Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cborovsky t1_ixogu9b wrote

Serious question, I don’t follow this sport very much, I thought Manchester United and Liverpool are high income generating businesses do they really need to seek new ownership?

14

BeefInGR t1_ixomx3a wrote

They are. So they'll sell for a premium.

You don't sell a team normally, but when you do it's because you feel as if you've maximized your profits. Man U is going to go for an insane price, hard to deny money even if you're wealthy.

9

PJTikoko t1_ixopjaq wrote

Liverpool’s owners are potentially trying to buy the Washington Commanders they’ll sell Liverpool while it’s hot to get the capital needed.

Man U owners are probably 50/50 on selling.

8

Cborovsky t1_ixos8i6 wrote

Wow that’s really new information! I want to add I really always thought of these teams owner as ancient dynasties that never think of letting go of such a brand

2

TooRedditFamous t1_ixr9f0i wrote

No, at this point the game at the top level in England is way beyond that. They are mostly owned by various international billionaires, oil states, venture capitalists, etc.

3

Gates_wupatki_zion t1_iy3hcqf wrote

They both have American sports conglomerate owners. Adding to previous comment — the Glazers (ManU owners) are widely despised by the ManU fan base because of how much money they have taken out of the club and saddled it with debt. They also grossly mismanaged player contracts hiring the wrong people after the best coach in football history retired. So they have other reasons to sell. There are very few football clubs that have “dynastic” owners because it became a great way to make money. A few years ago a Welsh team’s mascot went from the bluebirds to the dragons because roof their Far East Asian owner.

1

flyinsdog t1_ixtan8g wrote

I can’t imagine the Washington Commanders being as prime a property as Liverpool. Even during the heyday of the ‘skins in the 80’s I don’t think they were ever the premier franchise in the NFL. Liverpool is a global brand. Doesn’t make sense to me.

2

Forzelius t1_ixyiluf wrote

Is there really any chance the Commanders don't go to Bezos?

1

staresatmaps t1_ixomj62 wrote

Football teams in Europe generally do not make very much if any money. Ticket prices are much lower than in the US. The rich Middle Eastern owners are known for pumping tons of money into the team to buy the players they want like pet projects. They don't care about making money.

6

nghigaxx t1_ixp4rm9 wrote

true for most teams but united print money, they get enough money to be able to run on their own, their current owners have invested 0 into the clubs, they loaned money to buy the club and use money the clubs generated to pay the loans

5

staresatmaps t1_ixq1vh4 wrote

Exactly though. Making money off a club is considered bad form in the UK. Whereas in the US all the owners in every sports are making tons of money.

1

nghigaxx t1_ixrkax8 wrote

After the United takeover UK gov had to change their law to prevent loan takeover like that, they have to recognize football clubs as cultural existences and not just a company

2

Onespokeovertheline t1_ixovr6x wrote

I'm not sure if it was accurate, but someone posted an info graphic today that showed Man U operates at a loss

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/z2rx3w/manchester_united_may_be_up_for_sale_so_is_the/

2

Cborovsky t1_ixp3i87 wrote

Wow

1

ShitPostQuokkaRome t1_ixq3lce wrote

Man United owners did a notoriously poor job at managing the team when they bought it.

They're also American which means they're not there to do some ridiculous patronage, neither they're like the 90s local businessmen owned clubs that overspent for patronage - the club has to be useful: it's either need to be profitable, or help enough in making business deals and approach the local business environment.

Milan current owners are also American, and unlike United, they did a good job with managing the club. The club is getting more successful with them. They got the club ownership as payment for debts from the previous owners (spending less than the price coming from actually purchasing it) and besides a very small profit, their intention is that of building a new stadium - and with that, have the privilege to purchase the estate around beforehand for cheap and build luxury apartments for a fat profit.

The current situation in the Premier league is very strange, the club expenses of the big teams are far more than they could get with revenue, they're surviving because they're owned by natural resources barons like Romanov before the war or the United Emirates in City.

Liverpool is the odd man in the Premier league, they're off the norm in all manners (they're lucrative, they don't have any ridiculous debt with billionaire owners, they're among the six most successful clubs in premier league, they've been second most successful club in Premier league last few years, they succeed by making careful spending and thinking through any player purchase to see if it fits the team's strategy and if it doesn't wreck finances)

United is the other direction, worst performing club of the big 6, the one in the worst financial situation, they purchase randomly and change administration often.

3

Haldir111 t1_ixondrr wrote

Neither *need* to, of course.

In the case of Liverpool, it simply looks like the owners would like to try and maximize a tidy profit by selling near enough to their recent highs in terms of performance. Probably move onto another sporting venture to try and repeat the process, too.

With United, the owners are probably thinking instead of just collecting dividends cheques on all the debt they've been amassing United since buying, they may as well sell off for a huge profit (considering they only spent $250mil if their own money). They aren't stupid, and know while United's buying value will always command a high price, it will most likely only decrease in coming seasons if they can't fix the problems at the club.....which they don't seem inclined to do.

1

Cborovsky t1_ixos5vg wrote

I didn’t know that, thanks for the write up

1

nghigaxx t1_ixp4o19 wrote

They don't need too, but unfortunately they are owned by someone, and the owners want to sell

1