If Sir Alex profits from the IPO

[Eyepopper]

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'm sorry but as far as I can see Utd philosophy has always been to buy and develop young players, complimented by the occasional marquee signing.

Of course you leave out players like Smalling, Hernandez, Jones, Kagawa, Valencia, Nani, Young.... because they don't support your position.

 

[Kraftwerker]

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.

Good to know. You were starting to sound like their very own GCHQ.

Again, due to the dodginess of these feckers, I doubt we'll know if Fergie was right to sue or not. It obviously wasn't a clearcut Fergie's wrong scenario, otherwise it would be swiftly dealt with by any court. The likelihood is neither party was entirely right or wrong. You simply don't know enough to say one way or the other.

I think Fergie, of all people, deserves the benefit of the doubt and I think the evidence is overwhelming that he's not motivated by money, certainly not at this stage in his career. In 1996, when he hadn't even been at the club a decade, things might have been different. And we have to look at it fairly. If the Glazers turned round tomorrow and said to Fergie they were only paying him £50,000 a year he'd obviously quit, not because he's financially motivated but because it's disrespectful and slap on the face.

That's the impression I get from Fergie. He doesn't hold the club to ransom or demand a salary reflecting his position in the game, but he would at least want a salary that shows him respect and doesn't take the piss. Maybe that wasn't the case in 1996.

 

[Maplered]

If he needs to be a bit of Pravada and a bit of San francisco its ok with me. Wgons drawn and protect the players and staff has been his way for 40 years

 

[Feeky Magee]

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.

I've just looked back through the thread, and it's mostly a debate on the Glazers themselves. On the Fergie issue, it's mostly people saying they wouldn't have a problem with it, and those who said they would are nearly universally qualified it with "if" "would be" etc. I don't really see any evidence of people assuming for definite.

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.

How have I been proven wrong? All I ever said was if he was to receive money from the IPO I'd be disappointed. If. I pretty much spent the rest of the thread illustrating how I thought the Glazers had been bad, and in certain cases, how I disagreed with Ferguson backing them. I'm not exactly sure where I've been proven wrong.

 

[kps88]

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.

Should be noted he didn't actually write that letter. Was written by the folks at Red Issue. It's silly though. Can't believe they end it asking for a reply!

 

[Maplered]

I'm sorry but as far as I can see Utd philosophy has always been to buy and develop young players, complimented by the occasional marquee signing.

Of course you leave out players like Smalling, Hernandez, Jones, Kagawa, Valencia, Nani, Young.... because they don't your position.

They absolutely support it, they are all quite young I dont care if we pay 20 or 30 million for a young player rather than forsomeone 28 or 29

 

[Eyepopper]

Should be noted he didn't actually write that letter. Was written by the folks at Red Issue. It's silly though. Can't believe they end it asking for a reply!

They just never quit being idiots do they

 

[Pogue Mahone]

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.

That whole "strange cult" angle was plucked out of the air by noodle, for dramatic effect. He does that a lot. There's a big difference between asking questions and making unfounded accusations. The really stupid thing in all of this is that the vast majority of questions could have been answered by anyone who bothered to read the prospectus.

The only unknown was whether or not Fergie was going to be included in the equity incentive scheme outlined in BOTH versions. Because of this shit-storm he's had to come out and clarify that he's not when there would be absolutely nothing wrong if he was.

Now the people jumping up and down claiming that a) he was getting offered shares only in the second prospectus b) this was out of order and c) linked to an interview given after the initial prospectus are scrabbling for the moral highground and claiming that everyone else is blind or unable to think for themselves. Which is kind of ironic.

 

[KM]

All these RAWK comparisons are beyond silly. There was a proper discussion before this statement made by Fergie. Also people are rightfully getting angry at Andersred's statement who was a cock at the SSN and claimed something along the lines of "now we know why Fergie has defended Glazers".

I wasn't happy with Fergie's dig at fans and wasn't happy when I first heard this but I stopped to criticize him because I was more than willing to give him the benefit of doubt, but some "reds" immediately went on to call him greedy on just assumptions.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

IHow have I been proven wrong? All I ever said was if he was to receive money from the IPO I'd be disappointed. If. I pretty much spent the rest of the thread illustrating how I thought the Glazers had been bad, and in certain cases, how I disagreed with Ferguson backing them. I'm not exactly sure where I've been proven wrong.

Fair point. You haven't been proven wrong. I've worded that badly. You've said you think Fergie should step down (I think that's how you voted?) on the basis of a hypothetical scenario which others were discussing as fact (e.g. andersred). Of course, I still think demanding his head for being given stock options after an IPO is fecking madness but there you go.

Re the rest of my post I'm taking issue at you nit-picking over minor clauses within a statement that Fergie should never have had to make. I just don't see the need. The main thrust of what he was saying is abundantly clear and entirely reasonable.

 

[Feeky Magee]

It's getting quite tiresome now. I'll sum up my view:

- It was perfectly reasonable to ask the question based on the information we had.
- I'm satisfied with the response - I wish other valid queries from the fans could be answered so quickly but I suspect there is no answer.
- Obviously anyone who accused him of benefiting with no qualifier or hypothetical and lambasted him are wrong, both looking through the thread I can't actually seem to find these people. If someone could point me to where these people are, that have provoked such a backlash, I'd be delighted to condemn them. Likewise if Pogue could point out to me where I've been proven wrong I'd be delighted to say "I got that wrong".
- I don't think he's beyond question, and I don't think it's healthy to cultivate an environment where people are scared to ask questions of him.
- Though I love him, I still do not agree with how he's handled the Glazers, and I think those people defending the Glazers to defend him are doing so because they can't separate their feelings for him with the facts.
- I think it's wrong for people to have such a go at Andy Green and the likes. Someone earlier called him a "slacker" who doesn't deserve to be a United fan. FFS, if only we had the same level of anger towards the Glazers.

 

[KM]

- I think it's wrong for people to have such a go at Andy Green and the likes. Someone earlier called him a "slacker" who doesn't deserve to be a United fan. FFS, if only we had the same level of anger towards the Glazers.

He absolutely does. These were his exact words on SSN.

"Well what we found out in the prospectus last night is that he (sir Alex) and other senior management will be entitled to 288 million dollars worth of shares; so I think we now know why sir Alex was so in favour of the glazer family."

I'm sorry but he was being a cock here.

 

[Drainy]

Good to know. You were starting to sound like their very own GCHQ.

If I was a shill for them would I really suggest that they could potentially be misrepresenting their finances (like a lot of wealthy people do ofc)?

As far as they were concerned (and it's seen as the far most likely situation) Sir Alex was gifted half the horse and never paid a penny for it.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-battle-for-the-rock-of-gibraltar-2596362.html

Sir Alex backed down "for the benefit of Man Utd", taking £2.5 million. In court the legality of his claims of £110m from the gift would have been laughed out. It was the only way out for everyone, but it wouldn't have gotten that far if not for Sir Alex's greed/pride.

Just don't forget the meme on this forum about what Sir Alex says and what he thinks/does being two different things. He knows what to say and when in order to get an advantage.

 

[Feeky Magee]

Fair point. You haven't been proven wrong. I've worded that badly. You've said you think Fergie should step down (I think that's how you voted?) on the basis of a hypothetical scenario which others were discussing as fact (e.g. andersred). Of course, I still think demanding his head for being given stock options after an IPO is fecking madness but there you go.

Re the rest of my post I'm taking issue at you nit-picking over minor clauses within a statement that Fergie should never have had to make. I just don't see the need. The main thrust of what he was saying is abundantly clear and entirely reasonable.

If you look back I said I'd voted after only reading the thread title and the answers, and not the step down bit, and of course I wouldn't want him to step down. The bit of a nit-picking point could potentially be comparable. You say it's a respect thing about the wages, who knows, perhaps he might have viewed receiving some shares as a respect thing too, hence it's a valid thing to bring up.

 

[Feeky Magee]

He absolutely does. These were his exact words on SSN.



I'm sorry but he was being a cock here.

I've said elsewhere, and I think maybe here, that he made a mistake on Sky News, and that considering he clarified before SAF came out that it was an "if", that I'm willing to give him the benefit that it was a mistake. Watching that video for the first time I did flinch a little, it was the wrong thing to say, but it was on live tv, shit happens. It certainly didn't deserve the response from 7even.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

If you look back I said I'd voted after only reading the thread title and the answers, and not the step down bit, and of course I wouldn't want him to step down. The bit of a nit-picking point could potentially be comparable. You say it's a respect thing about the wages, who knows, perhaps he might have viewed receiving some shares as a respect thing too, hence it's a valid thing to bring up.

A "respect thing" wouldn't contradict his point about why he would have left United years ago if personal financial gain was his main motivation. Which seemed to be your intention when you brought it up.

 

[Feeky Magee]

A "respect thing" wouldn't contradict his point about why he would have left United years ago if personal financial gain was his main motivation. Which seemed to be your intention when you brought it up.

True. But it would still be an issue of personal financial gain in the endgame would it not? And this is all under the assumption that it was a respect thing in 1996, and not a wish to earn more money. Regardless, it's a much lesser point than the main issue. People have come out gung ho after SAF replied as if there was a huge outpour of hatred against him based on an assumption without any hypotheticals being used, and looking through the thread, it's just not true. It's a few people saying they'd be disappointed/angry if it was true and adding they're disappointed with how he's dealt with the Glazers, and a lot more people defending the possibility and his dealings with the Glazers in general, and then getting very angry at the few when the question is answered.

 

[Wumminator]

I fecking love you Sir Alex Ferguson.

 

[kps88]

I've said elsewhere, and I think maybe here, that he made a mistake on Sky News, and that considering he clarified before SAF came out that it was an "if", that I'm willing to give him the benefit that it was a mistake. Watching that video for the first time I did flinch a little, it was the wrong thing to say, but it was on live tv, shit happens. It certainly didn't deserve the response from 7even.

I don't think he made any mistake in the Sky interview. He got it badly wrong. Period. If you view his Twitter timeline from the Sky interview onwards, he's clearly very convinced that what he said was fact. He says it would be "extraordinary" and he would be "staggered" if it were not the case that SAF was benefiting from the IPO.

He's plugged his Sky interview on there a few times as well and never is there any mention that he misspoke or made a mistake on live TV, something he could have easily done.

A sincere sounding apology would have been nice. He deserves all the criticism he's getting.

 

[jdmufc]

So, just to clarify, you retards were debating what action to take if something that hadn't happened, did happen, then what kind of a cnut would fergie be?

and now with the thing that hadn't happened,and will now never happen, you are all now debating who was the biggest cnut for thinking what kind of cnut fergie would be if he'd done what didn't happen?

and i got stick for wondering if we needed a new assistant manager.

only on the Caf.

 

[fishfingers15]

I find it strange that how Andersred and other 'fans' should not be criticized for making a mistake when they've lived their life as United fans, but it's ok to question and force Fergie to come out and issue a denial based on pure innuendo, when the great man has given 25 years in service to United (Before the doubters pounce, yes he was well paid for during that time)

Brilliant rebuttal from Fergie and shame on you for doubting him.

Spoony, it's good not to place anyone above reproach, but the actual evidence on which Fergie was questioned, shouldn't have happened at all. Especially for a person like Fergie.

At least, Drasdo didn't come out of this looking like an idiot. Wisely said no comments and waited for this to blow over.

 

[Kraftwerker]

If I was a shill for them would I really suggest that they could potentially be misrepresenting their finances (like a lot of wealthy people do ofc)?

As far as they were concerned (and it's seen as the far most likely situation) Sir Alex was gifted half the horse and never paid a penny for it.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-battle-for-the-rock-of-gibraltar-2596362.html

Sir Alex backed down "for the benefit of Man Utd", taking £2.5 million. In court the legality of his claims of £110m from the gift would have been laughed out. It was the only way out for everyone, but it wouldn't have gotten that far if not for Sir Alex's greed/pride.

Just don't forget the meme on this forum about what Sir Alex says and what he thinks/does being two different things. He knows what to say and when in order to get an advantage.

Again you're making a lot of assumptions that you don't know anything about. And you also seem to be siding with their view because 'it seems more likely' to you. Just because something seems more likely to you, doesn't make it so.

If he would've been laughed out of court, then it would have been a very straightforward court case indeed, a 5 minute job. Clearly they didn't believe it would be so straightforward hence the intimidation, so you're just making assumptions there again.

There's that ugly word again - greed. Is it greedy to defend yourself on a matter of principle? You clearly think Fergie should have just lay down and let the cancerous bastards treat him as they please, so as to not rock the boat at the club. Which is a little ironic given you probably at the same time advocate Fergie withdrawing support for the Glazers.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

So, just to clarify, you retards were debating what action to take if something that hadn't happened, did happen, then what kind of a cnut would fergie be?

and now with the thing that hadn't happened,and will now never happen, you are all now debating who was the biggest cnut for thinking what kind of cnut fergie would be if he'd done what didn't happen?

and i got stick for wondering if we needed a new assistant manager.

only on the Caf.

harsh but fair.

 

[Maplered]

I find it strange that how Andersred and other 'fans' should not be criticized for making a mistake when they've lived their life as United fans, but it's ok to question and force Fergie to come out and issue a denial based on pure innuendo, when the great man has given 25 years in service to United (Before the doubters pounce, yes he was well paid for during that time)

Brilliant rebuttal from Fergie and shame on you for doubting him.

Spoony, it's good not to place anyone above reproach, but the actual evidence on which Fergie was questioned, shouldn't have happened at all. Especially for a person like Fergie.

At least, Drasdo didn't come out of this looking like an idiot. Wisely said no comments and waited for this to blow over.

Goto be a first for DRasdo

 

[Feeky Magee]

I don't think he made any mistake in the Sky interview. He got it badly wrong. Period. If you view his Twitter timeline from the Sky interview onwards, he's clearly very convinced that what he said was fact. He says it would be "extraordinary" and he would be "staggered" if it were not the case that SAF was benefiting from the IPO.

He's plugged his Sky interview on there a few times as well and never is there any mention that he misspoke or made a mistake on live TV, something he could have easily done.

A sincere sounding apology would have been nice. He deserves all the criticism he's getting.

Fair enough in that case, I thought I'd seen a post of his since the interview saying "if". Alright he got it wrong. He's since apologised and said he's glad to be wrong. Does that deserve posts like this:

Not only that. What the feck have this slacker contributed to United's success. He should feel ashamed of himself. IMO it's supporters like this the club can be without.

?

 

[Maplered]

Fair enough in that case, I thought I'd seen a post of his since the interview saying "if". Alright he got it wrong. He's since apologised and said he's glad to be wrong. Does that deserve posts like this:

?

There is a lot of us who feel like this some of the criticism of Fergie, and on occasion players is way over the top

 

[Mersault]

True. But it would still be an issue of personal financial gain in the endgame would it not? And this is all under the assumption that it was a respect thing in 1996, and not a wish to earn more money. Regardless, it's a much lesser point than the main issue.

This is why I asked you initially. I don't think it's as simple as "personal financial gain" when negotiating a contract. If, for example, a manager runs the biggest club in the world and has proved hugely successful and it is not acknowledged in his contract negotiations, it not only shows a lack of respect on behalf of the board, but hints at a bigger problem, namely, lack of ambition. Such lack of ambition would not only affect those isolated contract negotiations, but more than likely, set the tone for subsequent contract negotiations as well (for other employees) and perhaps the general financial running of the club.

I can easily imagine that SAF, had he not been United to the core, could have at almost any time in the last 15 years or so, moved elsewhere and found himself a much more lucrative contract with other employers.

This of course is not to say that I am not concerned by his cozy relationship with the Glazers, but I wouldn't be surprised to be surprised (oxymoronic as that sounds) when he's retired and the Glazers gone to fathom his logic in all this when he publishes the next installment of his autobiography...

 

[Sultan]

I don't really mind or care if SAF is getting something out of the club, he has been instrumental in building the value of the club. He certainly deserves it more than anyone else connected to the club. However, he definitely need not get involved in any ownership debate. He's a football manager, not a PR officer for the Glazers.

The statement is exactly what we wanted to hear. I think SAF took my wisdom on board.

 

[Kraftwerker]

Fair enough in that case, I thought I'd seen a post of his since the interview saying "if". Alright he got it wrong. He's since apologised and said he's glad to be wrong. Does that deserve posts like this:

?

What else could he do? Carry on the charade, refuse to believe Fergie, and end up looking like the worst bellend to ever support the club?

His only option was to apologise and backtrack, especially if he wants to make further TV appearances. He doesn't deserve any credit for doing so.

I think he was probably banking on there being no confirmation either way from the club or Fergie, so even if he was wrong, it wouldn't be proven and the doubts could linger.

Instead Fergie's had to come out and defend himself, because this wasn't a question, it was simply a statement of fact, on Sky News.

Hopefully a few lessons have been learnt. Andersred is worth listening to usually and I'll continue to read his blogs, but his credibility took a battering here.

 

[Sultan]

I'm not sure why people are going overboard over SAF being asked a question. With credit to Sir Alex the airs been cleared.

Now let's get talking about football.

 

[Kraftwerker]

I'm not sure why people are going overboard over SAF being asked a question. With credit to Sir Alex the airs been cleared.

Now let's get talking about football.

Where's the question here?

"Well what we found out in the prospectus last night is that he (sir Alex) and other senior management will be entitled to 288 million dollars worth of shares; so I think we now know why sir Alex was so in favour of the glazer family."

 

[Ramshock]

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.

are you and noodles related?

 

[Sultan]

Where's the question here?

"Well what we found out in the prospectus last night is that he (sir Alex) and other senior management will be entitled to 288 million dollars worth of shares; so I think we now know why sir Alex was so in favour of the glazer family."

I personally don't have a problem with that statement. SAF is a senior manager, and the prospectus clearly states they will benefit from the share issue. All the confusion regards Sir Alex has now been cleared, which is massive positive for the club.

 

[vanrooney]

its really time for PL football to start again

 

[AlwaysRedwood]

Fair point. You haven't been proven wrong. I've worded that badly. You've said you think Fergie should step down (I think that's how you voted?) on the basis of a hypothetical scenario which others were discussing as fact (e.g. andersred). Of course, I still think demanding his head for being given stock options after an IPO is fecking madness but there you go.

Re the rest of my post I'm taking issue at you nit-picking over minor clauses within a statement that Fergie should never have had to make. I just don't see the need. The main thrust of what he was saying is abundantly clear and entirely reasonable.

Hey, here's another question. If we discover Fergie killed a teenage boy in the 70s during a botched robbery, would you be upset with him?

I would.

I'd like him to clear the air. We deserve as much.

 

[dev1l]

its really time for PL football to start again

Plus one.

And some people should not spend so much time in the sun..

 

[Kraftwerker]

I personally don't have a problem with that statement. SAF is a senior manager, and the prospectus clearly states they will benefit from the share issue. All the confusion regards Sir Alex has now been cleared, which is massive positive for the club.

The statement essentially says that Fergie's support of the Glazers is financially driven.

If you don't see anything wrong with spreading misinformation like that, then I don't know what to say.

You only need to see the backlash it's created against Fergie and the huge wedge driven between fans to see how unhelpful bullshit like that is.

But anyway, I'm sick discussing this. It's fatiguing.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Hey, here's another question. If we discover Fergie killed a teenage boy in the 70s during a botched robbery, would you be upset with him?

I would.

I'd like him to clear the air. We deserve as much.

What.

 

[moses]

What.

I get it, as a puveyor of kakhanded anaolgies myself.

 

[KM]

Hey, here's another question. If we discover Fergie killed a teenage boy in the 70s during a botched robbery, would you be upset with him?

I would.

I'd like him to clear the air. We deserve as much.