Sir Alex Ferguson's ambassadorial contract has been axed

Sir Alex is in his 80s now, he'll always be synonymous with Utd regardless of whether he's no longer paid an ambassadorial salary, I'm sure he's absolutely fine with it.

Another non story from the media desperate to spin anything negatively about Utd.
 
Malons said:
He said "no value in the market" once. So many fans seem willing to write off his legacy because of that when outspending Chelsea and later City became more important to a sizable chunk of our fan base than winning trophies.

Our/his record in the league in his last 7 years was absolutely astonishing, yet...grumble, grumble something about Ronaldo money, grumble grumble no value in market grumble, etc
Click to expand...
Who on earth is writing off his legacy?
 
LawmanMan said:
Jim Ratcliffe is bad news. Actions speak louder than words and this is as low as it gets.
Click to expand...
See this is what I mean about it giving fuel to simple minds. As low as it gets :lol: Nonsense. But it’s bad publicity when INEOS simply don’t need more. But the decision doesn’t bother me at all.
 
astracrazy said:
Typical CAF :lol:

Hundreds of people likely with families get an email one day, who probably live pay packet to pay packet, telling them they are going to be made redundant.
":confused:meh, club needs to cut costs"

An 82 year old guy worth nearly £100M amicably agrees to end his £2M a year ambassador role during an arrange meeting, whilst still remaining as a non-Exec with the benefits and payment that brings
":mad:wtf disgusting"

Don't get me wrong, I'd be pissed INEOS completely cut ties with him, but come on. He still has an honorable roll, he is still getting paid and he is still coming to games.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If it was amicable then I don’t see why we should be up in arms.
 
The greater good and all that. Fergie was ruthless and was quite happy to move massive players on at a drop of a hat. He knew the bigger picture. This may seem ruthless to some, maybe more than that to others. Sacrilegious perhaps. I think it's a decision that is very reminiscent of the man.
 
It's less of an issue than they layoffs were. We should have probably already agreed at the time when his retirement began for how long this would carry on. 10 years makes sense, and we've gone a year longer than that.

Now this money could go towards ETH's extension hopefully. :drool:
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
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.
Click to expand...

He's done a lot more than hide in the shadows since he bought part of the club, but no, I don't think he needs to be front and centre for an announcement like this. I don't even see it on the official website. Maybe they decided - possibly with Sir Alex himself - not to make a big deal of it.

And yes, overall I'd not expect to see or hear a great deal of him on the daily business of United. Seems like delegating things has been part of his MO in all his businesses. And since there's no reason to think his knowledge of football goes beyond ours, for instance, I think the right thing is for him to keep doing that: Let the people he hired do their work, and do the monthly meeting he and his people in INEOS do with those executives to hear from them.
 
Amir said:
He's done a lot more than hide in the shadows since he bought part of the club, but no, I don't think he needs to be front and centre for an announcement like this. I don't even see it on the official website. Maybe they decided - possibly with Sir Alex himself - not to make a big deal of it.

And yes, overall I'd not expect to see or hear a great deal of him on the daily business of United. Seems like delegating things has been part of his MO in all his businesses. And since there's no reason to think his knowledge of football goes beyond ours, for instance, I think the right thing is for him to keep doing that: Let the people he hired do their work, and do the monthly meeting he and his people in INEOS do with those executives to hear from them.
Click to expand...
The man is in over his head. He simply does not have a clue.
 
golden_blunder said:
I understand that these things happen when the business is losing money hand over fist

But on the flip side if anyone earned it, Fergie did. This club was valued at 30m when they first tried to sell it. Fergies work culminating in huge success means the same club is now valued at billions
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Fergie was and still is the most underpaid Manchester United employee ever. He turned it into a multi billion pound club.
 
I understand the argument that SAF is already a rich man and this doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, however, the optics are quite frankly terrible.

Ultimately they've binned off the most prominent figure in the clubs history to save what is really a paltry sum of money.

It looks like Fergie has been given the boot while Old Trafford burns...

What a mess we are in.
 
It's fairly ridiculous the club was paying him such a large amount for so long. Hard to believe his role was offering that much value beyond sentimentality
 
Good news, especially if that means his board role is also terminated, there is too much lingering malaise at the club based on the notion of keeping managers at all costs because SAF and time.

Great manager, but his presence is holding the club back now unfortunately.
 
UnsungHero said:
I understand the argument that SAF is already a rich man and this doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, however, the optics are quite frankly terrible.

Ultimately they've binned off the most prominent figure in the clubs history to save what is really a paltry sum of money.

It looks like Fergie has been given the boot while Old Trafford burns...

What a mess we are in.
Click to expand...
Nah this is nonsense. Letting go of rank and file was somewhat controversial but getting upset about this is just ridiculous

I find it hard to believe another club would pay an ex manager close to that amount for a made up gig
 
Matt851 said:
Nah this is nonsense. Letting go of rank and file was somewhat controversial but getting upset about this is just ridiculous

I find it hard to believe another club would pay an ex manager close to that amount for a made up gig
Click to expand...

Another club haven't had a manager even close to SAF's level of influence though. He's not just an ex-manager, he made Man Utd what it is today and people would do well to remember that.

£2m a year compared to the horrifying amounts squandered on players and their wages is pretty much insignificant.

The club are currently at a crisis point and this is entirely the wrong time to make this decision. It's another INEOS blunder IMO. As I said, the optics are awful.
 
UnsungHero said:
Another club haven't had a manager even close to SAF's level of influence though. He's not just an ex-manager, he made Man Utd what it is today and people would do well to remember that.

£2m a year compared to the horrifying amounts squandered on players and their wages is pretty much insignificant.

The club are currently at a crisis point and this is entirely the wrong time to make this decision. It's another INEOS blunder IMO. As I said, the optics are awful.
Click to expand...
The Glazers built the coffin and INEOS are hammering in the final nails with their incompetence. Even vampires like the Glazers wouldn’t have made this decision - says a lot about Ratcliffe.
 
UnsungHero said:
Another club haven't had a manager even close to SAF's level of influence though. He's not just an ex-manager, he made Man Utd what it is today and people would do well to remember that.

£2m a year compared to the horrifying amounts squandered on players and their wages is pretty much insignificant.

The club are currently at a crisis point and this is entirely the wrong time to make this decision. It's another INEOS blunder IMO. As I said, the optics are awful.
Click to expand...
The club is doing badly because of poor signings and the decision to keep a failing manager in post.

This nonsense about fergies post has nothing to do with it. Cutting a role that is very well paid and offers very little really doesn't bother me. Fergie is very rich as it is
 
If the news was INEOS had decided to double SAF's pay the news would be in uproar as well...

The modern social media coverage of United is unbearable.
 
Matt851 said:
The club is doing badly because of poor signings and the decision to keep a failing manager in post.

This nonsense about fergies post has nothing to do with it. Cutting a role that is very well paid and offers very little really doesn't bother me. Fergie is very rich as it is
Click to expand...

Nobody is disputing that, I am simply talking about the optics of it. It's a needless and foolish decision taken at entirely the wrong time.

Every single newspaper/media outlet have got this as one of their leading stories right now. It makes the club look like they've discarded him. I know that isn't true, but surely INEOS should have engaged their brains and decided to do this at a later date, not when the club is currently in a crisis and the fanbase are having a meltdown.
 
sjw2511 said:
Good news, especially if that means his board role is also terminated, there is too much lingering malaise at the club based on the notion of keeping managers at all costs because SAF and time.

Great manager, but his presence is holding the club back now unfortunately.
Click to expand...
His presence won't change, he just doesn't get the same money for it anymore. And I don't think there is any sign he still has a say in football decisions? (Well, they might always ask for his opinion; but this doesn't change that.)
 
jim said:
Why? He's made tens of millions from the club, published multiple books etc, almost certainly has more money than he could ever possibly use.

I don't begrudge him what he's been paid, but it's hardly a disgrace to stop paying him.
Click to expand...

This.
 
padzilla said:
So far Jimmy Brexit has laid off 500 staff who were relying on the wage to make ends meet, proposed demolishing Old Trafford and sacked Alex Ferguson, while presiding over a club closer to the bottom of the league than top.

It's going well isn't it?
Click to expand...

Sometimes when you buy an old house you have to demolish it and build a new one for the same purpose as the old one. Except the new one is modern and fit for purpose.
This is one of those times
 
McGrathsipan said:
Sometimes when you buy an old house you have to demolish it and build a new one for the same purpose as the old one. Except the new one is modern and fit for purpose.
This is one of those times
Click to expand...

Aye. But instilling two Project Managers that are synonymous with failure in the last decade, and no experience in house building… doesn’t scream confidence.
 
I don't see why this is a negative thing. Firstly, I had no idea SAF was paid 2 million a year. And if we have paid him this amount for 10+ years after his retirement, it had to end some time. It seems like a non-story but the media will look at anything because a negative Man United story gets the most engagement.
 
It’s hard to justify playing a multi millionaire octogenarian 2 million a year (especially when he probably can’t take part in too many engagements outside of attending matches) having just laid off 500 staff members.

I wouldn’t begrudge it for SAF but if new financial restrictions are forcing us to assess every cost then it’s somewhat understandable that it’s a role that makes little sense financially.

SAF is immortalised with a statue outside the grounds and his name on a stand. So it’s not like we’ve banned him from the club. Most of us didn’t even know if/what he was getting paid and prior to this I doubt any of us were worried about his financial position.
 
LawmanMan said:
Jim Ratcliffe is bad news. Actions speak louder than words and this is as low as it gets.
Click to expand...
Really? Lower than terminating hundreds of employees who likely rely on their wage to feed their kids and pay mortgages?
 
To be honest, I felt a sense of relief when I saw the headline - when I first opened the Guardian page, I saw Fergie's picture at the top, and I immediately started steeling myself for heartbreaking news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.