£40m PSR Allowance Explanation?

The holy trinity 68

The disparager
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
6,697
Location
Manchester
How accurate are the claims that United were granted a £40m covid allowance to avoid making losses that would breach the PSR Regulations?

I have not seen anything on the forum discussing it.

This link explains what the £40m allowance was for but it doesn't explain anything related to why such a high figure was allowed, and apparently the other PL clubs only got a £1m allowance.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/56...iteds-40m-controversial-covid-loss-explained/

Can anyone explain why Man United were allowed such a high allowance and are there any reliable sources? Or are the claims bogus as they came from a biased, life long Man City fan and ex employee?
 
The holy trinity 68 said:
How accurate are the claims that United were granted a £40m covid allowance to avoid making losses that would breach the PSR Regulations?

I have not seen anything on the forum discussing it.

This link explains what the £40m allowance was for but it doesn't explain anything related to why such a high figure was allowed, and apparently the other PL clubs only got a £1m allowance.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/56...iteds-40m-controversial-covid-loss-explained/

Can anyone explain why Man United were allowed such a high allowance and are there any reliable sources? Or are the claims bogus as they came from a biased, life long Man City fan and ex employee?
Click to expand...

£40m allowance for Covid and some kind of allowance for the £30m+ it cost the club in fees related to the Glazer family selling a stake to Sir Jim.
 
The holy trinity 68 said:
This still doesn't explain why we are allowed an allowance of £40m compared to other clubs only being allowed an allowance of £40m. This just explains what the allowance included.
Click to expand...
We don't know if other clubs got an allowance like this given that they aren't listed on the stock exchange.
 
The holy trinity 68 said:
So that mouth piece is just making up other clubs only getting £1m? Genuine question.
Click to expand...
Other clubs doesn't have to disclose things like this, so we'll never know exactly what clubs have gotten. It's likely that other clubs have gotten allowances like this, though probably not as big. That is because no other clubs apart from maybe a couple have the same income to loose.
 
It's nonsense.

Everton had one of the largest losses in the league, and they still only failed PSR by £16M. In 2022 Leeds and Burnley wanted them investigated for having a three year loss of £371M. £170M of which they claimed as COVID losses.

Given that their end result in 2022 was 120M - it would be very surprising if their exception was "just £1M".

Ratcliffe's "special PSR" exception is standard. An owner is allowed to invest £90M in running costs over a 3 year period - which explains the £35M exception.
 
The holy trinity 68 said:
This still doesn't explain why we are allowed an allowance of £40m compared to other clubs only being allowed an allowance of £40m. This just explains what the allowance included.
Click to expand...
Because we asked for it (under the rules) and most didn’t… there was a thread on X explaining it, I’ll see if I can find it
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
Because we asked for it (under the rules) and most didn’t… there was a thread on X explaining it, I’ll see if I can find it
Click to expand...
And it’s worth saying Everton got a certain amount of allowance (as did every club most likely) they just had ridiculously high losses.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
And it’s worth saying Everton got a certain amount of allowance (as did every club most likely) they just had ridiculously high losses.
Click to expand...
From memory, Everton had a much higher exposure to Russian sponsors than any other club (ownership ties?) so when the Govt(s) imposed sanctions, a lot of those related businesses went under and left Everton with lost income. The PL rules DO NOT allow for these losses to be netted off/claimed/etc.

United lost a lot of income from the cancellation of the US tour, loss of fulfilment to sponsors and some smaller (then Everton) bad debts. These were due to Covid and easily proveable. These ARE allowed to be netted off/claimed/etc.

Is it fair some bad losses are allowed (Covid related) and some aren’t? Maybe not. But who voted for these rules…. THE TWENTY PL CLUBS WHO ALL HAVE AN EQUAL VOTE.

On top of that, United (being listed) have to make public/available a shit ton more information than most clubs, so every single pound/dollar of their Covid claim is verifiable by anyone… Uniteds accountants, the PL accountants, various investors and fund managers in the US, Mr Smith from Widnes, anyone can (and probably have) checked the figures and validity of the claim.

We had a lot of losses directly attributable to Covid… the PL rules allow us to net them off… the rules were voted for by the TWENTY PL clubs.

Hated, adored… never ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.