I think this is a bit of a silly point really. Almost no owners come into a football club with a football track record. They are not like managers or players where you can assess their prior achievements.
I understand that Ratcliffe is a little different though, given his experience at Nice. First few years, Nice treaded water. This season, they seem to have got their act together.
If the reports are true, and Ratcliffe brings in a top class, CEO, Director of football and £250 million on infrastructure improvements, then that alone is a huge upgrade on The Glazers.
Would you also say The Glazers are better owners than Tony Bloom at Brighton because of trophies won? Probably not as they are swimming in different seas.
I would also argue that parity with Nice over the past few years is more of an achievement than The Glazers taking United from perennial title contenders to lucky to get into the top 4, despite spending a billy!
It’s not a silly point.
He’s being talked about as though he’s definitely a better owner -
from a footballing success POV - than the Glazers, yet he’s actually less successful than them.
It’s very reminiscent of the Moyes hype imo… Someone who has absolutely no success in what they’re being tasked to do being spoken of as though it’s a given they’ll succeed and anyone pointing out that they’ve never done anything to suggest they’re capable of the task is laughed at or shouted down. ‘Groupthink’, I think it’s called.
It’s also being talked about that the Glazers will just ‘hand over sporting control’ of the entire club to him with a minority stake.
Why would they do that when he has less experience and success than them in football!? Wouldn’t that be potential business suicide? What if he’s crap at it? It’s ludicrous. And it’s blatantly obvious when you actually think about it logically that they will ALWAYS hold veto power over him for that reason.
‘Because Paul Mitchell’, seems to be the popular mantra, but then, why don’t the Glazers just hire Paul Mitchell?
They’re free to do so.
)