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.
On Friday, the social fabric of England and Wales might be changed forever.
MPs are set to vote on the assisted dying bill and supporters are confident that they have the numbers to win.
But the hugely controversial legislation polarises opinion. Communities remain divided, and medical colleagues can’t agree.
Three royal colleges have withdrawn support for the bill in its current form. They want more time to be given for further scrutiny of the legislation.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:12
How will the assisted dying bill work?
Frank Sutton does not have time. When we went to Frank’s home in East Dulwich, London, last November to watch the vote unfold she already had terminal liver disease and cancer.
As the vote was passed with a majority of 55, Frank broke down in tears and said: “Finally, I can die in peace.”
Frank is unlikely to live long enough to see assisted dying introduced in England and Wales. If the legislation passes, it will be introduced in four years.
More on Assisted Dying
Related Topics:
Frank now suffers from diabetes and fibromyalgia.
She said: “On top of everything I’ve got, to start developing more comorbidities, I have a massive thought in my head, which I live with every day, which is, is my body, am I on the road to the end, you know, is my body just giving up?
“I mean, I was taking morphine anyway for pain, but now I’m living on morphine, and that’s not a life that you want.”
But even as MPs prepare to vote, many important questions remain over who will take responsibility for determining a patient’s mental capacity and their prognosis. The Royal College of Psychiatrists said it was approaching Friday “with trepidation”.
Image: Dr Annabel Price, the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ lead on assisted dying
Dr Annabel Price, the RCPsych’s lead on assisted dying, told Sky News: “If this bill as it stands proceeds through the rest of the parliamentary process, we as psychiatrists are left in a situation where there are so many unknowns about what is expected of us, about what patients can expect and about the safety of the process.
“We will continue to engage and there may be opportunities for reconsideration at further points in the bill. But yes, I approach this professionally with trepidation.”
The Royal College of GPs says the assisted dying process should happen outside of general practice.
Dr Susi Caesar is in favour of the bill being passed and feels it is okay for the medical community to be so divided on the issue.
She said: “I think people have the right to make their own choices and absolutely I would not want to see anybody forced into being part of this process who didn’t. Our current system is broken and this law would go a long way towards fixing it, at least for a certain group of people.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:43
Psychiatrists raise assisted dying concerns
But the Royal Colleges of Physicians (RCP) also has reservations about the bill in its current form.
It says it would be hard for a panel of experts who have no connection to a patient requesting an assisted death to determine if the person is being coerced or has mental capacity.
Dr John Dean, clinical vice president at the RCP has concerns, saying: “Currently decisions clearly are made by patients but agreed by single doctors and then the social worker and psychiatrists are not meeting the patient and those that have been caring for them.
“This has to be done in keeping with modern clinical practice which is complex decisions made with patients and families by teams.”
But for patients like Frank, these concerns have not changed her mind.
She said: “I’m praying for Friday that it still goes through because, like I said, it’s not going to happen in my lifetime, but the thought that people like me who still try to look nice, who still tried to have a life and everything, that they can just have some peace of mind and they can have a weight lifted off their shoulders knowing that they’re going to be able to do it peacefully with their family.”
A damning report into the faulty Post Office IT system that proceeded Horizon has been unearthed after nearly 30 years – and it could help overturn criminal convictions.
The document, known about by the Post Office in 1998, is described as “hugely significant” and a “fundamental piece of evidence” and was found in a garage by a retired computer expert.
Capture was a piece of accounting software, likely to have caused errors, used in more than 2,000 branches between 1992 and 1999.
It came before the infamous faulty Horizon software scandal, which saw hundreds of sub postmasters wrongfully convicted between 1999 and 2015.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:49
What is the Capture scandal?
The ‘lost long’ Capture documents were discovered in a garage by a retired computer expert who came forward after a Sky News report into the case of Patricia Owen, a convicted sub postmistress who used the software.
Adrian Montagu was supposed to be a key witness for Pat’s defence at her trial in 1998 but her family always believed he had never turned up, despite his computer “just sitting there” in court.
Mr Montagu, however, insists he did attend.
He describes being in the courtroom and adds that “at some point into the trial” he was stood down by the barrister for Mrs Owen with “no reason” given.
Image: Adrian Montagu was supposed to be a key witness for Pat’s defence
Sky News has seen contemporaneous notes proving Mr Montagu did go to Canterbury Crown Court for the first one or two days of the trial in June 1998.
“I went to the court and I set up a computer with a big old screen,” he says.
“I remember being there, I remember the judge introducing everybody very properly…but the barrister in question for the defence, he went along and said ‘I am not going to need you so you don’t need to be here any more’.
“I wasn’t asked back.”
Image: The ‘lost long’ Capture documents were discovered in a garage
Sky News has reached out to the barrister in Pat Owen’s case who said he had no recollection of it.
‘An accident waiting to happen’
The report, commissioned by the defence and written by Adrian Montagu and his colleague, describes Capture as “an accident waiting to happen”, and “totally discredited”.
It concludes that “reasonable doubt exists as to whether any criminal offence has taken place”.
It also states that the software “is quite capable of producing absurd gibberish”, and describes “several insidious faults…which would not be necessarily apparent to the user”.
All of which produced “arithmetical or accounting errors”.
Sky News has also seen documents suggesting the jury in Pat Owen’s case may never have seen the report.
What is clear is that they did not hear evidence from its author including his planned “demonstration” of how Capture could produce accounting errors.
Image: But flaws were found within it
Pat Owen was convicted of stealing from her Post Office branch in 1998 and given a suspended prison sentence.
Her family describe how it “wrecked” her life, contributing towards her ill health, and she died in 2003 before the wider Post Office scandal came to light.
Her daughter Juliet said her mother fought with “everything she could”.
“To know that in the background there was Adrian with this (report) that would have changed everything, not just for mum but for every Capture victim after that, I think is shocking and really upsetting – really, really upsetting.”
Image: Pat died before the contents of the report came to light
The report itself was served on the Post Office lawyers – who continued to prosecute sub postmasters in the months and years after Pat Owen’s trial.
‘My blood is boiling’
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:09
‘They knew software was faulty’
Steve Marston, who used the Capture software in his branch, was one of them – he was convicted of stealing nearly £80,000 in September 1998.
His prosecution took place four months after the Capture report had been served on the Post Office.
Steve says he was persuaded to plead guilty with the “threat of jail” hanging over him and received a suspended sentence.
He describes the discovery of the report as “incredible” and says his “blood is boiling” and he feels “betrayed”.
“So they knew that the software was faulty?,” he says. “It’s in black and white isn’t it? And yet they still pressed on doing what they did.
“They used Capture evidence … as the evidence to get me to plead guilty to avoid jail.
“They kept telling us it was safe…They knew the software should never have been used in 1998, didn’t they?”
Steve says his family’s lives were destroyed and the knowledge of this report could have “changed everything”.
He says he would have fought the case “instead of giving in”.
“How dare they. And no doubt I certainly wasn’t the last one…And yet they knew they were convicting people with faulty software, faulty computers.”
Image: Steve’s prosecution took place four months after the Capture report had been served on the Post Office
The report is now with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the body investigating potential miscarriages of justice, which is currently looking into 28 Capture cases.
A fundamental piece of evidence
Neil Hudgell, the lawyer representing more than 100 victims, describes the report as “hugely significant”, “seismic” and a “fundamental piece of evidence”.
“I’m as confident as I can be that this is a good day for families like Steve Marston and Mrs Owen’s family,” he says.
“I think (the documents) could be very pivotal in delivering the exoneration that they very badly deserve.”
He also added that “there’s absolutely no doubt” that the “entire contents” of the “damning” report “was under the noses of the Post Office at a very early stage”.
Image: Pat Owen
He describes it as a “massive missed opportunity” and “early red flag” for the Post Office which went on to prosecute hundreds who used Horizon in the years that followed.
“It is a continuation of a theme that obviously has rolled out over the subsequent 20 plus years in relation to Horizon,” he says.
“…if this had seen the light of day in its proper sense, and poor Mrs Owen had not been convicted, the domino effect of what followed may not have happened.”
What the Post Office said
Sky News approached the former Chief Executive of the Post Office during the Capture years, John Roberts, who said: “I can’t recall any discussion at my level, or that of the board, about Capture at any time while I was CEO.”
A statement from the Post Office said: “We have been very concerned about the reported problems relating to the use of the Capture software and are sincerely sorry for past failings that have caused suffering to postmasters.
“We are determined that past wrongs are put right and are continuing to support the government’s work and fully co-operating with the Criminal Cases Review Commission as it investigates several cases which may be Capture related.”
A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said: “Postmasters including Patricia Owen endured immeasurable suffering, and we continue to listen to those who have been sharing their stories on the Capture system.
“Government officials met with postmasters recently as part of our commitment to develop an effective and fair redress process for those affected by Capture, and we will continue to keep them updated.”
Around 30,000 deaths will be linked to toxic air in the UK in 2025, according to a report from leading doctors, as they urged the government to “recognise air pollution as a key public health issue”.
The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) warned that around 99% of the population in the UK are breathing “toxic air”.
The report says there is “no safe level” of air pollutants while noting how exposure to air pollution can shorten life by 1.8 years on average.
That is “just behind some of the leading causes of death and disease worldwide”, including cancer and smoking, the authors wrote.
The college has called on the government to take action to tackle the issue, as it urged ministers to “recognise air pollution as a key public health issue”.
In the forward of the report, England’s chief medical officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, said: “Air pollution remains the most important environmental threat to health, with impacts throughout the life course.
“It is an area of health where the UK has made substantial progress in the last three decades with concentrations of many of the main pollutants falling rapidly, but it remains a major cause of chronic ill health as well as premature mortality.
More on Air Pollution
Related Topics:
“Further progress in outdoor air pollution will occur if we decide to make it, but will not happen without practical and achievable changes to heating, transport and industry in particular.
“Air pollution affects everybody, and is everybody’s business.”
The report also highlights the economic impact of air pollution as it has an estimated cost of £27bn a year in healthcare costs and productivity losses.
Dr Mumtaz Patel, president of the RCP, said: “Air pollution can no longer be seen as just an environmental issue – it’s a public health crisis.
“We are losing tens of thousands of lives every year to something that is mostly preventable and the financial cost is a price we simply cannot afford to keep paying.
“We wouldn’t accept 30,000 preventable deaths from any other cause. We need to treat clean air with the same seriousness we treat clean water or safe food. It is a basic human right – and a vital investment in our economic future.”