Can Ratcliffe turn Man United’s ‘dumb money’ into transfer gold?

Sir Jim Ratcliffe once described Manchester United as “dumb money”, even citing the signing of Fred from Shakhtar Donetsk for £47 million in 2018 as an example of the club’s ability to get the transfer market wrong . This is why he wants full control of football operations at Old Trafford in return for his proposed £1.5 billion ($1.82 billion) investment in the club.

Sources told ESPN that Ratcliffe, Britain’s second-richest person with wealth of £29.7 billion ($36.09 billion) according to the 2023 Sunday Times Rich List, was undertaking a audit of United’s transfer activities over the past few seasons. He wants to ensure the wasted millions of the past are not repeated when his management team takes responsibility for what happens on the pitch at the Premier League’s most successful, but repeatedly unsuccessful, club.

– Stream on ESPN+: LaLiga, Bundesliga, more (US)

Ratcliffe’s proposal to buy a 25% stake in United from the Glazer family, who have owned the club since 2005, has not yet been approved. However, sources have told ESPN that this is now seen as a formality and that Ratcliffe’s investment will be confirmed within weeks – in time for the January transfer window.

Financial Fair Play restrictions, a result of United spending in excess of £220 million ($267 million) during the 2022-23 season, are likely to continue to impact the club’s ability to recruit new players. players in January. However, sources said Ratcliffe along with Rob Nevin and Sir Dave Brailsford, his closest advisers at his company INEOS, had already identified the recurring fault line in United’s transfer dealings.

While the old adage of savvy investors is to buy low and sell high, United has developed the costly habit of doing the opposite. According to Transfermarkt, only Chelsea (£1.4bn/$1.8bn) and Paris Saint-Germain (£880.5m/$1.07bn) spent more on new players than United, whose outgoing transfer spend has stood at £867.84 million ($1.06 billion) since then. the start of the 2018-19 season.

However, over the same period, United only raised £210 million ($255.5 million) in spending, which is a significantly lower figure than many of their rivals, including Chelsea ($681 million). pounds sterling/$828 million), PSG (£438.1 million/$533.1 million). , Manchester City (£490.8m/$597.2m) and Liverpool (£241.9m/$294.3m). Juventus, Tottenham Hotspur, Barcelona, ​​Real Madrid and West Ham United have also generated more spending than United since 2018.

A cynical view might be to suggest that United overpaid for average players and then discovered their true market value by attempting to offload them two or three seasons later. But this is not a new problem for the club, as Ratcliffe identified in a 2019 interview with The Times.

“[INEOS] I never want to be the city’s stupid money, ever,” Ratcliffe said. “They [United] are in a pretty tough situation as a business. They didn’t select their manager well and didn’t buy well. They were stupid money, as you see with players like Fred [who left for Fenerbahce in the summer for a fee of €10m/$10.9m.]

“United has spent enormously since [former manager Sir Alex] Ferguson is gone [in 2013] and I have been poor, to say the least. Surprisingly poor, to be honest. United did it really badly. They have lost the ground. »

Sources said several signings had been identified by Ratcliffe’s team as examples of United being reckless with their transfer funds. Jadon Sancho was signed from Borussia Dortmund for £73 million ($88.7 million) in 2021, although no other clubs are in the running to sign the England winger. Then-manager Ole Gunnar Solskjaer also recently said that Sancho had been identified by the club’s scouts as a solution to the team’s right-wing problem, while admitting that the player preferred to play on the left.

Donny van de Beek (a £40m/$48.6m signing from Ajax in 2020) and Antony (£82m/$99.6m) from the same club last year ) are also considered unnecessarily excessive transfer fees. United’s hierarchy also sanctioned huge pay deals for aging strikers Cristiano Ronaldo and Edinson Cavani, while failing to sign a younger striker – a problem eventually resolved by the £65 million ($79 million) signing ) from Atalanta’s Rasmus Højlund this summer.

Since 2018, United have also failed to complete deals to sign Jude Bellingham and Erling Haaland from Birmingham City and FC Salzburg. Each time, they missed out on Borussia Dortmund, despite lengthy negotiations with two players who became global stars after their transfers to Real Madrid and Manchester City respectively.

Sources have told ESPN that Ratcliffe believes United can be smarter in the transfer market and use their financial resources more wisely with greater expertise off the field. It will lead to scrutiny of the roles played by chief executive Richard Arnold, director of football John Murtough and technical director Darren Fletcher. It is also accepted that Arnold and Murtough, in particular, had to fulfill their roles while working under what one source described as the Glazers’ “painful micromanagement”.

Former Tottenham, RB Leipzig and Monaco director of football Paul Mitchell has been linked with a role under Ratcliffe at United. But although sources have told ESPN that INEOS is aware of the 42-year-old’s work, no decisions have been made regarding additions to the existing football team at Old Trafford. The expertise is highly valued by Ratcliffe, however, and strengthening it at United is seen as a key part of helping the club become victorious again off the field.

Until they achieve that goal, winning on the pitch will remain as elusive as it has since Sir Alex Ferguson retired in 2013.