How bad is it, really? (Financial thread)

Valencia Shin Crosses said:
This isn't accurate, you're using prices for a highly sought after playoff game ticket (the equivalent being United playing at OT in a UCL semi or something).

I think the price that United has gone to (wasn't it 70 quid?), is pretty much in line with big American teams ticket prices or a bit cheaper than them. As an American myself it's depressing that tickets for events have gotten so pricey that it's not really economically feasible for average people to attend games constantly, but I was surprised that OT tickets had been as cheap as they were for that long as well.
Click to expand...

To add to that. In the regular season, allowing for a 17 game schedule, NFL teams can rely on either 8 or 9 home games with the potential of an extra home game or 2 if they make the playoffs. Those ticket prices therefore are reflective of the scarcity of home games each season and it is still the case that many NFL franchises will not sell out their games if they are having a poor season. Factoring in cups we can easily get to 30 home games and so the gross number of home tickets available per year is far higher than for Tampa Bay games.
 
Laurencio said:
Short:
We are OK, but it's tight.

Owners can cover 90M of PSR costs over the three year period.

Sales of homegrown talents is a very effective way of avoiding falling foul of PSR - we sold Greenwood, McT, Kambwala and Hannibal for a combined 70M, and Wan Bissaka, whose transfer fee has been covered by previous years, was sold for 17.5M. Unlike player sales, which is income, purchases are assets and amortised over the length of their contracts. Which means that spending 200M (with wages) over 5 years equals 40M for this year, while the sales generated at least 87.5M (although unsure how AWB would impact PSR in this case).

There are substantial cost deductions given for investments in women's football, infrastructure and academy.

Cuts galore is helping.

The details:
Basically because of all the reasons mentioned in the above part. The reported "net loss" on the balance sheet has very little to do with PSR. Ultimately it is the adjusted loss, wirh deductions included, that matter.

The rules are that you can not lose more than 15M. If you do, you have to prove that you have the equity investments to cover any loses above that. As mentioned that allowance is 90M, which means that the hard cap for PSR is 105M.

However PSR isn't intented to prevent investments in the future of football, quite the opposite, so they award deductions for:

  • The depreciation of tangible fixed assets or amortisation/impairment of intangible assets.
  • Women’s football expenditure.
  • Youth development expenditure.
  • Community development expenditure.
So what we want to look at is adjusted losses, not net losses. For Man Utd the numbers are as follows:

2024: 55.1
2023: 42.1
2022: 34

Which totals 131.1M. However they were also allowed a 40M COVID allowance for 2022 - which ends up with 91.5M, which is within the limits.

The big risk of course is 2025 with these numbers. Before we move on, it is important to know that PSR is calculated on a season basis ie June to June. So July 2024 and January 2025 is part of the same "year".

Based on 2023 and 2024 numbers, we can have adjusted losses of only 7.8M to be in compliance. Unless the financial cost of the strategic review is given an exception, which it might be - then we could be looking at 54M. That is a bit of a risky gamble though.

This is where Ratcliffe cost saving comes in. In the first three month period Man Utd had losses totalling 349k as opposed to 8.5M last September (July August, September). This includes our summer window.

Amorim could surprise us and win Europa, then suddenly we are making healthy profits. However the cost reduction has been intense, so I wouldn't put it past them to manage the 90% reduction they seem to be aiming for as a minimum, even without winning Europa. Which leaves us with an adjusted loss of 5.5M

Which means we have an entire 2.2M to work with - or 46.2 MAYBE if the strategic review recives an exception. Which admittedly is not a lot of wiggle room. It would certainly help a lot to sell Rashford and replace him with a player you can spread the cost on.

Now say we sell Rashford for 40M, and buy Osimhen for 65M. Rashford would be pure profit for this season - 40M, while Osimhen would be 13M on our books this year. Instead of 2.2M, we have space for 29M. The same would be true for profits from any other academy graduates (based on fees obviously). We don't have to sell anyone, but we definitely need to do so to buy. It would also probably benefit the squad and it would give us a bit more breathing room in terms of PSR.

Q2 reports usually arrive in March, so we will have a much better picture then of how PSR will shake out for 2025. In addition to knowing what business was done in January and how our season is progressing.
Click to expand...
Speak to the death of journalism that journalists can't be bothered to learn about the system and look at the information while this random fella has a ten times better go at it for free on a forum in probably 15 mins. All these articles are and always have been very low quality, athletic or otherwise. Fair play
 
Laurencio said:
Short:
We are OK, but it's tight.

Owners can cover 90M of PSR costs over the three year period.

Sales of homegrown talents is a very effective way of avoiding falling foul of PSR - we sold Greenwood, McT, Kambwala and Hannibal for a combined 70M, and Wan Bissaka, whose transfer fee has been covered by previous years, was sold for 17.5M. Unlike player sales, which is income, purchases are assets and amortised over the length of their contracts. Which means that spending 200M (with wages) over 5 years equals 40M for this year, while the sales generated at least 87.5M (although unsure how AWB would impact PSR in this case).

There are substantial cost deductions given for investments in women's football, infrastructure and academy.

Cuts galore is helping.

The details:
Basically because of all the reasons mentioned in the above part. The reported "net loss" on the balance sheet has very little to do with PSR. Ultimately it is the adjusted loss, wirh deductions included, that matter.

The rules are that you can not lose more than 15M. If you do, you have to prove that you have the equity investments to cover any loses above that. As mentioned that allowance is 90M, which means that the hard cap for PSR is 105M.

However PSR isn't intented to prevent investments in the future of football, quite the opposite, so they award deductions for:

  • The depreciation of tangible fixed assets or amortisation/impairment of intangible assets.
  • Women’s football expenditure.
  • Youth development expenditure.
  • Community development expenditure.
So what we want to look at is adjusted losses, not net losses. For Man Utd the numbers are as follows:

2024: 55.1
2023: 42.1
2022: 34

Which totals 131.1M. However they were also allowed a 40M COVID allowance for 2022 - which ends up with 91.5M, which is within the limits.

The big risk of course is 2025 with these numbers. Before we move on, it is important to know that PSR is calculated on a season basis ie June to June. So July 2024 and January 2025 is part of the same "year".

Based on 2023 and 2024 numbers, we can have adjusted losses of only 7.8M to be in compliance. Unless the financial cost of the strategic review is given an exception, which it might be - then we could be looking at 54M. That is a bit of a risky gamble though.

This is where Ratcliffe cost saving comes in. In the first three month period Man Utd had losses totalling 349k as opposed to 8.5M last September (July August, September). This includes our summer window.

Amorim could surprise us and win Europa, then suddenly we are making healthy profits. However the cost reduction has been intense, so I wouldn't put it past them to manage the 90% reduction they seem to be aiming for as a minimum, even without winning Europa. Which leaves us with an adjusted loss of 5.5M

Which means we have an entire 2.2M to work with - or 46.2 MAYBE if the strategic review recives an exception. Which admittedly is not a lot of wiggle room. It would certainly help a lot to sell Rashford and replace him with a player you can spread the cost on.

Now say we sell Rashford for 40M, and buy Osimhen for 65M. Rashford would be pure profit for this season - 40M, while Osimhen would be 13M on our books this year. Instead of 2.2M, we have space for 29M. The same would be true for profits from any other academy graduates (based on fees obviously). We don't have to sell anyone, but we definitely need to do so to buy. It would also probably benefit the squad and it would give us a bit more breathing room in terms of PSR.

Q2 reports usually arrive in March, so we will have a much better picture then of how PSR will shake out for 2025. In addition to knowing what business was done in January and how our season is progressing.
Click to expand...
Q2 looks to be a problem though as we dumped Erik for 17m. That's all loss. No spreading. One hit.
 
RedCoffee said:
Q2 looks to be a problem though as we dumped Erik for 17m. That's all loss. No spreading. One hit.
Click to expand...
That's pure speculation. Nobody knows what the actual terms of his severance agreement were. The 17m figure is a clickbait figure that assumes we paid off his full contract. That almost never happens in practice.
 
Nogho said:
Just wanted to post this regarding income and raised ticket prices. The average ticket price for an NFL game in Tampa Bay (The Glazers other team in another sport and country) is around 320 dollars. Average price for a team like Pittsburgh Steelers is around 600 dollars. The Glazers (all American owners) thinks that the ticket prizes in the Premier League is a joke.

This may be prices from third party. I am not sure how ticket sales works exactly.

Example

Overlap discussion

I think the future does look bleak.
Click to expand...

Tampa Bay $103 to $895 this coming weekend, resales on Ticketmaster from $117

You might just as well look at a music event at the Royal Albert Hall in London, tickets start at £60, hospitality including waiter service at seat in box several hundred per head
 
andy0 said:
Tampa Bay $103 to $895 this coming weekend, resales on Ticketmaster from $117

You might just as well look at a music event at the Royal Albert Hall in London, tickets start at £60, hospitality including waiter service at seat in box several hundred per head
Click to expand...
Expensive nevertheless
 
Gandalf said:
To add to that. In the regular season, allowing for a 17 game schedule, NFL teams can rely on either 8 or 9 home games with the potential of an extra home game or 2 if they make the playoffs. Those ticket prices therefore are reflective of the scarcity of home games each season and it is still the case that many NFL franchises will not sell out their games if they are having a poor season. Factoring in cups we can easily get to 30 home games and so the gross number of home tickets available per year is far higher than for Tampa Bay games.
Click to expand...
Also factor in that a decent wage is US is like $250k nowdays, people there just have more money.

United tickets compared to the size and standing of the club were really cheap though. So Im not suprised they went up.

sadly football is becoming sanitised and the people that built these clubs are being priced out, if they havnt already.

Spurs were charging £109 for a standard admission ticket against Newcastle last weekend.
 
Laurencio said:
Short:
We are OK, but it's tight.

Owners can cover 90M of PSR costs over the three year period.

Sales of homegrown talents is a very effective way of avoiding falling foul of PSR - we sold Greenwood, McT, Kambwala and Hannibal for a combined 70M, and Wan Bissaka, whose transfer fee has been covered by previous years, was sold for 17.5M. Unlike player sales, which is income, purchases are assets and amortised over the length of their contracts. Which means that spending 200M (with wages) over 5 years equals 40M for this year, while the sales generated at least 87.5M (although unsure how AWB would impact PSR in this case).

There are substantial cost deductions given for investments in women's football, infrastructure and academy.

Cuts galore is helping.

The details:
Basically because of all the reasons mentioned in the above part. The reported "net loss" on the balance sheet has very little to do with PSR. Ultimately it is the adjusted loss, wirh deductions included, that matter.

The rules are that you can not lose more than 15M. If you do, you have to prove that you have the equity investments to cover any loses above that. As mentioned that allowance is 90M, which means that the hard cap for PSR is 105M.

However PSR isn't intented to prevent investments in the future of football, quite the opposite, so they award deductions for:

  • The depreciation of tangible fixed assets or amortisation/impairment of intangible assets.
  • Women’s football expenditure.
  • Youth development expenditure.
  • Community development expenditure.
So what we want to look at is adjusted losses, not net losses. For Man Utd the numbers are as follows:

2024: 55.1
2023: 42.1
2022: 34

Which totals 131.1M. However they were also allowed a 40M COVID allowance for 2022 - which ends up with 91.5M, which is within the limits.

The big risk of course is 2025 with these numbers. Before we move on, it is important to know that PSR is calculated on a season basis ie June to June. So July 2024 and January 2025 is part of the same "year".

Based on 2023 and 2024 numbers, we can have adjusted losses of only 7.8M to be in compliance. Unless the financial cost of the strategic review is given an exception, which it might be - then we could be looking at 54M. That is a bit of a risky gamble though.

This is where Ratcliffe cost saving comes in. In the first three month period Man Utd had losses totalling 349k as opposed to 8.5M last September (July August, September). This includes our summer window.

Amorim could surprise us and win Europa, then suddenly we are making healthy profits. However the cost reduction has been intense, so I wouldn't put it past them to manage the 90% reduction they seem to be aiming for as a minimum, even without winning Europa. Which leaves us with an adjusted loss of 5.5M

Which means we have an entire 2.2M to work with - or 46.2 MAYBE if the strategic review recives an exception. Which admittedly is not a lot of wiggle room. It would certainly help a lot to sell Rashford and replace him with a player you can spread the cost on.

Now say we sell Rashford for 40M, and buy Osimhen for 65M. Rashford would be pure profit for this season - 40M, while Osimhen would be 13M on our books this year. Instead of 2.2M, we have space for 29M. The same would be true for profits from any other academy graduates (based on fees obviously). We don't have to sell anyone, but we definitely need to do so to buy. It would also probably benefit the squad and it would give us a bit more breathing room in terms of PSR.

Q2 reports usually arrive in March, so we will have a much better picture then of how PSR will shake out for 2025. In addition to knowing what business was done in January and how our season is progressing.
Click to expand...

Casemiro and Rashford of the books would be a big help. Must be close to 40m a year once bonuses are added..

Garnacho could be a sacrificial lamb to bring in some much needed cash. Plus we can also loan with obligation to buy next summer.

I can also see why a 70m bid for mainoo would be too hard to turn down, if the club can bring in 3 new players with the cash.
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
Depends what you mean by legitimate.

I can say “I’ll pay 10 billion” but that’ll fall down when the bankers managing the part sale say “show me proof of funds” and I either say I can’t or ignore their calls.

Which is what happened with the absolutely, definitely, 100%, completely real Jassim bid. As part of public record.

Click to expand...

he has been linked for 3 years now and its the same photo every single time hes brought up :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.