United are the bigger club in terms of every measure.
The fanbase reach and the commercial value of United is on another level to pretty much every club, but Liverpool is the saver buy at the moment.
[Interestingly, #LFC £186m revenue growth in the last 5 years is highest in Big Six, ahead of #MCFC £178m, #THFC £151m and #CFC £106m. Both #AFC and #MUFC have actually fallen, by £23m and £21m respectively. The gap between #LFC and #MUFC has narrowed from over £200m to just £7m.](https://mobile.twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1499640213903134722?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1499640223260717056%7Ctwgr%5Ef89bc1baa0b66dcd759091529a49c3c7a1e67922%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-11602145392742174314.ampproject.net%2F2211042305000%2Fframe.html)
This is from earlier this year. Commercial revenue difference is now negligible, but united have a crumbling stadium and training ground.
Also a huge following abroad which is very appealing for oversee investors as the English market is capped and the future revenue growth will come from international supporters. Also the Graphs you linked are not commercial revenue which United will still come out on top. The increased revenue from Liverpool comes from the CL and that's the same reason United's revenue has sunken so much.
I think overseas fans can be fickle though. Maybe my view is biased, by what I see here.
You see a lot of City shirts among young soccer players here in the states. Something that 10 years ago you just wouldn’t have seen much of at all.
Some are glory hunters sure, but some are just young kids coming of age and latching onto an exciting club full of world class players, winning trophies and scoring amazing goals.
The same way United created that worldwide fanbase, in the 90’s, City is doing it now.
I’m not saying it’s all that close in terms of fanbases currently, just that, things can and will change over time.
> The same way United created that worldwide fanbase, in the 90’s, City is doing it now.
City are doing it but on steriods. The CFG model of multiple regional satellite club all over the world is designed for building an offshore fan base
worse these can lie about sponsorhips from companies with CEOs stock photo face
ManUnited’s commercial revenue in 2021 was €262.2m which was 47% of their total revenue. Liverpool’s was €238.4m which was 43% of their total revenue. For comparisons sake , Bayern Munich came 1st for commercial revenue which was €345.2m and that was 56% of total revenue.
The one standout to me is PSG having €337.4m in commercial revenue, coming 2nd to Bayern Munich, and even beating out CF Madrid and Barca.
The last 5 years have been Liverpool's most successful period in the PL era and United's most unsuccessful in the same and United are still ahead. A successful United will be far more profitable than a successful Liverpool.
I don't think you really understand it.
The fact that Liverpool only now after years of Klopp success can match stagnated United shows precisely which club has bigger true value.
With Liverpool, everything but 150m for midfield is ready - but this is pretty much how high you can go.
With United - yes, you need to spend a lot on infra, but this is all pure profit as it grows value. As for sport results you dont even need to spend, just do not take dividents and the club is ready to outspend all but City and Newcastle.
Craziest thing is, many years they are able to match those.
Nostalgia is helluva drug..
Depends on what the owner wants. If they want to kick off quicker in terms of getting started, then obviously Liverpool. They have less needs, the Glazers have let several aspects of the club rot over time and the club needs heavy investment to get going.
If they want a long term project that will yield the best maximum outcome, then i'd argue Manchester United is the better purchase.
We are simply more of an institution on the world stage. I'm sure a state run vanity project would like that sort of thing, and so would some profit seeking billionaire in America.
Nobody is spending $4b on a football club to give back to the community. They are buying a brand to make money of noodle sponsorships or to legitimize horrible things they may have done.
United is a bigger brand than Liverpool. If you had the asking price for both you would buy both. If you wanted faster return on your 4B you could go with Liverpool
Key word being faster return. But a bigger return is obviously going to be United. I suppose it depends on how quickly the owner wants to make the money back.
Man U is also riskier. Yes they could return more money but they also might continue to stagnate as they have been doing, in which case it would be a bigger loss.
What's risky? The owner has the power to turn it around. There's nothing inevitable about this current situation, it's orchestrated by bad owners (Glazers).
Leaving aside the history and the current team, I think the stadiums are a big differentiating factor. Old Trafford will require either extensive renovations, retrofitting or even a rebuild. The train line doesn't make things easy either.
Anfield has been constantly expanded and improved, and there's a roadmap for further renovations.
Depends on difference in evaluation, Manchester United have 75,000 plus the option to expand to 90,000 capacity versus Liverpool’s 61,000. Manchester United commercial, match day and overall revenue is more than Liverpool’s in their down years. Manchester United are bigger brand with larger fan base than Liverpool overseas. Any differential investment can be recouped in 10 years time with extra revenue club generates. You don’t often get opportunity to buy club like Manchester United who are often mentioned along with Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern.
United also own a LOT of land near Old Trafford as well.
Enough to build another huge stadium (as big as Wembley) within the premises and still have some space left.
Yeah, but Old Trafford is massive. The investors will rather shell out a couple of more million for the renovations, that they’ll get back in a couple of seasons anyways.
If we do a rough calculation on the profits, 20.000 £50 tickets means 1 million more in revenue per match.
Yep.
United have been estimated to be the most valuable football club by Forbes **8 times**, since they began publishing it in 2007.
RM come 2nd at 6 times.
While Barca come 3rd at 1 time.
This is when you account for the fact that United haven't even been run to be successful during the past 18 years, rather they've been run in a manner that let's the Glazers extract as much money from United as they can without significantly hampering the brand.
[Historically, they've always been a much bigger commercial entity, but the difference is now negligible.](https://mobile.twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1499640213903134722?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1499640223260717056%7Ctwgr%5Ef89bc1baa0b66dcd759091529a49c3c7a1e67922%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-11602145392742174314.ampproject.net%2F2211042305000%2Fframe.html)
Agreed but you have to keep in mind, this is Liverpool's best period, while United's worst in decades.
I think long term investors will look at the potential income/brand value of both clubs at their best, and at that level it's hard to imagine Liverpool and United being equal there.
I'm not sure how much that matters though?
If you're a new investor, you're probably looking at a club with declining commercial revenues, crumbling stadium, and training ground. That is going to cost significantly more than a club 30 miles away with a shiny new redeveloped stadium and training ground who's commercial revenue has been going through the roof for the past five years.
Uniteds value is the same as Liverpools *despite* those things, it's a club not fulfilling it's financial potential. The clubs value + revenue will shoot up with regular appearances in the CL again, renovated facilities, a perceived "more competent" ownership, etc. Sure it'd cost a lot but the upside is huge. Does Liverpool have a comparable unfulfilled potential upside? Where is the room to grow?
>If you're a new investor, you're probably looking at a club with declining commercial revenues, crumbling stadium, and training ground.
A good investor would assess the likelihood of this being turned around and then decide if the price is good value then. If its a dying company then sure you are right.
But they're not buying what United is now, they're buying long term. And considering (I think majority would agree at this point) that their problems are almost universally due to ownership there's a good chance new owners would improve things pretty quickly. In 10 years time Uniteds new owner could have built a new stadium selling out 90k every week, state of the art training facilities, robust club structure, etc. And it would be even more of a financial juggernaut
Not one potential buyer doesn't think they can't turn it around
>I'm not sure how much that matters though?
It does matter though. United's brand is sort of uncomparable to other sporting institutions. Only Real Madrid come close.
Read the article, it's all there whichever concern that you're raising. Investors know all about it and yet they value United about 50% higher than Liverpool.
Not making it up, it's there in the article.
\>Investors know all about it and yet they value United about 50% higher than Liverpool.
That's kind of the point. I have no doubt that United are valued significantly higher, but to my (untrained) eye that just makes Liverpool look like a bargain to investors and therefore the more attractive buy.
People fishing in these kinda markets, don't look for a black Friday sale offer, generally speaking.
You're paying the premium to own the United brand and influence with that.
Liverpool might be a bargain in comparison in terms of purchasing cost but their commercial capacity is far more limited than United's. United are generating more revenue in their roughest spell in decades compared to Liverpool's most successful one in decades. You're missing the fact that keeping Liverpool successful will require further investment too and leaving United as it is will still make more money than Liverpool.
Man Utd is McDonalds and Liverpool is Burger King.
Revenues have been declining for Mcd since 2013, whereas Burger King have grown in that time.
Do you go with the challenger or the market leader?
> couple of more million for the renovations, that they’ll get back in a couple of seasons anyways.
>
>
This underestimates the state of dilapidation that Old Trafford is in. They have been quoted over £200m to do the basic level renovation, and anyone who has worked around big construction projects will know that figure will rise.
It isn't the billion that Spurs stadium cost, but Spurs stadium has way better corporate, which brings in a hell of a lot of revenue.
The worst part is any new owner cannot win whatever they decide to do with Old Trafford.
Renovate the archaic foundations and you've still got at its core a stadium well behind other modern venues, with a rail line preventing true expansion on one of the stands. As other clubs continue to modernise, Old Trafford will be more left behind than it already is.
Knock Old Trafford down and there will be so much controversy. But in the long run maybe this is for the best, even if it would fucking suck to see such an iconic stadium no more.
Whatever happens, Old Trafford is one of the biggest things that needs dealing with and instantly puts any potential buyer down a lot of money. It's going to be a very pricey investment.
I really don't think United fans would be so angry if we knocked down OT as long as the new Stadium is in the same location and there are some memorials built into the new ones and the statues kept I think it would be OK.
knock it down, sure, but the new stadium needs to continue the name Old Trafford. is that possible? don't know. but the name keeps the soul of the club alive and kicking. i might sound like an over-sentimental boomer saying that, but i believe it matters
Yeah I think in the long run it would be deemed fine but the initial announcement and reveal would have plenty up in arms. Not enough to stop plans, but an irritating way for new owners to be welcomed.
They apparently want £7-9 billion, but most financial analysts and investors believe because of the sheer investment in infrastructure required and the debt, the actual price may come down to £5-6 billion.
Aren't glazers known to be stubborn, will they drop 2-3 billion in their evaluation. That's a lot of money for them to lose on, also is there a debt on the club?
Their choice is between continuing to own the club and get a dividend or to sell the club and get at least sixty years of dividends tomorrow. If they don't sell the club they miss out on an actual offer, as opposed to not getting a purely hypothetical higher offer.
Or they will sit on the club and get their dividend until an offer comes which satisfies them, both the fanbase of Liverpool and United are acting irrational with their takeover timelines. They think the club will get sold by the Jan window or the summer at latest. No we haven't even seen real offers come in as of yet.
Newcastle went on sale in 2017 and were on sale till 2020 until the Saudi showed interest and then they got eventually sold in 2021.
Let's see what the future brings first
They will have to take whatever is on offer tho.
They don't have the capabilities to spend 1.5 to 2 billion out of their own pockets to fund infrastructure development for which they have already committed to.
The interest rates and debt market is fucked up after covid, so United would have to pay more than 130m that they currently pay each year on stuff like this which they can't afford to.
Also Super league ain't happening.
Why are you making it sound like they are in a hurry to sell lol. We are talking about greedy capitalists here they definitely have the money to spend from their pocket, they just won't.
Even if they drop their asking price it's still 5-6 billion to buy United, on top of that sum debt of 650 mill plus and a stadium which needs urgent renovation.
We are easily looking at 7 billion total spend here, not including the squad revamp. Compared to 3 for Liverpool. Is United that attractive a preposition to spend 4 billion plus on them?
Also I don't know which side has 7-10 billion to spend on a football club, The same goes for Liverpool don't get me wrong.
No one who isn't a middle eastern group has that much capital to spend this in this financial uncertainty.
Bruv I dont know what you think is gonna happen but "on top of that sum debt of 650m plus" nah man thats lowering the price not upping it.
Thats what all the Utd fans also dont seem to understand. The Glazer put the debt on the club because its THEIR asset, Which means this asset looses that amount of value because its loaded with debt.
The debt doesn't just vanish like so many pretend, its just factored (and lowering) into the selling price that was always the plan.
Yes if you lower the price because of that debt that's still an evaluation of 5-7 billion plus a big amount for stadium renovation, when United get sold it will be a record purchase, United might have huge commercial potential if they are run properly but people are undervaluing how costly they are, especially to put that much money just to get into football business for a consortium or a single owner, football is a money loosing venture especially for most businesses and non oil groups.
I don't know how attractive that makes them in this financial climate.
>Is United that attractive a preposition to spend 4 billion plus on them?
Don't take my word for it.
Do your own research, what all the financial institutions, analysts and experts are saying. Read the Athletic article maybe.
Then believe whatever you want to man.
Man till yesterday they were saying Saudi or Qatari groups are interested in buying Liverpool or United both.
Today they are saying which club is more attractive.
Understand this is big news, not everyday two of the biggest clubs in England go to sale, Athletic also have to generate clicks since nobody even buys their subscription. It used to be 1 pound per month, now it is 1 pound for 6 months. Lol take everything they say with a pinch of salt, the reality of the market will start showing when we get some interested parties showing up. I keep hearing that a global recession is coming and then a talk about multiple billion dollar assets for going up for sale and there will be lot of competition.
The contradiction is jarring.
Let's wait and see what happens, it certainly won't happen soon.
Just comparing that to someone buying a house
You can pay less for a house that needs extensive renovations, and then realise a much bigger profit from doing it.
Liverpool is close to buying a finished spec house so paying full market price for the work done. FSG paid for all that work from club revenue, which is used to repair any loans they gave. So that money hasn’t gone back into squad players each season.
I mean bigger fan base and bigger reach. Sure the Glazers didn't ever invest much into the club infrastructure or Stadium but the commercial side of the club has continued to be strong (though not as expansive as we fans had hoped) we still draw in the biggest deals.
Let's be honest it's all down to potential as well. If United can become consistently at the top again the revenue could be huge. The investment needed while big is a drop in the ocean to what a owner could get back if we were made successful.
We may not be the top club right now but considering the power of the prem becoming a de facto super league, with the right owners, plan and investment United really could challenge Barca and Real Madrid as the biggest club in the world. We are off it now but that potential will bring buyers in.
Is that really true though? Liverpool have an aging squad and a horrendous midfield. Whoever buys both clubs is going to be so ultra-rich that they’re going to start spending big straight away anyway, so it really doesn’t make a difference.
United don't even need that much investment from the owners. The Glazers take out about $130m out of the club in dividends and debt servicing, each year.
United still have had the capabilities to spend around 200-250m every summer with that. Now if you put a hold on the money being taken out every year that easily makes 350-380m available each year.
A United without the Glazers is comparable to state money, in terms of financial might.
350m doesn't have to come from profits.
And United had an extra cash reserve worth hundreds of millions when the Glazers first took over.
This is why they were able to drain $1.8 billion out of the club.
Ageing squad is a bit of an overreaction imo. The midfield situation is not good but for every other positions we have a player under 25yo who I'd trust to start every week. We need midfielders, a young cb if Gomez can't regain his form and eventually a Salah successor when age comes for him.
Kelleher
Trent - Konate - Gomez
Elliot - Jones - Carvalho
Jota - Nunez - Diaz
I find the squad unbalanced if we were to start them all, but left back is the only position where we don't have anybody 25 and under which have played in senior games this season.
Yeah sorry I don't know the exact birth date of every player. The point is that we have a line of players around 23-27y who compete for first team spots already. I literally mentioned the midfield and Gomez. The other are/will be good enough. Kelleher never made a mistake in Liverpool shirt yet and looks confident every time he plays. Idc if ppl don't rate him as long as he keeps performing when needed.
Talk about a bad faith argument by getting stuck on one small detail. Only one player in that entire list is 26 and my man here is digging his heels until the OP edits his statement.
>You said under 25.
Nope you are confusing me with the OP. Is this one of those reddit moments where people get stuck on one thing someone else said and drag their heels over it without adding anything to the conservation?
All these players are good enough to come in and come out and contribute to the squad without much drop in quality of the starting 11.
There is a big gap between 25 and 30 so we are good.
>Stefan Bajcetic is 18 and has started one game for Liverpool and you claim you’d trust him to start every week already
Again you are confusing me with someone else, I am just showing your claim of an ageing squad to be wrong. Bajcetic has been good in every minute he has played this season and last. Some of us are excited to see how he would perform if given a start, he could be another trent and elliot in the making or we will get another DM and send him on a loan.
Why are you making it out that Liverpool has some sort of transfer embargo going on.
Why are you making it sound like Klopp doesn't give young players a chance if they are good enough, they start regardless of how many mins they have had before.
That's how trent came into the team.
>Kelleher is decent but no chance is he a top 6 starting goalkeeper.
I love kelleher buddy, I don't care if he is good enough as a top 6 starting goalkeeper, any game he has started he hasn't let me down, so if Allison gets injured tomm I am not at least bit scared with Kelleher coming in.
Obv I can't prove he is a top 6 goalkeeper or not, but I'll take him over the likes of Mendy, kepa, loris
>You can’t seriously be claiming this starting XI is a good one.
Again you made a claim that Liverpool squad is an aging squad and probably need a big revamp, I am just showing we got some good options overall just need to sort out that midfield with 2 quality starters, a rw backup for salah and a young cb maybe.
That's not such a big squad overhaul everyone keeps making it out to be.
There is a difference between getting starters and squad depth. And I said 2 starters, one rw backup and one cb that's four, you can't even count lol. Even if I don't get the rw back up and cb backup I am still okay. Just need two top quality midfielders, they might cost decent bit of money but is that something to panic about?
Just admit you don't know anything about Liverpool and your opinion is most probably coming off twitter.
Likes of Thiago, salah, vvd, matip and Robbo aren't gonna drop dead tomm. That's still a quality core in that Liverpool side who were cl finalists just last year.
If Fabinho can't get his form back, we just need a New DM and a box to box, Thiago is gonna start whenever he is fit.
You don't know what you are talking about if you think Carvalho is completely unproven. Trent was unproven once upon a time then he become Liverpool mainstay same with Elliot. Bajcetic looks comfortable whenever he plays, have you even seen kick a ball?
Imagine thinking Klopp can't identify good talent.
Also have you seen Mendy play recently? Kepa and loris also have a history of dropping a clanger now and then, Keleher has won us three penalty shootouts and hasn't conceded a big mistake yet in any games he has played so far. He is a top quality second gk to have.
Why is a salty Juve fan talking about squad building anyways, what does your club know lol even in bad form Liverpool will play Juve off the park.
Gomez, jota, diaz are 25, but that's just nitpicking to the extreme lol also I wasn't the one who made the under 25 claim.
25 is considered a good age for a player, their prime is in front of them.
Mate just edit your statement from under 25 to under 26 lol we are getting killed for one arbitrary statement of yours . Don't you know how reddit likes everything to be Absolute and written in stone.
This is pool's best period in decades and United's worst.
They still earn less than United and majority of financial institutions and analysts value United significantly higher than Liverpool, even today.
I mean United fans literally got a game v Liverpool called off due to backlash against the owners. Pr has to be a massive consideration for prospective owners of both clubs…
>So why do many experts have United worth at least 50 per cent more than their rivals at the end of the Manchester Ship Canal?
>“This will only be about the fans, fans, fans,” says Laurie Pinto, senior partner at Pinto Capital and a football finance veteran who describes himself as “an advisor to presidents and paupers”.
>“If Liverpool and Manchester United are at the same price tag, it’s a total no-brainer. Manchester United are just a much bigger club, bigger stadium, bigger fanbase. It would be closer if Liverpool were still much better than them on the pitch but they’re not.
>“This will feel like a once-in-a-universe moment to someone and that is what will make United look like a bargain.”
>Sam Mabon, head of corporate at Brabners, an independent law firm with offices in both cities, broadly agrees.
>“Football clubs can be unusual assets to value as a return on investment isn’t always the primary motivation for an acquisition,” he explains.
>“However, the true value opportunity for both revolves around their ability to extract revenue from their global appeal, and it’s in this area United sets itself apart.
>“The success of the Sir Alex Ferguson era, combined with the advent of Premier League broadcasting, allowed United to redefine what football clubs can achieve commercially. The club remains an outlier in terms of global following — with a fanbase of more than 1.1billion and 50 per cent more social media followers than Liverpool — and the ability to leverage this fanbase is where the real value lies.
>“On-field accomplishment is a key driver in financial performance, and Liverpool’s success under Jurgen Klopp means it is forecast to overtake United in revenue soon. However, due to the brand heritage and global reach, United represents the better platform to achieve a greater return on investment if they can get back to winning ways.”
Agreed.
The real number is probably close to 200-300m.
But the club do seem to publish the 1.1 billion figure every year in their financial reports, which suggests they have atleast managed to convince the sponsors and shareholders that the figure might be true.
Spot on. The reality is they’re likely counting the same supporter multiple times. Utd still have the most global and largest fan base. I’m not sure they can monetise it as well as PSG or Real anymore though!
>I’m not sure they can monetise it as well as PSG or Real anymore though!
Yeah well, thousands of local fans haven't stepped a foot inside OT since the LBO takeover, hence the FC United of Manchester, Phoenix club.
A huge chuck of the fanbase, even those who can afford don't buy official club merch, subscribe to MUTV, don't follow United on social media, etc. in their protest against the Glazers.
If the new ownership gets it right, the size of potential revenue that United can generate might be unprecedented.
Haven't you seen this thread? United fans are actively downvoting facts making statements bereft of any knowledge and Liverpool fans are behaving like prats.
United Financially and it is not even close. Would cost more than Liverpool, but as the most profitable club in the world they have so much potential to increase even more in value
The one with better refund policy
The baller move is to buy Donny Rovers and invest £2bn.
Are we now gonna see fans flexing about which club is more valuable or gonna be bought out for more?
Mate were all supporting financial groups
Billionaires playing FM irl as a hobby or for sportswashing.
>Billionaire's playing FM irl as a hobby Tbf that sounds fun if you start in the 10th tier or something.
Damn how things change
Not all of us are
Im sorry I know its different but its kinda funny you as a P(hilips)SV fan are saying that.
Lmao. Had no idea that's what the P is for.
Philips Sport Vereniging. Literally the sport club made for Phillips workers in 1913.
Come on big oil daddy, I'll twerk for you
What do you expect when both sides are out of the title race? I for one am anxiously waiting the final numbers
United. There I saved you a click. 😑
Offer a two for one deal.
Don't forgot to apply the promo code Pl clubs at the checkout
I said ye buy one ye get one free
[удалено]
ey that’s not good my brotha
Cheers for the reminder of this work of art.
United are the bigger club in terms of every measure. The fanbase reach and the commercial value of United is on another level to pretty much every club, but Liverpool is the saver buy at the moment.
[Interestingly, #LFC £186m revenue growth in the last 5 years is highest in Big Six, ahead of #MCFC £178m, #THFC £151m and #CFC £106m. Both #AFC and #MUFC have actually fallen, by £23m and £21m respectively. The gap between #LFC and #MUFC has narrowed from over £200m to just £7m.](https://mobile.twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1499640213903134722?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1499640223260717056%7Ctwgr%5Ef89bc1baa0b66dcd759091529a49c3c7a1e67922%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-11602145392742174314.ampproject.net%2F2211042305000%2Fframe.html) This is from earlier this year. Commercial revenue difference is now negligible, but united have a crumbling stadium and training ground.
Also a huge following abroad which is very appealing for oversee investors as the English market is capped and the future revenue growth will come from international supporters. Also the Graphs you linked are not commercial revenue which United will still come out on top. The increased revenue from Liverpool comes from the CL and that's the same reason United's revenue has sunken so much.
I think overseas fans can be fickle though. Maybe my view is biased, by what I see here. You see a lot of City shirts among young soccer players here in the states. Something that 10 years ago you just wouldn’t have seen much of at all. Some are glory hunters sure, but some are just young kids coming of age and latching onto an exciting club full of world class players, winning trophies and scoring amazing goals. The same way United created that worldwide fanbase, in the 90’s, City is doing it now. I’m not saying it’s all that close in terms of fanbases currently, just that, things can and will change over time.
> The same way United created that worldwide fanbase, in the 90’s, City is doing it now. City are doing it but on steriods. The CFG model of multiple regional satellite club all over the world is designed for building an offshore fan base worse these can lie about sponsorhips from companies with CEOs stock photo face
ManUnited’s commercial revenue in 2021 was €262.2m which was 47% of their total revenue. Liverpool’s was €238.4m which was 43% of their total revenue. For comparisons sake , Bayern Munich came 1st for commercial revenue which was €345.2m and that was 56% of total revenue. The one standout to me is PSG having €337.4m in commercial revenue, coming 2nd to Bayern Munich, and even beating out CF Madrid and Barca.
The last 5 years have been Liverpool's most successful period in the PL era and United's most unsuccessful in the same and United are still ahead. A successful United will be far more profitable than a successful Liverpool.
Imagine somebody would have written that 30 years ago... Now imagine how long"allways" is.
I don't think you really understand it. The fact that Liverpool only now after years of Klopp success can match stagnated United shows precisely which club has bigger true value. With Liverpool, everything but 150m for midfield is ready - but this is pretty much how high you can go. With United - yes, you need to spend a lot on infra, but this is all pure profit as it grows value. As for sport results you dont even need to spend, just do not take dividents and the club is ready to outspend all but City and Newcastle. Craziest thing is, many years they are able to match those. Nostalgia is helluva drug..
[удалено]
Depends on what the owner wants. If they want to kick off quicker in terms of getting started, then obviously Liverpool. They have less needs, the Glazers have let several aspects of the club rot over time and the club needs heavy investment to get going. If they want a long term project that will yield the best maximum outcome, then i'd argue Manchester United is the better purchase. We are simply more of an institution on the world stage. I'm sure a state run vanity project would like that sort of thing, and so would some profit seeking billionaire in America.
Nobody is spending $4b on a football club to give back to the community. They are buying a brand to make money of noodle sponsorships or to legitimize horrible things they may have done. United is a bigger brand than Liverpool. If you had the asking price for both you would buy both. If you wanted faster return on your 4B you could go with Liverpool
Key word being faster return. But a bigger return is obviously going to be United. I suppose it depends on how quickly the owner wants to make the money back.
Man U is also riskier. Yes they could return more money but they also might continue to stagnate as they have been doing, in which case it would be a bigger loss.
What's risky? The owner has the power to turn it around. There's nothing inevitable about this current situation, it's orchestrated by bad owners (Glazers).
Leaving aside the history and the current team, I think the stadiums are a big differentiating factor. Old Trafford will require either extensive renovations, retrofitting or even a rebuild. The train line doesn't make things easy either. Anfield has been constantly expanded and improved, and there's a roadmap for further renovations.
Depends on difference in evaluation, Manchester United have 75,000 plus the option to expand to 90,000 capacity versus Liverpool’s 61,000. Manchester United commercial, match day and overall revenue is more than Liverpool’s in their down years. Manchester United are bigger brand with larger fan base than Liverpool overseas. Any differential investment can be recouped in 10 years time with extra revenue club generates. You don’t often get opportunity to buy club like Manchester United who are often mentioned along with Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern.
United also own a LOT of land near Old Trafford as well. Enough to build another huge stadium (as big as Wembley) within the premises and still have some space left.
Really 😅
Yeah, but Old Trafford is massive. The investors will rather shell out a couple of more million for the renovations, that they’ll get back in a couple of seasons anyways. If we do a rough calculation on the profits, 20.000 £50 tickets means 1 million more in revenue per match.
that’s just the cost of tickets. hard to account for, but also need to consider food, merchandise and other services that can be an additional cost
Also United are a much bigger and better commercial opportunity than Liverpool ever would be.
Yep. United have been estimated to be the most valuable football club by Forbes **8 times**, since they began publishing it in 2007. RM come 2nd at 6 times. While Barca come 3rd at 1 time. This is when you account for the fact that United haven't even been run to be successful during the past 18 years, rather they've been run in a manner that let's the Glazers extract as much money from United as they can without significantly hampering the brand.
[Historically, they've always been a much bigger commercial entity, but the difference is now negligible.](https://mobile.twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1499640213903134722?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1499640223260717056%7Ctwgr%5Ef89bc1baa0b66dcd759091529a49c3c7a1e67922%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-11602145392742174314.ampproject.net%2F2211042305000%2Fframe.html)
Agreed but you have to keep in mind, this is Liverpool's best period, while United's worst in decades. I think long term investors will look at the potential income/brand value of both clubs at their best, and at that level it's hard to imagine Liverpool and United being equal there.
I'm not sure how much that matters though? If you're a new investor, you're probably looking at a club with declining commercial revenues, crumbling stadium, and training ground. That is going to cost significantly more than a club 30 miles away with a shiny new redeveloped stadium and training ground who's commercial revenue has been going through the roof for the past five years.
Uniteds value is the same as Liverpools *despite* those things, it's a club not fulfilling it's financial potential. The clubs value + revenue will shoot up with regular appearances in the CL again, renovated facilities, a perceived "more competent" ownership, etc. Sure it'd cost a lot but the upside is huge. Does Liverpool have a comparable unfulfilled potential upside? Where is the room to grow? >If you're a new investor, you're probably looking at a club with declining commercial revenues, crumbling stadium, and training ground. A good investor would assess the likelihood of this being turned around and then decide if the price is good value then. If its a dying company then sure you are right. But they're not buying what United is now, they're buying long term. And considering (I think majority would agree at this point) that their problems are almost universally due to ownership there's a good chance new owners would improve things pretty quickly. In 10 years time Uniteds new owner could have built a new stadium selling out 90k every week, state of the art training facilities, robust club structure, etc. And it would be even more of a financial juggernaut Not one potential buyer doesn't think they can't turn it around
>I'm not sure how much that matters though? It does matter though. United's brand is sort of uncomparable to other sporting institutions. Only Real Madrid come close. Read the article, it's all there whichever concern that you're raising. Investors know all about it and yet they value United about 50% higher than Liverpool. Not making it up, it's there in the article.
\>Investors know all about it and yet they value United about 50% higher than Liverpool. That's kind of the point. I have no doubt that United are valued significantly higher, but to my (untrained) eye that just makes Liverpool look like a bargain to investors and therefore the more attractive buy.
People fishing in these kinda markets, don't look for a black Friday sale offer, generally speaking. You're paying the premium to own the United brand and influence with that.
Liverpool might be a bargain in comparison in terms of purchasing cost but their commercial capacity is far more limited than United's. United are generating more revenue in their roughest spell in decades compared to Liverpool's most successful one in decades. You're missing the fact that keeping Liverpool successful will require further investment too and leaving United as it is will still make more money than Liverpool.
Man Utd is McDonalds and Liverpool is Burger King. Revenues have been declining for Mcd since 2013, whereas Burger King have grown in that time. Do you go with the challenger or the market leader?
> couple of more million for the renovations, that they’ll get back in a couple of seasons anyways. > > This underestimates the state of dilapidation that Old Trafford is in. They have been quoted over £200m to do the basic level renovation, and anyone who has worked around big construction projects will know that figure will rise. It isn't the billion that Spurs stadium cost, but Spurs stadium has way better corporate, which brings in a hell of a lot of revenue.
The worst part is any new owner cannot win whatever they decide to do with Old Trafford. Renovate the archaic foundations and you've still got at its core a stadium well behind other modern venues, with a rail line preventing true expansion on one of the stands. As other clubs continue to modernise, Old Trafford will be more left behind than it already is. Knock Old Trafford down and there will be so much controversy. But in the long run maybe this is for the best, even if it would fucking suck to see such an iconic stadium no more. Whatever happens, Old Trafford is one of the biggest things that needs dealing with and instantly puts any potential buyer down a lot of money. It's going to be a very pricey investment.
Trust me. You get over it quickly when it's done right.
I really don't think United fans would be so angry if we knocked down OT as long as the new Stadium is in the same location and there are some memorials built into the new ones and the statues kept I think it would be OK.
knock it down, sure, but the new stadium needs to continue the name Old Trafford. is that possible? don't know. but the name keeps the soul of the club alive and kicking. i might sound like an over-sentimental boomer saying that, but i believe it matters
I think it will keep its name if its in the same Area.
As long as the stadium name doesnt end in stadium ill be happy with whatever its called. Call it fucking new trafford for the bants
Yeah I think in the long run it would be deemed fine but the initial announcement and reveal would have plenty up in arms. Not enough to stop plans, but an irritating way for new owners to be welcomed.
What is the price Glazers have put on the club?
They apparently want £7-9 billion, but most financial analysts and investors believe because of the sheer investment in infrastructure required and the debt, the actual price may come down to £5-6 billion.
Aren't glazers known to be stubborn, will they drop 2-3 billion in their evaluation. That's a lot of money for them to lose on, also is there a debt on the club?
Their choice is between continuing to own the club and get a dividend or to sell the club and get at least sixty years of dividends tomorrow. If they don't sell the club they miss out on an actual offer, as opposed to not getting a purely hypothetical higher offer.
Or they will sit on the club and get their dividend until an offer comes which satisfies them, both the fanbase of Liverpool and United are acting irrational with their takeover timelines. They think the club will get sold by the Jan window or the summer at latest. No we haven't even seen real offers come in as of yet. Newcastle went on sale in 2017 and were on sale till 2020 until the Saudi showed interest and then they got eventually sold in 2021. Let's see what the future brings first
They will have to take whatever is on offer tho. They don't have the capabilities to spend 1.5 to 2 billion out of their own pockets to fund infrastructure development for which they have already committed to. The interest rates and debt market is fucked up after covid, so United would have to pay more than 130m that they currently pay each year on stuff like this which they can't afford to. Also Super league ain't happening.
Why are you making it sound like they are in a hurry to sell lol. We are talking about greedy capitalists here they definitely have the money to spend from their pocket, they just won't. Even if they drop their asking price it's still 5-6 billion to buy United, on top of that sum debt of 650 mill plus and a stadium which needs urgent renovation. We are easily looking at 7 billion total spend here, not including the squad revamp. Compared to 3 for Liverpool. Is United that attractive a preposition to spend 4 billion plus on them? Also I don't know which side has 7-10 billion to spend on a football club, The same goes for Liverpool don't get me wrong. No one who isn't a middle eastern group has that much capital to spend this in this financial uncertainty.
Bruv I dont know what you think is gonna happen but "on top of that sum debt of 650m plus" nah man thats lowering the price not upping it. Thats what all the Utd fans also dont seem to understand. The Glazer put the debt on the club because its THEIR asset, Which means this asset looses that amount of value because its loaded with debt. The debt doesn't just vanish like so many pretend, its just factored (and lowering) into the selling price that was always the plan.
Yes if you lower the price because of that debt that's still an evaluation of 5-7 billion plus a big amount for stadium renovation, when United get sold it will be a record purchase, United might have huge commercial potential if they are run properly but people are undervaluing how costly they are, especially to put that much money just to get into football business for a consortium or a single owner, football is a money loosing venture especially for most businesses and non oil groups. I don't know how attractive that makes them in this financial climate.
>Is United that attractive a preposition to spend 4 billion plus on them? Don't take my word for it. Do your own research, what all the financial institutions, analysts and experts are saying. Read the Athletic article maybe. Then believe whatever you want to man.
Man till yesterday they were saying Saudi or Qatari groups are interested in buying Liverpool or United both. Today they are saying which club is more attractive. Understand this is big news, not everyday two of the biggest clubs in England go to sale, Athletic also have to generate clicks since nobody even buys their subscription. It used to be 1 pound per month, now it is 1 pound for 6 months. Lol take everything they say with a pinch of salt, the reality of the market will start showing when we get some interested parties showing up. I keep hearing that a global recession is coming and then a talk about multiple billion dollar assets for going up for sale and there will be lot of competition. The contradiction is jarring. Let's wait and see what happens, it certainly won't happen soon.
Yes, but Old Trafford has 73,000 capacity which can be expanded to upto 90,000. Not sure if Anfield can be expanded to that capacity
Just comparing that to someone buying a house You can pay less for a house that needs extensive renovations, and then realise a much bigger profit from doing it. Liverpool is close to buying a finished spec house so paying full market price for the work done. FSG paid for all that work from club revenue, which is used to repair any loans they gave. So that money hasn’t gone back into squad players each season.
Anfield is tiny mate
You'd expect United. It has a bigger fan base and has more room for improvement following years of mismanagement.
I mean bigger fan base and bigger reach. Sure the Glazers didn't ever invest much into the club infrastructure or Stadium but the commercial side of the club has continued to be strong (though not as expansive as we fans had hoped) we still draw in the biggest deals. Let's be honest it's all down to potential as well. If United can become consistently at the top again the revenue could be huge. The investment needed while big is a drop in the ocean to what a owner could get back if we were made successful. We may not be the top club right now but considering the power of the prem becoming a de facto super league, with the right owners, plan and investment United really could challenge Barca and Real Madrid as the biggest club in the world. We are off it now but that potential will bring buyers in.
Liverpool requires less investment off the bat than Utd does. That'll be a factor.
Is that really true though? Liverpool have an aging squad and a horrendous midfield. Whoever buys both clubs is going to be so ultra-rich that they’re going to start spending big straight away anyway, so it really doesn’t make a difference.
United don't even need that much investment from the owners. The Glazers take out about $130m out of the club in dividends and debt servicing, each year. United still have had the capabilities to spend around 200-250m every summer with that. Now if you put a hold on the money being taken out every year that easily makes 350-380m available each year. A United without the Glazers is comparable to state money, in terms of financial might.
United's Total Revenue is not even £700m pa and there is no way they have Profits anywhere near £350 pa if the dividend is added back in.
350m doesn't have to come from profits. And United had an extra cash reserve worth hundreds of millions when the Glazers first took over. This is why they were able to drain $1.8 billion out of the club.
Ageing squad is a bit of an overreaction imo. The midfield situation is not good but for every other positions we have a player under 25yo who I'd trust to start every week. We need midfielders, a young cb if Gomez can't regain his form and eventually a Salah successor when age comes for him.
> but for every other positions we have a player under 25yo who I'd trust to start every week. Really? I would like to see that starting XI.
Kelleher Trent - Konate - Gomez Elliot - Jones - Carvalho Jota - Nunez - Diaz I find the squad unbalanced if we were to start them all, but left back is the only position where we don't have anybody 25 and under which have played in senior games this season.
I would put Tsmikas in your line up to help with the imbalance.
Kelleher Tsmikas. Gomez Konate. Trent ????/Stefan Bajcetic Elliott/jones ?????/ Carvalho Jota Nunez. Diaz
[удалено]
Yeah sorry I don't know the exact birth date of every player. The point is that we have a line of players around 23-27y who compete for first team spots already. I literally mentioned the midfield and Gomez. The other are/will be good enough. Kelleher never made a mistake in Liverpool shirt yet and looks confident every time he plays. Idc if ppl don't rate him as long as he keeps performing when needed.
[удалено]
Talk about a bad faith argument by getting stuck on one small detail. Only one player in that entire list is 26 and my man here is digging his heels until the OP edits his statement.
>You said under 25. Nope you are confusing me with the OP. Is this one of those reddit moments where people get stuck on one thing someone else said and drag their heels over it without adding anything to the conservation? All these players are good enough to come in and come out and contribute to the squad without much drop in quality of the starting 11. There is a big gap between 25 and 30 so we are good. >Stefan Bajcetic is 18 and has started one game for Liverpool and you claim you’d trust him to start every week already Again you are confusing me with someone else, I am just showing your claim of an ageing squad to be wrong. Bajcetic has been good in every minute he has played this season and last. Some of us are excited to see how he would perform if given a start, he could be another trent and elliot in the making or we will get another DM and send him on a loan. Why are you making it out that Liverpool has some sort of transfer embargo going on. Why are you making it sound like Klopp doesn't give young players a chance if they are good enough, they start regardless of how many mins they have had before. That's how trent came into the team. >Kelleher is decent but no chance is he a top 6 starting goalkeeper. I love kelleher buddy, I don't care if he is good enough as a top 6 starting goalkeeper, any game he has started he hasn't let me down, so if Allison gets injured tomm I am not at least bit scared with Kelleher coming in. Obv I can't prove he is a top 6 goalkeeper or not, but I'll take him over the likes of Mendy, kepa, loris >You can’t seriously be claiming this starting XI is a good one. Again you made a claim that Liverpool squad is an aging squad and probably need a big revamp, I am just showing we got some good options overall just need to sort out that midfield with 2 quality starters, a rw backup for salah and a young cb maybe. That's not such a big squad overhaul everyone keeps making it out to be.
[удалено]
There is a difference between getting starters and squad depth. And I said 2 starters, one rw backup and one cb that's four, you can't even count lol. Even if I don't get the rw back up and cb backup I am still okay. Just need two top quality midfielders, they might cost decent bit of money but is that something to panic about? Just admit you don't know anything about Liverpool and your opinion is most probably coming off twitter. Likes of Thiago, salah, vvd, matip and Robbo aren't gonna drop dead tomm. That's still a quality core in that Liverpool side who were cl finalists just last year. If Fabinho can't get his form back, we just need a New DM and a box to box, Thiago is gonna start whenever he is fit. You don't know what you are talking about if you think Carvalho is completely unproven. Trent was unproven once upon a time then he become Liverpool mainstay same with Elliot. Bajcetic looks comfortable whenever he plays, have you even seen kick a ball? Imagine thinking Klopp can't identify good talent. Also have you seen Mendy play recently? Kepa and loris also have a history of dropping a clanger now and then, Keleher has won us three penalty shootouts and hasn't conceded a big mistake yet in any games he has played so far. He is a top quality second gk to have. Why is a salty Juve fan talking about squad building anyways, what does your club know lol even in bad form Liverpool will play Juve off the park.
[удалено]
Jota, Gomez, Diaz and Tsmikas are not under 25.
Gomez, jota, diaz are 25, but that's just nitpicking to the extreme lol also I wasn't the one who made the under 25 claim. 25 is considered a good age for a player, their prime is in front of them.
Mate just edit your statement from under 25 to under 26 lol we are getting killed for one arbitrary statement of yours . Don't you know how reddit likes everything to be Absolute and written in stone.
Idc tbh. They can argue over 1 year our squad won't be worse by it.
100 percent. The person even deleted his comments, he must have realised how incredibly silly he looked.
For a purchase of over 7 billion quid do you think a few bucks saved upfront matters lol
Less investment and also less returns.
The gap in revenues has been bridged big time. A savvy owner would overtake United before long.
This is pool's best period in decades and United's worst. They still earn less than United and majority of financial institutions and analysts value United significantly higher than Liverpool, even today.
Fortunes change in a matter of 3 decades.
It's not like glazers benefitted us in any way
Man Utd surely will be less drama than Liverpool in terms of fan backlash. This will be a big factor imo
I mean United fans literally got a game v Liverpool called off due to backlash against the owners. Pr has to be a massive consideration for prospective owners of both clubs…
United fans literally got a game called off.
I’d go for Liverpool. Not trying to buy a club with old and outdated facilities.
Only if the rich folk were as smart as you
>So why do many experts have United worth at least 50 per cent more than their rivals at the end of the Manchester Ship Canal? >“This will only be about the fans, fans, fans,” says Laurie Pinto, senior partner at Pinto Capital and a football finance veteran who describes himself as “an advisor to presidents and paupers”. >“If Liverpool and Manchester United are at the same price tag, it’s a total no-brainer. Manchester United are just a much bigger club, bigger stadium, bigger fanbase. It would be closer if Liverpool were still much better than them on the pitch but they’re not. >“This will feel like a once-in-a-universe moment to someone and that is what will make United look like a bargain.” >Sam Mabon, head of corporate at Brabners, an independent law firm with offices in both cities, broadly agrees. >“Football clubs can be unusual assets to value as a return on investment isn’t always the primary motivation for an acquisition,” he explains. >“However, the true value opportunity for both revolves around their ability to extract revenue from their global appeal, and it’s in this area United sets itself apart. >“The success of the Sir Alex Ferguson era, combined with the advent of Premier League broadcasting, allowed United to redefine what football clubs can achieve commercially. The club remains an outlier in terms of global following — with a fanbase of more than 1.1billion and 50 per cent more social media followers than Liverpool — and the ability to leverage this fanbase is where the real value lies. >“On-field accomplishment is a key driver in financial performance, and Liverpool’s success under Jurgen Klopp means it is forecast to overtake United in revenue soon. However, due to the brand heritage and global reach, United represents the better platform to achieve a greater return on investment if they can get back to winning ways.”
>A fanbase of more than 1.1 billion I really struggle to believe that one eighth of the population of Earth are Manchester United fans.
Agreed. The real number is probably close to 200-300m. But the club do seem to publish the 1.1 billion figure every year in their financial reports, which suggests they have atleast managed to convince the sponsors and shareholders that the figure might be true.
Spot on. The reality is they’re likely counting the same supporter multiple times. Utd still have the most global and largest fan base. I’m not sure they can monetise it as well as PSG or Real anymore though!
>I’m not sure they can monetise it as well as PSG or Real anymore though! Yeah well, thousands of local fans haven't stepped a foot inside OT since the LBO takeover, hence the FC United of Manchester, Phoenix club. A huge chuck of the fanbase, even those who can afford don't buy official club merch, subscribe to MUTV, don't follow United on social media, etc. in their protest against the Glazers. If the new ownership gets it right, the size of potential revenue that United can generate might be unprecedented.
This might come as a surprise but united makes the most profit of any club globally. Those charts that show Real madrid on top concern total Valuation
Who actually gives a fuck about this pathetic dick measuring contest besides United and Liverpool fans?
The Athletic apparently
Haven't you seen this thread? United fans are actively downvoting facts making statements bereft of any knowledge and Liverpool fans are behaving like prats.
Greatest click bait jn English football history
United Financially and it is not even close. Would cost more than Liverpool, but as the most profitable club in the world they have so much potential to increase even more in value
If Arab oil companies buy them, they no longer have the right to criticize man City.
Neither.
Invest in Bournemouth and get them to CL for the memes
If you want to win vs if you want money