Manchester United hit with '£60m loss' and second 'staggering' financial 'blow' after Rashford 'twist'

There has been a 'huge twist' in the Marcus Rashford case

There has been a ‘huge twist’ in the future of Marcus Rashford, with Manchester United facing a ‘£60m loss’ after another ‘staggering blow’ financially.

Rat race

‘Ratcliffe loses £6.5 BILLION of total wealth in staggering blow for Man Utd and manager Amorim’s ambitious summer transfer plans,’ is a headline worthy of topping the Daily Mirror website on any day, so unequivocal it is in underlining just how financially screwed one of the world’s biggest clubs is.

It is a ‘staggering blow’ and Ruben Amorim might as well throw his transfer ideas out of a window which is probably about to be made redundant.

‘Ratcliffe was ranked fourth in the 2024 list and topped the standings in 2018,’ writes Senior Sports Reporter Fasika Zelealem. ‘But he has now fallen to become the seventh-richest individual in Britain, behind the likes of Sir James Dyson and Gopi Hinduja and family, who sits atop the list.’

Christ. How embarrassing for Sir Jim to trail Sir James and only five other unthinkably rich people in Britain. There’ll be no Matheus Cunha then; I’ll tell the children.

Ratcliffe wasn’t even in the top ten in 2021 or 2022 but this will undoubtedly bring shame upon his entire family.

‘The INEOS chief, who competed a deal to buy into United last year, was worth £23.519billion in the 2024 Rich List. However, that has now decreased by £6.473bn to £17.046bn.’

There goes the Europa-winning BBQ. Although it does feel like a clue to explain some of those losses might be found in the sentence ‘the INEOS chief, who competed a deal to buy into United last year…’.

‘Mirror Football has reached out to Ratcliffe and INEOS for comment.’

Maybe don’t wait up for a response.

Is there any insight whatsoever into how this ‘staggering blow’ stands to ruin Ruben Amorim’s ‘ambitious summer transfer plans’? Of course not. Ratcliffe, the owner of 28.94% of Manchester United, and whose individual net worth remains about on par with that of Manchester City’s owners, will probably be fine.

Reach the plummet

‘Sir Jim Ratcliffe suffers a 10-figure loss in his fortune as Man United’s billionaire co-owner plummets down rich list after costly first year in charge,’ is how the MailOnline describe a fall from fourth to seventh.

If that’s a ‘plummet’ then how on earth do they plan on describing moving from 8th to 16th in the Premier League table?

At a loss for words

There is further dreadful fiscal news for Manchester United from the Daily Mirror website as they ‘could take a £60million loss on Marcus Rashford in the space of a year’.

Except valuing a player they absolutely didn’t want to sell at £100m in April 2024 and valuing a player they absolutely do want to sell at £40m in May 2025 is not really a ‘£60million loss’, is it? Especially in a pure profit sense.

Rash decision

The Rashford stuff on Friday morning is funny as numerous outlets have parroted the same line fed to them about Rashford being available for £40m this summer.

They all also seem desperate to wilfully misunderstand the point of a buy option, which it was widely reported Villa had when they loaned him.

‘Marcus Rashford could move for £40m to a team other than Aston Villa should Manchester United receive a bid of this value despite the Midlands club having an option to buy him for that sum’ – Jamie Jackson, The Guardian.

‘Manchester United have set a price tag of £40m on Marcus Rashford, but Aston Villa do not have the first option to buy’ – Amar Mehta, Sky Sports.

Marcus Rashford can leave Manchester United for £40million this summer, but Aston Villa do not have first option on the England star’ – Chris Wheeler, Daily Mail.

‘Marcus Rashford believes Manchester United would be prepared to sell him for £40m to anyone this summer, not just Aston Villa’ – Simon Stone, BBC Sport.

‘Marcus Rashford can leave Manchester United for £40million this summer – but Aston Villa do not have first refusal on the England forward’ – David McDonnell, Daily Mirror.

‘Marcus Rashford will be able to leave Manchester United for £40 million this summer but Aston Villa do not have first refusal on the England forward’ – James Ducker, Daily Telegraph.

Mediawatch is being gaslit here. It has specifically only ever been said since they loaned him that Villa have a £40m buy option. No-one thought they had secured an obligation to buy or even first refusal on a deal for Rashford because that was never reported on or even vaguely alluded to at any point whatsoever over the last three months.

So no, Villa do not have something no-one ever thought they did. Thanks for that. They also don’t have an obligation to buy Marco Asensio for £427m. Is that how this works?

It’s just a bizarre non-update, typified by this nonsense Daily Mirror website headline:

‘Manchester United name price for Marcus Rashford but summer exit takes huge twist’

Manchester United named their price when Villa negotiated a £40m buy option in February. And that ‘huge twist’ is that said buy option is not a first option or indeed anything other than the sodding buy option everyone thought it was and has been told it was for months.

Yet only now ‘it has emerged Villa do not have first option on the 27-year-old’? Do we need to be told everything privately by Rashford’s representatives for it to ’emerge’ now, no matter how obvious it was before?

Like we did last summer

And somehow it constitutes actual back page news:

Tomorrow’s @SunSport back page: £40M RASH DASH Marcus Rashford is available to all for £40million this summer – because Aston Villa do NOT have first option. pic.twitter.com/WkfS9ielvI — Sun Sport (@SunSport) May 15, 2025

It’s a ‘twist’ even M. Night Shyamalan couldn’t dream up.

Click here to read article