Worlds 50 biggest sports franchises : surprised not to see liverpool? 1: Manchester United - Value: $1.86 billion 2. Dallas Cowboys - Value: $1.81 billion 3. New York Yankees - Value: $1.7 billion 4. Washington Redskins - $1.5 billion 5. Real Madrid - Value - $1.45 billion 6. New England Patriots - $1.37 billion 7. Arsenal - Value: $1.19 billion 8. New York Giants -Value: $1.18 billion 9. Houston Texans - Value: $1.17 billion 10. New York Jets - Value: $1.14 billion http://blogs.forbes.com/kurtbadenhau...-sports-teams/ Why is it that Liverpool are not on this list considering your global appeal and your massive sponsorship deals, history etc i find it strange Liverpool dont feature at all? The only thing i can think of is that when you were bought for £250 million that was then classed as your worth? but its clear Liverpool are worth more than that in sponsorship alone? I REPEAT this is not a WUM just a genuine question and a question i believe most posters will be interested in too, or atleast let them judge the article on its merits before its deleted and people are not given that chance.
You're looking at the wrong list lad. The worlds top 10 most valuable "football" clubs http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/20/worlds-most-valuable-soccer-teams_slide_10.html We're 9th.
Don't even pretend to be a expert on these kind of things but I imagine that a new Stadium with the extra income it generates would be a big factor.
Page_Moss_Kopite ahh ok i see them on their now, are u surprsied arsenal are above liverpool though i was most certainly.
Arsenal have a smaller global fanbase than Liverpool, its not our fault we were run like a corner shop for 15 years by David Moores.
As you are unaware of the criteria used to prepare these lists, the timeframe upon which they are based , etc., then you are unable to put them into the context of what has happened at Liverpool FC over the last 3 years. Just as you should never merely accept a newspaper headline, you should also be wary of taking such listings as fact.
luvgonzo it sure is, which brings us to the question of what will happen about this, on the pitch liverpool can still compete with the big boys, but revenue streams are being hampered whilst urs still at anfield do you think the owners will dig deep and build a new one as it seems well its been confirmed a redevelopment will not happen?
Foredeckdave FORBES are as concrete a source as any, i dont think anyone doubts the legitamacy of the figures.
i would also say im hugely surprised barcelona are not higher up the list especially comparable to arsenal.
There's a lot of on going talk with regards to this issue and Ayres recently spoke about it. I expect we will now know once it has been decided either way. Anfield is still a good size stadium and brings in a lot of revenue I don't think there is a need to panic.
They valued us at £530m in 2010, which was clearly one of the most ******ed valuations ever. They are not reliable.
Global brand and the list you have nicked from forbes are completley different things. How many people outside of North America have heard of the Houston Texans? Global reach is about where your income comes from, not neccacerily how much. If you're going to use a forbes list (a list which virtually plucks figures from thin air) then you're going to have to go back to the drawing board and come up with something else. Where did they get this $1.86 billion figure from for Manchester United? they owe approx £500m so you have to take that off it's value as you need pay that before buyingthe club. Then Man Utd's estimated profits per year is £100, which is nowhere near the value. The term Value is subjective anyway. I have a signed picture of Fernando Torres and I also have a beutiful picture of my wife from our wedding day, I know which I value more - does that mean a picture of my wife in a white dress has a higher value then a picture of Fernando Torres celebrating in front of the kop?
Now you are being very silly indeed. I did not doubt Forbes ability or to make calculations! Please go back and read my original post. If you still have difficulty in understanding then come back again
Shamelessly borrowed from Jonny C @ RAWK (note: if you don't want to read through all this just scroll to the 3 parts in red). . . . . Ladies & Gentlemen... Meine Damen und Herren ~ Meet Peter J. Schwartz, Paul Maidment and Michael K. Ozanian. . please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image Schwartz..............Maidment..............Ozanian(click)....................(click)....................(click).. These guys are the researcher and two editors at Forbes who came up with that $822M valuation (£515M) of LFC. You know... that same valuation that Hicks is using in his argument to block the sale of the club. I should start out by saying that these guys are journalists, they aren't professional investors or bankers or consultants, and even then some of their "journalism" is down right EMBARRASSINGLY BAD. So for them to even be attempting to come up with expected "valuations" of clubs (let alone publishing those expected "valuations") is a little preposterous. Judging from their backgrounds, Schwartz likely did the grunt work crunching numbers, Ozanian signed off on the valuations, while Maidment probably just slapped his name on there because he was Executive Editor of Forbes.com. I am an institutional investor. I trade equities all day here in NYC and I do so by understanding a company's fundamentals. I've been doing it for a number of years. And one thing that I can tell you is that determining "Valuation" is more Art than Science. I'll give you an example of what I mean by that : [li]Company ABC and Company XYZ are in the same industry[/li] [li]Same revenues[/li] [li]Same profitability[/li] . All things being equal, you would think that both these companies would have the same value. Wrong. It turns out that Company ABC has a valuation of £900M and Company XYZ is valued at £300M. Why the big 3X difference in valuation if the numbers and the make-up for both companies are the same ? Why is Company ABC trading at triple the price-to-sales ratio ? Why is Company ABC trading at triple the price-to-earnings ratio ? This is where the "Art" comes in... [li]It turns out that Company ABC has a killer management team, while Company XYZ's are bottom of the barrel[/li] [li]It also turns out that Company ABC can pay their debts, while Company XYZ can't[/li] . . "Okay", you say... "I get that Company ABC should have a higher valuation because of those factors, but why is it a 3X difference? Why not 2X? Why not 1.5X?" Great Question ! And that is EXACTLY one of the places where these Forbes guys screwed up. They have no concept for the "Art". They don't know how to determine the valuation multiple. At the beginning of the Forbes article, this is what they say about how they are determining these valuations : . please log in to view this image . So what does that highlighted part mean ? It means that they are coming up with their "valuations" based off of the clubs' revenues. They are looking at what the club did in revenues in the previous year, multiplying it by some number and coming up with their current valuation. Sounds simple enough... So what number did they pick to multiply the revenues by ? (pardon my crude chart) . please log in to view this image . How the heck did Forbes come up with a 2.7 price-to-sales multiple for Liverpool ? Well at the beginning of the article they did say "Our team values are calculated using revenue multiples based on historical transactions." Okay fair enough. So let's go back and look at the most recent "historical transaction" for Liverpool. Let's see what revenue multiple Hicks & GG valued the club at in pre-world-wide recession 2007 when they purchased this fine club, which I remind you had basically zero debt at the time. In 2007, Hicks & GG bought Liverpool for £219M. In the 2005/06 season Liverpool had revenues of £122M. That's a price-to-sales multiple of 1.8X. 1.8X ?!? That's a long LONG way from the 2.7X multiplier that the Forbes guys just used. So if Forbes was really basing their multiples on "historical transactions" they would have used a 1.8X price-to-sales multiple. . . Let's see what Forbes' valuation would have been if they used that 1.8X price-to-sales multiple that Hicks & GG used in 2007 when they purchased the club: [li](LFC 08/09 Revenue) X (price-to-sales multiple) = Valuation[/li] [li]($304M) X ( 1.8 ) = Valuation[/li] [li]$547M = Valuation[/li] [li]or converted to pounds £340M[/li] . . And remember that 1.8X multiple was used for a Liverpool club that had ZERO debt at the time, and we just came up with a number that puts the club at £340M. Also remember that 2007 was before any world-wide recession. It was before half of the EU was bankrupt. Tack on the current debt and the fact that the club structure can't pay the debt let alone even the interest payments and do you think that multiple should get bigger or smaller ? That's right, smaller. So it definitely shouldn't be 1.8X. That's too high given the debt, let alone the economy. Should it be 1.5X or 1.2X or even 0.9 ? [li]A 1.5X price-to-sales ratio gets us to a £285M valuation.[/li] [li]A 1.2X price-to-sales ratio gets us to a £225M valuation.[/li] [li]A 0.9X price-to-sales ratio gets us to a £170M valuation.[/li] . . I don't know what the right valuation should be (I haven't done the exercise yet) But the takeaways for us should be : [li]Henry's NESV offer of £300M does not under value the club. If anything it OVER values it by a considerable amount.[/li] [li]These Forbes guys did some bad bad really bad work.[/li] . . Okay, so it's bad enough that they screwed up the "Art" when it comes to determining the multiple...But what is inexcusable is that Forbes didn't even value these clubs using the same criteria... i.e. Forbes forgot to include DEBT in their valuation for some clubs, but included it for others. [li]Guess which club Forbes didn't consider the debt when placing a value on it.... You got it. Liverpool.[/li] . . Here's the fine print from that Forbes article : please log in to view this image . That's just DUMB. Take a look at their valuation table and see what I mean. Normally when you are going to compare things you measure them like-for-like. You don't compare apples to oranges. But that's exactly what Schwartz, Maidment & Ozanian did. I have no problem with Forbes putting out lists like that and taking a stab at the valuations. I enjoy looking at it as much as anyone. But this was just shoddy work. They should really be ashamed. So, more importantly, what does all this mean for Henry, Broughton, Purslow, etc... ? [li]They are going to be able to SHRED Hicks' ludicrous $822M Valuation (£515M), based off of what I highlighted above. The fact that Hicks keeps slinging that Forbes valuation around is going to bite him in the rear-end. He's obviously doing it to sensationally highlight to the press & Courts the big £215M difference in numbers £300M (Henry) vs £515M (Forbes), but in reality that Forbes valuation has no meaning.[/li]
Raaaul, i weould say that about right 500 odd million at that time, we all know hicks and gillete for want of a better word were swindled out of the true value of the club, which was definately well more than 250 million. also how do you do these speach bubble things for past comments would be very handy.
if anyone is intrested in this murdock thing in parliament now he is getting literally torn to shreads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes'_list_of_the_most_valuable_football_clubs#2011_rankings as you can see from 2009 to 2011 our value is halved. The only thing that changed during this time (apart from Champions League football) was the situation with our interest payments and loan deadlines. Since these issues have been rectified i'm not sure why we are left in this situation. #pullingfiguresoutoftheirarses
