This NEEDS calling out more by the media! "They haven't go an unlimited flow of cash"....Why? It's not FFP, it's not PSR, it's not restrictions. It's an ownership decision. And it's not an excuse. Owners don't want to spend money on biggest club in England is the headline. Share it
Who remembers when INEOS begged Manchester City — our biggest rivals — to take Garnacho and kobbi mainoo on their flight ✈️ to the Ballon d’Or ceremony on 28 October 2024.
City rejected it and reportedly made a mockery of us.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a club put itself in that position, especially against its biggest rival. That alone should tell you something about how badly the standards at Manchester United have fallen.
And this is the same INEOS people expect to come in and turn everything around?
Look at what they are doing at Manchester United. The constant excuses, broken promises, questionable decisions and lack of a clear sporting direction. Too often, it feels like protecting profits and their own interests comes before protecting the standards and ambition of this football club.
Enough is enough. We have to start calling INEOS out for the damage and poor decisions they have brought to Manchester United.
If they cannot respect this club’s standards, history and ambition, then they should make way for people who actually can.
Glazers destroyed the club with debt. Jim Ratcliffe is destroying the club's soul by treating it like a circus. Manchester United is a football institution, not a billionaire plaything. Both need to go. 🤡 #MUFC#RatcliffeOut#GlazersOut
For fans waking 4:30
Glazers took debt-free club in 2005 and put £500m debt on it. Since then £743m interest + £1.1bn out. Old Trafford roof leaks on us when it rains - 2012 Olympics, 2023 City, 2024 Arsenal - still not fixed.
INEOS came Feb 2024 with £1.3bn. Cut 250 jobs, now 150-200 more. Cut staff lunch to save £1m. Cut Christmas party. But paid £10.4m to sack Ten Hag staff + £4.1m Ashworth.
They think they are doing "right thing" - saving money, being efficient.
But what is WRONG? We have no LB, no CB.
Sunday vs Ipswich we won 5-2 but we started Shaw at LB, Maguire 33 and Martinez at CB. We conceded 2 to team that was in Championship last year.
Carrick said "never say never" on new signing. Linked to Lewis Hall, Lewis-Skelly, Robinson, Balde - no bids.
Deadline tomorrow Sept 1 11pm BST.
They worry about sandwiches. We worry about Haaland, Saka, Olise vs Shaw + Maguire.
Different worries. That's why they will never understand United.
#MUFC🛑
#Glazersout🔱🔱🔰🔰🔰
#Ineosout
#MUFC
All @ManUtd match-going Reds need to read this. Many will know my brother Harry. Has worked his socks off for fans for decades. I won my appeal, but the tone in the response painted a clear picture of the future. I stood with him and returned my Platinum #SeasonTicket too. 🔴⚪️⚫️
The Glazer Debt: £1.2 Billion That Never Reached the Pitch.
In 2005 the Glazers loaded hundreds of millions of debt onto Manchester United to buy the club. Twenty-one years later, that debt is still here.
Interest alone has taken around £800–900 million out of the club. Add dividends, fees and related payments and the total reaches roughly £1.2 billion.
That money never went into transfers, Old Trafford, or Carrington. It went to lenders and the owners.
Even after refinancing, gross debt remains at £700–750 million. Include transfer payables and the broader figure has topped £1 billion. A June 2026 refinance actually increased the size of one major bond and raised the interest rate.
United have still spent big on players, but every year tens of millions disappear in interest instead of strengthening the squad or the stadium. Infrastructure lagged for years. Cash flow stays tighter than it should be for a club of this size.
The Ferguson era masked the problem. After 2013 the combination of debt, extraction and inconsistent recruitment left United fighting uphill against cleaner balance-sheet rivals.
Ratcliffe’s arrival brought equity and operational control, but the core Glazer debt was left largely untouched.
It continues to be refinanced, not cleared.
Strong commercial income has kept the club afloat. It has not removed the permanent annual tax on ambition.
The takeover made the Glazers wealthy and United have spent two decades paying for it.
This is why we need them to LEAVE!!!
#GlazersOut #MUFC #GlazersSellManUtd
📣In defense to Andy and Laurie, I would add that they are very management focused in how they view and review things. They often say stuff like ‘they are not stupid’, ‘surely they realize the need for [x]’ etc.
They are not defending management, they are commenting on the work of Berrada and Wilcox. While being seilient really about the owners of MUFC.
🏫But it is the owners of MUFC that is the issue. If I was an investor in MUFC, I would want the club to recognize that it can be profitable/functional if competing in the CL consistently. Hence, I would want the club to have invested really big this summer, to ensure that it established itself in a group with City, Arsenal and Liverpool — even if this investment came with a financial risk.
But — this decision is not in the hands of Omar Berrada and Jason Wilcox. They clearly have a budget to work within.
⚽️I have been critical of the fact that for example Berrada is — not — pushed when he claims that the club intends to compete for a title this or next season — despite investing only a fraction of our rivals. No team other than Leicester have ever been able to win a title without a top 2-3 wage bill since 2013. And a huge majority of all PL titles the last 13 years has been won by the club paying the highest wages to its players.
This season United's wage bill will be 5-6th in the PL. This is where the player wage bill of each PL winner have ranked since Fergie left:
13/14 -- 1
14/15 -- 1
15/16 -- Leicester won
16/17 -- 2 (Chelsea won, City had the largest wage bill)
17/18 -- 1
18/19 -- 1
19/20 -- 3 (Pool won paying its players 212m behind CFC's 223 and City's 268. United's player wage bill of 177m was 35m behind pool, which illustrates how high pool's player wage bill was)
20/21 -- 1
21/22 -- 1
22/23 -- 1
24/25 -- 1
So how about 25/26? Numbers are not in yet. City and Liverpool's wage bill for 25/26 will be at least in the 400-430m span. This is the development of Arsenal's wage bill:
21/22 -- 212m
22/23 -- 235m
23/24 -- 327m
24/25 -- 347m
For the 25/26 season, they signed Gyökeres, Zubimendi, Madueke, Mosquera, Norgaard, Kepa and Hincapie + resigned among others Saliba, Gabriel, Raya and Saka. I would be surprised if Arsenal's wage bill in 25/26 is not right up there with City and Liverpool. £415m? Bookmark it.
🔺United's wage bill will be around £300m next season. Comfortably behind Tottenham and on par with Villa if we look at what is paid to players (at least roughly). Liverpool, City and Arsenal will probably come in at around £450m for 26/27. There is also a tremendous gap between United and the top if we look at agent fees and transfer fees paid.
When the CEO of Manchester United claims that it is realistic for United to win the title in 26/27 or 27/28 -- I simply think that it is very weak to not question his rational for that against the above background. Only Leicester have done it before. Arsenal and Liverpool needed to ramp up their spending to competitive levels before competing.
But we are supposed to do it with a wage budget way behind Tottenham's? We could literary take Rashford's contract, Xerox it into 10 copies, take tipex and erase his name, enter in 10 academy players with the same pay -- and still have a wage bill that is behind City, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea's. Oki...
This is what true love for a football club looks like.
Real protests. Real sacrifice. Fans putting the long-term future of their club ahead of their own comfort because they believe change is worth fighting for.
The passion and commitment they’re showing is impossible not to respect. 👏🏻