I dislike Ineos more more every day. So who is going to be club ambassador now?
Sir Alex Ferguson's ambassadorial contract has been axed
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
Who on earth is writing off his legacy?
See this is what I mean about it giving fuel to simple minds. As low as it gets
Nonsense. But it’s bad publicity when INEOS simply don’t need more. But the decision doesn’t bother me at all.Give it Giggsy till end a season.
Typical CAF
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.
"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
"
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.
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.
How could the club possibly survive without one? Deeply worrying times. I’m actually crying now.
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.
Now this money could go towards ETH's extension hopefully.
Sir Philip Jones KBE
As a cost cutting measure, Fred the Red will be assuming all ambassadorial commitments.
HehNow this money could go towards ETH's extension hopefully.
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.
The man is in over his head. He simply does not have a clue.
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.
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.
Yeh the way he spoke out about it was deafening.
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.
Great manager, but his presence is holding the club back now unfortunately.
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
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.
I hope he takes his ferrero rochers with him!
The greatest left winger in the history of football
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.
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.
The modern social media coverage of United is unbearable.
Do we need one?
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.
The meeting last week was about sacking Sir Alex and not Ten Hag.. plot twist.
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.)
I think he’ll be alright for the rent. Just doesn’t look very good.
This.
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
A new chapter to his biography incoming
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.
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.
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.
Non-issue for me, though of course the media wish to spin it as a scandal and seemingly some here agree. He's getting on, lost his wife, is still involved with the club, there's no need for a global ambassadorial role that involves active travel or work beyond his current board role. Short of paying him for this until he died, at which point people would be complaining over his being paid that long, there's little to suggest anything odd here. Let the man enjoy his remaining years as he wishes. But I can't wait for him being pictured in cut-off mitts, freezing in his kitchen, a poster child in the Sun for government austerity measures....