Secret CFO - Deep Dive into Man Utd Finances

[M Bison]

Really good account on Twitter/LinkedIn and well worth a follow. Its doing a 4 week special on Man Utd finances with the first one out last weekend: https://www.cfosecrets.io/p/manchester-united-lbo-finances You may have to sign up to read it though.

This tweet from the same account yesterday is also an interesting one too:



Particularly the impact of deferred fees vs cash headroom vs FFP and goes some way to explaining the cautious approach this summer.

 

[Jed I. Knight]

Championship Manager veterans are chuckling. Oldest trick in the book to maximise the transfer budget!

 

[quadrant]

When people complain about not spending money this summer, they generally haven't seen how bad the finances look. Not just the long term drain of the LBO, but the completely brainless spending by Woodward (and Arnold), notably post lockdown. It all blew up and our position at the end of 24/25 was horrendous.

That said the short term picture does look better. After £400M losses in 5 years, we will more or less break even for 25/26 and expect to make a decent profit in 26/27. So a quiet summer now will probably mean the ability to row back some of the short term credit facility, while some of these outstanding transfer debts will naturally complete. Combined with the lower wage bill, and we should have some wiggle room in terms of cash and headroom for future transfers.

 

[Smores]

I mean it's not hidden that's sensationalist, it's reported rather widely.

Another way to report that is our transfer obligations to EBITDA matches or is better than 3 of the last 5 years.

Those obligations tend to get paid some in cash and some using our RCF. We paid down our RCF significantly last year so that combination puts in a reasonable position.

The overall debt is a different matter but that's been discussed to death, we know the douchebags responsible.

 

[acnumber9]

Something like this seems fairly useless without a comparison to peers.

 

[rimaldo]

Something like this seems fairly useless without a comparison to peers.

i reckon he’s got a load of money. he was editors of some big newspapers and would have used that for insider trading and tips in return for not publishing some things. not to mention his talk shows.

 

[pascell]

When people complain about not spending money this summer, they generally haven't seen how bad the finances look. Not just the long term drain of the LBO, but the completely brainless spending by Woodward (and Arnold), notably post lockdown. It all blew up and our position at the end of 24/25 was horrendous.

That said the short term picture does look better. After £400M losses in 5 years, we will more or less break even for 25/26 and expect to make a decent profit in 26/27. So a quiet summer now will probably mean the ability to row back some of the short term credit facility, while some of these outstanding transfer debts will naturally complete. Combined with the lower wage bill, and we should have some wiggle room in terms of cash and headroom for future transfers.

This is how I see it, and we have been told our finances aren't in great shape for a few seasons now, but fans ignore it and wish the next shiny transfer into existence but it is there in black and white.

Unfortunately, there was always going to come a time we had to reign in spending after how frivolously Woodward, Murtough and co spent our money, that time is now.

We owe so much money on previous transfers and have had to refinance existing debt etc that we are now feeling the effect of it.

 

[acnumber9]

i reckon he’s got a load of money. he was editors of some big newspapers and would have used that for insider trading and tips in return for not publishing some things. not to mention his talk shows.

I heard he pissed it all away.

 

[Bobby_2024]

When people complain about not spending money this summer, they generally haven't seen how bad the finances look. Not just the long term drain of the LBO, but the completely brainless spending by Woodward (and Arnold), notably post lockdown. It all blew up and our position at the end of 24/25 was horrendous.

That said the short term picture does look better. After £400M losses in 5 years, we will more or less break even for 25/26 and expect to make a decent profit in 26/27. So a quiet summer now will probably mean the ability to row back some of the short term credit facility, while some of these outstanding transfer debts will naturally complete. Combined with the lower wage bill, and we should have some wiggle room in terms of cash and headroom for future transfers.

More than Ed, Arnold and John wasted a lot in short span of 2/3 years.

I get that we are fixing lot of past mistakes and happy about it, but in that process we are losing top talent like Mateus who can fix our midfield for next 10 years along with few other good signings.Hope we balance out things and dont stay too much behind our rivals.

 

[pascell]

More than Ed, Arnold and John wasted a lot in short span of 2/3 years.

I get that we are fixing lot of past mistakes and happy about it, but in that process we are losing top talent like Mateus who can fix our midfield for next 10 years along with few other good signings.Hope we balance out things and dont stay too much behind our rivals.

I think we're building our team/squad to be a stable and consistent CL level team, before looking at progressing it further.

If we manage to get CL football again for 27/28 whilst removing the wages of Rashford, Onana, Zirkzee, Shaw (possibly goes to 1+1 deal due to age on lesser wages) and Ugarte, the balance sheets will look even more favourable.

 

[EC689908]

I think the part that a lot of people don't take into account is that it cannot be the long term goal of the club to be eternally dependant on the credit facility to have access to cash (to which I have to assume the increase in the limit from £300 million to £400 million is to deal with the transfer payments required in Q1 in relation to the all the previous transfers we are sill paying off) and the only way to get out of the credit facility is to be reasonably profitable for several consecutive years and if we don't do that then the cashflow issue is never going to improve even if we just break even from now on. This is vital as having relatively low levels of cash makes it much harder to be competitive in the transfer market as even clubs like Tottenham can now comfortably beat United on pure finances and cash. Who knows if transfers will continue to get more and more expensive but its hard to assume that they won't unless the bubble does actually burst at some point although we've been saying that for a while now.

Even in this last financial year United's operational expenses are going to be around £700 million (revenue around £660m) and that's after all the cost savings, redundancies, etc and its unlikely I would think that that figure will get any lower and will only get higher so this is why Champions League qualification for several consecutive years is necessary just to get the club back on stable ground. Unfortunately you still have the Glazer debt and higher interest rates following the recent refinancing which was inevitable due to the previous refinancing happening with record low interest rates and it's not going be fun when they start taking out dividends again but we know that's going to happen anyway.

I usually defend Ineos' running of the club in general because the challenge was enormous from both a sporting sense and a financial sense and its not like you can sell of half the squad to help refund the rebuild as multiple players were or are practically unsellable (Onana, Shaw, Casemiro, Mount, Rashford, Sancho) from deals done before they took over although I think you can look at the Ugarte/Zirkzee buys from the 2024 window as quite questionable but its unlikely every transfer is going to work and the preparation for that summer was less than ideal, there are no excuses on that front now of course. I approximate we've raised somewhere between potentially 230-240 million in player sales including realised sell ons since the 2024 window which is actually not too bad considering how hard it is for us to sell players (although half of that comes from just 3 players Hojlund, Garnacho and Greenwood) which essentially covers one of the previous summer's spending. We have little leverage in these negotiations due to our position so the choice is to sell players relatively cheaply or take your medicine and take what you can get. I always remember trying to sell Lingard for £30 million with no takers and then he left for a free as an example of an occasion when you just have to take the best offer you can.

The stone cold reality is that if United stayed a champions league club (i.e 3rd to 5th) for the next several years then we would have done well and the club *should* be in a better position but the expectations are always going to be higher and if we become profitable again, hopefully we can be in 2027, then that would be great but people will still argue we should be spending more on players but unfortunately right now we are not in that position in my opinion. *We should still spend more this window though of course!*

 

[M Bison]

When people complain about not spending money this summer, they generally haven't seen how bad the finances look. Not just the long term drain of the LBO, but the completely brainless spending by Woodward (and Arnold), notably post lockdown. It all blew up and our position at the end of 24/25 was horrendous.

That said the short term picture does look better. After £400M losses in 5 years, we will more or less break even for 25/26 and expect to make a decent profit in 26/27. So a quiet summer now will probably mean the ability to row back some of the short term credit facility, while some of these outstanding transfer debts will naturally complete. Combined with the lower wage bill, and we should have some wiggle room in terms of cash and headroom for future transfers.

Yes thats how i see it, and its the forward looking picture on transfer fees coming down the track that are hard to manage and navigate. I understand the frustration from fans on having to miss out on an Anderson etc, but we've been so badly managed and the money absolutely wasted on poor transfers that we're still feeling the effect of, even Rashford now, we're still having to manage his wages and cant offload him as a result.

It does feel as though we're on the right track though and have the right outlook, with more of a 3-5 year plan as opposed to buying a Pogba/Sancho/Antony this season and hoping for the best.

 

[M Bison]

i reckon he’s got a load of money. he was editors of some big newspapers and would have used that for insider trading and tips in return for not publishing some things. not to mention his talk shows.

Interesting, didnt know that. I quite like his posts and content tbf and the other guy he seems to cross over with, Jason Hershman, has some interesting takes on things too.

 

[Bert_]

Secret CFO?

What a world.

 

[ReddyMcRedface]

Secret CFO?

What a world.

Not only that, a CFO who seemingly has no grasp of finance terms.

His overall point is correct though, the decisions made over the last 5 years have screwed United's cash position. They go into every negotiation in a weak position because they can't offer favourable cash terms to the sellers. Doesn't matter how much you offer, if a club wants a big chunk upfront United have to say no. I'm hoping they still get a left back and another midfielder before the window closes but I think Ugarte's injury ruined plans for the latter. Be interesting to see if they can pull anything out the bag.

 

[greater wall]

I think the part that a lot of people don't take into account is that it cannot be the long term goal of the club to be eternally dependant on the credit facility to have access to cash (to which I have to assume the increase in the limit from £300 million to £400 million is to deal with the transfer payments required in Q1 in relation to the all the previous transfers we are sill paying off) and the only way to get out of the credit facility is to be reasonably profitable for several consecutive years and if we don't do that then the cashflow issue is never going to improve even if we just break even from now on. This is vital as having relatively low levels of cash makes it much harder to be competitive in the transfer market as even clubs like Tottenham can now comfortably beat United on pure finances and cash. Who knows if transfers will continue to get more and more expensive but its hard to assume that they won't unless the bubble does actually burst at some point although we've been saying that for a while now.

Even in this last financial year United's operational expenses are going to be around £700 million (revenue around £660m) and that's after all the cost savings, redundancies, etc and its unlikely I would think that that figure will get any lower and will only get higher so this is why Champions League qualification for several consecutive years is necessary just to get the club back on stable ground. Unfortunately you still have the Glazer debt and higher interest rates following the recent refinancing which was inevitable due to the previous refinancing happening with record low interest rates and it's not going be fun when they start taking out dividends again but we know that's going to happen anyway.

I usually defend Ineos' running of the club in general because the challenge was enormous from both a sporting sense and a financial sense and its not like you can sell of half the squad to help refund the rebuild as multiple players were or are practically unsellable (Onana, Shaw, Casemiro, Mount, Rashford, Sancho) from deals done before they took over although I think you can look at the Ugarte/Zirkzee buys from the 2024 window as quite questionable but its unlikely every transfer is going to work and the preparation for that summer was less than ideal, there are no excuses on that front now of course. I approximate we've raised somewhere between potentially 230-240 million in player sales including realised sell ons since the 2024 window which is actually not too bad considering how hard it is for us to sell players (although half of that comes from just 3 players Hojlund, Garnacho and Greenwood) which essentially covers one of the previous summer's spending. We have little leverage in these negotiations due to our position so the choice is to sell players relatively cheaply or take your medicine and take what you can get. I always remember trying to sell Lingard for £30 million with no takers and then he left for a free as an example of an occasion when you just have to take the best offer you can.

The stone cold reality is that if United stayed a champions league club (i.e 3rd to 5th) for the next several years then we would have done well and the club *should* be in a better position but the expectations are always going to be higher and if we become profitable again, hopefully we can be in 2027, then that would be great but people will still argue we should be spending more on players but unfortunately right now we are not in that position in my opinion. *We should still spend more this window though of course!*

What is to stop the Glazers borrowing more money and paying themselves dividends? The club ends up back in the same position.

 

[Smores]

Not only that, a CFO who seemingly has no grasp of finance terms.

His overall point is correct though, the decisions made over the last 5 years have screwed United's cash position. They go into every negotiation in a weak position because they can't offer favourable cash terms to the sellers. Doesn't matter how much you offer, if a club wants a big chunk upfront United have to say no. I'm hoping they still get a left back and another midfielder before the window closes but I think Ugarte's injury ruined plans for the latter. Be interesting to see if they can pull anything out the bag.

Yup this is the real issue, we don't have finance issues but we do have a cash issue.

The likes of Arsenal are able to pay favourable terms for one or two transfers a season. They clear down their credit most summers. We can afford the same level of transfers but the debt load means we have to structure it all very carefully.

 

[Overhaul FC]

More than Ed, Arnold and John wasted a lot in short span of 2/3 years.

I get that we are fixing lot of past mistakes and happy about it, but in that process we are losing top talent like Mateus who can fix our midfield for next 10 years along with few other good signings.Hope we balance out things and dont stay too much behind our rivals.

We're just not good enough at recruitment. We had one good year with Dorgu, Lammens, Sesko, Cunha and Mbuemo and couldn't repeat it.

The previous bad years even under INEOS haunt us.

 

[cyril C]

Something like this seems fairly useless without a comparison to peers.

You mean comparing with City who can cheat on FFP without consequences? To look good you must first able to either cheat on the book, or get a sugardaddy. There is no latter so playing with the schedule is the only trick (or like Chelsea going with 6-7 years amortisation). Then you must also know how to manage UEFA and no other teams seem to match City's effort.

 

[Late In May 1999]

If anything, this chart shows that we’re more or less in the same position now as we were throughout 2021–25. The increase in debt doesn’t mean much on its own, you need to compare it to earnings. And Man Utd’s debt-to-EBITDA is surprisingly stable at around 6x. I don’t think that’s by accident. Most likely, the finance people have this threshold as some sort of target the club shouldn’t exceed.

If you look at deferred transfer payments to EBITDA, that’s also relatively stable at around 2x EBITDA.

So if you look at this chart alone, there are no new issues. Only the old ones.

 

[T00lsh3d]

Secret CFO?

What a world.

Wasn’t there a Secret Barrister Twitter account that was quite successful? Ripped off of that?

 

[acnumber9]

You mean comparing with City who can cheat on FFP without consequences? To look good you must first able to either cheat on the book, or get a sugardaddy. There is no latter so playing with the schedule is the only trick (or like Chelsea going with 6-7 years amortisation). Then you must also know how to manage UEFA and no other teams seem to match City's effort.

Or the numerous other clubs in the league. Who are Arsenal’s sugar daddy? Who is Liverpool’s?

 

[M Bison]

If anything, this chart shows that we’re more or less in the same position now as we were throughout 2021–25. The increase in debt doesn’t mean much on its own, you need to compare it to earnings. And Man Utd’s debt-to-EBITDA is surprisingly stable at around 6x. I don’t think that’s by accident. Most likely, the finance people have this threshold as some sort of target the club shouldn’t exceed.

If you look at deferred transfer payments to EBITDA, that’s also relatively stable at around 2x EBITDA.

So if you look at this chart alone, there are no new issues. Only the old ones.

But is EBITDA the right measure given the level of debt in the club, along with the interest paid on it? The thing that i think the graph is trying to demonstrate, is the future cash requirement relating to historic transactions. There's obviously an FFP angle to this but free cash is more important.

 

[Redjazz]

But is EBITDA the right measure given the level of debt in the club, along with the interest paid on it? The thing that i think the graph is trying to demonstrate, is the future cash requirement relating to historic transactions. There's obviously an FFP angle to this but free cash is more important.

Probably not. EBITDA is not 100% cash available. Over the last couple of years, cash generated from operations is running Much lower than EBITDA due to WC movements. IN 2025, the cash coming from the business after interest payments was 72m, the outgo on players and infrastructure (and allowing for cash in from player sales) was 275m.
So a deficit of over 200m in cash covered by putting another 130m on the credit card and taking in 80m from the sales of shares to INEOS.
For 2024, the cash deficit was around 85m.
The thing about high transfer debt (the last reported figure being 406m from Q3 2026) is that a fair chunk (>50%) needs to be paid within a year.
So if United is generating, say, 100m to 150m after interest and pays deferred payments of say 200m, what is the budget for new players?
Well nothing, if the goal is to break even cash wise. Spending no more than what was received in sales would still produce a deficit in this case.
So a budget for new players would require going into the red and RCF loading at some stage.
It should be noted that the 406m in transfer debt on the books is not down to Woodward\Arnold profligacy. 80>% is due to Ineos spending.

 

[quadrant]

Probably not. EBITDA is not 100% cash available. Over the last couple of years, cash generated from operations is running Much lower than EBITDA due to WC movements. IN 2025, the cash coming from the business after interest payments was 72m, the outgo on players and infrastructure (and allowing for cash in from player sales) was 275m.
So a deficit of over 200m in cash covered by putting another 130m on the credit card and taking in 80m from the sales of shares to INEOS.
For 2024, the cash deficit was around 85m.
The thing about high transfer debt (the last reported figure being 406m from Q3 2026) is that a fair chunk (>50%) needs to be paid within a year.
So if United is generating, say, 100m to 150m after interest and pays deferred payments of say 200m, what is the budget for new players?
Well nothing, if the goal is to break even cash wise. Spending no more than what was received in sales would still produce a deficit in this case.
So a budget for new players would require going into the red and RCF loading at some stage.
It should be noted that the 406m in transfer debt on the books is not down to Woodward\Arnold profligacy. 80>% is due to Ineos spending.

Very disingenuous statement and I think you know why.

 

[Redjazz]

Very disingenuous statement and I think you know why.

What is becoming conspicuous is your sensitivity to Ineos slights, inadvertent or otherwise.
The fact remains: Over 80% of the transfer debt is from players bought by Ineos.
It is an important distinction as we tend (inaccurately) to lump all of current debt on the Glazers.

 

[Duffman2]

We also paid 50-100m for the new land for the stadium which means our cash balance will be worse off. Secondly, as we had 200m of transfer fee due, maybe having a year to “reset” our balance sheet might be prudent and then go big in 2027

 

[Redjazz]

We also paid 50-100m for the new land for the stadium which means our cash balance will be worse off. Secondly, as we had 200m of transfer fee due, maybe having a year to “reset” our balance sheet might be prudent and then go big in 2027

I don't think the amount was disclosed. The club refinanced the dollar bond around then and borrowed about 90m more than was required, so there is some coverage.

 

[quadrant]

What is becoming conspicuous is your sensitivity to Ineos slights, inadvertent or otherwise.
The fact remains: Over 80% of the transfer debt is from players bought by Ineos.
It is an important distinction as we tend (inaccurately) to lump all of current debt on the Glazers.

I'm not 12 and I doubt you are either, so let's avoid the childish comments. It's perfectly clear to us both where the current short term debt problem started.

 

[Redjazz]

I'm not 12 and I doubt you are either, so let's avoid the childish comments. It's perfectly clear to us both where the current short term debt problem started.

What are you on about? If you have a point to make then do so. If you disagree with the assertion that over 80% of our transfer debt is due to players purchased by Ineos then make an argument to refute it.

 

[KStandBarmyArmy1993]

I think every big club in Europe is an absolute car crash in financial terms aside from maybe Bayern and Real Madrid due to their ownership models.

Most clubs in England are heavily relient on one person/group continuing to throw money at the club every year without really expecting anything in return. I think a lot of them are one bad season from complete ruin (Forest...).

 

[justsomebloke]

Okay. So the takeaway here is that we're currently quite strapped, and will have to take a bit of a breather before we can splash again? While continuing to make it to the CL?

If that's the case, we still can't really be standing still. Whether it's through finding budget options or loans, there are still gaps that need to be plugged if we're going to credibly maintain CL-qualifying levels in the short run.

 

[justsomebloke]

Or the numerous other clubs in the league. Who are Arsenal’s sugar daddy? Who is Liverpool’s?

Kroenke and Henry? They do seem to be investing in accordance with the requirements of building contending teams, not in accordance with some financially driven logic. In fact, what Arsenal has been doing over the past five years looks very much a textbook case in that regard. And they are still at it - looking now to maintain their position through fairly big investments to achieve marginal improvements in already strong areas. Such as spending 75m to bring a late-twenties Guimaraes into a midfield that already has Ødegaard, Merino, Zubimendi and Rice.

 

[AndySmith1990]

Yeah but why aren't we making £100m signings like other clubs!!!

 

[Redjazz]

I think every big club in Europe is an absolute car crash in financial terms aside from maybe Bayern and Real Madrid due to their ownership models.

Most clubs in England are heavily relient on one person/group continuing to throw money at the club every year without really expecting anything in return. I think a lot of them are one bad season from complete ruin (Forest...).

I wouldn't describe all clubs as being absolute car crashes; I think their financial reality reflects the nature of the game and the rules around it.
Most clubs are non profit. The goal is to produce spectacle, be successful on the pitch. Maximize revenues to Maximize reinvestment. That approach will tend to produce a break even position perpetually. Sometime a loss, sometimes a profit. The big costs consume all revenues. If clubs hit on cash surplus, they will find a way to spend it.
The strictly for profit clubs want to maximize revenues, but control costs to maximize profits. But those costs are being set by the market as a whole. So such clubs are finding it difficult to be both successful on the pitch and in the financials. The vast majority of the PL owners are realizing that ownership of a PL club will require them, every now and again, to dig out the club when times are tough.

 

[Oldyella]

We're just not good enough at recruitment. We had one good year with Dorgu, Lammens, Sesko, Cunha and Mbuemo and couldn't repeat it.

The previous bad years even under INEOS haunt us.

In fairness that one good year was only last year. This one hasn't ended yet.

 

[ReddyMcRedface]

What are you on about? If you have a point to make then do so. If you disagree with the assertion that over 80% of our transfer debt is due to players purchased by Ineos then make an argument to refute it.

I think you can look at it either way.

The number has jumped a great deal since the takeover - £276.6m at the end of the last full Glazer year, up to £447.1m at the end of the last full report year, then falling slightly to £405.7m at the last available figures to March. I've neither the time nor the inclination to try and work out how much of that might relate to what player so whilst your 80% may or may not be an exaggeration, it is irrefutable that the number has grown a lot under the new co-ownership.

However, the counter point would be how much of that have they been forced into through the circumstances when the deal was completed? The trend of trade payables increasing was already firmly in place, the last year that it fell was the behind closed doors season. Since then it's gone up and up and up. The club's cash position has never really recovered from lockdown, that then coupled with some very expensive transfer failures and desperation to get the club back into the Champions League meant drastic measures. I think from a cash perspective United could only truly 'afford' once of Cunha, Mbuemo and Sesko last summer, but from a football perspective coming off the back of the 24/25 season I don't think they could afford not to buy a new front three.

The whole thing feel precarious to me, more so than at any point in the last 15 years. Reading United's accounts back when the green and gold protests were in full flow, I was never actually worried about the club's ability to compete and spend money, but these days it feels like the cashflow is a very flimsy deck of cards. I'm starting to waffle rather than make a coherent point now, so I'll just click post.

 

[VanGaalyTime]

When people complain about not spending money this summer, they generally haven't seen how bad the finances look. Not just the long term drain of the LBO, but the completely brainless spending by Woodward (and Arnold), notably post lockdown. It all blew up and our position at the end of 24/25 was horrendous.

That said the short term picture does look better. After £400M losses in 5 years, we will more or less break even for 25/26 and expect to make a decent profit in 26/27. So a quiet summer now will probably mean the ability to row back some of the short term credit facility, while some of these outstanding transfer debts will naturally complete. Combined with the lower wage bill, and we should have some wiggle room in terms of cash and headroom for future transfers.

Except next summer that 100m player is 200. And we don't have champions league because we neglected the team and refused to buy according to our wealth and power. You can't put off improving the team in football. We did it from 2009 to 2016 spending nothing and allowing City and Chelsea to grow. Now we're catching up. Next summer, we'll be catching up with Spurs. After that, we'll be catching up with Villa.

 

[CallyRed]

I can't stand the term "deep dive". Textbook office work lingo bollocks

 

[tomaldinho1]

I feel like most accounts with some understanding of balance sheets have an overall grasp on the finances, I guess the issue with football is there's always a lag in terms of what we see at year end vs what we aren't privy to.

The encouraging thing is we've stopped chasing glory via throwing money at the problem, signing seem much more focused on developing players and avoiding the big fees we have seen other teams taking on these last few years. I think this is the reality of why we kept Carrick, we likely need at least another steady season before we can really spend to the level that would be needed to actually challenge.

I'm still expecting a CM and either an LB/CF before the end of the window though, we definitely have more money down the back of the sofa. It just likely will be a Lammens, Dorgu, Heaven type signing.