brand is just as important to making a profit - and you can only trade off former glory for so long.
Agree1
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 12:54:49
Have we not learnt our lesson with signing Dan James from the championship. Set off like a house on fire, now he seems to struggle in games as the so called big teams have sussed him out, looks like a rabbit caught in the headlights at times. Get bruno in and another experienced striker, midfielder what ever, then let's see where we finish in the league. if not top 4, makes woodward job easier to sack ole anc get poch in. Can u imagine what a team poch could build with our coffers. he did ok at spurs without a pot to pee in.
Agree0
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 13:11:47
The club accounts look much healthier the more high valued assets the club has.
Giving Jones or Rojo a new deal when they don't give much in terms of football performance doesn't make any football sense.
Yet having two players with an asset value of 20-30m+ each attached to the club looks good on paper. The reality is you would be lucky to get 15m for either of them, while they don't add much to the on pitch performance while costing the club a significant amount in wages.
But at least on paper 50-60m in club assessed haven't walked out the door.
Agree0
Disagree0
{Ed002's Note - The players are not assets that appear in the accounts as they are not fixed assets. You need to stop worring about finances.}
22 Jan 2020 13:12:55
Wllace, whilst i am in agreement that we measure players as business assets it should be noted that they have a value even when the business isn't as successful as it once was. They may have a lesser value but still a value.
The sad thing is we are talking about human beings as if they were tins of beans, sad.
Agree0
Disagree0
{Ed002's Note - What the hell are "business assets". You all need to move on from discussing stuff you don't understand.}
22 Jan 2020 13:15:27
Shappy I'd ask the glazers to pay you for the positive PR you give off.
Agree0
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 13:45:59
Ed002 - read the post. I stated its sad that players are being referred to as such!
Agree0
Disagree0
{Ed002's Note - You don't get it.}
22 Jan 2020 14:49:04
RedWhiskey, glad you feel my words have such an impact. lol. Although not sure which words I've said in this thread that could be considered "positive spin" for the Glazers.
Pretty sure I've been damning of them at times. They aren't great owners, although they are far from the worst. I don't think there is a silver bullet solution for the situation the club finds itself in. There is no one person to blame but many. As such fixing the issues won't be as simple as sacking the manager, or Ed Woodward, or the other people behind the scenes or the Glazers simply selling the club. In fact any of those things have as much potential to hurt us as they do of helping us.
Agree1
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 15:40:22
Ignore the money lads we don’t understand it, we don’t need to and we have no affect on it.
At 16 playing amazingly well. could turn out decent could turn out a sh! t£r
Loan him back for 18 months fine he’ll get minutes
But what I don’t get is we already have Gomes, Levitt, Garner, McTominay and then Hannibal, Puigmal, Tarore.
Would rather we go for Saul, Pogba (Fred), Bruno mid 3.
Agree2
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 17:01:05
Maybe the club think he is better than all of them players Utd Road?
Agree0
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 18:37:41
What happens if we don't get fernandes this month because we think. we can get maddison or grealish in the summer are the club that naieve that they think none of our competitors won't be after them aswell .
Theres no guarantee they will choose us if that's the case then were does that leave us were playing a very dangerous game here.
Agree0
Disagree0
22 Jan 2020 21:17:02
I believe some of the information in this thread regarding football balance sheets is incorrect. Players' value IS recorded in the company balance sheet, as an intangible asset. Clubs buying players earn “rights to use” the players to generate revenues. In accounting, “rights” are considered as intangible assets. These asset includes players transfer rights and costs incurred to acquire those rights. These rights are measured at acquisition cost and amortized on a straight-line basis over the term of each player’s contract. The asset is initially recognized at the date the acquisition contract enters into force.
Agree0
Disagree0
23 Jan 2020 10:59:37
I’m suffering from deja vu. Last night reminded me of fergies early days.
No width or depth no clue up front. Back passing,
Utd have a weakened squad just now,
Lulu Sanchez young smalling all gone,
Jones rojo matic mata Lingard Chong Jackson all on the gang plank waiting to jump,
Where are Utd going to find the capitol to fund the squad?
Some young lads of ours doing the business in Scotland and the championship, (de geas replacement is outstanding) we can’t even buy a player who actually wants to play for us, Squad needs 3 midfielders and two strikers.
Agree0
Disagree0