INEOS officially named in court over bankruptcy crisis

INEOS promised a new era at Manchester United when Sir Jim Ratcliffe completed his initial 25% investment in February 2024, but questions over the club’s leadership have only intensified.

Ratcliffe gained control of football operations while the Glazers retained majority ownership, denying supporters the complete takeover many had demanded.

Financial concerns remain significant. United’s latest annual accounts recorded £689 million in borrowings, while INEOS-led redundancies and ticket-price increases have further angered fans.

On Sunday, green-and-gold balloons filled the Stretford End against Aston Villa, accompanied by a banner demanding new owners rather than a new stadium.

The appointment of Michael Carrick has also raised questions about INEOS’ long-term planning.

Carrick returned in January following Ruben Amorim’s dismissal, impressively guiding United to third place with 12 victories from 17 league matches.

However, making him permanent in May was a gamble.

He had previously assisted Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, another United favourite eventually dismissed, while his only substantial managerial experience came at Middlesbrough.

An impressive interim spell was not necessarily evidence that he could sustain success across an entire season.

With United now 18th after one league victory in ten matches, Carrick was dismissed on Thursday.

Mauricio Pochettino was officially appointed on Friday, inheriting another rebuilding project.

Meanwhile, INEOS has been identified in official legal proceedings connected to a separate financial crisis.

INEOS involved in bankruptcy crisis

An official Belgian court judgment dated 8 September names four INEOS-related companies in the judicial reorganisation of chemical manufacturer Vynova Belgium.

They are INEOS Vinyls Belgium, INEOS Commercial Services UK, INEOS Technologies (Holdings) and INOVYN Enterprises.

All four were listed as voluntary intervening parties, with the court extending Vynova’s restructuring protection until 26 December.

However, in a separate official announcement on 10 November, Vynova confirmed it had filed for bankruptcy.

The company cited high energy costs, weak demand and unsuccessful efforts to secure fresh investment or a buyer.

Its Dutch operation also sought protection from creditors.

INEOS’ involvement concerns the earlier restructuring proceedings. Neither document establishes that INEOS caused Vynova’s collapse or faces bankruptcy itself.