The UEFA statement on INEOS is bullshit btw, it’s just posturing. All Ratcliffe has to do is follow the footsteps of Red Bull and he won’t have an issue. Red Bull Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg have both been in the CL at the same time.

Leipzig is owned by “Red Bull GmbH” (with a very blatent and hilarious workaround of the 50+1 German rule) but the same company bought SV Salzburg first in 2005 before switching their focus on their German project. This was all fine until 17/18 when they both qualified for the CL.

After an investigation in 2017, UEFA cleared both clubs to participate in in the CL because, while being owned by the same parent company, they were controlled by distinctly different “management structures”. UEFA said Salzburg removed “certain individuals” linked to Red Bull and simultaneously involved with Leipzig from Salzburg’s general assembly, while another person linked to the soft drink company resigned from his position as chairman of the board, and the club also terminated “certain loan agreements” with Red Bull. Furthermore, both clubs terminated a cooperation agreement and Red Bull amended its sponsorship agreement with Salzburg, leading to less financial backing and fewer rights for the sponsor, which lost its membership in the club’s general assembly.

Once all of these changes were made, UEFA then accepted that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ that the clubs had a “shared ownership” and they were both allowed to compete in Europe.

Basically you can own two clubs, just don’t have the same people work at both, have different structures in place and don’t allow the clubs to give each other too obvious of a feeding structure (ignore ~20 loans/sales between the two Red Bull clubs since 2010).