Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery." - Wilkins Micawber
I had to look that one up. Bang a Gong, Get it On!I bet Marc Bolan isn’t very happy.
And long may it continue that way!This is why the Glazers ultimately will never pack this cash cow in.
You mean the Bucketeers over at Pallet Park? Ha ha haYou can’t fool the children of the revolution
No but you can fool these 20th century boys. (Because they live in the 90s)You can’t fool the children of the revolution
Depends which accounts the losses are from. The ones that are reported to thr PL are under the name Red Football, not Manchester United. I don’t think their Red Football accounts include their shareholders’ taking money out of the club to pay the debts that they leveraged against the club when they bought the shares. So their losses might be less than that if those figures are Manchester United figures.If Google is correct, United have reported losses of:
24/25 - £33m
23/24 - £113.2m
22/23 - £28.7m
That gives them a figure of £174.9m loss over the last three seasons. I know they were permitted around £48m special costs as exempt for "restructuring" during the takeover, but their £40m special "COVID losses" season (which was substantially higher than most other clubs and, some may say, unusually out of step) is now out of the period taken into account for psr.
I also see they've been granted a £50m exceptional cost for the Carrington refurbishment, and the £10.4m cost for sacking tent peg is it included or another exception?
But even then, they've got to be close to the limits, surely? And that's is now heading into a season where they're guaranteed to have less matchdays and ticketing income because of less games. Maybe we should be crediting their accountants here, but it does feel an awful lot like certain clubs enjoy a closer relationship with the rule makers, than others.
Fourth highest revenue in world football.
Do they realise who is second.
He paid $33 / share which is at current price is nearly $18 loss plus he invested $300 in cash into the club no wonder he lost $8B off his fortuneA screen grab from Yahoo Finance today that I thought Blue Mooners would like: View attachment 169811
They had a powder puff attempt from Sesko that Donna threw his cap on and a really sweet volley from Mbueno.They're telling them what they want to hear so they can get the engagement. 1st goal is always huge in the derby, but coming home from the game I couldn't remember them having a shot on target even though the stats said 2
Might get a song out of that oneRide A Sick Swan!
Whereas the BBC would probably have reported it thus: 'The billionaires of City were left reeling after endless attacks from this wonderful Untied team. The pampered rich boys under the so-called 'greatest manager ever' Pep Guardiola, were toothless in attack and lacklustre in midfield - best not mention what City laughingly call a defence.They had a powder puff attempt from Sesko that Donna threw his cap on and a really sweet volley from Mbueno.
How dare you!Fucks given ZERO
Yep, I've technically made more profit the last year than these clowns.Doesn't really matter how big your revenue is, if your out goings are more than your in comings. You are living above your means and owe people money.