And this is the major problem. Ratcliffe doesn't have that money on his own. If he uses INEOS, they'll expect a return on that investment regardless of his own beliefs. And a return on such an investment would require very modest spending and improvements since the purchase alone would cost a shitton of money that they'll need to quickly recoup.
In his interviews about buying Chelsea he was clear that Ineos wouldnt be purchasing the club and running it to make a profit. I dont think his plan would be any different at United.
When you consider they turnover £65bn a year it’s laughable to think they’d be interested in us for profit as we make chicken scratch compared to that.
The reason they would be buying us is for brand association and asset appreciation (its therefore in their interest for us to be successful on the pitch and well run off it). Given the success of the premier league and potential future revenues that can come from streaming direct to consumer I imagine they look at us a relatively low risk investment and as an asset which is only likely to appreciate in value.
Its the equivalent of buying property and renting it out knowing that the significant profits are going to come from the appreciation of the property price rather than the rental income.
As long as they commit up front to:
- Paying off the debt
- Building a new stadium
- Upgrading the training ground
- Not installing some unqualified DoF from within the Ineos organisation
- Not taking nonsense advice from the class of 92 (the likes of which would have seen us hire poch or conte)
- Most importantly keeping Erik ten Hag
I wouldnt be against Ineos.