I'm sure they will spend the Malard money on 2/3 signings at least - not investing in the Women's team is bad enough, but actually taking money out of it would be a new low even for Brexit Jim.
Marc Skinner has left the club
- Thread starter Ayush_reddevil
- Start date
For what it’s worth, only Toone and Riviere have posted their thank yous to Skinner.
Good effort on the optimism front. Appreciated.
Yep, it can't cost that much to be a competitive club. And now is the time to strike while women's football is popular but we're still in a position where we won't be left behind by its growth.
The fact that the under 21s are using the new upgraded facilities at Carrington to align them closer with the first team shows a massive step forward, the club also run a tier one academy, can't get higher than that in terms of quality.
The fact that world class woman's managers like Bompastor has reiterated that academy players in the WSL cannot be called upon due to the quality of the players is alarming, so United putting faith in their academy and youth structure suggests that this is a long term plan rather than short term gains.
I get it, fans want the club to buy shiny new toys every year. It's the same with the men's team, if we're not splashing the cash then the clubs in freefall, the owners don't have a clue and the world will end.
This for me is a big issue with woman's football, with a section of fans wanting new shiny toys, and the woman's team to rely on the men's teams finances to outspend the opposition completely artificially inflating the competition allowing minimal academy grads through thus not improving the standard of the league bar the select few clubs that want to do this.
The other section is happy with the woman's team running at a profit, growing organically and promoting within, creating a lasting structure. Improving the competition and quality for the future.
I certainly know which route I'd prefer for the team.
Thing is as well, the ones thinking if we neglect the women's team and it will be more money for the men's, think again. The money they spend on the women's team is a pittance and would not buy the little toe of a player for the men's team.
The potential is there, the skill is there. The team showed they can go toe to toe with the best of them! Hell the performances in the Champions League is proof enough, not to mention the couple of times we were so close to capturing the League title you could taste it! This club just refuses to show that United can compete on all fronts: Academy, U21's, U18's, Reserves and the Men's/Women's first teams.
You didn't answer my question but seems clear you don't care if our Women's team go downhill due to lack of investment from our owners. Would be easier if you just admit that rather than pretending there is some great long term planning here.
The point is that the majority (not the 'select few' as you put it) of other WSL clubs are investing increasing amounts in their Women's team - whereas we are doing the opposite, as a % of revenue we are putting the least of anyone.
Pretty much every WSL club has a Teir 1 academy so it doesn't mean much - ours is yet to produce any first team regulars whereas Arsenal, City, Chelsea etc have several and a much more established set up so there is no chance to catch up by relying on youth players.
The real shame is that we were actually going in the right direction, with first ever cup win and CL qualifying, until last season when INEOS shafted Skinner completely with a woefully inadequate squad for Europe.
Still he did pretty well to get to the Quarter Finals and I don't blame him at all for walking out when he was told the budget would be even less this summer - you seem to be only one who is content with this shitty situation!
The team isn't going downhill, we don't know how the season is going to go so impossible to say that.
It's been punching above it's weight by competing as high as it has for the past few seasons, so there's an argument to say it's reverting to the mean.
I'm very happy that the club has decided the team should essentially be run within it's means, which would put it as an outlier amongst most WSL clubs, especially the top teams.
I also feel for the sake of woman's football in this country, the WSL in it's current state is unsustainable and there will come a time when heavier financial restraints will be brought in to level the competition more as the current restraints are having minimal impact, should this happen United will be well structured to deal with it.
Certainly went downhill last season and that's entirely due to INEOS not investing in squad depth for the first CL campaign
I could accept being the the 4th biggest spenders as the team was still competitive, but now falling to 8th behind the likes of LCL, Spurs & Liverpool just shows a complete lack of ambition from our owners
If ambition is using the men's income to supplement the woman's team then yeah sure.
I'd say it shows more ambition to have the woman's team properly structured with a clear defined route from academy to senior level and standing on their own rather than having to be competitive by relying 50% on group income as per Arsenal, which benefits neither Arsenal nor the WSL nor woman's football as a whole in this country.
A quick search online for total profit and total loss made by the women’s team since 2018 comes to this —
Adding them together:
- Total profits: £101k + £173k + £1.152m = £1.426 million
- Total losses: £232k + £90k + £119k = £441,000
- Gross profits: £1.426 million
- Gross losses: £441,000
- Net cumulative result: £985,000 profit (approximately £1.0 million).
It's utterly insane that anyone is actually defending this move of not spending money at all. The whole sustainability thing is just rubbish sold by the owners to not spend money. Might as well not have a women's team then I guess.
This is pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if the Powers-That-Be were divided on whether to increase investment in the women's team, in pursuit of fulfilling the goals of Project 150, versus letting the women's team shrivel and die on the vine. If so, this might have been something of a compromise, kicking the can down the road so they can focus fully on the men's team for a few years and then revisiting the strategy for the women's team later.
Ey up, Colin from Accounts has logged in
Fair points thoughNah it's just INEOS bollocks excuses for not investing in the team - if you are naive enough to lap it up then more fool you.
There is nothing ambitious about improving Academy pathways to the first team, it's long overdue and our peers are already doing it much better than us PLUS investing more than us in the transfer market.
It's the bare minimum expectation for any Manchester United team to be bringing young players through.
Daft to claim that Arsenal's investment in the Women's team doesn't benefit the WSL or Women's football in this country - just look at the attendances they get for WSL.
Which supports everything I'm saying.
A team which can stand on its own two feet has a better chance of a solid future than one reliant on group income such as Arsenal.
As I've already attested to, it's also inherently better for the woman's game as a whole in this country that investment is made into the academies rather than the senior teams, this will grow the quality and increase the competition, else it becomes exactly the same as the men's game.
Eh? You’ve made out that the women’s team only functions because it’s funded by the men’s team. How does the fact the women’s team are profitable in their own right support what you said?
Did a further check over the same period for Arsenal’s women’s team as it’s Arsenal you mention.
Overall summary
Profitable seasons: 5
Break-even seasons: 1
Loss-making seasons: 2- Cumulative result: approximately £20,000 net loss across the eight reported seasons. The figures come from the annual accounts filed by Arsenal Women Football Club Limited.
Did a further check over the same period for Arsenal’s women’s team as it’s Arsenal you mention.
Overall summary
Hardly being propped up by 50% are they? Where are you getting your financial figures from?
- Cumulative result: approximately £20,000 net loss across the eight reported seasons. The figures come from the annual accounts filed by Arsenal Women Football Club Limited.
Well Arsenal Men/Parent Club paid all expenses for the Women's team before the 19/20 season. So it is the last six available seasons of accounts.
They put £11.9m into the Women's team in the 24/25 season and that amount is included in their revenue/turnover of £21.5m as "group income", the payment for the 23/24 season was £9.35m works out as 55% and 62% of their revenue.
£43m of their £64m turnover for the past 6 seasons is payments from the parent club in "Group income".
But surely the benefit of this to the parent club is it has a positive impact on the club’s PSR (or whatever the financial rules are called now)?
I don't know regarding PSR, I was just pointing out the fact they are very much reliant on payments from the Men's team.
Correction - the payments are from the club. Not the men’s team.
As is the academy no doubt and other entities under the business model is any club.
Last edited:
Okay, Arsenal's Women are reliant on payments from the club and therefore not "profitable in their own right".
But when you start this kind of discussion it opens up a whole can of worms - for example, the club has a shirt sponsor and how much of that deal is attributed to the Women's team? They are wearing the same shirt giving exposure to the brand so it's only normal that a % goes to that.
The whole question of sustainability is interesting but it's a total red herring here used to disguise the fact that Brexit Jim only wants to invest the bare minimum in the Women's team.
Would be interesting to compare what % of revenue each club invests into the Women's side - we will undoubtedly be bottom of the whole list and that's exactly why both our managers (Skinner & Stoney) so far resigned.
dry your eyes, marc
i know it's hard to take but our mind has been made up
there’s plenty more fish in the sea
dry your eyes, marc
I know you want to make us see how much this pain hurts
but you've got to walk away now, it's over.
so then i move my hand up from down my strides
jerking, my jizz is lashing in my eyes
i turn the palm of my hand up to face the skies
touch the picture of eva olid and let out a sigh
'cause i can't imagine my life without you and me
there’s tributes i can't imagine doing, tributes i can't imagine seeing
it weren't supposed to be easy, surely
please, please, i’m begging, please
i know it's hard to take but our mind has been made up
there’s plenty more fish in the sea
dry your eyes, marc
I know you want to make us see how much this pain hurts
but you've got to walk away now, it's over.
so then i move my hand up from down my strides
jerking, my jizz is lashing in my eyes
i turn the palm of my hand up to face the skies
touch the picture of eva olid and let out a sigh
'cause i can't imagine my life without you and me
there’s tributes i can't imagine doing, tributes i can't imagine seeing
it weren't supposed to be easy, surely
please, please, i’m begging, please
The Streets jokes were already done on Page 1
They are being propped up by group income to the tune of 50%, just read the Deloitte report, one of three clubs to do so (Villa and Everton I think being the others).Did a further check over the same period for Arsenal’s women’s team as it’s Arsenal you mention.
Overall summary
Hardly being propped up by 50% are they? Where are you getting your financial figures from?
- Cumulative result: approximately £20,000 net loss across the eight reported seasons. The figures come from the annual accounts filed by Arsenal Women Football Club Limited.
Its within the rules but is not helping the game at all. It's negatively affecting and artificially inflating competition with zero sustainability in the long term.
Group income is from the club, of which the main and primary source of income is indeed the men's team.
Woman's football needs to move away from this set up and had progressively tried to do this with the financial rules they impose, however it doesn't go far enough and has affected the level of competition throughout the league along with the quality of young players who are now struggling to come through..
It is also not sustainable as a business moving forward in it's current state, as the money floods in, prices will continue to rise meaning teams will continue to rely on group income more and more rather than standing tall on their own.
Thanks for that explanation. I couldn’t work out where your figures were from.
It's almost impossible to do club by club comparisons on overall profit and loss because most income/expenditure comes down to whatever the club says it is.
The club decides what percentage of ad, sponsorship income etc should be allocated to the women's team. They also decide on what percentage of training ground costs, medical unit and stadium costs the women's team are supposed to owe.
Wage bills versus income from matchday crowds, media rights and competition prize money are more reliable for cross-club comparisons and profit and loss calculations.
That all said, we've got a pretty consistent picture with Chelsea as the biggest spenders for several years. Arsenal have been steadily increasing spending - not just on players but on marketing and social media. Their match day and sales revenues have risen dramatically.