How long before Glazer gets the blame? Seeing has these figures relate to the period before he took over it would be difficult to make a case against him. It is more down to a series of bad purchases of players that were never going to meet the demands of United. Let's hope the new manager does better in the transfer market.

These figures also ahve a lot to do with the recently re-negotiated television rights both in Spain and Italy, where clubs like Madrid, Barca, Milan, Juve are all now earning huge amounts from t.v. revenue. For Madrid, there is also the added bonus of having the Spanish Government bailing them out every now and then (such as paying over the odds for Madrids old training facilities so that it could be redeveloped). I am still happier that Manchester United are better run than any other football club in the world. Remember the "mighty" Leeds and soon to be forgotten Chelski - surely Roman will throw a tantrum and leave when Barca dump them out of the CL next month (and ??140 million in debt will be hard to shift).

There was I fully expecting to see FC make the top earners. We have been doing our bit through donations, sponsorship by a charity, charging more than other clubs in our league and lots of merchandising but it looks as if the dynamic leadership of Chief Executive Andy walsh has a long way to go yet to catch up with the big boys.

i sold my billy garton shirt on ebay the other day for ??50.

These revenue figures are only part of the story.UNITED have a large loan now,Chelskis balance sheet would be a nightmare if they didn't have a Russian Fairy Godmother to prop them up.Madrid had to sell off their training complex to make ends meet!Arsenal don't have the finance to hold the team together....it would be interesting to know which club is actually in the best "risk free" shape!

And Becks STILL hasn't won a single honour since he went there!

We've been fantastic since Beckham left haven't we?

This may be about sales not margins and it is true that turnover is vanity and profit is sanity, but the truth is that for a few years the club and SAF had it and then it was frittered it away. Specifically in another piece of splendid bad judgement he sold our best marketable asset and provider of the Ruud goal stream for a give-away ??20m to our nearest rivals.

No one is blaming the glazers. The point is ALL the other clubs use the money to improve the team. Any money at OT will go to servicing the debt. That is why genuine supporters would be better off at FC

anyone interested in a signed gary birtles away shirt?

Johnniejohn - pre-takeover, it went to paying dividends, tax etc so presumably you think fans should have supported someone else then too. Genuine United fans support United not some other random club.

Alias, I didn't realise you had such an acumen for business! I think you will find that post-Glazer, much much more money will go to the creditors than that which was paid as 'dividends and tax'. And by the way, tax is still payable, so that leaves only dividends in your little comparison, which I hear were small. One thing's for sure, I can guarantee the interest now paid to creditors is much more than the dividends that used to be paid to shareholders. JohnnieJohns comment was therefore more worthy than yours, because it was said from the heart whereas you just tried and failed to be a clever clogs.

Red Junior, it's nothing to do with purchases, good or bad. These figures are our revenue - i.e. our income - before wages, overheads and transfer fees are subtracted. The reason we have been overtaken despite charging higher for tickets than in Spain is because Madrid generated over ??80m in commercial (non ticket-sales) revenue, compared to United's ??36m. And that in turn is less to do with Beckham, although it suits tabloid journalists to suggest this, and more to do with the fact that broadcast rights and image rights have been renegotiated in Spanish football. Seeing that we lag some ??50m behind in commercial revenue, I think we can begin to guess where the Glazers plan to recoup their cash - from more unilateral control over media rights. Bad for the smaller clubs; good for Manchester United. We'll each have to make our own minds up on whether we support such a move.

Love listening to the Experts blabber on about who's a Genuine Fan!! Just like to make it clear to you both and I'm surprised you need to be reminded Johnnie that FC isn't just about fans disgruntled at Glazer. It can be for anyone who has been priced out from following the Premiership.

These figures are stupid. Chelsea are the richest club in the world by a country mile. What other club can afford to operate on losses approaching ??100m a year?

JohnnieJohn, you say "That is why genuine supporters would be better off at FC". That's like saying Labour voters who don't like Blair should join the Conservatives. It's just plain daft. And, who gave you the right to say who's a genuine supporter or not. If anything, anyone who supports that pub team is being devisive rather than being genuine. The fact remains that United's revenue is still outstanding and there's plenty of room for growth. The match day revenue should increase by about 20% because of the new seats and hospitality (that's without ticket price rises), sponsorship will increase (Mansion are offering 16mil a year), TV revenues could go up in the next renegotiation. I think the future for revenues is rosy. With the cost cutting that we've made, I'd guess that (pre-loan repayment) profit margins are likely to be much higher than Real and Chelsea as well.

I hope the Glazers realize that we need to spend big this summer to challenge barca, juve and chelsea. No more second rate midfielders.

I think it's more shocking that City are in the top 20!

No no, the only way Real Madrid became richer than us was due to there players. If you look at these players who are Beckham, Ronaldo, Zidane, Raul and Robinho, how much profit do you think they make for the club??? A lot of profit which makes sales figures higher. Man Utd do not have many players that make a lot of sales in market businesses. Only players are Ruud Van Nistelrooy, Ronaldo, Rooney and Park. However, as Giggs and Scholes are getting older, we are losing money out in sales markets. On the other hand, Real Madrid even though they havn't won many trophies, there players who are Massive idols have won them money all over the world.

FC would love to play in front of the new quadrant! Just the quadrant.

Eric, in fact I am an expert in this field (unlike football) so clever clogs is accurate, thank you. Interest is a tax-allowable expense so much less (or zero) tax would be payable if the club is paying lots of it. Also, Gill has stated that the cost of servicing the debts is roughly the same as the tax & dividends were pre-takeover.

That move would be bad for football in general Stu - I hope they dont go down that path. T&C more like supporting the Monster Raving Looney party as they have no chance of winning anything - going to the tories is akin to supporting the blues (Chelsea that is;)

I knew it Alias is an accountant! All is forgiven Al, it's not your fault!

The figures are not stupid; Deloitte is concerned with the ability of a clud to generate income. From a business investors point of view capital is not the only issue. Chelsea have the most available capital; a bottemless pit almost. The figures relate to revenue (or turnover or income or sales; whatever you want to call it) capital doesn't guarantee revenue. Chelsea football club at the moment is NOT a well run business. They have made a HUGE loss and their ROCE (Return on capital employed if you don't know...) isnegative, ITS BAD BUSINESS. the list is for clubs that have generated the most income. As has been stated a few time's Real generated more income because of the recently renegotiated TV rights. Its not becasue of the players. Most of their players are past their peak anyway. And up until last year, three years after becks left, we were still enerating the most income. The Man U model has been and is a good business model because we generate more income than anyone (except real now although the reasons have been exposed) and we have done that with significantly less capital than the likes of chelski and without the intervention of our local council bailing us out of debt; no sugar daddy, no local council; This is a matter of good business. Now from a football perspective, of course we'd love not to have to worry about making a profit or generating income. But remember, as bad as the fact is, this is as much a business as it is a football club. Man Utd is a football club run by a limited company and as such must operate with special regard to its shareholders and to the stock exchange. This is the way of the world today so we just have to deal with it.

Alias, what united paid in dividends is nothing like what they will have to find to service the debts and interest. And of course, costs reduce tax liability. But it would be better to be in a position to make a profit and choose how to present the figures to reduce tax, than to be bogged down with crucifying levels of debt purely for financial speculation and personal greed. And as for who is a genuine fan, I have never sought to define that. And finally, I have not forgotten how premiership prices in general have taken match going beyond the reach of many. But that is a general issue, not specific to OT