Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s investment in Manchester United is one of the most fascinating ownership moves in English football in the 21st century.
The chemicals billionaire’s deal has been in the pipeline for most of the year and has seemed inevitable for a few months, but what it lacks in surprise value it makes up for in intrigue.
It is simultaneously a very modern transaction but also a throwback to a bygone era and raises many questions about the future of the club.
The most striking aspect is that it represents control of a leading English team returning – or at least beginning to return – to British hands, reversing the trend of the last two decades.
Since Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea from Ken Bates in 2003 the Premier League has increasingly become the domain of overseas tycoons, sovereign wealth and private equity.
If a club has changed hands in the top flight – and, increasingly, lower down the leagues too – then the buyer has invariably been a foreign national.
The last time a British national bought a majority or significant stake in a Premier League club was in 2016, when Farhad Moshiri took charge at Everton.
For a number of reasons that had more in keeping with modern, overseas-led takeovers than buyout by rich supporters, and Moshiri has since agreed to sell up.
Before that it was David Gold and David Sullivan, two boyhood West Ham United fans who used the proceeds of selling Birmingham City to buy their beloved Hammers.
Lancastrian Ratcliffe’s investment in United has more in common with Gold and Sullivan; local boys made good who realise a dream of rescuing the club they have long supported.
In that sense it has a very retro quality, harking back to the days when rich industrialists such as Jack Walker, John Hall, David Moores and Martin Edwards owned England’s leading sides.
Nowadays, Premier League clubs are out of reach for all but Britain’s richest individuals, with valuations sent skywards by the competition’s global popularity.
Ratcliffe’s investment values United at around £5.2bn – more than six times the valuation when the Glazers took over 18 years ago – while even small top-flight clubs fetch north of £200m.
If the ‘wealthy fan’ aspect is a throwback, then other elements are very contemporary, not least that United will become part of a multi-club network and wider Ineos sporting portfolio.
We do not yet know how Ratcliffe envisages United fitting into a group that already includes OGC Nice in France and Switzerland’s Lausanne.
Equally, does he see the club adding value to his other sporting projects in cycling, sailing and motorsport, or perhaps even to the Ineos brand?
Other unknowns include whether Ratcliffe and his cohorts can make United truly competitive again, after years of decline and false dawns.
For all of his success in the business world, he is yet to show he knows how to deliver similar results in football or with Team Sky, Ineos Britannia, Mercedes F1.
Much of that has been orchestrated by Sir Dave Brailsford, whose return to the front line of British sport is another juicy subplot.
Brailsford was the architect of British Cycling and Team Sky’s extraordinary dominance but has been dogged by questions about whether that was achieved within the rules and their spirit.
He and Ratcliffe have a huge task on their hands to reverse years of decline at United. How they get on will be just one of the intriguing aspects of this deal.
