Transfer Rumour Jesse Lingard

Status
Not open for further replies.
FINA gonna be all over us for this. I jest.
I wonder if the idea is to do things on the cheap for the time being to get the side into the new stadium and then wax the dough and get a couple of high profile superstars in to help pack the place. Elevate profile, flog the corporate and naming, max out sales, flog more beer and hotdogs. I wonder if the USM door is closed long term or if the Russian attitude changes eventually and its back to business as usual. Funny correlation between principals and making a few quid, specific to the pressure being "off".

Think they are the questions facing the club mate, the biggest concern is for all we loose, Moshiri has to write a cheuqe. We are dependent on him financially, its worrying to me that he seems to be looking for an out now, because if he leaves he leaves us in poor shape and lookng for someone else to write off big losses who may not be so willing to.

I think the club once we move has to sweat the stadium hard - unfortunately i think that will mean rising costs for fans.
 
Its a good post mate, wages and amortisation are huge factors in terms of our losses and limits, so its no surprise the club is purposefully looking at deals to rrduce those costs, we saw it last season with Townsend, Demari, Begovic and this season with Tarowoski, maybe Lingard and Eriksen it seems purposeful to keep costs down.

These are our figures in terms of what we make based VS wages and amortisation

2016:

Turnover: 121.5 mill / Wages & Amortisation £106.3 mill = % of Turnvoer 87.5%

2017:

Turnover 171.3 / Wages & Amortisation £141.9 mill = % of Turnvoer 82.5 %

2018:

Turnover: 189.2 mill / Wages & Amortisation £212.4 mill = % of Turnvoer 112.3%

2019:

Turnover: 185.7 mill / Wages & Amortisation £255.1 mill = % of Turnvoer =135%

2020:

Turnover: 185.9 mill / Wages & Amortisation £264 mill = % of Turnvoer 142%

2021:

Turnover: 193.1 mill / Wages & Amortisation £263.8 mill = % of Turnvoer 136%

So amortisation is a huge facotor for us in terms of costs particularly in regulation, so targeting free transfers like Lingard is likely a necessity given our high amortisation costs.

If we take two deals say Mina and Bernard - before leaving Bernard was our highest earners before leaving yet in comparison cost significantly less per year because he was a on a free:

Mina:

Annual wages: £6.2 mill

Amortisation: £5.7 mill

Annual Cost: £11.9 mill



Bernard

Annual wage: £6.24 mill

Amortisation 0

Annual cost: £6.24 mill


So essentially targeting lass like Lingard, Tarowski, and Eriksen on frees saves us about 50% on costs is likley a necessity to save on our costs which have to come down, because our costs are undermining the club holistically now at this point year after year.

If the Tarowski's or Lingards of this world help us limp along to BMD then so be it, im not really expecting to see much development until then, i think we may need to have a couple of 15 -10th (if we can) place seasons just to sort the club and its costs out if im being honest. We really cant afford not to be in for lads like Lingard all weighed in my opinion. We need to utilise the loan market to and well mate.
No idea how you've worked out the amortisation numbers and im not sure I 100% understand it still but I like it, helps make our situation clearer.

If I have this right, the 2021 year finished at midnight on 30th June which is why we were keen to sell Rich in time? If so, based on your figures above, we were due to make a loss of around £70m, but presumably from the £50m (ignoring add ons) we wouldve posted a loss last year of only £20m, which looks far better. Am I on the right track?

Based on that, with the wages we’re due to save due to Delph, Gylfi, Van Der Beek etc, what are our figures looking like for this upcoming year?
 
Think they are the questions facing the club mate, the biggest concern is for all we loose, Moshiri has to write a cheuqe. We are dependent on him financially, its worrying to me that he seems to be looking for an out now, because if he leaves he leaves us in poor shape and lookng for someone else to write off big losses who may not be so willing to.

I think the club once we move has to sweat the stadium hard - unfortunately i think that will mean rising costs for fans.
Naming and the prawn sandwich brigade, for sheer goodwill the standard ticket price wont creep up, they want fans used to going so theyve something to miss after a couple of seasons when prices will rise. How itll fit into "twenty's plenty" I dont know.

It is odd how we find ourselves penniless, relegation threatened, hamstrung by previous purchases, and scared of the coming season, its like the days following Walter Smith (RIP Walt) leaving. We've managed to sleepwalk backwards 20 years.
 
Its why when lads like Coleman and Davies get a battering on here i say they are gold dust - from a cost point of view they are absolute gold dust to us as they dont hold ammortisation costs, while fulfilling a role in the squad. If we can academy lads playing and are good weve hit the jackpot.

And its probably why, at say 20k pw, covering 3 positions, Kenny was offered an extension.
 
Imagine front four of lingard Dennis Dele rondon.

Just bloody imagine that. ZERO pressing. Contributes nothing without the ball. Half the team just strolling on the pitch, midfield wont be able to cope and every time the opponent had the ball, it ends up in our penalty box with ease.

Is that how we want to play?
 

Imagine front four of lingard Dennis Dele rondon.

Just bloody imagine that. ZERO pressing. Contributes nothing without the ball. Half the team just strolling on the pitch, midfield wont be able to cope and every time the opponent had the ball, it ends up in our penalty box with ease.

Is that how we want to play?
Like asking if you want to get wet when stood in a typhoon.
 
No idea how you've worked out the amortisation numbers and im not sure I 100% understand it still but I like it, helps make our situation clearer.

If I have this right, the 2021 year finished at midnight on 30th June which is why we were keen to sell Rich in time? If so, based on your figures above, we were due to make a loss of around £70m, but presumably from the £50m (ignoring add ons) we wouldve posted a loss last year of only £20m, which looks far better. Am I on the right track?

Based on that, with the wages we’re due to save due to Delph, Gylfi, Van Der Beek etc, what are our figures looking like for this upcoming year?

So there is a lot we dont know as we only have published accounts up to end of June 2021. So for 21/22 we are projecting and so we are into the realms of trying to work it out, until 21/22 is published in Dec/ Jan.

This is my take so its likely, our turnover drops from £193 million to about £175 -£180, a couple of reasons for this the USM sponsorship was worth £20 mill a season to us and thats gone, while we will receive less money in prize money from the PL for finishing just above the relegation zone, compared to Carlos last year. So our income is down. We will have some exceptional costs that will bite like sacking Benitez as well. In the summer of 21 we saved about 30 mill in costs, another 10 mill in Jan less, whatever we took on in new signings and costs last summer - Demari, Townsend etc and Jan Myko, Dele, Patterson etc. I think we shaved about 30 mill of our costs - so i think our wages and amoritastion in next accounts will be £230 mill odd. So essentially we make about £180 mill and spend, £230 mill so we have a short fall of 50 mill, some other factors will come into that net transfer profit 7.5 mill fee on Jamo, we may have made a net profit on Digne with Myko etc. But n and around we will make a loss of 50- 70 mill. We sold Richarlison just before July 1st for 50 mill upfront rising to £60 mill, so we are probably within just about small profit or a small loss over all, essentially Richarislons fee goes into managing costs though and isnt a war chest. That will help hugely with our regulation position in the next couple of years.

So heading into 2022-2023, because we took such a hair cut, we have a bit of scope, 10-20 million in costs to take on which might mean we will butyytwo players depending on the finances, others will be Lingard, Tarowoski signings or loans. So we might see 4-5 players but two could be Lingards and Tarowskis, a loan and couple of signings - if the deals are right, we are tight and have limits.

From July 1st we have saved another £42 million in wages and amortisation, so next year our wages and amortisation drops to a more manageable £190 mill per year, before we take anything on this summer.

Thats my projection and its loose, as nothing is published im just working it out and projecting from other figures in the public domain. There may be some bits not known like, Covid losses or rumors of Gylfis costs being given an amnesty by the PL because of his situation for Regulation - so if thats true we may have abit more scope over the budget of 10-20 mill i think we have for new players. When i say budget i dont mean transfer fees - im talking costs for example - Mina costs us 11 mill a year, Richarilson 14 mill (used to anyway), i think we can take on 10-20 mill in costs.

That just my take anyway.
 
Last edited:
So there is a lot we dont know as we only have published accounts up to end of June 2021. So for 21/22 we are projecting and so we are into the realms of trying to work it out, until 21/22 is published in Dec/ Jan.

This is my take so its likely, our turnover drops from £193 million to about £175 -£180, a couple of reasons for this the USM sponsorship was worth £20 mill a season to us and thats gone, while we will receive less money in prize money from the PL for finishing just above the relegation zone, compared to Carlos last year. So our income is down. We will have some exceptional costs that will bite like sacking Benitez as well. In the summer of 21 we saved about 30 mill in costs, another 10 mill in Jan less, whatever we took on in new signings and costs last summer - Demari, Townsend etc and Jan Myko, Dele, Patterson etc. I think we shaved about 30 mill of our costs - so i think our wages and amoritastion in next accounts will be £230 mill odd. So essentially we make about £180 mill and spend, £230 mill so we have a short fall of 50 mill, some other factors will come into that net transfer profit 7.5 mill fee on Jamo, we may have made a net profit on Digne with Myko etc. But n and around we will make a loss of 50- 70 mill. We sold Richarlison just before July 1st for 50 mill upfront rising to £60 mill, so we are probably within just about small profit or a small loss over all, essentially Richarislons fee goes into managing costs though and isnt a war chest. That will help hugely with our regulation position in the next couple of years.

So heading into 2022-2023, because we took such a hair cut, we have a bit of scope, 10-20 million in costs to take on which might mean we will butyytwo players depending on the finances, others will be Lingard, Tarowoski signings or loans. So we might see 4-5 players but two could be Lingards and Tarowskis, a loan and couple of signings - if the deals are right, we are tight and have limits.

From July 1st we have saved another £42 million in wages and amortisation, so next year our wages and amortisation drops to a more manageable £190 mill per year, before we take anything on this summer.

Thats my projection and its loose, as nothing is published im just working it out and projecting from other figures in the public domain. There may be some bits not known like, Covid losses or rumors of Gylfis costs being given an amnesty by the PL because of his situation for Regulation - so if thats true we may have abit more scope over the budget of 10-20 mill i think we have for new players. When i say budget i dont mean transfer fees - im talking costs for example - Mina costs us 11 mill a year, Richarilson 14 mill (used to anyway), i think we can take on 10-20 mill in costs.

That just my take anyway.
Appreciate the effort you’ve put in to work this out.

Sounds like we’re still in a sticky situation and cant afford to spend but we’ve finally righted the ship in regards to not making a massive loss every year. That must be a big help FFP wise. If we manage it again this year we’ll surely be able to spend fairly big the following year.

Makes moving the likes of Allan, Gomes and Mina on even more pertinent given the wages they’re on vs the impact they actually have overall, and I love Mina.

Focusing on frees makes sense, but Lingard definitely isn’t one that id be going for given the wages he’d ask for.
 
He's exactly the kind of mistake we've made for years
Yup.

Too close to 30 to have another big move in his career, + high wages.

Financially we'd be far more sensible to bring in someone between maybe 20 and 24 years old, for around £20m and on around 50k per week, than we would to pay Lingard £100k per week on a "free".

Why?

Simple. If a young player on reasonable wages doesn't shine, you can sell him on and recoup a transfer fee (or even repeatedly loan him out and make a small profit, eg Moise Kean). If an older player on big wages underperforms, you're stuck with him until his contract expires (Bolasie, Delph, Tosun and so on).

Obviously if the older player performs at a level that justifies his wage then brilliant. But this is Jesse Lingard: his body of work over a decade says he will suck. The lack of any interest in him after his "successful" loan at West Ham says that no other club thinks he's worth his CURRENT wage, let alone any increased sum he will want.

He'll ask £100k per week. That's over £5 million per year, none of which can be recovered in any way.

Spread a £20m purchase of a 22 yr old from the championship over 5 years, that's £4m per year for the purpose of sustainability/ P&L rules - all of which can be recovered on sale (as we have just done with Richarlison). Give the player £50k per week, a little under £3m per year.

Lingard is an absolute solid gold, weapons-grade 1000% picture-perfect textbook example of the exact type of transfer we should avoid like the plague.

If we want to look to West Ham for an example of how to do business, Jared Bowen is the model to mimic.
 

Appreciate the effort you’ve put in to work this out.

Sounds like we’re still in a sticky situation and cant afford to spend but we’ve finally righted the ship in regards to not making a massive loss every year. That must be a big help FFP wise. If we manage it again this year we’ll surely be able to spend fairly big the following year.

Makes moving the likes of Allan, Gomes and Mina on even more pertinent given the wages they’re on vs the impact they actually have overall, and I love Mina.

Focusing on frees makes sense, but Lingard definitely isn’t one that id be going for given the wages he’d ask for.

We've a bit more to but before we look at what we've taken on we've cut 82 mill in costs since my last figure above, June 21 i.e. when Jamo and Bernard were still here, we've taken a bit on of course so its not net. We are getting there, but we needed to, if we sold Gomes and Mina, say tahts another £22 million in costs saved - before any transfer fee, if we sold them for a million each for example wed make 24 million - mad isnt it.

When we get to the position of breaking even or lower, we can begin to look at taking on the position of spending £35 million in costs a season (if Moshiri wants to continue bank rolling). and any profits we make.

Thing with Lingard is hes probably cheaper overall on £150k a week over all then buying say KLP for 20 mill,in terms of costs - but then KLP is probably a better investment as he has resale value - so there is that. In all likely hood probably both make sense.
 
Reckon he wanted the West Ham move, big city living, Manutd stopped him so he dug his heels in and player powered it instead. Bad behaviours all round.
Can't see Moyes losing both Tarkowski and Lingard to us. Bit more tenacious when it comes to getting his quarry.
 
Yup.

Too close to 30 to have another big move in his career, + high wages.

Financially we'd be far more sensible to bring in someone between maybe 20 and 24 years old, for around £20m and on around 50k per week, than we would to pay Lingard £100k per week on a "free".

Why?

Simple. If a young player on reasonable wages doesn't shine, you can sell him on and recoup a transfer fee (or even repeatedly loan him out and make a small profit, eg Moise Kean). If an older player on big wages underperforms, you're stuck with him until his contract expires (Bolasie, Delph, Tosun and so on).

Obviously if the older player performs at a level that justifies his wage then brilliant. But this is Jesse Lingard: his body of work over a decade says he will suck. The lack of any interest in him after his "successful" loan at West Ham says that no other club thinks he's worth his CURRENT wage, let alone any increased sum he will want.

He'll ask £100k per week. That's over £5 million per year, none of which can be recovered in any way.

Spread a £20m purchase of a 22 yr old from the championship over 5 years, that's £4m per year for the purpose of sustainability/ P&L rules - all of which can be recovered on sale (as we have just done with Richarlison). Give the player £50k per week, a little under £3m per year.

Lingard is an absolute solid gold, weapons-grade 1000% picture-perfect textbook example of the exact type of transfer we should avoid like the plague.

If we want to look to West Ham for an example of how to do business, Jared Bowen is the model to mimic.
The fact Bowen was one of the stand out attackers in the Championship and we appeared not to notice him tells us everything about our scouting.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top