Secret CFO - Deep Dive into Man Utd Finances

ReddyMcRedface said:
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.
Click to expand...
You can look at it either way but technically 80>% of our current transfer debt is due to players purchased by Ineos.
Actually 83%. Not too difficult to determine by comparing the right Q3 2024 run off figure for transfers payable (69m) to Q3 2026.
I get the thrust of your argument: The deferred payment method of financing is self perpetuating- so much money is being consumed by previous buys that you have to use the same process to make necessary buys now.
No one is faulting them for doing that but you have to own the decisions you make.
 
Im not buying this at all. Deferred transfer fees is only a problem if you didn't put in the mechanisms to pay off the debt. Just like any debt. Mortgage etc. As long as you make the monthly payments this is not an issue. Im pretty sure other clubs especially Chelsea, Barca have huge debts. That's not stopping spending.
Man Utd is like any other business. You have debts. You take loans. You pay off your debts. If you cant. Or you are getting to a summer window and thinking 'oh sht lets not spend' then you should be sacked. Its as simple as that. There are areas in a business where you can save and there are others that you cannot.

If you are an elite company - Ferrari, 5 star hotel, Michelin restaurant etc then your whole brand is built on that quality. Manchester United is built on that quality. Ferrari cannot just start selling cars with cheap plastic interiors and budget tires to save cash and pay off debts, a 5 star hotel cannot start hiring 16 year old's to run it to save cash and a Michelin restaurant cant start serving McD's. Similarly Manchester United cannot afford to not compete on transfers. Its a non negotiable for the sake of the business. If savings need to be made it needs to come from - increasing prices, reducing staff, reducing expenditures etc. Never transfers.

I heard Scholes and Butt saying if they were coming through now they would sign for City because that's the best path for a footballers career and win trophies. That's how bad it is. What do you think players will think if we start having Hull level spending because we cant afford it. It would send a disastrous message both to new players and the current team. How do you think Bruno would feel.
 
One of the things I find most frustrating is the amount of people that don't understand finances and especially football related ones!

The amount of posts I've seen saying things like

"We should have loads to spend now because we are back in the Champions League because we spent loads last summer with no CL football"

Well yeah... This summer we are paying for a season with no European football whatsoever and a big spend last summer!
 
CatenaccioChain said:
Im not buying this at all. Deferred transfer fees is only a problem if you didn't put in the mechanisms to pay off the debt. Just like any debt. Mortgage etc. As long as you make the monthly payments this is not an issue. Im pretty sure other clubs especially Chelsea, Barca have huge debts. That's not stopping spending.
Man Utd is like any other business. You have debts. You take loans. You pay off your debts. If you cant. Or you are getting to a summer window and thinking 'oh sht lets not spend' then you should be sacked. Its as simple as that. There are areas in a business where you can save and there are others that you cannot.

If you are an elite company - Ferrari, 5 star hotel, Michelin restaurant etc then your whole brand is built on that quality. Manchester United is built on that quality. Ferrari cannot just start selling cars with cheap plastic interiors and budget tires to save cash and pay off debts, a 5 star hotel cannot start hiring 16 year old's to run it to save cash and a Michelin restaurant cant start serving McD's. Similarly Manchester United cannot afford to not compete on transfers. Its a non negotiable for the sake of the business. If savings need to be made it needs to come from - increasing prices, reducing staff, reducing expenditures etc. Never transfers.

I heard Scholes and Butt saying if they were coming through now they would sign for City because that's the best path for a footballers career and win trophies. That's how bad it is. What do you think players will think if we start having Hull level spending because we cant afford it. It would send a disastrous message both to new players and the current team. How do you think Bruno would feel.
Click to expand...
There's a good point there. You don't get success by just throwing big money at it, but you can't simply save your way to financial viability on this level either.
 
Maybe someone could do one on Man City and get all their financial fraudulence out in the open for the general public to understand why they still haven't been punished.
 
pascell said:
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.
Click to expand...
We have been refinancing debt ever since the Glazers put us in debt.

How does the idea that limiting transfer spending results in improved finances work out if it results in us not progressing in competitions and finishing outside of the champions league places? It's a pattern we have seen happen quite a few times under the Glazers where we have then spent a lot the next season to try and recover our European status.

It's also completely disingenuous to talk about winning thr title in a couple of seasons if that's what's happening

Even if we are limiting our spend there are still options for strengthening on a budget. Doing nothing is not a good option
 
Matt851 said:
We have been refinancing debt ever since the Glazers put us in debt.

How does the idea that limiting transfer spending results in improved finances work out if it results in us not progressing in competitions and finishing outside of the champions league places? It's a pattern we have seen happen quite a few times under the Glazers where we have then spent a lot the next season to try and recover our European status.

It's also completely disingenuous to talk about winning thr title in a couple of seasons if that's what's happening

Even if we are limiting our spend there are still options for strengthening on a budget. Doing nothing is not a good option
Click to expand...

That’s why I found the article interesting and the point around deferred transfer fees. It’s nothing most didn’t already know but it’s some decent stats and data on how it’s moved over the years.

Cash is king and we’ve got very little, we’re a loss making business with lots of future liabilities which makes investment very difficult, FFP is irrelevant, it’s a cash and profitability issue.

Until the debt is cleared, it’s hard to see us ever being a true force again.
 
M Bison said:
That’s why I found the article interesting and the point around deferred transfer fees. It’s nothing most didn’t already know but it’s some decent stats and data on how it’s moved over the years.

Cash is king and we’ve got very little, we’re a loss making business with lots of future liabilities which makes investment very difficult, FFP is irrelevant, it’s a cash and profitability issue.

Until the debt is cleared, it’s hard to see us ever being a true force again
Click to expand...
What I struggle with is the idea our business or lack of business is a reflection of our financial situation.

Apparently we were willing to spend significant fees on Anderson, fernandes and hall as well as baleba last summer.

I am pretty suspicious about the idea we were ever seriously in for Hall but apparently we were wiling to offer a similar fee as spurs paid for fernandes (we just took a while to get to that point). So it's hard to tell if we are actually operating to a tight budget or not

If we are then it should still be possible to strengthen at left back or midfield but would require more lammens like scout led signings


So are we really interested in these players or are trying to improve our financial position.
 
Our financial model should be quite simple
Turnover 700m
Wages 300m
Amortisation 200m
Other costs 200m
Profit = nil

Amortisation of 200m would be indicative of a constant squad book value worth 1 billion spread over 5 year contracts, therefore allowing us to replenish the squad with a new net spend of 200m every year.
Annual wage costs of 300m is sufficient to support a squad value of 1billion.

The glazer loan interest is effectively what tips us into the psr problem as it costs us 40m per year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.