It has been a particularly bruising time for Manchester United and co-owners INEOS recently.

Suffering significant competitive struggles in the Premier League under Ruben Amorim, and facing another season outside of the lucrative UEFA Champions League unless they find a way to win the Europa League, off the pitch they have fared little better.

Earlier this week saw the revelations emerge that INEOS and its chief Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who was handed football oversight when he purchased 27.7% of United from the controlling Glazer family back in December of 2023, were planning on making around 100 further redundancies at the football club, adding to the 250 jobs that went last year.

READ MORE: Gary Neville makes shocking admission about his punditry on Manchester United

READ MORE: Man United have just been handed ideal Marcus Rashford swap chance after transfer collapse

The club informed shareholders last month that difficult decisions would have to be made to ensure that the club achieved compliance with the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules (PSR), which were due to come to an end at the end of this season, the 2024/25 financial year.

However, at a Premier League shareholders meeting in London on Thursday it was decided that PSR would remain for at least another year and that a move to a squad cost ratio method of financial control would be pushed back, the chief reason being that many owners felt it impossible to vote on any such rule changes while Manchester City still had a live legal case with the Premier League over associated party transactions (APT) that needed to reach a conclusion and a decision communicated on what would happen with that.

No clubs breached PSR rules for 2023/24, and clubs had been working towards compliance for 2024/25 due to the fact that they could have faced punishments into next season were they to be found in breach during the current financial year.

The addition of at least another year of the much-maligned PSR isn’t hugely impactful for all clubs, with the likes of Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Brighton & Hove Albion and Tottenham Hotspur all having major PSR capacity.

The planned move to a squad cost ratio similar to that which UEFA have in place, would limit clubs to spending 85% of their revenue on player wages, transfers and agents fees, while another proposed measure to sit alongside SCR was ‘anchoring’, which would see the top teams’ spending on player costs restricted to five times the amount the bottom club receives in TV and prize money on those player costs.

PSR has looked at a three-year rolling period, with clubs allowed to lose a maximum of £105million over that period, with allowable deductions for investment into the academy, infrastructure, the women’s team and community initiatives.

Everton were hit with two separate breaches for 2021/22 and 2022/23 and docked a combined eight points, while Nottingham Forest were landed with a four-point deduction for a breach in 2022/23.

For some clubs, United included, it has been a set of controls that has hampered plans in the transfer market, with Newcastle United and Aston Villa suffering particularly from being unable to add to their squads from a position of strength.

United are likely to have to post significant losses again in 2024/25, on the back of the £131million that was suffered in 2023/24. According to figures presented by football finance expert Swiss Ramble the club could lose as much as £120million and remain compliant, but that figure still might be of concern to club chiefs, as evidenced by the recent moves to address costs.

United are likely one of the clubs who will be most upset about the decision to retain PSR and not move to SCR for next season.

The reason for that is SCR doesn’t take into account interest payments as they don’t come under squad cost. Interest payments on non-stadium and infrastructure spend debt are taken into account under PSR rules, and with United heavily laden with debt to the tune of more than £700million, that is not an insignificant sum, around the £30million mark.

That is impactful from United’s point of view moving forward and is additional costs that they will have to be mindful of elsewhere, either achieving them from player trading profit or increased commercial activity.

It means that the rebuilding that the club had hoped to do in the summer at the end of the current financial year, and with the club’s SCR ratio healthy, will likely be more restrained than had been planned.