You shouldn't. Because he wasn't.
Honest to feck, what football365 and talksport has done to its audience should be a criminal
offence.
Sir Alex Ferguson's ambassadorial contract has been axed
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
You shouldn't. Because he wasn't.
Honest to feck, what football365 and talksport has done to its audience should be a criminal
offence.
Thats exactly what they have stopped as well. No more 250k deals for these feckers. Cutting cost starts with money that is leaking maybe they didn't think these 2m gave much back. Who knows.
"Which in turn means a significant loss of revenue, which in turn will make it more difficult to recruit the top talent."
5-10 years from now, you think it will matter whether we made the top 4 in 2024-2025? It matters for the current season, and maybe the next one, but further than that into the future? Not at all IMO.
The difference between CL and EL money is big, or at least it used to be when I was more informed about the topic. However, from a PSR point of view, we won't be much worse off if we finish 5th instead of 4th, for example, if I'm not mistaken. We didn't make top 4 last season and still spent a good amount. Also, our net spend this summer turned out to be a very healthy one in the end, which also puts us into a good situation for next summer IMO. I suspect Ineos are planning a huge summer in 2025, and that partly played into why we "only" spent £180m this summer after recouping £86m from all the sales, some of which heavily boost our PSR situations as well due to being "pure profit" sales, like McTominay and Greenwood as they're academy graduates.
Any time Trawlers acquires more shares with further external investments into the club is also going to help our PSR situation.
Also, there are currently 2, or at best 3 teams in the Premier League that can guarantee Champions League football every season for the foreseeable future. City, Arsenal, and maybe Liverpool, but not even they are a 100% guarantee for the next few years. It would be very shortsighted for players to decide on their next club and sign a 5 year long contract, heavily influenced by what European competition they can take part in just in their very first season. Players will consider the whole footballing project and its long-term future, not whether they can play 8 guaranteed CL games in the autumn. A lot of players also have the self-confidence to believe they can make the difference between top 4 and the Europa League, or 1st place and 2nd place.
Last edited:
Did the club ever release a statement to clear up the matter?
Everybody loves Ferguson and it's bad PR for the club..... But paying somebody 2Million a year for nothing was lunacy. When he left as manager that should have been an end of it, any consultancy work he did for the club should have been paid for on an hourly or daily basis just like every other consultant.
2Million a year is a lot of money regardless of how much you spend on Anthonys wages (This seems to be mentioned a lot). Just because you waste Millions on one thing, doesn't make it ok to waste money on something else.
There is a pretty major cost cutting exercise at the moment which makes me think the club the might be in a worse financial state than we know. I presume it's part of the reason ETH was kept on as they are desperate to not pay his compensation..... Although I'd be amazed if they don't need to pay it in the coming months.
2Million a year is a lot of money regardless of how much you spend on Anthonys wages (This seems to be mentioned a lot). Just because you waste Millions on one thing, doesn't make it ok to waste money on something else.
There is a pretty major cost cutting exercise at the moment which makes me think the club the might be in a worse financial state than we know. I presume it's part of the reason ETH was kept on as they are desperate to not pay his compensation..... Although I'd be amazed if they don't need to pay it in the coming months.
Manchester United plc (NYSE: Man Utd) announced today that it has entered into an agreement under which Chairman of INEOS, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, will acquire 25 per cent of Manchester United’s Class B shares and up to 25 per cent of Manchester United’s Class A shares and provide an additional $300 million intended to enable future investment into Old Trafford.
It's from Man utd Website
And this is From Ineos Website
MANCHESTER, England – (BUSINESS WIRE) –20 February 2024 – Manchester United plc (NYSE: Man Utd), and Trawlers Limited, an entity wholly-owned by Sir Jim Ratcliffe, are pleased to confirm that Sir Jim Ratcliffe has completed his acquisition of 25% of the club’s Class B shares and 25% of the club’s Class A shares, following the satisfaction of all conditions, including approvals from the Football Association and the Premier League.
The tender offer (the “Offer”) by Trawlers Limited for up to 25% of the Class A shares, at a price of $33.00 per share, expired one minute after 11:59 pm Eastern Time on 16 February 2024. Following the expiration, Trawlers Limited accepted for payment 13,237,834 Class A shares validly tendered in the Offer (and not validly withdrawn), representing 25% of the total outstanding Class A shares as of expiration. Computershare Trust Company N.A., the depositary for the Offer, has advised that the proration factor for the Offer is approximately 26.2%.
I hope it clears any any doubts you might have had about who has invested in United .
Yes he was. It's ok to admit the man was flawed you know.
This debate has been hilarious. 18/19 years ago, people were saying they agreed with Fergie because the Glazers "weren't that bad" and were better than the PLC. That was annoyingly the general consensus until 2010.
I will refer the gentleman to the answer I gave earlier, because I can't be arsed to type it all out again when he hasn't bothered to read the whole thread.
People wont believe you.
You only have to do a little research to find out just how complicit he was.
He never once criticised the Glazers for their lack of investment, or even involvement in the club, instead quoting "there's no value in the market", yet other clubs seemed to find value and players.
Ok. INEOS have no interest in Manchester United. Weird that they’d be mentioned when the deal went through, that UEFA blocked us from signing players at clubs owner by INEOS and they are continually mentioned by all media outlets in connection with Man United.
The former editor of Red Issue, JP O'Neil, published a really good book about that period.
Fergie was complicit in a lot of what happened with the Glazers. His genius as a manager should never be forgotten but the comments and actions between 2004 and 2006 will always sting. He banned journalists from the Manchester Evening News that spoke about protests, he told the club to sack an under 16 coach who played semi professionally with FC United. It was obscene.
It’s a nothing issue. Fergie is a very wealthy man and doesn’t need the money. There’s no reason why he should have dressing room access either.
You been waiting a while to break out the white sheet and paint?
Greavsie was spot on with his analysis.
I don’t think it’s anything like that though, as much as the media would like to paint it that way.
Something is categorically wrong at this football club, culture wise. Players come here and crumble for some reason. And no, it isn’t just down to the manager because managers do the same!
It’s time to let go of the past. Not forget about it, just let it go. We can’t live in his shadow forever because that’s all we’ll ever be, in his shadow. No one will ever come close and it’s the impossible task even trying.
We need to get really really real about where this club is at right now. Ineos are going to have to make really hard decisions. Unpopular ones and this is one of them.
fecked off United to watch Aberdeen. 
1 game and 1 win without SAF as ambassador. I hope the naysayers have their apologies ready
And as a relacement for SAF theyve recruited Gary Neville, a great player in his day and his love for United is legendary....but he is not in any way an "ambassador!"
Yeah look how he hammers us when commentating
Ferguson was and is a staunch Union man and as such he would never have sold his services cheap and would probably have stuck to his principles and quit rather than take less than he thought he was worth. He knows the value of a pound.
Of course he is. Grew up a Bluenose and Aberdeen come back from 2-0 down and get a draw.
He's a socialist and a man of the people. I am sure he would gladly give up his 2 million a year to help save cuts to front line staff....
While the ugly financiers and rentiers at the club continue to siphon millions away..
You can frame it like that, or, you can ask how the man that turned us into a modern financial juggernaut in the first place is part of a so-called cost cutting exercise in the first place.
Unless he speaks candidly we'll never know his stance, having said that, I highly doubt he would offer any form of resistance to his ex gratia payment being cut; it's "goodwill" after all and the moment someone approaches to discuss that the goodwill has ended.
That's just blind faith. They are just as incompetent as the Glazers. They're just not American.
Well, let's face it, Ferguson has always backed the Glazer's, so to them he was worth 2m a year. Imagine if he had come out against?
Sir Alex -> Sir Axed
It's an abomination that in this financial climate someone is being paid 2 million to do nothing all these years. IMO this should have been the first thing that should have been done by the new management. I can't believe how dumb Glazers must be to waste this kind of money on nonsense. The man did a great job, he got paid well, got his name on the stand, he got his statue, he got his send off, why'd we need to pay him 2m till the end of his time.
I don't understand how common people call out this decision and support paying a multimillionaire even more millions for doing absolutely nothing.
I don't understand how common people call out this decision and support paying a multimillionaire even more millions for doing absolutely nothing.
exactly. I have huge respect for what he has done for the club. But a non exec board member being paid £2m per year it excessive, especially if you are letting normal staff go.
I suppose the outrage is that the payments have been stopped. I imagine most people would agree they probably shouldn't have started in the first place.
Do other clubs keep legend managers on their paybooks well after they've retired? Can't say I've ever heard of this being done before.
I also can't imagine how helpful it is for current managers to have arguably the greatest manager of all time so closely associated to the current running of the club, even if it is largely symbolic.
I also can't imagine how helpful it is for current managers to have arguably the greatest manager of all time so closely associated to the current running of the club, even if it is largely symbolic.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...d-alex-ferguson-belt-tightening-jim-ratcliffe
It was long overdue, a sensible move by the club, and shame on all of you for wetting your beds over an international week pot shot at Manchester United.
Stop making it so easy for them.
It was long overdue, a sensible move by the club, and shame on all of you for wetting your beds over an international week pot shot at Manchester United.
Stop making it so easy for them.
I do not think that the team of well regarded football professionals with excellent CVs now running the football operation, are as incompetent as the Glazers. So no, it's not blind faith, it's about trusting in quality hires to turn it around.
Is he a free agent? I wonder whether Kenny could persuade him to do a spell at our club, maybe bring in Ronaldo for the shirt sales, or something.
I kind of agree but do any other clubs have a former manager that was there for over 25 years?
Fergie almost became the club due to his longevity and that created a huge problem.
I don't like to criticize Fergie, he's like a god, a father figure, I put him on such a pedestal that I have a hard time comprehending some of the negative things he contributed to the club, but it's a reality and I just chose to focus on all the success he brought instead.
But SAF was the best thing that ever happened to the Glazer, others have given the rundown on the horse debacle, which lead to the Glazers taking over, but people haven't really delved into how much cover Fergie provided for the Glazers. We sold Ronaldo for 80 mil, that seems normal now, but probably in todays money the equivalent of well over 200 mil, because it was a record breaking deal, that money went right in the owners pockets, any word from Fergie? Was that typical of Fergie at the time to lose his best player, sign no one as a replacement and back the owners publicly for that situation? He started using the phrase, "no value in the market" a few years later, but this was the start. Fergie's last squad, relative to now seems like the greatest team ever, but in reality, that was an aging squad, including players that should never have been United players, and Fergie got the most out of them to paper over the cracks. But years of selling our best assets and replacing them with cheap alternatives that never really panned out cost us success and quality on the pitch, while I liked some of the players on a personal level, they just weren't United quality, such as Welbeck, Valencia, Young, Kagawa, Evans, Cleverly and some were just a complete waste of space like Anderson. But in addition to those players who were still in the squad we bought some absolute garbage over the years trying to save a buck, Bebe, Dong, Da Laet, Obertan, Manucho, Tosic, etc. Any complaints from SAF about how money was spent?
Ray Adler owns one of the biggest collections of United memorabilia in the world, he was a regular member on a message board I was a mod on years ago, and he was friends with all kinds of people in the club, he was close buddies with Paddy Crerand as an example, but you can google him and see for yourself. He said at the time of Fergie retiring that this ambassador role was essentially hush money, in addition to that Fergie was given an apartment in NYC and his son was employed by the club. Just google him to see what would come up, you can certainly verify who he is, but unfortunately he passed away last year, a miserable git, but that was rather sad to read in all fairness. You can believe me or him, however you look at it, or not, but the fact that SAF retired and has never once spoken out about the Glazers, never backed the fan movement and continued to collect his payment until INEOS started to clean up the Glazers mess, this seems to speak volumes.
Once again, I look past this all because of the good he brought the club, the positive still outweighs the negative by leaps and bounds. But had Fergie actually retired in 2001 who knows how things would have panned out in terms of owners of United and the path we have taken since SAF retired.
Would that not be an argument for distancing ourselves - at least officially - with him.
He is the greatest manager of all time, and what he achieve here will never be matched, but at the same time for us to be successful again means readjusting expectations and modernizing.
Our success in the modern era is largely solely down to two great managers. We need to be able to transition to a club that can thrive with managers coming in for shorter periods and being able to lean on a background setup that promotes prolonged success. I don't think SAF can necessarily be a direct part of this without bringing a lot of baggage and distraction.
Exactly this. Negative spins around United sell/get clicks, and the sad part is so many United supporters buy into the narrative.
We're not other clubs though. We're Manchester United.
Oh yeah, I'd agree with that.
I'd actually argue that David Gill was the one that screwed us over at that time. For all his massive faults, him staying on would have given us some stability.
With so many people leaving at that time, I completely get why there was clamour to keep Fergie involved, even if it was ultimately an incorrect decision.