Business

Manchester United fans will be hoping Sir Jim Ratcliffe stake is beginning of the end for the Glazers

Published

11 months ago

December 26, 2023

admin

The calls grew louder from Manchester United fans: “Full sale now.”

It was more than an aspiration.

The Glazers fed the belief their ownership could be ending when announcing in November last year that “strategic alternatives” were being explored.

Instead, control is only being diminished.

Just 25% of the New York Stock Exchange-listed club is being sold to INEOS founder Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the petrochemicals entrepreneur.

Just another reminder of how little the say of supporters – or at least the most vocal ones – counts at Old Trafford.

Human rights activists – and those against state involvement in clubs – would argue for the better.

Not even a bid of around £5bn for a full buyout from Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al Thani – with funding linked to the Qatari state – could tempt the Glazers to sell up.

The American family valued their footballing asset – bought for £790m with a leveraged takeover in 2005 – at £6bn and counting.

The Sheikh Jassim offer seemed a handsome return on the initial investment, especially when servicing the debt the Glazers loaded on to the club has cost United more than £1bn.

It is cash that has gone to banks rather than building work so desperately needed at Old Trafford and the Carrington training complex.

The women’s team – disbanded in 2005 and only re-formed in 2018 – lacks a dedicated stadium or regular access to Old Trafford.

Ageing infrastructure symbolises the decay of the club.

The hope among fans will be that Sir Jim’s promised investment starts the regeneration of facilities that have fallen behind rivals.

The Glazers would see growing the commercial operations at United as a great success.

Revenue at the club has trebled during their 18-year ownership.

But that funded transfer fees and salaries in the struggle to keep up with rivals.

And how they spent – so often wastefully on the wrong players – reflects the shortcomings of the Glazers to identify the smartest sporting minds in the game to run football operations.

A new chief executive is being sought with the departure of Richard Arnold.

Sir Jim’s arrival offers the prospect of fresh ideas, sporting expertise and improved public engagement.

He can tap into the mind of Sir Dave Brailsford, the mastermind behind Team GB’s golden Olympic cycling dominance who serves as INEOS director of sport with roles across cycling, football, sailing and rugby.

But Sir Dave’s legacy has been tainted by investigations into the cycling successes with Team Sky, the forerunner to INEOS Grenadiers when owned by the parent company of Sky News.

Sir Dave previously acknowledged “mistakes were made” by Team Sky in relation to anti-doping and testing practices but denied wrongdoing.

And there are questions about how supremacy has been achieved at Manchester City, the football club that now sets the benchmark for glory.

Contrasting the fortunes of City and United are muddied until a Premier League case into vast alleged financial wrongdoing concludes.

With Abu Dhabi wealth, Manchester City now dominate not just locally in men’s football but across England – and Europe.

It is why the prospect of Qatari investment proved so enticing to some United fans, although not those with the anti-sportswashing banners at matches.

Protests have replaced parades.

In the decade since United last won the Premier League as Sir Alex Ferguson retired, City have won the title six times.

And their maiden Champions League success last season was part of a Treble that emulated United’s greatest achievement in 1999 – four years before the Glazers bought their first shares in the club.

They steadily built up control before gaining complete ownership amid fan protests.

The hope for many supporters will be that the Glazers selling off 25% to Sir Jim is the start of their route out of Old Trafford.

And that the strategic review does indeed produce a better strategy.

But rejecting a complete sale could only deepen the discord in the stands at Old Trafford with the Glazers still owning the most shares.

Business

Apple sued by Which? over iCloud use – with potential payout for 40 million UK customers

Published

1 hour ago

November 14, 2024

admin

Apple sued by Which? over iCloud use - with potential payout for 40 million UK customers

Consumer rights group Which? is suing Apple for £3bn over the way it deploys the iCloud.

If the lawsuit succeeds, around 40 million Apple customers in the UK could be entitled to a payout.

The lawsuit claims Apple, which controls iOS operating systems, has breached UK competition law by giving its iCloud storage preferential treatment, effectively “trapping” customers with Apple devices into using it.

It also claims the company overcharged those customers by stifling competition.

The rights group alleges Apple encouraged users to sign up to iCloud for storage of photos, videos and other data while simultaneously making it difficult to use alternative providers.

Which? says Apple doesn’t allow customers to store or back-up all of their phone’s data with a third-party provider, arguing this violates competition law.

The consumer rights group says once iOS users have signed up to iCloud, they then have to pay for the service once their photos, notes, messages and other data go over the free 5GB limit.

“By bringing this claim, Which? is showing big corporations like Apple that they cannot rip off UK consumers without facing repercussions,” said Which?’s chief executive Anabel Hoult.

“Taking this legal action means we can help consumers to get the redress that they are owed, deter similar behaviour in the future and create a better, more competitive market.”

Apple ‘rejects’ claims and will defend itself

Apple “rejects” the idea its customers are tied to using iCloud and told Sky News it would “vigorously” defend itself.

“Apple believes in providing our customers with choices,” a spokesperson said.

“Our users are not required to use iCloud, and many rely on a wide range of third-party alternatives for data storage. In addition, we work hard to make data transfer as easy as possible – whether it’s to iCloud or another service.

“We reject any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anti-competitive and will vigorously defend against any legal claim otherwise.”

It also said nearly half of its customers don’t use iCloud and its pricing is inline with other cloud storage providers.

How much could UK Apple customers receive if lawsuit succeeds?

The lawsuit will represent all UK Apple customers that have used iCloud services since 1 October 2015 – any that don’t want to be included will need to opt out.

However, if consumers live abroad but are otherwise eligible – for example because they lived in UK and used the iCloud but then moved away – they can also opt in.

The consumer rights group estimates that individual consumers could be owed an average of £70, depending on how long they have been paying for the services during that period.

Apple is facing a similar lawsuit in the US, where the US Department of Justice is accusing the company of locking down its iPhone ecosystem to build a monopoly.

Apple said the lawsuit is “wrong on the facts and the law” and that it will vigorously defend against it.

Big tech’s battles

This is the latest in a line of challenges big tech companies like Apple, Google and Samsung have faced around anti-competitive practices.

Most notably, a landmark case in the US earlier this year saw a judge rule that Google holds an illegal monopoly over the internet search market.

The company is now facing a second antitrust lawsuit, and may be forced to break up parts of its business.

And in December last year, a judge declared Google’s Android app store a monopoly in a case brought by a private gaming company.

“Now that five companies control the whole of the internet economy, there’s a real need for people to fight back and to really put pressure on the government,” William Fitzgerald, from tech campaigning organisation The Worker Agency, told Sky News.

“That’s why we have governments; to hold corporations accountable, to actually enforce laws.”

Business

Homebase deal leaves 2,000 jobs at risk

Published

13 hours ago

November 13, 2024

admin

The jobs of more than half of the workforce at the DIY chain Homebase are at risk after the retailer’s owners called in administrators following a failed attempt at a sale.

Sky News reported earlier on Wednesday that around 1,500 people were set to keep their roles as 75 of the 130 stores were set to be snapped up by the saviour of Wilko in a so-called pre-pack deal.

The Range, also a general merchandise specialist, was confirmed as the buyer later in the day.

Teneo, which is handling the process, is understood to have been working to find a buyer for as many of the chain’s sites as possible.

Teneo said in a statement on Wednesday afternoon that up to 70 stores were confirmed to be included in the deal – saving up to 1,600 jobs out of 3,600.

It leaves 2,000 jobs at risk.

Forty-nine other stores will continue to trade while alternative offers are explored.

Sources told Sky’s City editor Mark Kleinman that there had been many expressions of interest in the remaining stores, despite the gloom being felt across the retail sector over the higher tax take demanded in the budget.

The sector has warned of higher inflation and job losses arising from the measures, which include increased employer national insurance contributions and minimum wage levels.

The pre-pack deal – which typically allows a buyer to cherry-pick the assets it wants – brings to an end a six-year ownership of Homebase by Hilco, the retail restructuring specialist.

Teneo had initially been attempting to find a buyer for the whole Homebase business.

The partial sale comprises all those stores in the Republic of Ireland and the Homebase brand and its e-commerce business.

The Range is part of CDS Superstores, which is controlled by the businessman Chris Dawson – nicknamed “the Del Boy billionaire” because of the distinctive number plate on his Rolls-Royce Wraith.

Last year, it paid £7m to buy the brand and intellectual property assets of Wilko, which had collapsed into administration.

Since then, Mr Dawson has opened a string of new Wilko outlets.

Business

P&O spent £47m sacking and replacing 786 mainly British seafarers in 2022

Published

19 hours ago

November 13, 2024

admin

P&O spent £47m sacking and replacing 786 mainly British seafarers in 2022

P&O Ferries spent more than £47m summarily sacking hundreds of seafarers in 2022, helping it cut losses by more than £125m and putting it on a path to profitability, according to accounts due to be published in the coming days.

The dismissal of 786 mainly British seafarers, and their replacement with largely non-European agency staff earning as little as £4.87 an hour, was hugely controversial, drawing criticism from across the political spectrum and threats of a consumer boycott.

The controversy was rekindled last month when Sky News revealed that DP World, P&O‘s Dubai-based parent, considered withdrawing a £1bn investment at its London Gateway port following criticism of P&O by the Transport Secretary Louise Haigh.

P&O has always maintained the restructuring was necessary to allow it to compete with its rivals on cross-Channel routes, and prevent a total collapse of the company with the loss of more than 2,000 jobs.

In financial statements for P&O Holdings, filed 11 months late and seen by Sky News, the company says the restructuring cost £47.4m including legal fees and consultants, allowing it to cut the overall wage and salary bill by £21.3m.

In a note accompanying the accounts submitted to Companies House, P&O’s directors describe the restructuring as part of a “transformational journey” that will help it return to recording a profit before tax this year.

“The business has been on a transformational journey as it has recovered from the challenges of the global pandemic, Brexit and the impact of disruption caused by the change in the crewing model,” the directors say.

“The group believes that the transformational actions that commenced in 2022 and continue through into 2024 will equip the business to grow profitably when demand rises in the coming years.”

Brexit and COVID financial distress

The accounts reveal the financial distress in which P&O found itself in 2022.

Having recorded losses of £375m the previous year as it struggled to recover from the pandemic-era decline in passenger numbers and post-Brexit complications, it was in breach of its covenants to external lenders underwriting the construction of new hybrid cross-Channel ferries.

Despite the restructuring costs, revenue increased by £83.3m to £918m in the financial year, but the company still recorded a loss of £249m and was reliant on loans totalling £365m from parent company DP World to remain a going concern.

An additional £70m was made available this year, with 4.5% interest rolled up and not requiring any repayment until 2028 at the earliest.

The financial statements also reveal that P&O was forced to sell one of the new cross-Channel ferries to a French subsidiary to pay off an external financing loan of £76.9m, and then lease the vessel back from its ultimate owner.

In a statement, P&O Ferries said: “Our 2022 financial accounts show the challenges faced by the business at that time, and why the business needed to transform into a competitive operator with a sustainable long-term future.

“P&O Ferries has taken steps to adjust to new market conditions, matching our capacity to demand, and adopting a more flexible operating model that enables us to better serve our customers.”