Our finances according to Kieran Maguire

davidmichael

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2015
Messages
3,557
https://www.footballinsider247.com/...big-after-115m-news-confirmed-kieran-maguire/

So we’re at the end of our 3 year FFP/PSR cycle according to Kieran Maguire so from that I’m taking it as that as long as over the next 3 years we don’t make a £105 million loss we can spend whatever we like this summer.

If we’re clearing out AWB, Varane, Lindelof, Evans, Williams, Fernandez, Casemiro, Eriksen, VDB, Hannibal, Pellestri, Sancho, Greenwood and Martial then we could be in a fantastic position.
 

BarstoolProphet

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
6,701
https://www.footballinsider247.com/...big-after-115m-news-confirmed-kieran-maguire/

So we’re at the end of our 3 year FFP/PSR cycle according to Kieran Maguire so from that I’m taking it as that as long as over the next 3 years we don’t make a £105 million loss we can spend whatever we like this summer.

If we’re clearing out AWB, Varane, Lindelof, Evans, Williams, Fernandez, Casemiro, Eriksen, VDB, Hannibal, Pellestri, Sancho, Greenwood and Martial then we could be in a fantastic position.
A big 'IF' though :lol:
 

quadrant

Full Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2023
Messages
498
As I understand it its a rolling three yr period, not a new three year period starting this year. Its just that in 21-22 we had a huge loss of £115M which meant we had to close to break even for 2 seasons in a row. Now that big loss has fallen out of the three year period, it gives us more grace.
 

astracrazy

Full Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,568
https://www.footballinsider247.com/...big-after-115m-news-confirmed-kieran-maguire/

So we’re at the end of our 3 year FFP/PSR cycle according to Kieran Maguire so from that I’m taking it as that as long as over the next 3 years we don’t make a £105 million loss we can spend whatever we like this summer.

If we’re clearing out AWB, Varane, Lindelof, Evans, Williams, Fernandez, Casemiro, Eriksen, VDB, Hannibal, Pellestri, Sancho, Greenwood and Martial then we could be in a fantastic position.
It's not a three year cycle, it's a constant three year rolling period.
 

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
6,940
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
FFP rules state that clubs can lose £105m over a 3YR period but ONLY if £90m of that is covered by owner investment.

The Glazers didn't invest anything in United, so is it not the case that our "allowable" losses over a 3YR period are only £15m?

Also, is this all impacted by £237m of investment pledged by INEOS? I imagine that must help our position?
 

Woziak

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
3,916
https://www.footballinsider247.com/...big-after-115m-news-confirmed-kieran-maguire/

So we’re at the end of our 3 year FFP/PSR cycle according to Kieran Maguire so from that I’m taking it as that as long as over the next 3 years we don’t make a £105 million loss we can spend whatever we like this summer.

If we’re clearing out AWB, Varane, Lindelof, Evans, Williams, Fernandez, Casemiro, Eriksen, VDB, Hannibal, Pellestri, Sancho, Greenwood and Martial then we could be in a fantastic position.
The real benefit is that the combined loss of £242m for the last three years 20/21, 21/22 and 22/23 has now cleared PSR,
the permitted loss was only £105m over the three year period however there were huge concessions due to Covid so a permitted loss may have been adjusted by £120-135m downwards, which means the club was very close to the PSR limit, what would have helped this new cycle for 23/24 is the $200m investment paid already by Sir Jim and then another $100m due in December 2024.

I’ve enclosed a Quick Look at first six months as a flash look at this years accounts by Swiss Ramble and 23/24 accounts are due June 30th 2024.

It’s really important to note that if United qualify for Europe they must abide by the 80% UEFA FSP rule which judges a clubs income differently, their criteria for the accounting period is 1st January 24 to 31st December 24 so it’s fair to say with Europa football the revenue would reduce by £25-30m on the previous year, this is going to be hard to believe but the club will be able to spend more without European qualification.

Currently there is only the 3 year FFP £105m allowed loses which is reset from this summer and all the EPL teams are trying to introduce a new 85/70 anchoring rule in summer of 2025, and some elements phased in this summer with the 90/80 rule.

This means that in 2024/25 season, Clubs who do not qualify for Europe can spend 90% of their revenue(last years accounts, those published in June 24) or those teams who do qualify can spend 80% of their total revenue in line with UEFA.

The following season proposal is for those allowances to reduce to 85% non qualification and 70% qualification in line with UEFA but the maximum spend is 4.5/5 the lowest received broadcasting revenue by a PL team. So If the last Places PL team in 24/25 receives £107m and the allowance is 4.5 then £481.5m will be the maximum expenditure on wages, Net transfer, Amortised Transfer and Agent Fees.

Assuming Man City or Man United report £700m and qualified for Europe they would be allowed to spend 70% of that income or £490m, however with the anchoring rule if the 4.5 slide is approved then the maximum spend would be £8.5m less than that at £481.5m. This is why they were the only two teams plus Villa who voted against the proposal.

This summer the club could effectively spend a huge spree, however the reality is there is very little working cash available maybe a maximum of £100-£120m after the company credit card was repaid with sone of Sir Jim’s investment, so the real issue here is will Sir Jim invest more money to maximise this summer transfer window, he could but only if he takes over another 3-5% of the shares and this is where he has the Glazers tied up in knots, he’s only going to invest in this mess for more shares, they really are not as smart as most of the media think they are?

No European Football and with a projected revenue of £680m for 23/24 season and even 80% UEFA threshold would be £544m allowed on Wages(300m), Agent Fees(35m), Amortised transfer(96m) would leave £110m as transfer spend allowance without any player sales and this figure becomes higher to nearly £200-250m as transfers are amortised on the books by contract length.

The Ineos input right now is to strip the costs back, reduce employee numbers and costs by 20%, introduce a new CFO who will be running accounting forecast after forecast and looking at ways to cut costs and more importantly losses. They will see the playing staff as needing a huge overhaul and the quickest way is to have a fire-sale to generate actual working capital to facilitate these changes.

This is the main reason SA is so important, it’s widely known that SA pro league pay up front in one instalment so selling Casemiro and a few others for £50m would generate cash, which the club will need especially in player buy out clauses which must be paid normally in one instalment.

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/manchester-united-finances-h1-202324
 

Woziak

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
3,916
It's not a three year cycle, it's a constant three year rolling period.
Agreed but it’s being replaced next summer and phased out this by the new Anchoring rule which should be ratified in late summer of this year.
 

RuudTom83

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
5,720
Location
Manc
Just spend what you want, and refuse to pick up the phone or answer any emails from the Premier League...works for some! SORTED :devil:
 

Uncle Mainoo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 8, 2024
Messages
81
The real benefit is that the combined loss of £242m for the last three years 20/21, 21/22 and 22/23 has now cleared PSR,
the permitted loss was only £105m over the three year period however there were huge concessions due to Covid so a permitted loss may have been adjusted by £120-135m downwards, which means the club was very close to the PSR limit, what would have helped this new cycle for 23/24 is the $200m investment paid already by Sir Jim and then another $100m due in December 2024.

I’ve enclosed a Quick Look at first six months as a flash look at this years accounts by Swiss Ramble and 23/24 accounts are due June 30th 2024.

It’s really important to note that if United qualify for Europe they must abide by the 80% UEFA FSP rule which judges a clubs income differently, their criteria for the accounting period is 1st January 24 to 31st December 24 so it’s fair to say with Europa football the revenue would reduce by £25-30m on the previous year, this is going to be hard to believe but the club will be able to spend more without European qualification.

Currently there is only the 3 year FFP £105m allowed loses which is reset from this summer and all the EPL teams are trying to introduce a new 85/70 anchoring rule in summer of 2025, and some elements phased in this summer with the 90/80 rule.

This means that in 2024/25 season, Clubs who do not qualify for Europe can spend 90% of their revenue(last years accounts, those published in June 24) or those teams who do qualify can spend 80% of their total revenue in line with UEFA.

The following season proposal is for those allowances to reduce to 85% non qualification and 70% qualification in line with UEFA but the maximum spend is 4.5/5 the lowest received broadcasting revenue by a PL team. So If the last Places PL team in 24/25 receives £107m and the allowance is 4.5 then £481.5m will be the maximum expenditure on wages, Net transfer, Amortised Transfer and Agent Fees.

Assuming Man City or Man United report £700m and qualified for Europe they would be allowed to spend 70% of that income or £490m, however with the anchoring rule if the 4.5 slide is approved then the maximum spend would be £8.5m less than that at £481.5m. This is why they were the only two teams plus Villa who voted against the proposal.

This summer the club could effectively spend a huge spree, however the reality is there is very little working cash available maybe a maximum of £100-£120m after the company credit card was repaid with sone of Sir Jim’s investment, so the real issue here is will Sir Jim invest more money to maximise this summer transfer window, he could but only if he takes over another 3-5% of the shares and this is where he has the Glazers tied up in knots, he’s only going to invest in this mess for more shares, they really are not as smart as most of the media think they are?

No European Football and with a projected revenue of £680m for 23/24 season and even 80% UEFA threshold would be £544m allowed on Wages(300m), Agent Fees(35m), Amortised transfer(96m) would leave £110m as transfer spend allowance without any player sales and this figure becomes higher to nearly £200-250m as transfers are amortised on the books by contract length.

The Ineos input right now is to strip the costs back, reduce employee numbers and costs by 20%, introduce a new CFO who will be running accounting forecast after forecast and looking at ways to cut costs and more importantly losses. They will see the playing staff as needing a huge overhaul and the quickest way is to have a fire-sale to generate actual working capital to facilitate these changes.

This is the main reason SA is so important, it’s widely known that SA pro league pay up front in one instalment so selling Casemiro and a few others for £50m would generate cash, which the club will need especially in player buy out clauses which must be paid normally in one instalment.

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/manchester-united-finances-h1-202324
Clarity on player release clauses please. As I don’t remember who but it was stated they can now or normally are paid over two instalments (Agent fees included). Which would help a lot as £60m for Olise would take up a good majority of the budget.
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,522
Location
...
Clarity on player release clauses please. As I don’t remember who but it was stated they can now or normally are paid over two instalments (Agent fees included). Which would help a lot as £60m for Olise would take up a good majority of the budget.
It’s fairly common practice now to negotiate a fee above the release clause in order to obtain more favourable payment terms. So an Olise deal could potentially be 65m, paid in 3 or 4 instalments, rather than relying upon the contractual mechanism which would probably stipulate a single payment.
 

davidmichael

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2015
Messages
3,557
It’s fairly common practice now to negotiate a fee above the release clause in order to obtain more favourable payment terms. So an Olise deal could potentially be 65m, paid in 3 or 4 instalments, rather than relying upon the contractual mechanism which would probably stipulate a single payment.
Isn't this what Chelsea did with a few players ? It makes sense paying an extra £5 million to spread a transfer over say a five year period so it looks favourably on the yearly balance sheets as opposed to one off big payment which makes a big hole PSR/FFP wise on a yearly balance sheet.
 

Big Ben Foster

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
13,513
Location
BR -> MI -> TX
Supports
Also support Vasco da Gama
Isn't this what Chelsea did with a few players ? It makes sense paying an extra £5 million to spread a transfer over say a five year period so it looks favourably on the yearly balance sheets as opposed to one off big payment which makes a big hole PSR/FFP wise on a yearly balance sheet.
PSR/FFP is based on accrual accounting, not cash flows. So the timing of payments wouldn't have an impact.
 

kundalini

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
5,776
The real benefit is that the combined loss of £242m for the last three years 20/21, 21/22 and 22/23 has now cleared PSR,
the permitted loss was only £105m over the three year period however there were huge concessions due to Covid so a permitted loss may have been adjusted by £120-135m downwards, which means the club was very close to the PSR limit, what would have helped this new cycle for 23/24 is the $200m investment paid already by Sir Jim and then another $100m due in December 2024.

I’ve enclosed a Quick Look at first six months as a flash look at this years accounts by Swiss Ramble and 23/24 accounts are due June 30th 2024.

It’s really important to note that if United qualify for Europe they must abide by the 80% UEFA FSP rule which judges a clubs income differently, their criteria for the accounting period is 1st January 24 to 31st December 24 so it’s fair to say with Europa football the revenue would reduce by £25-30m on the previous year, this is going to be hard to believe but the club will be able to spend more without European qualification.

Currently there is only the 3 year FFP £105m allowed loses which is reset from this summer and all the EPL teams are trying to introduce a new 85/70 anchoring rule in summer of 2025, and some elements phased in this summer with the 90/80 rule.

This means that in 2024/25 season, Clubs who do not qualify for Europe can spend 90% of their revenue(last years accounts, those published in June 24) or those teams who do qualify can spend 80% of their total revenue in line with UEFA.

The following season proposal is for those allowances to reduce to 85% non qualification and 70% qualification in line with UEFA but the maximum spend is 4.5/5 the lowest received broadcasting revenue by a PL team. So If the last Places PL team in 24/25 receives £107m and the allowance is 4.5 then £481.5m will be the maximum expenditure on wages, Net transfer, Amortised Transfer and Agent Fees.

Assuming Man City or Man United report £700m and qualified for Europe they would be allowed to spend 70% of that income or £490m, however with the anchoring rule if the 4.5 slide is approved then the maximum spend would be £8.5m less than that at £481.5m. This is why they were the only two teams plus Villa who voted against the proposal.

This summer the club could effectively spend a huge spree, however the reality is there is very little working cash available maybe a maximum of £100-£120m after the company credit card was repaid with sone of Sir Jim’s investment, so the real issue here is will Sir Jim invest more money to maximise this summer transfer window, he could but only if he takes over another 3-5% of the shares and this is where he has the Glazers tied up in knots, he’s only going to invest in this mess for more shares, they really are not as smart as most of the media think they are?

No European Football and with a projected revenue of £680m for 23/24 season and even 80% UEFA threshold would be £544m allowed on Wages(300m), Agent Fees(35m), Amortised transfer(96m) would leave £110m as transfer spend allowance without any player sales and this figure becomes higher to nearly £200-250m as transfers are amortised on the books by contract length.

The Ineos input right now is to strip the costs back, reduce employee numbers and costs by 20%, introduce a new CFO who will be running accounting forecast after forecast and looking at ways to cut costs and more importantly losses. They will see the playing staff as needing a huge overhaul and the quickest way is to have a fire-sale to generate actual working capital to facilitate these changes.

This is the main reason SA is so important, it’s widely known that SA pro league pay up front in one instalment so selling Casemiro and a few others for £50m would generate cash, which the club will need especially in player buy out clauses which must be paid normally in one instalment.

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/manchester-united-finances-h1-202324
I haven't checked all your figures but the £96m Amortised transfer is miles out. Simply going through the current first team squad, dividing transfer fee by contract length, I'm over £130m without even going into some of the more complicated cases (though I have included Fernandes' contract extension). Onana (10), Martinez (10), Maguire (14), Malacia (4), Casemiro (15), Mount (11), Fernandes (9), Sancho (14), Antony (16), Amad (4), Hojlund (13), Pellistri (2), Van de Beek (7), Bayindir (1). Several of those could be +/- 1. If you are looking at 2023/4 then Wan-Bissaka would be (10), if 2024/5 then possibly (0). Varane another that would have a significant amortisation for 2023/4 but zero for 2024/5. I suspect Fernandes' amortisation may be above 9 after his contract renewal but I'd need to know what the add-ons were to be sure of the precise figure.

In very simple terms, this thread is completely misleading as the OP doesn't understand FFP/PSR rules so his conclusions are wildly inaccurate.
 
Last edited:

simonhch

Horrible boss
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
14,724
Location
Seventh Heaven
Supports
Urban Combat Preparedness
PSR/FFP is based on accrual accounting, not cash flows. So the timing of payments wouldn't have an impact.
Get out of here with your accounting knowledge. This is the Caf where a 100m budget means you can spend 100m in total transfer fees for that window. We don’t do amortisation, depreciation, accrual accounting, player costs accounting for amortised fees and wages year on year, or any such nonsense. All expertise is derived from Football Manager or some doom mongering rando on Twitter.

Shame on you.
 

DWelbz19

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
34,311
it’s fair to say with Europa football the revenue would reduce by £25-30m on the previous year, this is going to be hard to believe but the club will be able to spend more without European qualification.
That's a bit mad.
 

Woziak

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
3,916
This would only apply for this season and next season should United not qualify for Europe in 2024/25 season as well.
This is why I see the transfer window this summer being mostly all smoke and mirrors, I genuinely think the club has hardly any working capital available and Sir Jim will only put another £200-300m for another 3-4% of ownership shares, if this is the way INEOS look to wrestle complete control, then Sir Jim has played a great hand, however if we see a Summer transfer similar to Moyes first window then this will leave Sir Jim open to be attacked and already seemingly saying one thing and doing something completely different!
 

Hal9000

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
6,345
FFP rules state that clubs can lose £105m over a 3YR period but ONLY if £90m of that is covered by owner investment.

The Glazers didn't invest anything in United, so is it not the case that our "allowable" losses over a 3YR period are only £15m?

Also, is this all impacted by £237m of investment pledged by INEOS? I imagine that must help our position?
Probably covered by the sale, £90 million can only be covered by share buying, rather than loans.

How ever current PSR rules are probably going in 2025/2026 anyway. New rules will be 70% of turnover if you are in Europe and 85% if you are not.
 

Woziak

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
3,916
I haven't checked all your figures but the £96m Amortised transfer is miles out. Simply going through the current first team squad, dividing transfer fee by contract length, I'm over £130m without even going into some of the more complicated cases (though I have included Fernandes' contract extension). Onana (10), Martinez (10), Maguire (14), Malacia (4), Casemiro (15), Mount (11), Fernandes (9), Sancho (14), Antony (16), Amad (4), Hojlund (13), Pellistri (2), Van de Beek (7), Bayindir (1). Several of those could be +/- 1. If you are looking at 2023/4 then Wan-Bissaka would be (10), if 2024/5 then possibly (0). Varane another that would have a significant amortisation for 2023/4 but zero for 2024/5. I suspect Fernandes' amortisation may be above 9 after his contract renewal but I'd need to know what the add-ons were to be sure of the precise figure.

In very simple terms, this thread is completely misleading as the OP doesn't understand FFP/PSR rules so his conclusions are wildly inaccurate.
For the record I explained that these are 2024 accounts because UEFA look at accounting differently from EPL, they look at Jan 1st 2024 to December 31st 2024.


You are aware that not all transfers are paid with exactly 4/5 instalments just because the player signs a 4/5 year contract, Some players like Pogba where signed in one/two instalment and this significantly effects the actual owed and declared owed amount on the balance sheet, Both the Pelistri and Amad deals where paid in one instalment as upfront payments, all player buyouts have to be normally paid in one instalment.

I quoted £96m because that is what Swiss ramble have calculated in their quick flash 6 months accounts for this year before depreciation and goodwill amortisation.

Click on the link please, I do not want to trawl through more websites to prove to you that when we had cash reserves in 2018/19 we bought many players with upfront payments or two instalments at most.

If we bought Amad for €21m not €41 quoted as he’s not won any PL or CL or Baloon D’ors he actually cost £18.2m and all the money was paid up front so why have you added it to amortised loan costs.

https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/37m...messi-esque-diallo/1bp7yknbpmm2h1hijmi8e53xsy


The same applies to Facundo Pellistri and many others United paid his buyout clause of €10m in an upfront payment that’s why the transfers was not straightforward as he had a buy out clause.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...nited-transfer-news-penarol-2020-b882256.html


Your find Bayinder and Malacia were also paid upfront if you go through the accounts in detail it shows which players, instalments are agreed.

I’m pretty sure when you dig deeper your find inter screwed us over onana as well and maybe £40m of that was paid upfront too which is why the transfer took so long and more importantly held up other transfers due to huge cash flow issues.
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
FFP rules state that clubs can lose £105m over a 3YR period but ONLY if £90m of that is covered by owner investment.

The Glazers didn't invest anything in United, so is it not the case that our "allowable" losses over a 3YR period are only £15m?

Also, is this all impacted by £237m of investment pledged by INEOS? I imagine that must help our position?
You'll be absolutely amazed by this, but you know our overdraft facility? That counts as "owner investment" under PSR rules.
 

Von Mistelroum

Full Member
Joined
May 21, 2015
Messages
4,223
If we're not broke, then just spend whatever. Fiddle the books or whatever. City do it all the time and nothing happens to them so feck it.
 

kundalini

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
5,776
For the record I explained that these are 2024 accounts because UEFA look at accounting differently from EPL, they look at Jan 1st 2024 to December 31st 2024.


You are aware that not all transfers are paid with exactly 4/5 instalments just because the player signs a 4/5 year contract, Some players like Pogba where signed in one/two instalment and this significantly effects the actual owed and declared owed amount on the balance sheet, Both the Pelistri and Amad deals where paid in one instalment as upfront payments, all player buyouts have to be normally paid in one instalment.

I quoted £96m because that is what Swiss ramble have calculated in their quick flash 6 months accounts for this year before depreciation and goodwill amortisation.

Click on the link please, I do not want to trawl through more websites to prove to you that when we had cash reserves in 2018/19 we bought many players with upfront payments or two instalments at most.

If we bought Amad for €21m not €41 quoted as he’s not won any PL or CL or Baloon D’ors he actually cost £18.2m and all the money was paid up front so why have you added it to amortised loan costs.

https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/37m...messi-esque-diallo/1bp7yknbpmm2h1hijmi8e53xsy


The same applies to Facundo Pellistri and many others United paid his buyout clause of €10m in an upfront payment that’s why the transfers was not straightforward as he had a buy out clause.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...nited-transfer-news-penarol-2020-b882256.html


Your find Bayinder and Malacia were also paid upfront if you go through the accounts in detail it shows which players, instalments are agreed.

I’m pretty sure when you dig deeper your find inter screwed us over onana as well and maybe £40m of that was paid upfront too which is why the transfer took so long and more importantly held up other transfers due to huge cash flow issues.
I get the impression that you don't understand how amortisation works. It is an accounting term. (I did a degree in Economics and Accounting, a long time ago, very dull subject, terrible choice)

The transfer fee is divided by the length of the contract. It does not matter how the payment was structured. No difference between £50m paid up front or five payments of £10m. If the player signs a five year deal, then the annual amortisation is £10m. United's accounts show the current unamortised balance (the part of the respective transfer fees that have yet to be amortised).

FFP is accounting related, though with its own set of weird and wonderful rules. It is fairly clear now that many finance directors inside PL clubs either failed to fully understand the rules or were unable to influence decisions made by their respective board. That's why several PL clubs have got themselves into big trouble.

This whole thread is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

The Cat

Will drink milk from your hands
Joined
May 18, 2017
Messages
12,737
Location
Feet up at home.
We are going to be doing things in our transfer dealings that other clubs can only dream of.
 

Woziak

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
3,916
You'll be absolutely amazed by this, but you know our overdraft facility? That counts as "owner investment" under PSR rules.
Yep you just beat me to it, it’s staggering but the Glazers close connections to certain banks allows the overdraft to count as owner investment, which will stagger fans, the worst part is Sir Jim is going to be very much more of the same, he’s not going to suddenly put £1bn of his own cash into the club, especially with only 27.7% stake, instead he’s going to use Ineos Blue Chip Covenant as a company to arrange loans for United as cross company loans, which surprise, surprise Man United PLC will have to pay back out of their own profits.

This is why INEOS installed their own CFO, Roger Bell so quickly, for me that was the true litmus test, on who’s now running the club. All Ineos currently see is a balance sheet with a £650m turnover and £30-40m net loss, that’s untenable for them so they are trying to reduce the wages and the employees wages by 20/25% as well as other costs, then the club can start to build up cash reserves again.

I would not be surprised if INEOS actually arranged/paid £200/250m from the legacy debt to man united just to reduce the ridiculous interest charges that currently are paid to service the historic debt that Malcom Glazer saddled the club with.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
22,781
Location
Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
Yep you just beat me to it, it’s staggering but the Glazers close connections to certain banks allows the overdraft to count as owner investment, which will stagger fans, the worst part is Sir Jim is going to be very much more of the same, he’s not going to suddenly put £1bn of his own cash into the club, especially with only 27.7% stake, instead he’s going to use Ineos Blue Chip Covenant as a company to arrange loans for United as cross company loans, which surprise, surprise Man United PLC will have to pay back out of their own profits.

This is why INEOS installed their own CFO, Roger Bell so quickly, for me that was the true litmus test, on who’s now running the club. All Ineos currently see is a balance sheet with a £650m turnover and £30-40m net loss, that’s untenable for them so they are trying to reduce the wages and the employees wages by 20/25% as well as other costs, then the club can start to build up cash reserves again.

I would not be surprised if INEOS actually arranged/paid £200/250m from the legacy debt to man united just to reduce the ridiculous interest charges that currently are paid to service the historic debt that Malcom Glazer saddled the club with.
The money Ineos put in was to increase the amount the club could spend under FFP rules (by “covering” a large chunk of losses, you can spend more).
 

Woziak

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
3,916
I get the impression that you don't understand how amortisation works. It is an accounting term. (I did a degree in Economics and Accounting, a very long time ago)

The transfer fee is divided by the length of the contract. It does not matter how the payment was structured. No difference between £50m paid up front or five payments of £10m. If the player signs a five year deal, then the annual amortisation is £10m.
I’m well aware of how amortisation works and that any player sold from our academy is represented as pure profit on the balance sheet as well, plus an adjustment must be made annually with what’s is owed on the balance sheet and what is expected to come in as a payment, but you have not looked at Swiss rambles flash balance sheet, these guys are chattered accountants and they have £96m as amortised payments for 2024, they do a lot of work on united accounts and are rarely wrong so you may find that their work sheets are always nearly identical to those published by the club on 30th June each year, you tried to work out a number based on quick arithmetic of Amad fee is 20m divide by 5 when his contract was 4+1 so your amortisation is not accurate let the current and relevant accountants, Swiss ramble guide us all, they are very rarely wrong and as I suggested already some of this has to be guess work because if the club manages UEFA qualification then they can only spend 80% in the summer and then the winter transfer based on accounts from January 1st to December 31st.

My point is you can not with any confidence predict an accurate figure for this year yet but if I’m going to trust someone then it’s Swiss ramble over you, and I mean that most sincerely please read up on the UEFA FSP rules, especially the accounting period that is to be used.

However I’ve just read the Swiss ramble sheet again and I offer an apology the £96m is for 6 months not 12, they predict amortisation for 12 months is £170m which is beyond belief on just how badly this club been run.
 
Last edited:

Woziak

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
3,916
The money Ineos put in was to increase the amount the club could spend under FFP rules (by “covering” a large chunk of losses, you can spend more).
Looking at Swiss rambles flash accounts for 2024, we would be much better off not qualify for Europe this summer, the 80% rule is going to be much tighter than many thought?
 

kundalini

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
5,776
I’m well aware of how amortisation works and that any player sold from our academy is represented as pure profit on the balance sheet as well, plus an adjustment must be made annually with what’s is owed on the balance sheet and what is expected to come in as a payment, but you have not looked at Swiss rambles flash balance sheet, these guys are chattered accountants and they have £96m as amortised payments for 2024, they do a lot of work on united accounts and are rarely wrong so you may find that their work sheets are always nearly identical to those published by the club on 30th June each year, you tried to work out a number based on quick arithmetic of Amad fee is 20m divide by 5 when his contract was 4+1 so your amortisation is not accurate let the current and relevant accountants, Swiss ramble guide us all, they are very rarely wrong and as I suggested already some of this has to be guess work because if the club manages UEFA qualification then they can only spend 80% in the summer and then the winter transfer based on accounts from January 1st to December 31st.

My point is you can not with any confidence predict an accurate figure for this year yet but if I’m going to trust someone then it’s Swiss ramble over you, and I mean that most sincerely please read up on the UEFA FSP rules, especially the accounting period that is to be used.
Taken directly from United's most recent annual and quarterly accounts https://ir.manutd.com/financial-information/quarterly-reports/2024.aspx :

Amortisation (they use a z): 2022/3 season (year end 30th June) £172m (£172,684,000), 2021/2 season £151m (£151,462,000), 2020/1 season £124m (£124,398,000)

For the 2nd quarter of the current season, the amortisation was £50.5m (up 12.2% on prior year quarter). The unamortised balance was £494m.

For the 1st quarter of the current season, the amortisation was £46.8m (up 16.7% on prior year quarter).

An educated guess has amortisation for the full season at about £200m. For the calendar year it will be less (£184.8m - I think). £42.9m for the 3rd quarter of last season. £44.6m for the 4th quarter (dig deep enough in the respective quarterly accounts and you will find these figures).

I don't even know what to write at this stage. This thread is ridiculous. Understanding accounting clearly isn't easy. It is a very boring subject. Swiss Ramble understands the subject but his posts seem to cause confusion among those who lack his knowledge, likewise the OP misunderstanding Kieran Maguire's article.
 
Last edited:

Waynne

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
1,999
Just spend what you want, and refuse to pick up the phone or answer any emails from the Premier League...works for some! SORTED :devil:
I can see the derby matchday thread title for next season:

115 charges vs 115 missed calls
 

kundalini

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
5,776
I quoted £96m because that is what Swiss ramble have calculated in their quick flash 6 months accounts for this year before depreciation and goodwill amortisation.
I finally figured out the mistake you have made. Swiss Ramble's figures are for 6 months (as he mentions on his table), not a full year. So the amortisation will be approximately double his number as I showed in previous post, using United's official accounts. You can see the 12 months figure for 22/23 on the far right of Swiss Ramble's table.

Not sure where your wages figures come from. I'm not aware of any accurate figures for 1st team squad (possibly + manager - can't recall the precise rules for FFP/PSR). United's accounts show wages for all employees. Problem with trying to predict FFP is that much of the information required (precise figures to do the maths) isn't publicly available.

Anyway, your conclusions are in doubt as you are out by £100m (too low) on amortisation. It is possible that you may be out by £100m (too high) on wages, which would balance it out.
 
Last edited:

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
96,062
Location
india
Quite useful explanation of how football expenditure/profits are dealt with (assuming his statements are correct). I don’t think we spend £400m mind, but I get why he says spending (if done wisely) is a sound business model… not the only one but a good option if want to spend to make.

People focus too much on how much we spend. It’s better to spend time 150m well than 400m haplessly.
 

sparx99

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
4,087
This would only apply for this season and next season should United not qualify for Europe in 2024/25 season as well.
It’s not entirely true either. While they could spend more under the rules they are curtailed by reduced sponsorship agreements, no European tv money or prize money etc. They would have to budget based on reduced future revenues and cashflow.
 

kundalini

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
5,776
Quite useful explanation of how football expenditure/profits are dealt with (assuming his statements are correct). I don’t think we spend £400m mind, but I get why he says spending (if done wisely) is a sound business model… not the only one but a good option if want to spend to make.

Problem with this type of analysis is that he doesn't have the expertise to make the calculation worthwhile. There are a whole lot of assumptions that trash the overall conclusion if he's got them wrong. If it was Swiss Ramble then I might just be prepared to accept it as a rough guess. We know what is in United's accounts but we don't know the breakdowns that apply for FFP/PSR as they use slightly different rules as to what is included.

Also, it puts enormous pressure on the club to have a system that allows them to make significant sales year after year. It is no use selling big one summer, thus allowing you to spend big that summer, unless you are able to sell big for the next few summers. Even that is too simplified as the sales have to be above the book value of the player.
 
Last edited: