Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the petrochemicals billionaire, is contemplating buying a minority stake in Manchester United Football Club rather than seeking full control, in an effort to end a nearly 10 months-long process to resolve the club’s future ownership.
Sky News has learnt Sir Jim’s Ineos Sports vehicle has proposed to the controlling Glazer family a deal that would see it acquiring chunks of both their shares and the stock publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in equal proportion.
That offer would entail making an offer at the same price for both sets of shares, with one suggestion on Monday evening being that Sir Jim could seek a roughly 25% stake in the club as part of his latest proposal.
It would need to be pitched at a valuation that the Glazers would accept, implying that Ineos Sports could spend in the region of £1.5bn if it was to acquire a quarter of United’s shares – based on earlier reports that they were seeking a minimum valuation of £6bn.
If such a deal was to be implemented, however, the Glazers would almost certainly remain in control at Old Trafford, having taken control of the club in 2005.
Image: Sir Jim Ratcliffe could seek a 25% stake in the club as part of his latest proposal
That would anger United supporters who have been vocal in their opposition to the family’s continued ownership, and would in turn raise a series of further questions about the club’s future.
On the pitch, the men’s team has had an indifferent start to the 2023-24 campaign, being beaten at home by Crystal Palace in the Premier League last weekend, and losing their first Champions League fixture of the season.
More from UK
One uncertainty on Monday evening related to the extent to which the Glazers and their advisers at Raine Group were engaged with Sir Jim on his minority stake proposal.
The family, who paid just under £800m in 2005, has remained inscrutable throughout the process and has said nothing of substance to the NYSE since the process of engaging with prospective buyers kicked off last November.
Advertisement
Another would be whether an offer to bring Sir Jim in as a major shareholder would raise any new capital to invest in the club, which is working towards a major renovation of Old Trafford.
The structure of an offer to acquire a minority stake is also unclear, with one analyst suggesting it could be undertaken through a process known as a tender offer.
Bloomberg News reported last week that Ineos was looking to restructure its bid without specifying details of how this would be achieved.
Some holders of the publicly traded stock – called A shares – have raised concerns about Sir Jim’s previous proposals, which focused on acquiring a majority stake in the club by buying shares from the six Glazer siblings who own the class of B shares which carry disproportionate voting rights.
Another uncertainty would centre on whether a minority deal, if agreed and implemented, would give Ineos Sports an eventual path to full control of Manchester United.
Sky News revealed in May that its offer at the time included put-and-call arrangements that would become exercisable three years after a takeover to enable Sir Jim to acquire the remainder of the club’s shares.
The Monaco-based billionaire, who owns the Ligue 1 side Nice, had been focused on gaining control of Manchester United, meaning that switching his offer to a minority deal would represent a significant shift.
He is still understood to want to buy a majority stake but has pitched a restructured deal in an attempt to unblock the ongoing impasse over United’s future.
An Ineos spokesperson declined to comment on Monday, citing the terms of the non-disclosure agreement the bidders had signed as part of the process.
For months, Ineos has been pitched in a two-way battle for control of Manchester United against Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al-Thani, a Qatari businessman who chairs the Gulf state’s Qatar Islamic Bank.
Sheikh Jassim’s bid is reported to remain on the table, and the convoluted nature of the strategic review initiated by the Glazers late last year means that a revised proposal from the Middle East cannot entirely be ruled out.
The club’s executive co-chairmen, Avram and Joel Glazer, have been reported during the course of the process to be more reluctant to sell than their siblings.
In addition to the competing bids from Sir Jim and Sheikh Jassim, the Glazers received several credible offers for minority stakes or financing to fund investment in the club.
Image: Avram Glazer is the club’s co-executive chairman
These include an offer from the giant American financial investor Carlyle; Elliott Management, the American hedge fund which until recently owned AC Milan; Ares Management Corporation, a US-based alternative investment group; and Sixth Street, which recently bought a 25% stake in the long-term La Liga broadcasting rights to FC Barcelona.
These were designed to provide capital to overhaul United’s ageing physical infrastructure.
Part of the Glazers’ justification for attaching such a huge valuation to the club resides in the possibility of it gaining greater control in future of its lucrative broadcast rights, alongside a belief that arguably the world’s most famous sports brand can be commercially exploited more effectively.
United’s New York-listed shares have gyrated wildly in recent months as reports have suggested that either a deal is close or that the Glazers were about to formally cancel the sale process.
On Monday, they were trading at around $19.43, giving the club a market valuation of $3.25bn.
Earlier this year, Manchester United’s largest fans’ group, the Manchester United Supporters Trust, called for the conclusion of the auction “without further delay”.
The Glazers’ tenure has been dogged by controversy and protests, with the lack of a Premier League title since Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement as manager in 2013 fuelling fans’ anger at the debt-fuelled nature of their takeover.
Image: Manchester United fans want the Glazer family to sell the club
Fury at its participation in the ill-fated European Super League crystallised supporters’ desire for new owners to replace the Glazers.
Confirming the launch of the strategic review in November, Avram and Joel Glazer said: “The strength of Manchester United rests on the passion and loyalty of our global community of 1.1bn fans and followers.
“We will evaluate all options to ensure that we best serve our fans and that Manchester United maximizes the significant growth opportunities available to the club today and in the future.”
The Glazers listed a minority stake in the company in New York in 2012 but retained overwhelming control through a dual-class share structure which means they hold almost all voting rights.
“Love United, Hate Glazers” has become a familiar refrain during their tenure, with supporters critical of a perceived lack of investment in the club, even as the owners have reaped large dividends as a result of its continued profitability.
A Manchester United spokesman declined to comment on Monday.
Russian oligarchs with links to the Kremlin can now be banned from the UK, the government has announced as part of a fresh sanctions package on the third anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
The Home Office said “elites” linked to the Russian state can now be prevented from entering the UK under the new sanctions.
Those who could be banned include anyone who provides “significant support” to the Kremlin, those who owe their “significant status or wealth” to the Russian state, and those “who enjoy access to the highest levels” of the regime.
The announcement has been timed to coincide with the three-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Another set of sanctions is expected from the Foreign Office on Monday.
Security minister Dan Jarvis said: “Border security is national security, and we will use all the tools at our disposal to protect our country against the threat from Russia.
“The measures announced today slam the door shut to the oligarchs who have enriched themselves at the expense of the Russian people whilst bankrolling this illegal and unjustifiable war.
More on Russia
Related Topics:
“My message to Putin’s friends in Moscow is simple: you are not welcome in the UK.”
The UK government said Kremlin-linked elites can pose a “real and present danger to our way of life” as they denounce British values in public “while enjoying the benefits of the UK in private”.
It said they can act as “tools” for the Russian state to enable President Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and beyond.
Shortly after the war in Ukraine started on 24 February 2022, the UK imposed financial sanctions on oligarchs, including closing legal loopholes used to launder money.
In November last year, Operation Destabilise, run by the National Crime Agency (NCA), successfully disrupted two billion-dollar Russian money laundering networks operating around the world, including in the UK which was a key hub.
They provided services to Russian oligarchs and were helping fund Kremlin espionage operations.
Image: Ekatarina Zhdanova is said to have run a money laundering network called Smart that has been shut down. Pic: NCA
One of the key players was identified as Ekaterina Zhdanova who is alleged to have run a money laundering network called Smart. She was sanctioned by the US in November last year and is currently in French custody awaiting a trial.
A total of 84 arrests were made under Operation Destabilise in November and more than £20m in illicit funds seized.
The NCA has made a further six arrests since then and seized £1m more in case.
The networks also helped Russian clients to illegally bypass financial restrictions to invest money in the UK.
US officials have been in talks with their Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia over the future of Ukraine for the past week.
However, neither Ukraine nor any European country was at the table, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy saying he will not accept any peace deal Kyiv is not involved in.
Sir Keir Starmer has backed Mr Zelenskyy on that so all eyes will be on the prime minister when he visits Mr Trump in Washington DC this week.
Just Eat Takeaway.com has agreed a takeover by a Dutch-based technology investor which says it wants to create a “European champion” for food delivery.
Prosus, which already has a 28% stake in global rival Delivery Hero, said its all-cash offer valued Just Eat at €4.1bn (£3.4bn).
It represented €20.3 euros per share on the Amsterdam exchange – a 22% premium on the highest value of its stock over the past three months.
Just Eat said the offer was unanimously supported by its management and board.
Europe’s biggest meal delivery firm also confirmed that its current leadership would remain in place under the agreement while it would continue to be based in Amsterdam.
More from Money
It made the announcement alongside annual results that showed a 35% rise in pre-tax profits during 2024 to €460m (£382m).
Just Eat said the performance was driven by an improvement in its key UK and Ireland market, mainly due to lower costs of fulfilling orders and more efficient marketing.
Prosus said of its Just Eat plans: “Its success within the United Kingdom, Germany and The Netherlands, has led to profitable, cash generative operations, with considerable growth potential, which Prosus intends to build upon.
“As a leading global food delivery investor and operator, with a proven track record in successfully scaling ecommerce platforms, Prosus is well positioned to invest in and accelerate growth at Just Eat Takeaway.com to unlock value beyond its standalone potential as a listed business.
“Prosus’s highly effective growth strategy at iFood, in Brazil, provides a ready guide to transform Just Eat Takeaway.com’s growth path through renewed focus across tech, product features, demand generation, offer quality and service.”
Fabricio Bloisi, its chief executive, added: “Prosus already has an extensive food delivery portfolio outside of Europe and a proven track record of profitable growth through investment in our customer and driver experiences, restaurant partnerships, and world-class logistics, powered by innovation and AI.
“We believe that combining Prosus’s strong technical and investment capabilities with Just Eat Takeaway.com’s leading brand position in key European markets will create significant value for our customers, drivers, partners, and shareholders.”
Britain’s payments watchdog is expected to be abolished as part of a purge of regulators being thrashed out in Whitehall.
Sky News has learnt that ministers and officials are examining whether to scrap the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) and fold it into the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
A decision is expected to be taken in principle within weeks, although sources indicated this weekend that the government was “actively considering” a decision to scrap the body.
If confirmed, it would form part of a crackdown on Britain’s economic regulators instigated by Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, and Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, as they seek to cut red tape and stimulate economic growth.
The chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), Marcus Bokkerink, was ousted by ministers last month amid concerns that it was paying too little heed to UK competitiveness.
Mr Bokkerink was replaced by Doug Gurr, a former Amazon executive.
Since then, both the chair and chief executive of the Financial Ombudsman Service have announced plans to step down.
More from UK
Speaking in January, Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, signalled that a number of watchdogs could be abolished, saying: “We’ve got to genuinely ask ourselves the question: have we got the right number of regulators?”
He did not publicly identify which of them could be axed, although the Financial Times reported this week that the chancellor would order an audit of roughly 130 regulators across the economy to assess whether they were sufficiently focused on growth.
On Christmas Eve, the PM and chancellor wrote to about 15 major regulators – including Ofcom, Ofgem and Ofwat – demanding ideas for how to remove bureaucracy from the economy and more proactively encourage growth.
Ms Reeves has since held a number of roundtable discussions with the recipients of the letter.
The PSR employs roughly 160 people, according to its website, and is directly accountable to parliament.
It was created under the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, and became operational two years later.
The body, which is accountable to parliament, has been criticised by industry and politicians over its regulatory approach, including in relation to fraud reimbursement by financial services firms.
Nevertheless, its function is regarded as critical as technology reshapes the global payments industry.
David Geale, the interim managing director of the PSR, has been in post since last summer.
The watchdog is chaired by Aidene Walsh, a former boss of the financial wellbeing charity, the Fairbanking Foundation.
Sheldon Mills, the FCA’s executive director, consumers and competition, also sits on the PSR board.
One source said scrapping the PSR and folding it into the FCA would make sense for several reasons, including the questions over its performance.
“No other major economy has a standalone payments regulator like this, and it is hard to make the case for it continuing to exist,” the source said this weekend.
The Treasury declined to comment, while the PSR did not respond to an emailed enquiry on Saturday morning.