I think that would not be 110%
Football Finance
- Thread starter King Binny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Not sure how I missed this but Burnley are taking on Everton through the courts over Everton's breaching of PSR (which resulted in Burnley being relegated). Burnley would have been saved had Everton been docked the points in the season they committed the breaches. The original PSR decision effectively granted Burnley permission to take them on in court if they wanted to.
They're suing Everton for £50m.
Beyond this individual case, there could be an important precedent set here for 115/130 FC. Needless to say, I hope Burnley win, but I suspect they won't. I think they know that and were hoping Everton might settle out of court.
Being pragmatic about it, I don't think Burnley should win this one. Although I'd agree it would be fair if they did, I think the legal bar they will have to clear is too high - they'd need to show Everton benefitted from a sporting perspective to the extent that they (Everton) would have been relegated had they not spent like they did (too nebulous to prove) or else that the rules should have imposed the penalty retrospectively (which is a hard argument because, by becoming shareholders of the Premier League, Burnley effectively signed up to accept those rules as they were).
So I don't see them winning, which is not to say that a subsequent case against 115/130 FC wouldn't succeed, as in their case the sporting advantage argument will probably be easier to make (especially for a team that twice finished 1 point behind them). In that respect, the decision may be helpful to the bigger clubs as the reasoning of any decision will help them to build cases against City if they are penalised.
They're suing Everton for £50m.
Beyond this individual case, there could be an important precedent set here for 115/130 FC. Needless to say, I hope Burnley win, but I suspect they won't. I think they know that and were hoping Everton might settle out of court.
Being pragmatic about it, I don't think Burnley should win this one. Although I'd agree it would be fair if they did, I think the legal bar they will have to clear is too high - they'd need to show Everton benefitted from a sporting perspective to the extent that they (Everton) would have been relegated had they not spent like they did (too nebulous to prove) or else that the rules should have imposed the penalty retrospectively (which is a hard argument because, by becoming shareholders of the Premier League, Burnley effectively signed up to accept those rules as they were).
So I don't see them winning, which is not to say that a subsequent case against 115/130 FC wouldn't succeed, as in their case the sporting advantage argument will probably be easier to make (especially for a team that twice finished 1 point behind them). In that respect, the decision may be helpful to the bigger clubs as the reasoning of any decision will help them to build cases against City if they are penalised.
Lawyers guns and money.
Surely these cases must be steering the game towards systems of real time accounting and monitoring?
It seems we're still living in an age where it makes more sense to overspend, beach rules and then try and defend yourself at a later date.
I'm torn on the delay on 115/130, but, perhaps because I'm optimistic, my inclination is to think that the longer the delay, the more likely it is that there'll be an adverse judgment for City. I think that way simply because if a decision came out that let them off the hook, the Premier League would be in part embarrassed to have failed to make the case, but also relieved to be able to tell the other clubs that they need to draw a line under it and move on. In that light, it would be easy for the panel to hand down a decision that let City off the hook, perhaps on a technicality as with the CAS decision.
But it would be harder to hand City their arses on a plate, and you'd want to make sure your decision was a tight as a gnat's backside. And that... would take time. I really hope that's what's going on.
But it would be harder to hand City their arses on a plate, and you'd want to make sure your decision was a tight as a gnat's backside. And that... would take time. I really hope that's what's going on.
One of the big issues we used to have when dealing with FSG is that they needed to do forecasts for US tax purposes. The Red Sox numbers were, apparently, really easy to forecast with little scope for error, but ours were a nightmare. Even down to the last day of the season, the result of the final games could mean £millions in terms of Premier League merit income, to say nothing of the difference between qualifying for Champions League / other comps / no Europe (affecting player bonuses and sponsor payments etc).
I think this is why UEFA went with December accounts - they can be filed earlier and it gives them time to sort any sanctions out ahead of the following season. The PL could potentially do that too. But I think the more likely outcome here is that Burnley lose their case and the system stays as it is. As harsh as that feels, I think it's the right outcome. The rules aren't perfect and they never will be, but you sign up to them, warts and all. As much as Burnley were unlucky, had Everton been relegated the season they were docked points, some other team would have got away with one. Shit happens.
Man Utd announce record revenue despite poor form
Image caption,
Manchester United's men's team are not competing in Europe this season
By
Simon Stone
Chief football news reporter
- Published
54 minutes ago
- Published
United finished 15th in the Premier League last season, their worst placing since the 1973-74 relegation campaign.
However, the start of their five-year front-of-shirt sponsorship deal with Snapdragon enabled them to post record commercial revenue of £333.3m, while matchday revenue was also a record at £160.3m in the year to 30 June 2025.
"To have generated record revenues during such a challenging year for the club demonstrates the resilience which is a hallmark of Manchester United," said chief executive Omar Berrada.
"As we settle into the 2025-26 season, we are working hard to improve the club in all areas."
Berrada did not reference United's poor start to the current campaign but says United are building "for the long term".
An overall loss of £33m represents a 70.8% reduction on the previous year, when the figure was £113.2m.
United say they "remain committed to, and in compliance with, both the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules and Uefa's's Financial Fair Play Regulations".
In January Deloitte ranked United as having the fourth highest revenue in world football, based on the club's earnings of £651m from the previous year.
Real Madrid (£883m) were in first place, followed by Manchester City (£708m) and Paris St-Germain (£681m).
United haven't put their full accounts up yet, will probably be published in the next few days and I'll have a look at them in due course.
COMMENTS ON THEIR PRESS RELEASE IN CAPS BELOW
United finished 15th in the Premier League last season, their worst placing since the 1973-74 relegation campaign.
However, the start of their five-year front-of-shirt sponsorship deal with Snapdragon enabled them to post record commercial revenue of £333.3m, while matchday revenue was also a record at £160.3m in the year to 30 June 2025.
THE UPLIFT FROM SNAPDRAGON IS ONLY £10M OF THIS, THE REST IS DOWN TO AN E-COMMERCE PARTNERSHIP FOR WHICH THERE WILL ALSO BE SOME COSTS (IE REVENUE DOES NOT ALWAYS = PROFIT / CASH). I'VE POSTED BEFORE ABOUT THE STAGNATION IN THEIR COMMERCIAL GROWTH. OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD TO 2025, THEY'VE GROWN COMMERCIAL REVENUE BY ABOUT 2.2% PER ANNUM. OVER 10 YEARS TO 2024 FOR US (I DON'T HAVE 2025 FIGURES YET), OUR GROWTH WAS 10.2% PER ANNUM. 10-YEAR GROWTH 24% FOR UNITED, 165% FOR US. WE HAD SOME CATCHING UP TO DO, AND IT'S DONE NOW. THE OTHER BIG CLUBS ARE CATCHING THEM TOO.
"To have generated record revenues during such a challenging year for the club demonstrates the resilience which is a hallmark of Manchester United," said chief executive Omar Berrada.
THE RECORD REVENUES WERE LESS THAN 1% HIGHER THAN LAST YEAR, ON THE BACK OF A RUN TO THE EUROPA FINAL, BECAUSE BROADCASTING WAS WAY OFF. NO CHAMPIONS LEAGUE, POOR MERIT INCOME FROM THE PREMIER LEAGUE.
"As we settle into the 2025-26 season, we are working hard to improve the club in all areas."
Berrada did not reference United's poor start to the current campaign but says United are building "for the long term".
An overall loss of £33m represents a 70.8% reduction on the previous year, when the figure was £113.2m.
LAST YEAR INCLUDED £47.8M OF ONE-OFF COSTS. STRIP THAT OUT, THE REDUCTION IS 52%. STILL NOT TOO SHABBY, TO BE FAIR. THAT'S BEEN LARGELY DONE VIA COST-CUTTING, MOSTLY WAGES.
United say they "remain committed to, and in compliance with, both the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules and Uefa's's Financial Fair Play Regulations". I REMAIN SCEPTICAL ABOUT THIS - I THINK THEY'VE DONE SOME DEALS WITH THE AUTHORITIES. ALTHOUGH OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT WORRYING ABOUT UEFA RULES THIS YEAR.
In January Deloitte ranked United as having the fourth highest revenue in world football, based on the club's earnings of £651m from the previous year.
Real Madrid (£883m) were in first place, followed by Manchester City (£708m) and Paris St-Germain (£681m).
AND THE BIT THEY DIDN'T HIGHLIGHT? THEIR BANK DEBT IS UP £130M ON LAST YEAR. NOW IT'S POSSIBLE THEY'RE SIMULTANEOUSLY SITTING ON A WEDGE OF CASH, SUCH THAT THEIR NET DEBT HASN'T GONE UP BY THAT MUCH - THE RELEASE DOESN'T SAY EITHER WAY. IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE. THEY STILL HAVE A FURTHER £140M BANK DEBT THEY CAN CALL ON IF NEEDED, SO THEY'RE NOT GOING BUST IMMINENTLY, UNFORTUNATELY.
COMMENTS ON THEIR PRESS RELEASE IN CAPS BELOW
United finished 15th in the Premier League last season, their worst placing since the 1973-74 relegation campaign.
However, the start of their five-year front-of-shirt sponsorship deal with Snapdragon enabled them to post record commercial revenue of £333.3m, while matchday revenue was also a record at £160.3m in the year to 30 June 2025.
THE UPLIFT FROM SNAPDRAGON IS ONLY £10M OF THIS, THE REST IS DOWN TO AN E-COMMERCE PARTNERSHIP FOR WHICH THERE WILL ALSO BE SOME COSTS (IE REVENUE DOES NOT ALWAYS = PROFIT / CASH). I'VE POSTED BEFORE ABOUT THE STAGNATION IN THEIR COMMERCIAL GROWTH. OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD TO 2025, THEY'VE GROWN COMMERCIAL REVENUE BY ABOUT 2.2% PER ANNUM. OVER 10 YEARS TO 2024 FOR US (I DON'T HAVE 2025 FIGURES YET), OUR GROWTH WAS 10.2% PER ANNUM. 10-YEAR GROWTH 24% FOR UNITED, 165% FOR US. WE HAD SOME CATCHING UP TO DO, AND IT'S DONE NOW. THE OTHER BIG CLUBS ARE CATCHING THEM TOO.
"To have generated record revenues during such a challenging year for the club demonstrates the resilience which is a hallmark of Manchester United," said chief executive Omar Berrada.
THE RECORD REVENUES WERE LESS THAN 1% HIGHER THAN LAST YEAR, ON THE BACK OF A RUN TO THE EUROPA FINAL, BECAUSE BROADCASTING WAS WAY OFF. NO CHAMPIONS LEAGUE, POOR MERIT INCOME FROM THE PREMIER LEAGUE.
"As we settle into the 2025-26 season, we are working hard to improve the club in all areas."
Berrada did not reference United's poor start to the current campaign but says United are building "for the long term".
An overall loss of £33m represents a 70.8% reduction on the previous year, when the figure was £113.2m.
LAST YEAR INCLUDED £47.8M OF ONE-OFF COSTS. STRIP THAT OUT, THE REDUCTION IS 52%. STILL NOT TOO SHABBY, TO BE FAIR. THAT'S BEEN LARGELY DONE VIA COST-CUTTING, MOSTLY WAGES.
United say they "remain committed to, and in compliance with, both the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules and Uefa's's Financial Fair Play Regulations". I REMAIN SCEPTICAL ABOUT THIS - I THINK THEY'VE DONE SOME DEALS WITH THE AUTHORITIES. ALTHOUGH OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT WORRYING ABOUT UEFA RULES THIS YEAR.
In January Deloitte ranked United as having the fourth highest revenue in world football, based on the club's earnings of £651m from the previous year.
Real Madrid (£883m) were in first place, followed by Manchester City (£708m) and Paris St-Germain (£681m).
AND THE BIT THEY DIDN'T HIGHLIGHT? THEIR BANK DEBT IS UP £130M ON LAST YEAR. NOW IT'S POSSIBLE THEY'RE SIMULTANEOUSLY SITTING ON A WEDGE OF CASH, SUCH THAT THEIR NET DEBT HASN'T GONE UP BY THAT MUCH - THE RELEASE DOESN'T SAY EITHER WAY. IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE. THEY STILL HAVE A FURTHER £140M BANK DEBT THEY CAN CALL ON IF NEEDED, SO THEY'RE NOT GOING BUST IMMINENTLY, UNFORTUNATELY.
