Cristiano Ronald leaves Manchester United amid rumoured Glazers exit
If the messy Ronaldo saga was tinged with sadness, the possibility of the Glazers following him out the door was uplifting.
Cristiano Ronaldo gone, the wretched Glazers reportedly going. Short of Eric Cantona rocking up on a Harley-Davidson to reclaim the No 7 shirt, the day could hardly have gone any better for Manchester United fans. The good news kept on coming.
First came the statement from the club and Ronaldo that he was leaving by “mutual agreement” with “immediate effect”. United, and their excellent manager, Erik ten Hag, could now intensify building for the future free of an erstwhile glorious talent now 37, legs slowing, and pitifully raging against the fading of the limelight.
Cristiano Ronaldo is to leave Manchester United by mutual agreement, with immediate effect.
— Manchester United (@ManUtd) November 22, 2022
The club thanks him for his immense contribution across two spells at Old Trafford.#MUFC
Then came the shock bulletin from Sky News that the Glazers were contemplating selling after 17 controversial years. If the Ronaldo development was expected – and the club deserve praise for acting decisively to get rid of him after his incendiary interview, when he not only burnt his bridges at United but set fire to his own reputation – then the Glazer revelation was stunning. If the whole messy Ronaldo saga was tinged with sadness, as he did some special things at United, the possibility of the Glazers following him out the door was uplifting.
BREAKING 🚨: According to Sky News, the Glazer family are exploring the possibility of selling Manchester United after their 17-year reign as owners. pic.twitter.com/yVG0BehHpS
— Sky Sports News (@SkySportsNews) November 22, 2022
United fans were frustrated by Ronaldo’s truculence and lack of respect, and long angered by the Glazers’ debt-laden, dividend-drawing approach, so November 22, 2022, must have felt like a day of liberation. United still have to find a centre forward and also hope that any new owners, if the Glazers for once deliver properly, care for the club more than the Florida profiteers whose only creed is greed.
With English football’s two most famous clubs, United and Liverpool, being circulated on the market, the need for the proposed legislation to bring in a proper owners’ and directors’ test under a powerful, independent regulator has become even more urgent. The Wild West of the Premier League needs a strong new sheriff. These national treasures, these heartbeats of communities, these beacons of hope, comfort and joy, need protecting.
When Malcolm Glazer bought United in May 2005 for pounds 790 million in a leveraged buyout, saddling the club with debts, he was invited into the FA for tea and cake and requested politely to look after this famous club, this frequent headline act in the game’s long, illustrious history. The Glazers were never going to be custodians. They were venture capitalists. They were never in United for the glory. It was strictly business. That was all very well as long as they invested but only recently has the much-needed overhaul of Carrington and Old Trafford, let alone scouting and recruitment, commenced. The fans’ protests against the Glazers, beyond some unpleasant chants, have been impressive and effective.
If the reasons behind the Glazers’ reported plans range from the failure of the European Super League that they backed to the need to invest properly, then the sale of Chelsea in return for a pounds 4.25 billion investment must surely have whetted their appetite, as well as the constant campaigning by United fans. The fact that there were 12 serious bids for Chelsea, whittled down to four, and then finally the successful Todd Boehly-Clearlake consortium shows the level of interest in Premier League clubs. Chelsea have a London weighting, but nothing like the history or global allure of United. The Glazers would walk away with billions.
At least Ronaldo walks away having achieved something at the club, the 145 goals in 346 appearances, the Champions League glory in 2008, three titles, one FA Cup and two League Cups. He also called out the Glazers in his damaging interview with Piers Morgan. But he had to go. Ten Hag had to win for United’s benefit. This was a victory for discipline, for team ethos, doubtless for the payroll but ultimately for the manager, who emerges with authority enhanced. He handled the Ronaldo saga with dignity. He inherited a problem. The club should really have parted ways with Ronaldo last summer, allowing the new man the chance to impose his style free from distractions.
A week after his long lament to Morgan, he’s gone. There were countless words in an hour-and-a-half television interview and now this, just 67 words in a polite, perfunctory statement announcing his departure with a sting in the tail. United duly thanked Ronaldo for “his immense contribution”, for the goals, and wished “him and his family well for the future”. And then there was almost a pause in the statement, a chance for club officials silently to punch the air in delight as they added: “Everyone at Manchester United remains focused on continuing the team’s progress under Erik ten Hag and working together to deliver success on the pitch.”
This a quiet, deadly riposte to Ronaldo’s criticism, pointing out that “progress” was already being made under the new manager. Most observers can see the team more fluid and threatening without Ronaldo. Most appreciate the burgeoning spirit fostered by Ten Hag and noticeable in their “Fergie-time” win at Fulham, and with exciting young talents such as Alejandro Garnacho bursting through. Time waits for no man in football, however gilded. And there was the sentiment about “working together”, United living up to their name. Ronaldo had even refused to help his teammates in the Tottenham Hotspur game.
The sad reality for Ronaldo is that he can’t escape the better defenders who lurk in the Premier League now. He can’t do the running expected of a modern-day centre forward. Harry Kane is two players, No 9 and No 10, and leads the press. Ronaldo cannot. And consider yesterday’s timing: nine days after Garnacho again signalled his promise at Craven Cottage, and a day after Marcus Rashford showed his class for England. United are rebuilding.
The immediate fascination will be to see what calibre of club moves for Ronaldo. There will be interest, especially with no transfer fee, and whether he can still find a Champions League team. Somebody will take him. The brand plays on. For a while longer, just not in the game’s main amphitheatres. The notion of Ronaldo signing for Arsenal can surely be swiftly discounted. They are top of the league, have a formidable team spirit, are building around youth, press hard and fast. Mikel Arteta’s track record is not for big-name stars. Look at how he eased Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang out.
Also of interest will be whether Ronaldo’s denigration of his manager, Ten Hag, and employers, the Glazers, might deter potential suitors. But there will be one club, one owner swooning at the possibility of having Ronaldo.
There was something fitting about that beautiful Annie Leibovitz photo Ronaldo posted on Instagram – he comes with expensive baggage. He has been such a remarkable force in the game that, when the heat from his interview dies down, he will still be remembered as a special talent.
It made sense for both parties to have acted quickly. Any recourse to legal action, however implied, would simply not have benefited United, nor would having him doing laps of the farthest pitch at Carrington, left out in the cold as his contract expired. Ten Hag needed him gone, especially with all the intense media interest Ronaldo attracts. The circus has left town. If only the Glazers soon follow.
THE TIMES
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout