Football Finance
- Thread starter King Binny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Such a lovely club.
Fucking scum bags.
Fucking scum bags.
That is fucking shameful.
Scum by name and nature.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer club!
Scum by name and nature.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer club!
I think, in fairness, that we have to lay the blame squarely at the feet of Ratcliffe and his minions here, not United in general. No-one with time served there would have done such a shitty thing. This woman was, by all accounts, an absolute legend and loved by everyone at the club.
No doubt. Can’t imagine the culture is anything but toxic there now.
I'm not so sure. David Gill's departure and replacement by Ed Woodward changed what had been primarily a football club into a business which just happens to have football as its field of operations. Ratcliffe and co.have speeded the process up but it didn't originate with them.
They crossed that rubicon as soon as they went public. As soon as they did that they were at the mercy of businessmen.
We crossed it when we sold to Hicks and Gillett.
The only real difference is Ratcliffe and his cronies are spectacularly bad at PR. Imagine causing all this fuss and upset for a few thousand here and there when you've got a squad of absolute wasters earning thousands of times that every single week.
Ratcliffe to axe another 200 jobs. I wonder how much money they've wasted on managers?
Man Utd redundancies: Up to 200 staff to be made redundant
After 250 members of staff were made redundant last year, Manchester United announce up to 200 more redundancies to "return the club to profitability".
www.bbc.co.uk
United's workforce, prior to the first batch of redundancies, was 1,140. Ours, per the 2023 accounts, is 1,008.
They've just lost 450 people, so they have 690. For comparable operations.
They'll probably soon discover they needed some of those people, but not all of them, and I'd say there'll be a few people at LFC looking over their shoulders right now because FSG will definitely be asking questions.
They've just lost 450 people, so they have 690. For comparable operations.
They'll probably soon discover they needed some of those people, but not all of them, and I'd say there'll be a few people at LFC looking over their shoulders right now because FSG will definitely be asking questions.
It's a fool's errand if they do. I expect they'll just end up loading more work on existing staff. If it's anything like our place, I wouldn't be surprised if there are full-time staff doing jobs that give them a lot of down time, and then a smaller group of staff who are working their nuts off.
On the agency thing, we looked at out-sourcing catering when we opened the Main Stand and it just didn't work, financially speaking. But I wouldn't be surprised if United decided they didn't need, for example, 5 in-house lawyers when they could have 3 and farm out discrete pieces of work to law firms (some of which they probably do already). I suspect it won't save them much in the long run, but there'll definitely be people they can easily do without.
The Ashworth thing is hilarious. They wanted him so badly they spent a load of time and money recruiting him, then he told them something they didn't want to hear (Amorim is the wrong guy), so they ignored his advice, sacked him at great cost and then watched the current mess unveil itself, proving that he was right and they should have listened to him.
INEOS are fucking clueless. Even in cycling, where they somehow get attached to the team's success, it was all Brailsford and mostly under Sky's ownership, not theirs. That team has tailed off massively since they took over.
Hahaha is that true? Never heard that before. I thought it was cos he wanted to keep Ten Haag in the summer - or was it both?
It's the rumour I've seen in the last week, and it fits the timeline. I assumed at first that Amorim had said he wouldn't work under a DoF.
Dan Ashworth had two alternatives over the 'jarring' appointment of Amorim at Man Utd
😬 Dan Ashworth told Sir Jim Ratcliffe not to hire Ruben Amorim
www.football365.com
I also think it’s funny they’ve not apparently gotten rid of the free meals for all staff except the ones on hundreds of thousands of pounds every week.
Not that I’d be expecting footballers to organise their own packed lunch - but the optics of it all are just hilarious, Tax Free Jim look even more incompetent at running a football club.
He’s going to spend another fortune sacking Amorim… please hire Southgate next!!!!
Not that I’d be expecting footballers to organise their own packed lunch - but the optics of it all are just hilarious, Tax Free Jim look even more incompetent at running a football club.
He’s going to spend another fortune sacking Amorim… please hire Southgate next!!!!
I think Southgate would actually give them a short term boost. He'd play a deeper defence and encourage long balls which would suit Maguire. Long term however, he'd be muck.
That sounds very much like given hope before entirely crushing it.
I can live with that.
Anything that keeps Maguire there longer would be entertaining.
Me too. But id like Amorim to squander a load of money on attacking fullbacks and ball playing centre backs before Southgate comes in. That way, he'll have no idea what to do with them.
Yep - Feb sacking after a shit first half of the year and 2 big spending windows for Amorim, followed by a slight improvement under Southgate and a summer transfer window where he’s supported and then turns to shit.
Perfect
This was on Ben Foster’s Podcast. They actually have £20 a week taken out of their pay for the meals. I mean I wouldn’t complain. If my employer wanted to take £80-100 a month but I get breakfast, dinner and snacks throughout the day I’d be in the office every day and have so much I wouldn’t need tea.
It all needs to end with Colin Wanker being hired to save them from relegation ... and fail
I do hope so.
I’d say you’d have a more liquid based evening meal.
Just some quick notes on Arsenal. They published their 2024 accounts last week.
In basic terms, a lot of their numbers are up.
Some of the increase in revenue is from Champions League v Europa League. But there are other significant increases in matchday revenues (up nearly 30%) and commercial (also up nearly 30%). Wages are also up by £93m (nearly 40%), with non-football staff up by about 100 people. I suspect, although the accounts don't say, that they have ended the outsourcing of some of their functions (most likely catering and possibly merchandising) which has driven some of the increases - practically speaking, it would be impossible to increase matchday by 30% just with some tweaks to pricing and a few CL fixtures, but if they're able to add catering income then that would explain it (and would also account for the increase in staff numbers).
This now means that their overhead structure is more comparable with us / Man U.
They are comfortable for PSR and the football costs ratio. I suspect compliance with FCR may be part of the decision to bring more of their functions in-house.
Their net debt (borrowings, less cash) is up £41m to £275m, most of which is inter-company. Unlike other clubs, there doesn't seem to be evidence of converting this debt to shares, and they may have decided not to do that as they are not close to the PSR limits, so it's not a concern. They had unused borrowing facilities of £100m, so they're not at risk cash-flow wise, but their transfer debt was £268m (with only £29m due to them for player sales).
TLDR - OK profit wise (making losses, but not massive), but heavily reliant on their owners for cash-flow stability. Sharp increase in revenues is likely more due to restructuring their operations than increases in scale.
Our figures should drop in the next week or so and I will do a thread when they do.
In basic terms, a lot of their numbers are up.
Some of the increase in revenue is from Champions League v Europa League. But there are other significant increases in matchday revenues (up nearly 30%) and commercial (also up nearly 30%). Wages are also up by £93m (nearly 40%), with non-football staff up by about 100 people. I suspect, although the accounts don't say, that they have ended the outsourcing of some of their functions (most likely catering and possibly merchandising) which has driven some of the increases - practically speaking, it would be impossible to increase matchday by 30% just with some tweaks to pricing and a few CL fixtures, but if they're able to add catering income then that would explain it (and would also account for the increase in staff numbers).
This now means that their overhead structure is more comparable with us / Man U.
They are comfortable for PSR and the football costs ratio. I suspect compliance with FCR may be part of the decision to bring more of their functions in-house.
Their net debt (borrowings, less cash) is up £41m to £275m, most of which is inter-company. Unlike other clubs, there doesn't seem to be evidence of converting this debt to shares, and they may have decided not to do that as they are not close to the PSR limits, so it's not a concern. They had unused borrowing facilities of £100m, so they're not at risk cash-flow wise, but their transfer debt was £268m (with only £29m due to them for player sales).
TLDR - OK profit wise (making losses, but not massive), but heavily reliant on their owners for cash-flow stability. Sharp increase in revenues is likely more due to restructuring their operations than increases in scale.
Our figures should drop in the next week or so and I will do a thread when they do.
And nearly half of that was on Nunez!
I wonder how much Man City will now spend to get back on top spot? I think our net spend will be low if we keep VVD and Salah. I can see us selling quite a bit of academy talent though with the likes of Gordon, Morton and Ramsey being sold for a fee. I could even see Spanish Steve being sold on too
