Sir Alex Ferguson's ambassadorial contract has been axed

If anyone had any doubts about how much control Ratcliffe has over United here's your answer. Glazers would never have done this.

The club’s majority owners, the Glazer family, have previously been satisfied to sanction the payments to Ferguson. According to sources familiar with the thinking of Joel and Avram Glazer, the most prominent of the siblings at United, they believe much of the value that the club continues to generate is owed to Ferguson’s work and legacy, and therefore they did not begrudge him a handsome settlement following his retirement.
Click to expand...
 
SirAF said:
That's an absolute disgrace.
Click to expand...

Why? He's made tens of millions from the club, published multiple books etc, almost certainly has more money than he could ever possibly use.

I don't begrudge him what he's been paid, but it's hardly a disgrace to stop paying him.
 
SirAF said:
That's an absolute disgrace.
Click to expand...
He was getting paid over £2m a year for over a decade after he retired for a ceremonial position. SAF literally has generational wealth and if you read the article, it was amicable.

What I worry far more is for the average Joe that lost their job in the previous cuts. The club made a loss of £113m last year, I’d rather we cut the salaries of multi millionaires to save the money than an average worker.
 
jim said:
Why? He's made tens of millions from the club, published multiple books etc, almost certainly has more money than he could ever possibly use.

I don't begrudge him what he's been paid, but it's hardly a disgrace to stop paying him.
Click to expand...

Devil_forever said:
He was getting paid over £2m a year for over a decade after he retired for a ceremonial position. SAF literally has generational wealth and if you read the article, it was amicable.

What I worry far more is for the average Joe that lost their job in the previous cuts. The club made a loss of £113m last year, I’d rather we cut the salaries of multi millionaires to save the money than an average worker.
Click to expand...

If it was amicable then fair enough, but for me Ferguson IS United. He is entitled to everything after what he did for the club.
 
Not like he needs the money, this was amicable, so don't see this as being a big deal, the media will just put a spin on it.
 
Let’s cut through the sentimentality here—Ferguson’s been getting over £2 million a year for more than a decade since he retired, for what’s basically a ceremonial role. He’s already made tens of millions from United, his books, speaking engagements, and so on. Calling this decision a “disgrace” is a joke. He’s got generational wealth.

United lost £113 million last year, and people are kicking off because the club’s stopped paying a multi-millionaire for doing next to nothing? What’s more disgraceful is that actual staff have been laid off, but we’re supposed to keep throwing cash at a former manager out of some misplaced loyalty? The Glazers might not have had the backbone to make this call, but it’s clear that Ratcliffe is finally prioritising the club’s finances.

Fergie’s legacy isn’t going anywhere, but the idea that we should keep funnelling millions to him is outdated. Focus on the real issues—like getting this club back on track both on and off the pitch—rather than crying over a decision that’s long overdue.
 
He’ll be fine. I’d love to see an article tomorrow to announce that we’re using the money to help former players who are struggling, but clearly that’s not the motivation here.
 
Sentimentality aside, seems overdue. Do any other clubs ever do this sort of thing out of interest?
 
SirAF said:
If it was amicable then fair enough, but for me Ferguson IS United. He is entitled to everything after what he did for the club.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Like it says in the article, the Glazers viewed it as a thank you for much money he's generated for the club and I would say that's fair.

He's still being paid as a board director. Some on twitter are acting like he's being cut off entirely which is not the case.
 
Devil_forever said:
He was getting paid over £2m a year for over a decade after he retired for a ceremonial position. SAF literally has generational wealth and if you read the article, it was amicable.

What I worry far more is for the average Joe that lost their job in the previous cuts. The club made a loss of £113m last year, I’d rather we cut the salaries of multi millionaires to save the money than an average worker.
Click to expand...
He made the club billions and raised our profile to a level we’re doing everything in our power to destroy; £2m a year for the amount contributed is actually too little.

Amicable or not, this is a controversial action as the club is forever indebted to the man, and evidently, can do nothing of substance without him or his immense contribution.

This is like Nike without Jordan; that man will forever benefit from his contribution as should Ferguson.
 
Devil_forever said:
He was getting paid over £2m a year for over a decade after he retired for a ceremonial position. SAF literally has generational wealth and if you read the article, it was amicable.

What I worry far more is for the average Joe that lost their job in the previous cuts. The club made a loss of £113m last year, I’d rather we cut the salaries of multi millionaires to save the money than an average worker.
Click to expand...

The correct move from Ineos.

United cut certain staff on redundancy packages as they are a business making a loss. The loss is exacerbated by the debt leveraged onto it by the Glazers.

It's also uncompetitive. City, for example, run a better operation on half the staff numbers United do.

Fact is the club has been mismanaged on a variety of levels, and is overstaffed. There isn't a sincere business in the world which would not wield the axe in these cases.

It's harsh on the staff, absolutely. The manner in which it unfolded was terrible and reflected badly on Ineos, agreed. But let's not pretend it wasn't a necessary cut to improve United's overall business performance.
 
Tom Van Persie said:
Agreed. Like it says in the article, the Glazers viewed it as a thank you for much money he's generated for the club and I would say that's fair.

He's still being paid as a board director. Some on twitter are acting like he's being cut off entirely which is not the case.
Click to expand...

That is good. For me it's not about the money, it is about the fact that the greatest individual in the club's history (next to Busby of course) should have some sort of official role. I mean, Martin Edwards is club president! That's a role that should have been reserved for Ferguson imo.
 
I understand that these things happen when the business is losing money hand over fist

But on the flip side if anyone earned it, Fergie did. This club was valued at 30m when they first tried to sell it. Fergies work culminating in huge success means the same club is now valued at billions
 
I don’t see the issue , if regular staff are been laid off then they have to look at the higher end of the spectrum also
 
With all the cutbacks it just strengthens my view that they simply don't want to spend the money to sack Ten Hag.
 
Fortitude said:
He made the club billions and raised our profile to a level we’re doing everything in our power to destroy; £2m a year for the amount contributed is actually too little.

Amicable or not, this is a controversial action as the club is forever indebted to the man, and evidently, can do nothing of substance without him or his immense contribution.

This is like Nike without Jordan; that man will forever benefit from his contribution as should Ferguson.
Click to expand...

You do realise he is still remaining a non-Exec director? They aren't completely cutting ties with him, and will still get paid for that role. I'm not sure what you think is controversial about it.
 
So far Jimmy Brexit has laid off 500 staff who were relying on the wage to make ends meet, proposed demolishing Old Trafford and sacked Alex Ferguson, while presiding over a club closer to the bottom of the league than top.

It's going well isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.