29 May 2026 13:25:08
It's been suggested that revenues next year could be close to £800m assuming a fairly deep Champions League run.
The club has a £400m revolving credit facility of which £250m is currently unused.
Given the improved financial results for the current year there should be absolutely no problems with PSR as it comes to an end.
Current squad cost is less than 50% of next year's likely revenues compared to a maximum Uefa limit of 70% So, with the departures of Casemiro, Hojlund and Sancho at a minimum there's gong to be plenty leeway for the club to improve the squad. I would not be surprised to see us spending £300m.
Longer term there is the new stadium. Part of the reason Real Madrid's revenues are now £1bn is the development of the Bernabeu into a multifunctional entertainment complex. This is one of the areas where the Glazers intend to cash in having reportedly been steadily increasing their real estate holdings around OT.
Whether we like it, or them (the Glazers and Ratcliffe - and I don't), one does get the feeling that the club is now being run by professionals with ambition both on and off the field. The LBO was an abomination which drained the clubs resources and negatively impacted the ability to buy the best players, followed by the appointment and too long endured Ed Woodward, an utterly incompetent chief exec, but If the current management can consistently deliver entertaining football and titles, why should I/we care if they make money in the process? It's surely better for the club that they make it rather than lose it.
It's going to be a transformational decade.
29 May 2026 13:53:52
I will never ever forgive the Glazers, not least for the years of SAF, when we should have dominated Europe but didn’t because of Glazernomics. The LBO & subsequent borrowing cost over £1Bn, and the debt still sits there. £1Bn plus! They will never ever get a pass from me, even when they are finally expunged from the club. Disgusting leeches.
29 May 2026 14:37:09
Red Man, whilst their saddling of debt onto the club is something I really detest, i don't think most people would care if they had appointed competent people to look after the operations. Ultimately plenty of money has been spent - it's that it was spent terribly. Ed Woodward created a toxic culture and made so many inept decisions.
The relative stability we have now, and the clearer approach towards transfers, etc and on due diligence towards the new stadium is far more important than who owns the club and whether they make profit or not. I really don't like them but I'm far happier we owned by them than a Russian oligarch, or a human rights abusing state owned regime.
29 May 2026 15:03:19
They are not allowed anymore in the EPL, as far as I understand - says it all, really. The test for fit ownership clearly failed, and now we have leaches attached to our club that we will likely never shift.
Those in the know around the club have apparently purchased as much property as possible around the proposed site for the new stadium and entertainment area.
A lot of people stand to make a lot of money over the next 10 years.
29 May 2026 15:22:55
But that's exactly the point, DonRed - the Glazers are responsible for appointing those incompetent people in the first place. You can't separate Woodward from the ownership because he was their choice, repeatedly backed by them despite years of failure. A competent ownership structure would never have allowed someone with zero football expertise to run the biggest football club in the country for nearly a decade.
Yes, money was spent, but the reason United had to operate like a commercial machine obsessed with sponsorships and marketing growth was because the club was loaded with debt from a leveraged buyout that never should have been allowed and served as no benefit to the club. Hundreds of millions that could've gone into infrastructure, recruitment, scouting, or the stadium instead went into servicing debt, dividends, and interest payments. The Glazers created an environment where commercial performance mattered more than football performance.
Opposition fans, the media will always say "they spent money," but net spend without structure means nothing.
The ownership failed to put proper football people in place, failed to modernise the club, failed to renovate Old Trafford, failed to invest in the training ground for years, and tolerated mediocrity because top-four finishes and commercial revenue were enough for them.
Liverpool and City built elite football structures while United drifted because the owners didn't prioritise football excellence.
And even now, the "relative stability" only arrived after fan pressure became impossible to ignore and after INEOS effectively had to come in and clean up the football side. The clearer strategy you're praising exists because the Glazers finally had to hand over control after years of mismanagement - not because they suddenly became good owners.
As for other ownership options, although I agree with your sentiment about preferring them to a Russian oligarch or human rights abusing state owned regime, that's a very low bar and the club and fans deserve so much better.
29 May 2026 16:32:06
Who truly cares who the owners are, deep down. Ultimately you just want your tea to win, come what may.
29 May 2026 16:39:03
I also will never forgive the Glazers for the lost decade and a half, and, yes, they are entirely responsible for appointing Woodward, then keeping him in place, and for getting rid of competent managers when they started to tell the truth about what a soulless disaster they were.
My only point is that, had we actually continued to win top trophies with regularity, and somehow found value in the market place, I, and I think the majority of us, wouldn't care much about their dividends, the level of debt, and the interest payments.
Fact is, after the company went public in 2012 - which corresponds with the exit of both SAF and Gill - we were in pretty good shape. If we had replaced them with a halfway decent executive team, we would not have wasted £1bn, we would have continued to at least be in the Champions League with regularity, and we would not now have the level of debt we have.
29 May 2026 16:40:39
Oh dear Jimbobred. ?♂️
29 May 2026 16:59:06
Newname, We've won 5 major trophies since Sir Alex left in 2013, and not one league title.
29 May 2026 18:28:37
They basically bought the club by saddling us with debt, using club revenues to service the debt. Clever but appalling. All the while taking large dividends and letting the staff rust and rot. Of course we care who the owners are.
They then appointed a marketing man as CEO who was inept, meaning we overpaid for players who were not good enough. Complete incompetence.
29 May 2026 19:58:45
Ports, the way I look at it is that only the Premier League and European Championship are major titles. The rest are all secondary. Certainly better than nothing, particularly if you're a club that rarely, if ever, wins anything. For example, if you support Villa, a team that realistically is unlikely to ever win the EPL, you're going to be over the moon to win the Europa League.
But if you support Man Utd, it's no more than a consolation. The same for Crystal Palace and the Conference League. It's fantastic ------ for them.
29 May 2026 22:01:22
I read somewhere that around 200 million of transfer fee installments are due to be paid out over the next 12 months.
29 May 2026 22:36:47
Ports, the point is this: clubs are being bought up by all and sundry. Some saddle them with debt; very few will be buying them with cold hard cash.
I'm not saying I agree with their ownership, I'm merely saying if it isn't them, it will be a full SJR ownership (he is no saint), or the Saudis' oil, or Qatari money, or another Hollywood actor making it into a Netflix special revolving pantomime.
It is just the way football has progressed over the last few decades, and I'm not in favour of it.
But what is the alternative? Give up your season ticket in boycott, only for it to be sold the next day (not an option for people who have held them for generations), join the in-game protests (sure, all in), don't buy the merchandise for your kids and grandkids (let them go and support the latest glory team). Any other suggestions?
30 May 2026 09:47:13
Jimbo
I only care what owners do to the club.
The Glazers are disgusting and Ratcliffe enabled them to stay. I suspect the summer aims from the owners are to buy players but also to ensure financial profitability so dividends will be paid. The Glazers have used United like a cash machine, whilst seeing the asset value rise.
Great business from them, but a disgraceful way to treat a historic football club that grew from working class Manchester people.
You said "some saddle them with debt". Which other club has been bought by a LBO?
30 May 2026 13:14:13
Liverpool 2007, Gillett and Hicks.
Burnley 2020.
Portsmouth and Hull were both LBOs.
There's a few.
I respect the Liverpool fans, they successfully chased them out.