Ah ok gotcha - that's why their quote value is so low though, I guess. Rashford at £40m is bloody cheap for example given his age and how much exposure he'll bring to a club (just think of how suddenly Villa were everywhere once he went there on loan). The gamble is we hope they want to leave and will take a pay cut.
How bad is it, really? (Financial thread)
- Thread starter Nogho
- Start date
i guess it actually suits INEOS in their dealings that journos are spreading the 'Utd are skint' line and they are probably even leaking details to feed this illusion.
It is funny though to see comments from the oppo fans that Utd are not just disappearing as they thought.
I just seen this interesting article in the DM on PSR and a so called 'league table'. Its seems good reading for Utd and the comments are worth a look, Scousers and Newcastle fans are losing it at this news 
.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-14784075/Premier-League-PSR-rule-breaks.html
.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-14784075/Premier-League-PSR-rule-breaks.html
So other than spending 100m and adding 35m to the annual wage bill on two players we shouldn't have signed, it was a good window? No, I'll let it go, you've explained what you mean. I for one was never happy about the CR signing though, and I wasn't the only one.
I honestly think it's too much. He's a player of high risk on high wages.
Hindsight is arguably the only way you should be judging transfer windows.
His entire account is living off him constantly saying how bad our finances are every year.
Thats pretty impressive set of results to be fair. 670m revenue forecasted without CL football. Would be close to 800m with CL.
EBITDA of 190m. Thats healthy. Interest would eat at it and probably reduce it to 150m. But still pretty good. With CL it would be 250m after paying interest.
Its not a popular opinion, but I think INEOS will clear up the mess and get the club back on a strong footing to enable us to buy some top players.
EBITDA of 190m. Thats healthy. Interest would eat at it and probably reduce it to 150m. But still pretty good. With CL it would be 250m after paying interest.
Its not a popular opinion, but I think INEOS will clear up the mess and get the club back on a strong footing to enable us to buy some top players.
Did it not used to be called the Swedish Ramble?
That’s the original one which actually provides insight on different clubs.
This one is a copycat that just moan about everything without adding anything of value.
Stock up about 13% right now. Not sure where the release surprised the market on the positive side
Yeah just looking at these numbers and the amount of change they brought about the club in such a short period of time is quite impressive. There's no ambiguity or grey area here - the numbers are really really solid. The big considerations for the future are:
- Wages will increase with CL too. Say 25%.
- Wage / fee discipline on transfers (Cunha, Mbeumo, Gyokeres)
- The new stadium and how much impact that'll have on the finances.
Yeah, it turns out I've been mixing up the Swedish rumble with the Swiss ramble.
Yeah because what do you expect them to say? "Hey cash is flowing freely here and we're looking to throw gobs of money at a few players".
Whenever folks take anything from a press conference or media interview all I can do is shake my head. There's not a single word uttered in most of those that should be taken at face value.
The old maxim "watch what they do, not what they say" couldn't be more true here. Take a look at the Statement of Cash Flows in our 20-F; it's right there in the text that we've generated over £100m in cash flows from operating activities each year (specifically, £117M in 2024, £129M in 2023, and £122M in 2022) and that this money can largely be reinvested in transfers indefinitely.
Wages will go up for CL, but Id expect alot of jokers on high wages to leave...Rashford, Antony, Casimiro (eventually) etc
There is probably alot of redundancy costs in this years numbers.
Player trading isnt included in EBITDA. It is included in amortisation.
New stadium costs will be taken care of by debt, which also comes off after EBITDA. EBITDA is earnings before Tax, Interest, Depreciation and Amortisation. Its the amout of cash the business generates before TIDA.
As suspected. We are in significant better shape than the public narrative suggests.
Sorry, but do you in all seriousness mean that when our fecking management repeatedly state that there is no transfer money other than what we generate through sales, we should take it for granted that they're just talking bullshit because they have no other option? Have you heard a lot of other clubs saying the same thing? No you haven't, because that's just total bullshit.
If they/Ineos could only get it right on the field and we become a stable CL team and then imagine 90,000/100,000 new state of the art stadium in 2030/31 season?
, United would generate £1 billion plus in revenues and be a completely different proposition to now!
If we can lose 18!PL games in a season, have no CL football and still generate £670m that’s insane?
, United would generate £1 billion plus in revenues and be a completely different proposition to now!
If we can lose 18!PL games in a season, have no CL football and still generate £670m that’s insane?
Get shot of Rashford, Sancho, Antony and Casemiro, get a CL place and the club is very well placed financially.
Good job we have 1 of the owners happily content watching the club crashing into a financial tidal wave… Hopefully the rumours of a full buy out come to something.
Good job we have 1 of the owners happily content watching the club crashing into a financial tidal wave… Hopefully the rumours of a full buy out come to something.
How are Man United still spending?
Quite the opposite tbf, in the summer he said our accaounts are far better than what INEOS is telling.
Thanks for the insight Economic Maguire
I don't really know either way, but you are just taking this guy's word as right because he's saying what you want.
Strikes me as a reasonably well researched piece of journalism from a respected outlet that differentiates Man United PLC with its subsidiary Red Football Ltd, with the latter being in much better financial shape and the one whose accounts are submitted to the "Premier League and UEFA for testing against spending regulations"
Full article here
It is a pretty transparent fib that we can only spend what we bring back in sales. And which clubs are out there bragging about how much they can spend?
I didn't ask you to "take it for granted", btw. I said "don't take what they said at face value'". All of our accounts are public; it's easy to see that we are making £100M+ in operating cash flows a year, and that any profitablity concerns only factor in at all bc we are spending £100M+ a year in transfers. We spent that in 2023, 2024, about to happen in 2025, and going to happen in 2026 and 2027 too.
Screw off with the "total bullshit" stuff. You have to be clueless to not see what's actually happening with the club because you're so absorbed with the media quotes. Am I seriously the only one on here that reads the financial statements?
It is a pretty transparent fib that we can only spend what we bring back in sales. And which clubs are out there bragging about how much they can spend?
I didn't ask you to "take it for granted", btw. I said "don't take what they said at face value'". All of our accounts are public; it's easy to see that we are making £100M+ in operating cash flows a year, and that any profitablity concerns only factor in at all bc we are spending £100M+ a year in transfers. We spent that in 2023, 2024, about to happen in 2025, and going to happen in 2026 and 2027 too.
Screw off with the "total bullshit" stuff. You have to be clueless to not see what's actually happening with the club because you're so absorbed with the media quotes. Am I seriously the only one on here that reads the financial statements?
If you don't want to care that our management repeatedly misrepresent our financial situation, that's fine. But making out that doing so is perfectly natural, that there was nothing else they could have done and that everyone does it is just obvious idiocy. So you can screw off yourself mate.
3 ways I think you need to look at this all through
1) finances in the lens of PSR. Which is basically a complete accounting nonsense trickery. Which we have also learnt is based on a different set of accounts to parent co.
2) finances in the sense of what is a sustainable spending and leverage vs income.
3) finances in the lens of Ratcliffe petrochemicals PE ideology of stripping assets down and running at lowest cost possible.
When Ratcliffe says our finances are fecked he's basically talking about all 3 ways but using point 1 as the socially acceptable cover.
1) finances in the lens of PSR. Which is basically a complete accounting nonsense trickery. Which we have also learnt is based on a different set of accounts to parent co.
2) finances in the sense of what is a sustainable spending and leverage vs income.
3) finances in the lens of Ratcliffe petrochemicals PE ideology of stripping assets down and running at lowest cost possible.
When Ratcliffe says our finances are fecked he's basically talking about all 3 ways but using point 1 as the socially acceptable cover.
Didn't he comment the opposite only a few weeks back.
The big news here that was different from the original estimation is clearly the tweet about there being a separate corporation that is the actual club accounts vs Manchester United plc which I feel like is new information.