He's still staying on as a non executive director, isn't he? or has that claim been dismissed as false
Sir Alex Ferguson's ambassadorial contract has been axed
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
He's still staying on as a non executive director, isn't he? or has that claim been dismissed as false
just as his beloved starmer pulls the rug from
under his feet and removes his winter fuel payment.
under his feet and removes his winter fuel payment.
No you were right. He is and will still get paid for that. In 22/23 that compensation payment was £1.2M
Cut 250 jobs at the club
Cut Fergie's ambassadorial role
But £9m extension for the perpetual bald failure and business as usual in 14th.
Cut Fergie's ambassadorial role
But £9m extension for the perpetual bald failure and business as usual in 14th.
What is your source for the board position coming with that salary?
I ask because the The Athletic article says he will remain on the board, but also says he will not be receiving any payments from United beyond the end of the year. Which suggests that the ceremonial board position is not salaried.
So he was getting around £3.3M per year. Glazers definitely took care of him.
Surprised this is even contentious. Just a hangover from the days of profligacy.
I couldn't really care less even if it doesn't come with salary. It's insane that he was getting this much to begin with
It's business at the end of the day, you can't let emotion get in the way of it. You can't be making staff redundant left right and centre pleading poverty while paying an ex manager 2m a year.
Source
The table then lists £1.2M, which sounds about right if five or six were on the board (£6.7M split between them).
Of course how accurate that is I don't know. I presume the clubs accounts would show more. I'd be very surprised if they have cut directors compensation too though. The Athletic probably just haven't been clear that they are referring to the Ambassador payments after this season.
edit: Update this is a newer year version. Doesn't name Sir Alex, but still lists £1.2M.
He is not on the board of directors. He is on a separate ancillary "United board " which included some legends and other ex employees.
That article specifically lists his name? He is going to be paid some level of compensation. I'm just giving the source I have.
Some people like to humiliate themselves on the Internet, screaming and shouting like their favourite YouTubers. Leave them to it, they'll wear themselves out eventually.
I don't think that is accurate, as it seems to be conflating two different boards that exist at United. The ceremonial board SAF was on, and the actual board.
If Qatar took over, Fergie's money would have been doubled.
You’re conflating executive directors (the actual board) with non-executive directors (Fergie’s role) The former are employees of the club and very well paid. The latter are not employees and usually paid a tiny fraction of what executive directors earn.
At the end of the day, Fergie is obviously taking home a lot less money than he did before after this change. Otherwise why make the change in the first place? Whether that should bother any of us or not is a separate issue.
A non-story yet again about United. The media is obsessed.
I'm wondering if Sir Alex used to get board compensation before INEOS restructured, which is why he isn't listed in the same article a year later. OR, was the £2M payment for both Ambassador duties and his role on the football board all along?
Or the article is completely wrong in which case so am I.
Last edited:
I don't think he's on a ceremonial board, whatever that would be, I think he's a non-exec.
The people saying "they'll cut this expense and that expense but they'll keep paying Ten Hag!!" do understand that in addition to paying him off in the event of his sacking, they would then hire a replacement, who would then be paid, yeah? Sacking Ten Hag justified or otherwise wouldn't be done as a cost-cutting measure, obviously. If you're going to swing cheap digs at least do them with your fists and not jerk out your body awkwardly and fall on the ground.
Non executive is kinda synonymous with ceremonial
Crazy he’s been paid millions annually when he left as manager over 10 years ago. Imagine retiring from your employers and they continue to pay you for that long. Only in football!
Fergie doesn't need the cash...besides he's a bit frugal according to Nicky Butt. According to Butty he makes two brews from one tea bag. Nowt wrong with a stingy Scot.
Ceremonial, as in conferring only nominal power or authority.
David Gill previously confirmed the Football Board (which he, Ferguson, Charlton, etc. sat on) was chiefly for the purposes of ambassadorial duties. As opposed to the non-ceremonial Executive Board, which has actual power and authority over key decisions at the club.
I wonder if City will try and sign him up 
Not really. A non-exec just doesn't have day to day duties, they're still plugged into the governance structure of the company. My non-execs can sack me if they want to.
Is nobody else worried this could massively impact the quality of our football?
I'd have a slight more interest in stuff like this if there was any tangible reason for it in terms of the team being successful.
We're not suddenly going to be able to make a bunch of world class signings and shoot to the top of the league because we removed Sir Alex as an ambassador or because we sacked the kit man. Clubs with much less money to throw around have better run football teams than us. In the case of the lesser paid people losing their jobs the only real difference it makes to anything is giving the image that the club is run by a greedy cnut.
We're not suddenly going to be able to make a bunch of world class signings and shoot to the top of the league because we removed Sir Alex as an ambassador or because we sacked the kit man. Clubs with much less money to throw around have better run football teams than us. In the case of the lesser paid people losing their jobs the only real difference it makes to anything is giving the image that the club is run by a greedy cnut.
Maybe the saving will fund ETHs exit
You don’t expect him to be front and centre for an announcement like this? Odd take.
He had enough to say about EtH last week from the Marina.
If he wants to retreat to a position of ‘I’m just a part-owner, great. He can. He’d be far better off just saying “I’m just a fan with money that wants to see United win things again before I die”.
It’s the dipping in and out that fecks me off. Front up for everything. Or say nothing.
Yeah but Sir Alex could not sack anyone and that was clear from the start
Tinpot decisions. It’s a drop in the ocean of the club’s finances. Couldn’t see Barcelona doing such a thing to Cruyff.
it was just an example. Non-execs are not always simple honorary positions.
I find this all confusing now with these different boards. He is listed as a director (since 2013) under companies house, does that mean he must be a non-exec director then?
Yes he was. As if Sir Alex voluntarily gives up millions. Embarrassing decision.
Probably only our club would do this. The way it's been run has been so far behind other elite clubs. It really does not surprise me to read that we were paying Sir Alex for basically doing nothing.
It's a sound decision, given Ferguson's age (soon to be 83) but I question the wisdom of the timing of the decision. For the few pennies that this move saves this should have been done at the end of the season and not in the middle of another media circus around the management of the club.
There's lots of different ways of working, but usually theres just a single over-arching board and it comprises both exec and non-exec directors. Exec directors will usually have some hands on, day to day role or some other powers, while non-exec directors usually just attend board meetings and vote on certain items there. Not all directors may have the same voting rights, depending on what's being discussed.
There can also be sub-committees to the main board, which will sometimes also be called "boards", without actually being a full board.
Jim Ratcliffe is bad news. Actions speak louder than words and this is as low as it gets.
While I generally agree with you here I just have to wonder if there are so many costs to cut that it simply isn't sensible to adjust the timing because of all the things that need to get done in that regard.