The former Crystal Palace owner has questioned a number of key aspects of the plans for a new stadium
Comments
Sport
Sir Jim Ratcliffe pictured at Old Trafford alongside Omar Berrada
Sir Jim Ratcliffe pictured at Old Trafford alongside Omar Berrada
(Image: PA)
Former Crystal Palace owner Simon Jordan has raised a number of key points after Sir Jim Ratcliffe's interviews regarding Manchester United this week.
The United co-owner discussed a plethora of topics this week, from Erik ten Hag to Ruben Amorim, his first year at the club, transfers and most importantly, the recent revelation of plans for a new 100,000 seater stadium at Old Trafford.
Article continues below
Jordan gave his verdict on a number of those topics, including who was going to pay for the Stadium, but was highly critical of Ratcliffe's comments regarding the club's recent transfer dealings.
"I found Ratcliffe’s interviews curious this week," Jordan wrote in his column for the Daily Mail. "He perhaps took some medicine on Erik ten Hag because they made such a pig’s ear of his exit, but nobody asked why the Dutchman was given a contract extension.
"I didn’t hear anything from Sir Jim that made me think 'Wow, that’s impressive'. He let others take responsibility on issues like ticket prices, redundancies and ambassadorial roles, but showed his teeth about sacking Dan Ashworth. 'We' suddenly became 'I'.
"Nobody addressed the elephant in the room, the circa £50million a year United pay to service Glazer debt. Ratcliffe stayed away from criticising them and preferred to infer blame onto Ed Woodward and Richard Arnold for overpaying players."
Supporters were shocked by Ratcliffe's decision to name check bad signings, with Jordan also pointing out the recent summer transfer window was glossed over by the United co-owner discussing inherited debts from previous transfer windows.
"United have been burning cash, but Ratcliffe opted to name check bad signings rather than reference the huge slug of cash used to pay interest and dividends!" Jordan added. "Ratcliffe would have known the commercial projections and forecasts for the season, yet still invested in Joshua Zirkzee and others.
"I’d have thought his management team would have dealt with these better. They should be an extension of his thought process. If not, why have they been recruited?
"I’ve defended many of Sir Jim’s rationalisations. No other business bar football would expect Alex Ferguson to be paid an annual £2m in perpetuity, or allow continued bloated staff levels.
"His complaint that United are still paying for Jadon Sancho and Antony was silly. Every club buys players on the drip. You can´t have it both ways, it’s less cash 12 months ago or less cash now. That is the nature of paying for assets with payment terms common in any industry.
"He wanted to illustrate that United have been burning cash, but opted to name check bad signings rather than reference the huge slug of cash used to pay interest and dividends! Neither was he asked why United spent £180m on players last summer when he was in situ, given he claimed they were in danger of running out of money by the end of November.
"Ratcliffe would have known the commercial projections and forecasts for the season, yet still invested in Joshua Zirkzee and others. United had big liabilities when Sir Jim came in, but have also added new liabilities on his watch."