Manchester United banter 5

26 Sep 2026 07:39:02
{Ed's Note - Reddevilfan has posted a new article entitled, United Need a Leader, Not Another Nice Guy

26 Sep 2026 11:52:42
Agree to an extent.
From what I hear Carrick is different when the camera isn't there.

I'd say he lacks tactical adaptability and the ability to spot a problem or opportunity mid game. That does come with experience but I don't see it. I'd also question Woodgate, Evans and potentially Binnion. If you look at other Coaches like Carrick eg high profile ex players they are surrounded by elite coaches. Holland is a good example but you want that x3. Danks at Bayern was appreciated.

I've previously mentioned the strength conditioning fitness team are below average.

26 Sep 2026 11:56:47
I'd go for the Porto coach.
Seems legit.

25 Sep 2026 20:05:11
{Ed's Note - Reddevilfan has posted a new article entitled, United Need a Leader, Not Another Nice Guy

25 Sep 2026 16:24:58
Citeh found guilty so appeals stage now.

25 Sep 2026 16:47:13
I think the FA have to go hard here. if Citeh get s red wrist or very weak punishment then que the rule breaking

Everton will also be watching hing closely.

25 Sep 2026 17:37:28
The FA should hand City over to Big Sir Jim and the Glazers as punishment.

25 Sep 2026 18:58:07
Their spending this summer and last jan suggests to me that they knew a long tranfer ban was incoming at the very least.
Will be intersting to see how quickly it moves from here. My understanding is that the appeal process will have a definitive timeline.
Points defuction severe enough to relegate then is unlikely imo but we'll have to wait and see.

25 Sep 2026 19:07:21
I disagree ken. 114 guilty verdicts is deserving of a severe punishment, I would expect relegation.

25 Sep 2026 19:25:55
Everton were docked 6 for minor breaches.

City have done fraud if it's only a big fine and transfer ban others will do exactly the same.

Should be enough points do be dropped down two leagues minimum.
5 year transfer ban
Kick out of all fa competitions and stripped.

Look at the likes of rangers, juve and that for cheating.

Prem have to be strong or look fools.

25 Sep 2026 19:39:07
Relegation is a tricky one because the EPL and Championship would effectively have to agree on it, and City would have the right to appeal that to CAS.

I'd expect a two year transfer ban, and a big enough points penalty to take them out of European qualification, but not enough to relegate them.

25 Sep 2026 20:07:40
EFL wouldn't need to approve. If you gave them a points deduction that would effectively relegate them. They would just take one of the 3 relegation spots and go down.
I would say if 114 charges doesn't get you relegation from let's say a points deduction, then what would you have to do to get that punishment.

25 Sep 2026 20:10:37
Do like the Paddy Power advert with the open top bus victory parade for the lawyers. Top stuff.

25 Sep 2026 20:42:59
They cannot appeal to CAS Shap, this is purely internal for the Premier League.

25 Sep 2026 20:52:49
Not including all Premier League clubs including past PL clubs effected will be suing for lost positions, missed champions league spots, relegation. City players having clauses. Huge ramifications.

25 Sep 2026 20:53:44
Huge can of worms here.

Compensation claims from the other clubs / individuals affected incoming.

25 Sep 2026 22:35:53
I don't know how or where they will do it but there needs to be a line drawn in the sand for further claims by other teams/players.

Other than the titles other teams have missed out on:

1. Clubs that have lost revenue due to not qualifying for CL.
2. Players that have lost a wage increase based on lost CL qualification.
3. Clubs that have been relegated by the odd points having lost to City,
4. If they get relegated then the teams pushed out of that league or the team refused promotion to that league.
5. Other teams that have been sanctioned if punishment is not aligned to offences.

Just a few off the cuff. It's essentially endless the number of potential routes for litigation. Going to be interesting.

25 Sep 2026 22:51:20
Jay Bothroyd still waiting on his "kickback" from City for services rendered in 2012.

Deam Kiely probably still checking his bank account too — because after that Aguero shot, you'd swear everyone involved had been promised a bonus. ?.

26 Sep 2026 02:52:31
80 point reduction, means 1 year of pointless play where they are sure they will go down. Then 1 year in championship, and soonest they can be back is year 3. Also out of Europe minimum of 2 years. That is a severe punishment.

Imagine the legal cases from clubs who lost out financially from this. This will go on for a long time.

26 Sep 2026 05:56:48
I know the charges only cover a certain period but surely the success after that wouldn't have happened (or very unlikely to) if it wasn't for the success in that period. Has anywhere said about that?

26 Sep 2026 09:24:46
80 point deduction and they would probably still end up finishing above us lol.

26 Sep 2026 09:38:26
Ole Solskaer, Premier League winner ?.

26 Sep 2026 09:42:50
The ripple effect this has caused is massive and I don't think it should be understated when it comes to sanctions. Clubs who have missed out on titles, top 4, European places, been relegated. Missed out on transfers. This is all within football. I don't know how it all works but surely they'll be law suits?

Then on top of that, what about betting companies who've paid out on City? The list of affected areas is huge.

26 Sep 2026 10:34:08
Law suits for breaking which laws ports.
Legality and breaking competition rules are very different things.

26 Sep 2026 10:42:11
The punishment definitely needs to be over a number of seasons otherwise it's pretty much pointless.

I'd imagine Villa and Newcastle owners are watching with interest as a weak punishment may lead them to think it's worth doing to break into the top echelons consistently. Whatever happens has to ensure that owners won't even think about doing this in future.

26 Sep 2026 10:45:41
That's a fair distinction, but it's not quite that simple.

I'm not saying that breaking a Premier League rule automatically means a criminal law has been broken. The point is that competition rules are still legally enforceable rules, and depending on the circumstances, a breach can potentially lead to civil claims as well as sporting sanctions.

If a club could actually demonstrate that City's alleged breaches gave them an improper advantage and directly caused that club a quantifiable financial loss, then the question of damages could potentially arise.

So yes, breaking competition rules and breaking criminal law are two different things. But "it's only a competition rule" doesn't necessarily mean there can be no legal action. The difficult bit would be proving the legal basis for the claim, causation and the actual financial loss.

26 Sep 2026 10:50:42
Relegation from the EPL and subsequent entry into the championship is only valid through "sporting measure". The Championship do not legally have to accept a team into their division that has been forcefully relegated as a punishment. Which makes it difficult for the EPL to relegate City as if they do not have a league to compete in then there are issues of forcing a club out of business.

It's unlikely that the Championship would refuse City entry, but it is something that would need to be negotiated before such a punishment was handed out. Would they want to accept a club that has the record City now has and with owners who weaponise their wealth. It's a risk, how can they be sure that City would adhere to the rules in the championship, and do they have the resources to challenge City legally if they didn't.

26 Sep 2026 11:14:03
I believe four clubs indicated they would take legal action (so far) and registered that earlier in the process, United were one.

As an example I believe United missed Champions League in 5th with City 4th on Goal Difference. Losing out on Champions League has significant financial loss implications and suspect that may form part of any claim and likely basis of similar claims.

I don't believe City, if the final conclusion is guilty, would be relegated immediately but suspect a very large points deduction would be considered to ensure relegation and that should be a starting point.

Pep leaving and the purchases made in summer may be an indication there was a suspicion this process was concluding.

26 Sep 2026 11:21:14
At least we don't have to worry about our owners using dishonest methods to inject money into the club. Then again, we did hire the man who was City's director of partnership sales at the time when the financial breaches (many of which related to funneling money through dodgy partnerships) occurred as our CEO.

Who knows. Berrada may be forced to step down, and his replacement might get rid of Wilcox and bring in somebody competent.

26 Sep 2026 11:31:42
Do Citeh have to be relegated and thus require the compliance of the championship? Can they not simply be expelled from the EPL and sort their own way back into the leagues from non league football?

26 Sep 2026 11:46:12
I backed us to win the league in 2012. Surely I can make a claim with William Hill. The list is endless.

26 Sep 2026 11:55:51
Citeh points deduction now. Expulsion by EPL member vote towards end of season.
Citeh to League 2. ?

PL: 3 promoted from Championship, only 2 relegated from PL
Championship: fewer relegated into League One
League One: fewer relegated into League Two
League Two: Citeh admitted as the additional incoming club.

26 Sep 2026 14:04:25
The problem with putting City into league 2 is that their stadium alone would mean that their running costs would exceed what they would legitimately make in that league, let alone player wages, settlements payments, contractual obligations, etc.

They wouldn't be able to legitimately compete within the financial restrictions. To be honest they would probably struggle to do so in the Championship, let alone any league below that.

While allowing them special dispensation to exceed the leagues financial rules then makes a mockery of the competitiveness of that league.

Then when you factor in the potential knock on effects to all those employed by City, and within the regeneration they have brought to the area around their stadium. Without the draw of a top EPL club and the revenue they draw into the area many of those businesses in the area would suffer.

While I might not be happy about it, wealthy individuals/groups/businesses line many pockets. All of those suffer when the guy at the top suffers.

26 Sep 2026 14:28:40
Honestly is the Citeh area that redeveloped or dependant.

The area is dead quiet, an Asda, Metrolink and Sports City.

The regeneration was started with sport city back in the early 2000s, Abu Dabbers did continue to invest and the city hardcore will go to the game still.

26 Sep 2026 19:38:40
We need a stadium. exp them to the non league tiers, change all the seats to red whilst we figure out what we're doing with OT.

26 Sep 2026 23:21:49
Your posts are cute JBR.

25 Sep 2026 14:50:02
Lads all talk of manager, back room, upstairs etc. But these players need to starting working on the pitch, desire passion. Weather its the manager, captain, senior players that has to change. Our squad is good, but unless they make the effort we are lost. It's all about the culture, we need a strong work ethic culture being g driven by the manager and senior players.

25 Sep 2026 07:39:03
{Ed's Note - Ed001 has posted a new article entitled, Matchday 5 - Quick Round Up

24 Sep 2026 21:20:14
Excellent article on BBC football website about how City evaluate potential signings. Somehow just can't see United doing the same.

25 Sep 2026 15:53:44
Well I think City will have to be evaluating a lot more transfers out the door. Heavy sanctions incoming and obviously why Pep left the building in the summer. He knew what was coming.

24 Sep 2026 18:24:00
I understand things are dire but blimey.

Carrick is a complete disaster, despite taking more points than anyone else last season. I would argue LVG, Jose, ETH, RA all appeared to be of the required standard.

Carrock rode the Amorim wave, I think I missed the Amorim wave.

There are multiple Managers available of the required standard. Hmm.

Hurzelera is a good shout, despite his biggest achievement being winning the German second division.

We should get Conte, because that won't end in tears will it?

I find Carrick uninspiring and he does not have great credentials but as Sim said, change the Manager again, same s*** show.

It's depressing but until the whole structure is addressed, changing Manager is putting lipstick on a pig.

Sadly, I have no answers.

24 Sep 2026 19:42:05
So leave Carrick in place until the structure is addressed at sometime in the future

Sadly I have no words.

24 Sep 2026 22:59:12
Can you honestly say the football has been of the required standard for United during Carrick's tenure?
Hand on heart.
Ignore the results from last season because you will open a can of worms for this season.
Has his football inspired you.

Has it entertained you, at all?
I find his approach the least entertaining since SAF, that includes Moyes, Mourinho, Van Gaal eras!
It is ok to admit he is not fit for purpose, we all make mistakes.

24 Sep 2026 21:59:46
I believe ed001 said that before amorims outburst that Wilcox was the one going to be moved on. That seems to have been forgotten about now he's a woeful director of football with little to no qualifications for the job.

25 Sep 2026 04:51:43
The quality of our football been poor for years and Carrick doing no better and yet he bangs on about he understands the club!

I just think he not got the experience required, at this level and our level is not that high atm .

He is another like many on here who live in the past, how on earth is being an ex player = to being manager of United

In real world with his CV he would not even get an interview, same with Wilcox . But it's not real world SJR is in fantasy land when it comes to football, he should stick to his other businesses which seriously need help, when I said a year ago the exact same thing it was laughed at on here .

25 Sep 2026 09:59:02
Im not defending Carrick or saying he is the answer, but we are on Manager number 7 post SAF, unless fundamental issues are addressed, this merry go round will go on and on.

25 Sep 2026 11:06:02
Yeah let's just sack him, that's the answer.

I understand that the football has been largely uninspiring, but it has been a case of some fine margins, evertons worldie goals, Haalands ridiculous goal and the picture looks a lot different.

Balance is off in the team, and I hope he does fix that next game. Cunha is not a no.9. Baleba, Amad and Sesko will bring much greater balance and I hope that all are available after the International Break.

There's obvious weaknesses into the squad, most noticeably in defence. But to take aim at Carrick right now, for me, is ridiculous. He did a great job last year and deserves the opportunity to ride through the wave of negativity and obvious criticism that comes your way as Man United manager.

Now until Christmas is huge for him and I would normally say no Jan signings, but it's obvious now that we did not do enough in the summer and that needs to be corrected. He needs more options.

25 Sep 2026 11:23:26
I completely understand why supporters are frustrated with Michael Carrick. The results have not been good enough, the Brighton collapse was unacceptable, and the current league form has understandably increased pressure on the manager. United have won only one of their opening league games and have already gone out of the Carabao Cup after throwing away a 2–0 lead against Brighton.

However, those calling for him to be removed are also regularly stating that the players we have are not good enough so what is a new manager going to achieve? The same people are also stating that Wilcox is not good enough, that INEOS are not good enough, that Glazers are not good enough!

If we could wave a magic wand, Glazers and INEOS are gone, Wilcox is gone, debt is gone, Old Trafford is updated, a number of the playing squad are gone and replaced, Guardiola is the new manager but we don't have a magic wand.

Personally, I feel in order, the issues are this: 1) Glazers, 2) Wilcox, 3) INEOS, 4) Players, 5) Carrick.

A different manager might get more from certain individuals. They might change the tactical approach. They might improve certain aspects of the team's performance.

But changing the manager doesn't magically turn an imbalanced squad into a balanced one. It doesn't turn a poorly run club into the best run club in Football.

If fans genuinely believe there are deficiencies in midfield, defence, attacking depth, physicality, mentality, squad depth or individual quality, those problems still exist when the next manager walks through the door.

25 Sep 2026 10:30:31
JBR, ignore the results???

You are seriously saying that you are so desperate to come on here and moan and complain that you want to ignore a period where we won more points than any other team.

I have seen some things on here, but you want to try and propagate an untruth to suit your purposes. Unbelievable!

25 Sep 2026 13:57:17
I would put Ineos 1 gone then Glazers then Wilcox then Carrick then players, no point putting better players under such an inexperienced manager, it's clear to all that Carrick lacks experience and lacks in game management if your saying that's not so then your trying to fool yourself, never in a million years would Carrick CV even get him an interview let alone the job at United .

The penny pinching under SJR is ridiculous and the players being bought in are worse than they are replacing, it comes to something when we are now saying we need AMAD and SESKO back to make us much better, these are 2 players that would not even get near a decent team, neither would get in or anywhere near City team or Arsenal team.

That's how poor we have become . We are buying 2nd and 3rd rate players and only have a 3rd rate manager and an awful coaching team in Evans and Woodgate, what do we expect apart from they are cheap and cheerful.

25 Sep 2026 17:01:25
You guys are so pro glazer it is untrue.

The football has been outrageously bad. The worst since SAF AJH. It is really that bad. Carrick has single handedly reversed all the fitness worked done by his predecessor.

Yes Angel, we should sack him. Like you banged on about and advocated for the sacking of Amorim for the same reasons. Your whole commentary is invalid on this basis.

Balance is off in the team, remember the predecessor did that by dropping Mainoo, you had kittens. Why aren't you having kittens at Carrick for persisting with Rashford? For the record, I don't think he has been out worst player, but he has clearly upset the applecart! No noise from you whatsoever. Pfft!

Iwotb, yes, he rode that Amorim wave all the way to a nice contract, look where that got us. Pfft!

Ports, our squad isn't as bad as it is performing, that's the problem. Carrick is single handedly putting out such a bad team, week after week.

He should have been sacked after the Hull game, losing away to a promoted team, game 1 of the season. Disgusting, absolutely disgusting from Carrick. He is League one grade, at best.

25 Sep 2026 17:52:51
Who should he have played v Fulham JBR?

25 Sep 2026 20:37:05
It is obvious that Rashford has made us disjointed, so we can start there. Play Cunha on the LW, or Dorgu if you aren't playing him at LB instead of Shaw.

If Cunha is on the LW, there was the option to start Lacey and put Mbeumo through the centre.

Not fielding Maguire and Dalot, Yoro and mazraoui were available.

Then there is the option to field Baleba, he was fit enough for the squad so start him in lieu of Tielemans.

He just keeps fielding the same team and it is underperforming. Why does he not change? .

25 Sep 2026 22:13:23
'He should have been sacked after the Hull game'.

So, gets us into 3rd, qualifies for ECL, beats some of our rivals along the way, and wins the most points of any other team in that period.

Loses first game of the new season, and he should be sacked.?.

25 Sep 2026 22:26:32
Yes Noucamp. The writing was on the wall last year. We needed to be ruthless, we dithered with the appointment of Carrick, even the club weren't sure.
We dithered with being ruthless with the squad.
We dithered with Rashford saga and are now stuck with him for another season.


Yes the ub is in bits, but ask yourself this. can Carrick get a tune out of this squad to get them through. If you're honest with yourself, the answer is no, he is not.
So yes, we should of sacked him. We shouldn't even of appointed him.

25 Sep 2026 23:56:58
The fundamental flaw here is that you're starting with the conclusion "the manager keeps picking the wrong team" and then working backwards to find an 11 that would supposedly have solved everything.

You haven't demonstrated that any of these changes would have worked. You've simply listed alternative players and assumed the outcome would have been better.

That's not tactical analysis. That's hindsight with a team sheet.

And if the argument is genuinely "he just keeps fielding the same team and it is underperforming", then show the evidence. Same 11, same system, same tactical approach, same weaknesses and repeated failure to address them.

Otherwise you're basically saying:
"We lost, therefore the players who didn't start should have started."

Which is one of the easiest opinions in football to have because it's impossible to prove wrong after the final whistle.

"Lacey could have started." Great. And if he doesn't perform, presumably the next post is "why is the manager throwing a kid into a struggling team before he's ready? " There's always a hypothetical 11 that looks brilliant because we don't have to deal with the consequences of actually playing it.

26 Sep 2026 09:05:33
No Ports, I have advocated for the majority of the team to be torn up because it is not good enough.

You asked for an alternative, I gave you one, and then you try to find an argument. How pathetic.

Why don't you look at the starting line up for the games so far this season, and look at the results. I'll help you out a little here. Look at the team and result against Sabah. You will see a major synergy to what I have suggested. the only difference is Sesko wasn't available against Fulham.

Carrick's selection for the EPL games in particular have been a disgrace. He should be sacked.

26 Sep 2026 12:02:05
The irony of calling someone's response "pathetic" while apparently struggling to understand the point being made is quite something.

You didn't give me an "alternative" and then discover I was trying to find an argument, you presented your preferred XI as though it somehow proves the manager's selections are indefensible. I pointed out the obvious flaw in that logic.

And "look at the results" is hardly the tactical masterstroke you seem to think it is. One game against Sabah doesn't suddenly validate an entire selection philosophy, particularly when you're conveniently treating the result as evidence for your argument while ignoring everything that doesn't fit it.

As for Carrick "should be sacked" after the opening games, that's your opinion, not some objective conclusion you've unearthed by studying a few starting line-ups.

You're perfectly entitled to think the team needs tearing up. What you're not entitled to do is dress your preferred selections up as undeniable evidence and then act incredulous when somebody points out the holes in your argument.

But by all means, carry on explaining how everyone else is arguing while you're simply "looking at the results." ?

Also, calling the posters who are saying sacking Carrick isn't a solution, Pro Glazer and ignoring the fact that the whole premise around that is that the Glazers are the problem despite who is the manager and you completely ignoring the Glazers in the majority of your posts would suggest you are Pro Glazer because you think a new manager under their guidance will solve the issue. Laughable.

26 Sep 2026 19:53:16
You are genuinely weird Ports.
You asked 'who should have played'
I answered your question as best I could with the players that were available.
I gave reasons as to why the changes be centred around pulling Rashford out.

I feel I answered your question well. You somehow feel like you need to argue, that's the pathetic part. follow the logic of your posts.

I subsequently gave an example where that exact change occurred and we reverted to our front 4 from last season and also the defence was as advised for the Fulham game, with a major positive outcome results wise.

All the while you are struggling with this information because you have your pro glazer blinkers on.

For your understanding, yes the glazers should go, but they won't anytime soon, will they. Should SJR be there, no. I advocated for the Qatari takeover to wipe out the Glazers. did you??!

Should Berrada and Wilcox be there. no, Wilcox should have gone before Amorim's outburst. And that is on Berrada and above.

The point is, the Glazers aren't just going to sell, are they. Here's a theory for you to wrap your brain around..

Let's keep Carrick as manager, and watch is tumble down the ladder. A relegation would serve the club well with ridding the club of the Glazers. Maybe you are onto something with your love affair of Carrick..

26 Sep 2026 23:16:33
How old are JBR?

24 Sep 2026 16:31:58
{Ed's Note - Ed001 has posted a new article entitled, Matchday 5 - Quick Round Up

24 Sep 2026 10:46:24
Anybody else here who really doesn't want a new stadium? Can't believe its going ahead in all honesty.

The rat wants a Wembley of the north, in my opinion, to maximise revenue, won't solely be a football stadium, will definitely hold boxing and music concerts, nfl etc there too. Clubs closer to being finished each day, will just be a soulless bowl with no 'feeling'.

Hope to god we somehow get an ownership change and this doesn't go ahead.

24 Sep 2026 12:58:58
To me it's simply another nail in the coffin. The Glazers let Old Trafford fall into disrepair. INEOS see how the Spurs ownership have cashed in on their new stadium, and want the same.

It's not a football decision. Or anything to do with the club. It's about money. They're already starting to talk about selling off the pitch sod by sod to supporters. Any avenue for a profit will do.

The worst part is that building it will lumber the club with even more debt. We're already being told that jobs had to go, and that the transfer budget is tight due to the existing billion foisted by the Glazers. A new stadium would likely add at least another 2 billion to that. No way the club could compete. But Rattcliffe will have his event centre.

24 Sep 2026 13:15:25
Danny

I don't think the club will be able to borrow £2Bn given the existing debt. I suspect they will set up a special vehicle to keep it separate but how that will be funded is anyone's guess

The finance people will want the income from concerts etc but also OT is so decrepit they can't even hold football games in tournaments.

24 Sep 2026 14:02:24
100% - moving away from Old Trafford destroys all of the history and legacy of such a great club. There is no reason the current stadium cannot be repaired and renovated. As with all decisions that seem to be happened, they are for the tourists, and they are for the money.

24 Sep 2026 13:25:10
Very very depressing, yep, started selling the grass too. Honestly think the Glazers would have sold if the rat didn't step in, has absolutely finished us.

24 Sep 2026 14:37:49
When I said SJR and Ineos was the worst thing that can happen to the club you all barracked me, saying he would sort out the Glazers mess .LOL look how that's turning out.

24 Sep 2026 15:42:26
It's all about the money, if they cared about fans they would fix the existing one.
Selling 7cm squares of the old turf now for 125£ - 182million if they sold the whole pitch.

24 Sep 2026 16:07:23
Most of it won't be worn out either as we don't cover much of it.

24 Sep 2026 17:54:28
? ? ?.

24 Sep 2026 06:56:19
Two items worsened our financial position
• The £69.6 million net finance costs went straight through the P&L and were a major reason the club reported an overall loss of £43.0 million for the year (despite an operating profit of £22.6 million).

Land purchase for the new stadium
• The £63.5 million was a capital expenditure. It does not appear as an expense in the P&L, so it did not directly increase the reported loss.
• However, it still worsened the overall position because:
• It was a large cash outflow.
• It was largely funded by increasing borrowings (part of the $125 million / ~£94 million addition to senior debt via refinancing).
• Non-current borrowings therefore rose to £577.6 million (from £471.9 million the prior year), and total debt (including the revolving credit facility and transfer payables) remained over £1 billion.

Summary
-£69.6m, let's call that a top player, a top midfield player instead of a bargain or left back. Cost of Glazers annually. Every year that has affected us.
-Land purchase £63.5m shows they had to put this purchase through the club because the vehicle to build the new stadium is not yet in place. let's call it a top class midfield player.
-Total debt is over a Billion, it looks very unlikely they can fund a £2Bn new stadium through the club.

24 Sep 2026 14:39:10
69 million don't get you a top midfielder we just spent 50 odd on a Chelsea player who could not get in Chelsea team or even ours!

24 Sep 2026 14:57:55
Ok let's be clearer 69m extra on top of the 50 gets one

I made my points on the bargain hunting in midfield a few weeks ago. I think we still lack the No6 destroyer but some think we "rebuilt" our midfield, I think we fudged it and still to see how Baleba does. I thought Alex Scott was the right fit.

24 Sep 2026 16:10:07
I'm with you on midfield I think since day one Tielemans and Santos were awful bargain basement signings. If I'm honest I'm not convinced on Baleba either but give him the benefit till he is fit and playing .
I am not even convinced on the attackers purchased last year all to hit and miss for me.

This is a terrible team & Squad.

24 Sep 2026 16:37:27
Most of the interest charge swing was as a result of foreign exchange translation. In the previous year the charge was artificially lower for the same reason. This is because the long term debt is denominated in $s but the companies accounts are shown in £s. If the £ weakens the $ debt and the $ interest payment on it become more expensive. Depending on when the long term debt has to be repaid, If there was a sustained collapse of the £ it could be quite a serious issue, or it could be beneficial. If the £ went back to its pre-Brexit levels of c.$1.50 it would be beneficial.

As I mentioned below, it looks to me that the club's +ve cash flow having been extracted to fund the initial purchase by the Glazers is now being used to fund real estate speculation and non-football activities. As much as it pains me to say it, there's only one reasonable course of action and that's to stop funding them by giving up season tickets, TV streaming costs, and eschewing merchandise. If the owners of the club aren't putting football itself as their prime goal, then why should we?