Doesn’t appear in jest to me.
United mess
- Thread starter rurikbird
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Doesn’t appear in jest to me.
Having just listened to it, I don't think he's saying his players are the worst they've had. Just the results are the worst they've ever had, which makes them the worst team, which is about right.
Dunno, looks to me that a bit of a smile keeps creeping up on him as he's talking his shit.
Maybe. I think he’s trying to deflect by highlighting it is the worst Utd team in PL history anyway.
I think it's the context rather than how he says it (his English is grammatically good, but he doesn't manage to adopt "voices" when he speaks (such as sarcasm). He basically says "We're the worst team in United's history" and then a few seconds later "There's your headline lads". He's trying to play the media. Objectively he knows it's not true, he just thinks he can manage expectations, give his players a kick up the arse and sow a seed of doubt in the heads of future opponents. He's trying to work the media like Mourinho used to.
Don't fall for it. He knows they're shit, he also knows they're not shit enough to go down, he's trying to buy himself time to sort it.
Don't fall for it. He knows they're shit, he also knows they're not shit enough to go down, he's trying to buy himself time to sort it.
but they don't have a budget until they sell, and they have publicly destroyed the reputation of their most valuable asset by telling the world he is lazy and unwilling to contribute.
They do, and they're almost encouraged to do so by all the current talk about "identity". The only identity I want my team (and my manager) to display is winning, and insisting on a particular style regardless of the players available to you is Route One to missing the target.
I wonder how much of financial mess they're in because they won't qualify Europe? I love it!!! That's not a ringing endorsement of FSG who have an aversion to selling players.
I mean they could do what arsenal did and totally trim their wage bill, be out of the top 4 for max 3 years but at least be building.
I mean they could do what arsenal did and totally trim their wage bill, be out of the top 4 for max 3 years but at least be building.
Their financial profile is interesting.
For June 2019, their income was £630m. It then dropped below that level between 2020-2022 before recovering to £658m in 2023. The difference was essentially covid and European media.
But over that period, they only made serious losses in 2022 (£145m). Leaving that year out of the equation, they were fine through covid and years when they were in and out of the Champions League (and that's before adding back covid losses).
So in "normal" years, their business model is reasonably resilient, even after paying interest to the Glazers.
By all accounts they got some extended relief for covid from the Premier League which dug them out of their hole in 2022, but the risks to them are the exceptional costs they could incur - they'll take a hit getting rid of Antony and Casemiro, they've already taken a hit on sacking ten Hag.
Obviously a run in the Europa League would cushion the blow of not getting CL football, but compared to the year-on-year results, it's not like they'd be dropping the full £80m. Going from 2024-5 to 2025-6 with no Europe, the drop-off will be much lower (£20-30m tops for Europa League this year).
It feels to me like it could all come out in the wash if they negotiate the transfer windows well, and that's probably why the rumours are doing the rounds about Garnacho and Mainoo. Decent profits on them could keep everything on an even keel, and cushion the losses from ten Hag, Antony etc. They could even potentially make money of Rashford if they can get a fee to off-set whatever they need to pay him to leave. But they'll to wrap that all up by the end of June this year.
Isn't their debt over a £700m? The interest on that is likely to be £60-70m plus on going fees for transfers and agents. Now if they sell Rashford, Mainoo and Garnocho could raise upto £200m but these players would need to be replaced
OK, an update. I've now found details of their 2024 accounts. They realised another big loss (£131m), of which £64m was interest cost.
And yet they passed PSR.
And they'll probably have paid down some of the debt with Ratcliffe's money (£250m in December and a further £80m this month). Debt was £546m at 30 June. The figure you have may include transfer debt. While it has to be paid, it is interest-free (although it is accounted for as if interest is due - I'll explain in a separate post). It accounted for 25% of the interest payable per accounts.
But on sales of players, that's what I was getting at about managing the windows well. Rashford has contributed sod all for ages now, they won't miss him. It looks like Rimjob either doesn't fancy Garnacho or thinks he doesn't fit the system. He doesn't seem that keen on Mainoo, given his minutes, but perhaps he's carrying a minor injury. They could lose those players, plus Casemiro who hasn't had a sniff in a month, without worrying overly about spending big on replacements. So yeah, like your Arsenal model as you suggest above.
And yet they passed PSR.
And they'll probably have paid down some of the debt with Ratcliffe's money (£250m in December and a further £80m this month). Debt was £546m at 30 June. The figure you have may include transfer debt. While it has to be paid, it is interest-free (although it is accounted for as if interest is due - I'll explain in a separate post). It accounted for 25% of the interest payable per accounts.
But on sales of players, that's what I was getting at about managing the windows well. Rashford has contributed sod all for ages now, they won't miss him. It looks like Rimjob either doesn't fancy Garnacho or thinks he doesn't fit the system. He doesn't seem that keen on Mainoo, given his minutes, but perhaps he's carrying a minor injury. They could lose those players, plus Casemiro who hasn't had a sniff in a month, without worrying overly about spending big on replacements. So yeah, like your Arsenal model as you suggest above.
Re keep everything on an even keel, financially yup maybe.
Selling so many players would mean needing to replace them with someone.
If they just turn to the academy then fair enough but garnacho/mainoo are decent players.
There are just soo many players they need to bin and having a manager who has a very specific system, that'll then likely require very specific players just seems a silly decision.. obv loving it.
I don't know. I still think he'll come good.
They're not going to go down regardless. And, it's no secret he plays an entirely different system. So, like he says, either stick it out with him and change the team wholesale, or get rid and remain in purgatory forever.
If United were smart they'll stick with him.
They're not going to go down regardless. And, it's no secret he plays an entirely different system. So, like he says, either stick it out with him and change the team wholesale, or get rid and remain in purgatory forever.
If United were smart they'll stick with him.
Just to confirm how transfer debt is accounted for. Geeks only beyond this point.
When a debt has a fixed term, if it is interest-free (or if the interest charged is artificially low) then accounting practice requires that it is adjusted.
So let's say, for example, that a club buys a player for £90m, paid in three equal instalments - 1 up-front and then in 1 and 2 year's time.
The basic accounting principle is that if someone says you can pay them £30m in a year's time, then you get some benefit of having that money for 12 months.
If a sensible rate of return on that money is 5%, then the liability is currently worth £30m / 1.05 in current terms = £28.6m. If you charge 5% interest on £28.6m, it increases to £30m after a year.
If it were due in 2 years, it would be worth £30m / 1.05 / 1.05 = £27.2m.
So from an accounting perspective, you are required to record the following when you buy the player:
Cash payment of £30m
Future payment in 1 year of £28.6m (Transfer creditor)
Future payment in 2 years of £27.2m (Transfer creditor)
So the player's value in the accounts (intangible asset) is £85.8m, not £90m, due to the benefit of paying for him later on interest-free terms.
So for double entry geeks:
Dr Intangible assets £85.8m
Cr Cash £30m
Cr Transfer creditors £55.8m
In year 1, you record an interest charge so that the closing amount due will be £28.6m (the value of £30m deferred one year, interest-free).
So you charge £2.8m of interest (Dr Interest £2.8m, Cr Transfer creditor £2.8m).
Then in year 2 you charge a further £1.4m on the remaining balance (Dr Interest £1.4m, Cr Transfer creditor £1.4m).
Over the life of the player's contract, the total charge in the accounts will be £90m - £85.8m in amortisation and £4.2m in interest.
The same principles apply on a sale, but recording interest income and a lower profit on the sale.
And finally, to distinguish these shareholder loans that every hasn't been charging interest on previously, because those loans don't stipulate a repayment date, there is no need to charge interest from an accounting perspective (and since you don't know when repayment is due, you wouldn't be able to do the calculations as you don't have all the necessary parameters).
When a debt has a fixed term, if it is interest-free (or if the interest charged is artificially low) then accounting practice requires that it is adjusted.
So let's say, for example, that a club buys a player for £90m, paid in three equal instalments - 1 up-front and then in 1 and 2 year's time.
The basic accounting principle is that if someone says you can pay them £30m in a year's time, then you get some benefit of having that money for 12 months.
If a sensible rate of return on that money is 5%, then the liability is currently worth £30m / 1.05 in current terms = £28.6m. If you charge 5% interest on £28.6m, it increases to £30m after a year.
If it were due in 2 years, it would be worth £30m / 1.05 / 1.05 = £27.2m.
So from an accounting perspective, you are required to record the following when you buy the player:
Cash payment of £30m
Future payment in 1 year of £28.6m (Transfer creditor)
Future payment in 2 years of £27.2m (Transfer creditor)
So the player's value in the accounts (intangible asset) is £85.8m, not £90m, due to the benefit of paying for him later on interest-free terms.
So for double entry geeks:
Dr Intangible assets £85.8m
Cr Cash £30m
Cr Transfer creditors £55.8m
In year 1, you record an interest charge so that the closing amount due will be £28.6m (the value of £30m deferred one year, interest-free).
So you charge £2.8m of interest (Dr Interest £2.8m, Cr Transfer creditor £2.8m).
Then in year 2 you charge a further £1.4m on the remaining balance (Dr Interest £1.4m, Cr Transfer creditor £1.4m).
Over the life of the player's contract, the total charge in the accounts will be £90m - £85.8m in amortisation and £4.2m in interest.
The same principles apply on a sale, but recording interest income and a lower profit on the sale.
And finally, to distinguish these shareholder loans that every hasn't been charging interest on previously, because those loans don't stipulate a repayment date, there is no need to charge interest from an accounting perspective (and since you don't know when repayment is due, you wouldn't be able to do the calculations as you don't have all the necessary parameters).
I think most of the players they will sell won't fit Rimjob's system. And he'll need to buy / promote players that do, regardless of those sales. United ought to have priced that in to their budgets, but I bet they didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if Ashworth had raised this and been over-ruled.
It's a tricky balance and I too am loving it.
It also shows the wisdom of our decision to appoint Slot - we brought in a coach where the footballing style was evolution, not revolution. He wasn't going to need a load of new signings to get the team playing how he wanted, and in reality he's done it without recruiting anyone who has contributed significantly. That isn't a coincidence, it's by design, and Edwards will have factored that into the decision / recommendation.
Obviously our issue is future proofing the positions of 3 of our most influential players.
The interesting thing with United is whether their lack of success is deterring new fans from supporting them or if that’s being offset by the overall growth of the Premier League. These barren years will inevitably impact their finances over the next 20–25 years, much like our barren spell in the 1990s affected us. With the rise in prize money, now is not a good time for a big club to be regularly finishing outside the Champions League. Best case scenario is they are competing for a place in the tournament in 2027/28, and that feels very optimistic given where they're at right now.
Which was true of them under Bin Bag too. They don't have that desire to dig deep game after game. And this league will always punish that lack of endeavour.
It is interesting. Seems the managers now are concerned more with their image and brand.
The best identity would surely be that of a winning manager,
On playing styles and all that, was speaking to a German dude recently who said everyone in Germany blames Pep for the national team being shite since he had Bayern. He got them playing tika taka bullshit and most of them played for the national side so it fucked up their national identity of 442 with big strong bastards everywhere and a proper number 9.
Says they're still fucked cos of him.
Says they're still fucked cos of him.
He may well have a point, but they're not the only ones. A number of teams here insist on playing out from the back when they don't have the players for it. Too many people in football generally are dedicated followers of fashion.
View: https://x.com/paddypower/status/1881310717560647959?t=Fgndoq4GKqYqvA08k6ZuWw&s=19
Sometimes you have to wonder if it isn't scripted.
Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least it's an ethos, man.
At least Arteta made the trains run on time.
