The honeymoon period between the INEOS chief and supporters is well and truly over – but it's not too late to change course
If you want to see how much Sir Jim Ratcliffe's relationship with Manchester United supporters has deteriorated just one year into him buying a 27 percent stake in the club, contrast the polite reception he got when arriving at his first game at Old Trafford last year against Tottenham with the vitriolic treatment he received from a group of fans upon leaving Sunday's win at Fulham.
The subject of the expletive-laden tirade from the group was not the team's plummeting fortunes, even though they would have been well within their rights to complain about being 12th in the Premier League, on course for their worst season in 35 years or having a goal difference of minus four.
No, these supporters were fighting for their very right to be able to watch their team live and were taking aim at the man who is making that right a lot harder by pushing through extortionate ticket prices in the middle of the season and threatening to raise prices again next season. Chief among their complaints were the club making tickets for paid-up club members a minimum price of £66 ($82) and ending concessions for children and over-65s. Before the changes, which were introduced without any consultation, those tickets started at £40 ($50) for adults and £25 ($31) for children, increases of 65% and 164% respectively.
Ratcliffe, sitting in the back of a chauffeur-driven car in Fulham, had the luxury of closing the window and blocking out the noise from the livid fans. But he would do well to listen to legitimate concerns about the direction he is taking the club in…
Getty Deepening divisions
The fans who spotted Ratcliffe's car were not alone in voicing their disapproval over the way they have been treated by the INEOS regime. During the scrappy 1-0 win at Craven Cottage the away fans were heard chanting "£66 quid, taking the p**s". A spicier ditty, containing the words "Just like the Glazers, Jim Ratcliffe's a c**t" was also aired.
Ratcliffe would not have taken kindly to such abusive language when he heard it in the stands or from the back of the car. So, it was a good thing that the Manchester United Supporters Trust, MUST, penned a considered letter addressed to the Manchester-born billionaire on Monday morning on the subject of ticketing policies.
The MUST letter warned that raising prices would create a hostile atmosphere at Old Trafford which could further harm the team and ultimately damage the club as a business, while "poisoning the well" over the plans to build a new 100,000-seater stadium.
"With the team struggling on the pitch and fan sentiment already at a low ebb, we all need to pull together to lift the team’s performance, not risk deepening divisions or creating further dissatisfaction," read the letter.
MUST also warned that, with the team in such a dire state on the pitch, it was the worst possible time to hike prices.
AdvertisementGetty Berrada's insulting letter
MUST are not the only fan group to have had correspondence with United recently.
The 1958 and Fan Coalition 1958 groups had previously written to CEO Omar Berrada on the issue of ticket prices and the response from the club's chief, who was headhunted from Manchester City, was truly astounding. The response merely paid lip service to the supporters' concerns over affordability and, worst of all, appeared to suggest that fans will have to foot the bill for the club's problems trying to comply with the Premier League's Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR).
Berrada's letter read: "We are determined to ensure that our current fans can continue to afford to attend games and that tickets are accessible for future generations of fans. As previously communicated, we are however currently making a significant loss each year – totalling over £300 million ($370m) in the past three years.
"This is not sustainable and if we do not act now we are in danger of failing to comply with PSR/FFP [financial fair play] requirements in future years and significantly impacting our ability to compete on the pitch. We do not expect fans to make up all the current shortfall – but we do need to look at our ticketing strategy to ensure we are charging the right amount, and offering the right discounts, across our products for our fans."
Getty Images SportMuseum of transfer blunders
The £300m ($375m) loss is both shockingly high and yet unsurprising given how woeful the club's recruitment has been lately, both before Ratcliffe showed up and under the INEOS chief's stewardship. The club's transfer activity since 2022 has been a museum of costly blunders, none more so than paying £86m ($107m) for Antony, who has just departed for Real Betis on loan after contributing 12 goals plus three assists in 96 appearances.
The Brazilian was also on astronomical wages of £200,000 ($250,000) per week, putting him among the top five earners at the club. Less than a year before United signed him, Antony was initially valued at just £25m ($31m) by United scouts. He was not exactly a star before he moved to the Premier League, scoring eight Eredivisie goals in his last season at Ajax, hardly prolific given the standard of the Dutch top flight.
Antony was not the exception, though, or one bad egg. He has been merely part of an overall pattern of squandering money like it's going out of fashion. That same summer United splurged up to £70m ($87m) on Casemiro, who has not played since December 30 despite not being injured, and made him the club's top earner on £350,000 ($435,000) per week.
GettyWhere have the Glazers gone?
The following year they paid up to £60m ($75m) to sign Mason Mount, who has been injured for the majority of his time at the club, making just nine Premier League starts. Then they paid up to £72m ($90m) for Rasmus Hojlund, who has scored two league goals this season, and £47m ($58m) for Andre Onana, who has made a laughable amount of serious errors in his one-and-a-half seasons.
Ratcliffe, in fairness, was not at the club when those decisions were made. And it has been revealed that the billionaire was highly critical of the Casemiro deal when he went through the club's accounts. But the Glazer family, who still control 67.9% of voting rights and 48.9% of shares, were.
The American family have not invested any money in the club since the club was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 2012. Taking into account the £432m ($537m) in dividends the family have received while owning the club, they have invested a grand total of £45m ($56m) of their own money over the past 20 years. How about Ratcliffe and Berrada encourage the majority owners to contribute to "make up some of the current shortfall" rather than the fans who have supported the club through thick and thin?