Sir Jim Ratcliffe will have no honeymoon as he faces urgent problems at Manchester United

Ratcliffe has completed his lifelong dream by purchasing a stake in Manchester United – but reality is set to bite immediately

When Sir Jim Ratcliffe was born, Manchester United were champions of England. If that was an unusual status for them then – Sir Matt Busby’s triumph in 1952 was United’s first in 41 years – the chances are that Ratcliffe hopes their 21st title will come with him in the boardroom. It has taken him seven decades to travel the seven miles from his Failsworth birthplace to Old Trafford and a status as co-owner of United. That, and the accumulation of remarkable wealth; some £1.3bn has been required for the petrochemicals tycoon to purchase a 25 per cent stake in the club.

Now the Glazer family’s share of United is lower than it has been at any stage since their 2005 leveraged buyout. If one era has not ended, another has begun. Change is coming to the Old Trafford boardroom; perhaps to other levels of a club that has underachieved on the pitch in the last decade, too. The questions revolve around how much and how quickly; around who, and why, and when.

Ratcliffe and Ineos do not intend to be silent partners; a minority stake could still give Ratcliffe decision-making powers, particularly control over the footballing side of affairs. The Ineos powerbrokers Jean-Claude Blanc and Sir Dave Brailsford have already been at the club’s Carrington training ground for a meeting with interim CEO Patrick Stewart and football director John Murtough.

It could prove one of many: the deal with Ratcliffe was agreed weeks ago. Since then, little seems to have happened, but it has offered Ineos an opportunity to form their own appraisal. That assessment process is likely to continue over a six-to-eight-week approval process; not every decision will necessarily be made on day one.

Some of the issues are already known. One of the two biggest positions at the club needs filling, with a replacement required for Richard Arnold, the outgoing chief executive; Stewart, the lawyer who is the club’s general counsel, is in temporary charge and could perhaps revert to his legal duties. Arnold’s brief tenure made him a transitional figure; United may want his successor to set the direction of the club for a longer term. Blanc, formerly a marketing executive for Paris Saint-Germain and chief executive at Juventus, has been tipped as a possible successor. The Frenchman currently has a wider role as chief executive of Ineos Sport; their portfolio also includes running, sailing, rugby, Formula One, and cycling. Brailsford’s specialism is on two wheels, but he might have a licence to roam, to weigh in as and where he sees fit.

Manchester United crashed out of Europe after finishing bottom of their Champions League group (PA Wire)

There are questions about personnel, others about bricks and mortar. Visiting fans have taken to chorusing “Old Trafford is falling down”; if that is an exaggeration, the leaking roof has acquired its own infamy. A lack of investment in the infrastructure is part of the case against the Glazers, with revenues instead diverted to interest repayments and dividends to them. There was belated recognition that United needed an upgrade: under Arnold they appointed the consultants Legends International and Populous to draw up plans to redevelop Old Trafford.

Ratcliffe is reportedly willing to invest some £245m of his fortune in the overhaul, but United’s new regime must decide if it entails renovating the current ground, expanding the South Stand, or knocking down the stadium and building another on the plot. A need for the capital for a project that could cost £1bn was a reason for the strategic review that culminated in the decision to sell a minority stake to Ratcliffe, rather than the whole club to the Qatari Sheikh Jassim.

But whatever decision is taken, it will take years to realise the vision. Perhaps the same may be said on the field, too. In a sense, Ratcliffe’s arrival is ill-timed for some incumbents at Old Trafford. A few months ago, there was the feeling that, after stumbling around in their wilderness years, United were finally plotting the correct course. Now the picture is cloudier again, which could offer a mandate for change.

Recent events have suggested that running United is an obstacle course, and many have hit barriers. In reality, such missteps – from the mishandling of the investigation into Mason Greenwood to the (apparently) raw chicken served at Old Trafford recently – only reflect the actions of a select few, but they contribute to a broader picture of a club that has been both criticised and mocked.

On-field fortunes are the most obvious barometer of a club and, earlier in the takeover process, it was easier to argue that United were headed in the right direction. The noises from the Ineos camp were that they would back manager Erik ten Hag. United’s current regime – the Glazers, Arnold and Murtough – have done so, but United’s mixed form and underwhelming performances this season have raised the possibility that the Dutchman is not as much the solution as part of the problem.

United now find themselves out of the Carabao Cup, off the pace in the race for the top four in the Premier League, with the embarrassment of an early Champions League exit compounded by the reality that they are out of Europe altogether.

Manchester United’s glory days were a long time ago (PA Archive)

This season has felt more like regression than progression; Ten Hag has said the club must aim to win the Premier League and the Champions League. Neither is realistic now, but he would argue that changing the culture of the club and raising standards takes time; that tough decisions – like exiling the £73m winger Jadon Sancho – need taking; that the club need to be willing to dispense with those who don’t share the manager’s drive.

Equally, there is an acceptance at Old Trafford that recruitment has been an issue, with United’s spending since Sir Alex Ferguson retired standing at around £1.5bn, and without a title challenge to show for it. Many of the mistakes predate Ten Hag and Murtough, but the transfer expenditure could prompt a change in strategy and, perhaps, in personnel. But, barring sales, Financial Fair Play limitations mean they don’t have much scope to spend in January, regardless of a windfall from Ratcliffe.

This is in part because around £400m has been spent in Ten Hag’s reign, almost half of it on footballers he has previously managed, and with questionable returns. Ratcliffe questioned the decision to pay £63m for Casemiro, bought at 30, while there has been too little return from this summer’s investments. Ten Hag prospered at Ajax when others, principally Marc Overmars, had responsibility for transfers. United have overpaid for some players – not this summer’s arrivals, they argue, though others would dispute such claims – but it invites scrutiny of Murtough, who may have given Ten Hag too much leeway.

The names of Paul Mitchell, who will leave Monaco, and Dougie Freedman, currently of Crystal Palace, have been mooted as possible technical directors. For some, the ideal appointment may be someone in the mould of Michael Edwards, the architect of Liverpool’s rise. A potential target is Dan Ashworth, though Newcastle would probably seek to resist offers for an influential figure at St James’ Park.

There is nevertheless a feeling that Murtough has helped build a structure that United were lacking. Deputy football director Andy O’Boyle, director of football operations David Harrison, director of football negotiations Matt Hargreaves and head of women’s football Polly Bancroft have all been brought in since his promotion in 2021. United did not have a data science department; now they have one, headed by Dominic Jordan. United believe they have hired well; in time, it may become clear whether Ratcliffe concurs.

Ratcliffe and Ineos will take control of football operations at Manchester United (PA Wire)

In October, a multimillion-pound training base for the women’s and academy teams was opened at Carrington. United were being run from Mayfair by former executive vice-chair Ed Woodward; there is a very different feel now. But if they were playing catch-up compared to their rivals, the impact of such appointments – should they be correct – will not necessarily be reflected in results straight away.

There is nevertheless an acceptance that improvement is needed, along with an apparent willingness to embrace Ineos’s ideas. Brailsford has enjoyed success in cycling, from the Olympic Games to the Tour de France; some of the group’s ideas may prove to be transferable to football.

Over the years, though, Ratcliffe’s expertise has been in making money. United recently posted record revenues of £648m, which are projected to rise again – though being out of the Champions League, without even the consolation of the Europa League, will presumably prevent them from hitting the £680m that the club had deemed possible this year.

It shows that United remains a commercial superpower – an achievement, in part, of Arnold and Woodward. There are, though, those who believe that their income ought to be higher still. But the next domestic Premier League television deal will only represent a rise of 4 per cent per year on the previous contract, not the kind of jump that could have justified Ratcliffe’s decision to pay £1.3bn for a quarter of United.

Which can bring the issue down to a lifelong fan’s motivation. Is this a business decision, a vehicle for his ambitions, a trophy asset, or a billionaire’s plaything? Whichever it is, Ratcliffe must envisage following in the footsteps of United’s other knights, Busby and Ferguson, by witnessing his teams take the title. But, just as they did, he inherits a club in need of regeneration.