Manchester United

[Genie]

It’s pretty stupid that they are allowed to remove costs like the academy, women’s team and stadium from their statements because the point of the FSR rules is to stop clubs going bust (supposedly) so everything should be included. No exceptions. 

[duke313]

32 minutes ago, Genie said:

It’s pretty stupid that they are allowed to remove costs like the academy, women’s team and stadium from their statements because the point of the FSR rules is to stop clubs going bust (supposedly) so everything should be included. No exceptions. 

If that were the case teams would stop putting money into them.

[HanoiVillan]

As above, clubs would stop investing in anything other than players' wages if that were true. The basic logic is that those expenses are pretty trivial compared to revenues.

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, duke313 said:

If that were the case teams would stop putting money into them.

I’m not really sure that would be the case. Stadium infrastructure and academy’s are essential (at the top level). Women’s teams are getting that way. What if they did stop funding a women’s team so much? 

As I said, having financial sustainability rules in place, and then allowing certain areas of spend to rack up massive losses is just silly. 

Everton are about to go under despite FSR rules in place.

[duke313]

50 minutes ago, Genie said:

It’s pretty stupid that they are allowed to remove costs like the academy, women’s team and stadium from their statements because the point of the FSR rules is to stop clubs going bust (supposedly) so everything should be included. No exceptions. 

Most teams outside the big 6 would scrap their woman's team all together if it was included in PSR costs.  Likewise, some teams would see no incentive in putting money into youth football if they are potentially facing a points deduction for the cost of it. Hence why these are excluded from PSR, to encourage teams to put money into it. 

Edited September 12 by duke313

[Genie]

8 minutes ago, duke313 said:

Most teams outside the big 6 would scrap their woman's team all together if it was included in PSR costs.  Likewise, some teams would see no incentive in putting money into youth football if they are potentially facing a points deduction for the cost of it. Hence why these are excluded from PSR, to encourage teams to put money into it. 

Teams don’t run academies for fun, or to be charitable. It’s part of the business model. Bring through gems and then either play them in the first team (for £0 transfer fee) or sell them for lots of money. 

Women’s teams are different, maybe in the medium to long term plan is that they generate money to pay their own way (a bit like an academy). Imo the cost of them should be included in the sustainability costs of the club overall as excluding them and then going into financial difficulty doesn’t help anyone.

United will happily take massive £80m gambles on players like Antony but deem £10m to run the women’s team a year something they should be rewarded for. They need to learn to manage their own total business.

Edited September 12 by Genie

[fightoffyour]

This applies to any club really, but if they build a new stadium - all PSR deductible (don't know about SCR) - then they can sell the land of the existing stadium for a shit load after. This would be a good long-term plan for a wealthy owner to inject cash in an FFP-driven world wouldn't it?

[villa4europe]

got no problem with the costs of the stadium, academy and womens teams being excluded but then I'm also guessing that the revenue generated by those 3 are also excluded?

separate women's team sponsors are I think

but stadium sponsors wont be

Edited September 12 by villa4europe

[pas5898]

Worthwhile noting of their £120 million loss, half of it was interest on loans taken by the Glasers.

ETH is moaning about not signing a striker due to PSR - Sancho, Casemiro and Rashford are on 1,000,000 per week between them - meanwhile we couldn't sign a RB for £25 million amortised at 5 million per year + wages.

FFP is a joke. 

[LondonLax]

4 hours ago, Genie said:

Teams don’t run academies for fun, or to be charitable. It’s part of the business model. Bring through gems and then either play them in the first team (for £0 transfer fee) or sell them for lots of money. 

Women’s teams are different, maybe in the medium to long term plan is that they generate money to pay their own way (a bit like an academy). Imo the cost of them should be included in the sustainability costs of the club overall as excluding them and then going into financial difficulty doesn’t help anyone.

United will happily take massive £80m gambles on players like Antony but deem £10m to run the women’s team a year something they should be rewarded for. They need to learn to manage their own total business.

We would have taken a points deduction if we weren’t able to take advantage of these deductions as well. 

[Genie]

8 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

We would have taken a points deduction if we weren’t able to take advantage of these deductions as well. 

Yeah, the same rules apply to all. I guess it’s off topic to discuss this in the Man United thread. 

Maybe they offset more than others if it’s a percentage of overall running costs but that’s just speculation.

 

[MrBlack]

How do they add-back depreciation and amortisation? According to that twitter post. I thought the point of amortisation  is that the cost is still inccurred, but spread over a few years. What are they amortisation and depreciating that they can add back?

Also, why can they add back a loss on a sale? If they'd made a profit i'm sure they'd have recognised that. 

How are they making up a £40m covid loss 2 years after it happened when no other club lost more than a few million that year. 

The other add backs make sense, but there's still a lot of dodgy stuff going on. 

[sidcow]

On 03/09/2024 at 18:44, Genie said:

It’s crazy that whilst the government cut pensioner heating bill assistance to make ends meet a billionaire is lobbying for £2b of public funds to build the richest club in the world a free stadium. What a scummy man.

Give him half a chance I bet he'd rob you if he can. 

[Genie]

Just now, sidcow said:

Give him half a chance I bet he'd rob you if he can. 

I’ve seeeeeeen him with girls of the night

[Xela]

21 hours ago, pas5898 said:

ETH is moaning about not signing a striker due to PSR - Sancho, Casemiro and Rashford are on 1,000,000 per week between them - meanwhile we couldn't sign a RB for £25 million amortised at 5 million per year + wages.

FFP is a joke. 

He's spent £100m on Hojlund and Zirkzee!

I wouldn't trust ETH with a bag of change at a penny arcade.

[HanoiVillan]

14 hours ago, MrBlack said:

How do they add-back depreciation and amortisation? According to that twitter post. I thought the point of amortisation  is that the cost is still inccurred, but spread over a few years. What are they amortisation and depreciating that they can add back?

Also, why can they add back a loss on a sale? If they'd made a profit i'm sure they'd have recognised that. 

How are they making up a £40m covid loss 2 years after it happened when no other club lost more than a few million that year. 

The other add backs make sense, but there's still a lot of dodgy stuff going on. 

Just on the bolded, it's not depreciation and amortisation of footballers (it will be of buildings, office equipment, I dunno, other stuff that declines in value). 

[Xela]

22 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Just on the bolded, it's not depreciation and amortisation of footballers (it will be of buildings, office equipment, I dunno, other stuff that declines in value). 

Most of their signings eh?  

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, Xela said:

Most of their signings eh?  

It's an interesting question actually, can you think of anyone they've signed - not brought through the youth system - who has increased in value? I mean there's a reason they sell players for money much more rarely than other sides. 

[pas5898]

32 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's an interesting question actually, can you think of anyone they've signed - not brought through the youth system - who has increased in value? I mean there's a reason they sell players for money much more rarely than other sides. 

Before Ineos came in, they've only made a profit on 4 players in 10 years.
• £10m on Dan James
• £300,000 on Daley Blind
• £1m on Javier Hernandez
• £8.1m for Smalling

Compare that to huge financial disasters such as Pogba, Casemiro, Van De Beek, Sancho etc

Edited Friday at 08:40 by pas5898

[John]

20 hours ago, MrBlack said:

How do they add-back depreciation and amortisation? According to that twitter post. I thought the point of amortisation  is that the cost is still inccurred, but spread over a few years. What are they amortisation and depreciating that they can add back?

Also, why can they add back a loss on a sale? If they'd made a profit i'm sure they'd have recognised that. 

How are they making up a £40m covid loss 2 years after it happened when no other club lost more than a few million that year. 

The other add backs make sense, but there's still a lot of dodgy stuff going on. 

From today's Times (paywall prevents link): 

The scale of the Covid claim by United was revealed last year after the club were fined €300,000 (about £250,000) by Uefa for breaching its Financial Fair Play rules. Financial results previously issued by the club have shown that for the 2021-22 season the Premier League allowed United to claim £40million as Covid-related losses but Uefa would not accept that figure.

The Covid claim was by far the highest of any Premier League club for that season — in fact United’s £40million Covid claim was double all the other 19 top-flight clubs combined. It is understood United claimed the £40million due to cancellation of their summer tour and bad debts caused by the insolvency of a commercial partner.

This absolutely stinks. They throw the book at Everton, threaten to do the same to us, if we didn't weaken our squad by selling before the PSR deadline, yet they allow this shower and Chelsea to do what they like. They look at the deals that we do with Everton through a microscope, but allow Chelsea to sell hotels to themselves and Manchester United to claim the above, and as a football finance expert has said in the same article:

"It is clear that in addition to the £40million 2021-22 Covid allowances, United must have also been permitted to adjust the PSR submission for 2023-24 for the vast majority of the reported £47million exceptional charge for costs relating to the sale of shares to Ratcliffe. We know that around £10million of that cost was executive management termination costs which would ordinarily not be permitted deductions.” 

This shows what a farce PSR is. It was set up to protect the clubs that wanted to break away from the PL and to join that "super league" The puny fine UEFA imposed when Manchester United breached their FFP, wasn't even a slap on the wrist was it? The so called "super league" clubs are holding a gun to the heads of the PL and UEFA, so they are given everything that they want...