What happens when you put a boyhood fan in charge of their club?
They discover it’s not so simple to run after all. And the fans you sat with many years ago are as impatient as ever.
Anger reverberates exactly a year since Sir Jim Ratcliffe and his INEOS organisation gained day-to-day control of football operations at Manchester United.
Image: Sir Jim Ratcliffe at Old Trafford.
Pic: PA
Fans are furious about ticket price rises.
A charity helping former players has had funding slashed.
And rank-and-file staff – many loyal for years without Premier League salaries – have been swept out with 250 redundancies and warnings of more to come.
Sir Jim has taken the unpopular – but he would argue necessary – decisions to put the club on a healthier financial footing all while INEOS injected an additional £80m.
More on Football
Related Topics:
The Glazers
Being the face of cost-cutting and eradicating excesses can be reputationally damaging while the American family, still with the majority ownership, drift even deeper into the shadows.
The Glazers are blamed for the malaise and the debt burdened on a club that is one of the biggest money-makers in world football.
Image: Manchester United co-owner Avram Glazer.
Pic: AP/Craig Mercer/CSM
Image: Joel Glazer.
Pic: AP/Phelan M. Ebenhack
Just this week, United’s financial update to the New York Stock Exchange revealed they are set to make more than £650m this season.
But it also showed that the debt has climbed over £730m and has now cost more than £1bn to service in the last two decades.
Money has drained out of the club – to the Glazers – rather than, perhaps, being invested in Old Trafford upgrades or a new stadium as rivals have built glitzier, more lucrative venues.
Sky News US correspondent Mark Stone confronted executive co-chairman Avram Glazer over what has been a difficult year for the Red Devils.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:42
Avram Glazer says he won’t sell Man Utd
When asked whether he would sell up the American businessman said: “No.”
He remained silent when asked if he was worried Sir Jim had made things worse, and also didn’t respond when asked if the Glazers should be facing more blame – as opposed to Sir Jim.
The British businessman bought a 27.7% stake in the club in February last year and took control of sporting operations. He later increased it to 29% but the Glazers remain majority owners of the club.
Floundering on and off the pitch
INEOS are now playing catch-up, trying to accelerate much-needed infrastructure upgrades, particularly at the training ground, which saw the women’s team temporarily pushed out.
But United have not been short of cash to spend on players, for the men’s team.
They have the highest net spend of any English club since Sir Alex Ferguson retired in 2013 at over £1.2bn – but without being able to add to the 13th Premier League titles he won.
In the summer and winter transfer windows, INEOS oversaw the arrival of £200m worth of new talent for the men’s team.
And yet the team is in its worst shape ever in the Premier League.
Image: Manchester United’s Diogo Dalot, left, and Joshua Zirkzee after, another, recent loss.
Pic: AP/Ian Walton
They’ve never been this low during a season – down in 15th place with 12 defeats in 25 matches.
This against the backdrop of decisions that can be viewed as bungled or quickly acknowledging mistakes.
Erik ten Hag was kept on as men’s team manager in the summer after aborting a firing plan following their FA Cup win.
But he went anyway in October – a change that cost £21m when you factor in Ruben Amorim’s release fee from Lisbon club Sporting.
It wasn’t the only hefty compensation bill.
Their pick for sporting director – Dan Ashworth – cost around £2m to prize away from Newcastle United.
But then he was ditched after just five months which, we discovered yesterday in new accounts, cost another £4m.
Fan fury
No wonder the supporters’ trust who protested against the Glazers are now aghast at “mismanagement” by the new leadership while still loading much blame on the Florida-based family.
And this while they are being asked to pay more to attend matches in fading facilities.
“Fans should not pay the price for a problem that starts with our crippling debt interest payments and is exacerbated by a decade or more of mismanagement,” the United Supporters’ Trust said.
“It’s time to freeze ticket prices and allow everyone – players, management, owners and fans – to get behind United and restore this club to where it belongs.”
INEOS – the petrochemicals giant that turned Sir Jim into a billionaire – has a lot of convincing to show they’re on the right path heading into year two at United.
And there could be the pain to come of seeing Liverpool match their record haul of 20 English titles.
Can INEOS rebuild a team and oversee the building of a new stadium without losing sight of the mission – to restore United’s greatness?
And the Glazers remain as tight-lipped as ever – but now flush with an extra £1.25bn from selling 29% to Sir Jim as he takes the heat.
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.”