United Thread | 2024/25

Status
Not open for further replies.
ancoats said:
Man United owe staggering £413m in player transfer payments
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Man Utd owe staggering £413m in player transfers as financial details released

Manchester United owe a significant amount in player transfer instalments as details of their financial accounts are released with huge Sir Jim Ratcliffe worry
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

This is the hidden Debt that never gets mentioned with official figures of around £1.3billion in debt
How can the other Premier League clubs keep voting for them in the PSR/APT rules and want to stop personal investment and sponsorship deals,

The Premier League needs to look at themselves and ask WHY clubs like United and their big debt is very much allowed to be hidden away and then you want to take clubs like City to court to answer cheating claims
Click to expand...

This is sensationalist click bait journalism from the MEN.

Staggered payments for players is fairly normal practice across the entire football world. Chelsea are currently paying for players for up to 8 years. Most sane clubs will settle on 3 to 4 years.

If a club is bringing in half a billion per season, 1.3bn debt is only 3 years worth of revenue. Obviously, they won't pay it off that way, because they still have to pay wages and sign new players, but the re-payments are manageable when you have that sort of cash flow.

Also worth noting, their debt re-payments could actually be kicked even further down the road, as INEOS have acquired a 27% stake in the club, so now their credit with lenders is far greater. Not that INEOS will take this option. Looking at the 250 staff cuts, wage re-structure and ticket increases, it looks like they are going head first into reducing the debt.

There will be fans from both MUFC and Everton holding a protest on Sunday, over ticket increases. They will be holding up an FSA banner.

These same fans were protesting 18 months ago about being in debt. Now they are protesting because INEOS wants to clear the debt.

Can't have it both ways.
 
Had the displeasure of being on a tram with this lot after their match last night.
Had taken the old Q to the Lowry and unfortunately it finished the same time.
My God I know all clubs have elements, but as a majority collective - what a bunch of vile, discuourteous, obnoxious scum they are. Lots of v oldies on the tram subjected to having to stand, smell farts - for which the culprit got cheered, suffer songs full of fuck and **** - and the coup de gras - someone (not one of the oldies, but a young united teen), pissed!!
Scum doesn't do em justice.
 
Last edited:
GaudinoMotors said:
Had the displeasure of being on a tram with this lot after their match last night.
Had taken the old Q to the Lowry and unfortunately it finished the same time.
My God I know all clubs have elements, but as a majority collective - what a bunch of vile, discuourteous, obnoxious scum the are. Lots of v oldies on the tram subjected to having to stand, smell farts - for which the culprit got cheered, suffer songs full of fuck and **** - and the coup de gras - someone (not one of the oldies, but a young united teen), pissed!!
Scum doesn't do em justice.
Click to expand...
They're horrendous mate. I don't live a million miles away from the swamp. Everything's planned so we have next to no exposure to them pre and post match, and 100% never on the tram.
 
Citi-leaks said:
This is sensationalist click bait journalism from the MEN.

Staggered payments for players is fairly normal practice across the entire football world. Chelsea are currently paying for players for up to 8 years. Most sane clubs will settle on 3 to 4 years.

If a club is bringing in half a billion per season, 1.3bn debt is only 3 years worth of revenue. Obviously, they won't pay it off that way, because they still have to pay wages and sign new players, but the re-payments are manageable when you have that sort of cash flow.

Also worth noting, their debt re-payments could actually be kicked even further down the road, as INEOS have acquired a 27% stake in the club, so now their credit with lenders is far greater. Not that INEOS will take this option. Looking at the 250 staff cuts, wage re-structure and ticket increases, it looks like they are going head first into reducing the debt.

There will be fans from both MUFC and Everton holding a protest on Sunday, over ticket increases. They will be holding up an FSA banner.

These same fans were protesting 18 months ago about being in debt. Now they are protesting because INEOS wants to clear the debt.

Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

In a way you are right,
Most clubs will have a payment plan spread across a timescale that was worked out on the agreement for the player, But I will bring you Barcelona and the troubles they have and still owing money to other clubs, They missed payments and City was one of the clubs that did not get paid on time.

This is why uefa FFP is a joke and will let teams do whatever they like knowing they will never be punished
Also what if the club go broke and can not make payments, what happens to the debt

Clubs Like United are not good at reducing their debt and it grows every year because they are allowed to chase their tail without punishment,

United vs City

One club is allowed to spend and borrow money and leave it on the account's debit sheets, The other is debt-free and not allowed to spend his money on the club he owns,

Glazers vs Sheikh Mansour

One will leave football and their club in a right old mess owing £billions, The other will leave football and its club in a healthy state and debt-free
 
Gordyola said:
According to Kieran Maguire on Price of Football podcast they had to take out a £200m loan due to cash flow

“I'm slightly confused that one of the UK's richest men has needed to borrow 200 million pounds in order to have 150 million pounds in the bank. Why is that, Kieran?

Yeah, that doesn't look too clever. I guess the reason is that they needed money by the end of September in order to pay the wage bill in October and November. They remember October and November, both of which are months in which there are international breaks, so that reduces the number of home matches.

Manchester United probably only generate, yeah, I say only generate, they generate four to five million pounds per match at Old Trafford. That's not a lot of money when your monthly wage bill is in the region of 25 to 30 million.

It's going to come as a surprise to a lot of people, Kieran, a shock, in fact, that a club the size of Manchester United has to borrow money ahead of paying the wage bill.

It's the nature of the football industry. Your cost base is quite constant and your biggest cost is going to be your payroll cost. And they've got to find that 25 to 30 million pounds every month”

From The Price of Football: Nov 28, 2024

This material may be protected by copyright.
Click to expand...


How can United be good for football and its fans when they are allowed to loan more money to pay loans and debt
Its Crazy, Anybody outside of football can see the damage they are doing to the game, but its City that are cheating the BAD for football ??
 
ancoats said:
Yes maybe 10 years ago

But United are not winning titles or Champions League plus the best players don't play for them anymore
The cartel always will be trying to protect themselves, but they still have to be the best club in their leagues

The Premier League is not a 2 horse race anymore with United and Liverpool,
other clubs have taken over and leading the battles with bigger revenues and owners becoming a major power
City Chelsea Arsenal and Newcastle will control England over the next 10 years, Yes Liverpool is flying at the moment but if City and Arsenal get their houses back in shape you never know what can happen

United Bring nothing to the table anymore and should not be a major power in what happens in the rules.
For me, the only thing Keeping United at the top table is Skysports and its subscription fees, i don't see a future for that with the Internet companies ready to take over and blow Sky out of the water,
Click to expand...
Its only the media, with their vested commercial interests, that have managed to keep the rags falsely in the public eye.

They are the streford equivalent of Everton.....
Little notable success.
Shit overpriced players.
Shit managers X 8
Shit football.
Shit owners.
Shit fans
Huge debts etc etc etc.

One however is supported by the FA,PL,UEFA,PGMOL,Media,Government & The League of the Cross etc.......
the other is Everton !!


Roachy said:
They're horrendous mate. I don't live a million miles away from the swamp. Everything's planned so we have next to no exposure to them pre and post match, and 100% never on the tram.
Click to expand...
They are a vile,feral bunch of inadequate lowlife scroates who are only gobby and brave 8n numbers.

When its evens they are first class chicken shits.

Ask those who were on Bengal Street !!
 
Gone for a Burton said:
Its only the media, with their vested commercial interests, that have managed to keep the rags falsely in the public eye.

They are the streford equivalent of Everton.....
Little notable success.
Shit overpriced players.
Shit managers X 8
Shit football.
Shit owners.
Shit fans
Huge debts etc etc etc.

One however is supported by the FA,PL,UEFA,PGMOL,Media,Government & The League of the Cross etc.......
the other is Everton !!



They are a vile,feral bunch of inadequate lowlife scroates who are only gobby and brave 8n numbers.

When its evens they are first class chicken shits.

Ask those who were on Bengal Street !!
Click to expand...

Did the Men In black flash their flashlights in your eyes
 
Vienna_70 said:
I see the media wankfest is in full flow, following the rags' stunning victory last night.

It really is vomit-inducing.
Click to expand...

I had the misfortune of seeing their game in the pub last night. The commentary was horrific in their smoke blowing up the rags arses, it’s a mistake they make over and over again when appointing a new manager. They shouldn’t be given the run around by Norwegian no hopers and received favourable decisions for the winning goal and Onana should have walked for handling outside the box. How was that missed?
 
ancoats said:
In a way you are right,
Most clubs will have a payment plan spread across a timescale that was worked out on the agreement for the player, But I will bring you Barcelona and the troubles they have and still owing money to other clubs, They missed payments and City was one of the clubs that did not get paid on time.

This is why uefa FFP is a joke and will let teams do whatever they like knowing they will never be punished
Also what if the club go broke and can not make payments, what happens to the debt

Clubs Like United are not good at reducing their debt and it grows every year because they are allowed to chase their tail without punishment,

United vs City

One club is allowed to spend and borrow money and leave it on the account's debit sheets, The other is debt-free and not allowed to spend his money on the club he owns,

Glazers vs Sheikh Mansour

One will leave football and their club in a right old mess owing £billions, The other will leave football and its club in a healthy state and debt-free
Click to expand...
United are flying very close to the sun, as we saw with the 200m lost revenue from Covid. This meant that they couldn't balance their books for that period, and the Glazers panicked and started trying to find investment.

In stepped INEOS, a company that has a track record for asset stripping and running businesses more efficiently, with less overheads. They will upset more people over the next couple of years. But when you have half a billion coming in every year, there is quite a lot of wiggle room. Any half decent businessman could make that work. Which only shows how inept and badly run that club has been for 20 years.

City are doing things the right way, and could probably operate as a stand alone club without ADUG, but this was only possible after a long period of success, following investment.

12 months ago, Qatar were in for United. And as Saudi Arabia already have Newcastle, it could have ended up a monumental pissing contest, with the middle east making a mockery of the premier league. And without some form of regulation, Saudi Arabia would win hands down. They have more money and more influence. They would be out of sight, with everybody else scrapping for a champions league spot. Many clubs supporters would argue that this has already happened, but it would have been a lot worse.

Imagine a world where Vinicius junior signs for Newcastle, for 250m!

I personally think that there should be a cap on signings, and the 12.2 billion that the PL makes from commercial and TV revenue, needs to be distributed much more around the clubs in the league. Then we wouldn't be in a situation where clubs are getting in debt and fans are being fleeced. There is enough money in the pot for everybody to exist financially.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top