I was hoping someone could help me understand the different financial positions of Liverpool and Manchester United - with actual facts rather than the usual fan whinges.
A quick Google tells me that United make £764 million and Liverpool make £649 million. And United spend £229 million on wages (which will have increased significantly this year too) and Liverpool spend £136 million. (I'd predict these figures aren't super accurate but must be ballpark)
Obviously United have also spent a lot more on transfers in terms of net over the last 5 years.
So the extra revenue United make is mostly cancelled out by their wage bill. Liverpool have obviously spent money on developing the stadium and training facilities which may explain some difference but this isn't excessive a la Tottenham.
So how are the Glaziers supposedly bleeding the club dry when the spending compared to revenue looks very comparable if not more generous than a club whose owners famously do not take money out of the club?
(I should add that I understand the way the Glaziers bought United and I do think that it is dodgy and possibly something that shouldn't be allowed but it really doesn't seem to be impacting United's ability to spend comparative to any clubs that aren't oil play things)
Am I missing something?
Finances comparison
posted on 2/9/21
The fact of the matter is, that were the owners of United, Chelsea and city suddenly ripped out of the clubs three of them would have VERY uncertain futures, Liverpool would not, and I'm happy for that to be the case given we were 2 hours from being bankrupt a few years ago.
——————————
You only named 3 clubs and I don’t think you mean United would have an unsure future if the glazers sold.
Tbh at the worth of city and Chelsea now, whoever bought them off their current owners probably wouldn’t have an issue keeping them up there either
They needed those 2 owners to get to the level of United and Liverpool commercially and they’ve done it now, who ever bought them would be buying an established European elite club commercially
posted on 2/9/21
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
The fact of the matter is, that were the owners of United, Chelsea and city suddenly ripped out of the clubs three of them would have VERY uncertain futures, Liverpool would not, and I'm happy for that to be the case given we were 2 hours from being bankrupt a few years ago.
——————————
You only named 3 clubs and I don’t think you mean United would have an unsure future if the glazers sold.
Tbh at the worth of city and Chelsea now, whoever bought them off their current owners probably wouldn’t have an issue keeping them up there either
They needed those 2 owners to get to the level of United and Liverpool commercially and they’ve done it now, who ever bought them would be buying an established European elite club commercially
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All three clubs exist at the behest of their owners, were extremely stringent Investment, debt and salary caps bought in to football they would all struggle significantly.
Should fan ownership be mandated, as many football supporters want, those three clubs would struggle to maintain their spending, given the fans would be unable to raise the appropriate amounts of money.
Liverpool would not have major issues with either scenario, we are self sufficient, and I'm happy with that, even if it means we don't buy someone for £60m each season, we have delivered success and crucially entertainment by living within our means.
Now if only FFP had some fackin teeth
posted on 2/9/21
United are beyond self sufficient and live comfortably within our means, even while paying off a ludicrous debt our owners saddled us with.
How have you lived within your means when you literally needed your owners to loan you money at rates you’d never get from a bank?
You’ve gone from talking about owners walking away to now creating new rules in the PL.
posted on 3/9/21
People hate the Glazers as we sold Ronaldo to service the debt. There was no need to sell him for £80m on a long contract and his wages were a lot less back then. Look at Spurs not letting go of Kane who was much older for a lot more money. I knew at the time we could get £80m many years later. Real Madrid bought the best bargain in history as they sold him for more and got there transfer fee easily back after having him for 9 years winning trophies. I thought SAF and the Glazers had lost the plot selling him for £80M. In fact I am surprised Man City didn’t drive the price up as £80M for him at age 24 is ridiculous. Its pretty much like buying someone like Mbappe level for like £30M back then.
posted on 3/9/21
I think the worst transfer sale Man Utd ever did was Ronaldo despite it being many times in profit, it was lunacy. It is like selling a house to service your debt when you could keep it and sell something else and win more prize money and trophies and sell many years later for more money. It was funny how Real Madrid bought Bale for money 4 years later when he was 1/4 the player Ronaldo was and older than Ronaldo was when we sold him. Judging by Bale transfer we should have got like over £200M for Ronaldo if it was based on talent. Ronaldo had a long enough contract to allow for a big transfer fee.
posted on 3/9/21
Mean Bale for more money. If that was the Glazers we would have got rid of Bale for £30M.
posted on 3/9/21
comment by Posh Mufc Great Hafi Not Arrogant Just Better (U6578)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
People hate the Glazers as we sold Ronaldo to service the debt. There was no need to sell him for £80m on a long contract and his wages were a lot less back then. Look at Spurs not letting go of Kane who was much older for a lot more money. I knew at the time we could get £80m many years later. Real Madrid bought the best bargain in history as they sold him for more and got there transfer fee easily back after having him for 9 years winning trophies. I thought SAF and the Glazers had lost the plot selling him for £80M. In fact I am surprised Man City didn’t drive the price up as £80M for him at age 24 is ridiculous. Its pretty much like buying someone like Mbappe level for like £30M back then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Man literally said your club was treating him like a slave and you wanted to keep him
posted on 3/9/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 16 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 25 seconds ago
I don't normally side with Liverpool fans but I don't think FSG feel compelled to appease their fans by a bout of reckless spending.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No but the point is where is the money going?
Over the last 5 years without the huge outgoings they would’ve broken even.
How can a club bringing in that much revenue only be breaking even? That’s concerning
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably because when you look at the wage bill it's our contractual obligation, and not the massive bonuses we pay related to performance.
Possibly because FSG have loaned us money for the two stadium expansions, and the training ground, and whilst it's a low interest rate, we are paying it off quickly.
FSG also have a standing agreement that they don't take money out but they don't pump it in either, as such spending up to a level that requires a PL or CL win to maintain is just ridiculous, our club almost went bankrupt before they wrested it out of the hands of Hicks and Gillet, I'm glad they are prudent.
The fact of the matter is, that were the owners of United, Chelsea and city suddenly ripped out of the clubs three of them would have VERY uncertain futures, Liverpool would not, and I'm happy for that to be the case given we were 2 hours from being bankrupt a few years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FSG did not loan us money for the second stadium expansion nor the training ground
they made on 120mil loan at 1.27% interest
Your argument only has merit on chelsea. chelsea owe a holding company controlled by RA. Say RA was arrested tomorrow and his assets flogged then chelsea would owe whoever bought them a massive amount. Right now RA saying he'll convert debt to equity and their balance sheet is magically fixed any time its needed
City dont have this issue. they are zero debt and all those assets are shiny and so in theroy they would just have to live within thier means.
Man utd are a publically floated company. if the glaziers were gone and that debt was there to be paid they would refinance just like spurs did and move on. zero issue.
the stuff above about ronaldo is a joke. ferguson did a deal with him to stay another year and then let him move FFS.
I wouldn't mind but i see some astoundingly silly comments about man city and ronaldo. it was 2009 and a WORLD RECORD DEAL. city had mark hughes still as manager FFS.
posted on 3/9/21
comment by Posh Mufc Great Hafi Not Arrogant Just Better (U6578)
posted 2 hours, 15 minutes ago
I think the worst transfer sale Man Utd ever did was Ronaldo despite it being many times in profit, it was lunacy. It is like selling a house to service your debt when you could keep it and sell something else and win more prize money and trophies and sell many years later for more money. It was funny how Real Madrid bought Bale for money 4 years later when he was 1/4 the player Ronaldo was and older than Ronaldo was when we sold him. Judging by Bale transfer we should have got like over £200M for Ronaldo if it was based on talent. Ronaldo had a long enough contract to allow for a big transfer fee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
just wow.
you are comparing a world record deal in 2009 to a world record deal in 2013 where the tv deals were vastly different?
You do know the guy wanted to leave?
You might as well compare it to bitey suarez going to barca for 75mil even later.
You got a world record deal.
posted on 3/9/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 22 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
The fact of the matter is, that were the owners of United, Chelsea and city suddenly ripped out of the clubs three of them would have VERY uncertain futures, Liverpool would not, and I'm happy for that to be the case given we were 2 hours from being bankrupt a few years ago.
——————————
You only named 3 clubs and I don’t think you mean United would have an unsure future if the glazers sold.
Tbh at the worth of city and Chelsea now, whoever bought them off their current owners probably wouldn’t have an issue keeping them up there either
They needed those 2 owners to get to the level of United and Liverpool commercially and they’ve done it now, who ever bought them would be buying an established European elite club commercially
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All three clubs exist at the behest of their owners, were extremely stringent Investment, debt and salary caps bought in to football they would all struggle significantly.
Should fan ownership be mandated, as many football supporters want, those three clubs would struggle to maintain their spending, given the fans would be unable to raise the appropriate amounts of money.
Liverpool would not have major issues with either scenario, we are self sufficient, and I'm happy with that, even if it means we don't buy someone for £60m each season, we have delivered success and crucially entertainment by living within our means.
Now if only FFP had some fackin teeth
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but that is one pile of rubbish you have just wrote there. You are so far from reality it’s just laughable.
If any club’s owners sold that what they own, who exactly do you think would buy it?
Someone with money, or Joe bloggs with a pound to his name?
Your comment has absolutely no foresight.