For those with deep enough pockets both Liverpool and Manchester United could be available for the right price.
After it was revealed at the start of November that Liverpool's owners Fenway Sports Group would be willing to listen to offers for the club provided they met their expectations, rivals Manchester United then hit the market, with the Glazer family making their firmest indication yet they they were ready to cash out from the club they acquired in 2005.
While expressions of interest would be welcome and listened to, with the ECHO understanding that only figures of $4bn and above would be able to kick off any meaningful discussion over a full sale, both parties have stated that a full sale was by no means the only option and that minority investment may be forthcoming that would provide them with the injection of capital they require to either re-invest in the team, in infrastructure or in other avenues unrelated to the respective clubs.
READ NEXT: Enzo Fernandez transfer latest as Liverpool and FSG make January plan
The Glazers have been reportedly seeking sums of £6bn and above for United buoyed by the acquisition of Chelsea for £2.5bn by the Todd Boehly/Clearlake Capital-led consortium earlier this year. That deal also included a commitment of a further £1.75bn for infrastructure development in the coming seasons.
United's position as a global brand, one that has shown some resilience on the commercial front despite almost a decade of underachievement, has emboldened the Glazers to seek such valuations, even if they may seem wildly outlandish.
While the two clubs may be open to offers at the same time their reasons for doing so, and desire to do so, are both very different.
For more than a year FSG have been looking at the potential for minority investment into the Reds and engaged major US banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to aid that search. But in the wake of the Chelsea sale, which was seen as an overpayment for a Premier League club of that size by some US investors that the ECHO spoke to, and the suggestion that some FSG partners might be up for selling some of their shareholding, a decision was made to test the market and see what kind of interest was out there for an asset like Liverpool.
The Reds were acquired for £300m in 2010 by FSG from the near ruinous regime of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, and in 12 years of stewardship at Anfield there has been the creation of a strategy and culture, one that was accelerated and redefined under the management of Jurgen Klopp, that has been able to beat the odds and achieve success against their rivals while operating on a less frivolous plan for the transfer market.
It hasn't been a universally appreciated approach and the disappointments that have occurred already this season have seen the calls grow for FSG to either break from their approach of selling existing players to aid the purchase of new players and go all out on major transfer targets, or pass the baton to those who may be able to facilitate such an approach.
While FSG supremo and Liverpool's principal owner John W. Henry might be someone who shuns the media spotlight, his interviews incredibly rare on both sides of the Atlantic, FSG have been active owners of the Reds through their implementation of strategy, most notably their increased use of data early on and knack of getting the right people in the right places throughout the club hierarchy. Mike Gordon, president of FSG, has been the member of the ownership group most closely entwined with what Liverpool have been about, fostering a strong relationship with Klopp. Gordon has been passing his day-to-day responsibilities at Liverpool to CEO Billy Hogan in recent months, having taken on the reins of managing the incoming investment or sale opportunities for the club.
A deal at the right price can be struck for the Reds but well placed sources in America have told the ECHO that while some partners may wish to cash out their shareholdings given the high valuation of the club compared to what it was worth just five years ago, Henry is less keen to part company on a full sale, the same going for some other partners including RedBird Capital, the New York investment fund that paid $750m for 11 per cent of FSG back in March 2021.
FSG's ownership of Liverpool, and how they view the club as part of a wider strategy, is very different to that of the Glazers at Manchester United.
For FSG, to sell the Reds would see them part company with the most valuable asset in their $10bn empire, one that also includes the Boston Red Sox (MLB), Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL) and RFK Racing (NASCAR), as well as a number of other businesses from sports management to real estate.
They do want to add an NBA expansion franchise, almost certainly in Las Vegas, where the plan is for FSG partner and basketball icon LeBron James to take the helm as owner when the 37-year-old finally calls time on his career. But with no plans for such an expansion imminent according to NBA commissioner Adam Silver, a timeframe of two or three years could be on the cards until that becomes a reality, with the franchise fee likely to be around $2.5bn.
That, allied with the fact that the NFL is off limits for FSG at present due to their part ownership from private equity, which is currently forbidden in the NFL, and with Henry not particularly keen on shedding Liverpool as part of their portfolio just yet, with an exit now likely to leave money on the table given that there are bigger media rights deals to come and some more valuation growth in the coming years, albeit slower than what has been seen, a play for America's biggest sport isn't imminent.
There are also some other considerations to take into account. FSG have completed, or are set to complete, more infrastructure development of Anfield, having already delivered a new £50m training ground. The need to raise capital to fund the kind of things that would be needed at Manchester United, with Old Trafford having fallen into decline and needing a huge amount of redevelopment work, just isn't there, although the continued Wild West nature of the transfer market and continually inflated wages and fees that come along with it have been harder and harder to take on board within the confines of the business model that FSG created at Liverpool.
Project Big Picture (PBP) and the European Super League (ESL), both plans of which the Reds' owners were agitators, came to nothing, the latter having been well and truly booted into touch given the recommendations of the European Court of Justice last week. But just a day after the ESL was handed what appeared to be a hammer blow it was announced that FIFA would launch a revamped 32-team Club World Cup in 2025. And, with Liverpool likely to be frontrunners to be a part of such a competition, the potential for further revenues to be generated by tapping into the global fanbase that exists for the club, something that was a motivating factor behind PBP, where more global exhibition games were sought, will likely have given FSG some food for thought regarding whether or not to continue their stewardship at Liverpool.
The desire has become less and less to pursue any kind of multi-club model within FSG, with the Reds owners preferring the cost certainty that comes with North American sport, where salary caps and a lack of promotion and relegation, as well as booming media deals and huge audiences mean that although the purchase price to get involved is high, there is tremendous upside that carries with it far less risk than exists in football.
But Liverpool are an outlier in FSG and they become their most prominent and valuable asset that gives them access to revenues outside of the confines of North America in which they had previously exclusively operated. It has also been their most troublesome in terms of failing to read the room and not understanding the traditions of football fandom, especially on Merseyside, something that saw them take major heat for their involvement in the ESL project and other missteps such as the furloughing of staff, trademarking of the Liverpool name and hiking of ticket prices, all things they have had to climb down from in recent years.
Liverpool are, though, a strong part of their business, one that they feel that they can still grow, although how to find the edge in a competition that is likely to become even tougher with the rise of Newcastle United predicted following their takeover by the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund, is something that they will need to find the answer to at a time when Gordon has stepped back, sporting director Michael Edwards has since departed the club and his replacement, Julian Ward, has plans to do the same at the end of this season.
The Reds still have upside for FSG, hence why they present something of a dilemma. Money will need to be spent to compete and it will require a significant outlay with little coming back in return over the next two or three windows to address that, but having access to a global fanbase of hundreds of millions is something that is hard to part with for an ownership group that by its own admission is in "growth mode".
Manchester United are a different story. The Glazers have proven to be among some of the most absent owners in European football, adding to the club's net debt year after year following their leveraged buyout of the club some 17 years ago. While the Red Devils have been heavy spenders in the transfer market, their approach post-Sir Alex Ferguson has been flawed through a lack of strategy, while the Glazers themselves have been able to take out annual dividends totalling hundreds of millions, despite the repeated failures of the club during their tenure.
Now, with little appetite to have to fund the redevelopment of Old Trafford and having seen their own attempts at the ESL and PBP pushed back, with United finding it increasingly difficult to rediscover their former glories and having fallen well behind their local rivals Manchester City both on and off the field, cashing in on an asset they have been detached from for many years, one that still carries enormous value despite the issues it faces both competitively and in terms of the capital needed for infrastructure improvements, is something that holds major appeal to the Glazers.
They have enlisted the help of the Raine Group, the firm who handled the expedited sale of Chelsea earlier this year against a ticking clock following the sanctions placed upon former owner Roman Abramovich by the UK Government that were related to the military invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
Raine were able to drum up enormous interest in a sale and the price was high, albeit the short timeframe meaning that bids had to be strong or risk not making it through the selection process. It has been reported that the Glazers are targeting a Q1 sale of the club in 2023, the first part of the financial year of United as a Plc. There is a desire to hasten their exit and in bringing Raine on board there is a clear sign of that.
There is far less urgency with regards to Liverpool, and there isn't a consensus even that a full sale is what FSG truly want. Sources have also told the ECHO that while many names have been linked, from US private equity to funds in the Middle East, there is little in the way of "real" interest and that nothing has materially changed from the position at the start of November.
FSG's lack of urgency and the Glazers desire to make a swift exit point to the very different approaches of ownership of two of English football's very biggest teams. They may both be willing to listen to offers if the price is right, but the motivation for both is very different.
READ NEXT:
- Arthur Melo agent rubbishes Liverpool rumours and gives surprising injury update
- Pep Guardiola claims Man City 'don't have players' for Liverpool Carabao Cup clash
- Liverpool might have already signed Mohamed Salah replacements for just £3m
- Liverpool 'open to loan deals' as second raid on Juventus after Arthur Melo mooted
