The government is likely to reject any approach by Sir Jim Ratcliffe for public money to help fund a national stadium for the north that would be a new home for Manchester United.
The suggestion of the funding by United’s new shareholder has sparked criticism from two former sports ministers, while Whitehall insiders say that the club would almost certainly need to fund any stadium development themselves.
Ratcliffe, the Ineos co-founder whose purchase of 28 per cent of United shares was confirmed this week, has said that he wants to talk with the government about developing a new stadium to replace Old Trafford, including a regeneration of the surrounding area.
The issue is particularly sensitive in the northwest of England given that Everton are paying for their new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock themselves and have incurred large debts to do so.
Ratcliffe has yet to approach ministers and a government source said that public investment could only be considered for regeneration projects around the area, and not for the stadium itself.
Advertisement
Tracey Crouch, the former Conservative sports minister, pointed out that the Glazers had “underinvested” in Old Trafford while making hundreds of millions of pounds from the club.
• Jim Ratcliffe wants Gary Neville to help Man United stadium plan
“When you have historic football clubs elsewhere in the pyramid on the brink of collapse, it is an astonishing suggestion that taxpayers’ money could be spent on one of the richest football clubs in the world because of the underinvestment in its stadium by its billionaire owners,” the 48-year-old said.
Richard Caborn, the former Labour sports minister, added: “Public money should absolutely not be used for a new stadium for Manchester United. Look at how Everton are struggling to pay for their new stadium. It wouldn’t be right.”
Ratcliffe estimated that refurbishing Old Trafford, including a surrounding campus, would cost £1 billion, but that £2 billion would be needed to construct a new stadium. He said he would commit £1 billion to the project but added there should be a benefit for the taxpayers.
Advertisement
“In a way you’re getting something which is not just for the club but for the north of England,” Ratcliffe said. “The people in the north pay their taxes like the people in the south pay their taxes.
• Matt Dickinson: Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s bold vision needs his manager to succeed
“But where’s the national stadium for football? It’s in the south. Where’s the national stadium for rugby? It’s in the south. Where’s the national stadium for tennis? It’s in the south. Where’s the national concert stadium? It’s the O2, it’s in the south. Where’s the Olympic Village? It’s in the south.
“All of this talk about ‘levelling up’ and ‘the northern powerhouse’. Where is the stadium in the north?
“There is an argument [for] a more ambitious project in the north which would be fitting for England, for the Champions League or FA Cup final, and act as a catalyst to regenerate southern Manchester, which has got quite significant history in the UK.”
Advertisement
• Jim Ratcliffe’s Man United vision: knock rivals off their perch
In a separate interview with the BBC, Ratcliffe said that there was an argument for public money to be used “if it’s a national stadium and it’s a catalyst for the regeneration of south Manchester”.
United are set to announce details next week of a task force that will oversee the regeneration of Old Trafford and the surrounding area. The Times revealed on Wednesday that Gary Neville had been invited to join the committee.
