The club can offset spending in those areas against their losses. I would assume, the £50 million Carrington upgrade, money has gone into Old Trafford in the last three years well. There was £35 million that related to the sale of shares.That just doesn't add up.
i’ve been looking at other clubs to move my support to.
I imagine the value would be severely limited by the fact that everyone would continue to refer to the stadium as "Old Trafford".I'm not advocating it, but how much would naming rights to Old Trafford be worth? Ideally, the owners get their collective hands in their pockets and clear the debt but the chances of that happening are slim to nil.
Well 200m is a lot to make up for.The club can offset spending in those areas against their losses. I would assume, the £50 million Carrington upgrade, money has gone into Old Trafford in the last three years well. There was £35 million that related to the sale of shares.
I think the big one was related to Covid losses though previously. I assume that financial year now no longer falls within this three year period.
So we are 200m ish over what we can spend.I'm going to need more info?
You realize they are heavily restricted, right?An entity/individual with the financial ability to lavish on the club wouldn't be able to fix our financial issues. Got it.
Yup. And going by the ticket price increases, turns out it was their money all along!It's really bad. Years of disastrous recruitment has caught up with us. As some of us warned the "pay whatever it takes", "it's not your money, who cares" brigade.
Without the calculation of infra/ youth etc. We definitely need to shift some of the fat contracts we have left + pick up some fees but I imagine that number is nowhere near £200m when its properly worked out.So we are 200m ish over what we can spend.
Well no, because I’ve just listed a few things that have been reported in the past. I have no idea what else they can use. I’ve just looked and the Covid stuff will be accounted in this three year period. This will likely wipe out a lot of the £115 million loss in 21/22.So we are 200m ish over what we can spend.
That's why it's so weird you see fans posting 'thanks Ole, ETH or Mou' etc. for players signed for silly fees. Managers don't give a hoot how much the club pays, they just want players and know they will likely only be around a few seasons. Woodward/Arnold sanctioning the track record of insane fees and wages is what will be the crippling thing for us - the club as a whole (despite not being where we would like to be) has basically always been CL or EL, won 5 cups in 10 years and rakes in an obscene amount of money given what we used to be. It's impressively shite to have been taken to the cleaners on fees for so long.The actual state of the club is just an embarrassment. You can tell the Glazer children inherited the asset because they are clueless businessmen. It would have been easier to be marginally successful with the club compared the mess they have created. So many bad decisions. Allowing Woodward and Arnold spend what they liked on players and wages has destroyed the club. Every fan could see what was happening, why couldn’t the owners?
Your other option was just continuing as is? At least with Ineos the Glazers are diluted.Yeah this is essentially why I was opposed to the Ratcliffe minority take over. It's essentially killed off any prospect of us getting rid of the Glazers and their crippling debt for the foreseeable.
Can't see Ratcliffe doing that.Can INEOS or Ratcliffe loan the money to the club to pay off the debt. They can then set the interest rate at a level the club can afford. Is that possible under the PSR rules?
It could be tight.Well no, because I’ve just listed a few things that have been reported in the past. I have no idea what else they can use. I’ve just looked and the Covid stuff will be accounted in this three year period. This will likely wipe out a lot of the £115 million loss in 21/22.
22/23 we only lost £28 million, which was the one season we were in the Champions League. It’s quite clear the cost cutting is because our whole model is financed for playing in the champions league. No Europe at all next season and it takes a massive hit without the matchday revenue as well. Which is why they’re likely to try and get through this season with loans and put any sales into next seasons accounting year.
Yeah this is essentially why I was opposed to the Ratcliffe minority take over. It's essentially killed off any prospect of us getting rid of the Glazers and their crippling debt for the foreseeable.
I mean my other ideal option was a complete takeover which would have at the very least have dented the debt, if not eradicated it completely. Not the Brexit Glazers we got who only allowed the OG Glazers keep their talons on the club.Your other option was just continuing as is? At least with Ineos the Glazers are diluted.
Yes but that wasn't on the table. I would have loved to buy the club myself now I think of it.I mean my other ideal option was a complete takeover which would have at the very least have dented the debt, if not eradicated it completely. Not the Brexit Glazers we got who only allowed the OG Glazers keep their talons on the club.
We should just do a one off 3 yr naming rights deal, clear off some debts, buy in some players and then drop it.I'm not advocating it, but how much would naming rights to Old Trafford be worth? Ideally, the owners get their collective hands in their pockets and clear the debt but the chances of that happening are slim to nil.
Would not make any sense for them to pay off any debt. It would be giving money to the other share holders.I mean my other ideal option was a complete takeover which would have at the very least have dented the debt, if not eradicated it completely. Not the Brexit Glazers we got who only allowed the OG Glazers keep their talons on the club.
Also INEOS diluting the Glazer shares hasn't really been of any benefit. Have they offered to pay off the debt in anyway? All we've gotten from them is austerity, not even the Glazers were penny pinching and raising ticket prices like Jimbo is.
Exactly, so in essence a Ratcliffe minority ownership is essentially a prolongation of the status quo just to massage his own ego and vanity of owning a big football club. Except now we've inherited his nasty billionaire tendencies too.Would not make any sense for them to pay off any debt. It would be giving money to the other share holders.
https://www.consultancy.uk/news/amp...-present-quandary-for-historic-football-clubsWe should just do a one off 3 yr naming rights deal, clear off some debts, buy in some players and then drop it.
No it was said in jest more than anything, but if we did do it it doesn’t necessarily have to be forever. I know we’d get used to the income though.https://www.consultancy.uk/news/amp...-present-quandary-for-historic-football-clubs
Not something to sniff at but it’s not going to solve our issues. The lack of other events at OT probably hurts that price considering what Spurs are estimated to get.
You happen to think the Qatar bid wasn't legitimate? I think it very much was, only that it didn't match the Glazers overly inflated valuation, and of course they'd preferably prefer the Ratcliffe minority route where they'd no longer have to sell, keep their majority stake all while using INEOS as a PR lightning rod.Yes but that wasn't on the table. I would have loved to buy the club myself now I think of it.
But the football decisions have improved.Exactly, so in essence a Ratcliffe minority ownership is essentially a prolongation of the status quo just to massage his own ego and vanity of owning a big football club. Except now we've inherited his nasty billionaire tendencies too.
Still early days before we can make that conclusion. Yes we've finally hired (and fired) footballing personnel, and we now have the supposed best in class people in the C suite, but unless that's translates to actual success it all a bit moot. Their decision making in regards to Ashworth, keeping Ten Hag as well as sanctioning some bizarre signings like Zirkzee has hardly inspired confidence this early into their tenure.But the football decisions have improved.
You happen to think the Qatar bid wasn't legitimate? I think it very much was, only that it didn't match the Glazers overly inflated valuation, and of course they'd preferably prefer the Ratcliffe minority route where they'd no longer have to sell, keep their majority stake all while using INEOS as a PR lightning rod.
We don't even have legitimate proof that Sheikh Jassim exists beyond a generic publicity shot. The Qatar bid was conducted almost entirely over Twitter and they never came close to actually proving they were serious bidders.You happen to think the Qatar bid wasn't legitimate? I think it very much was, only that it didn't match the Glazers overly inflated valuation, and of course they'd preferably prefer the Ratcliffe minority route where they'd no longer have to sell, keep their majority stake all while using INEOS as a PR lightning rod.
I think there will eventually be some sort of internal debt financing agreement between INEOS and the club for the portion of the debt that's due for refinancing in 2027. Interest rates in external debt markets will be way too high.Can INEOS or Ratcliffe loan the money to the club to pay off the debt. They can then set the interest rate at a level the club can afford. Is that possible under the PSR rules?
Urgate has been great, getting rid of players sounds like it's going in the right direction. Everything zirkzee, didn't cost much, isn't on crazy wages so we can sell.Still early days before we can make that conclusion. Yes we've finally hired (and fired) footballing personnel, and we now have the supposed best in class people in the C suite, but unless that's translates to actual success it all a bit moot. Their decision making in regards to Ashworth, keeping Ten Hag as well as sanctioning some bizarre signings like Zirkzee has hardly inspired confidence this early into their tenure.
After the SEC news, the Qatar team's apparent anger to prove they were legit and sudden silence I think it's fair to say they were never serious. Jassim's dad got a $9b loan on a whim from UBS during the period as well, these guys have access to money if they want it from any international bank but they never did anything of the sort. It was always just that they had put forward x amount as an offer. Ratcliffe was the sole option that actually proved his funds, the Qatar bid might as well have been me and you splashing out on some nice suits and telling the Glazers that 'we're good for it'.You happen to think the Qatar bid wasn't legitimate? I think it very much was, only that it didn't match the Glazers overly inflated valuation, and of course they'd preferably prefer the Ratcliffe minority route where they'd no longer have to sell, keep their majority stake all while using INEOS as a PR lightning rod.
