United Thread | 2025/26

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
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.
 
EL APACHE TEVEZ said:
How the fuck have these cunts made revenues of £650 mill
Click to expand...

For comparison City made £715 in the 2024 accounts, things to think about going forward

Improved kit deal with Puma
Improved Etihad deal
Extended North stand and hotel bumping match day revenues

Two clubs going in different directions
 
mancboy said:
Thats is true but i thought it was well documented that they had one set of accounts of red football and one set of accounts for manchester united and one is presented to avoid ffp issues?
Click to expand...
Manchester United submits the accounts of its UK-registered subsidiary, Red Football Ltd (RFL), for Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) assessments, rather than the Cayman Islands-based Manchester United plc, resulting in a significantly lower pre-tax loss figure. This discrepancy is due to RFL's accounts excluding exceptional costs, such as Sir Jim Ratcliffe's minority stake acquisition costs and other currency-related financial costs, which were incurred at the plc level but not passed down to the subsidiary. This strategic reporting has provided the club with more financial headroom for spending and has influenced how its PSR compliance is perceived.

***C&P from AI


It stinks doesn't it?
 
ninjamonkey said:
Record revenues isn't a particularly interesting statement, everybody in this league at least, are regularly posting record revenues. The TV money is so vast that it dwarves anything else now.

The net loss is the clear signficiant figure here and that's after all of the cost cutting they've done. They've cut everything possible and whilst they have reduced losses substantially, they have still have made a net loss, that should be a big concern.

They arent getting CL anytime soon to raise their necks above water, they don't have many saleable assets anymore. They'll have a big payout to make soon enough when they sack amorim and replace him. They have plans for a new stadium to fund as they can fuck off asking for handouts on that. Any suggestion this is a positive set of figures for them comes from somebody who hasn't a clue what they are looking at.

It's a bleak immediate future ahead for them and its going to be glorious.
Click to expand...
"turnover is vanity, profit is sanity"
 
mexico1970 said:
Manchester United submits the accounts of its UK-registered subsidiary, Red Football Ltd (RFL), for Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) assessments, rather than the Cayman Islands-based Manchester United plc, resulting in a significantly lower pre-tax loss figure. This discrepancy is due to RFL's accounts excluding exceptional costs, such as Sir Jim Ratcliffe's minority stake acquisition costs and other currency-related financial costs, which were incurred at the plc level but not passed down to the subsidiary. This strategic reporting has provided the club with more financial headroom for spending and has influenced how its PSR compliance is perceived.

***C&P from AI


It stinks doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Post #5217 on the previous page posts a link to the article in The Athletic
 
foggy1974 said:
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
Click to expand...
Gigi's fantastic save was from one of them, but the other escapes me
 
mexico1970 said:
Manchester United submits the accounts of its UK-registered subsidiary, Red Football Ltd (RFL), for Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) assessments, rather than the Cayman Islands-based Manchester United plc, resulting in a significantly lower pre-tax loss figure. This discrepancy is due to RFL's accounts excluding exceptional costs, such as Sir Jim Ratcliffe's minority stake acquisition costs and other currency-related financial costs, which were incurred at the plc level but not passed down to the subsidiary. This strategic reporting has provided the club with more financial headroom for spending and has influenced how its PSR compliance is perceived.

***C&P from AI


It stinks doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Manchessheryoonited - the most sustainable club in the world.
 
Simon Stone is the ultimate spin doctor- no way is he not on the United payroll. His write up of their financial statement is fanciful and avoids pretty much all of the underlying issues. Why do some of us pay a licence fee? Certainly not to read a United Fanzine writer.

Says the salary bill has been cut by £51m but then says the wage bill saw a 25% reduction for playing staff (who must account for most of the salary bill) as a result of not making the CL - so on those numbers they must have added to their wage bill otherwise it would have dropped by £70+ million.
 
Last edited:
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