Yep.
This entire mini episode is bemusing at best. Especially from Manchester United fans.
If Sir Alex profits from the IPO
- Thread starter CnutOfAllCnuts
- Start date
Yep.
This entire mini episode is bemusing at best. Especially from Manchester United fans.
RAWK as in ignoring the facts of what is actually happening and staying with your own version of reality?
Just read his statement. fecking legend, end of.
He's right though. And I believe the reference is mainly to Dalglish rather than Benitez, though it is a general attitude which permeates Liverpool.
And by the way, most of the distortion of fact has come from the side trying to justify his comments on the Glazers. In this thread we've had it said that the Glazers have/will grow revenue more than interest payments have gone out, that Fergie was in the right over Coolmore (despite his acceptance of a pittance payment instead of 100m quid that he would have got in court if he was right). I absolutely adore the man for what he's done for United, but this attitude that the man can do no wrong is very Liverpoolesque. Most people raised the hypothetical of him getting money from the IPO and talked about it from there. The IPO said "key staff" would be getting shares, it's entirely reasonable to ask whether this included SAF and to debate about what that meant. Now given the question has been answered, those people are satisfied. Reading his response it appears he believes it would be wrong to have done so, which contradicts what many have said in here.
What the feck? He's a slacker? He's worked his nut off trying to simplify the club's financials and what they mean for the fans. In fact, by contributing nothing to United's financials, he's had a much better impact on them than the Glazers.
Yea, using the press to intimidate someone is not airing your dirty laundry in public.
Christ. The length some United fans will go to try to discredit Fergie is mindboggling.
Arguing white is black.
If you are getting sued for horse spunk, saying you have been sued for horse spunk and presenting your slant is not airing your dirty laundry- its already out in public ffs
Or are you talking about their plans to investigate Sir Alex's transfer record? Dirty tactics is not airing your dirty laundry in the context that I meant it- its dirty tactics in their business relationship, not revealing details of their personal finances which could potentially embarrass them.
Not having to answer questions about their horse business and personal financial arrangements as one of the 20 richest people in Ireland was probably worth £2.5 million to him.. for example; maybe he's not entirely honest about his finances and it could cause a conflict between his tax returns and the case?
Just pointing out that Sir Alex isn't an angel shouldn't be a problem to rational minded people.. you don't get to the top by always playing nice.
Bollocks.
On RAWK you're not allowed to hold an opinion against the manager or Suarez or whoever. You're simply banned.
On RedCafe, no one has come close to being banned for their opinion. You're perfectly entitled to air whatever opinion you wish.
When it turns out to be bollocks though, don't expect not to be pulled up on it or even ridiculed.
Am I missing something here? How can a general write up like this:
Be interpreted as SAF getting a share payoff in the IPO and then creating an uproar about it and still be called justified?
2012 Equity Incentive Award Plan
Prior to completion of the offering, we intend to adopt a 2012 Equity Incentive Award Plan (the "Equity Plan"). The principal purpose of the Equity Plan will be to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and non-employee directors through the granting of share-based and cash-based compensation awards. The principal features of the Equity Plan are summarized below.
Share reserve
Under the Equity Plan, 16,000,000 shares of our Class A ordinary shares will initially be reserved for issuance pursuant to a variety of share-based compensation awards, including share options, share appreciation rights, or SARs, restricted share awards, restricted share unit awards, deferred share awards, deferred share unit awards, dividend equivalent awards, share payment awards and other share-based awards.
Administration
The remuneration committee of our board of directors (or other committee as our board of directors may appoint) will administer the Equity Plan unless our board of directors assumes authority for administration. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Equity Plan, the administrator will have the authority to select the persons to whom awards are to be made, to determine the types of awards to be granted, the number of shares to be subject to awards and the terms and conditions of awards, and to make all other determinations and to take all other actions necessary or advisable for the administration of the Equity Plan. The administrator will also be authorized to adopt, amend or rescind rules relating to the administration of the Equity Plan. Our board of directors will have the authority at all times to remove the remuneration committee (or other applicable committee) as the administrator and revest in itself the authority to administer the Equity Plan.
Eligibility
The Equity Plan will provide that share options, share appreciation rights ("SARs"), restricted shares and all other awards may be granted to individuals who will then be our non-employee directors, officers, employees or consultants or the non-employee directors, officers, employees or consultants of certain of our subsidiaries.
Awards
The Equity Plan will provide that the administrator may grant or issue share options, SARs, restricted shares, restricted share units, deferred shares, deferred share units, dividend equivalents, share payments and other share-based awards, or any combination thereof. Each award will be set forth in a separate agreement with the person receiving the award and will indicate the type, terms and conditions of the award.
Prior to completion of the offering, we intend to adopt a 2012 Equity Incentive Award Plan (the "Equity Plan"). The principal purpose of the Equity Plan will be to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and non-employee directors through the granting of share-based and cash-based compensation awards. The principal features of the Equity Plan are summarized below.
Share reserve
Under the Equity Plan, 16,000,000 shares of our Class A ordinary shares will initially be reserved for issuance pursuant to a variety of share-based compensation awards, including share options, share appreciation rights, or SARs, restricted share awards, restricted share unit awards, deferred share awards, deferred share unit awards, dividend equivalent awards, share payment awards and other share-based awards.
Administration
The remuneration committee of our board of directors (or other committee as our board of directors may appoint) will administer the Equity Plan unless our board of directors assumes authority for administration. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Equity Plan, the administrator will have the authority to select the persons to whom awards are to be made, to determine the types of awards to be granted, the number of shares to be subject to awards and the terms and conditions of awards, and to make all other determinations and to take all other actions necessary or advisable for the administration of the Equity Plan. The administrator will also be authorized to adopt, amend or rescind rules relating to the administration of the Equity Plan. Our board of directors will have the authority at all times to remove the remuneration committee (or other applicable committee) as the administrator and revest in itself the authority to administer the Equity Plan.
Eligibility
The Equity Plan will provide that share options, share appreciation rights ("SARs"), restricted shares and all other awards may be granted to individuals who will then be our non-employee directors, officers, employees or consultants or the non-employee directors, officers, employees or consultants of certain of our subsidiaries.
Awards
The Equity Plan will provide that the administrator may grant or issue share options, SARs, restricted shares, restricted share units, deferred shares, deferred share units, dividend equivalents, share payments and other share-based awards, or any combination thereof. Each award will be set forth in a separate agreement with the person receiving the award and will indicate the type, terms and conditions of the award.
Be interpreted as SAF getting a share payoff in the IPO and then creating an uproar about it and still be called justified?
Completely. Very happy he spoke about this. fecking don.
Because people have been dying to have a go at him for years for some reason.
Didn't Ferguson admit before that he nearly quit in 1996 because of the financial details of a new contract?
What point are you getting at?
and?
plenty of oliver holts over here...
What has and hasn't been said on here didn't force Fergie to make a public statement for fears of a divide between him and the fans. That's the only distortion of facts that matters.
Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson strongly refutes claims he is motivated by personal gain should the Glazer family offer the club at an initial public offering (IPO).
"There is not a single grain of truth in this allegation.
"This is an accusation that insults me."
Ferguson said he felt the need to address the issue to prevent a schism developing between him and the United fans.
A clause within the prospectus for the IPO suggests senior management figures will receive shares with the suspicion being Ferguson could be a recipient.
"Being aware of the media coverage that is currently ongoing I felt, on this occasion, that I should make my position clear to the Manchester United fans," said Ferguson in a statement.
"In regards to suggestions that I have praised the Glazer family because I stand to financially benefit from the proposed IPO, there is not a single grain of truth in this allegation.
"I do not receive any payments, directly or indirectly, from the IPO.”
"Ultimately, I run the football side of this club and in order to do this, you need backing from above," he added.
"The Glazer family have let me get on with my job, there is no interference or obstruction, only support.
"My decisions and beliefs are not based around what is best for my personal financial gain.
"That is an accusation that insults me. If that was the case I would have left Old Trafford a long time ago.
"I am speaking because I do not want a situation to develop whereby the media and other parties create a rift, however small, between myself and Manchester United.
"I've spent 25 years of my life pushing this club forward and not only could I not have done that without those fans, I do it for them."
Read more at http://tribalfootball.com/articles/...-utd-going-public-3426331#R2KiUpbbuAUcxx9k.99
"There is not a single grain of truth in this allegation.
"This is an accusation that insults me."
Ferguson said he felt the need to address the issue to prevent a schism developing between him and the United fans.
A clause within the prospectus for the IPO suggests senior management figures will receive shares with the suspicion being Ferguson could be a recipient.
"Being aware of the media coverage that is currently ongoing I felt, on this occasion, that I should make my position clear to the Manchester United fans," said Ferguson in a statement.
"In regards to suggestions that I have praised the Glazer family because I stand to financially benefit from the proposed IPO, there is not a single grain of truth in this allegation.
"I do not receive any payments, directly or indirectly, from the IPO.”
"Ultimately, I run the football side of this club and in order to do this, you need backing from above," he added.
"The Glazer family have let me get on with my job, there is no interference or obstruction, only support.
"My decisions and beliefs are not based around what is best for my personal financial gain.
"That is an accusation that insults me. If that was the case I would have left Old Trafford a long time ago.
"I am speaking because I do not want a situation to develop whereby the media and other parties create a rift, however small, between myself and Manchester United.
"I've spent 25 years of my life pushing this club forward and not only could I not have done that without those fans, I do it for them."
Read more at http://tribalfootball.com/articles/...-utd-going-public-3426331#R2KiUpbbuAUcxx9k.99
No one's claiming he's an angel, it's a straw-man argument. I believe your initial reason for bringing this up was you were one of the people claiming he was financially motivated (and therefore would speak in defence of the Glazers because of the reward of shares)
What's clear one way or another is that Magnier & McManus were dodgy cancerous bastards.
If it was so clear that Fergie was in the wrong, the court case would have been quick and straightforward. They probably wouldn't have even needed to turn up, just send some lawyer and job done.
Instead they used very public, very dirty intimidation tactics to stop it getting that far, and if they'd got their way, we'd probably be doing a good impression of Liverpool by now.
Considering Ferguson said in his statement that he'd never put his financial concerns above that of the club, and posters in here suggesting it was absolute heresy to even raise the possibility? And even a lot of them still not saying it would be necessarily putting financial concerns above the club but still disappointing?
Unfortunately we have some complete wankers here. Firstly, what &0 year old in his position cares if he has another 20 or 20000 in his pay packet. I would love the club to give him shares, along with giggsy and Scholes. Scholes signs contracts coz he loves the club no ah=gent, no drama. fergie may be a bit more ruthless but built out of the same cloth
The Irish horsebreeders aren't my uncle. I don't give a feck about how dodgy they are, we've had plenty of dodgy shareholders including them, Rupert Murdoch and the Glazers none of them would have an issue using dirty tactics to get ahead- thats why they manage to be multimillionaires/ billionaires.
Sir Alex was wrong to sue the largest shareholder knowing that he'd get punished through United and he had 0% chance of winning- because he knew he'd get a settlement of a few million. According to Roy Keane he knew that he had no chance of winning but sued anyway.
Sir Alex is human, like all of us. He has complicated motivations- including financial motivation the need for power and control etc. I'd prefer that he doesn't have a conflict of interest between investment in the squad and personal wealth- and that is the case so I'm glad.
Edit: no I said that it was the most common argument against it, that it could be perceived as a bung- but I wasn't convinced by that argument because its so common amongst IPOs for senior staff to get shares.
You're really scrapping the barrel with this shit.
It's quite embarrassing to watch.
''"I am speaking out because I do not want a situation to develop whereby the media and other parties create a rift, however small,between myself and any Manchester United fan. I've spent 25 years of my life pushing this club forward and not only could I not have done it without those fans, I do it for them.''
I Love that man.
I Love that man.
Legend and a BOSS ! There was no need for him to come up with that statement, most people in his situation would have come up with a bitter rant if people were questioning his commitment to the club after 25 years of service, but this response has been admirable.
Shows how much he values us fans ... now if only he reads the transfer forum as well.He is the main reason we are the greatest team in the world
Very well said from Fergie and fair play to him for that. Didn't think it was going to come after a few days of silence, so it's great to hear.
That said, there were very valid reasons to be worried about this. Anyone who says otherwise is an utter spastic as marching in lockstep does no good for the club. Noodle has it nailed on itt.
That said, there were very valid reasons to be worried about this. Anyone who says otherwise is an utter spastic as marching in lockstep does no good for the club. Noodle has it nailed on itt.
How on earth is that scraping the barrel? He said that personal financial gain never drives his decisions, surely almost quitting over personal financial gain contradicts that?
It is not reasonable to suggest that there's something wrong with SAF to be rewarded with stock options in a team where he's done astounding things, that is not a 'real life issue with the shares'. There is no controversy there, even if he were getting shares as part of a bonus. The questions people were asking implied there was something wrong when there wasn't.
With the IPO there are going to be reporters asking SAF how he feels about ownership. As he's be more than happy to say on many occasions, he's pleased with how things have gone from his end. How can you know he's lying about that? Here you've turned a living legend into a corporate puppet over something you can't possibly be certain about.
Would it be so different if the Glazers owned the team outright and they'd simply taken the same amount of money out as cash as they've paid in loans? I've never heard anyone criticize Bill Gates for keeping his profits.
I can't help but feel most of this is just anti-Glazer splattering on SAF for invoking their name in a sentence.
The issue is whether he's profiting from the IPO.
He's not.
What exactly are you trying to prove by redigesting stuff from 15 years ago, which again you don't know the full details of, to nit pick at isolated parts of his statement?
All i care is what happens on the pitch if Fergie says his hands are not tied and we are buying according to his philosophy and his sucesss shows it. It should be allright for real United fans. We could do with deleting a ton of transfer muppets
Well, his hands are clearly tied. We've seen it the last 4 years as we go after the best available player on the market but refuse to pay asking prices/contracts.
How many targets have we actually publicly went for, or are you purely basing this on who we're linked to in the press.
Its also worth noting that prices and wages for certain players have been skewed by clubs like City and Chelsea, do you think the PLC would have just payed the likes of Sneijder 250k a week without a blink of the eye?
Because people were getting outraged at the question even being asked in the first place. It was an entirely valid question based on the information available. Now that the question has been answered, those who asked it are satisfied. Perhaps if other questions were answered as quickly there'd be less confusion/anger about other things. It's the people going "You should be fecking ashamed for even questioning him. Look at all he's done for the club. We could do without fans like you." is grating. I don't think anyone would wish for us to become a club where questions cannot be asked. Yes, those who immediately assumed he was definitely getting it were wrong, but the majority were talking in a hypothetical.
I think Noodles is mostly right. There's nowt wrong with voicing concerns whatever they maybe and if that means...heaven forbid...questioning Sir Alex, so be it. Unless this is United's version of Pravda or something, or even worse some strange cult where everyone bows to the leader without asking questions.
I think the main issue is the tone with which the question was asked, and in the lack of an immediate answer, how people just went straight ahead and invented their own, and then went on to assume a position based on that.
It seems like you're trying to justify this now by dragging up 1 issue, from 15 years ago, that you don't really know anything about, as a reference that Fergie has some sort of history of putting financial gain ahead of the club.
As I said, scraping the barrel.
Its been a pretty surreal episode. I went on Andersred's blog today and there's this absurd sanctimonious letter addressed to Fergie. I'd burst out laughing at it if I were him.
Surely you understand his point? Why on earth are you taking it literally? I'd like to think that any big decisions I make aren't financially motivated. I once turned down a chance for a better paid job because I didn't want to relocate to another country and upset my family.
If I ever felt my employer was taking the piss regarding my remuneration, though, I wouldn't hesitate to let them know it. You're just nit-picking for the sake of it now. You've been proven wrong in your stance on this issue and are moving the goal-posts to score points on a different issue. You're better than that, Feeky.
If his philosophy is to buy young DeGea the twins, Nick Powell, & only occassionally buy older players Berbatov his hands are not tied. The press & transfer muppets push the superstar agenda> If Fergie wants them they usually come unless they are pure mercenies or want to jon aclub for purely personal reasons ie Ronaldo
"I've spent 25 years of my life pushing this club forward and not only could I not have done that without those fans, I do it for them."
Legend.
Legend.