Maguire is projecting from the end of Q1- after summer splurge.
Talk about hyperbole
You know what I mean. But yeah me too I wish I was as skint as him.
| Rank 2024(2023) | Name | Worth | Rise/Fall | Source of wealth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1(1) | Gopi Hinduja and family | £37.196bn | £2.196bn | Industry and finance: Hinduja Group |
| 2(3) | Sir Leonard Blavatnik | £29.246bn | £621m | Investment, music and media: Access Industries |
| 3(4) | David and Simon Reuben and family | £24.977bn | £578m | Property and internet: Reuben Brothers |
| 4(2) | Sir Jim Ratcliffe | £23.519bn | £6.169bn | Chemicals: Ineos Group |
We don't know. Ineos run the footballing side so they may well feel it is beneficial to pay off some of the debt if we are in a position to do so (which we have been in basically every year up to around 2022 as far as I can see). Our wages have dramatically changed since peak Glazer era and this year's recruitment gives me hope we won't be signing expensive older players anymore. But it will be gradual, the Glazers began draining us about twenty years ago.
I can't see Jim paying off any of the debt unless he's 100% getting full/majority ownership. Be great if he did though as it's definitely the overwhelming financial issue.
I can tell you, categorically, that investing in a football club with a view to making real returns would be a terrible idea, and not something an extremely wealthy and successful businessman would do. You can say ‘go twerk for your billionaire’ if you like, but what you’re suggesting is just wrong.
Those numbers are just pure speculation (as you said) and partly outright wrong.
Last season we made 137m as matchday revenue and in first three months this season approx 25m so he is about 60m short on his calculations.Why? He is a minority investor who basically runs the entire football side - it would still benefit him if it made sense to pay off the debt. I doubt he will - he'll likely take out even more debt when we are able to, but he certainly could and it would impact on our value as a club.
You can do that categorically can you? Is that because they told you during the lap dance?
No. Because it’s common financial sense.
Just cutting jobs for a laugh then is he? This is the man you’re going to bat for?
I’m not batting for anyone. I’m trying to explain to you that it would be a very foolish investment for any individual who’s primary goal was to make a return on their investment over and above inflation, I.e., real returns.
You’re defending a man cutting jobs and bonuses for no benefit to the football team. Not to mention forcing match going fans, struggling with the rising cost in living, to pay extortionate amounts to watch the team when it will barely cover the pay off for managers contracts they extended for no reason. This is the man and decisions you are defending.
Training ground, player development, stadium expenditures and women’s team investments are all being excluded from profit/loss for PSR purposes. In fact, they count as credits. These are moves that actually allow us to spend more money. Source: Swiss Ramble
I’m not defending anything. I’m explaining that these measures are not being introduced to make him more wealthy. The man’s net worth is already more than the entire club three times over.
He is not using revenue for matchday income. He has converted to actual cash. We receive monies up front for hospitality and STs. All of that would be banked by Q1 reporting date so most of matchday revenue is already accounted for in the starting cash position. Don't know how accurate the remaining 47m is, without seeing his workings, but it sounds plausible enough.Those numbers are just pure speculation (as you said) and partly outright wrong.
As example he is predicting our matchday income would be 47m for the rest of the season
The Swiss Ramble estimates that we can lose 120m and still not run afoul of PSR. We lost 113m last financial year, but this was offset by investments in players development, womens team development, etc.
A catch 22 though. Spend a lot on that stuff because according to the tests I can then spend much more on some other stuff. Spend on that stuff. Checks pockets. Well feck it anyway.
But you were defending it. This is how this conversation started.
It’s nothing to do with defending anything. It’s to do with logic. I don’t have to agree with the means or think they’re nice things to do, to still realise that they could provide financial benefit to the club in the future. It’s called nuance. A post a few above yours explained that the club should be £45m better off due to the cuts that have been made.
Not really… any capital injected to fund anything will increase INEOS’ equity position. They will ostensibly want to do that over time to gain full control.
Firstly, costs are recorded in the profit and loss account not the balance sheet.
I’ve been involved in a lot of start up companies, acquisitions and mergers.
I don’t think he’s inclined to do that unless the valuation of the club increases and he simultaneously dilutes the Glazers.
Thats what happens when you have no success for over a decade and spunk a billion on shite
What’s your point?
That's highly debatable.
That didn’t answer his question
Debateable that Garnacho is one of our better players.
