Sir Alex Ferguson's ambassadorial contract has been axed

You'd think a group which is one of the world's largest chemical companies should have better PR in 2024
 
If you are "sacked" you leave the company/job on the same day
You are not sacked if you remain on the company books until the end of the current season when your contract will not be renewed.

After reading this thread, and reading the official statements and reports, it seems there were about 500 Caf members in the meeting, and none of them can remember exactly what was said.
 
Glazers are geniuses.

They’ve brought in a new shareholder to take all the stick of new decisions they didn’t make because of backlash:

Sack Fergie
Next up change the name of old Trafford
Lower standards
Wouldn’t be surprised if they push for home games in America

Futures looking bleak.
 
Andy_Cole said:
Glazers are geniuses.

They’ve brought in a new shareholder to take all the stick of new decisions they didn’t make because of backlash:

Sack Fergie
Next up change the name of old Trafford
Lower standards
Wouldn’t be surprised if they push for home games in America

Futures looking bleak.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that they got a nice little payment for the privilege too from SJR for the shares. Glazers get a lot of stick for their business decisions but when you look at what they've actually got out of it themselves, I bet they're the envy of many businessmen who wish they came up with the idea. Buying United with our own money, and everything that came after.

Unfortunately it's all to the detriment of the fans.
 
this all seems to be another excuse for the usual media pile on and i am surprised how many fans fall for this narrative. Frankly i was shocked at the amount SAF was still getting paid by the club. To have get this size of contract he will be obliged to carry out roles for the club which at 83 is probably a bit too much. I am not worried for his financial situation , i am sure he has good pension/invstments built up over time and i would be pretty sure that this has been a mutual decision. He is not getting 'sacked' or booted out the door as the narrative seems to imply. If SAF was to come out and give an interview in his own words to say that he was treated badly i may change my stance but otherwise its a case of move on and let the guy relax.
 
pocco said:
Don't forget that they got a nice little payment for the privilege too from SJR for the shares. Glazers get a lot of stick for their business decisions but when you look at what they've actually got out of it themselves, I bet they're the envy of many businessmen who wish they came up with the idea. Buying United with our own money, and everything that came after.

Unfortunately it's all to the detriment of the fans.
Click to expand...
So what do you think would have been the best solution for the fans? Finding an oil overlord like the Arabs or Qatar?
 
Sir Erik ten Hag said:
So what do you think would have been the best solution for the fans? Finding an oil overlord like the Arabs or Qatar?
Click to expand...
We needed this:
1. 100% get glazers out
2. Become debt free
3. Use own profits for sustainability

If that’s from oil money so be it. But we needed something for 1 and 2 to happen.

The fact many here are so pleased with our current setup is bizarre. Superb we’re not an oil club (wait doesn’t INEOS do oil?)! But we’re dying a slow death.
 
Sir Erik ten Hag said:
So what do you think would have been the best solution for the fans? Finding an oil overlord like the Arabs or Qatar?
Click to expand...

No, I was fully on board with SJR from the start and wouldn't change that. But they're not immune from criticism and, to be honest, I didn't think this was the route they'd take. There's been a number of bumps in the road so far but I'm hoping they get to grips eventually. I said early doors that I don't expect them to get everything right straight away, but if they can recognise that themselves and put it right then that is good enough for me. When it comes to the manager in particular though, that's not happened.
 
Adebisi's Hat said:
this all seems to be another excuse for the usual media pile on and i am surprised how many fans fall for this narrative. Frankly i was shocked at the amount SAF was still getting paid by the club. To have get this size of contract he will be obliged to carry out roles for the club which at 83 is probably a bit too much. I am not worried for his financial situation , i am sure he has good pension/invstments built up over time and i would be pretty sure that this has been a mutual decision. He is not getting 'sacked' or booted out the door as the narrative seems to imply. If SAF was to come out and give an interview in his own words to say that he was treated badly i may change my stance but otherwise its a case of move on and let the guy relax.
Click to expand...

Fergie isn't going to say anything either way, we all know that. But my grievance with it is that we're now having less and less "football people" involved with the club. Something we slated Woodward for, and even he allowed Fergie to be inside the inner circle. I just can't see how his presence isn't a good thing for everyone. It should be a walking, talking reminder to the lot of them of the standards of the club. For many of us, he is Manchester United, whether we like it or not. It feels like one of those things you just don't mess about with.

And this argument that if they're making cutbacks to lower grade staff then they should do this, well that's bollocks. I bet none of those staff are sat saying "well if they sacked Sir Alex then they'd have more money to pay us". He's the reason the club can do any of this right now. He's the reason these lot make money from this club. Not because of their great business acumen, because they've done their best to feck up all of his hard work.

So even if it's the right reason in a business sense (feck me, when did united fans suddenly want us to be a business first? You've all sipped the kool aid on this one), it's not going to sit right with a lot of people for other reasons.
 
pocco said:
Fergie isn't going to say anything either way, we all know that. But my grievance with it is that we're now having less and less "football people" involved with the club. Something we slated Woodward for, and even he allowed Fergie to be inside the inner circle. I just can't see how his presence isn't a good thing for everyone. It should be a walking, talking reminder to the lot of them of the standards of the club. For many of us, he is Manchester United, whether we like it or not. It feels like one of those things you just don't mess about with.
Click to expand...
If I understood the reports correctly he stays as a non-exec member of the board. Which means that he actually stays in the inner circle like you wish. The "club ambassador" is something "external" to represent the club. Axing that role feels fine to me.
 
stefan92 said:
If I understood the reports correctly he stays as a non-exec member of the board. Which means that he actually stays in the inner circle like you wish. The "club ambassador" is something "external" to represent the club. Axing that role feels fine to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know he remains in that role, but I still think this was something we shouldn't have touched. I'm not just referring to this news about him being axed but also the news about him not being allowed around the team. I don't care about the rest of the board members but, this is Sir Alex we're talking about.

And also, it's £2m to the guy who made us what we are. That's a drop in the ocean compared to what the Glazers take, what some of these shite players take, and so on. As a supporter, there's nobody I would rather give that money to than him. We're paying ETH that amount every two months. If anything his neck should be on the line.
 
tenpoless said:
I love how INEOS' plan of cutting budget is sacking Fergie which saves 2 mil a year, but they kept Ten Heh who costed the club over £600million (not counting his own salary, bonus, etc.) with nothing to show for it. If they have cut budget to the point where the staffs that earned peanuts compared to that had to get the boot then surely Ten Hag should be sacked too. The more he spent the lower the club position's is on the table. Pure madness.

Sack Fergie, sack Ten Hag, sell Antony. And I'd be perfectly fine. It's the case of elephant in the room and they go seek out the ants with microscope.
Click to expand...

Objectively speaking he’s won two trophies. Regardless of how you value trophies that’s not “nothing to show for it”. Its more than what Arteta has to show after spending £400m in the last 3 seasons.
 
Andy_Cole said:
Glazers are geniuses.

They’ve brought in a new shareholder to take all the stick of new decisions they didn’t make because of backlash:

Sack Fergie
Next up change the name of old Trafford
Lower standards
Wouldn’t be surprised if they push for home games in America

Futures looking bleak.
Click to expand...

They won't be here after 2026
 
Pexbo said:
Objectively speaking he’s won two trophies. Regardless of how you value trophies that’s not “nothing to show for it”. Its more than what Arteta has to show after spending £400m in the last 3 seasons.
Click to expand...
Three if you count Snapdragon cup
 
pocco said:
Yeah I know he remains in that role, but I still think this was something we shouldn't have touched. I'm not just referring to this news about him being axed but also the news about him not being allowed around the team. I don't care about the rest of the board members but, this is Sir Alex we're talking about.

And also, it's £2m to the guy who made us what we are. That's a drop in the ocean compared to what the Glazers take, what some of these shite players take, and so on. As a supporter, there's nobody I would rather give that money to than him. We're paying ETH that amount every two months. If anything his neck should be on the line.
Click to expand...

Where did you read that?
 
pocco said:
Fergie isn't going to say anything either way, we all know that. But my grievance with it is that we're now having less and less "football people" involved with the club. Something we slated Woodward for, and even he allowed Fergie to be inside the inner circle. I just can't see how his presence isn't a good thing for everyone. It should be a walking, talking reminder to the lot of them of the standards of the club. For many of us, he is Manchester United, whether we like it or not. It feels like one of those things you just don't mess about with.
Click to expand...

I believe we now have more football people at the club than we did at any point during the last 11 years. And more importantly - people in positions which give them a lot of power and influence, such as DOF and Technical Director.

Also, like someone mentioned, Fergie is still a part of the football board along with the likes of David Gill and Mike Edelson. I don' t think they have any power... But niether did being an ambassador.

Fergie should still be around because of who he is. But as far as footballing decisions, I hope we moved on from that a long time ago, even if we haven't done it very well so far.

As for how HE'S feeling about it, we'll soon now. If he's upset, we might not be seeing at matches any time soon.
 
Does anyone know if this was a collective or just something Jimmy boy thought was a good idea?
 
SuperiorXI said:
No you can't, not in a business environment. As an emotional fan yes of course, but this is a business at the end of the day where INEOS have had to make hard decisions to save money. You cannot be justifyably paying an ex manager 2m a season while the club is failing in many areas and having to let go many staff. The 2m if anything is yet another sign of poor running by the Glazers. It was never them paying Fergie, it was the club.

INEOS have to look at everything, they cannot afford to overlook 10k never mind 2m. The fact that you are so dismissive over this shows that you are not thinking clearly but in an emotive way.

It is exactly the correct move, no question about that.
Click to expand...

You've missed the part where I said the decision may be justifiable from a business perspective, but ultimately this is the wrong time to action it. Why not do it months ago if it's so urgent?

I would also add the club is not failing because of these relatively small payments to SAF.

It's all about optics and timing, hugely critical in football, which I don't think you understand.
 
Man, there are a lot of soft hearted people on this forum. Half the time people are moaning about a lack of standards. So INEOS sets some standards - eg no more money to people who aren't directly helping to improve the performance of the club.

Well done. Sorry that SAF loses a bit of money but enough. This is about our future, not our past.

That's £2m we can now spend on, I dunno, some training or medical improvements.
 
pocco said:
Would you swap our last two seasons for Arsenal's? I certainly would.
Click to expand...
Nope. We've won two trophies, they've won fu*k all. They've won 4 FA Cups in the last 20 years and routinely bottle it when they look like winning something. They've almost become a slightly better version of Spurs.

In our worst ever era since the late 80s, we've won more in the last 10 years than they have in double that time.
 
Even if we accept that this is absolutely the correct decision, the timing for it to come out is so crazy. The whole world is holding its breath to see if Big Jim has the stones to sack Erik Ten Haag and, right at that moment, he decides to sack Fergie instead! Surely to feck he has people around him at the club who could have said that maybe this could wait a few weeks?!?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Even if we accept that this is absolutely the correct decision, the timing for it to come out is so crazy. The whole world is holding its breath to see if Big Jim has the stones to sack Erik Ten Haag and, right at that moment, he decides to sack Fergie instead! Surely to feck he has people around him at the club who could have said that maybe this could wait a few weeks?!?
Click to expand...
So we can't make any big announcements until we sack ETH?

If SAF's status is slowing the right decisions being made for the future of club, then maybe SAF's status at the club is a problem. Not quite as bad as Sir Matt's presence at the club was maybe, but same ballpark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.