United Thread | 2025/26

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
ancoats said:
How the fuck are they allowed to carry on spending without punishment under the FFP rules and PSR rules


www.bbc.co.uk

Man Utd debt: Premier League club owe more than £1bn after latest borrowing

Manchester United's borrowing of an extra £105m to help fund their summer transfer spending takes the amount they owe to almost £1.1bn.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Interesting how all the experts who were gushing over their accounts earlier this week made no mention of this then it's conveniently reported on by their propagandist-in-chief a few days later.
 
I always look at the cashflow statement as that's (for me) a key indicator of how they're really doing. Are they spending more cash than they're generating basically?

They borrowed an additional £230m and Scruffy Jim put in £80m, making financing of £310m. They repaid £100m of borrowing with that, leaving a net £210m inflow from their financing activities. They generated £73m cash from their operations, giving them available cash of £283m. Of that, they paid out nearly £280m on incoming transfers, recouping nearly £50m on outgoing players. This is just cash by the way, not the total transfer fees, so some will be instalments on previous seasons' transfers.

That's a net £230m cash on transfers, with another £45m paid out on Property, Plant & Equipment (like fixing the roof). So £283m in and £275m out, giving them a net increase in cash of £8m.

But without that £310m from financing (borrowing plus share sales) that would have been a significant cash outflow during the year. Scruffy isn't going to be putting in more money so they'll only be able to borrow money this FY, and they definitely won't be reporting record revenues without any European football.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I always look at the cashflow statement as that's (for me) a key indicator of how they're really doing. Are they spending more cash than they're generating basically?

They borrowed an additional £230m and Scruffy Jim put in £80m, making financing of £310m. They repaid £100m of borrowing with that, leaving a net £210m inflow from their financing activities. They generated £73m cash from their operations, giving them available cash of £283m. Of that, they paid out nearly £280m on incoming transfers, recouping nearly £50m on outgoing players. This is just cash by the way, not the total transfer fees, so some will be instalments on previous seasons' transfers.

That's a net £230m cash on transfers, with another £45m paid out on Property, Plant & Equipment (like fixing the roof). So £283m in and £275m out, giving them a net increase in cash of £8m.

But without that £310m from financing (borrowing plus share sales) that would have been a significant cash outflow during the year. Scruffy isn't going to be putting in more money so they'll only be able to borrow money this FY, and they definitely won't be reporting record revenues without any European football.
Click to expand...
they've fixed the roof?
 
Last edited:
jimharri said:
Looked them up. Was staggered to see they had 15 top 40 hits. I could, to my shame, remember two.
Click to expand...
That's two more than I can remember and I used to be well into my music. Never had a great memory though.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I always look at the cashflow statement as that's (for me) a key indicator of how they're really doing. Are they spending more cash than they're generating basically?

They borrowed an additional £230m and Scruffy Jim put in £80m, making financing of £310m. They repaid £100m of borrowing with that, leaving a net £210m inflow from their financing activities. They generated £73m cash from their operations, giving them available cash of £283m. Of that, they paid out nearly £280m on incoming transfers, recouping nearly £50m on outgoing players. This is just cash by the way, not the total transfer fees, so some will be instalments on previous seasons' transfers.

That's a net £230m cash on transfers, with another £45m paid out on Property, Plant & Equipment (like fixing the roof). So £283m in and £275m out, giving them a net increase in cash of £8m.

But without that £310m from financing (borrowing plus share sales) that would have been a significant cash outflow during the year. Scruffy isn't going to be putting in more money so they'll only be able to borrow money this FY, and they definitely won't be reporting record revenues without any European football.
Click to expand...
One thing I can guarantee with Ratcliffe is he won't put in any more than he can possibly avoid doing. Everybody who has ever worked for or with him, and I'm talking about at exec level not just factory floor employees, has said he's a tight arsed git who won't spend.

He's good a raising finance though, usually with other peoples money, like the not insignificant amount he got paid from the government for distributing covid masks, and the nice wedge he got for the Ineos factory which he pocketed and then set up in France instead, similar to what James Dyson did.

Personally I think he'll be looking for a way out when the novelty wears off and he realises how expensive it is to run an ailing football club.
 
coolcity said:
One thing I can guarantee with Ratcliffe is he won't put in any more than he can possibly avoid doing. Everybody who has ever worked for or with him, and I'm talking about at exec level not just factory floor employees, has said he's a tight arsed git who won't spend.

He's good a raising finance though, usually with other peoples money, like the not insignificant amount he got paid from the government for distributing covid masks, and the nice wedge he got for the Ineos factory which he pocketed and then set up in France instead, similar to what James Dyson did.

Personally I think he'll be looking for a way out when the novelty wears off and he realises how expensive it is to run an ailing football club.
Click to expand...
Why are Newcastle/Villa/Everton/Forest putting up with this nonsense, 1.1 BILLION owed and we're portrayed as the cheats!
Absolute charade, wants sorting by this new regulator !
 
coolcity said:
One thing I can guarantee with Ratcliffe is he won't put in any more than he can possibly avoid doing. Everybody who has ever worked for or with him, and I'm talking about at exec level not just factory floor employees, has said he's a tight arsed git who won't spend.

He's good a raising finance though, usually with other peoples money, like the not insignificant amount he got paid from the government for distributing covid masks, and the nice wedge he got for the Ineos factory which he pocketed and then set up in France instead, similar to what James Dyson did.

Personally I think he'll be looking for a way out when the novelty wears off and he realises how expensive it is to run an ailing football club.
Click to expand...
I've always wondered why he got involved in the first place. He wanted in at the Chavs if I remember correctly and only went to the vermin as an afterthought. So if he's the financial genius they all say he is why invest in a sinking ship like the rags? Of course, there is a lot more to all this than we will probably ever know, but the colossal amount of debt they have accrued over the years -and the fact that despite that debt they are still outspending most other clubs in the Prem- must surely give cause for concern to even he most apathetic football fan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top