Manchester United has confirmed the sale of a 25% stake to the British billionaire petrochemicals tycoon Sir Jim Ratcliffe.
The Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) has said fans have “mixed feelings” following the sale and they “remain sceptical” because the Glazer family, which is deeply unpopular with supporters, still runs the club.
MUST said in a statement: “During 18 years of debt, decay and mismanagement, Manchester United fans have loudly and consistently called for change at our club.
“When the so-called strategic review was announced nearly a year ago, it finally appeared that the sale of the club was on the horizon, potentially bringing the new investment and new direction MUFC so clearly needs.
“Against that backdrop, fans have very mixed feelings today. We welcome the investment from a boyhood red, Sir Jim Ratcliffe and his Ineos company, but many will wish his ownership stake was greater than the initially rumoured 25%… But with the Glazers still in charge, people should understand that United fans will remain sceptical and wait for the proof in the pudding.”
Former Manchester United player Gary Neville has called the club a “disgrace” and said the timing of the confirmation is “truly awful”.
He wrote on the X social media platform: “Manchester United 2023 has been a disgrace to the end.
More from UK
“The timing of this is truly awful and no functioning organisation would even think about it. Anyway all the very best to Jim Radcliffe (sic) and I hope he can somehow work out a way to get the club right again and back to being something respectable on and off the pitch.”
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Sources said earlier that United and Sir Jim’s Ineos Sport would confirm that he is acquiring the interest for $33-a-share (£26).
The deal, which comes after a torrid season for the Red Devils on the pitch, will see Sir Jim take control of the club’s footballing affairs once it is approved by the Premier League – a process expected to take between six and eight weeks.
He will inject $300m (£237m) into the club for investment in its infrastructure, taking his immediate outlay to roughly $1.5bn (£1.2bn).
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:01
‘Mixed feelings’ at Man United sale
Sir Jim, chairman of the chemical company Ineos, will nominate Sir Dave Brailsford and Jean-Claude Blanc to join the club’s board once the purchase is approved.
He will also delegate seats on Man United PLC board to Ineos shareholder John Reece and Ineos Sport chair Rob Nevin.
The British billionaire will acquire up to 25% of Manchester United’s listed A-shares of part of the deal.
The Glazers have also sold 25% of Manchester United’s B-shares, which carry greater voting rights, to Sir Jim as part of the deal.
Sir Jim said after the deal was confirmed: “As a local boy and a lifelong supporter of the club, I am very pleased that we have been able to agree a deal with the Manchester United Board that delegates us management responsibility of the football operations of the club.
“Whilst the commercial success of the club has ensured there have always been available funds to win trophies at the highest level, this potential has not been fully unlocked in recent times. We will bring the global knowledge, expertise and talent from the wider Ineos sport group to help drive further improvement at the club, while also providing funds intended to enable future investment into Old Trafford.
“We are here for the long term and recognise that a lot of challenges and hard work lie ahead, which we will approach with rigour, professionalism and passion. We are committed to working with everyone at the club – the board, staff, players and fans – to help drive the club forward.”
The Manchester United Supporters Trust statement in full
During 18 years of debt, decay and mismanagement, Manchester United fans have loudly and consistently called for change at our club.
When the so-called strategic review was announced nearly a year ago, it finally appeared that the sale of the club was on the horizon, potentially bringing the new investment and new direction MUFC so clearly needs.
Against that backdrop, fans have very mixed feelings today.
We welcome the investment from a boyhood red, Sir Jim Ratcliffe and his INEOS company, but many will wish his ownership stake was greater than the initially rumoured 25%.
We note the statements that he and his team will control sporting activities, yet puzzle how any organisation can put its very core business in the hands of a minority shareholder, and how that meaningfully works in practice.
It is now incumbent on the club’s owners and management to properly explain how this new structure will work, where the new investment will be directed and how it will benefit the team on the field.
As the supporters trust, we expect to have discussions with the club management and the INEOS team in the near future to understand their plans, and to put to them the very many questions fans have today.
Today might – just might – be a step forward for Manchester United after some very difficult years.
But with the Glazers still in charge, people should understand that United fans will remain sceptical and wait for the proof in the pudding.
Manchester United’s executive co-chairmen and directors, Avram Glazer and Joel Glazer, said: “We are delighted to have agreed this deal with Sir Jim Ratcliffe and Ineos. As part of the strategic review we announced in November 2022, we committed to look at a variety of alternatives to help enhance Manchester United, with a focus on delivering success for our men’s, women’s and academy teams.
“Sir Jim and Ineos bring a wealth of commercial experience as well as significant financial commitment into the club. And, through Ineos Sport, Manchester United will have access to seasoned high-performance professionals, experienced in creating and leading elite teams from both inside and outside the game. Manchester United has talented people right across the club and our desire is to always improve at every level to help bring our great fans more success in the future.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:48
From November 2022: Manchester United owner Avram Glazer confronted by Sky News in Palm Beach
United fans will welcome the deal – but their Old Trafford home is likely to need far more than £245m to deliver the overhaul that is required to turn it into one of the world’s elite football stadia once more.
The redevelopment will be financed personally by the billionaire and will not add to Manchester United’s existing borrowings.
Sir Jim’s purchase of a 25% stake in the Red Devils has been confirmed more than a year after the Glazer family, which has controlled the club since 2005, began formally exploring a sale.
The deal between the Glazers and Sir Jim comes after months of negotiations with several potential buyers, including the Qatari businessman Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al-Thani, who wanted to acquire full control of the club.
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.
More on Apple
Related Topics:
“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.”
Advertisement
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.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
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.
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.”
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.
Advertisement
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.
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:01
Chancellor quizzed over P&O ferries
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.”
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.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
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.”