Sir Jim Ratcliffe cleared another hurdle last week in his bid to construct a controversial, government-backed building that will be the largest of its kind in Europe. Confirmation that the Flemish government has issued a new environmental permit for Project One, the ethane ‘cracker’ he is building in Antwerp for €4billion (£3.4bn; $4.
4bn), means his petrochemicals firm INEOS can press on with the work that was halted last summer after complaints from environmental lobbyists. Advertisement Perhaps buoyed by this news, the 71-year-old billionaire also seems to have decided to give the green light to the other big building he wants to crack on with . Of course, he has not officially decided to build a new Old Trafford yet, but the Monaco-based Brit has effectively asked his advisors to come up with a good reason he should not.
So far, they have not found one. We should not be surprised. The reasons for building a larger and better stadium for Manchester United are the same Ratcliffe will have heard for building Project One: what we have is not good enough, it will be cheaper to replace than repair and, if we do not do this, we will be left behind.
But before we examine the rationale for moving 50 metres or so west, let us remind ourselves how Ratcliffe and United got here. Haven’t Manchester United been at Old Trafford forever? Not quite. It has been United’s home since 1910 but the club, which was founded as Newton Heath Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (LYR) Footbal.