INEOS and the Glazers aren't destroying Manchester United; they have already destroyed it.

These issues aren't recent by any means; they began when the Glazer family first took over Manchester United more than two decades ago.

On 28 June 2005, the Glazer family completed their takeover of Manchester United Football Club.

Twenty years have passed since the Glazers took over. Malcolm's sons Bryan, Avram, and Joel became co-chairmen after his death in 2014.

But how have they actually destroyed United?

The Glazers borrowed millions of pounds from hedge funds to finance the transaction, leaving the club with £604 million in debt.

The Glazers faced animosity from United's supporters even before they bought the team, who were incensed by the idea of the previously debt-free and extraordinarily successful team being forced into a massive amount of debt.

The largest and most successful club in the Premier League has had to pay down the Glazer debt while also giving the family annual dividend payments for nearly twenty years.

No other Premier League team has paid its owners a dividend in the past five years. To say it is nothing short of a disgrace is an understatement.

Under the Glazers, United has won 15 major trophies on the pitch, but just five of them have taken place since the renowned former manager Sir Alex Ferguson retired in 2013.

The club's own domestically generated cash resources, loans secured on the club directly, and ownership shares have all contributed to all the squad's investments in the transfer market.

Under the Glazers' ownership, rivals Liverpool and Manchester City have surpassed United both on and off the pitch. As a result, both the team and the Old Trafford stadium need significant, costly modernisation.

Since work to increase the capacity began before the Glazers' arrival in 2005, Old Trafford has remained essentially untouched.

In other words, the Glazers have left Old Trafford to rot while they filled their pockets with money.

For the Glazers, United is seen as a business, and that is it.

Then followed the sale to Sir Jim Ratcliffe, which earned them a total of $909.2 million, or roughly £679 million at today's exchange rate, bringing their total cash in their accounts to £1.35 billion.

Because of the weight of their Class B shares relative to Class A shares, they still hold 48.9% of the club and 67.9% of the voting rights.

After Ratcliffe paid $1.54 billion for his 28.9% stake, the club was valued at £4.3 billion when it was transferred to INEOS.

After all the pain and suffering the Glazers had put United through, INEOS had practically allowed them to stay in charge and collect more money.

The INEOS ownership since taking over the club in 2024 has been nothing short of a disgrace and failure.

50 Cent got shot nine times and survived. INEOS haven't landed a single target, and United fans are dying.

Ratcliffe believed that taking a cue from Manchester City was the best course of action. He raided the Etihad for Omar Berrada, the new CEO, and Wilcox, who had worked as a coach and director at the academy for ten years.

After arriving from Southampton in 2024 as technical director, Wilcox helped keep Erik ten Hag in place after the team finished eighth.

The leadership team initially opted to sack him after a meeting in Monaco in May, but they reversed the decision after the final meeting and a few more meetings.

Wilcox and other officials had reservations about the Dutch coach, but one game seemed enough to change their minds.

It also allowed for an easy scapegoat to blame when ten Hag didn't work.

This obviously turned out to be yet another failing of many that was to come. It doesn't help either when your sporting director believes he is a coach.

"I am a coach at heart. I am a coach inside, even though I know I have a different job now. That is a strength in my role, but it also causes me a bit of a problem because I always want to interfere with what the managers are doing."

Wilcox spent 10 years at City, rising to become academy director, before taking over as technical director at Southampton in January 2023.

He is not experienced in any way in having such a big role at such a big club. Dan Ashworth was Ratcliffe's first major failing, though.

INEOS pursued Dan Ashworth for several months after Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s arrival at Manchester United. United’s interest became public in February 2024, when they approached Newcastle about bringing him in.

Newcastle placed Ashworth on gardening leave while the two clubs negotiated a compensation fee.

The negotiations lasted until July 2024, when United and Newcastle finally reached an agreement, and Ashworth officially joined United on 1 July.

Dan Ashworth left Manchester United on 8 December 2024, just over five months after officially starting on 1 July 2024. United said the departure was by “mutual agreement” following a meeting after the 3–2 defeat to Nottingham Forest.

According to one source, Ashworth's general alignment with the new organisation had failed, and Ashworth had been essentially shut out of certain important decision-making.

INEOS had spent months pursuing him, paid Newcastle roughly £2-3 million in compensation, and presented him as a major appointment.

To last only 5 months and then sack him should've raised more questions to Ratcliffe at the time.

The decision to keep Erik ten Hag also proved to be the wrong one.

The decision to keep Erik ten Hag came after INEOS carried out a season review following the 2023/24 campaign. United finished 8th in the Premier League, their lowest-ever Premier League finish, but they beat Manchester City in the FA Cup final. On 4 July 2024, United extended Ten Hag's contract until June 2026.

However, given that Ten Hag was fired on October 28, 2024, just four months into the new season, it is fair to regard the action as a failure.

Everyone could see that the team was a failing team before the FA Cup final, yet INEOS reacted upon one game and essentially cut out the entire season in their decision-making.

Ruben Amorim's tenure speaks tenfold into what was turning into a circus within United.

Amorim was appointed on 1 November 2024 and officially began work on 11 November. United paid Sporting CP €11 million (£9.25 million) to activate his release clause. He signed a contract until June 2027, with an option for another year.

His first season was extremely difficult domestically. United finished 15th in the Premier League with 42 points, their lowest-ever Premier League finish. They also lost the Europa League final 1–0 to Tottenham.

At this stage, a lot of the fanbase had lost faith in the Portuguese manager's tactical decision-making and believed he was stubborn just like his predecessors.

INEOS, and most importantly director of football Jason Wilcox, decided to back Amorim despite him threatening to walk out of the job twice we can exclusively reveal.

United backed Amorim heavily in the transfer market. The club spent more than £200m during the summer, bringing in players including Matheus Cunha, Bryan Mbeumo, Benjamin Šeško and Senne Lammens.

Sir Jim Ratcliffe publicly said in October 2025 that Amorim should be given three years to demonstrate that he was a great coach, indicating that the intention was initially to give him a long-term opportunity.

Despite the significant spending, United did not make the expected progress. Amorim was eventually dismissed on 5 January 2026 after a 1–1 draw with Leeds. The decision didn't come from a footballing factor (even though it should've).

Wilcox had a scheduled meeting with Amorim that was initially supposed to discuss the January transfer window, but the conversation moved onto tactics and the team's formation.

Wilcox questioned the idea of switching formations and returning to a back three against Wolves. Amorim reportedly became extremely frustrated because he viewed this as Wilcox interfering in the manager's football decisions.

The damning quote came after the Leeds game: “I came here to be the manager of Manchester United – not to be the coach.”

That was the final straw for Wilcox, and the leadership team had an emergency meeting after the game, and it was decided on that very night that he would be sacked.

How can a club be so naive in their decision-making that they always act on emotions?

The club would've continued to back Amorim if it wasn't for the disagreement between him and Wilcox, yet they have the audacity to say it was due to footballing reasons.

Yet he advocates for stability.

Amorim should've been sacked for the poor performances and results, but it was due to a disagreement. This should speak volumes on the people who are in charge of the club.

Is this how the "best in class", a quote frequently used by INEOS to describe their mantra, act?

When Amorim believed the squad needed more signings in the January window, this idea was also relayed by the coaching staff and other departments. The leadership team didn't go ahead with it and repeated that the Janaury market is tough.

When speaking to people within United, the message I got back was that INEOS aren't destroying the club; they have already destroyed it.

Morale within staff at the club is low, with many not happy with how INEOS are running the club internally, let alone externally.

The atmosphere within Carrington this season has not been one of positivity like the club are trying to push out.

In addition to destroying the team, Ratcliffe has crushed the club's workforce by firing over 400 employees, or one-third of the workforce, under the pretext of profit. If the supporters had witnessed an improvement in the results, this may have been acceptable.

This transfer window was an utter disgrace in what should've been United's biggest summer in the last decade.

Michael Carrick came into a struggling side as an interim coach following the dismissal of Amorim and fought tooth and nail to get Champions League football.

The squad was thin and needed real quality to challenge for what was going to be a tough season.

INEOS decided to give Carrick the permanent role on a 2 + 1 year contract.

The summer ended with the signings of Karl Darlow, Youri Tielemans, Andrey Santos, and Carlos Baleba.

For what the expectations were going into the window, it was a disgrace, to say the least.

United's top targets were Elliot Anderson, Mateus Fernandes, Sandro Tonali and Aurilien Tchouameni going into the summer window.

United tried to go for all of them but failed due to not wanting to spend more than what they valued.

United spent two months working on the Mateus Fernandes deal but ended up getting their pants pulled down by Jorge Mendes.

Mendes was the mediator during the entire saga, as West Ham's sporting director had left. United had initially wanted to pay a max of £60 million but ended up going back on their stance when Tottenham Hotspur entered the race.

The deal ended up concluding at £85 million, with United making multiple verbal offers to try to match it but with add-ons, which all got rejected.

One person who is barely mentioned in the media but is a massive problem is Matt Hargreaves – United's director of football negotiations.

Roundtable understands that Hargreaves is seen as an embarrassment internally at United by many figures and someone who isn't fit for the job.

Hargreaves was a marketing director for Adidas and was identified by United in March 2023. He replaced Matt Judge, who left Old Trafford in 2022.

Hargreaves has made United look like a joke in the transfer market. The constant long negotiations to end up paying the exact value of a player which the selling club always wanted, overpaying for players above their market value and the incompetency in selling players.

All of these were evident in this transfer window: United practically sold 0 senior players; they were willing to overpay for Mateus Fernandes after months of negotiating, and they didn't sign a left back, which was a priority position for the club.

The club's plan was to offload Joshua Zirkzee and buy a replacement striker as well as sell Marcus Rashford and buy a new permanent left winger too. None of these plans happened.

Luke Shaw has missed the last three games with an injury, and Patrick Dorgu missed the last game too, with United having no senior left backs in the squad.

Christopher Vivell shouldn't get away with INEOS' failings either. For some reason, the media perception of him being the 'good guy' is plastered everywhere.

Vivell has been directly involved in most of the decision-making which United fans were against, for example, the signing of Ederson before it broke down.

Vivell, Wilcox and Michael Sansoni (United's director of data) were all big fans of Ederson with the club having him on their shortlist for years.

Vivell gets overshadowed a lot due to agendas when in reality he should be put in the same bracket as both Hargreaves and Wilcox.

Tyler Adams was another player who Vivell and his team really liked, which was never reported.

Now, back to the present time and all the noise around Carrick at the minute following the poor start to the season.

Michael Carrick shouldn't be shielded for the poor performances, I agree, but you can't say he wasn't left short.

I ask again, is this how the "best in class" operate?

Supporters have been protesting for years for one clear objective: to get these money-hungry owners out of our beautiful club.

It is clear that protests alone aren't enough. If fans want to make a real effort to get them out, they have to hit them where it hurts: their pockets.

That is what they essentially only care about: what will make and save the most money.

The best in class is the best in class in saving money while United fans suffer the consequences.