New Trafford rose from the midden like a chimaera, a great edifice swathed in steel and glass purging Manchester United of all negativity. Sir Jim Ratcliffe needed an escapist moment like this, blessed relief from a news cycle delivering only bad tidings.
How this £2bn vision might come into being in the five-year build phase suggested was not a consideration in the PR onslaught, which featured a cameo from stadium architect Norman “I’m from round here” Foster. This was all about the dreamscape, about returning United to the pinnacle of the game, the world’s biggest club, according to Foster at least, regenerating not just itself, but the neighbourhood, the city, the region, the country.
Oh yes, this was big, bold ambition on a scale that dwarfs any footballing project in the world; a precast stadium to be floated into place along Manchester’s rejuvenated waterways and bolted to a vision powering United to unrivalled profitability off the pitch and supremacy on it.
That’s the theory. The question is: are United capable of making this happen? The club have paid out £1bn in interest payments over the past 20 years just to remain £1bn in debt. And Ratcliffe claimed just 24 hours earlier that debt was not the club’s biggest problem.
In an interview he gave to the BBC – one of many targeted media interactions intended to counter the criticisms surrounding his handling of the club and to justify the latest round of redundancies, cuts to services, and hikes in ticket prices – he managed to trigger more uncertainty and unease. The club, he said, would go bust by the season’s end, were he not to take the necessary steps.
This decision to engage with the media was a predetermined effort to shift the narrative. Key outlets were targeted in attempt to regain control of the message. In the context of a home match against Arsenal, which might easily have resulted in an unprecedented eighth home defeat in the Premier League, you could see why the United comms team would want to get ahead of the story.
However bad it might get against Arsenal, an upbeat account from Ratcliffe followed by news of a fantasy new home would quickly bury any gloom. However, as 5,000 protesters demonstrated on Sunday, some United fans are not easily fooled by propaganda and are starting to reinterpret the Ineos brochure.
They know what they see. They know the team is a million miles from a unit capable of winning the title in three years as pledged by Ratcliffe. They just want someone to take responsibility and account for the decline. United aren’t failing because they are overstaffed to the tune of 450 people, but because the club has been run catastrophically by owners and management burning through the money that the club makes.
There is no equivalence between the cost of employing staff on the average wage (£37k) and the waste involved in paying £18m a year to players like Casemiro and Jadon Sancho. Of course Ratcliffe is right about United’s transfer policy. Sancho, Antony, Andre Onana and Rasmus Hojlund all underwhelmed. But the allocation of blame to a previous a regime does not absolve Ineos of their own failings.
Hiring and firing at great expense sporting director Dan Ashworth. Firing at great expense Erik ten Hag. Ratcliffe claimed the new technical structure under chief executive Omar Berrada had insufficient time to assess the merit of Ten Hag when it was obvious to the football commentariat that he was drowning not waving.
So why give him an extended deal? United lost 14 Premier League games last season, failing to score 60 goals for the third successive season. Victory in the FA Cup proved the aberration the Carabao Cup was the season before; utterly meaningless as signifiers of progress.
Ratcliffe knew enough about Ten Hag’s qualities to try to lure Thomas Tuchel to replace him. To present his retention as the result of a process was disingenuous at best, and quickly unravelled. To support Ten Hag further with a £160m summer transfer outlay compounded the error. These were rank mistakes that render cuts almost irrelevant as a cost saving. To explain it any other way is sophistry.
The fans want honesty not excuses. If Ratcliffe were a player he might resemble Onana – all the good work undone by clangers. After another disappointing display as a substitute against Arsenal, Hojlund was offered consolation and encouragement by ex-United keeper Peter Schmeichel, surely the right approach to protecting an asset.
Perhaps Hojlund will recover sufficiently to grace Ratcliffe’s shimmering new edifice. Or maybe both scenarios are out of reach, illusory futures beyond the scope of player and owner to manifest.
from Football - The i Paper https://ift.tt/fWLTr79
Post a Comment
EmoticonClick to see the code!
To insert emoticon you must added at least one space before the code.