"Shocked to learn that a tax-exiled English expat who made his billions squeezing chemicals plants doesn't have liberal, let alone accurate, views on immigration. Or at least, in public anyway. It seems highly likely Sir Jim Ratcliffe knew what he was doing in the course of his now semi-recanted Sky News interview. And it is above all vital that at least one part of his empire of influence football, sport, Manchester United rejects it, as the club have done to some extent in their statement."
"When Ratcliffe bought his stake in United he made some initial attempts at presenting himself as a kind of billionaire of the people, our own clog-clapping son of the cobbles, Eccles cakes tumbling from his turn-ups, essentially on a mission of benevolent regeneration. In reality Ratcliffe was always here to sack the tea lady. Ineos has a highly successful set of methods. Strip it back. Cut the fat."
A tax-exiled English billionaire who built wealth in the chemicals industry expressed restrictive immigration views and likely acted strategically during a Sky News interview. Manchester United partially rejected those views in a club statement. The billionaire initially cultivated a populist, working-class image when purchasing a stake in the club but has pursued aggressive cost-cutting and efficiency measures through Ineos. The Ineos approach emphasizes stripping back operations, cutting excess roles, and accessing funding. Becoming a billionaire required intense, self-serving focus rather than benevolent collectivism. Political alignment with a slash-and-burn Reform government would benefit business interests and other wealthy owners are unlikely to oppose such tactics.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]