Sir Alex Ferguson's ambassadorial contract has been axed

Utterly De Ligt'd said:
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.
Click to expand...

Glazers would never have been able to buy Utd had the Sky bid been approved. Utd would likely be miles ahead of City and Real Madrid if that deal had occurred. Always worth thinking about potential worse outcomes when people oppose something.
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
We're not other clubs though. We're Manchester United.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Who have only really had success under two managers. We can't always be relying on these footballing messiahs to save us and stick around for decades.

MancunianAngels said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, losing Gill and SAF in the same summer was a disaster in hindsight. Also only having a few months to prepare for SAF leaving was a huge issue. Really we should have known a minimum of a season in advance when he planned to leave. Had we known summer 2012, I have no doubt one of Jose or Pep would have come in and done well.

SAF leaving as he did clearly blindsided the squad and board to some extent. For all his achievements, the manner of his leaving was done poorly (although I totally understand it from a personal point of view, and he had earned the right to call the shots by that time).
 
Dans said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yep. He dare not to say anything. I think he said something against the proposed super league but other than that he kept tight lipped. Suspect it suited both parties.
 
Utterly De Ligt'd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ultimately, Fergie had too much power post 2002. That gave him the stability to not have his job at risk but also meant he was able to do whatever he wanted.

He did many things very well but his judgement was certainly all over the place occasionally.

Strachan8 said:
Glazers would never have been able to buy Utd had the Sky bid been approved. Utd would likely be miles ahead of City and Real Madrid if that deal had occurred. Always worth thinking about potential worse outcomes when people oppose something.
Click to expand...
The BskyB takeover would have been awful for a multitude of different reasons.

Imagine being owned by Murdoch when the phone hacking stuff started coming out?

Also, any deal with Sky would have probably meant them being forced to give up on the TV deal. Half the league could have ended up bankrupt.

The proposed takeover was essentially considered illegal by the monopolies and mergers commission. The fan led campaign against it was superb though.
 
Last edited:
Tom Cato said:
I get that he is a very wealthy man, he is old and doesn't need the money. It saddens me that the respect on the mans legacy and name is eroding, when what you have without the man is Aston Villa.
Click to expand...

The respect isn't eroding. You might have a point if they took down all of the statues and banners bearing his name. The club have decided that whatever he was doing wasn't helping, or at least that there are better uses of the resources he was being compensated with.

And no, £2 million pounds per year is not a trivial amount of money. That's a lot of backroom staff, or maintenance of amenities, or better travel arrangements for players, etc..
 
MancunianAngels said:
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.
Click to expand...
United did it with Busby after 25 years service. Donated the proceeds of the Megastore forerunner to him while he too, cast a shadow over the club in a non-exec position. Had a cozy relationship with Louis Edwards just as Ferg does with the Glazers and their no value Bollox.

Hush money.
 
Denis' cuff said:
United did it with Busby after 25 years service. Donated the proceeds of the Megastore forerunner to him while he too, cast a shadow over the club in a non-exec position. Had a cozy relationship with Louis Edwards just as Ferg does with the Glazers and their no value Bollox.

Hush money.
Click to expand...

Didn't Sandy Busby run the club shop for a while until the lease ran out? If memory serves, Martin Edwards then took it over, hired the marketing manager from Spurs, and began to commercialize the club in a way that had never been done before.
 
Denis' cuff said:
United did it with Busby after 25 years service. Donated the proceeds of the Megastore forerunner to him while he too, cast a shadow over the club in a non-exec position. Had a cozy relationship with Louis Edwards just as Ferg does with the Glazers and their no value Bollox.

Hush money.
Click to expand...

Thing is, I don't think Fergie has been doing anything to cast a shadow over the club. It's his achievements that are doing it and they would still be there even if he sat at home all day for the last 11 years.
 
stefan92 said:
A mindset that seems to be more of a burden than an asset today.
Click to expand...

It seems a mantra: '11th is nowhere near good enough and nor should it be'.

'Stop living in the past' does not mean 'accept mediocrity'.

Denis' cuff said:
Glazers and their no value Bollox.

Hush money.
Click to expand...

The Glazers are still at United.

Now Ferguson is off this supposed payroll, he's going to spill some serious beans about the Glazers?

Utterly De Ligt'd said:
others have given the rundown on the horse debacle, which lead to the Glazers taking over,
Click to expand...

Sorry, but those providing this 'rundown' have been sold, and are selling onto you, a massive whopper.

Rock of Gibraltar did not 'lead' to the Glazers.

Ferguson's vast accomplishments would hover over the latest manager regardless. Especially around a sack-hungry press sowing the seeds of discord.
 
Crostien said:
It seems a mantra: '11th is nowhere near good enough and nor should it be'.

'Stop living in the past' does not mean 'accept mediocrity'.
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand you correctly, but I didn't mean that people should accept mediocrity for United. On the contrary what I meant is the feeling I get that a lot of fans accept mediocre results if it means following the "United way" instead of demanding to act like any other club with similar financial capabilities to get similar success on the pitch.
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
I don't think it's a burden. United's culture is changing and I don't think it's for the better.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the culture we used to have is long gone. We never regained a clear set of markers of what we want to be. I don't feel that there is an established culture at our club since Fergie retired.

Therefore it isn't changing, moreso that we talk about culture and standards while we still don't have any definite idea of what that is supposed to be.

Saying things like "it's in our DNA" and similar expressions were common when SAF was around. What is in our DNA today?
 
Rooney25 said:
Agree

Sir Alex Ferguson is Manchester United
Click to expand...
I know why you think that, but he isn't. He is a part of United - a giant part, like Busby. But United has to be more than SAF and it's long past time for us to find a proper post SAF identity.
 
Crostien said:
It seems a mantra: '11th is nowhere near good enough and nor should it be'.

'Stop living in the past' does not mean 'accept mediocrity'.



The Glazers are still at United.

Now Ferguson is off this supposed payroll, he's going to spill some serious beans about the Glazers?



Sorry, but those providing this 'rundown' have been sold, and are selling onto you, a massive whopper.

Rock of Gibraltar did not 'lead' to the Glazers.

Ferguson's vast accomplishments would hover over the latest manager regardless. Especially around a sack-hungry press sowing the seeds of discord.
Click to expand...
If SAF spilt the beans it would make him look very very bad.
 
Fugeeface said:
I would argue that the culture we used to have is long gone. We never regained a clear set of markers of what we want to be. I don't feel that there is an established culture at our club since Fergie retired.

Therefore it isn't changing, moreso that we talk about culture and standards while we still don't have any definite idea of what that is supposed to be.

Saying things like "it's in our DNA" and similar expressions were common when SAF was around. What is in our DNA today?
Click to expand...
We didn't truly have DNA then, because if we did losing SAF wouldn't have lost it
 
Moriarty said:
Didn't Sandy Busby run the club shop for a while until the lease ran out? If memory serves, Martin Edwards then took it over, hired the marketing manager from Spurs, and began to commercialize the club in a way that had never been done before.
Click to expand...
Think that’s exactly right, mate
 
stefan92 said:
Not sure I understand you correctly, but I didn't mean that people should accept mediocrity for United. On the contrary what I meant is the feeling I get that a lot of fans accept mediocre results if it means following the "United way" instead of demanding to act like any other club with similar financial capabilities to get similar success on the pitch.
Click to expand...
I think we've shown in the past that we don't know how to use our financial capabilities properly either on or off the pitch, and that is ultimately why we are where we are now. But I do think there are signs of greater rigour in our thinking under the new regime, which will eventually pay off for us, and the SAF payments are one small example. It's just we are at the start of a very long process of turning it around, and the fans are very impatient and are inclined to draw conclusions that maybe aren't always warranted.

You have to be optimistic, or what's the point? At the end of the day, we ARE Manchester United. We DO have significant resources. We are a huge sports brand. The current financial constraints are temporary and are being fixed. We will be back, once we have re-learned how to best use our considerable resources to our advantage again.
 
Last edited:
Amir said:
Thing is, I don't think Fergie has been doing anything to cast a shadow over the club. It's his achievements that are doing it and they would still be there even if he sat at home all day for the last 11 years.
Click to expand...
Like Busby, his compliance (“if you see a cow in a field… “ + “no value” ) did more than enough to cast a shadow. Once the Glazers had Fergusons approval, they and Ww, were effectively given a free hand to screw the club. It has done as much, if not more damage than the Luftwaffe, the aircrash and relegation did, combined.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Denis' cuff said:
Like Busby, his compliance (“if you see a cow in a field… “ + “no value” ) did more than enough to cast a shadow. Once the Glazers had Fergusons approval, they and Ww, were effectively given a free hand to screw the club. It has done as much, if not more damage than the Luftwaffe, the aircrash and relegation did, combined.
Click to expand...
Or the Glazers could have sacked SAF and hired a new manager. There would have been a media firestorm for a week and that would have been that. SAF's "approval" was a that of an employee going along with their boss.

He could have quit, but instead he decided to stay and won us another 5 PL titles, got us into 3 CL finals winning us 1 more CL trophy, and won the League Cup twice. He did his job.

Some damage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hammondo said:
We didn't truly have DNA then, because if we did losing SAF wouldn't have lost it
Click to expand...

I was talking about our lost culture and then referred to expressions that were common 15 years ago. I don't think culture is equal to DNA. Culture can change and - as you pointed out - DNA can't.

Therefore I ask the question again: what is in our DNA? What is unique to us that doesn't change?
 
Fugeeface said:
I was talking about our lost culture and then referred to expressions that were common 15 years ago. I don't think culture is equal to DNA. Culture can change and - as you pointed out - DNA can't.

Therefore I ask the question again: what is in our DNA? What is unique to us that doesn't change?
Click to expand...
Nothing is unique to us. We didn't build anything into our DNA.
 
Fugeeface said:
I was talking about our lost culture and then referred to expressions that were common 15 years ago. I don't think culture is equal to DNA. Culture can change and - as you pointed out - DNA can't.

Therefore I ask the question again: what is in our DNA? What is unique to us that doesn't change?
Click to expand...
I would have said: entertaining, attacking football played with a bit of daring. Both Busby and Ferguson subscribed to that view and mostly delivered it.
 
nickm said:
I would have said: entertaining, attacking football played with a bit of daring. Both Busby and Ferguson subscribed to that view and mostly delivered it.
Click to expand...
But that was just a culture during certain managers, 2. No real DNA.
 
nickm said:
Or the Glazers could have sacked SAF and hired a new manager. There would have been a media firestorm for a week and that would have been that. SAF's "approval" was a that of an employee going along with their boss.

He could have quit, but instead he decided to stay and won us another 5 PL titles, got us into 3 CL finals winning us 1 more CL trophy, and won the League Cup twice. He did his job.

Some damage.
Click to expand...
Yes he did. But you know this is not what I’m saying. From the minute the yanks walked in It took several years for us to go from the top of the pile to where we “couldn’t afford” to maintain squad strength, while the Glazers lined their pickets with the clubs money. During those earlier years we won trophies with the squad Ferguson had built until the well ran dry. Fergie got his hush money annd was complicit and we are where we are now. You were clearly not paying attention because the alarm bells were ringing loud and clear for the majority of the support. They didn’t all make the ultimate sacrifice that the founders of FCUM did but the writing was on the wall and if you don’t recognise the part that Ferguson played, you’re trying hard not to. I shouldn’t have to qualify that he was arguably the greatest manager we ever had but like Busby before him, he developed a sense of entitlement and succumbed to the owners’ offer. Whether or not you think he was right or wrong in doing so is a matter of opinion but the fact is he did it and helped set the club back years. Most of us who I knew that supported the club through the Busby years thought Ferguson would never leave us in a similar state as Sur Matt did, but that is what happened . United we’re a giant of a club before Ferguson (due to the efforts of Lois Rocca, through to Busby and the amazing support they garnered, even amid relegation) and will be when he’s long gone, and I’m grateful for his contribution, to say the least. It’s just a shame he tarnished his legacy a bit. Hope he enjoys his reward.
 
Dans said:
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?
Click to expand...

The Glazers needed SAF to keep his mouth shut. INEOS less so.
 
Lyng said:
Which part is pure shite?
Click to expand...

The ludicrous idea that ending a contract worth, 7000% the average salary for a multimillionaire octogenarian to shake the occasional hand was in any way a bad idea. Especially in the context of job cuts for normal people elsewhere. Never mind the argument about the salary being the continued price of Ferguson's defending silence over The Glazer ownership.
 
Herman Toothrot said:
The ludicrous idea that ending a contract worth, 7000% the average salary for a multimillionaire octogenarian to shake the occasional hand was in any way a bad idea. Especially in the context of job cuts for normal people elsewhere. Never mind the argument about the salary being the continued price of Ferguson's defending silence over The Glazer ownership.
Click to expand...
It would be an insult to the people on normal wages who were removed if we kept him.
 
Hammondo said:
Nothing is unique to us. We didn't build anything into our DNA.
Click to expand...

If nothing is unique to us, why do you support United?
I understand the answer to that might be by default subjective, but I do believe that every traditional club has something unique to its soul.
And whatever it is, Ferguson embodied it. That's why it worked for so long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.