Ineos will be defined by what happens next at Manchester United - but they have to change approach

"A complete misery." That is how Sir Jim Ratcliffe described the previous 11 years at Manchester United before he finally got his cash into the club and his hands on the controls a year ago today. A penny for what he has made of the last 12 months?

Pretty much everyone would sum it up as miserable, and it's also how almost everyone connected to United currently feels. Ruben Amorim looks miserable. The staff and fans are miserable. The mood is worse now than it was a year ago.

When Ratcliffe's £1.25bn investment was finalised last February, giving him just over a quarter of the club but handing him total control, he suggested it was "going to take two or three seasons" to make United an elite force again. That estimate has surely gone up.

What the British billionaire didn't envisage was seeing United embroiled in a relegation fight this season. One year on from his investment, one of the most expensively assembled squads in world football is 15th in the Premier League. Aside from one glorious Wembley day, Ineos' first year at Old Trafford has been a disaster.

It sums it up that even that FA Cup final win against Manchester City proved costly. Ratcliffe had decided to sack Erik ten Hag before the game, changed his mind after, handed the Dutchman a new contract and then sacked him in October at a cost of £10.4m. Ratcliffe inherited a club on their knees financially, but his decisions have damaged the bottom line rather than improved it.

Ratcliffe will be held responsible for the dithering over Ten Hag and the disastrous £4.1m decision to hire and fire Dan Ashworth as sporting director. When those mistakes are stacked next to slashing FA Cup final benefits for staff, turning a £100 Christmas bonus into a £40 voucher, and