United Wage Structure - the actual cultural reset

[Shiva87]

Our squad is still somewhere between the 4th and 6th best in the league. Probably 5th or 6th currently.

So if we are paying top 3 wages (I don't think we are, anymore) with around 3-5 players on relatively high wages probably leaving soon, after having cleared millions from the weekly payroll by the dozens of departures in the last 24 months, the situation isn't bad IMO.

Also, I've forgot to post this earlier in this thread, but according to this tweet and the thread following it, our wage bill is even lower than what the information available on sites like Capology, etc. suggests:



@Big Ben Foster @bb8 @OmarUnited4ever @iKnowNothing @TheReligion @Devil_forever

Further info that reinforces the notion that we are in a healthy situation regarding the wage bill

This is just not correct and completely a presumption! The wage bill of City includes staff, management staff, academy players and other salaried expenses. The logic of extrapolating wages for players just does not work.

Unfortunately, it is well known that Rashford is one of the highest earners in the PL and this also shows in the inability of the other clubs around the world to accept his wages.

 

[Dve]

Considering Evans/Lindelof/Eriksen leaving in summer

Question is how many you keep from this list?

Onana, Shaw, Casemiro, Mount, Antony, Rashford, Zirkzee, Rasmus

Casemiro is a goner for sure. For the rest it depends a bit on how, and if, they perform for the rest of the season. Everyone knows we fans easily change our minds based on a few good performances, so if e.g. Shaw comes back, stay fit rest of the season, and looks like the perfect rotation option for Martinez at left CB, who know, we might want to keep him as well. Or Anthony could smash in La Liga, come back and look sharp in preseason, then maybe we want to give him another try as well.

 

[roonster09]

This is just not correct and completely a presumption! The wage bill of City includes staff, management staff, academy players and other salaried expenses. The logic of extrapolating wages for players just does not work.

Unfortunately, it is well known that Rashford is one of the highest earners in the PL and this also shows in the inability of the other clubs around the world to accept his wages.

Official reported wages in UEFA and Financial statements, City are much higher, so are Liverpool.

ManUtd pay top3 or 4 wages for Directors.

But if we go by these crap capology and other useless journalists, everyone is paid 200K plus at ManUtd and everyone is on 100K or less at City and Liverpool.

Just like City, ManUtd official wages also include staff, coaches, academy players wages and also director wages which City's dont. Easy to see how crap these sites are, something people just blindly use for any arguments.

 

[RedRoach]

The best source of wage bill is from the balance sheet. Everything else is tosh. Figures below:

Club​	​	2024 (£)​	2023 (£)​
Man Utd​	​	​	​
​	Wages​	377,053​	331,374​
​	Revenue​	661,755​	648,401​
​	Wage/Revenue​	57%​	51%​
Man City​	​	​	​
​	Wages​	412,573​	422,895​
​	Revenue​	715,019​	712,768​
​	Wage/Revenue​	58%​	59%​
Arsenal​	​	​	​
​	Wages​	​	234,766​
​	Revenue​	​	464,557​
​	Wage/Revenue​	​	51%​
Liverpool​	​	​	​
​	Wages​	​	372,881​
​	Revenue​	​	593,836​
​	Wage/Revenue​	​	63%​
Tottenham​	​	​	​
​	Wages​	​	251,121​
​	Revenue​	​	549,633​
​	Wage/Revenue​	​	46%​

I'm also puting the source link in case anyone can spot an error to correct:
Man Utd
Tottenham
Man City
Arsenal
Liverpool

I didn't add Chelsea since I couldn't find their balance sheet from publicly available sources. Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs only had 2023 report, so skipping 2024 for them.

We should be close to 300m wages this year given we don't have CL + the fact that we got rid some useless high wage players.

Out of the £113m loss, £47m is related to one time write off for INEOS aquisition, £46m is related to increase in wages due to CL qualification (basically, this has been covered already by getting rid of the likes of DVB, Martial, Varane, Greenwood, Brandon Williams etc and replacing them with lower wage players + will further be bolstered by getting rid of a few more deadwood next year like Rashford, Casemiro, Antony, Eriksen, Shaw who will all be off next year). The remaining £20m is related to higher amortization due to legacy mistakes. It's not as bad as it looks, particularly if revenue stays same while wages drop further due to lack of CL.

Woodward did the "oh, we're so rich we can pay anything you ask for" pitch and the result was what we did over the last decade. INEOS is doing the "oh, we're bankrupt and have no money" pitch for better bargains. Frankly, a lot of this PR on United finances is good for us since it will ensure we don't overpay and get ripped off on transfers and wages like we're accustomed to. It's a welcome shift over "Oh, let's bring in Neymar" type of conversations to where we are actually hunting for younger talent who will take the club forward.

The balance sheet includes wages for all employees including the cleaners etc. so not quite exactly since it isn't only playing staff. Of course Radcliffe has gone on a massive cost cutting exercise in that area as well since we had well over 1000 employees before and employed more people than most other clubs so that is likely to come down. Reckon personally they are trying to get the wage bill to around £300 million.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Agree with the sentiment of the OP, but the actual post under the list is a bit of a car crash.

 

[Sassy Colin]

The best source of wage bill is from the balance sheet. Everything else is tosh. Figures below:

Club​	​	2024 (£)​	2023 (£)​
Man Utd​	​	​	​
​	Wages​	377,053​	331,374​
​	Revenue​	661,755​	648,401​
​	Wage/Revenue​	57%​	51%​
Man City​	​	​	​
​	Wages​	412,573​	422,895​
​	Revenue​	715,019​	712,768​
​	Wage/Revenue​	58%​	59%​
Arsenal​	​	​	​
​	Wages​	​	234,766​
​	Revenue​	​	464,557​
​	Wage/Revenue​	​	51%​
Liverpool​	​	​	​
​	Wages​	​	372,881​
​	Revenue​	​	593,836​
​	Wage/Revenue​	​	63%​
Tottenham​	​	​	​
​	Wages​	​	251,121​
​	Revenue​	​	549,633​
​	Wage/Revenue​	​	46%​

I'm also puting the source link in case anyone can spot an error to correct:
Man Utd
Tottenham
Man City
Arsenal
Liverpool

I didn't add Chelsea since I couldn't find their balance sheet from publicly available sources. Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs only had 2023 report, so skipping 2024 for them.

We should be close to 300m wages this year given we don't have CL + the fact that we got rid some useless high wage players.

Out of the £113m loss, £47m is related to one time write off for INEOS aquisition, £46m is related to increase in wages due to CL qualification (basically, this has been covered already by getting rid of the likes of DVB, Martial, Varane, Greenwood, Brandon Williams etc and replacing them with lower wage players + will further be bolstered by getting rid of a few more deadwood next year like Rashford, Casemiro, Antony, Eriksen, Shaw who will all be off next year). The remaining £20m is related to higher amortization due to legacy mistakes. It's not as bad as it looks, particularly if revenue stays same while wages drop further due to lack of CL.

Woodward did the "oh, we're so rich we can pay anything you ask for" pitch and the result was what we did over the last decade. INEOS is doing the "oh, we're bankrupt and have no money" pitch for better bargains. Frankly, a lot of this PR on United finances is good for us since it will ensure we don't overpay and get ripped off on transfers and wages like we're accustomed to. It's a welcome shift over "Oh, let's bring in Neymar" type of conversations to where we are actually hunting for younger talent who will take the club forward.

Since the items in the table are profit and loss amounts, how did you manage to find them on the balance sheet?

Since you don't use the correct terminology, it's hard to attach any credibility to your post.

Also, it's not clear why you have downloaded Form 20F, which is the US reporting pack, rather than the UK trading company accounts from Companies House. Try searching for Manchester United Football Club Limited on Companies House.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Not true. They have more fans from around the world who are drawn to them by their glorious history and players like Naill Quinn and Giorgi Kinkladze. This + recent (definitely not state funded) success drives up their commercial attraction. End of.

Consider me reeducated and thoroughly washed with sport

 

[tomaldinho1]

Agree with the sentiment of the OP, but the actual post under the list is a bit of a car crash.

Usually one of the social media crowd do a comprehensive breakdown at the end of every season. Basically since Ronaldo left we've actually been looking way more stable, I think we were 5th in the league last year because so many players missed out on bonuses from us not finishing CL (there's that hilarious stat about how because Pool won the league in covid they actually lost money that year as their contracts are very back end heavy/weighted on trophies and they had no matchday income).

 

[bringbackbebe]

The balance sheet includes wages for all employees including the cleaners etc. so not quite exactly since it isn't only playing staff. Of course Radcliffe has gone on a massive cost cutting exercise in that area as well since we had well over 1000 employees before and employed more people than most other clubs so that is likely to come down. Reckon personally they are trying to get the wage bill to around £300 million.

Staff wages are a puny portion of the total wages. Please check note 5 section in the balance sheets (or before I get blasted again by @Sassy Colin , "financial reports"). It has a breakdown.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Staff wages are a puny portion of the total wages. Please check note 5 section in the balance sheets (or before I get blasted again by @Sassy Colin , "financial reports"). It has a breakdown.

Like I said, you should be looking at the UK accounts for the club, not the US consolidated financial statements for the holding company.

 

[RedRoach]

Staff wages are a puny portion of the total wages. Please check note 5 section in the balance sheets (or before I get blasted again by @Sassy Colin , "financial reports"). It has a breakdown.

I doubt it is that puny. Coaches, scouts, analysts, football directors, CFOs etc. are not cheap people. We are not talking about the cleaners wages here.

 

[PlasticRed]

World Class player 350-400k per week
First team important player 150-200k a week
First team regular 100-150k a week
Top youngster 80k a week
Youngster 30-50k a week

I would imagine thats not far off what the wage structure would be.

Issue is we are paying WC wages for Rashford and Casemiro. Top player wages for Shaw, Maguire and Mount.

So the wage structure is fine, its the people that mis labelled in the structure that is the problem.