Manchester United takeover: Sir Jim Ratcliffe told by the Glazers the Premier League club is ‘not for sale’

Britain’s richest man, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, says the Glazer family has told him Manchester United is not for sale.

Ratcliffe, whose Ineos group owns Nice in France and Swiss club Lausanne, attempted to buy Chelsea in May, but the London club was bought by a consortium led by American investor Todd Boehly instead.

Lancashire-born Ratcliffe revealed on Tuesday he was interested in acquiring United in August, but in a meeting with brothers Joel and Avram Glazer, he was told the club was not for sale.

Ratcliffe told a Financial Times live conference: “I’m a lifelong Manchester United fan. And I was there in that most remarkable match in 1999 in Barcelona, which is deeply etched in my mind.

“Manchester United is owned by the Glazer family. I met Joel and Avram, and they are the nicest people. They are gentlemen. And they don’t want to sell.

“And it’s owned by the six children of the father, and they don’t want to sell.

“If it had been for sale in the summer, yes, we would probably have had a go following on from the Chelsea thing. But we can’t sit around hoping that one day Manchester United will become available.”

Alongside his football clubs, Ratcliffe also owns the Ineos Grenadiers cycling team, a third of the Mercedes F1 team, and Ben Ainslie’s America’s Cup team.

When asked if he would invest more in football, he said: “The most popular sport in the world is football and it is the sport closest to us, so we should have an asset.”

However, Ratcliffe suggested his focus may not be on the Premier League.

He said: “Well not a Premier League, a premier club. I think Nice has got a very interesting history. It’s an old club and it is a very attractive place for footballers as there is a Californian climate down there.”

Ratcliffe claims Chelsea would be run differently to how it is now had his bid in May been successful.

“When Chelsea came up for sale the three bidders were all American financial institutions,” he said.

“They were looking at Chelsea as a financial asset. Whereas we looked at it as a community asset. So our view was that had we bought Chelsea, we would never have owned Chelsea.

“We would just have been the custodians for a period of time. It’s like St Paul’s Cathedral. It’s part of the community and you shouldn’t treat it as a financial asset.

“And, interestingly, they can’t invest in the major football clubs in America. Because America doesn’t allow venture capitalists to buy sports clubs in America. So they come over to the UK and they buy ours.”