By that logic you can't criticize the Glazers' running of the club either. Who are you and I to disagree with their judgements?
Sir Alex Ferguson's ambassadorial contract has been axed
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
I think you misunderstood my first sentence. I clearly state that the boardmembers who bleed money from the club every year should forfeit their annual feck you to the club and rather award the money to the staff.
As for your last paragraph: The money saved from firing Sir Alex will not go towards the working man, so what is even your argument.
Denying Sir Alex access to the dressing room should be illegal. What is this.
People act like SAF did the job for free, christ
Because that's complete nonsense. Do you think Magnier still holds the same shares in different businesses he did in 2003? Or do you think maybe investors sell stakes in businesses and invest in new ones on a regular basis?
Do you think the Glazers chanced upon buying a football club on the off chance two strangers had a falling out over a horse?
How many horses did the rest of the shareholders that sold to the Glazer's co-own with Alex Ferguson?
This narrative that two guys fell out over a horse and Malcom Glazers decided to buy a football club on the spur of the moment, it's just childish and silly. Corporate deals aren't petty little soap operas. You don't buy a football club because two strangers have a row about horse sperm.
People act as if the Glazers were minding their own business when Rock of Gibraltar's load landed in their lap and they suddenly decided to buy a football club.
Last edited:
Exactly... Didn't he also get rid of players that helped him get there when it didn't suit him? He is a legend at the club, like alot of players / managers, they dont get paid £2m a year.
A business size of United needs to move on from SAF, the sooner the fans do so in terms of comparison too, the better for United.
Paying someone £2m as an ambassador is a cost they can get rid of. Do you think pep will get paid by City when he leaves? probably not.
I agree.
What would he have been to actually offer in the dressing room? If he had started giving some speeches or whatever he would just undermine the current manager. While I don't like the current manager, I firmly believe that the manager should be the one in total command of the dressing room. Having ex-managers roam around there just weakens his position.
Hear, hear!
I am with The King on this one; Throw em all in a bag of shit!
Rattclife has turned out to be a stingy bastard tight cnut. No wonder he hasn’t sacked Hag, there is no way he would pay that sort of compensation
The glazers can be judged on their record. The new team at United can't. So the only sensible things to do is give them the benefit of the doubt in the meantime. When enough time has passed, then we can see if it was a good decision or not. In the meantime, I trust the new team are making decisions in United's best long term interests.
Last edited:
The £2m saving this year will pay Anthony’s wages for the next two months….possibly.
It’s great making savings when you need to invest in the team but what else is £2m going to get you?
It’s great making savings when you need to invest in the team but what else is £2m going to get you?
One of my favourite Fergie stories is when he told he board no player should earn more than him after they just gave Rooney £250,000 a week and they were like "yep" and doubled his salary immediately
Ferguson was always touchy about pay though, he and Martin Edwards regularly fell out over it.
I’d have rather binned off Antony and saved ten mil a year on his wages
Think this happening proves just what a financial mess the club has been in for a while
tell me you dont understand how business operates without telling me how a business operates.
Seriously though why's he even in there? He himself wouldn't let the ghost of yesteryear traipse in as they please.
He got George Graham to give him his contract to show Edwards that he was paid a lot less at that time.
It does seem like more than just cost-cutting. Jim Ratcliffe may want to reshape the club's leadership and assert his vision. Given Ferguson's iconic status, removing him from the dressing room and ambassadorial role could be interpreted as a power play, signaling a shift in influence or authority at the club. Sir Alex Ferguson's presence represents a legacy and tradition, so this move might be about establishing a clear distinction between the new regime under Ratcliffe and the club's historical leadership, rather than purely financial motivations. For Ratcliffe, it could also be an effort to distance himself from the previous Glazer ownership, showing that he is taking control and possibly bringing in new faces and ideas.
cnut
As a minority shareholder at the time, and someone who followed it very closely, I'm fairly sure I know a lot more about the whole thing than you do, from beginning to end.
Roy Keane who at the time had connections with Magnier in Ireland was told to tell Ferguson to drop the legal case, but he persisted, and so did Magnier.
Magnier submitted 99 questions to the board at the time referring to United's transfer dealings and finances.
Magnier threatened to "take action" against United if the questions were not answered.
At the same time, Malcolm Glazer was buying up shares in United as they became available he was already a minority holder (I think about 5% of the total)
Magnier and his fellow Irishman on the board (McManus) owned 28.7% of United's shares, under the corporate name of Cubic Expression.
Cubic made it known that they wanted to sell their shares in the club.
Glazer approached them, and offered a price they couldn't refuse and they knew he couldn't afford, knowing he would have to borrow heavily to secure the funds.
Many (including me and a lot of other minority holders) saw this as Magnier "taking action" against the club, putting it in so much debt, that it would destroy what Ferguson had built.
Ferguson and Magnier settled out of court, part of that settlement was that the matter was "closed" and details of it would never be made public.
How many horses, ROG (Rock Of Gibraltar) was the only horse that Ferguson claimed to have a share of in Magniers stable, at the time of the court case he (Ferguson) could not produce any paperwork to to say he actually owned any part of the horse, Ferguson was said to believe that he had been "given" a share, Magnier & McManus disagreed.
So why the disagreement?
The wasn't supposed to be that good, but it was a winner, by the end of 2002 it thought the horse was worth around £50m if it went to stud, Ferguson wanted to cash in, the Irishmen didn't agree that Ferguson was entitled to any money. So this is not some disagreement over horse that's won the local gymkhana.
Ferguson got a quarter of his nag, meanwhile Magnier has watched United fail under the Glazers tenure.
Now onto Malcolm Glazer.
Glazer at the time was heavily invested in the retail development in Florida and other parts of America (shopping malls), and they were failing miserably, tenancies were failing as the American economy was crumbling, he was at the time a minority shareholder in United, and was still buying shares when he was approached to purchase the Cubic Expression holding, so he did not "buy the club on a off chance" he did not "buy it on the spur of the moment", he was an existing board member.
There were rumours at the time that SAF was the person who approached him to buy the Cubic Expression holding, but that is just a rumour.
What is known is that because Glazer was offering stupid money (not his money) for shares, others sold out, only minority holders like myself held out until we were told by the LSE that we had to sell under LSE rules.
What you had was a series of unrelated instances that led to a deal that resulted in the sale of the club to an American businessman who saw United as a cash cow to prop up his failing business interests in the States. if you don't believe that, look into the Glazers investment into Tampa Bay Bucs, and the local community, and compare it to the millions and lack of investment they have put into United, it's still true today, that the Glazer family have never put a cent of their own money into United
Now you can believe or disbelieve what you like, if you want to read all the paperwork, most of it is out there in the public domain, and was no doubt well discussed on this forum and others at the time.
While I have no problems with the club deciding to end his contract, I don't think having him as a paid ambassador meant we haven't moved on from him. It wasn't a very visible role, for the most part. Probably more corporate stuff.
Plus we have former players as ambassadors as well. It doesn't mean we haven't moved on from them.
Aye. And he still got less, according to him.
I think things changed after the treble. Or maybe a couple of years later, when Edwards left his role.
Lll
How was he holding us back? He didn't say owt either.
They just gave his brother a football team instead.
Some folks here are convinced that SAF is entitled to drawing a 2m per annum salary from the club's resources for the rest of his life!
At 82, SAF should be completely retired from all "active" sporting activities at the highest level, which includes consultation. I don't understand why people can't move on. He has done enough for the club and the sport and earned enough to make a handsome (retired) living, and we should all (including him) move on.
At 82, SAF should be completely retired from all "active" sporting activities at the highest level, which includes consultation. I don't understand why people can't move on. He has done enough for the club and the sport and earned enough to make a handsome (retired) living, and we should all (including him) move on.
Sponsors sponsor in order to make their product visible. And yet the likes of you (and me, and nearly everyone else) will claim that they don't buy their insurance via a certain comparison website just because a fat bloke with a big moustache is singing their praises, or buy toilet paper of a particular brand just because a puppy dog is playing with rolls of it. And yet by advertising this way, the advertisers expect to see the product sales increases that far outweigh the amounts spent on these adverts.
So, similarly, personally meeting with Sir Alex, shaking his hand, and having your picture taken with him, will also make that small extra difference. Either in getting the sponsorship contract, or getting a better deal.
As for you saying "I don't buy for a second that SAF is so important to our commercial operation that it can't manage without him.", It's not even worth replying to that.
quote: "3. They've shown a lot of ambition, and that's far more important than the current manager's future. Who the manager is right now, doesn't really have a huge bearing on how the next 5-10 years will unfold."
You do realise that as of this moment, if ETH stays for much longer, United are likely to finish mid-table this season, not win any trophies, and not qualify for European competitions. Which in turn means a significant loss of revenue, which in turn will make it more difficult to recruit the top talent.
Plus, every year that goes by without United winning the major trophies (or even coming close to winning), such as the Premier League or Champions League, the past sucesses of United are getting consigned to history in the minds of the younger generations who's heroes are then City, or Liverpool, or Arsenal players, meaning they're buying City, Liverpool, Arsenal .. shirts and club merchandise instead of United's, which means a further loss of revenue.
So it does matter who the manager is right now.
Given his age and the life threatening health incident he suffered from a few years back, the club shouldn't be placing undue demands on his time ie he should choose who he brings to the game with his complimentary tickets and who he engages with. Yes there can be the odd commercial engagement but the one thing the Glazers have done well is to professionalise and systematize that side of the business.
Sadly as the team has become less competitive even when he is asked to impress key targets to sign it hasn't worked on key occasions as his presence now isn't going to be the deciding factor for generational talent today.
His travel and hospitality/ticketing costs should, of course, always be covered.
The real debate should have been when he was manager should he have been ‘gifted’ shares in the club (both when company private and public) for his lifetime to reflect the scale of his contribution to the footballing success which allowed a 1bn global fanbase. I think it should have happened and that would have avoided him being paid beyond his active engagement.
SAF may be the reason for United making so much money, but that money was made for the Glazer's. INEOS had to pay billions to buy their percentage. They aren't going to care about who or what has made prior owners money, they care about the club at present and we're unfortunately making big losses. They have made hundreds of lower tier workers [the backbone] redundant and leaving someone in a job that practically does nothing and earning £2m a year would be and is stupid, regardless of who that person is. They owe nothing to SAF unlike us fans and the club itself.
I believe he is still being kept on in another role and will still have full access to the club as well. I think the media have tried to sensationalise this and going by this thread, it seems like it has worked as intended.
Some people must genuinely scratch their heads whenever there's a corporate takeover or buyout, when there isn't a story about someone falling out over a horse. Can deals even happen without it?
The corporate/financial world and big money deals aren't EastEnders plots. Grant falls out with Dot therefore he's sold his stake in the laundrette to Frank and the reign of terror begins. People think change characters and scenarios, this is how business deals worth hundreds of millions of pounds are done? We really need to move away from this, but some cling to it as a way of attempts to repeatedly tarnish Ferguson's contributions.
Murdoch nearly bought us a few years before with shareholders all agreeing to sell before the govt blocked the deal. How do we think that happened without a row over a horse?
Knighton, Glazers, Ratcliffe Murdoch and Maxwell. On average there's a change of ownership - or attempted change of ownership - every 8 years out of the last 40. None of which involved a horse or required Ferguson to have a row with some to facilitate the attempt at the takeover
The corporate/financial world and big money deals aren't EastEnders plots. Grant falls out with Dot therefore he's sold his stake in the laundrette to Frank and the reign of terror begins. People think change characters and scenarios, this is how business deals worth hundreds of millions of pounds are done? We really need to move away from this, but some cling to it as a way of attempts to repeatedly tarnish Ferguson's contributions.
Murdoch nearly bought us a few years before with shareholders all agreeing to sell before the govt blocked the deal. How do we think that happened without a row over a horse?
Knighton, Glazers, Ratcliffe Murdoch and Maxwell. On average there's a change of ownership - or attempted change of ownership - every 8 years out of the last 40. None of which involved a horse or required Ferguson to have a row with some to facilitate the attempt at the takeover
So just to re-emphasise one more time, his contract has been terminated. This is Hot Chocolate 'it started with a kiss'.
No row over horse sperm. No Glazers. It's that simple.
Despite that, I have more of an issue with the way Fergie criticised the fans. He didn't have to back protests obviously but telling lifelong reds to feck off and watch Chelsea was a terrible error of judgement from him.
That's just you guessing. You have no idea if wheeling out SAF makes a difference, or how much that is worth. The people who ARE best placed to know, have decided he isn't.
Also, not being able, or wanting, to reply to a point doesn't actually make your argument stronger.
I agree the ideal way to have recognised his long term impact in financial terms, should have been through shares rather than salary.
Handed very poorly I think.