Where do we begin?
I suppose with the comments themselves.
Last night, it came out that the co-owner said that he believes things are changing "for the better" at the club despite being very "unpopular."
Full quote:
"I've been very unpopular at Manchester United because we've made lots of changes. But for the better, in my view. And I think we're beginning to see some evidence in the football club that that's beginning to pay off.
But you've got all the same issues with the country. If you really want to deal with the major issues of immigration, with people opting to take benefits rather than working for a living, if you want to deal with that, then you're going to have to do some things which are unpopular, and show some courage."
One of the things that makes him unpopular is speaking shite like this.
What part about what anything he's done since becoming co-owner in 2024 makes him believe that things are changing for the better?
If he means at the current moment, then that's pure luck.
What Michael Carrick has done isn't because it was a smart decision by the club but more a reactionary one. They didn't know who was to takeover from Ruben Amorim which is why it took a couple of games before we saw Carrick in the dugout after U18s coach Darren Fletcher stepped in for two matches post that sacking.
Five games unbeaten and in the top 4 is in-spite of this board and ownership, not because of it.
And even if it was planned that Carrick would step in and do as well as he has, this one good thing doesn't make up for all the other wrongs.
Sacking of hundreds of staff - did it really need to be over 400? You've get a number of the squad in that time and we all know that they aren't good enough.
You sacked a manager in Erik ten Hag just months after backing him with £300m. You sacked a Director of Football (Dan Ashworth) five months into the job, which was shorter than the time it took for the club to actually hire him.
Amorim was gone months after you said that he will need three years before he can be truly judged. This was the manager that you wanted btw. And you didn't even sack for the reason you should've. Amorim called out the board in that explosive post-match presser after the Leeds draw.
And the Portuguese was right.
Increasing ticket prices, cancelling charity events, even removing Sir Alex Ferguson from his global ambassadorial role caused problems.
You oversaw our worst-ever Premier League season and one of the worst seasons in our entire 148 year history.
Somehow, Sir Jim and INEOS have been worse than the Glazers.
How that is possible needs to be studied.
This interview has caused several fan communities: The 1958, MUMSC, Rainbow Devils and more.
This morning also saw the Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham put out a statement:
This is the mayor who is working with United for the regeneration project.
As I said in my email to him: I would advise you AGAINST this project. DO NOT work with the Glazers or Sir Jim Ratcliffe. You yourself can see what type of people they are.
Ratcliffe even mentioned immigration in the country. "The UK's been colonized by immigrants."
What is this supposed to mean?
Firstly, weren't England a country that wanted to colonize other parts of the world? He is a man who works with AMERICAN owners ie, the Glazers, people who put NO MONEY into the club and put the club in HUGE DEBT. He is also a man who lives in Monaco, a country that is pretty much tax free.
Kinda hypocritical, isn't it?
I don't know why he's bringing politics into Man Utd.
I don't know what he means by this 'colonized by immigrants' statement. It sounds like he wants only English people at United, to me anyway.
Whether that was his intention or not, I don't know, but it just comes across in that way, you know? I'm looking at it like several of our squad are foreigners. Our best players are foreigners.
Most of the fan base is from around the world.
I don't know why he even comes out with these interviews. He's done a few of these and all of them has seen Sir Jim say things that make you question what type of owner we have at the club.
In a way, this could be a good thing - if it's handled in the right way.
There are a lot of people that didn't want INEOS as co-owners mainly because they kept the Glazers in charge. Yet everyone gave them the benefit of the doubt.
However, all those who doubted them are just being proven right.
This could be the chance to remove them entirely.
On the other hand, there are a few who did prefer INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe over Qatar. There a lot of them who have no issues with what Ratcliffe said which has caused so much division, more division because we were already divided.
Why bring politics into a football club? The two have nothing to do with each other and some may take what he's saying in the wrong way.
All we want is a well-run club and getting back to the top.
With co-owners like this, we will NEVER get back to the top.
#INEOSOUT #GLAZERSOUT
Sir Jim Ratcliffe believes things have changed for the better at Man Utd | Image credit: Getty Images via Goal