Sir Alex Ferguson's ambassadorial contract has been axed

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.
 
OmgTheyKilkenny said:
I actually think it comes across quite distasteful and disrespectful to be honest. Yes we are paying Alex alot of money but I presume his role as an ambassador equally generates alot of money for the club too.

I find the comments about Alex having enough money rather ironic. Nevermind Alex, professional tax dodger Jim Ratcliffe has plenty of money too - at least Alex pays taxes on his income. Jim on the other hand is happy to cheerlead brexit and then move production outside of the UK all to save himself a few pennies at the expense of his employees.

If the Glazers did this people wouldn't have been so accepting of it. feck Jim Ratcliffe, he's a prick.

Didn't he only just cut a few hundred jobs a few months back at United too? As I said before just feels very distasteful and reminds me a bit of Elon Musk with twitter. No thought or care for loyal members of staff who have been here for years, all about cuts and savings for a few billionaires with more than enough money behind them.
Click to expand...

Trying my best to keep it about the post and not the poster
 
INEOS' optics in their first year has been all over the place.

Lay off a ton of club staff, enforce an outdated return to office mandate, and now they're binning off our greatest manager's ambassadorial role, with his blessing or otherwise.

Meanwhile we're currently languishing at the bottom half of the table with an existing manager who they seem too stubborn to admit they wrongly backed over the summer. To top it all off the Glazers are still here (courtesy of INEOS' minority ownership giving them a lifeline to prolong their parasitic grip over the club instead of allowing other parties a full takeover), and we seemingly have a 'best in class' DoF who allegedly wanted us to go for Southgate (who's now ruled that out himself) and oversaw signings last summer which haven't really improved us.

Its still too early to write them off as colossal failures and of course I'm hoping they sincerely turn things round in the coming years, but stories like this haven't exactly instilled me with the confidence that they're prioritising the right things.
 
Glazers dont need Ferguson to take the focus off their incompetency anymore, they have SJR as their new human shield.
 
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...
They'd have to keep paying ten Hag if they sacked him
 
Kaos said:
INEOS' optics in their first year has been all over the place.

Lay off a ton of club staff, enforce an outdated return to office mandate, and now they're binning off our greatest manager's ambassadorial role, with his blessing or otherwise.

Meanwhile we're currently languishing at the bottom half of the table with an existing manager who they seem too stubborn to admit they wrongly backed over the summer. To top it all off the Glazers are still here (courtesy of INEOS' minority ownership giving them a lifeline to prolong their parasitic grip over the club instead of allowing other parties a full takeover), and we seemingly have a 'best in class' DoF who allegedly wanted us to go for Southgate (who's now ruled that out himself) and oversaw signings last summer which haven't really improved us.

Its still too early to write them off as colossal failures and of course I'm hoping they sincerely turn things round in the coming years, but stories like this haven't exactly instilled me with the confidence that they're prioritising the right things.
Click to expand...

I think the optics are becoming quiet clear; INEOS are incredibly money driven, we are broke and EtH isn't going anywhere because we can't afford to sack him.
 
horsechoker said:
They'd have to keep paying ten Hag if they sacked him
Click to expand...
For a chance to win more money by the end of season and to start building a proper team. Which I believe what new owners normally would do. It's well worth it. If they don't want to cut their losses early then it's Glazers management 101 all over again.
 
tenpoless said:
I love how INEOS' plan of cutting budget is sacking Fergie which saved 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.
Click to expand...

The underlying premise of INEOS' approach to the restructuring at the club is that the manager shouldn't be in charge of recruitment, that the club was lacking expertise in the areas above the manager, and that if the manager had undue influence over transfers then that was a failure of management and structure.

It would make zero sense for them to then blame ETH for the money spent on recruitment during his period at the club. The idea that he should be held responsible for that runs contrary to their entire approach to their restructuring.

It's also just a stupid argument more generally. Not replacing one person in one role with someone else who will earn an equivalent amount of money doesn't invalidate cutting costs in other areas. Especially when the act of replacing the manager will directly cost the club money. They are completely unrelated points, which you've just conflated so you can whine about them not firing ETH in a new thread.
 
OmgTheyKilkenny said:
I actually think it comes across quite distasteful and disrespectful to be honest. Yes we are paying Alex alot of money but I presume his role as an ambassador equally generates alot of money for the club too.
Click to expand...
How would it do that? What did SAF actually DO as an ambassador?

It's quite clear that this was kind of a "thank you" retirement bonus that made no sense economically. As the club needs to cut costs it makes sense to review the "voluntary payments" it does. If anything is distasteful then it actually is that this happens only after people were sacked who need that income (not that it is wrong to reduce staff, but the order in which this happens doesn't feel right).
 
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...

Penny wise, pound foolish.
 
sullydnl said:
The underlying premise of INEOS' approach to the restructuring at the club is that the manager shouldn't be in charge of recruitment, that the club was lacking expertise in the areas above the manager, and that if the manager had undue influence over transfers then that was a failure of management and structure.

It would make zero sense for them to then blame ETH for the money spent on recruitment during his period at the club. The idea that he should be held responsible for that runs contrary to their entire approach to their restructuring.

It's also just a stupid argument more generally. Not replacing one person in one role with someone else who will earn an equivalent amount of money doesn't invalidate cutting costs in other areas. Especially when the act of replacing the manager will directly cost the club money. They are completely unrelated points, which you've just conflated so you can whine about them not firing ETH in a new thread.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, let's say it makes zero sense to blame Ten Hag for the money spent. However, it should make sense for them to realize that the manager is underperforming and has been only getting worse. So to sack hundred of staffs (and now the ambassador) that probably didn't deserve it but keeping arguably the most important person in the club, that directly affects revenues and future of the club, who is clearly underperforming, is a bit silly.
 
Great to see some people taking this well.......

He's 83 at the end of December ffs. It's time enough for him to step aside from this role (which was more of a thank you from the Glazers) IMO. Timing is probably convenient for both sides.

He's staying on as a director too. You'd swear INEOS was booting him out of the club altogether
 
Sky1981 said:
Such a shite move.

They're not making profit because they mismanaged, they shouldnt cut out agreed deal. 2M is peanuts for an ambassador role such as SAF.
Click to expand...
You don't see the irony that it was the people that mismanaged us out of profit that made the deal in the first place? What other ambassador roles are you comparing it too to claim it's peanuts?
 
I'm wondering if SJR is trying to drop the value on purpose to force the Glazer's to get out before it plummets. At the moment the club is a car wreck.

Of course, it may not be the case and somehow INEOS are even more out of touch than the Glazers. Scary thought.
 
Sir Alex is a legend and will always remain so. However United is hemorrhaging money. We have been recording losses year after year. Do we really have the money to keep giving 2m a year to an 82 year man who probably can't do most of the stuff the role entail (ie like representing the club abroad on a regular basis)? We all knew that INEOS don't like wasting money! That what said on their tin.
 
Sky1981 said:
We're not broke. We just spent 200M on dross which we dont need or not worth the vslue they're bought. SAF is the least of their leakages
Click to expand...
We made a net loss of £113M, thats on top of previous losses. The clubs leaking money. Just because we spend X on transfers, using a revolving credit facility, doesn't prove otherwise.
 
sullydnl said:
The underlying premise of INEOS' approach to the restructuring at the club is that the manager shouldn't be in charge of recruitment, that the club was lacking expertise in the areas above the manager, and that if the manager had undue influence over transfers then that was a failure of management and structure.

It would make zero sense for them to then blame ETH for the money spent on recruitment during his period at the club. The idea that he should be held responsible for that runs contrary to their entire approach to their restructuring.

It's also just a stupid argument more generally. Not replacing one person in one role with someone else who will earn an equivalent amount of money doesn't invalidate cutting costs in other areas. Especially when the act of replacing the manager will directly cost the club money. They are completely unrelated points, which you've just conflated so you can whine about them not firing ETH in a new thread.
Click to expand...
Until ETH is sacked, many fans will "write INEOS off" as incompetent because they are fully comitted to the idea that sacking the manager is and has been the most important thing.

I feel like, presuming theres nothing INEOs are seeing regarding the squad/manager that we cant see ourselves, that INEOS are focused on longer term goals for the club and not replacing ETH now is not a priority within that goal. They presumably think he can still salvage something as youd of thought with all the actual people involved, somebody would be able to say "hes lost it". Or do they look at when Ragnick came in and think a new manager bounce is not guaranteed unless they can get a full time one ?

I have to believe another couple of weeks similar to the start of the season and they will have to replace ETH. I mean, I dont look for managers to be sacked and hate the default "sack manager in case of emergency" culture within the sport. But you dont get years anymore to get things right and even if theres all sorts of issues in the backround at the club, ETH will just be a punchbag for the season , worse then last (and that was bad).
 
Don’t like this at all. The great man should be entitled to anything he likes as far as I’m concerned
 
Much though I love SAF, I can't say I'm particulary bothered by the thought of an 82 year old man with a reported net worth of $70m losing one of his multiple ongoing sources of income.

Not when people on much lower wages doing much more material work at the club have also been the victims of INEOS cost-cutting.

It's right that SAF be shown the respect at the club that his status deserves. But that respect doesn't have to come with a multi-million salary for ambassadorial duties.
 
astracrazy said:
Like his non-Exec director role you mean?
Click to expand...
Edited my post just after I wrote it, as he’s definitely already going to have a club pension. What I meant was, he should be able to ride round the corridors on a skateboard all day if he wants. He’s earned it.
 
I don't think SAF is too bothered and neither should we be. It's hardly like he's struggling, him and his family as set for life and will continue to be with or without this change. If the 2m goes towards footballing costs it otherwise wouldn't have been because of FFP etc then it's a good move. I'm sure he has shares etc anyway.
 
2 man midfield said:
Edited my post just after I wrote it, as he’s definitely already going to have a club pension. What I meant was, he should be able to ride round the corridors on a skateboard all day if he wants. He’s earned it.
Click to expand...
He gets paid £1.2M a year for at best a meeting a month. He is going to be fine.
 
I would've been pissed off if I was one of the 250 people cut earlier if there were people getting paid millions because they used to work here, no matter who. It's in line with what they've done elsewhere, so fair enough. I'm sure Sir Alex will be fine
 
astracrazy said:
And they have more than lined his, and still are with his non-Exec role. He is probably making more out of the role than this ambassador role anyway, I think you need to calm down.



He is still getting paid....
Click to expand...
More than lined his. What kind of maths are you running here - a man turns us into a multi-billion pound institution and a licence to print money and live off his success and you think the recompense is in some way commensurate? What he was being paid is a moderate clip for what he’s given us.

Do you think I’m typing in agitation or something? The cold, hard facts are that the money this club now has comes from his fountain of success. It’s about the only thing that should be sacrosanct. The arguments against that are nonsense.
Red00012 said:
We’ve laid off office staff , nothing wrong with this seeing as SAF had a say in it. He wasn’t just called into the office one day and told you’re redundant.
Click to expand...
Because he’s going to be undignified enough to kick up a fuss? The moment that is put in front of him is the moment the blue touch paper is lit.
 
I'd imagine Sir Alex maybe want's to slow down a little and step back from the role anyway.
 
Fortitude said:
More than lined his. What kind of maths are you running here - a man turns us into a multi-billion pound institution and a licence to print money and live off his success and you think the recompense is in some way commensurate? What he was being paid is a moderate clip for what he’s given us.

Do you think I’m typing in agitation or something? The cold, hard facts are that the money this club now has comes from his fountain of success. It’s about the only thing that should be sacrosanct. The arguments against that are nonsense.
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier, I think you just need to calm down.

Sir Alex was paid millions during his time at Utd, and thats excluding bonus'. He got paid £2M a year for an ambassador role since retirement a long with a £1.2M role on the board and probably has shares too. He is remembered with a stand and statue too.

What on earth are you talking about.
 
Fr. Todd Unctious said:
Great to see some people taking this well.......

He's 83 at the end of December ffs. It's time enough for him to step aside from this role (which was more of a thank you from the Glazers) IMO. Timing is probably convenient for both sides.

He's staying on as a director too. You'd swear INEOS was booting him out of the club altogether
Click to expand...

He was a ceremonial ambassador, he wasn't cleaning tables in the restaurant. What part of his role do you think his age was a hindrance to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.