A minority shareholding can hold significant power but investment may not mark the beginning of the end for the unpopular Glazers
The beginning of the end for the Glazers or a consolidation of their hold over Manchester United? It is the key question attached to Sir Jim Ratcliffe taking a £1.3bn, 25% stake in the club and its answer may take years to shake out. For now, the main issue addressed is closing off the “full sale now” demand made by fan activists during the 11 months since the Florida family commenced “a process to explore strategic alternatives”.
Was a full sale ever realistic? That depends on your faith in Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al-Thani. As the Qatari billionaire withdrew in October, more details of his thwarted plans for the club were revealed in Jim Bowen “what you could have won” fashion than had been during his courtship. Complaints of “a fanciful and outlandish valuation” featured prominently within what became an admission Ratcliffe had “won” the process. What followed from sources was the suggestion that taking a minority stake was his initial step towards overall control, the final price to be determined by the success of the partnership in the coming years.
About Author
More Stories
Lawrence ‘grateful’ of Jones’s tough love amid criticism of toxic England regime
Judy Murray ‘sick of listening to talk’ in battle for equal sport funding
Premier League to proceed with vote on APT rules despite Villa’s call for delay