He bought in the only way possible.
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
He didn’t have to do it at all. And any money he’s put in has been in exchange for equity. So these training ground improvements are actually coming from the Glazers.
He needed a "real" rival bid for a full sale
Not sure if this is the right thread or not, so apologies in advance. But felt I had to share this as soon as I saw this. Because wtf have I just read??? If this is true, my hate for them has gotten worse(if possible).
They play in NFL facilities just about every preseason, so it can't be that much of a shock to them.
I Think the point is about the Bucs specifically though.
Exactly this... considering how much money they've taken out of our club and compare that with them apparently investing much more in the Bucs facilities and team and than do something this sly.
It looks like they have some sort of new facilty, but it just looks like a big shed. Compared to the place in LA i dont think they have anything special as to wow the players, so as much as i distrust the Glazers i am not sure if i buy this story from the Ogmeister;
https://www.buccaneers.com/photos/p...19479470#57085f33-69b7-424e-8e4f-2065e72d86a8
but maybe this is why they don't want the players landing with the bucs, sit down Giggsy boy (sorry i could not ignore that part of the website);
https://www.buccaneers.com/cheerleaders/cheer-photos
What I don't get about the whole PSR/FFP discussions with regards to United (sorry if this was talked about somewhere else in detail):
Clubs are allowed to make a loss of 15 Mio within 3 years. This is calculated basically as income minus expenses whereas player purchases are amortized according to their contract length up to maximum 5 years.
However, owners are allowed to cover up to 90 Mio additional loss for a 3 years period which the need to inject into the club. According to sources like Sky only Chelsea and Everton made use of this and we do not. This means that Sir Jim and the Glazers could buy players for 90 Mio right now just by paying out of their own pockets. It would not really be lost money as it would also raise the net worth of the club.
Also, investments in facilities etc. are not accounted for as expenses and have no impact on PSR/FFP as far as I understand.
And on top of that if owners of a club run a business they are allowed to make sponsoring deals with the club. These deals just need to be at arm's length. Maybe this is already the case but I am sure that the logo of INEOS or whatever the Glazer's company is called printed everywhere in context with United would be worth quite a bit if someone external would be interested.
So why is there always talk about Sir Jim and Co cannot do anything because of PSR/FFP?
Clubs are allowed to make a loss of 15 Mio within 3 years. This is calculated basically as income minus expenses whereas player purchases are amortized according to their contract length up to maximum 5 years.
However, owners are allowed to cover up to 90 Mio additional loss for a 3 years period which the need to inject into the club. According to sources like Sky only Chelsea and Everton made use of this and we do not. This means that Sir Jim and the Glazers could buy players for 90 Mio right now just by paying out of their own pockets. It would not really be lost money as it would also raise the net worth of the club.
Also, investments in facilities etc. are not accounted for as expenses and have no impact on PSR/FFP as far as I understand.
And on top of that if owners of a club run a business they are allowed to make sponsoring deals with the club. These deals just need to be at arm's length. Maybe this is already the case but I am sure that the logo of INEOS or whatever the Glazer's company is called printed everywhere in context with United would be worth quite a bit if someone external would be interested.
So why is there always talk about Sir Jim and Co cannot do anything because of PSR/FFP?
In a moment where all and sundry are blaming the manager, castigating the players and slagging off the new owner let this serve as a reminder of where the blame for our current predicament really lies. Focus has been lost.
It’s incredible, this doesn’t surprise me but I still can’t quite believe what I’m reading. It shows exactly what the Americans really think of the club they profess to ‘love’.
Haha. I get you.Selective quote too tbf. I’m not going to back my point by posting evidence to the contrary am I?
And I thought that I couldn’t hate those cnuts any more.
Because Ineos are just as bad as the Glazers, as we are starting to find out. Cutting the odd 50p from charity donations and hiking ticket prices to drive actual fans out for shirt wearing merch buying selfie taking tourists.
They are just as tight as the glazers, all that stuff about paying off credit facilities was probably more to do with making their asset profitable than it is making the team competitive.
The FFP PSR stuff is a covering fire to the fact that they are just a new, second species of parasite attached to the club.
We’ve been had
No they are not.
They've already shown sub Ed Woodward competence and are already treating the club like a run of the mill corporate entity. It all checks out
If we continue with the business as usual before INEOS, I have no doubt this club will run into massive trouble unless some white Knight bails us out. I am not sure if the Qatar bid is real or not, but the fact is Glazers wouldn't sell to them.
INEOS taking over the operations will have its advantage and that is to ensure this "business" is sustainable and resources are effectively deployed. They have to work with the bloodsucking Glazers in mind.
An open heart surgery is required, for the better or worse, if we are to turn the club around. Massive changes including dismissal of staff, wage reforms etc will bring shock to the system. So will sales of players which may seem untouchable previously.
Only time will tell if INEOS change is positive, but at least change in underway.
INEOS taking over the operations will have its advantage and that is to ensure this "business" is sustainable and resources are effectively deployed. They have to work with the bloodsucking Glazers in mind.
An open heart surgery is required, for the better or worse, if we are to turn the club around. Massive changes including dismissal of staff, wage reforms etc will bring shock to the system. So will sales of players which may seem untouchable previously.
Only time will tell if INEOS change is positive, but at least change in underway.
Again, no they haven't.
Yeah. ETH contract renewal with almost immediate sacking. Ashworth hire fire. Roaring success of a summer transfer window. Tinpot costcutting. Not backed the new manager, I genuinely dont think they had the ability to identify the disparity between his tactics etc vs our personnel, it was flavour of the month again.
but they have been exceptional, I suppose you’re right
You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say or suggest in any way they have been exceptional.
I said they have not been as bad as the Glazers which is absolutely true.
ETH and Ashworth were bad. The summer window was a good window overall. The costcutting is needed due to the damage the Glazers have done to us.
As far as not backing the new manager, we are not at all good for cash right now, once again due to the Glazers.
Good points.
You are downplaying the impact of wining and contending a little. City's Broadcast revenue for the 3 years to 2024 was 180m greater than our own. The real impact of our continued poor form is on Commercial income, particularly our ability to generate new business. Much of our commercial success in the Fergie years was down to new business growth, not just renewing existing business on better terms.
Your point on constructive vs destructive debt is well made. FPP\PSR both exclude debt used to finance infrastructure development from their breakeven calculations. Alas, the cost of our debt is not a permitted reduction.
The ownership issue is a muddle and that complicates what approach is taken when financing of a new stadium coincides with the need to refinance the existing debt.
Anyways, to divert back to PSR and its restrictiveness, I mocked up the sheet below to illustrate why we have a PSR (and cash) problem. While wages and operational expenses outpaced revenue growth in the 10 years to to 2024, the principal reason why we have such hefty operational losses lately is the unchecked growth in Amortization (around 350% to 2024). Though the 190m in 2024 reflects mainly heavy spending in the last 4 years, its increase over the 10 years, considering the big player turnover, speaks to a policy of replacing players with even more expensive alternatives. Almost as if the idea was that price determined quality and to succeed on the pitch and in the books we needed to spend more. Recruitment was just woeful.
Amortization needs to come down. Using the profit you might get from selling homegrowns to fuel new signings increases amortization and spills the problem in to future test years.
The above is more illustrative than a final call on our 2025 position. Ultimately PSR is the difference between 2 very large numbers (Revenue and expenses), So for borderline pass\fail cases accuracy is a must. With so many estimates that's just not feasible. Only the club (and the PL auditors) knows its actual costs for items like Community spend, Youth Development, and the Women's team. Only the club knows if strategic review costs in 2024 are a permitted add back. Indeed, you could make a case (and the club probably has) for excluding a couple of non cash pay items in Net finance costs. Adding one or both to "contestable items" has a fairly hefty impact on the PSR result. For instance, One item, "retranslation of unhedged US Dollar borrowings" helped to reduce 2023's Net finance cost, but the same item if reversed could balloon 2025's net finance cost leading to a PSR position of -15m to -20m.
I will emphasise what I said in an earlier post, we desperately needed a few proper full sale options, unfortunately those leeches scared off any potentially interested parties with their crazy valuation.
The club, in its current state, doesn't represent great value for money even if the Glazers reduced their valuation by 50%.
Ratcliffe and INEOS buying 25% of the club was the only viable next step in 2023. Whether this has been successful is clearly a very different question (spoiler alert: it hasn't).
Good points.
You are downplaying the impact of wining and contending a little. City's Broadcast revenue for the 3 years to 2024 was 180m greater than our own. The real impact of our continued poor form is on Commercial income, particularly our ability to generate new business. Much of our commercial success in the Fergie years was down to new business growth, not just renewing existing business on better terms.
Your point on constructive vs destructive debt is well made. FPP\PSR both exclude debt used to finance infrastructure development from their breakeven calculations. Alas, the cost of our debt is not a permitted reduction.
The ownership issue is a muddle and that complicates what approach is taken when financing of a new stadium coincides with the need to refinance the existing debt.
Anyways, to divert back to PSR and its restrictiveness, I mocked up the sheet below to illustrate why we have a PSR (and cash) problem. While wages and operational expenses outpaced revenue growth in the 10 years to to 2024, the principal reason why we have such hefty operational losses lately is the unchecked growth in Amortization (around 350% to 2024). Though the 190m in 2024 reflects mainly heavy spending in the last 4 years, its increase over the 10 years, considering the big player turnover, speaks to a policy of replacing players with even more expensive alternatives. Almost as if the idea was that price determined quality and to succeed on the pitch and in the books we needed to spend more. Recruitment was just woeful.
Amortization needs to come down. Using the profit you might get from selling homegrowns to fuel new signings increases amortization and spills the problem in to future test years.
The above is more illustrative than a final call on our 2025 position. Ultimately PSR is the difference between 2 very large numbers (Revenue and expenses), So for borderline pass\fail cases accuracy is a must. With so many estimates that's just not feasible. Only the club (and the PL auditors) knows its actual costs for items like Community spend, Youth Development, and the Women's team. Only the club knows if strategic review costs in 2024 are a permitted add back. Indeed, you could make a case (and the club probably has) for excluding a couple of non cash pay items in Net finance costs. Adding one or both to "contestable items" has a fairly hefty impact on the PSR result. For instance, One item, "retranslation of unhedged US Dollar borrowings" helped to reduce 2023's Net finance cost, but the same item if reversed could balloon 2025's net finance cost leading to a PSR position of -15m to -20m.
The amortisation is a real killer, especially when it’s used to bring in players who aren’t very good and don’t play. Combining big signings with the inevitable big salaries compounds the problem by then being unable to get rid of them.
I think we are ready seeing an attempt at tackle it by reducing the ceiling of the fees we are paying and looking at younger players as well. Sancho will go in the summer but that still leaves us with Rasmus, Casemiro, Antony, Mount, who will all take time to get rid of.
We also can’t afford to do things like replace the very expensive Sancho with the very expensive Antony and end up loaning them both out. Fortunately we bought Amad and I expect we will continue to see a lot more younger players signed because even if they don’t make it there is a chance of selling them off for profit.
It's gotta be tough to take over a business where every "asset" is a liability. But, I'm sure Jim Radcliffe, hardnosed businessman that he is, knew all this before buying into the club.
When essentially every single player has a value of zero on the transfer market, and the club has a financial commitment to paying lucractive salaries for a period of time, then all these guys are is just a line of expense to be gotten rid of. And that goes for basically every player at the club.
Has anyone in the senior exec team sat down, and done up a table of all the squad members and the overall wages owed to them until end of contract, and added it all up? That's the money Ratcliffe and friends now need to stump up as it's nothing more than a debt they inherited when they bought in.
They should have worked out the figure, set it aside, and paid off each and every single player at the club and released them all. Then, hire Ruben Amorim and go from there.
What do we reckon that figure is? A billion? Two? Money owed on old transfers needs to be included too. Woodward and Arnold didn't just piss the 1.5 billion on failed transfers up the wall. They also left the club with a parting gift of hundreds of millions/billions in unpaid wages due to all these useless players over the next 5 or so years.
When essentially every single player has a value of zero on the transfer market, and the club has a financial commitment to paying lucractive salaries for a period of time, then all these guys are is just a line of expense to be gotten rid of. And that goes for basically every player at the club.
Has anyone in the senior exec team sat down, and done up a table of all the squad members and the overall wages owed to them until end of contract, and added it all up? That's the money Ratcliffe and friends now need to stump up as it's nothing more than a debt they inherited when they bought in.
They should have worked out the figure, set it aside, and paid off each and every single player at the club and released them all. Then, hire Ruben Amorim and go from there.
What do we reckon that figure is? A billion? Two? Money owed on old transfers needs to be included too. Woodward and Arnold didn't just piss the 1.5 billion on failed transfers up the wall. They also left the club with a parting gift of hundreds of millions/billions in unpaid wages due to all these useless players over the next 5 or so years.
Then Amorim says "I want the same players" and on a whim you had wasted another billion or two but in one day instead of a decade or two.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
There you go a letter from United to the fans detailing why the cuts are necessary.
We are losing £100m a year, we cannot afford to go spend £200m every season.
INEOS have been given a shitshow from the Glazers and they are tasked to getting the football club back in order. It just shows how far we dropped under the Glazers, Richard Arnold and Ed Woodward, where they just spent all the money overstaffing the place and overpaying for players and wages.
Finishing outside the top 4 added to that on a regular, all ads up and we are now suffering from the poor running of the club.
We are losing £100m a year, we cannot afford to go spend £200m every season.
INEOS have been given a shitshow from the Glazers and they are tasked to getting the football club back in order. It just shows how far we dropped under the Glazers, Richard Arnold and Ed Woodward, where they just spent all the money overstaffing the place and overpaying for players and wages.
Finishing outside the top 4 added to that on a regular, all ads up and we are now suffering from the poor running of the club.
I'll best half the 100m deficit is paying interest on debt the glaziers have left on United....
Those must be some expensive windows
Appalling.
I'm really starting to worry that this will be my last season as a season ticket holder.
My mum and dad have had their season tickets since the seats were first put in K Stand in the mid 70s ffs.
What we thinking? Will this Garnacho money be used on reinforcements or is this going to be one of those “unpopular decisions” they said they were making to balance the books?
Lovely
Last edited:
Good Guess. 46% of our 3 year losses to 2024 (313m) were net finance costs. Probably same again in the 3 years to 2025.
Important to note that without the debt costs:
We do not have a PSR problem despite all that the stupid Woodward\Arnold player recruitment.
We have more latitude wrt transfer dealings as in we sell homegrown players purely for footballing reasons and not just because of PSR compliance issues
We have better cash flow
We wouldn't have required JR's $200m in 2024 to pass PSR
Indeed the strategic review probably doesn't take place and INEOS isn't a thing
You could say that the debt that brought the Glazers in to the club and gave them ownership is now at last forcing them to consider their position as owners. It's a nice irony for the Glazer-out folks: Debt, the thing the detested the most is now working in their favor.
It would make zero sense being used to balance the books. A one off payment won't make any long term difference to our constant losses.
Enough is enough. I wasn't pro Qatar bid but Jim and Glazers are leading Man UTD off a cliff. The biggest problem at UDT financially is the Glazer debt. Take that away and the monthly interest payments and the club is at a great place financially. Time to sell the club to owners who can clear the debt and finance a new stadium on their own. Its freaking obvious Jim can't afford it. So why is he insistent on running the club when he can't bring it to a good place financially. Sell it for heaven's sake. UTD don't need a sugar daddy. They just need someone who can take the financial burden away that was unfairly put on the club
Disgrace, asking the fans to fecking help them because of their idiocy, they have zero shame. People are paying thousands of pounds already and are forced to watch this horrible football, I feel sorry for every season ticket holder.
Fans need to wake up and call Jim and Glazers to sell the club to someone who can clear the debt.
He's treating United purely as a business. Restructuring measures left and right. Understandable (albeit a but surprising considering the age of Ratcliffe) but a shame for us fans as he seems unwillig to invest huge sums himself. This will take years and who knows what the result will be.
Another buyer could have been more attractive from a footballing perspective.
Another buyer could have been more attractive from a footballing perspective.
But of a reach that headline. Not really reflective of what that letter really said at all.
There going to end up in relegation, it's another year till the glazers can sell up shop completely, by then they can be low balled.