Sir Jim Ratcliffe's latest brutal decision shows what Man Utd co-owner does best - The Mirror

Next month will mark the anniversary of Ratcliffe's involvement in Manchester United but there have been very few positive spin-offs from the billionaire's investment

Give him his due, at least someone at Manchester United is on a roll. It is fair to say that, on all cylinders, Sir Jim Ratcliffe is absolutely firing.

Firing, in no particular order, Erik ten Hag, 250 members of the club’s staff, Dan Ashworth, Sir Alex Ferguson from his ambassadorial role, and now, the greatest British sailor in the sport’s history. If Rasmus Hojlund was as prolific, Ruben Amorim would be laughing.

During an all-conquering OIympic career that brought him four gold medals, Ben Ainslie was almost a national treasure, hence he became Sir Ben. But Ben has been binned, seemingly paying the price for not delivering the America’s Cup for Team INEOS Britannia after Ratcliffe had thrown £200million at the project.

It is probably a bit more complex than that but Ainslie said he was “astounded’ by Ratcliffe’s decision to move forward without him. He should not be. This is what Ratcliffe does.

Ask the thousands of workers who have been employed by him - and sacked by him - down the years. Clearly an astute businessman, to say the least, it has made Ratcliffe unimaginably wealthy.

But whether it makes him a sure thing to succeed as the owner of an iconic sporting club is another matter. And bear in mind, by purchasing the organisation and turning it into the INEOS Grenadiers, he has not made too much of a fist of repeating the glory days of Team Sky cycling.

Next month will see the first anniversary of the day when Ratcliffe became a co-owner of United. It was a day when there was mild fanfare from some United fans who at least imagined a partial loosening of the Glazers’ grip on the club as Ratcliffe assumed control of football operations.

But has there been one moment, one decision, one utterance, one initiative, one performance, one appointment that has convinced a single United fan that Ratcliffe is some sort of towering figure who can lead the club back to its all-conquering magnificence? No, there has not.

No-one can seriously have thought that Ratcliffe was going to be some sort of benevolent tycoon who would happily spend a big chunk of his fortune trying to bring happiness back to a club that he - er, apparently - supported as a boy. And if anyone actually did think he was in it for love, they have been well and truly, and quickly, disabused of that fanciful notion.

That is why a boy or girl from Jim’s working-class home town of Failsworth, near Oldham, will now have to pay £66 to step foot inside the Theatre of Dreams. Of course, the now-infamous Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) mean that even if Ratcliffe did want to pour his riches into the club at a considerable personal loss, he probably could not.

But - as he cuts the fees of ex-players who do a bit of glad-handing ahead of matches - what is rapidly becoming clear is that this is strictly a business deal for Ratcliffe. It was reported recently that figures such as Bryan Robson, Andy Cole and Denis Irwin, who act as club ambassadors, were having their remuneration significantly reduced.

And every week, there are anecdotal stories of ex-players having their entitlement to a ticket taken away. As playing heroes of great eras count the cost of Jim’s cutbacks, any idea that the Ratcliffe regime would have even a trace of community feel, of club romance, about it, has summarily been dismissed. But while ruthlessness has helped get Ratcliffe to the top of the rich lists, there are no signs it will get United back to where it belongs in football.

Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.