Abu Dhabi are experts on making high profile investments which directly engage and empower holders of power. In reality, AD’s investment in the UK are just tiny. A fairly small country like Portugal invest twice as much as UAE in the UK economy. The difference is just in how the investments are made. On one hand, you have like a pension fund from Portugal investing money all over the globe including in UK businesses, which develops the country. On the other hand, you have some Sheik who will want much better terms than local businesses to make an investment — but are willing to venture into high profile projects which are tailormade after what some politician want and that will create photo ops. I am personally a bit skeptical of the later type of investments. But it’s not my area of expertise. But I can guarantee that a complete break between the relationships between the UAE and the UK would have a completely insignificant impact on the UK economy. It represent 0.4% of total Foreign Direct Investments. For some politicians who want attention and photo ops — the impact can of course be bigger.

To realize how far behind United is its rivals -- I suggest that every United fan take a moment and think about these wage figures from Chris at @TheAthleticFC. The cost of a player that earns 200k a week is £10m. United's wage bill is £168m behind City. £128m behind Liverpool. £74m behind Chelsea. These are 24/25 figures, the gap to Arsenal will be as big right now. In other words -- if United today signed 17 new players, without selling anyone, to 200k a week contracts, United's wage bill would only match what City pay its players. If United signed 8 new players to 400k a week contracts, without selling anyone United's wage bill would BARELY match what City pay its players. 8 new 400k a week players walking through the door today to join our squad, nobody leaving. Then we match City. An even more absurd example -- if United sold for example Mount, Zirkzee, Ugarte, De Ligt, Mazraoui -- and signed 5 new players EACH earning 769k per week, United's wage bill would just match City's. Not exceed it. Just match it. The gap to Liverpool is almost as big, 13 new players signed for 200k a week instead of 17. These gaps will not be any different this season just because United have CL football since City, Liverpool and Arsenal have signed a ton of expensive players. For players like Eliott Anderson or Alex Semenyo -- no decision exist whether to sign for City or United. The wages City pays to its players is simply on a different planet. You have to leave at the very very least £37.5m on the table if you want to chose United over City (i.e. you are paid 150k less a week on average).

⚠️I love Rio and often like his takes on things. Berrada and Wilcox are employees and have nothing to do with Ineos/Glazers. But I believe that very few evaluate Ineos in the proper light because they do not have track of United’s finances and also have been fed a lot of misleading information by the Glazers through Woodward and co. This is very important and I think United would benefit greatly if more pundits and fans took their time and really looked into this. I do not dispute Ineos intentions — but are their plans credible at all? 🔺1. The Glazers claims that they have supported United enough to compete with City — but that the reason City has left United in the dust is because United spent poorly. I would say that this is complete nonsense and that it never even remotely have been reasonable for United to compete with City after Fergie left. It is not even close. These are indisputable facts. The graph below to the left list United and City’s player wages next to each other. These are numbers directly from each club’s annual reports adjusted for money paid to non-playing staff (United pays a slightly bigger portion of its total employee cost to non player since it has many more employees). So these numbers are factual — unlike what you read in the paper about how big wages a player got after a leak from the team. Look at the differences! One player earning 200k a year is 10m. In 19/20 — City paid ~90m more in player wages than United. Fact. Indisputable facts are that United — never — have paid particularly competitive wages. At least if you remove 21/22. The Glazers have lied about paying high wages. That is it. Nobody can dispute that. Then look at the graph to the right. It lists all transfer fees paid adjusted for inflation according to the Laws-Maguire method. It is simply — absurd — to claim that any manager after Fergie ever should have competed with City. Absurd. Like take a look at the 13/14 season. Look how much City had spent up to that season and look how much the Glazers had spent on the squad Moyes had. Take a look at the 16/17 season and Mourinho’s squad. The 10 preceding years City had spent 3.5bn adjusted for inflation and United had spent 2bn adjusted for inflation. That is on average 150m more per season. Everton and West Ham have never had a real chance to compete with Man United in the PL and United never had a real chance to compete with City. United never could have competed with City even if we were run as good as they are run. 🔺2. It is — completely unrealistic — to expect Ineos to improve United’s financial situation significantly by cutting work force, increasing ticket prices and making good transfer business. It is very simple math. United 1.1bn in debt. If United make a 100m yearly profit it takes 11 years to pay off the debt. City today have — higher — commercial revenue than United (like it or not). If both United and City make it to like the QF of the CL, City makes a lot more money since their UEFA ranking is higher. Even if it wasn’t for the debt United is behind City — and to just halve the debt, it takes FIVE YEARS starting an additional MINUS £150m behind City. Ineos has run United for 2 years — and the debt has only increased. It is a fact. 3. We just spent 150m a summer before a CL season with a massive investment need. Will things get better? If we qualify for the CL again in 27/28 we will surely invest more in the squad. If not — the debt will increase again next season. BUT — City just spent £460m. City have a wage bill that is more than 120m higher than United’s. So does Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal. All other clubs have owners who pump in loads of money to get into the new CL. 👉I simply do not think that it even remotely is reasonable for United to be a top 3 club in the PL — without significant owner support. Ie not cost cutting, not rising ticket prices, not smart deals — but genuine financial support. Around at least 900m-1.6bn.

Was United limited by PSR during the summer window? I have broken this down several times but I get that not everyone trust me (probably healthy). But @valuball (in cooperation with Kieran Maguire) has a fantastic review of how much each club can spend under the FFP rules. 👇 Valuball estimated that United could have spent app. £833m more this summer without breaching PSR and app. £427m more without breaching UEFA’s Squad Cost Rule. Owners cannot hide behind blaming “FFP” rules any longer if they opt to be cheap. 🙌