Manchester United kingpin Sir Jim Ratcliffe is absolutely right to swing the axe on Sir Alex Ferguson.
He hasn't shied away from ruffling feathers, has he? The 71-year-old INEOS boss has stopped at nothing to do things his own way since acquiring a 27.7 per cent stake in February.
And open-heart surgery is exactly what is needed to get this great club back on the right track - regardless of how painful the operation is.
Ratcliffe understandably tabled criticism for sanctioning 250 club-wide job cuts while United splurged north of £200m on five footballers in the summer transfer window.
Related articles
Off the field, he's showing that every penny counts after cruelly denying employees their Christmas party last year, one of many cost-cutting initiatives.
United expect to save up to £45million over the next two years, so those pennies make pounds.
There should be limited qualms over ending the payments to Ferguson - as much as he has contributed to the club's reputation as one of the world's biggest.
As part of the arrangement, which won't continue beyond this season, the 82-year-old is currently pocketing a higher salary than Kobbie Mainoo, Amad, and Altay Bayindir.
Ratcliffe is correct in believing that isn't right or sustainable.
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
And let's not pretend Ferguson has had his access to the Old Trafford directors' box revoked. He hasn't.
The decision is said to have been amicable, and the club icon will continue to be welcomed at games.
Ratcliffe will be the one whose face centres the dart boards of masses of United fans after cutting ties with arguably the most significant man in the club's history.
That shouldn't be the case, though, for he is going through with what must be done to overturn over a decade of financial mismanagement helmed by the Glazer family.
Related articles
The fact that United owe more than £1bn through a combination of gross debt, a revolving credit facility and outstanding transfer payments isn't Ratcliffe's fault.
He isn't to blame for the club's fifth consecutive full-year loss posted in the 2023/24 accounts, either.
A net loss of £113.2m was alarming amid the increasing pressure to abide by Financial Fair Play and the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules.
Ratcliffe invested £1.3bn for just over one-quarter of the football club. It's insanity. He is well within his rights to make such headline-dominating calls.
United have made more progress on redeveloping Old Trafford and their Carrington training base in the eight months since his arrival than the Glazers oversaw in the previous 19 years of their ownership.
He has also been responsible for a cultural shake-up at board level, replacing Glazer yes men like Richard Arnold and John Murtough with best-in-class football decision-makers.
If United supporters want continued investment on and off the pitch - from the co-owners bank rather than the Glazers' method of draining the club - there must be an acceptance that Ratcliffe knows what he's doing.
While rich tradition and former success define Manchester United, the future must be prioritised over the past if the 20-time Premier League champions are to restore the glory days.
