Club ownership | Senior management team talk

Tibs said:
Should the Government be involved in paying for this? I'd say no.

Glazers have fecked us, and now Jim is also helping to feck us...no way that tax payers should now help this happen - which helps make these leach cnuts more money.
Click to expand...
What?
 
Quite a decent job done by Gnev there. But I think he should have repeated and repeated the question of asking the cnuts to put up some cash. Jim got out of that too easy. Jim's put $300m in, he needs to be asked why they haven't at least done the same.
 
spwd said:
Quite a decent job done by Gnev there. But I think he should have repeated and repeated the question of asking the cnuts to put up some cash. Jim got out of that too easy. Jim's put $300m in, he needs to be asked why they haven't at least done the same.
Click to expand...

You, me and everyone knows the answer to that. You want to ask the 1 party who is legally bound to not say it why? Sure let's have INEOS lose their investment and go back to being 100% Glazer owned.
 
pcaming said:
You, me and everyone knows the answer to that. You want to ask the 1 party who is legally bound to not say it why? Sure let's have INEOS lose their investment and go back to being 100% Glazer owned.
Click to expand...
i’m sure Jim could have persuaded them this year to inject 300m, having injected only 45m of their own money in 2 decades.
 
Tibs said:
Was going to edit the post but was quotes 3-4 times so I'll admit, I have misunderstood and do indeed need to educate myself on the funding/paying
Click to expand...

To be honest though, self funded or not, if that new stadium is built and in use, upping revenues and the c***s are still here, rubbing their hands together, we are all going to be very, very upset.
 
pcaming said:
You, me and everyone knows the answer to that. You want to ask the 1 party who is legally bound to not say it why? Sure let's have INEOS lose their investment and go back to being 100% Glazer owned.
Click to expand...
He's not legally bound to not answer the question at all. He can't call them leeching cnuts like we do but he could actually say something like we're exploring that possibility otherwise he wouldn't have said anything about it at all. Like if he was asked if he would be putting more money in he could be asked if they're going to do the same.
 
Stinkypete said:
I feel it was the lack of ambition that got Ashworth the sack in the end honestly. Ashworth was a part of building this Ten Hag FC. His choice to give him more time during the first emergency meeting. He cost them time, European qualification and his choices for manager were unambitious to say the least Thomas Frank. Insane.

I think Ashworth believed they needed a lot more time than this project demands.

I think Berrada said hold up, I'll deliver.
Click to expand...
He wasn't even employed at that time.

The reports at the time suggested it was Brailsford who wanted ETH to stay.

He preferred a manager that played 433 because he didn't think we had the money to change system.
 
Jezpeza said:
i’m sure Jim could have persuaded them this year to inject 300m, having injected only 45m of their own money in 2 decades.
Click to expand...

spwd said:
He's not legally bound to not answer the question at all. He can't call them leeching cnuts like we do but he could actually say something like we're exploring that possibility otherwise he wouldn't have said anything about it at all. Like if he was asked if he would be putting more money in he could be asked if they're going to do the same.
Click to expand...

You guys are being incredibly naive if you think they have any intention of putting in their own money. Their version of investing was selling part of the club.
 
dubplate warrior said:
Quick question, how much were our operating cost vs total revenue year by year since 2020?

I'll wait.
Click to expand...
Why don't you enlighten us?
I will help a little- our revenues less cash operating costs were better than another club in the PL for year end 2024. Indeed with few exceptions (if any) our revenues less day-to-day operating costs over that period was higher than any other club in the PL. Indeed we are still one of the most profitable clubs in world football before player trading and finance costs.
JR would like you to focus exclusively on our ever increasing operational costs while conveniently neglecting to mention that this applies to all other teams as well. Football is a costly business for all clubs.
So why did we make a loss of 131m in 2024, if our revenues less cash operational costs (the stuff JR would have you believe is crippling us) is the best in the PL?

That is pretty simple to explain:
From that amount (which is also called EBITDA) deduct net player trading (amortization less profit on player sales), deduct exceptional costs, deduct depreciation, deduct finance costs, and you get to our profit position.
For United that is (148m- 190m +37m- 48m-17m -61)= -131m
So the problem according to JR isn't really the shite finance costs of 61m, the brutal net player trading position of (190m-37m), or the exceptional costs (mainly the review costs) of 48m. The problem is the EBITDA of 148m. The biggest EBITDA in the PL. Free food and lazy staff twiddling their thumbs have ruined it.

So what about City, aren't they wonderfully efficient, lean, not to mention successful on the pitch? Well its a mixed bag, their day-to-day operational costs are much higher than ours, and though they have bigger revenues by being more successful, their EBITDA is 117m. Their player trading position is much better (165-139) and of course their finance costs of 4.8m is much lower. Allowing for depreciation of 12m, they made a profit before tax of 74m in 2024.

So Liverpool then, how are they motoring? Well they are not wonderfully efficient either. Their revenues less day-to-day operational costs gave them an EBITDA of 61m. A poor enough player trading position (93m) together with finance costs of 9m left losses of 57m before tax. The problem is obviously free food and a bloated workforce, though I could be mistaken. They should get INEOS in for a check over.

Profits in football are fleeting. The vast preponderance of clubs make losses in the PL and many have owners that negotiate losses to make them manageable. And none of them have gone bust. It's woefully disingenuous to suggest that one of the biggest clubs in world football would have to take out debt to pay for fecking staff food. Utter nonsense.
 
spwd said:
Quite a decent job done by Gnev there. But I think he should have repeated and repeated the question of asking the cnuts to put up some cash. Jim got out of that too easy. Jim's put $300m in, he needs to be asked why they haven't at least done the same.
Click to expand...
If anything he repeated himself too much on that point. I dislike the leeches as much as anyone but you’re not going to get people who work (Ratcliffe) or even have worked (SAF) with them to bad mouth them. It’s usually not how business works and these people aren’t fools who will shoot themselves in the foot to please the interviewer.
 
laughtersassassin said:
That's interview does give me some more confidence but in many ways it's hard to understand how we are in the situation we are in but are planning to build the world's best stadium.

How could we possibly deal with increasing our debt from 1 billion to potentially over 3 billion.

How will we possibly be able to service that? It seems impossible as long as the Glazers are here.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I've wondered this too.
 
gaffs said:
Halfway though. Gary asking some time questions and i think Jim is answering fairly.

Feels like his is backing Ruben 100%.

Gary seems to have a bee in the bonnet about free lunches and the ex-players dinner.
Click to expand...
Probably has affected people he knows associated with the club.
 
Tibs said:
Should the Government be involved in paying for this? I'd say no.

Glazers have fecked us, and now Jim is also helping to feck us...no way that tax payers should now help this happen - which helps make these leach cnuts more money.
Click to expand...

The government invests in these things to see economic growth, in this case it's estimated it will bring in over £7 billion a year from creating a world class sporting hub, tourism, job creation, improved public transport, new housing, the general rejuvenation of a large area, etc. I would like my tax payer money to be spent on stuff like that as it's got good potential for improving people's quality of life. Sadly yes billionaires also often get richer when cutting these kinds of deals but until the revolution that's just how the world works.
 
laughtersassassin said:
How could we possibly deal with increasing our debt from 1 billion to potentially over 3 billion.

How will we possibly be able to service that? It seems impossible as long as the Glazers are here.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

roseguy64 said:
I've wondered this too.
Click to expand...
The ultra rich can do as they please, especially if there's a golden egg laying goose like the behemoth brand of Manchester United to leech off of.
 
laughtersassassin said:
Not defending him because only time will tell but we never should have had 500 more employees than any other club in world football.

They never should have been hired in the first place. He is having to try fix a problem someone else built
Click to expand...
Well we've not ever had 500 more employees than any other club in world football.
 
Redjazz said:
Why don't you enlighten us?
I will help a little- our revenues less cash operating costs were better than another club in the PL for year end 2024. Indeed with few exceptions (if any) our revenues less day-to-day operating costs over that period was higher than any other club in the PL. Indeed we are still one of the most profitable clubs in world football before player trading and finance costs.
JR would like you to focus exclusively on our ever increasing operational costs while conveniently neglecting to mention that this applies to all other teams as well. Football is a costly business for all clubs.
So why did we make a loss of 131m in 2024, if our revenues less cash operational costs (the stuff JR would have you believe is crippling us) is the best in the PL?

That is pretty simple to explain:
From that amount (which is also called EBITDA) deduct net player trading (amortization less profit on player sales), deduct exceptional costs, deduct depreciation, deduct finance costs, and you get to our profit position.
For United that is (148m- 190m +37m- 48m-17m -61)= -131m
So the problem according to JR isn't really the shite finance costs of 61m, the brutal net player trading position of (190m-37m), or the exceptional costs (mainly the review costs) of 48m. The problem is the EBITDA of 148m. The biggest EBITDA in the PL. Free food and lazy staff twiddling their thumbs have ruined it.

So what about City, aren't they wonderfully efficient, lean, not to mention successful on the pitch? Well its a mixed bag, their day-to-day operational costs are much higher than ours, and though they have bigger revenues by being more successful, their EBITDA is 117m. Their player trading position is much better (165-139) and of course their finance costs of 4.8m is much lower. Allowing for depreciation of 12m, they made a profit before tax of 74m in 2024.

So Liverpool then, how are they motoring? Well they are not wonderfully efficient either. Their revenues less day-to-day operational costs gave them an EBITDA of 61m. A poor enough player trading position (93m) together with finance costs of 9m left losses of 57m before tax. The problem is obviously free food and a bloated workforce, though I could be mistaken. They should get INEOS in for a check over.

Profits in football are fleeting. The vast preponderance of clubs make losses in the PL and many have owners that negotiate losses to make them manageable. And none of them have gone bust. It's woefully disingenuous to suggest that one of the biggest clubs in world football would have to take out debt to pay for fecking staff food. Utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Firstly thanks for breaking down the P&L, really helpful..but whilst I’m not defending the decisions they made but do want to point out they haven’t just targeted reducing operational costs.

INEOS have also targeted reducing player wage bills and to reduce the net player trading through shipping out the highest wages players on loan (and hopefully sell this summer), selling McTominay (pure profit), focusing on quality youth signings (chido, heaven). We’re also unfortunately hitting a stumbling block with kobbie renegotiations as we won’t allow the same costly mistake we made with rashford. I say unfortunate because it would also be sad to see one of our brightest youth players leave.

Even if we sell players this summer we’re still likely to make a loss on most; Antony, Sancho, Casemiro. Rashford £40m fee alone won’t help so with that already factored in, they are targeting other cost saving measures.

Don’t also dismiss that the lenders we’re going to have to go refinance from will be pushing United to become more solvent and will see these steps as necessary before considering to lend.
 
romufc said:
Yep like the fact when everyone was up in arms about the job losses and redundancies. I bet you no one knew that we had a body language expert being paid 175k a year.

I was told on here that most of the redundancies were a max of 40k a year wage...
Click to expand...
Yes one person being 175k a year means everyone was?
 
romufc said:
The footballers get food because its part of the job, I would say 100% of the top clubs, PL, give players food because they monitor their diets. As staff of the club, you dont get free food its a perk, when things are going well.

What I dont get is why do so many fans just focus on Ashworth and Ten Hag, as if to say, they should have still been in the job, to save costs. This is a football club first and foremost and footballing things will be a first priority.
Click to expand...
The thing about Ashworth and ETH you're not accounting for is our transfer outlay in the summer was related to them. It put the club back.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Yeah I am all for more accountability from the players - I think the only story we ever got was Bruno offering to pay for accommodation re the FA cup final which I think was then disproved (as that can all be expensed). Just shows how little the modern players really care I guess, unless they are doing things that don't get picked up by the media.
Click to expand...
Where was it disproved? It's been repeated multiple times in The Athletic. Bruno and Heaton also had to help out the women's team because the club messed up re: their FA Cup Final.
 
romufc said:
Yep like the fact when everyone was up in arms about the job losses and redundancies. I bet you no one knew that we had a body language expert being paid 175k a year.

I was told on here that most of the redundancies were a max of 40k a year wage...
Click to expand...
I mean what the feck is this?

I've never even heard of this type of job - and he's being paid this absolutely obscene amount of money?!

No wonder we're nearly broke when we're paying for stupid shite like this.
 
The Firestarter said:
A football club is not your regular business. I don't know how often it needs to be said.

The issue I have with the job cuts is that they are droplets in a sea of mistakes which were done by Ineos themselves. So if they are making large capital mistakes, they should inject some more of their own funds, at least to cover the day to day costs which the job / perk cuts were addressing.
Click to expand...
Yes a football club is a company at the end of the day that needs to be profitable otherwise it goes bust. We have seen that in the past. Why is that so hard to accept?

How can you point out Ineos mistakes as so costly but no mention of the Glazers who run this club against a wall the past 15 years? Ineos is trying to save this club and yes not all is perfect but it is crazy that some fans still dont understand the situation the club is in
 
As I live in the other side of the world, my view is probably a bit more pragmatic this those who live and breathe in the UK. Seems to be obvious that since the Woodward years started that the transfer business, extensions and wages were far above the planet that other clubs live on,. If someone hadn’t come in, realised what the real picture was and made a decision to run th club more prudently and cut superfluous stuff and expenses, Man Utd could well be exposed to a future that has seen big clubs like Sunderland, Leeds etc suffer. Actually being cash poor and unable to stump up the transfer payments pushed down the road.

That it’s been done now is a good thing, some pain now or an absolute ignominious future, would be easy to fall that way. Get the books in order, ,hopefully cut off the cancer that is the yankee shopping mall owners and rebuild with confidence.
 
The Firestarter said:
A football club is not your regular business. I don't know how often it needs to be said.
Click to expand...
A real club that consists of and is controlled by members (like a club is actually defined) isn't. But that applies to clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona or Bayern (to name a few big clubs). None of the PL teams are organized like that. They are all businesses.

There isn't a single real club in the PL, it's just a bunch of entertainment companies. Woodward got criticized a lot here for his "Disneyland pitch" to Klopp, but fact is that United is closer to that than to being a real club.
 
roseguy64 said:
The thing about Ashworth and ETH you're not accounting for is our transfer outlay in the summer was related to them. It put the club back.
Click to expand...

You can't not sign players based on "what if the manager doesn't work". Would your approach be not to sign players?

De Ligt - Probably our best CB this season
Yoro - was signed to be a top CB in the future, no one expected him to be a top player right now.
Ugarte - Worked with Amorim in the past and has played in this system
Zirkzee - Failed to really show his qualities so far, doesn't seem like a good fit.
Mazroui - One of our best buys in recent years

So, you expect 100% of transfers to work out, not even in the very best operating clubs this happens.

Now look at the age and wage profiles of the players signed. Your opinion of putting the club back and mine are 2 very different ones.

One thinks spending 40/50m on players under 200k wage is putting the club back, whilst mine is:

Antony 90m and 200k
Mount 60m and 250k
Casemiro 60m and 300k

I wont even add Hojlund to that because he is still getting game time and the manager seems to use him.
 
romufc said:
You can't not sign players based on "what if the manager doesn't work". Would your approach be not to sign players?

De Ligt - Probably our best CB this season
Yoro - was signed to be a top CB in the future, no one expected him to be a top player right now.
Ugarte - Worked with Amorim in the past and has played in this system
Zirkzee - Failed to really show his qualities so far, doesn't seem like a good fit.
Mazroui - One of our best buys in recent years

So, you expect 100% of transfers to work out, not even in the very best operating clubs this happens.

Now look at the age and wage profiles of the players signed. Your opinion of putting the club back and mine are 2 very different ones.

One thinks spending 40/50m on players under 200k wage is putting the club back, whilst mine is:

Antony 90m and 200k
Mount 60m and 250k
Casemiro 60m and 300k

I wont even add Hojlund to that because he is still getting game time and the manager seems to use him.
Click to expand...

Hojlund needs to be added to the list, he's been the worst player of the season by a country mile. Zirkzee has shown qualities just not necessarily in the position he was purchased for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.