Depends what you mean by legitimate.You happen to think the Qatar bid wasn't legitimate? I think it very much was, only that it didn't match the Glazers overly inflated valuation, and of course they'd preferably prefer the Ratcliffe minority route where they'd no longer have to sell, keep their majority stake all while using INEOS as a PR lightning rod.
The numbers presented in the latest article from the Athletic the future seems really dire.
Since we are a public company, does anyone here have a clear picture of the situation and have the capability to provide an easy explanation of it?
For me it seems like we are in serious point deduction zone and even worse punishments. And buying players seems like an impossibility and selling players like Marinoo and/or Garnacho may be a must.
Short:
We are OK, but it's tight.
Owners can cover 90M of PSR costs over the three year period.
Sales of homegrown talents is a very effective way of avoiding falling foul of PSR - we sold Greenwood, McT, Kambwala and Hannibal for a combined 70M, and Wan Bissaka, whose transfer fee has been covered by previous years, was sold for 17.5M. Unlike player purchases, which is income, sales are assets and amortised over the length of their contracts. Which means that spending 200M (with wages) over 5 years equals 40M for this year, while the sales generated at least 87.5M (although unsure how AWB would impact PSR in this case).
There are substantial cost deductions given for investments in women's football, infrastructure and academy.
Cuts galore is helping.
The details:
Basically because of all the reasons mentioned in the above part. The reported "net loss" on the balance sheet has very little to do with PSR. Ultimately it is the adjusted loss, wirh deductions included, that matter.
The rules are that you can not lose more than 15M. If you do, you have to prove that you have the equity investments to cover any loses above that. As mentioned that allowance is 90M, which means that the hard cap for PSR is 105M.
However PSR isn't intented to prevent investments in the future of football, quite the opposite, so they award deductions for:
So what we want to look at is adjusted losses, not net losses. For Man Utd the numbers are as follows:
- The depreciation of tangible fixed assets or amortisation/impairment of intangible assets.
- Women’s football expenditure.
- Youth development expenditure.
- Community development expenditure.
2024: 55.1
2023: 42.1
2022: 34
Which totals 131.1M. However they were also allowed a 40M COVID allowance for 2022 - which ends up with 91.5M, which is within the limits.
The big risk of course is 2025 with these numbers. Before we move on, it is important to know that PSR is calculated on a season basis ie June to June. So July 2024 and January 2025 is part of the same "year".
Based on 2023 and 2024 numbers, we can have adjusted losses of only 7.8M to be in compliance. Unless the financial cost of the strategic review is given an exception, which it might be - then we could be looking at 54M. That is a bit of a risky gamble though.
This is where Ratcliffe cost saving comes in. In the first three month period Man Utd had losses totalling 349k as opposed to 8.5M last September (July August, September). This includes our summer window.
Amorim could surprise us and win Europa, then suddenly we are making healthy profits. However the cost reduction has been intense, so I wouldn't put it past them to manage the 90% reduction they seem to be aiming for as a minimum, even without winning Europa. Which leaves us with an adjusted loss of 5.5M
Which means we have an entire 2.2M to work with - or 46.2 MAYBE if the strategic review recives an exception. Which admittedly is not a lot of wiggle room. It would certainly help a lot to sell Rashford and replace him with a player you can spread the cost on.
Now say we sell Rashford for 40M, and buy Osimhen for 65M. Rashford would be pure profit for this season - 40M, while Osimhen would be 13M on our books this year. Instead of 2.2M, we have space for 29M. The same would be true for profits from any other academy graduates (based on fees obviously). We don't have to sell anyone, but we definitely need to do so to buy. It would also probably benefit the squad and it would give us a bit more breathing room in terms of PSR.
Q2 reports usually arrive in March, so we will have a much better picture then of how PSR will shake out for 2025. In addition to knowing what business was done in January and how our season is progressing.
You realise that's largely an excuse, right? As one of the biggest clubs in the world we can easily stretch our sponsorship deals by hundreds of millions per year, and be even more creative than the likes of PSG and Chelsea in recent years with the way we structure our transfers.You realize they are heavily restricted, right?
But they have also had to stop their spending. City's has reduced a huge amount. It doesn't work anymore.You realise that's largely an excuse, right? As one of the biggest clubs in the world we can easily stretch our sponsorship deals by hundreds of millions per year, and be even more creative than the likes of PSG and Chelsea in recent years with the way we structure our transfers.
Billionaires with their growth mindset aren't where they are by adhering strictly to rules and being narrow minded - for better or worse - and I've heard/read the same points you've made for close to a decade.But they have also had to stop their spending. City's has reduced a huge amount. It doesn't work anymore.
Intriguing read, thanks!Short:
We are OK, but it's tight.
Owners can cover 90M of PSR costs over the three year period.
Sales of homegrown talents is a very effective way of avoiding falling foul of PSR - we sold Greenwood, McT, Kambwala and Hannibal for a combined 70M, and Wan Bissaka, whose transfer fee has been covered by previous years, was sold for 17.5M. Unlike player purchases, which is income, sales are assets and amortised over the length of their contracts. Which means that spending 200M (with wages) over 5 years equals 40M for this year, while the sales generated at least 87.5M (although unsure how AWB would impact PSR in this case).
There are substantial cost deductions given for investments in women's football, infrastructure and academy.
Cuts galore is helping.
The details:
Basically because of all the reasons mentioned in the above part. The reported "net loss" on the balance sheet has very little to do with PSR. Ultimately it is the adjusted loss, wirh deductions included, that matter.
The rules are that you can not lose more than 15M. If you do, you have to prove that you have the equity investments to cover any loses above that. As mentioned that allowance is 90M, which means that the hard cap for PSR is 105M.
However PSR isn't intented to prevent investments in the future of football, quite the opposite, so they award deductions for:
So what we want to look at is adjusted losses, not net losses. For Man Utd the numbers are as follows:
- The depreciation of tangible fixed assets or amortisation/impairment of intangible assets.
- Women’s football expenditure.
- Youth development expenditure.
- Community development expenditure.
2024: 55.1
2023: 42.1
2022: 34
Which totals 131.1M. However they were also allowed a 40M COVID allowance for 2022 - which ends up with 91.5M, which is within the limits.
The big risk of course is 2025 with these numbers. Before we move on, it is important to know that PSR is calculated on a season basis ie June to June. So July 2024 and January 2025 is part of the same "year".
Based on 2023 and 2024 numbers, we can have adjusted losses of only 7.8M to be in compliance. Unless the financial cost of the strategic review is given an exception, which it might be - then we could be looking at 54M. That is a bit of a risky gamble though.
This is where Ratcliffe cost saving comes in. In the first three month period Man Utd had losses totalling 349k as opposed to 8.5M last September (July August, September). This includes our summer window.
Amorim could surprise us and win Europa, then suddenly we are making healthy profits. However the cost reduction has been intense, so I wouldn't put it past them to manage the 90% reduction they seem to be aiming for as a minimum, even without winning Europa. Which leaves us with an adjusted loss of 5.5M
Which means we have an entire 2.2M to work with - or 46.2 MAYBE if the strategic review recives an exception. Which admittedly is not a lot of wiggle room. It would certainly help a lot to sell Rashford and replace him with a player you can spread the cost on.
Now say we sell Rashford for 40M, and buy Osimhen for 65M. Rashford would be pure profit for this season - 40M, while Osimhen would be 13M on our books this year. Instead of 2.2M, we have space for 29M. The same would be true for profits from any other academy graduates (based on fees obviously). We don't have to sell anyone, but we definitely need to do so to buy. It would also probably benefit the squad and it would give us a bit more breathing room in terms of PSR.
Q2 reports usually arrive in March, so we will have a much better picture then of how PSR will shake out for 2025. In addition to knowing what business was done in January and how our season is progressing.
Here you go: https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/documents/manchester-united-form-20f.pdflink to article pls?
United willing to listen to offers for any player, even recent signings, and Chelsea want to sign Mainoo, whose contract talks with United are deadlocked
That's how bad this could be.
That's a great post, thanks for taking the time to explain it.Short:
We are OK, but it's tight.
Owners can cover 90M of PSR costs over the three year period.
Sales of homegrown talents is a very effective way of avoiding falling foul of PSR - we sold Greenwood, McT, Kambwala and Hannibal for a combined 70M, and Wan Bissaka, whose transfer fee has been covered by previous years, was sold for 17.5M. Unlike player purchases, which is income, sales are assets and amortised over the length of their contracts. Which means that spending 200M (with wages) over 5 years equals 40M for this year, while the sales generated at least 87.5M (although unsure how AWB would impact PSR in this case).
There are substantial cost deductions given for investments in women's football, infrastructure and academy.
Cuts galore is helping.
The details:
Basically because of all the reasons mentioned in the above part. The reported "net loss" on the balance sheet has very little to do with PSR. Ultimately it is the adjusted loss, wirh deductions included, that matter.
The rules are that you can not lose more than 15M. If you do, you have to prove that you have the equity investments to cover any loses above that. As mentioned that allowance is 90M, which means that the hard cap for PSR is 105M.
However PSR isn't intented to prevent investments in the future of football, quite the opposite, so they award deductions for:
So what we want to look at is adjusted losses, not net losses. For Man Utd the numbers are as follows:
- The depreciation of tangible fixed assets or amortisation/impairment of intangible assets.
- Women’s football expenditure.
- Youth development expenditure.
- Community development expenditure.
2024: 55.1
2023: 42.1
2022: 34
Which totals 131.1M. However they were also allowed a 40M COVID allowance for 2022 - which ends up with 91.5M, which is within the limits.
The big risk of course is 2025 with these numbers. Before we move on, it is important to know that PSR is calculated on a season basis ie June to June. So July 2024 and January 2025 is part of the same "year".
Based on 2023 and 2024 numbers, we can have adjusted losses of only 7.8M to be in compliance. Unless the financial cost of the strategic review is given an exception, which it might be - then we could be looking at 54M. That is a bit of a risky gamble though.
This is where Ratcliffe cost saving comes in. In the first three month period Man Utd had losses totalling 349k as opposed to 8.5M last September (July August, September). This includes our summer window.
Amorim could surprise us and win Europa, then suddenly we are making healthy profits. However the cost reduction has been intense, so I wouldn't put it past them to manage the 90% reduction they seem to be aiming for as a minimum, even without winning Europa. Which leaves us with an adjusted loss of 5.5M
Which means we have an entire 2.2M to work with - or 46.2 MAYBE if the strategic review recives an exception. Which admittedly is not a lot of wiggle room. It would certainly help a lot to sell Rashford and replace him with a player you can spread the cost on.
Now say we sell Rashford for 40M, and buy Osimhen for 65M. Rashford would be pure profit for this season - 40M, while Osimhen would be 13M on our books this year. Instead of 2.2M, we have space for 29M. The same would be true for profits from any other academy graduates (based on fees obviously). We don't have to sell anyone, but we definitely need to do so to buy. It would also probably benefit the squad and it would give us a bit more breathing room in terms of PSR.
Q2 reports usually arrive in March, so we will have a much better picture then of how PSR will shake out for 2025. In addition to knowing what business was done in January and how our season is progressing.
Great post! ThanksShort:
We are OK, but it's tight.
Owners can cover 90M of PSR costs over the three year period.
Sales of homegrown talents is a very effective way of avoiding falling foul of PSR - we sold Greenwood, McT, Kambwala and Hannibal for a combined 70M, and Wan Bissaka, whose transfer fee has been covered by previous years, was sold for 17.5M. Unlike player purchases, which is income, sales are assets and amortised over the length of their contracts. Which means that spending 200M (with wages) over 5 years equals 40M for this year, while the sales generated at least 87.5M (although unsure how AWB would impact PSR in this case).
There are substantial cost deductions given for investments in women's football, infrastructure and academy.
Cuts galore is helping.
The details:
Basically because of all the reasons mentioned in the above part. The reported "net loss" on the balance sheet has very little to do with PSR. Ultimately it is the adjusted loss, wirh deductions included, that matter.
The rules are that you can not lose more than 15M. If you do, you have to prove that you have the equity investments to cover any loses above that. As mentioned that allowance is 90M, which means that the hard cap for PSR is 105M.
However PSR isn't intented to prevent investments in the future of football, quite the opposite, so they award deductions for:
So what we want to look at is adjusted losses, not net losses. For Man Utd the numbers are as follows:
- The depreciation of tangible fixed assets or amortisation/impairment of intangible assets.
- Women’s football expenditure.
- Youth development expenditure.
- Community development expenditure.
2024: 55.1
2023: 42.1
2022: 34
Which totals 131.1M. However they were also allowed a 40M COVID allowance for 2022 - which ends up with 91.5M, which is within the limits.
The big risk of course is 2025 with these numbers. Before we move on, it is important to know that PSR is calculated on a season basis ie June to June. So July 2024 and January 2025 is part of the same "year".
Based on 2023 and 2024 numbers, we can have adjusted losses of only 7.8M to be in compliance. Unless the financial cost of the strategic review is given an exception, which it might be - then we could be looking at 54M. That is a bit of a risky gamble though.
This is where Ratcliffe cost saving comes in. In the first three month period Man Utd had losses totalling 349k as opposed to 8.5M last September (July August, September). This includes our summer window.
Amorim could surprise us and win Europa, then suddenly we are making healthy profits. However the cost reduction has been intense, so I wouldn't put it past them to manage the 90% reduction they seem to be aiming for as a minimum, even without winning Europa. Which leaves us with an adjusted loss of 5.5M
Which means we have an entire 2.2M to work with - or 46.2 MAYBE if the strategic review recives an exception. Which admittedly is not a lot of wiggle room. It would certainly help a lot to sell Rashford and replace him with a player you can spread the cost on.
Now say we sell Rashford for 40M, and buy Osimhen for 65M. Rashford would be pure profit for this season - 40M, while Osimhen would be 13M on our books this year. Instead of 2.2M, we have space for 29M. The same would be true for profits from any other academy graduates (based on fees obviously). We don't have to sell anyone, but we definitely need to do so to buy. It would also probably benefit the squad and it would give us a bit more breathing room in terms of PSR.
Q2 reports usually arrive in March, so we will have a much better picture then of how PSR will shake out for 2025. In addition to knowing what business was done in January and how our season is progressing.
Great post, thanks.Short:
We are OK, but it's tight.
Owners can cover 90M of PSR costs over the three year period.
Sales of homegrown talents is a very effective way of avoiding falling foul of PSR - we sold Greenwood, McT, Kambwala and Hannibal for a combined 70M, and Wan Bissaka, whose transfer fee has been covered by previous years, was sold for 17.5M. Unlike player purchases, which is income, sales are assets and amortised over the length of their contracts. Which means that spending 200M (with wages) over 5 years equals 40M for this year, while the sales generated at least 87.5M (although unsure how AWB would impact PSR in this case).
There are substantial cost deductions given for investments in women's football, infrastructure and academy.
Cuts galore is helping.
The details:
Basically because of all the reasons mentioned in the above part. The reported "net loss" on the balance sheet has very little to do with PSR. Ultimately it is the adjusted loss, wirh deductions included, that
Thing is, he wasn't an astute businessman. He was the Glazer's willing stooge.I actually suspect that too but I'm all for it. We need to undo the damage caused by Ed's idiotic "We can do things other teams only dream of" statement. Which astute businessman says something like that? Clown.
Exactly what I was after. Thank you so much.Short:
We are OK, but it's tight.
Owners can cover 90M of PSR costs over the three year period.
Sales of homegrown talents is a very effective way of avoiding falling foul of PSR - we sold Greenwood, McT, Kambwala and Hannibal for a combined 70M, and Wan Bissaka, whose transfer fee has been covered by previous years, was sold for 17.5M. Unlike player purchases, which is income, sales are assets and amortised over the length of their contracts. Which means that spending 200M (with wages) over 5 years equals 40M for this year, while the sales generated at least 87.5M (although unsure how AWB would impact PSR in this case).
There are substantial cost deductions given for investments in women's football, infrastructure and academy.
Cuts galore is helping.
The details:
Basically because of all the reasons mentioned in the above part. The reported "net loss" on the balance sheet has very little to do with PSR. Ultimately it is the adjusted loss, wirh deductions included, that matter.
The rules are that you can not lose more than 15M. If you do, you have to prove that you have the equity investments to cover any loses above that. As mentioned that allowance is 90M, which means that the hard cap for PSR is 105M.
However PSR isn't intented to prevent investments in the future of football, quite the opposite, so they award deductions for:
So what we want to look at is adjusted losses, not net losses. For Man Utd the numbers are as follows:
- The depreciation of tangible fixed assets or amortisation/impairment of intangible assets.
- Women’s football expenditure.
- Youth development expenditure.
- Community development expenditure.
2024: 55.1
2023: 42.1
2022: 34
Which totals 131.1M. However they were also allowed a 40M COVID allowance for 2022 - which ends up with 91.5M, which is within the limits.
The big risk of course is 2025 with these numbers. Before we move on, it is important to know that PSR is calculated on a season basis ie June to June. So July 2024 and January 2025 is part of the same "year".
Based on 2023 and 2024 numbers, we can have adjusted losses of only 7.8M to be in compliance. Unless the financial cost of the strategic review is given an exception, which it might be - then we could be looking at 54M. That is a bit of a risky gamble though.
This is where Ratcliffe cost saving comes in. In the first three month period Man Utd had losses totalling 349k as opposed to 8.5M last September (July August, September). This includes our summer window.
Amorim could surprise us and win Europa, then suddenly we are making healthy profits. However the cost reduction has been intense, so I wouldn't put it past them to manage the 90% reduction they seem to be aiming for as a minimum, even without winning Europa. Which leaves us with an adjusted loss of 5.5M
Which means we have an entire 2.2M to work with - or 46.2 MAYBE if the strategic review recives an exception. Which admittedly is not a lot of wiggle room. It would certainly help a lot to sell Rashford and replace him with a player you can spread the cost on.
Now say we sell Rashford for 40M, and buy Osimhen for 65M. Rashford would be pure profit for this season - 40M, while Osimhen would be 13M on our books this year. Instead of 2.2M, we have space for 29M. The same would be true for profits from any other academy graduates (based on fees obviously). We don't have to sell anyone, but we definitely need to do so to buy. It would also probably benefit the squad and it would give us a bit more breathing room in terms of PSR.
Q2 reports usually arrive in March, so we will have a much better picture then of how PSR will shake out for 2025. In addition to knowing what business was done in January and how our season is progressing.
That's exactly what I have always thought this is. Why would one buy 1/4 only? Makes no sense to me at all.Exactly, so in essence a Ratcliffe minority ownership is essentially a prolongation of the status quo just to massage his own ego and vanity of owning a big football club. Except now we've inherited his nasty billionaire tendencies too.
The current rules haven't been around for a decade.Billionaires with their growth mindset aren't where they are by adhering strictly to rules and being narrow minded - for better or worse - and I've heard/read the same points you've made for close to a decade.
These clubs have reduced their spending after spending their billion(s). We're talking about a PSG who were happy to forego hundreds of millions last season on Mbappe. As if PSR means nothing. A Chelsea that continues to bend the transfer rules especially with academy players to book inflated transfer profits.
And to your point on City - some of their sponsorship numbers won't look daft on us, and we still have untapped levers. Renaming of the stadium, for example.
Not really. The more you achieve the more sponsors pay. No CL means less money for instance. And we have poor results for years now.As one of the biggest clubs in the world we can easily stretch our sponsorship deals by hundreds of millions per year
If we sell Casemiro at the end of the season he'd only have one year left on his deal, so I believe he'd only have about £15m left of his transfer fee to go against PSR. Taking into account that his wage next season will be about the same figure, even letting him go for nothing wouldn't be any more of a loss than what is already baked in to next seasons figures. If we sold him before July though he'd have to be sold for £15m for it to not go down as a negative in this seasons figures. Anything more than £15m, either at the end of the season or now (as we then would save his wages for the second half of the season), would see us in profit.Selling Casemiro would actually not help our PSR much as his residual value is higher than what we could realistically expect to receive for him. There'd be a significant saving on wages so hopefully that'd almost offset that loss.
I presume that's only when we're in the CL. So not this season and won't be next season unless we win the EL.He's on £350k a week
Well this post cheered me up this morning.....Seriously, you don't read the reports? Or you don't believe them? There are hundreds on the net, with numbers. Record loss last year, and so on. Yes, we are in really serious financial trouble, thanks to years of reckless spending, bad results, lack of CL football... Yes we're unable to buy players due to the lack of funds, and yes we wouldn't be able to register them due to FFP regulations anyway and yes, we already breached PSR regulations which can result in point deduction as it happened with Everton. Did you know, that according to PSR no PL club can have more than 105 million pounds loss in 3 years, and we have about 300? NO WAY anyone can fix that. This is why i don't understand some fans here. They are discussing high profile players like we had the smallest chance to sign them. Not to mention the poor condition of the stadium, which would cost tons of money to fix. We're in far deeper trouble than the majority of fans think. Just take off your pink glasses, guys.
Give this man a raise!Short:
We are OK, but it's tight.
Owners can cover 90M of PSR costs over the three year period.
Sales of homegrown talents is a very effective way of avoiding falling foul of PSR - we sold Greenwood, McT, Kambwala and Hannibal for a combined 70M, and Wan Bissaka, whose transfer fee has been covered by previous years, was sold for 17.5M. Unlike player purchases, which is income, sales are assets and amortised over the length of their contracts. Which means that spending 200M (with wages) over 5 years equals 40M for this year, while the sales generated at least 87.5M (although unsure how AWB would impact PSR in this case).
There are substantial cost deductions given for investments in women's football, infrastructure and academy.
Cuts galore is helping.
The details:
Basically because of all the reasons mentioned in the above part. The reported "net loss" on the balance sheet has very little to do with PSR. Ultimately it is the adjusted loss, wirh deductions included, that matter.
The rules are that you can not lose more than 15M. If you do, you have to prove that you have the equity investments to cover any loses above that. As mentioned that allowance is 90M, which means that the hard cap for PSR is 105M.
However PSR isn't intented to prevent investments in the future of football, quite the opposite, so they award deductions for:
So what we want to look at is adjusted losses, not net losses. For Man Utd the numbers are as follows:
- The depreciation of tangible fixed assets or amortisation/impairment of intangible assets.
- Women’s football expenditure.
- Youth development expenditure.
- Community development expenditure.
2024: 55.1
2023: 42.1
2022: 34
Which totals 131.1M. However they were also allowed a 40M COVID allowance for 2022 - which ends up with 91.5M, which is within the limits.
The big risk of course is 2025 with these numbers. Before we move on, it is important to know that PSR is calculated on a season basis ie June to June. So July 2024 and January 2025 is part of the same "year".
Based on 2023 and 2024 numbers, we can have adjusted losses of only 7.8M to be in compliance. Unless the financial cost of the strategic review is given an exception, which it might be - then we could be looking at 54M. That is a bit of a risky gamble though.
This is where Ratcliffe cost saving comes in. In the first three month period Man Utd had losses totalling 349k as opposed to 8.5M last September (July August, September). This includes our summer window.
Amorim could surprise us and win Europa, then suddenly we are making healthy profits. However the cost reduction has been intense, so I wouldn't put it past them to manage the 90% reduction they seem to be aiming for as a minimum, even without winning Europa. Which leaves us with an adjusted loss of 5.5M
Which means we have an entire 2.2M to work with - or 46.2 MAYBE if the strategic review recives an exception. Which admittedly is not a lot of wiggle room. It would certainly help a lot to sell Rashford and replace him with a player you can spread the cost on.
Now say we sell Rashford for 40M, and buy Osimhen for 65M. Rashford would be pure profit for this season - 40M, while Osimhen would be 13M on our books this year. Instead of 2.2M, we have space for 29M. The same would be true for profits from any other academy graduates (based on fees obviously). We don't have to sell anyone, but we definitely need to do so to buy. It would also probably benefit the squad and it would give us a bit more breathing room in terms of PSR.
Q2 reports usually arrive in March, so we will have a much better picture then of how PSR will shake out for 2025. In addition to knowing what business was done in January and how our season is progressing.
Apparently the clubs charged over the breaking of PSR rules will be announced in the next week.
Got a weird feeling in my stomach United are going to be one of the clubs charged.
In the latest Overlap fan debate they had the football finance guy Kieran Maguire on and he said there’s currently one club that’s very close to the line and could face a charge, he wouldn’t name the club and I immediately thought of us but then he seemed to joke with McKola and another fan that the club in question didn’t wear red. I’m certain that’s what he said but I may have picked him up wrong.
I’m sure Talksport said yesterday that that club in trouble was LeicesterIn the latest Overlap fan debate they had the football finance guy Kieran Maguire on and he said there’s currently one club that’s very close to the line and could face a charge, he wouldn’t name the club and I immediately thought of us but then he seemed to joke with McKola and another fan that the club in question didn’t wear red. I’m certain that’s what he said but I may have picked him up wrong.
It will be Leicester, pretty sure he said it on Talksport.
I’m sure Talksport said yesterday that that club in trouble was Leicester
It will be Leicester...We are a horribly run club these days.... One mess after another.I’m sure Talksport said yesterday that that club in trouble was Leicester
The numbers presented in the latest article from the Athletic the future seems really dire.
Since we are a public company, does anyone here have a clear picture of the situation and have the capability to provide an easy explanation of it?
For me it seems like we are in serious point deduction zone and even worse punishments. And buying players seems like an impossibility and selling players like Marinoo and/or Garnacho may be a must.
Depends what you mean by legitimate.
I can say “I’ll pay 10 billion” but that’ll fall down when the bankers managing the part sale say “show me proof of funds” and I either say I can’t or ignore their calls.
Which is what happened with the absolutely, definitely, 100%, completely real Jassim bid. As part of public record.
Why would Raine need to lie to avoid legal action? They’re only advisors not decision makers.There are two things to consider - 1) the PSR specific calculations and; 2) the debt / leverage at the company. If the first gets out of hand, that can lead to point deduction and / or inability to make further signings unless we sell players for profit. If the second gets out of hand, then the club get technically go bankrupt but its unlikely as the club has assets and we have rich owners.
I worked as a M&A banker for 16 years. I can tell you this is one sides version of event where they are covering their backsides against shareholder lawsuits.
Do you think we’ll have to sell our best players to keep afloat? How long do you think we’ll be in this situation for?I doubted that they would sack Ten Hag and bring in an expensive placement mid season due to the cost. We're the seeing the consequences now in stories of potential sales.
Why would Raine need to lie to avoid legal action? They’re only advisors not decision makers.
Jassim could have offered $10bn dollars for the club and the Glazers could have rejected it and accepted Ratcliffes lower/part buy offer. Their decision.
You think Raine lied in filed, publicly available documentation and Jassim/his dad hasn’t said “hang on a second!”?
This isn't accurate, you're using prices for a highly sought after playoff game ticket (the equivalent being United playing at OT in a UCL semi or something).Just wanted to post this regarding income and raised ticket prices. The average ticket price for an NFL game in Tampa Bay (The Glazers other team in another sport and country) is around 320 dollars. Average price for a team like Pittsburgh Steelers is around 600 dollars. The Glazers (all American owners) thinks that the ticket prizes in the Premier League is a joke.
This may be prices from third party. I am not sure how ticket sales works exactly.
Example
Overlap discussion
I think the future does look bleak.
I see! Since the guy in the Overlap was an expert I needed to check it out and found the above site. Since I don't know anything about the NFL I was unsure of it.This isn't accurate, you're using prices for a highly sought after playoff game ticket (the equivalent being United playing at OT in a UCL semi or something).
I think the price that United has gone to (wasn't it 70 quid?), is pretty much in line with big American teams ticket prices or a bit cheaper than them. As an American myself it's depressing that tickets for events have gotten so pricey that it's not really economically feasible for average people to attend games constantly, but I was surprised that OT tickets had been as cheap as they were for that long as well.
