No sooner had the dust settled on a positive pre-season runout in Trondheim than further transfer speculation consumed Friday’s social media scenery.
This time around, additional reports about the prospects of Aurelien Tchouameni joining Manchester United again took centre stage, in what has become a tiresome summer talking point.
There are few Reds, if any, who would object to the Frenchman bolstering Michael Carrick’s squad, particularly if Rodri were to take his place in Madrid.
But the mere suggestion of interest, or a lack of it, inevitably leads to hours of monotonous back and forth, like an old man sitting in a rocking chair with expectations of travel.
All the while, the small matter of two decades of Glazer-infused financial mismanagement is being fought behind the scenes.
Don’t get me wrong, I acknowledge a desire to get caught up in acquiring some of the most renowned names in the game, and I share this, trust me.
As previously documented, I have been told that while those on the ground would be surprised by Tchouameni’s departure, Real Madrid would come to the table if they received a significant offer.
Nonetheless, United have set noteworthy internal financial parameters, as highlighted by Ineos’ wave of mass redundancies, and the sporting department appears committed to adhering to them.
Although that will be paired with calls about a lack of ambition, while Arsenal explore a move to sign Vinicius Junior, too many variables are being ignored.
For starters, that is an Arsenal side entering its seventh season under Mikel Arteta, fresh off a Premier League-winning campaign after a third consecutive Champions League appearance.
Say what you will about a turgid style of play and the manner in which his team earned a European final appearance, but they haven’t been run into the ground by those sitting in distant ivory towers.
Although United enjoyed an increase in revenue alongside a welcome boost in television rights and matchday income stabilisation through inflated ticket prices, the debt remains.
Admittedly, overdraft facilities have been bolstered and can be used alongside player sales and outgoing salaries in acquiring talent. Still, far too many prioritise transfer fees in these discussions.
Before continuing, you must note that despite sensationalist claims because of Champions League qualification, United’s ‘war chest’ is finite.
A return to elite continental competition is superb and financially beneficial, but it hasn’t created unlimited spending power. There is more flexibility than last year, but that does not negate attempts at a disciplined framework.
Remember, this is a side that has just completed a campaign without any European participation or the rewards associated with it.
Any considerations of a deal for Tchouameni – or even Vinicius – for the basis of this article must include salary as the biggest long-term factor.
A transfer fee of £80 million with a five-year deal can be amortised into five annual payments of £16m. That alone is well within the constraints for this United setup.
But let’s say that player pockets a base salary of £230k pw, without factoring in bonuses. Annual payments rise by £12m to £28m, and a five-year deal becomes a £140m commitment.
Whereas Vinicius, currently earning €480k pw or in the region of £410k pw, would command £106m over five years, amortised at approximately £21.5m per season. That’s without mentioning his transfer fee.
Is it possible that Ineos would consider altering its financial framework to land a ‘marquee signing’, while disregarding the ramifications this could potentially have on the dressing room? Sure.
But when you take a step back and analyse recruitment during this group’s tenure, it’s difficult to imagine a world in which they would.
The arrivals of Andrey Santos and Youri Tielemans paint a picture of a department with a clear idea in mind. Furthermore, while midfield has certainly been the priority, there are additional positions of interest.
Crucially, United do not want to replicate the failings of previous regimes by targeting signings for commercial gain. As is common knowledge, they want players who want to play for the football club.
It’s also worth noting the Marcus Rashford variable and how his presence in Manchester, along with his £325k pw salary, has presented a dilemma Ineos did not want.
With two years remaining on his contract, and a lack of the £26m that Barcelona were expected to pay, that’s a £60m deficit over two years that could have contributed towards the likes of Tchouameni.
Additionally, per third-quarter figures, the club has £405.75m in outstanding transfer fees, of which £171.14m is due after more than one year.
When all is said and done, every United supporter will hope that a deal for the Frenchman can be completed without wreaking havoc on the existing structure. That is to be expected.
Regardless, I urge you to consider the very real financial perspective at play before jumping towards the usual social exhibitionists who pray for your attention.
Let us know your thoughts in the comments or across our social channels.
Recent Posts
- The forgotten slow start to a glorious Manchester United campaign
- Manchester United officials retain confidence in Project 150 strategy
- Manchester United Supporters’ Club retain desire for change of ownership
