[Football] Man Utd: negative spend of 1bn euros in last 10 years

[One Love]

They've spent all of the last 10 years staying in the Premier League for 292M whilst we've only been five for 248M.

 

[El Presidente]

£13m revenue from Ronaldo shirts. Add increased club sponsorship and a 2.5% increase in Man Utd social media base.
[MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION] may correct me.

It's a bit of a myth IMO. There will have been a bump in sales but it will mainly be fewer buying (say) Rashford/Greenwood/Fernandes and more with Ronaldo on the back.

Also United are only on a 7% commission from adidas.

There is certainly an increase in merch revenue, but to put it all down to the man who paid a woman $300,000 after having sexual intercourse with her is a bit of a leap of faith, as in 2020 merchandise sales were hit by matches taking place behind closed doors.

 

[raymondo]

or you can find it for yourself here:

https://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2021/wp367/en/

England win again

 

[knocky1]

It's a bit of a myth IMO. There will have been a bump in sales but it will mainly be fewer buying (say) Rashford/Greenwood/Fernandes and more with Ronaldo on the back.

Also United are only on a 7% commission from adidas.

There is certainly an increase in merch revenue, but to put it all down to the man who paid a woman $300,000 after having sexual intercourse with her is a bit of a leap of faith, as in 2020 merchandise sales were hit by matches taking place behind closed doors.

View attachment 144877

OK I'll take that on board. Still think certain players social media followers are worth millions to clubs.

Talking of inappropriate sex, the granny sex worker shagger got a good shirt deal for Derby. 32 Red giving Derby a massively bumped up new sponsorship deal in 2019. Much to the chagrin of their Championship and Court rivals Middlesborough, who have the same sponsors. The FA turned a blind eye to the blatant betting advertising from theshirt number.

 

[nwgull]

They've spent all of the last 10 years staying in the Premier League for 292M whilst we've only been five for 248M.

Not really a like-for-like comparison as a fair chunk of our 248M has been spent on future years. This season alone we've spent about 27-28m on players that have gone straight out on loan for development. Palace's money has been so well spent that they're still relying on other teams' loans in their best 11.

 

[Weststander]

Good explanation here

https://www.danielgeey.com/post/the-shirt-sales-myth/

Thank you, a clear explanation dispelling the myth.

 

[Baldseagull]

They've spent all of the last 10 years staying in the Premier League for 292M whilst we've only been five for 248M.

And £70M of that was last season alone, when half the squad left on free transfers or were just released.
This is just net transfer spend though, Palace have spent considerably more than us on player salaries, and a lot of those departures for them this season were good earners, so they have got their wage bill down. Last season they were spending about £40M more than us on players wages, but I think they have cut that back considerably with the change of personnel, still have 2 players in Benteke and Zaha that they give £130K a week each to though.

The first few years in the Prem are going to be quite high in net spend as your squad transitions, but when Palace went up, transfer fees were much lower than they are now. And we are at the point now where we might have net positive transfer windows, or at least ones where we are not tens of millions apart between ins and outs. Recruitment is also calmer now, we have time to buy and develop a young player, the pressure to find an oven ready player is less as the squad is generally at a high level and the academy players are knocking on the door of the first team more and more. Less likely to make poor buys like Locadia.

 

[Stat Brother]

Seemingly abillion Euros just doesn't go as far as it used it.

 

[portslade seagull]

Think they need to spend another billion