Is it the beginning of the end for the Glazers or the consolidation of their dominance over Manchester United? That’s the key question surrounding Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s £1.3bn acquisition of a 25% stake in the club, and the answer could take years to emerge. The main issue at hand for now is the closure of an “immediate full sale” request made by fan activists over the past 13 months since the Florida family began the “process of exploring strategic alternatives.”
Was a full sale ever realistic? It depends on your belief in Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al-Thani. As the Qatari billionaire pulled out in October, more details of Jim Bowen’s thwarted plans for more clubs in his “what-could-have-won-you-could-win” style have emerged for more clubs than when he was dating. Complaints of a “fanciful and outlandish valuation” featured prominently in the admission that Ratcliffe had “won” the process.
Relating to: Sir Jim Ratcliffe completes deal to buy minority stake in Manchester United
The conclusion from the sources was that acquiring a minority stake was the first step towards overall control and that the final price would be determined by the success of the partnership in the coming years.
Some United fans will never forgive Ratcliffe for allying himself with the Glazers, but again, realism comes into play. What other agreement had to be made? Ratcliffe’s reputation in the business world is as a determined and innovative negotiator who gets things done. A minority stake can wield significant power, as United fans may remember from the club’s plc days two decades ago when Ireland’s Cubic Expression consortium and the Glazers made significant waves.
Ratcliffe will not be the boundless philanthropist, fairy godmother like Sheikh Mansour or Roman Abramovich, but United have always been on their own as a business until current economic headwinds, high inflation and rising interest rates, have pushed debt levels close to £1bn. What former chief executive Ed Woodward once compared to “selling diamonds” is the kind of state government that is probably now outdated, with financial restrictions on Newcastle’s Saudi consortium much tighter than they were during Manchester City’s profligacy and in light of Qatar’s thrifts. it had never needed any associated property. In Paris Saint-Germain.
Ratcliffe and his Ineos team assuming control of the sport suggests some form of executive authority. If the Glazers are loath to use the club as their ATM before they can properly repay the debt their late patriarch Malcolm heaped on the club in 2005, it is United’s sporting failure that has damaged their reign the most. The Glazers’ approval of a £1.5 billion spend on players due to Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement is being used as a palliative measure by a dwindling number of fans, but the accepted fact of the board is that the club has suffered greatly from a lack of management and expertise.
It is a long established fact that even the sharpest business minds can be overwhelmed by the football boardroom. Mike Ashley and Lord Alan Sugar were shrewd operators much appreciated in the retail industry, but they made the mistake of trying to run football clubs Newcastle and Tottenham like their other businesses. Both left football making a profit but making few friends. Adding up totals is not a path to popularity. While both entered football inexperienced, Ratcliffe is many times wealthier financially than Ashley and Sugar and has a history of – although not undisputed – success in the sport.
Critics say the Ineos Grenadiers cycling team is nowhere near as conquering as its rebranded Team Sky, and Sir Ben Ainslie has never captured the America’s Cup under Ineos sails. The fortunes of FC Lausanne in Switzerland and Nice in France are improving, but the latter’s second-place finish in Ligue 1 is promising. There are those who distrust the “marginal gains” of chief advisor Sir Dave Brailsford, but the fact that Ineos runs the sporting side while the Glazers handle the business side bears faint echoes of the Glazers’ early years, when Ferguson was supported by David Gill at United’s football side . and Woodward handled the business side. Even though repeating the successes of that period is a distant dream, it is the end game.
In his previous foray for the Chelsea club in 2022, Ratcliffe bypassed the sale process of Raine, the same group operating for the Glazers, before withdrawing almost as quickly. Further suspicions of opportunism on the part of the self-proclaimed Failsworth-born “best red”? A few Chelsea fans may now wonder how their regime might compare to the winning bid led by Todd Boehly.
As the tender process continued, there was a tendency for United to defend itself against criticism from within. Last season’s achievements were announced as the team fell short of this season’s targets. Mason Greenwood’s conduct and the subsequent accusations made against Antony, which were denied, generated unwanted headlines. CEO Richard Arnold, who experimented with a more open-door policy than his predecessor Woodward, came under heavy criticism and even left his post before the new order was officially established.
Relating to: René Meulensteen: ‘There has been a lot of negative press created at Manchester United’
The arrival of Ratcliffe, who is not one to stay in the background and has reportedly been critical of operations during initial scouting meetings, brings the future of the club’s entire management class into question. His belief in Erik ten Hag is said to be stronger than that of many other United fans, but recent weeks may have changed that. It is highly likely that John Murtough, a low-profile, low-energy director of football, will be on the casualty list.
Ratcliffe’s 25% stake raises many questions, including the split between the Glazer brothers; Who wants to withdraw money, who wants to stay? – now burdensome debt, a complex “A” and “B” capital structure, and an old stadium with a leaky roof. Even a self-made man worth almost £30bn can’t cure all ills, but perhaps his new approach can ease the damp air at Old Trafford. After months of wrangling it became clear that the only credible alternative outcome was the hopelessness of the Glazers retaining complete control.