What constitutes being a well run club?

[PickledRed]

Following Liverpool’s encouraging financial reports following on-field success, there’s an argument that it’s currently the best run club in world football. theyve traded their way to a dominant position while growing the ‘brand’ hugely off the pitch - see recent Nike deal.

However, there are plenty of clubs who operate very successfully given the confines of their financial situation. Saltzberg, Leipzig, Ajax trade expertly to remain competitive and to sustain financial balance. Bayern and Dortmund are also examples of building and growing from a position of strength based on excellent housekeeping.

City, for all their controversies, can’t be ignored on this one either. They have bought well and seen real results on the pitch.

Thoughts?

 

[golden_blunder]

You know my thoughts, I don’t agree with your assertion that Liverpool are the best at trading. Some of the ones you mentioned already would top them in this

 

[Kag]

Narratives.

Klopp could piss off tomorrow and Liverpool would take a gradual slide back down the table. Their genius transfer gurus would, all of a sudden, go back to receiving all sorts of dog’s abuse.

Poorly run clubs are the ones that go out of business.

 

[PickledRed]

Narratives.

Klopp could piss off tomorrow and Liverpool would take a gradual slide back down the table. Their genius transfer gurus would, all of a sudden, go back to receiving all sorts of dog’s abuse.

Poorly run clubs are the ones that go out of business.

There are gradations to being ‘poorly run’. Doesn’t simply equate to going out of business.

Based on your Klopp point - there’s a chance it goes wrong when he leaves; it’s evident that the scenario you outlined was played out at United. Ferguson was the only manager in 50 years to win the league for the club. Without him it’s a lot tougher. Indeed, were you equally as confident that United would fall behind upon his departure as you are with Klopp?

 

[Kag]

There are gradations to being ‘poorly run’. Doesn’t simply equate to going out of business.

Based on your Klopp point - there’s a chance it goes wrong when he leaves; it’s evident that the scenario you outlined was played out at United. Ferguson was the only manager in 50 years to win the league for the club. Without him it’s a lot tougher. Indeed, were you equally as confident that United would fall behind upon his departure as you are with Klopp?

True. But short term success is often used to quantify being “well-run”. Liverpool is an interesting example, really, because it wasn’t too long ago that (almost) every executive, director and scout was battered from pillar to post. Some of them were probably doing good things. Just like some of the staff at United will be doing good things. A brilliant coach and some clever signings changed that perception.

I don’t think Liverpool would fall back into battles for sixth and seventh upon Klopp’s exit; your squad planning has been admittedly good. But I think you would be weakened, and gradually slip back into battles for top four, alongside the other top clubs in the league.

I don’t mean that as a slant either. Moreso, there’s six ‘big’ clubs in England, as well as the likes of Leicester and Wolves, and two teams are always going to be outside of the top four. This will be somewhat cyclical.

I look at United and I don’t think the running of our club is any worse than it was under Peter Kenyon or David Gill. These eras had their tribulations. We missed out on top players. We “signed” players (Mikel) only to have them stolen from us. We paraded signings on our website only to have them snatched by our biggest rivals (Ramsey and Arsenal). We were involved in tedious transfer sagas that would end up in disappointment (Tevez) and drag until 23:59 on the 31st August (Berbatov). Our club allowed the management to nelgect key positions within the squad for half a decade. Our academy struggled to produce a first team player of note between Darren Fletcher and Marcus Rashford. One of the top quality players we did bring through (Pique) was sold for a few magic beans. He wasn’t the only cheap sale; I mean, Ferguson would sell lads to Everton for pennies because he wanted to do them a favour. Imagine that now? Off the field, the club didn’t even have a social media platform (which is big money now) until 2013. I could go on, really.

Most of this discussion was (quite rightly) muffled, or met with a lot more rationality than discussion surrounding the club right now, primarily because the one man holding the football altogether was a genius.

There’s a general perception that United was the perfect embodiment of how football clubs should be run, or how they should be. It never was. It was a combination of many things, but most of all, it was the will of Alex Ferguson, the explosion of the Premier League windfall and a keen eye for talent.

 

[PickledRed]

True. But short term success is often used to quantify being “well-run”. Liverpool is an interesting example, really, because it wasn’t too long ago that (almost) every executive, director and scout was battered from pillar to post. Some of them were probably doing good things. Just like some of the staff at United will be doing good things. A brilliant coach and some clever signings changed that perception.

I don’t think Liverpool would fall back into battles for sixth and seventh upon Klopp’s exit; your squad planning has been admittedly good. But I think you would be weakened, and gradually slip back into battles for top four, alongside the other top clubs in the league.

I don’t mean that as a slant either. Moreso, there’s six ‘big’ clubs in England, as well as the likes of Leicester and Wolves, and two teams are always going to be outside of the top four. This will be somewhat cyclical.

I look at United and I don’t think the running of our club is any worse than it was under Peter Kenyon or David Gill. These eras had their tribulations. We missed out on top players. We “signed” players (Mikel) only to have them stolen from us. We paraded signings on our website only to have them snatched by our biggest rivals (Ramsey and Arsenal). We were involved in tedious transfer sagas that would end up in disappointment (Tevez) and drag until 23:59 on the 31st August (Berbatov). Our club allowed the management to nelgect key positions within the squad for half a decade. Our academy struggled to produce a first team player of note between Darren Fletcher and Marcus Rashford. One of the top quality players we did bring through (Pique) was sold for a few magic beans. He wasn’t the only cheap sale; I mean, Ferguson would sell lads to Everton for pennies because he wanted to do them a favour. Imagine that now? Off the field, the club didn’t even have a social media platform (which is big money now) until 2013. I could go on, really.

Most of this discussion was (quite rightly) muffled, or met with a lot more rationality than discussion surrounding the club right now, primarily because the one man holding the football altogether was a genius.

There’s a general perception that United was the perfect embodiment of how football clubs should be run, or how they should be. It never was. It was a combination of many things, but most of all, it was the will of Alex Ferguson, the explosion of the Premier League windfall and a keen eye for talent.

An interesting take on United. I appreciate that cracks can be covered up with on-field success as a distraction. I may be being naive but the issues you outlined under Ferguson don’t seem to be prevalent right now at Liverpool. Klopp is a key cog but the business and recruitment side appear faultless currently.

 

[Kag]

An interesting take on United. I appreciate that cracks can be covered up with on-field success as a distraction. I may be being naive but the issues you outlined under Ferguson don’t seem to be prevalent right now at Liverpool. Klopp is a key cog but the business and recruitment side appear faultless currently.

In fairness, I would agree that you are in a better position than United were upon Ferguson’s retirement. My angle with this chat is to highlight that any issues that might be present, usually only rear their heads with such ferocity when the team starts to struggle.

 

[Dolf]

There are gradations to being ‘poorly run’. Doesn’t simply equate to going out of business.

Based on your Klopp point - there’s a chance it goes wrong when he leaves; it’s evident that the scenario you outlined was played out at United. Ferguson was the only manager in 50 years to win the league for the club. Without him it’s a lot tougher. Indeed, were you equally as confident that United would fall behind upon his departure as you are with Klopp?

It wasn't just Fergie that left though.
Honestly i think that Liverpool is being kept together by 3 key players and Klopp.

 

[PickledRed]

It wasn't just Fergie that left though.
Honestly i think that Liverpool is being kept together by 3 key players and Klopp.

Are Klopp and the three key players responsible for the exponential financial growth, groundbreaking kit deal and stadium expansion?

 

[Mogget]

Did you only make this thread to brag about how well run Liverpool seem to be?

 

[Dolf]

Are Klopp and the three key players responsible for the exponential financial growth, groundbreaking kit deal and stadium expansion?

Yes. When a club like Liverpool returns to glory by winning the CL and PL while also playing (mostly) exciting football then obviously the finances will grow. Expanding a stadium is something many clubs do when they've got the money and fans. It's all something Woodward could have done and probably will do if we ever win the CL and PL again.

 

[Dec9003]

Did you only make this thread to brag about how well run Liverpool seem to be?

They do it all the time mate, then they get overly defensive if you disagree with the propaganda.

 

[do.ob]

Are Klopp and the three key players responsible for the exponential financial growth, groundbreaking kit deal and stadium expansion?

Success on the pitch = more (enthusiastic) fans / higher sponsoring appeal and more TV/competition payouts. That's hardly rocket science. Dortmund experienced the same when Klopp worked there and I'm sure Mainz as well, given he got them promoted to the first division. A football club's product is football. If that product is of a great quality they sell more of it. Being a well run football club is like 80% appointing the right coaches and signing the right players. Sponsors and fans are just a consequence of that.

 

[golden_blunder]

Are Klopp and the three key players responsible for the exponential financial growth, groundbreaking kit deal and stadium expansion?

In a nutshell, yes. Success breeds money.

 

[Rozay]

Narratives.

Klopp could piss off tomorrow and Liverpool would take a gradual slide back down the table. Their genius transfer gurus would, all of a sudden, go back to receiving all sorts of dog’s abuse.

Poorly run clubs are the ones that go out of business.

100% this for me. Narrative is becoming increasingly powerful in the game.

 

[dal]

Profit

 

[africanspur]

Are Klopp and the three key players responsible for the exponential financial growth, groundbreaking kit deal and stadium expansion?

Liverpool have remained one of the best supported clubs in the world, as well as most commercially successful, in the last 15 or so years despite not having won anything of note. Even when you were finishing 8th, it isn't like you had slipped down the finance tables, the club was still a heavy hitter.

Similar to how Man Utd could go through another decade of non success and still have a huge global fanbase.

It isn't exactly rocket science that, once you actually start winning big trophies again, you can tap onto that huge fanbase and it's appeal and build much greater commercial deals.

Liverpool are obviously currently very well run.

In different ways, so are Dortmund, Bayern, Leicester, Wolves, Spurs, Atlético etc.

All clubs doing different things with different aims.

Plus I'm not really sure you can say a 'club' is well run until you maintain what you're doing across more than one manager. Until then, how can you say what is the manager and what is the general structure of the club?

 

[Wumminator]

Literally it is about who is top at the time.
Liverpool announced a kit deal years ago (with warrior?) that eclipsed ours. Fact is, they’ll always have the massive kit deals because they’re a massive club. They bought players with a massive upside (Salah, Mane and Firmino) for relatively cheap and sold another player for incredible money (Coutinho). The way they run the club isn’t amazing or revolutionary, they have good players who are worth more than they signed. However, Klopp didn’t initially want Salah and the Van Dijk move collapsed initially because Liverpool fecked up the transfer fee.
In a few years they will struggle to replace these players. Liverpool have never had massive amounts of money in terms of what they spend and as a result they will fall back down the pecking order. The focus will shift to “they’re a poor club” when in reality nothing will change.

look at United. The Glazers and Woodward get a load of stick. Despite them spending hundreds of millions and having a massive wage budget. But the players we signed were just not good enough. You can’t always predict this. City and us wanted Sanchez. They’re a “well run” club and we aren’t.We got him and he turned shite.

 

[Zen86]

Being classed as a well run club for the masses is down to nothing more than buying well and being successful in the pitch, relatively speaking. Liverpool have achieved both of these, but it won’t last long.

 

[Skills]

The ratio of money invested and the success achieved (success is not just winning, it's also being competitive)

Or in the mind of Utd fans, the number of managers a club has had. There are many in our fanbase who are convinced that real Madrid are a poorly run club.

 

[RedRonaldo]

The most well run club in the world is Man Utd during Fergie era

The worst run club in the world is Man Utd during post Fergie Era

 

[TheReligion]

Following Liverpool’s encouraging financial reports following on-field success, there’s an argument that it’s currently the best run club in world football. theyve traded their way to a dominant position while growing the ‘brand’ hugely off the pitch - see recent Nike deal.

However, there are plenty of clubs who operate very successfully given the confines of their financial situation. Saltzberg, Leipzig, Ajax trade expertly to remain competitive and to sustain financial balance. Bayern and Dortmund are also examples of building and growing from a position of strength based on excellent housekeeping.

City, for all their controversies, can’t be ignored on this one either. They have bought well and seen real results on the pitch.

Thoughts?

Being turned over by relegation fodder 3-0.

 

[The Boy]

I know I am biased but I think Brighton constitute a well run club. We have a chairman who is involved and is a boyhood fan. Yes we’re in debt to him but they are interest free loans. We have a new stadium bout to budget, world class training facilities also built to budget. But most importantly a manager, chairman and DoF who are all pulling in the same direction.

 

[Flexdegea]

more liverpool love in nonsense.


Clearly everything running so smooth for them at the moment but massive factor is the manager for all this bringing the success in and top recruiting. They are currently sitting with a squad worth a lot of value if they wanted to move players on and recruit fresh talent in to keep it moving.



But things move fast in football, and it's mostly short term. In a year or 2 the apparently amazing off field deals they are striking could be dwarfed by other clubs, the manager could be gone and the recruitment could start dropping off.


At the moment united are seen to be running badly, but they are still a monster on the commercial side and come a years time could be a team full of talent all worth a fortune and could potentially be on the up on the field........which means they be classed as well run again.


Basically on field success determines the majority of the narrative around this.

 

[Lentwood]

United since December 2018

 

[PickledRed]

Being classed as a well run club for the masses is down to nothing more than buying well and being successful in the pitch, relatively speaking. Liverpool have achieved both of these, but it won’t last long

Why?

The financial reports are incredibly strong.

 

[PickledRed]

Being turned over by relegation fodder 3-0.

Touché

 

[Zen86]

Why?

The financial reports are incredibly strong.

You’ve had a purple patch where everything has just gone right, it’s downhill from this season for you.

 

[PickledRed]

You’ve had a purple patch where everything has just gone right, it’s downhill from this season for you.

Is it? Okay.

I wonder if ill-placed triumphalism amongst certain parts of United's support will be replaced with a reality check at some point.

 

[RoyH1]

The best run club in the big leagues for me is Athletic Bilbao. Stadium, economy, on field results. What they do year after year with the limitations imposed on them by their only Basques philosophy is mind boggling.

In the PL I think Leicester is the best run club taking everything surrounding them into account.

Liverpool’s success is too dependent on Klopp. If he leaves, how would the clubs scouting and purchase of players be like? I’m not sure that top to bottom, Liverpool is as well run as some people think. They have an amazing manager and good ownership though.

 

[Ludens the Red]

True. But short term success is often used to quantify being “well-run”. Liverpool is an interesting example, really, because it wasn’t too long ago that (almost) every executive, director and scout was battered from pillar to post. Some of them were probably doing good things. Just like some of the staff at United will be doing good things. A brilliant coach and some clever signings changed that perception.

I don’t think Liverpool would fall back into battles for sixth and seventh upon Klopp’s exit; your squad planning has been admittedly good. But I think you would be weakened, and gradually slip back into battles for top four, alongside the other top clubs in the league.

I don’t mean that as a slant either. Moreso, there’s six ‘big’ clubs in England, as well as the likes of Leicester and Wolves, and two teams are always going to be outside of the top four. This will be somewhat cyclical.

I look at United and I don’t think the running of our club is any worse than it was under Peter Kenyon or David Gill. These eras had their tribulations. We missed out on top players. We “signed” players (Mikel) only to have them stolen from us. We paraded signings on our website only to have them snatched by our biggest rivals (Ramsey and Arsenal). We were involved in tedious transfer sagas that would end up in disappointment (Tevez) and drag until 23:59 on the 31st August (Berbatov). Our club allowed the management to nelgect key positions within the squad for half a decade. Our academy struggled to produce a first team player of note between Darren Fletcher and Marcus Rashford. One of the top quality players we did bring through (Pique) was sold for a few magic beans. He wasn’t the only cheap sale; I mean, Ferguson would sell lads to Everton for pennies because he wanted to do them a favour. Imagine that now? Off the field, the club didn’t even have a social media platform (which is big money now) until 2013. I could go on, really.

Most of this discussion was (quite rightly) muffled, or met with a lot more rationality than discussion surrounding the club right now, primarily because the one man holding the football altogether was a genius.

There’s a general perception that United was the perfect embodiment of how football clubs should be run, or how they should be. It never was. It was a combination of many things, but most of all, it was the will of Alex Ferguson, the explosion of the Premier League windfall and a keen eye for talent.

Great post. Applies to a lot of clubs. This is why I’ve personally always winced at all the talk on here about us following the city model. As if it’s gospel.

 

[Amerifan]

True. But short term success is often used to quantify being “well-run”. Liverpool is an interesting example, really, because it wasn’t too long ago that (almost) every executive, director and scout was battered from pillar to post. Some of them were probably doing good things. Just like some of the staff at United will be doing good things. A brilliant coach and some clever signings changed that perception.

I don’t think Liverpool would fall back into battles for sixth and seventh upon Klopp’s exit; your squad planning has been admittedly good. But I think you would be weakened, and gradually slip back into battles for top four, alongside the other top clubs in the league.

I don’t mean that as a slant either. Moreso, there’s six ‘big’ clubs in England, as well as the likes of Leicester and Wolves, and two teams are always going to be outside of the top four. This will be somewhat cyclical.

I look at United and I don’t think the running of our club is any worse than it was under Peter Kenyon or David Gill. These eras had their tribulations. We missed out on top players. We “signed” players (Mikel) only to have them stolen from us. We paraded signings on our website only to have them snatched by our biggest rivals (Ramsey and Arsenal). We were involved in tedious transfer sagas that would end up in disappointment (Tevez) and drag until 23:59 on the 31st August (Berbatov). Our club allowed the management to nelgect key positions within the squad for half a decade. Our academy struggled to produce a first team player of note between Darren Fletcher and Marcus Rashford. One of the top quality players we did bring through (Pique) was sold for a few magic beans. He wasn’t the only cheap sale; I mean, Ferguson would sell lads to Everton for pennies because he wanted to do them a favour. Imagine that now? Off the field, the club didn’t even have a social media platform (which is big money now) until 2013. I could go on, really.

Most of this discussion was (quite rightly) muffled, or met with a lot more rationality than discussion surrounding the club right now, primarily because the one man holding the football altogether was a genius.

There’s a general perception that United was the perfect embodiment of how football clubs should be run, or how they should be. It never was. It was a combination of many things, but most of all, it was the will of Alex Ferguson, the explosion of the Premier League windfall and a keen eye for talent.

This is a very intelligent post. When a club is doing well all manner of mistakes are downplayed, ignored, or forgotten. When a club is failing to live up to expectation, everything is under a microscope.

 

[redman5]

True. But short term success is often used to quantify being “well-run”. Liverpool is an interesting example, really, because it wasn’t too long ago that (almost) every executive, director and scout was battered from pillar to post. Some of them were probably doing good things. Just like some of the staff at United will be doing good things. A brilliant coach and some clever signings changed that perception.

I don’t think Liverpool would fall back into battles for sixth and seventh upon Klopp’s exit; your squad planning has been admittedly good. But I think you would be weakened, and gradually slip back into battles for top four, alongside the other top clubs in the league.

I don’t mean that as a slant either. Moreso, there’s six ‘big’ clubs in England, as well as the likes of Leicester and Wolves, and two teams are always going to be outside of the top four. This will be somewhat cyclical.

I look at United and I don’t think the running of our club is any worse than it was under Peter Kenyon or David Gill. These eras had their tribulations. We missed out on top players. We “signed” players (Mikel) only to have them stolen from us. We paraded signings on our website only to have them snatched by our biggest rivals (Ramsey and Arsenal). We were involved in tedious transfer sagas that would end up in disappointment (Tevez) and drag until 23:59 on the 31st August (Berbatov). Our club allowed the management to nelgect key positions within the squad for half a decade. Our academy struggled to produce a first team player of note between Darren Fletcher and Marcus Rashford. One of the top quality players we did bring through (Pique) was sold for a few magic beans. He wasn’t the only cheap sale; I mean, Ferguson would sell lads to Everton for pennies because he wanted to do them a favour. Imagine that now? Off the field, the club didn’t even have a social media platform (which is big money now) until 2013. I could go on, really.

Most of this discussion was (quite rightly) muffled, or met with a lot more rationality than discussion surrounding the club right now, primarily because the one man holding the football altogether was a genius.

There’s a general perception that United was the perfect embodiment of how football clubs should be run, or how they should be. It never was. It was a combination of many things, but most of all, it was the will of Alex Ferguson, the explosion of the Premier League windfall and a keen eye for talent.

That general perception related to most United fans in the early post Ferguson days, when, because of United's great financial strength, many believed it would be business as usual even without the most successful manager of all time at the helm. I agree that success comes from having the right manager in place. History shows that's always been the case. Be interested to know how you thought things would pan out after he called it day back 2013 ? Did you envisage such a fall ? Especially, as you say, during Ferguson's tenure, United were seen as the blueprint as to how a football club should be run.

 

[passing-wind]

I wouldn't say Liverpool are fortunate but when you consider the signings etc I think Klopp is more relevant to the club's success as opposed to the structure that he's operating in. Mane / Salah were coached to an absolute success having not shown remotely the same level at Southampton / Roma, look at Robertson, Trent, Gomes all I see are players who have excelled under Klopp's tenure which is a huge credit to him not necessarily the club.

I think if you take Klopp out the equation then Liverpool will begin to suffer competitively over a sustained period. While Chelsea / City are not the biggest clubs in terms of commercial viability they have to be some of the best run because often there success isn't predicated on who's in charge, they seem to have a successful model with chopping and changing managers, so you could say that the board have a good prospectus in what they see in managers to then provide the resources for them to succeed.

If 2-3 managers down the line we are still holding Liverpool in the same regard to the present then by all means you can factor it down to being a "more than the manager" circumstance.

 

[VeevaVee]

Nike bought into the hype. Maybe it's worth it because they're obviously getting a lot of attention at the moment, but I doubt they'll have a similar record next season, nevermind in a few. Are they worth all that money when they stop winning so often? They're already not playing the scintillating football they did. Throw in one or two key players potentially thinking they've done it in the PL and wanting to move on and they could fall back very easily, not to mention Klopp has already talked about not being around for the long term.

That being said, they do seem well run. But then it's easy to say that when they're doing well. If a few signings had gone better for us there wouldn't be half the talk of how badly run we are and I imagine even some praise for the commercial side of things.

 

[Zen86]

Is it? Okay.

I wonder if ill-placed triumphalism amongst certain parts of United's support will be replaced with a reality check at some point.

Don’t worry, there will be a few reality checks in the next couple of years

 

[Blackwidow]

I do not think well-run-club is only about big clubs - there is a lot clubs that have limited chances because of their size and their place of location that far exceed that with their performances over long periods - and others that do not.
In Germany we have clubs like Freiburg and Augsburg who are one of the first - and clubs like Hamburg or Stuttgart with the best situations that fail in that aspect.

 

[GazTheLegend]

Is it? Okay.

I wonder if ill-placed triumphalism amongst certain parts of United's support will be replaced with a reality check at some point.

Mate literally 2 years ago we finished ahead of you

That's the thing about football, you're only as good as your last result. It's rare to see fans trying to actually think long term and see the bigger picture to be fair - I try to and a lot of my old Trafford going mates have tried to be extremely patient because we have a young team and we are apparently finally trying to bring ourselves into the 21st century

But I don't think Liverpool are particularly well run. Just a brilliant first eleven and a brilliant manager (and a great support at Anfield, in a time where the new stadiums don't feel like they give teams the edge they used to in home games).

We rip the shit out of Liverpool for all the "next year is our year" bullshit you've all been guilty of, but the truth is that football is 75% recruitment and maybe 25% 'other'. You wouldn't be saying Liverpool are well run if you came 6th.

So apparently you're a well run club if you finish top of the league.

 

[PickledRed]

Mate literally 2 years ago we finished ahead of you

That's the thing about football, you're only as good as your last result. It's rare to see fans trying to actually think long term and see the bigger picture to be fair - I try to and a lot of my old Trafford going mates have tried to be extremely patient because we have a young team and we are apparently finally trying to bring ourselves into the 21st century

But I don't think Liverpool are particularly well run. Just a brilliant first eleven and a brilliant manager (and a great support at Anfield, in a time where the new stadiums don't feel like they give teams the edge they used to in home games).

We rip the shit out of Liverpool for all the "next year is our year" bullshit you've all been guilty of, but the truth is that football is 75% recruitment and maybe 25% 'other'. You wouldn't be saying Liverpool are well run if you came 6th.

So apparently you're a well run club if you finish top of the league.

I fully understand that clubs are beholden to on-field success which relies on strong recruitment and good coaching. These things are certainly in place for Liverpool.

But to say: "I don't think Liverpool are particularly well run" is just ill-informed fan-speak. It's possibly anecdotal, but I heard a journalist (possibly Jonathan Northcroft) suggest that United want to follow the 'Liverpool model' - imagine suggesting such a thing a few years ago. And why wouldn't United be doing this? It makes sense - they definitely need a DOF and a strong CEO - they have neither and Liverpool have both.

In terms of finances, the picture is interesting for Liverpool and reflects a longer-term intent to grow the brand exponentially. The commercial activity is allowing the club to close the gap on United to a level that would have been laughed at 18 months ago. If United fail again to get into the CL then the two club's turnovers will be pretty similar in 12 months time plus Liverpool aren't servicing a debt on the scale of United's.

Of course on-field fortunes can wax and wane, but the fact is that Liverpool are being very well run off the pitch as is backed up by the likes of Kieran Maguire and his ilk.

 

[PickledRed]

Don’t worry, there will be a few reality checks in the next couple of years

When do you get yours?