I agree, but it is important to remember that the first thing you look at when doing a valuation -- and what trumps everything else by a mile -- is transactions or similar transactions. Any independent valuation tends to give you what could be referred to as "Fair Value". But -- of course depending on the times and climate on the market -- it is extremely common with transactions being made at prices way way above "fair value", and it is those prices that de facto are "market value". Musk bought Twitter for 44m. If you google "What is Twitter worth?", you will find a bunch of people claiming that Twitter is worth 13.3bn or whatever number way below 44bn. If someone asked what Twitter was worth right before Musk bought the company, there was one 100% correct answer, and that was 44bn. If someone said 30bn, they were incorrect by 14bn. The market decides what something's market value is. And when a club like Manchester United plc is sold, the value is what people from time to time is willing to pay for it. Nothing else. The value is never what someone think that someone else should pay for it if they were smart, because that is rarely how the market works.
In addition, lets say that there is a big dispute with some type of connection to the Manchester United plc and in this dispute, the question what Manchester United plc is "worth" becomes relevant, and a claimant and a respondent respectively obtains external "independent" valuations from the best valuation experts available in all of UK, to see one showing that Manchester United plc is worth 1.5bn and the other saying that Manchester United plc is worth 12bn would be more the norm than the exception. You can simply dribble a ton with these valuations if you want to. And in reality, its basically as easy to make a forecast about the future as it is to predict the weather. You are entering a very unsecure field to start with.