transfer budget is low even after winning 2 champions league with Man united

[deltasfd11]

made a last save with man United and its been amazing, like out of this world.

so I won 2 champions league in 2 seasons its 2025 and won 2 Champions leagues. all good until players value dont go up and budgets dont match our sucess

after all sucess, im top2 in world right now in rankings and still, nothing changed.

at this point FM engine must be broken, really.

so, i made Man United just like real madrid and only got 50M€ budget?

so, rashford, musiala, hojlund, barella, and others are top players with 2 champions in a row and only valued at 120M€? while coman for exemple dont win anything and is worth 2x more.?

why my musiala is ballon dor and world best player and still cant value more than 120M€?

this is not a rant, but FM engine broken systems are ruining saves since beginning. it always happens. SI games should fix all this issues wich since beta has been ruining the game.

I hope fm25 fix all this crap.

i could play this save for more 10 seasons at least and become a legend but is ruined save. how is sancho only worth 30M€ and he plays regularly and decides mathces like important ones, as well as antony?

i cant play more this FM24 engine. it needs big rework.  

 i had saves with lower teams in other Fm engine saves wich would get 80M€ for an good player with good performances

why are this top players only worth peanuts?

please fix FM 25, dont release half baked crap.

i love FM but this is boring, puting effort and then saves are ruin by engines crap

[NineCloudNine]

Have you actually tried to sell them, or tried to bargain up an offer? You’d be able to sell them for far more than those listed values. And if you don’t plan to sell them, why does it matter? You also wouldn’t have to pay the stated value for players like Coman if they wanted to join, you spent time unsettling them, their contract was running down, you made offers Bayern reject etc.

BTW the title of your thread refers to a low transfer budget but your post is a rant about a different topic.

Edited June 7 by NineCloudNine

[Lord Rowell]

Your transfer budget is low because Man Utd are loaded with over £600m of short-term debt in the game.

Repayments of that debt start in season 1. If you go to your finance page, then under "debt & loans" you'll see total debt and the repayment schedule. IIRC you're paying out approx £13m per month to service the debt.

Once you get to about 2027, most of the debt is cleared and you'll start to get more financial resources. I think the final repayment for all loans is August 2029.

Edited June 7 by Lord Rowell
Added extra detail

[Kickballz]

10 hours ago, Lord Rowell said:

Your transfer budget is low because Man Utd are loaded with over £600m of short-term debt in the game.

Repayments of that debt start in season 1. If you go to your finance page, then under "debt & loans" you'll see total debt and the repayment schedule. IIRC you're paying out approx £13m per month to service the debt.

Once you get to about 2027, most of the debt is cleared and you'll start to get more financial resources. I think the final repayment for all loans is August 2029.

The trouble with that it is not how real clubs operate in real life.

This has come up quite a few times and debt repayments in real life are manageable. There is always money available for a club like Man Utd because of their huge turnover. Basically they can afford to repay the debt and still have a large transfer budget. The fact that a situation like this emerges in the game is a failure in the simulation.

[wazzaflow10]

24 minutes ago, Kickballz said:

The trouble with that it is not how real clubs operate in real life.

This has come up quite a few times and debt repayments in real life are manageable. There is always money available for a club like Man Utd because of their huge turnover. Basically they can afford to repay the debt and still have a large transfer budget. The fact that a situation like this emerges in the game is a failure in the simulation.

Real clubs operate within the PSR now so the debt adds up and if you go recklessly spending in the game it will catch up to you fairly quickly. Its not hard to do in your first few years as a big club especially if you start paying in installments and don't work on negotiating the price down.

Given there's not even a single screenshot of their spending and they've bought  at least musiala and barella in the first two seasons its entirely possible they might be running afoul of PSR if they spend more.

[Kickballz]

6 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

Real clubs operate within the PSR now so the debt adds up and if you go recklessly spending in the game it will catch up to you fairly quickly. Its not hard to do in your first few years as a big club especially if you start paying in installments and don't work on negotiating the price down.

Given there's not even a single screenshot of their spending and they've bought  at least musiala and barella in the first two seasons its entirely possible they might be running afoul of PSR if they spend more.

In the real world Man Utd operate a sustainable model. The debt repayments are dwarfed by other costs like wages. I notice you talk about what might happen theoretically, because it certainly is not going to happen in actuality. As I said, if Man Utd are failing financially in the game it is because of simulation failings.

[enigmatic]

7 hours ago, Kickballz said:

In the real world Man Utd operate a sustainable model. The debt repayments are dwarfed by other costs like wages. I notice you talk about what might happen theoretically, because it certainly is not going to happen in actuality. As I said, if Man Utd are failing financially in the game it is because of simulation failings.

They're not failing financially in the game if they've signed Musiala and Barella in the last couple of seasons, retained the likes of Sancho and Antony and still have £50m left over in transfer budget and no doubt a lot more in wage budget which could be reallocated...

Edited June 8 by enigmatic

[MichaelNevo]

9 hours ago, Kickballz said:

In the real world Man Utd operate a sustainable model. The debt repayments are dwarfed by other costs like wages. I notice you talk about what might happen theoretically, because it certainly is not going to happen in actuality. As I said, if Man Utd are failing financially in the game it is because of simulation failings.

I have to laugh at this statement... "In the real world Man Utd operate a sustainable model." It's definitely far from that reality, that's why the stadium is falling to bits literally and the reason why the Glazers needed investment, because it wasn't sustainable. Only time will tell if the investment will make a difference or not.

[santy001]

Player values only somewhat matter when you're actively trying to sell a player. If I've got plans to make use of someone in my squad and I don't intend on replacing them their value is meaningless. When you are actually considering selling a player then it matters a little but most clubs will come in at levels they determine suitable almost irrespective of the value. It's how I've managed to get £60m fees out of £10m-£14m valued players. It's how I've managed to get close to £200m fees out of £80m-£90m players. It's also how I've had to bite the bullet and sometimes go lower on value if only one club was interested and they didn't have enough money free but I wanted the player gone.

You also haven't disclosed what the budgets are, but you had enough to get Musiala. But if you've already assembled this amazing side that can win everything why do you even need the budget? I understand it's nice and there will be players who can maybe add some depth/strength to the squad still unacquired but are they actually needed?

[Marko1989]

Yeah, it makes no sense, you got Musiala and Barella in first/second season and you are complaining about the budget. Can you post a screenshot of your transfer history so we can see how much you paid for those two?

[MichaelNevo]

30 minutes ago, Marko1989 said:

Yeah, it makes no sense, you got Musiala and Barella in first/second season and you are complaining about the budget. Can you post a screenshot of your transfer history so we can see how much you paid for those two?

Most likely the deciding factor in the low budget because they already overspent previous seasons.

[Marko1989]

39 minutes ago, MichaelNevo said:

Most likely the deciding factor in the low budget because they already overspent previous seasons.

Exactly, those two together about 200M, that is why I would like to see a screenshot 

[jcafcwbb]

In my Man Utd save in the Summer transfer window I got offered £120 million for Varane and Casemiro from a Saudi which I said yes to. That let me my five players Torriera, Luis Florentino, Olmo, Neres and Marcus Leonardo to transform our side. We also got Geuhi and Zeno Debast - who is a great player who is under the radar.

We were still under financial pressure for the Summer 2025 one but I did sell Sancho and Van Bissaka for £75 million. I cannot sell Antony though even for £10 million which is miles below his market value.

I am grateful that the financial pressure is ending soon. 

[Kickballz]

On 08/06/2024 at 17:36, MichaelNevo said:

I have to laugh at this statement... "In the real world Man Utd operate a sustainable model." It's definitely far from that reality, that's why the stadium is falling to bits literally and the reason why the Glazers needed investment, because it wasn't sustainable. Only time will tell if the investment will make a difference or not.

You can laugh all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is/was sustainable. Maybe you don't understand how ownership works?

Nobody is arguing that the Glazers are parasites. You only need to look at the turnover to realise that man utd are still one of the richest clubs in the world. The fact that they could spend so much on transfer fees despite getting profits skimmed off by the Glazers is testament to this.

Also, the Glazers never 'needed' investment - they are businessmen through and through. They accepted the offer because it suited them.

[themadsheep2001]

United’s business model isnt really sustainable. Thats why its currently very much squeezed, due to several years of very heavy overspending. Much like in game, if you're sensible for couple of years you can rebuild this. And frankly it doesnt sound like the OP has struggled 

[Kickballz]

59 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

United’s business model isnt really sustainable. Thats why its currently very much squeezed, due to several years of very heavy overspending. Much like in game, if you're sensible for couple of years you can rebuild this. And frankly it doesnt sound like the OP has struggled 

What are you basing this assertion on? The turnover of Utd is one of the highest in football. The debt repayments are a fraction of the turnover. They continue to meet fair play requirements. So why is is it unsustainable?

[themadsheep2001]

16 minutes ago, Kickballz said:

What are you basing this assertion on? The turnover of Utd is one of the highest in football. The debt repayments are a fraction of the turnover. They continue to meet fair play requirements. So why is is it unsustainable?

Based on United's figures that are released quarterly. We actually failed fair play last year, and had to pay a fine. Its the very reason they will be operating with a 50m budget this window, beyond they will have to sell to buy, so they are quite keen to get high wage earners that dont have much off a future off the books (Martial, Varane gone already, Sancho and Casemiro to go shortly)  United have sailed very close to the line in recent years. Nick, who is the United researcher, knows this very well. 

[Kickballz]

7 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Based on United's figures that are released quarterly. We actually failed fair play last year, and had to pay a fine. Its the very reason they will be operating with a 50m budget this window, beyond they will have to sell to buy, so they are quite keen to get high wage earners that dont have much off a future off the books (Martial, Varane gone already, Sancho and Casemiro to go shortly)  United have sailed very close to the line in recent years. Nick, who is the United researcher, knows this very well. 

Right. So that is not a business model being unsustainable. That is about managing assets within a business model. The fact that the Glazers have pocketed millions shows that is actually a profitable and sustainable business model.

If you are talking about high expenditure being unsustainable then you would be right, but the business model itself is sustainable.

[MichaelNevo]

28 minutes ago, Kickballz said:

Right. So that is not a business model being unsustainable. That is about managing assets within a business model. The fact that the Glazers have pocketed millions shows that is actually a profitable and sustainable business model.

If you are talking about high expenditure being unsustainable then you would be right, but the business model itself is sustainable.

What the Glazers do to the club is surely part of the business model no? It's their business and part of their plan is to take from it, maybe I'm wrong but that's what I think. Also people look at high spending and just assume that means that the club has loads of money, but they forget to look at the sales as well. United did spend a lot, but if you look at the actual figures it's not as impressive a spend as you might think. People also seem to forget the huge decline in facilities because there wasn't any money for that part of the business, they were too busy paying ridiculous debts or taking money that could have been used for it.

Yes they're business men, they know what they've done has made the current and future very unstable, that's exactly why they went looking for investment and toyed with the idea of selling the club. There wouldn't have been any need for them to seek investment if it wasn't required, they would have just kept doing what they've always done.

[themadsheep2001]

The business plan in the last 4-5 years has been to spend loads of money. That business plan is unsustainable. Which is why United are changing how they target and spend both fees and wages. 

[Kickballz]

I think you are missing the point that the aim of a business in to make money for the shareholders. Man Utd have consistently done this, so as a business it is profitable. The debt repayments are also a small fraction of the turnover - therefore it is clearly sustainable as well.

Any discussion regarding the finances of selling/buying players is no different to any other premier league club. They all operate under the same regulations so it is no surprise that they have to sell as well as buy. My point is that it is not true to make out the that Man Utd are somehow worse off than other clubs. Yes, they have a high wage bill and a lot of players they have to move on. In terms of finances they are still in a relatively healthy position due to their huge turnover.

Edited June 17 by Kickballz

[MichaelNevo]

16 minutes ago, Kickballz said:

I think you are missing the point that the aim of a business in to make money for the shareholders. Man Utd have consistently done this, so as a business it is profitable. The debt repayments are also a small fraction of the turnover - therefore it is clearly sustainable as well.

Any discussion regarding the finances of selling/buying players is no different to any other premier league club. They all operate under the same regulations so it is no surprise that they have to sell as well as buy. My point is that it is not true to make out the that Man Utd are somehow worse off than other clubs. Yes, they have a high wage bill and a lot of players they have to move on. In terms of finances they are still in a relatively healthy position due to their huge turnover.

Yes the point is to make money for the shareholders, but things become unstable when you're taking money that is needed elsewhere. I take you again to my point with the facilities, if there was plenty of money as you seem to be pointing out, the facilities wouldn't be in the ruins that they are. The debt repayments are fine if they don't take money from the club and have such a bad business model when it comes to transfers.

Nobody compared them to any other club (or I definitely didn't anyway), so I'm not sure what you're point is with that. Despite their huge turnover that you keep mentioning, there isn't enough money whether you think there is or not, again I'll point towards the facilities.

If I'm wrong, then please tell me why the facilities are in their current state.

[Kickballz]

16 minutes ago, MichaelNevo said:

Yes the point is to make money for the shareholders, but things become unstable when you're taking money that is needed elsewhere. I take you again to my point with the facilities, if there was plenty of money as you seem to be pointing out, the facilities wouldn't be in the ruins that they are. The debt repayments are fine if they don't take money from the club and have such a bad business model when it comes to transfers.

Nobody compared them to any other club (or I definitely didn't anyway), so I'm not sure what you're point is with that. Despite their huge turnover that you keep mentioning, there isn't enough money whether you think there is or not, again I'll point towards the facilities.

If I'm wrong, then please tell me why the facilities are in their current state.

Well I never thought the Glazers were good owners. In fact, I think they are parasites, as I said before, so of course there was a lack of investment. But having said that, lets try to keep a sense of perspective. Facilities in ruins is slightly on the side of hyperbole.

My point is more a reaction to the threads that constantly pop up about how United are on the verge of ruin. People on this forum have been predicting for years they are doomed to financial collapse . I'm pretty sure that the accountants employed at United have a better grasp on the finances than themadsheep200 or your good self, and so my point is only to encourage people to be a bit more realistic.

[MichaelNevo]

12 hours ago, Kickballz said:

Well I never thought the Glazers were good owners. In fact, I think they are parasites, as I said before, so of course there was a lack of investment. But having said that, lets try to keep a sense of perspective. Facilities in ruins is slightly on the side of hyperbole.

My point is more a reaction to the threads that constantly pop up about how United are on the verge of ruin. People on this forum have been predicting for years they are doomed to financial collapse . I'm pretty sure that the accountants employed at United have a better grasp on the finances than themadsheep200 or your good self, and so my point is only to encourage people to be a bit more realistic.

All I was trying to say is that the business model isn't good and that's exactly why changes are happening to rectify it, it was sustainable for a while because the glazers were riding a very big success wave, but that wave has now ended because they sucked it dry. The accountants of course have a much better understanding, but I dont see any quotes from these accountants, if there is any I'd be very interested to see them. Whilst I haven't seen any, you can only use common sense to be a judge of the situation. Yes a lot of people talk nonsense because they jump on bandwagons, but I know I'm not one of those people and I doubt themadsheep200 is either.

[Kickballz]

I don't disagree so I guess we are pretty much on the same page.

I didn't actually mean to have a dig at you or madsheep. I just worded it badly. What I really meant to say is that there are people on very high wages whose full time job it is to manage the finances, and we can't know their strategy. To assume we know better would be foolish.

My apologies to your good self and themadsheep200 for my clumsy phrasing.

[MichaelNevo]

34 minutes ago, Kickballz said:

I don't disagree so I guess we are pretty much on the same page.

I didn't actually mean to have a dig at you or madsheep. I just worded it badly. What I really meant to say is that there are people on very high wages whose full time job it is to manage the finances, and we can't know their strategy. To assume we know better would be foolish.

My apologies to your good self and themadsheep200 for my clumsy phrasing.

It's all good, there's so much speculation out there that you find yourself having to read between the lines to come to some sort of conclusion. I'm very interested to see what happens over the next few years.