I thought we’d already established that Ratcliffe and INEOS are as good as interchangeable?
But they’re legally not? Wasn’t it specifically said he used his own money to buy the shares?
I can see the argument if there was a hint of truth to it but there’s no better proof of INEOS not controlling both clubs than INEOS having nothing to do with United? How’s that not better than giving assurances that they’re stepping away from the day to day of Nice?
Thats why this smells made up to me.
I mean if him went out and bought a car would that mean INEOS bought a car? I just can’t see how this wasn’t cleared many months ago even if it were an issue.
At the same time who am I to argue