26 Jun 2026 19:32:03
It appears that a new loan deal has been arranged for Onana. We will still have 2 years of his amortization to expense less a small loan fee, but that's probably as good as we could hope for. Maybe next summer, if he does well, with only about £8.5m NBV left on the books he can be moved on permanently without further loss. So that leaves Rashford, Ugarte and Zirkzee to try and find new homes for. Let's hope that Rashford gets to start over Gordon and then has a good tournament from here on in. If I was forced to choose between buying Gordon for what Barcelona paid for him or keeping Rashford, I'd definitely go for the latter. If Dorgu continues on his current trajectory I'll take him over both. Easy decision.
It'll be interesting to see what our finances look like at the year end. There'll be a profit from the sale of Hojlund and a claw back on the cost of firing Amorim to enhance the 2025/6 results. Wouldn't surprise me if we actually make a profit. If we can sell Rashford, get a sell-on fee from the sale of Greenwood, and maybe get a decent fee for Vitek, 2026/7 could be off to a good start financially, leaving us more room for acquisitions, enhanced further by the refinancing of the long term debt which will improve our available host term cash position.
In accounting terms if we amortise £160m a year it's a non-cash item, so if we break even the club will actually generate £160m in +ve cash flow. This +ve will of course be offset by repaying transfer debts. Let's say that £160m is used up doing just that. From a cash point of view we're even but our debt will have decreased. Then there will be new players, which will be bought for cash or over time, either way increasing debt offset by sales of existing players.
The debt is excessive and certainly not ideal but even at these levels it's manageable if the team starts to consistently compete for major trophies and regularly qualifies for the Champions League. Alas we're not however in a position to plonk down £116m in cash up front for a single player as yet. £40-50m in interest payments may be manageable but it remains a millstone. Still, I think we have more room to maneuver than some of the pundits are suggesting.
26 Jun 2026 23:27:04
You get what you pay for. Gems can be uncovered. Look no further than our excellent new keeper, but the best players will cost money. If we are in for someone for our first team, the selling club is looking for a pay day. We can't kid them that they are a backup signing. Every signing will be plus $20m above what a market price might seem.
Hopefully Emerson is a gem, because the price is very good if he turns out to be a top first teamer.
We already have Mainoo, who cost us nothing. Maybe we should be asking why we can't afford a midfield that can win a league, when we have one player for free from our youth?
The ownership of our club seems to be able to blame the financial situation on why they can't spend money. They caused the financial situation. Ineos are the Glazers in sheep's clothing.
27 Jun 2026 00:32:08
I'm not shilling for Ineos, but they bear little responsibility for the debt. Had they not taken over the day-to-day management, it would not surprise me if we had been in far greater debt, and possibly been relegated. Remember, Ineos actually put in $300m in cash, which is $300m more than the Glazers ever did.
27 Jun 2026 00:59:41
Who said we can't spend, Dodgy? Come August, we may be the biggest spenders, or thereabouts. We, just, can't spend 120-130 on one player, and that's another matter. Or maybe we could if the right player (Anderson) wanted to join.
27 Jun 2026 13:30:34
The club is briefing out to their journos that costs are too high, wage expectations are too high. We will not penny pinch our way to the title. No club does.
27 Jun 2026 16:31:35
That is called good comms. Would you rather the days with Woodward wandering around, saying we can buy the most expensive in the world and end up back with massively overpriced players who weren't even committed to the club?