Big Sir Jim's massive folly

[Beamrider]

@Beamrider have you seen this, how mch does this help Man U when it comes to paying clubs the instalment in transfers they owe?
Ratcliffe's equity investment raises Manchester United's three-year PSR loss limit from £15m to £105m - The Athletic
Today, 5 June 2025, 09:00
7
Manchester United are unlikely to face any issues with the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) this summer, despite previous speculation about potential restrictions, according to a detailed report from The Athletic.

The club’s PSR compliance is assessed using the financial results of Red Football Limited (RFL) - a subsidiary of Manchester United plc - rather than the broader plc entity. This distinction is crucial, as the two sets of accounts differ significantly. While Manchester United plc reported a pre-tax loss of £130.7 million for the 2023-24 season, RFL’s losses stood at a far lower £36.2 million.

UEFA’s own finance report supports this, listing United’s pre-tax losses as €22 million (£19m) in 2022-23 and €42 million (£36m) in 2023-24 - figures that align exactly with RFL’s reporting. The discrepancy arises partly because RFL does not include the costs associated with Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s acquisition of a minority stake in the club earlier this year, nor other plc-level expenses. Additionally, RFL’s accounts are boosted by interest income from intra-group loans and more favourable foreign exchange outcomes.

While some financial elements - such as intra-group interest and foreign exchange gains - are excluded from PSR calculations, United’s actual loss figures for PSR purposes remain significantly below the club’s limit. Thanks to Ratcliffe’s equity injections, United's allowable losses under PSR have increased from £15 million to £105 million over a three-year cycle.

RFL reported a combined pre-tax loss of £55.1 million over the 2022-23 and 2023-24 seasons, meaning that even with necessary adjustments, United could lose up to £141 million in 2024-25 and still remain within the PSR threshold.

More on Tribuna.com:

https://tribuna.com/en/news/2025-06-05-ratcliffes-equity-investment-raises-manchester-uniteds-threeyear-psr-loss-limit-from-15m/?utm_source=copy

Essentially this is saying that they shouldn't fail PSR. The thrust of my analysis was not about PSR, but the fact that they are up against it from a cash perspective. They don't need to worry about profitability, they need to worry about solvency. The only reason they are still afloat from a cash perspective is that Ratcliffe put in that equity, and they are still struggling. It's unlikely he's going to want to do that again, and there's sod-all chance the Glazers will stump up the cash. They're going to need to make some sales to fund the purchases they are making right now, and they're not allowing themselves much, if any, wiggle room.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Cunha and Mbuemo are decent pick-ups, but it scratches the surface of their issues really. They'll score a few more goals, win a couple more games.

But what about Mbeumo?

 

[rurikbird]

It seems Amorim does have a plan in how he wants to rebuild United’s attack and also has some kind of pull, with both Cunha and Mbeumo choosing United ahead of the likes of Newcastle. It’s early, but so far sky isn’t falling for United despite the EL final loss.

 

[MomoWASright]

I don’t think Amorim is the pull. It will be the £250k/week that pulls them.

 

[Squiggles]

Signing from within the Premier League is a smart move given their current position and the number of failures across their squad. However, Cunha could easily implode under increased pressure and in a toxic environment. I don't know what he's like off the pitch, but on it, he's clearly a hothead. I think he could have done well with us or at Arsenal, but at United, the risk of failure rises significantly.

Mbeumo apparently was a United fan as a kid and they're recent troubles are probably why he's bald.

 

[bluebell]

Essentially this is saying that they shouldn't fail PSR. The thrust of my analysis was not about PSR, but the fact that they are up against it from a cash perspective. They don't need to worry about profitability, they need to worry about solvency. The only reason they are still afloat from a cash perspective is that Ratcliffe put in that equity, and they are still struggling. It's unlikely he's going to want to do that again, and there's sod-all chance the Glazers will stump up the cash. They're going to need to make some sales to fund the purchases they are making right now, and they're not allowing themselves much, if any, wiggle room.

So the way out of this pickle would be the Glazers selling more of their shares to Ratcliffe or getting an equity based loan?