Right, because you think that it is only to make money. Can you name any owner who has bought a share of a football club at higher than market value... then gone to sell their share and make money?
I'm not sure why you put caveats in, but there's plenty of owners who have either made money or stand to make money by selling a football club.
Ashley and the Shinawatra are the two that jump to mind off the top of my head. Hicks and Gillette made a profit when they sold Liverpool to FSG, and even though he was forced to sell, Abramovic sold Chelsea for about 6 times what he bought the club for.
The list goes on. I mean hell, our own club provides an example. Malcolm Glazer bought Man Utd for £700m and his children sold 27% to Ineos for about £1.2b. That's about a 7 fold increase on Malcolm's initial investment on a full sale.
People who buy sports teams are not really in it to make short term profit because it just isnt there.
Who mentioned anything about short-term? My argument is that Ineos and Ratcliffe have invested because they think there is a longer term return, likely from some event that sees the club turnover and valuation increase beyond what they are now. Likely the new stadium and area regeneration, based on how much effort they are spending on that, but it could be their expectation that TV rights continue to increase, that the broadcasting model is changed to allow clubs to sell their own matches, a superleague, merchandise and sponsorships, etc.
It's not just Ineos - half of teams in the PL and a third of the clubs in the EFL are currently majority American-owned. That's not because they all love football and really enjoyed Welcome to Wrexham and Match of the Day and want to live the dream. They are almost all millionaire or billionaire investors with a background in private equity and asset management. They will all have different business models and exit strategies, but every one has invested because they believe that they will see a return on it as the football industry continues to grow.
You seem to think its profit, how much do you think they will make on their £1.5bn investement?
I doubt even Ineos would be able to say with any accuracy what they expect their return will be. Given how Ratcliffe likes to reference Arsenal a lot, I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking at them for a similar model. E.g. get a new stadium and regularly place in the CL, increase the revenue and the value of the club whilst increasing their ownership %, sell at a certain point once they think the 'industry' has peaked or is on a downward trend. It took Kroenke a decade and £1b to acquire Arsenal's shares, but they are currently valued at over twice that and look poised to continue to rise in value given how much Chelsea were sold for.
Add to that all the time they are spending on the football club, the efforts to get it back to standard. Why would someone who wants to make money, spend money on DoF and managers?
Because you don't make money by having somebody like Woodward in charge of the most significant expenditures of your club? I'm not saying Ratcliffe wants to raffle off Bruno and Onana and pocket their sale fees for a quick buck. He wants to run the club in a way that maximises turnover, minimises costs and increases the overall value. That involves doing things like appointing a DOF who knows not to give Casemiro £350k a week and a manager who is capable of getting the club into the top half of the table.
I don't understand how any of this is controversial. It is far less believable to think that a billionaire would spend over a billion pounds acquiring a stake in a company and be completely happy to write it off for the greater good of seeing Man Utd lift a Champions League trophy. It would be fanciful to believe that any billionaire would do that, never mind a billionaire who tried to buy Chelsea a few months earlier.
