Sir Jim Ratcliffe is to commit $300m (£245m) from his multibillion pound fortune to Manchester United Football Club’s ageing infrastructure as part of a deal to acquire a 25% stake that will be unveiled this month.
Sky News can exclusively reveal that Sir Jim, founder of the Ineos petrochemicals empire, will pledge the investment alongside the acquisition of a shareholding likely to be worth more than £1.25bn.
Sources said on Friday that the £245m investment would be staggered, with the bulk of it being handed to the club by the end of the year.
They added that it would be financed by Sir Jim personally and would not add to Manchester United’s existing borrowings.
Sir Jim’s purchase of a 25% stake in the Red Devils – first revealed by Sky News last month – will come almost exactly a year after the Glazer family, which has controlled the club since 2005, began formally exploring a sale.
Adding together the cost of the stock purchase and the other capital for investment means that Sir Jim will be committing about £1.5bn on day one of his United interest, although that figure could vary depending on the price he ultimately pays for the shares.
After months of negotiations with several potential buyers, including the Qatari businessman Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al-Thani, the British billionaire’s acquisition of a minority stake has emerged as the Glazers’ preferred option.
Image: Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al-Thani
Pic:QIB
The deal is expected to be announced within a fortnight, although negotiations between Sir Jim’s team and the Glazers are ongoing, meaning that the timetable for an announcement remains subject to change.
One source close to the talks said the additional $300m investment would be focused on United’s physical infrastructure, and not on addressing deficiencies on the playing side of the club.
Advertisement
The men’s first team has been plunged into crisis after successive 3-0 home defeats in the Premier League by Manchester City, and then by Newcastle United in the Carabao Cup.
Manager Erik Ten Hag is facing intense pressure to turn United’s season around, with a Premier League visit to Fulham this weekend followed by a crucial Champions League game at FC Copenhagen next Wednesday.
The incremental sum to be pledged by Sir Jim will address the concerns of observers who have questioned whether Manchester United will benefit from new investment in Old Trafford, which has fallen well behind the stadia of rivals such as Arsenal, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur.
However, United’s home is likely to need far more than £245m to deliver the overhaul required to turn it into one of the world’s elite football grounds again.
Sir Jim is understood to be committed to investing additional sums in future, although it was unclear on Friday whether these will be publicly discussed at the time of the stake purchase.
Several other key questions remain about United’s future ownership, including whether Sir Jim will ultimately seek overall control of the club.
Reports in recent weeks have suggested that he will take immediate control of football matters at the club, alongside Ineos Sports colleagues including Sir Dave Brailsford, the former cycling supremo.
Another area of uncertainty is the precise mechanism that Sir Jim will use to acquire 25% of both the publicly traded A-shares and the class of B-shares held by the six Glazer siblings, which carry the overwhelming majority of voting rights.
Analysts have suggested that it could be undertaken through a process known as a tender offer.
The price that Ineos Sports will offer has also yet to be disclosed, although it will be at a very substantial premium to the $17.92 at which they closed on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday.
Some United fans have expressed disquiet at the prospect of Sir Jim buying a minority stake given that it paves the way for the Glazers’ continued control.
Image: Manchester United fans have been left frustrated by the club’s continued ownership under the Glazer family
The family, who paid just under £800m to buy the club 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.
Earlier iterations of Sir Jim’s offers for the club, which focused on gaining outright control, included put-and-call arrangements that would become exercisable three years after a takeover to enable him to buy out the remainder of the club’s shares.
The Monaco-based billionaire, who owns the Ligue 1 side Nice, pitched a restructured deal last month in an attempt to unblock the ongoing impasse over United’s future.
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.
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:08
September: Why Man United’s share price has sunk
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 absence 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.
Fury at its proposed participation in the ill-fated European Super League project in 2021 crystallised supporters’ desire for new owners to replace the Glazers.
Confirming the launch of the strategic review last 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.
“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 ability to generate sizeable profits.
Ineos and Manchester United both declined to comment.
COVID-19 fraud and error cost the taxpayer nearly £11bn, a government watchdog has found.
Pandemic support programmes such as furlough, bounce-back loans, support grants and Eat Out to Help Out led to £10.9bn in fraud and error, COVID Counter-Fraud Commissioner Tom Hayhoe’s final report has concluded.
Lack of government data to target economic support made it “easy” for fraudsters to claim under more than one scheme and secure dual funding, the report said.
Weak accountability, bad quality data and poor contracting were identified as the primary causes of the loss.
The government has said the sum is enough to fund daily free school meals for the UK’s 2.7 million eligible children for eight years.
An earlier report from Mr Hayhoe for the Treasury in June found that failed personal protective equipment (PPE) contracts during the pandemic cost the British taxpayer £1.4 billion, with £762 million spent on unused protective equipment unlikely ever to be recovered.
Factors behind the lost money had included government over-ordering of PPE, and delays in checking it.
More on Covid-19
Related Topics:
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Shares in The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) have fallen slightly on debut after the completion of its spin-off from Unilever amid a continuing civil war with one of its best-known brands.
Shares in the Netherlands-based company are trading for the first time following the demerger.
It creates the world’s biggest ice cream company, controlling around one fifth of the global market.
Primary Magnum shares, in Amsterdam, opened at €12.20 – down on the €12.80 reference price set by the EuroNext exchange, though they later settled just above that level, implying a market value of €7.9bn – just below £7bn.
The company is also listed in London and New York.
Unilever stock was down 3.1% on the FTSE 100 in the wake of the spin off.
More from Money
The demerger allows London-headquartered Unilever to concentrate on its wider stable of consumer brands, including Marmite, Dove soap and Domestos.
The decision to hive off the ice cream division, made in early 2024, gives a greater focus on a market that is tipped to grow by up to 4% each year until 2029.
Image: Ben & Jerry’s accounts for a greater volume of group revenue now under TMICC. Pic: Reuters
But it has been dogged by a long-running spat with the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which now falls under the TMICC umbrella and accounts for 14% of group revenue.
Unilever bought the US brand in 2000, but the relationship has been sour since, despite the creation of an independent board at that time aimed at protecting the brand’s social mission.
The most high-profile spat came in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s took the decision not to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that sales would be “inconsistent” with its values.
A series of rows have followed akin to a tug of war, with Magnum refusing repeated demands by the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s to sell the brand back.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:18
Sept: ‘Free Ben & Jerry’s’
Magnum and Unilever argue its mission has strayed beyond what was acceptable back in 2000, with the brand evolving into one-sided advocacy on polarising topics that risk reputational and business damage.
TMICC is currently trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.
It said last month that Anuradha Mittal “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations.
An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where she is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Magnum said the charitable arm risked having funding removed unless the alleged problems were addressed.
The Reuters news agency has since reported that Ms Mittal has no plans to quit her roles, and accused Magnum of attempts to “discredit” her and undermine the authority of the independent board.
Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve said on Monday: “Today is a proud milestone for everyone associated with TMICC. We became the global leader in ice cream as part of the Unilever family. Now, as an independent listed company, we will be more agile, more focused, and more ambitious than ever.”
Commenting on the demerger, Hargreaves Lansdown equity analyst Aarin Chiekrie said: “TMICC is already free cash flow positive, and profitable in its own right. The balance sheet is in decent shape, but dividends are off the cards until 2027 as the group finds its footing as a standalone business.
“That could cause some downward pressure on the share price in the near term, as dividend-focussed investment funds that hold Unilever will be handed TMICC shares, the latter of which they may be forced to sell to abide by their investment mandate.”
Donald Trump has said he will be “involved” in the decision on whether Netflix should be allowed to buy Warner Bros, as the $72bn (£54bn) deal attracts a media industry backlash.
The US president acknowledged in remarks to reporters there “could be a problem”, acknowledging concerns over the streaming giant’s market dominance.
Crucially, he did not say where he stood on the issue.
It was revealed on Friday that Netflix, already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share, had agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery’s TV, film studios and HBO Max streaming division.
The deal aims to complete late next year after the Discovery element of the business, mainly legacy TV channels showing cartoons, news and sport, has been spun off.
But the deal has attracted cross-party criticism on competition grounds, and there is also opposition in Hollywood.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:06
Netflix agrees $72bn takeover of Warner Bros
The Writers Guild of America said: “The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
“The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”
Image: File pic: Reuters
Republican Senator, Roger Marshall, said in a statement: “Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros would be the largest media takeover in history – and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike.
“One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem.
“Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake. Regulators need to take a hard look at this deal, and realize how harmful it would be for consumers and Western society.”
Paramount Skydance and Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, were two other bidders in the auction process that preceded the announcement.
The Reuters news agency, citing information from sources, said their bids were rejected in favour of Netflix for different reasons.
Paramount’s was seen as having funding concerns, they said, while Comcast’s was deemed not to offer so many earlier benefits.
Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.
The president said of the Netflix deal’s path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision”.
On the likely opposition to the deal. he added: “That’s going to be for some economists to tell. But it is a big market share. There’s no question it could be a problem.”