There are certain figures that portray and define eras at important moments of history, despite the fact that they have little control over events.
You may remember Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, who was dubbed by the British media as ‘comic ali’ and became famous towards the end of the 2003 invasion of Iraq in his role as Minister of the Land.
Al-Sahhaf offered Bulletins in the entire conflict and as the position of the Ba’ath party got worse, his messages became more optimistic. With rockets that fly to Baghdad, according to Al-Sahhaf, the situation was well under control.
Saddam Hussein was nowhere to be seen. Everyone knew that everything happened because of him and the presence of Al-Sahhaf, instead gave insight into how useless the entire regime had become.
In all honesty towards Sir Jim Ratcliffe, he at least none of his various media performances used this week to convince someone that his football empire was not in danger of crumbling. The opposite – the criticism was set in liberal quantities, to a wide range of goals: a selection of non -mentioned senior players (“too much paid” and “not good enough”), former managers Richard Arnold and Ed Woodward (“Richard was a rugby man, he does not even understand his other club.
The only people who did not train Ratcliffe were those who were the most united fans as culpable for the deterioration of the club – the glazers, the American family who, despite the performances, are the actual owners of the club thanks to their 67.9 percent controlling interest (the importance of Ineos and the founding, Ratcliffe, is.
It was the glazers that Arnold and Woodward rented, and the football managers who signed who apparently useless players signed. It was also on the watchers’ watch that United’s financial position had deteriorated on Monday that the club was in the risk of “going for Christmas”. Yet the main cause of that malaise – the paralyzing interest payments that ow the £ 700 million ($ 905.5 million against current rates) on debts of the Glazers’ Livered Buyout forced on United – was also curious – mentioned.
Fans protest against the ownership of the glazers (Carl Recine/Getty Images)
But again, maybe it’s not so curious. Ratcliffe is not allowed to attack the glazers publicly because of the non-criticism clauses with which he agreed when his minority investment was punished in December 2023.
In legal terms, as revealed by the at the time of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, this meant that neither Ratcliffe or the glazers “in one way or another, directly or indirectly, a public statement or announcement that relates to or an advertisement, the other party, or otherwise.
Ratcliffe knows that, as the owner with the lower share, he must find a way to work with his partners, which is why he is not so not in public to talk about them. They were hardly mentioned in the round of interviews that Ratcliffe did on Monday with a few British newspapers, the overlapp modcast of the BBC and Gary Neville (The Athletic were not offered the opportunity to talk to him); The Sunday Times More pleasure in praising a few thoughts from Ratcliffe in an article that appeared online on Saturday, but for the most part he pulled the business line.
He suggested that there was no “bad bone” in the body of Joel Glazer and that the family “Old East Coast” was Americans – “they are very polite, they are very civilized, they are the nicest people on the planet”. The subtext was that the family is at Nice to do what Ratcliffe thinks that should be done – namely take a chainsaw to a bloated workforce.
Yet there were hints that the relationship between Ratcliffe and the glazers is hardly close by, given his remark to the Sunday Times that “we have bought them since then and have not seen them anymore” and that they have largely withdrawn “in the shadows”.
The reputation of the glazers is so bad that no amount of PR will change how they are viewed by most United fans, and perhaps Ratcliffe subtly tried to create a bit of themselves and his ownership partners. But the net effect of his publicity drive this week is that it is Ratcliffe that is in the fire line.
The impression of an artist of the new Stadium Plan of United (Manchester United/Foster + Partners)
If you knew absolutely nothing about United, and nothing about football, you would look at all the coverage and assume that Ratcliffe operates as a somewhat Frazzled lonely wolf considering the way he was pressed by warnings about bankruptcy to draw up plans for one of the most ambitious stadium projects that the game ever has seen within 24 hours.
The glazers – whose opinion about all these things is most important in view of their controlling interest – have not spoken a word. We do not know what they think about moving to a new stadium with 100,000 seats that, if Ratcliffe has its way, will only take five years to build and cost around £ 2 billion. It is the most important decision that the club has made since the takeover of the glazers almost 20 years ago, but their names have not been published at the bottom of the bustling press releases, and they certainly did not express themselves for interviews.
Not that this is new. The 20th anniversary of their acquisition falls in June and the last two decades have probably said the glazers less about the club and they have revealed less about themselves than Ratcliffe alone in the last seven days.
It must be emphasized, especially from the perspective of a journalist, that is available is much better than being absent. But for the time being Ratcliffe does little more than act as a useful fireguard for the glazers
United supporters know who has most of the power and this explains why the focus of their protests has remained consistent. But the more a filterless rat cliffe walks around, putting away the world in an attempt, the more he runs the risk of receiving an equal part of the debt if something goes wrong.
(Top photo: Avram Glazer with Sir Jim Ratcliffe; Marc Atkins/Getty images)