Manchester City and Manchester United will battle it out to sign England midfielder Elliot Anderson from Nottingham Forest as both clubs have made the 23-year-old one of their main summer transfer targets. (Mirror), external
Inter Milan showed an interest in Liverpool midfielder Curtis Jones, 25, in January and, with the England international close to entering the final year of his Reds deal, the Italian club could try to make a move for him in the summer. (Corriere dello Sport - in Italian), external
Aston Villa are leading the chase for Manchester City goalkeeper James Trafford, with Leeds United, Newcastle United, Tottenham and West Ham also monitoring the 23-year-old England stopper's situation. (Teamtalk), external
Manchester United interim manager Michael Carrick has hinted that 32-year-old England defender Harry Maguire, whose contract runs out in the summer, will be offered a new deal. (Guardian), external
Atletico Madrid boss Diego Simeone says he does not "know what's going to happen" with France forward Antoine Griezmann's future, with the 34-year-old being linked with a move to Orlando City. (ESPN), external
Barcelona sporting director Deco says no talks over a move have taken place with 26-year-old Atletico Madrid and Argentina striker Julian Alvarez, who has also been linked with Arsenal. (Mirror), external
Liverpool do not intend to sell Brazil keeper Alisson in the summer, despite Italian club Juventus said to be keen on the 33-year-old. (Football Insider), external
Norwich City defender Kellen Fisher, 21, is on the radar of a host of Premier League clubs with Everton among the Englishman's leading suitors. (Teamtalk), external
Newcastle United defender Tino Livramento could be interested in a summer move if a top club come in for him. The 23-year-old, who has also played for England, has been linked with Manchester City. (Telegraph - subscription required), external
Chelsea are confident that England forward Cole Palmer, 23, and other star players will not have to be sold, despite the club making a pre-tax loss of £355m for 2024-25. (Standard)
The Athletic
West Ham’s 2024-25 accounts: Record £104.2m pre-tax loss cause for concern
West Ham United’s finances undertook a huge swing in 2024-25, accounts released by the club on Friday confirmed.
The club lost £104.2million ($140.6m) pre-tax, the worst financial result in their history and a huge departure from the £57.2m profit they booked a season prior.
That latter result was driven by the £100m sale of Declan Rice to Arsenal in July 2023, and it was a dramatic fall in player sale profits which contributed close to half of the £161m worsening in the bottom line last season.
Those reduced player sales and continued transfer spending — West Ham spent £132.6m on new additions last season — meant a loss in this set of accounts was inevitable, but the scale of that deficit is stark.
The Athletic had previously projected West Ham could lose up to £95m before falling foul of Premier League profit and sustainability rules (PSR), an estimate which has proven inaccurate given we now know they lost a little more than that and have not been charged with a PSR breach.
That estimate was based on West Ham having to adhere to the lower loss limit of £15m per season due to a lack of recent equity funding. But The Athletic has since come to understand that, in reality, all clubs in the division who exceed the lower loss limit are able to meet the Premier League’s sustainability requirements, whereby they provide proof of having sufficient funding for operations and are thus allowed the larger, £105m loss limit over three seasons.
West Ham were therefore some distance from that higher PSR loss limit — even with last season’s loss worse than expected.
Regardless, in making that loss, the club achieved the unenviable feat of recording poorer year-on-year results on every main line item in their annual income statement. Revenue was down across all three main categories, while all major expenditure items saw increases.
All bar the Premier League’s ‘Big Six’ rely on broadcast revenues for more than half of their income, and it stood to reason that, as West Ham’s on-pitch performance dipped, so too did turnover. TV money declined £34.6m last season, a consequence of no European football and dropping from ninth to 14th in the Premier League.
No Europa League involvement, as was the case in 2023-24, contributed to a drop in gate receipts, too, as matchday income at the London Stadium fell 12 per cent to £39.3m.
West Ham enjoy a remarkable deal on their rent of the 62,500-seater stadium but struggle to maximise revenue from it; they enjoy the second-highest average attendance in the Premier League yet manage only the eighth-highest money from the gate.
Underlying operating performance, before player sales, has collapsed at a worrying pace. As recently as 2021-22, the club’s operating result was £19.1m in the black. Last season, it was negative to the tune of £104.8m. Wages as a proportion of revenue have jumped from a healthy 54 per cent to a concerning 77 per cent in just three years.
Those wages were up to £175.9m, increasing for the sixth consecutive year. West Ham had the 10th-largest wage bill in the division in 2024-25, so finishing 14th represented a notable underperformance. This season is shaping up even worse: they are third from bottom, two points from safety.
The tale of the club in recent seasons is one of significant investment in the playing squad, even as results have declined from the early part of the decade. Even with the bumper sale of Rice two and a half years ago, West Ham’s net transfer spending over four seasons was £292m — £88.7m of it last season.
Despite the huge loss, West Ham largely funded matters by themselves, leaning on a cash pile that reduced from £33.1m in mid-2024 to less than £500,000 at the end of May 2025. The club took on an extra £20m in debt too, over £16m of it in the form of an overdraft.
No new funding was provided by the ownership.
Indeed, no such funding has been proffered since November 2021 when Daniel Kretinsky’s 1890 holdings a.s. acquired a 27 per cent stake in the club, investing £123.6m in the process, around half of which was used to repay existing shareholder loans.
West Ham’s debt was only £20.8m at the end of last May, but of greater importance and concern is what has happened since. The club advanced £12m in future transfer fees receivable, giving up £700,000 as an interest charge in exchange.
That is not an unusual practice for clubs, but less likely to be undertaken was what came at the end of last July.
Then, West Ham took out a £124m five-year term loan with Rights and Media Funding Limited, an organisation that previously lent to Everton during the latter’s troubled financial period. As of December 17, 2025, £89m of it had been drawn down, meaning a further £35m can be called upon if needed.
The interest rate on that facility is unknown but is unlikely to be cheap. In combination with the accelerated transfer fees and existing borrowings, West Ham’s estimated total debt now sits at over £120m. That is enough to make them the Premier League’s fourth most indebted club to external lenders, only behind Tottenham Hotspur, Manchester United and Everton.
Unlike two of that trio, West Ham’s debt appears to be needed for operating costs rather than to fund revenue-improving infrastructure works.
The Athletic has previously detailed the club’s need to carefully manage its cash, a fact these accounts further make clear.
The Strategic Report within them details an expected “liquidity shortfall” in summer 2026, one for which “mitigating actions will be required” in order to pay the bills. Those actions, usefully listed, are twofold and obvious: player sales and shareholder funding. The former is preferred and prioritised; the latter will be needed if the former proves insufficient.
Crucially, the same section of the accounts makes clear player sales will be required this summer even if West Ham avoid relegation. What is unknown is whether the £36.5m sale of Lucas Paqueta to Flamengo in late January has removed the need to sell if survival is achieved. The accounts were signed in mid-December, so Paqueta’s departure does not feature in any of the forward-looking statements included.
What is also not stated but seems rather clearer is that relegation would see West Ham need to sell more players.
Who exactly that would be is unknown, but Jarrod Bowen, Mateus Fernandes and El Hadji Malick Diouf seem likely candidates, at least in terms of whom the club could generate the most money for.
These latest results are concerning, detailing a bigger loss than expected at a club which already skirted close to the edge in terms of liquidity. Significant player spending has not translated to improved performances and the repercussions are hardly consigned to the past.
At the end of May, West Ham’s still owed a net £178.6m on transfer fees, up 41 per cent in a year and of particular note at a club who generated less than £1m in day-to-day cashflow across last season.
External funding was evidently required to meet such liabilities, and it’s not like West Ham turned the taps off either. A further net £62.3m went on transfers last summer, even after the £55m sale of Mohamed Kudus to Spurs. The signings of Taty Castellanos and Pablo in January were at least, it appears, offset by fees earned on Paqueta and Luis Guilherme.
Staying up this season was already of obvious importance, but it takes on an even greater heft in light of finances now laid bare. West Ham are one of several Premier League clubs experiencing the squeeze of soaring player wages even as revenues slow or, in their case, decline.
It is hardly like they have got value for money from their spending either. As of May 31, the club’s squad had cost £481m to compile — a mark roughly equal to the cost of Bayern Munich’s squad at the end of June.
A lot to pay for a team which has spent most of the season in the relegation zone.