Cash really an issue or a tactic?

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)

so why aint you got the deal done like you have with Cunha

----------------------------------------------------------------------

All of us are engaged in conjecture here, but to me the likeliest reason is that United are trying to impose much more rigorous discipline on their spending. I've seen quite a lot of serious people based in football data arguing that while Mbeumo is a really good player who would make United better, Brentford's reported asking price was a bad deal in terms of the value he represents, given age, underlying performance levels, etc. Clearly, United's front office have concluded he's worth pursuing, but it may well be that there's a gap between their maximum valuation and what Brentford are currently holding out for.

Brentford do have leverage here, in terms of United's need to improve their squad. But they don't have all the leverage. If there isn't another serious buyer (other teams with the means to make this deal either well stocked in that position or signing alternatives, as Spurs just did, while the player made his preference for United clear) at some point Brentford may face the possibility of Mbeumo entering next summer as a 28 year-old with only one year left on his contract. United obviously want him, but they do have other options. We could pivot to a cheaper, high potential development player from outside the PL, or rely more on Amad as the right sided 10, leaving more cash to invest in other positions. Both sides could have good reasons to try brinkmanship rather than folding. United, as well as Brentford, could walk away.

I may be wrong. But I don't see any factual basis to suggest lack of access to cash as a credible reason United aren't closing the deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh indeed, we're all guessing a bit.

But where Cunha is older and where his output has been less over the last 2 seasons than MBuemo, it seems strange that Utd would be doing the deals differently. MBuemo by almost every metirc is worth more than Cunha.

We dont know what Brentford are asking but £55m + £10m isnt doing it so i would suggest they want more up front, less in add-ons and the reason for Utd to resist that is probably only availability of cash.

By comparison, Spurs had a £50m + £10m deal for Kudus rejected and just agreed a £55m deal, no add-ons. It shows the value of the headline sum vs add-ons

I have no doubt Utd are being more realistic in their transfer dealings, but they have set their own benchmark with Cunha in terms of fee and deal structure, so it doesnt really stack up to think that Utd are just all about the haggle. MBuemo is worth at least what you paid for Cunha and if they want to spread the payment more with add-ons etc then the overall deal has to be worth more to reflect this .

"MBuemo (sic) is worth at least what you paid for Cunha"

That's a completely subjective statement.

Indeed subjective , but informed by the usual factors that contribute to a players value - age, goals scored, assists, injury record, attitude/character.

Head to head, Mbuemo tops most of these

I am willing to put my neck on the block and predict that if Utd get a deal done for Mbuemo then it will be for lesser add-ons (if any) and a deal thats worth at least what you paid for Cunha. £60+5m or a straight £62.5m to match

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 12 minutes ago
Indeed subjective , but informed by the usual factors that contribute to a players value - age, goals scored, assists, injury record, attitude/character.

Head to head, Mbuemo tops most of these
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mbeumo is 72 days younger than Cunha. Feels like a stretch counting age as a category in which he's a more valuable prospect. Especially since Mbeumo has more miles on the clock (has played ~75 more matches due to getting more minutes earlier in his career).

Judging by goals and assists is ridiculously reductive. Clubs making multimillion pound deals will be looking at underlying stats and understanding them in context, conscious of 'statistical noise' (such as the fact that both Mbeumo and Cunha massively overperformed their xG last season, which is unlikely to happen again), etc. On a more basic level, they would have noted that the two players scored the same number of non-penalty goals last season. Moreover, players are bought as components in a tactical system, and the two 10s are going to succeed or fail not based only on how many Gs and As they record, but how they contribute to the whole game model function. I'd suggest that Cunha's superior ball carrying ability is one of the reasons United leapt on that deal. I hope you aren't offended if I suggest you haven't engaged in assessing the respective value of the two players *to United* at this kind of granular level.

Injury records - over his career Cunha has had more time off with injury, but no recurring issues that should look like a red flag based on the information you and I can access. Since Cunha has been playing in the PL, he has had one injury which resulted in missing 7 games (49 days). During the same period Mbeumo has had one injury that saw him miss 19 matches (97 days).

Attitude/character: Cunha had a couple of moments of red mist at Wolves. Generally everyone speaks glowingly about his character.

One thing you didn't mention is contract situation. Cunha renewed his in January, but with a release clause included. Mbeumo has a year left, which the club can extend to two. So it's clear that if Brentford don't sell this summer, they won't be able to ask for anywhere near as much in 2026.

I don't think you've made a case for Mbeumo being more valuable than Cunha. So I still don't see any basis to argue that failure to close the deal is about United's lack of funds, rather than United's valuation of the player.

“Moreover, players are bought as components in a tactical system”

And as components in a squad which is shaped dynamically and with a limited budget.

If we hadn’t already signed Cunha, for example, an holistic analysis might see Mbeumo as potentially more valuable to United.

Although they don’t play in exactly the same position, we’ve already strengthened the attack, and our attacking options in terms of the various configurations of players, by bringing Cunha in.

That doesn’t make any difference to *how good* Mbeumo is, or how effective he might be individually to United. But our *need* for Mbeumo is materially reduced as a result of the signing of Cunha, which should be reflected in United’s valuation of the player to the club at this particular juncture and how much they’d be willing to pay.

There are myriad factors at play (several more of which you’ve mentioned, RR, including the system-fit of the players, which I think, and hope, is key to what we’re doing).

Rosso

Either of us could be right or wrong, we just don't know.

You cannot prove this is a pure valuation stand-off any more than I can prove Utd wont go any higher because cash is more limited and they have other deals to do.

I suspect if Utd were in a much stronger financial position this deal would have been done and if it went through at £60-65m no one would be scoffing at the amount paid, just like they aint for Cunha.

While i get data is relevant to how clubs target and value players, that isnt really a concern of the seller. Nor is the finer data details the key driver of value. Other factors come into play in terms of whether a deal gets over the line or not

The selling clubs valuation is just as valid, even if it is informed by other factors.

They say a good negotiation is one where both sides walk away happy, and anyone doing deals will realise that just because a data driven assessment says something is worth a certain amount, at the end of the day there is going to be a haggle.

An unwillingness to do so, when it perhaps seems that we are still operating in a reasonable valuation range, to me points to an unwillingness to pay more or structure the deal differently based on financial circumstances, than just the pure principle of United sticking to their valuation of the player.

This has dragged on now. Spurs & Kudus had a bid of £50m+10 at the weekend and 5 days later its a done deal at £55m. Un-Spurs like but we have used a strong financial position wrap up a deal quickly, which itself is of value, getting a player in pre-season, pre-tour etc

I do see Sir Jim and Levy as 2 peas in a pod.

I have always wondered whether it crosses Levy's mind that if you do a deal in August and not 6 weeks earlier, you save 6 weeks wages, potentially £1m plus I bet Sir Jim sees it that way too.

Devonshire: I'm speculating, as I acknowledged. On the other hand, your opening assertion that United lack the cash to pay for Mbeumo can be refuted factually. That's not to say our financial situation is irrelevant. We ideally want to do a lot of recruitment, and the money available this summer / salary commitments we can make obviously constrains our ability to address all of those needs collectively. You'll probably agree with this, but it's different from what you were saying at the outset of the discussion.

The other thing that's obviously relevant here is that Ratcliffe has over and over reinforced the fact that overpaying for players who didn't deliver value is precisely what got us into the current predicament. It's pretty clearly one of the golden rules of the new regime that they can't keep doing that.

I said "Utd seem to be struggling to finance a £62m deal"

That is not an assertion. That's the impression i have, and i have also acknowledged speculation on my part. It hasn't been factually refuted at all, but neither is it proven.

Perhaps what is not clear, but may be can be derived from my comments overall, is that I am not saying that United have no money, they probably could do this deal easily, but at the cost of an ability to do other deals.

That is in stark contrast to the past. Even last season some very chunky fees paid for Yorro, DeLigt, Urgate etc (+£200m spent)

What is also very different from the past is United cash position. Their accounts show from £225m (2019) to about £55m (2024).

It has also been widely reported by plenty a football finance "expert" that United ability to spend will be more limited and ignoring the specifics of this deal, this is inevitably true given cash position and further to one of your poorest seasons in recent history.

So i am not just having a dig at United with an uniformed view.

I also view this from the perspective of how the negotiation is playing out (something that I have great experience in myself, not football transfers, obvs! )

I think when you talk about "avoiding over paying" its more a case of paying £70m for a unproven 19 yo striker, 85m for a Dutch league winger, 70m for a 30 yo DM. Thats what's hurt United. Massive deals on high risk transfers. I dont see Mbuemo as high risk, even if you had to pay a bit more that you desire.

If United are baulking at maybe £5m more up front to get a deal done, that seems less about refusing to over pay and more about managing limited resources.

As said, this is my opinion, its not just plucked out of thin air, it is informed by various observations.

But equally, I could well imagine Sir Jim really digging his heels in and playing tough negotiator (i know he aint the one doing it, but he sets the tone). Spurs have suffered over the years at the hands of Levy who takes similarly immovable positions on deals and tries to negotiate them to death , when actually it can prove a false economy over time if you take the cheaper option or miss out on deals.

Time will tell as this deal and the window plays out and i suspet you'll get your man in the end but other transfer may depend a bit more on getting some of those big flops off your books, to ease your financial position.