Manchester United’s transfer window might have got off to a good start, but it’s because Ineos have continued the Glazer strategy, which they would ideally want to scrap after a £309m reveal.
Matheus Cunha has arrived for his release clause, which Ineos insisted on paying over five years before accepting Wolves’ demand.
Bryan Mbeumo should be next, and that’s where the window would have to come to a standstill because United’s financial situation is precarious.
That has deteriorated so much due to the Glazers’ strategy of kicking the can down the road in terms of paying for transfers, which Ineos should ideally stop, but they are locked in that cycle right now, as per GRV Media’s Head of Football Finance and Governance Content, Adam Williams.
Rasmus Hojlund celebrating Man Utd goal with Antony
Photo by Marc Atkins/Getty Images
Man Utd’s £309m reveal could prompt transfer strategy change
The leveraged buyout by the Glazers, which saddled the club with debt, is no secret, but what they’ve done afterwards is arguably as egregious.
The errors under them are now coming home to roost, and Ineos are on the hook for it.
It was recently revealed that United owe £309 million in transfer instalments, out of which £175.5 million is due by March 2026.
This Glazer strategy of regularly back-loading the payments for a player instead of mixing it up has put the club into a financial hole.
More United News
Adam Williams says that Sir Jim Ratcliffe and Ineos are likely to stay locked into this strategy of funding transfers via instalments more out of necessity than anything else, unless United’s revenue projection improves and they can afford to front-load the payments.
He said: “United’s transfer debt is the second-highest in the Premier League behind Chelsea. In principle, paying in instalments is a perfectly justifiable way to structure fees associated with new signings. However, the problem that Man United have is that they need to have access to liquid cash to keep up with repayments.
“As the excellent Chris Weatherspoon rightly points out [for The Athletic], they have further room in their revolving credit facility. However, that comes with further interest charges, which they will have to cover.
“Given that interest is already a significant drain on cash, player sales are going to be needed irrespective of their PSR position.
“Whether Ratcliffe and Ineos choose to go down the route of front-loading deals so that they pay a greater chunk of a new signing’s fee up front will depend on the revenues and corresponding budgets that they are forecasting for the next few seasons.
“Given that they are at a low ebb in terms of their cash flow, my prediction is that they’ll continue to increase their transfer debt.”
Player sales at Man Utd are a necessity, but so is sporting success
As Williams states, United’s transfer debt might be an inheritance of the Glazers, but Ineos are stuck following the same path for the foreseeable future because there’s literally no other way.
Players’ sales to make up some of the debt is the way to go because the return on investment on that debt is not very good, considering it’s likely to be for players like Jadon Sancho, Casemiro, Antony, and Rasmus Hojlund, to name a few.
However, just player sales won’t cut it, since United are selling many of these players when their value is at its lowest.
What they need is to enter a virtuous cycle of sporting success, where prize money from competitions increases sponsorship income and vice versa.
Till then, the prospect of scrapping the Glazers’ transfer strategy will remain a pipe dream and that £309m hole could still get bigger.
Would Ineos want to do things differently from the Glazers? Certainly, considering United’s transfer debt. Can they afford to do so? Certainly not, because the Glazers have left the club in too deep.
The only relief will be through player sales backed by sporting success. Paying by instalments is fine, having those instalments financially cripple the club is not.