This is a weird note given that Neville, Keane, Rooney, Rio have all spoken on the podcasts how literally nobody was allowed in the dressing room and how even the coaches didn't really go in there. Was just a players space. Maybe if I remember correctly they said that the directors would go down to congratulate briefly but it's also a completely irrelevant move point.
Sir Alex Ferguson's ambassadorial contract has been axed
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
This is a weird note given that Neville, Keane, Rooney, Rio have all spoken on the podcasts how literally nobody was allowed in the dressing room and how even the coaches didn't really go in there. Was just a players space. Maybe if I remember correctly they said that the directors would go down to congratulate briefly but it's also a completely irrelevant move point.
You can argue that it's a good business decision to save £2 million - you can also argue you are buying yourself a lot of bad will from a huge amount of the fans who remember how much joy Ferguson gave us.
The fact is - Sir Jim and his mean better get the development of the club right, because with decisions like this - if they don't back it up with results on the pitch, they will lose the fans fairly quickly
The fact is - Sir Jim and his mean better get the development of the club right, because with decisions like this - if they don't back it up with results on the pitch, they will lose the fans fairly quickly
Agree with this. It's not a good look. At the moment they're looking like they're just going around trying to fit square pegs in round holes. 'Oh this isn't working lets try this', instead of them having a plan being calm and calculated which I expected.
Why wouldn't they come up with some sort of better lie than looking to save a few bones?
Feel like I’m missing something.
Thought this was mutual/discussed decision?
And Mike Keegan talking about dressing room access … also doesn’t sound like a big issue (and it’s Mike Keegan).
Just feels like two minor/agreed things and became headlines because it’s us. As always. (happy to be explained why not the case).
Thought this was mutual/discussed decision?
And Mike Keegan talking about dressing room access … also doesn’t sound like a big issue (and it’s Mike Keegan).
Just feels like two minor/agreed things and became headlines because it’s us. As always. (happy to be explained why not the case).
Paying someone 2m a year to do barely anything is not a good look more like.
Brilliant.
That'll be the king not getting asked to talk potential targets to come to United then
Nope. Paying 90m for a one footed not very fast winger is a disgrace.
Am I angry? No, SAF is a very rich man (well earned!) and he probably doesn't need the extra 2m a year.
But in the context of the obscene amounts of money certain players are stealing from the club, this is a bit of a dick move by Ineos.
But in the context of the obscene amounts of money certain players are stealing from the club, this is a bit of a dick move by Ineos.
He is rich and doesn’t need the money.
On the other hand, having the greatest manager in the history of football is a massive perk than many clubs do not have. As much as I consider myself as a pragmatist, I do not think that this was the right decision.
On the other hand, having the greatest manager in the history of football is a massive perk than many clubs do not have. As much as I consider myself as a pragmatist, I do not think that this was the right decision.
So that Tuesday meeting was to discuss the real important things; how to increase savings rather than sporting success, great.
Meet the new owners, same as the old owners.
Meet the new owners, same as the old owners.
Actually you could very easily argue he can justify a lifetime wage.
Of course it's not insignificant in any normal scenario, but in this instance it is. It's not a large enough sum to urgently address now, in the midst of a club crisis...
It's poured yet more fuel on the fire. Yet another foolish move by INEOS I'm afraid.
Finally
I don't think we should have to pay Fergie two million a year in eternity. Did he think he wasn't getting paid enough when he was managing us? I can’t be too bothered about this, but INEOS better be ready to move on EtH soon if it keeps sliding. Writing a season off would be completely unacceptable.
Do not agree with this decision at all. If anyone deserves it, it’s him. If they want to go down this route of saving every penny then cut down the dividends of those parasites first then go for the prima donnas who are stealing a living at this club and then this manager who’s on a kings ransom and taking us closer to relegation.
I mean, fair do's that's a good run. If they take his seat away then that's different, that's just cnutish
Dividends were suspended for (3?) years in terms agreed for Ratcliffe buying into club
You should read the article at some stageNice to see the board handling the main issues during the international break...
INEOS lacks the class that even Glazers had. Next up - changing the name of Old Trafford.
Directors don;t get paid as such.
They take Directors loans and dividends
You cannot take dividends if a company is not making a profit.
In theory Directors loans have to be re-paid.
They take Directors loans and dividends
You cannot take dividends if a company is not making a profit.
In theory Directors loans have to be re-paid.
No you can't, not in a business environment. As an emotional fan yes of course, but this is a business at the end of the day where INEOS have had to make hard decisions to save money. You cannot be justifyably paying an ex manager 2m a season while the club is failing in many areas and having to let go many staff. The 2m if anything is yet another sign of poor running by the Glazers. It was never them paying Fergie, it was the club.
INEOS have to look at everything, they cannot afford to overlook 10k never mind 2m. The fact that you are so dismissive over this shows that you are not thinking clearly but in an emotive way.
It is exactly the correct move, no question about that.
Spot on. We'd be a completely different club and nowhere near a worldwide top outfit without his work at United.
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
On the one hand he's the salavationist who brought the club it's longest period of success ever, and rightly is considered the greatest manager of all time (so far)
On the other he's 83yrs old, if he has been flying around the world as a club ambassador and doing all the things that entails, he deserves a good rest.
Personally I think the salary issue is not the reason, to me it's the need for a new era, Sir Matt hung around the club for too long, and was still considered "The Boss" even when SAF took charge, SAF himself said that players would go to Matt, before they would go to him, perhaps there are similar issues going on behind the scenes.
For what it's worth, I thank him for all the great times he gave us, all the trophies and all the spats with the press, it was never a dull moment, I wish him all the best and hope that he spends more time with his family and enjoys what years he has left.
On the one hand he's the salavationist who brought the club it's longest period of success ever, and rightly is considered the greatest manager of all time (so far)
On the other he's 83yrs old, if he has been flying around the world as a club ambassador and doing all the things that entails, he deserves a good rest.
Personally I think the salary issue is not the reason, to me it's the need for a new era, Sir Matt hung around the club for too long, and was still considered "The Boss" even when SAF took charge, SAF himself said that players would go to Matt, before they would go to him, perhaps there are similar issues going on behind the scenes.
For what it's worth, I thank him for all the great times he gave us, all the trophies and all the spats with the press, it was never a dull moment, I wish him all the best and hope that he spends more time with his family and enjoys what years he has left.
I think this is a faux pas by Ratcliffe. As others have mentioned the money that the club has generated on the back of Fergie's brilliance is an order of magnitude higher than what he's been paid as an ambassador and they've probably also made money on the back of his ambassadorial role indirectly.
I actually think he should have been given one percent of the club when he retired. Would be worth about 50-60m now.
Doubt Cantona would say what he said if SAF was super happy with his role being scrapped.
I actually think he should have been given one percent of the club when he retired. Would be worth about 50-60m now.
Doubt Cantona would say what he said if SAF was super happy with his role being scrapped.
For all the rights and wrongs of this decision it's a bad look when the current manager is under-performing so badly.
If it's with SAF's complete blessing and him wanting to slow down then fair enough but there is a reason why his name and Sir Bobby's are on stands and why both were kept around for so long.
But like I say if he's happy with it himself then that's up to him and them.
If it's with SAF's complete blessing and him wanting to slow down then fair enough but there is a reason why his name and Sir Bobby's are on stands and why both were kept around for so long.
But like I say if he's happy with it himself then that's up to him and them.
Just screams a “no one is safe” and “we’re only looking forward” move from these owners that hasn’t landed. But I still don’t see it as much of an issue.
To be honest, I was shocked we were paying him 2m in the role especially at his age. I would expect it's quite limited what he could offer to the role.
Not disagreeing though paying Antony £10m per year is far more shocking IMO
So this is what the much-publicized exec-meeting was all about? Talk about removing the real elephant in the room.
Fred the Red is next.
Reportedly the highest paid mascot in the EPL
Eric Cantona questions ‘scandalous’ decision to end Sir Alex Ferguson’s Manchester United ambassador role
Eric Cantona has launched a stinging attack at Manchester United’s Ineos owners over their decision to terminate Sir Alex Ferguson’s £2m-a-year contract as a club ambassador.
“Such a lack of respect. It’s totally scandalous. Sir Alex Ferguson will be my boss forever! And I throw them all in a big bag of shit!”
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5845360/2024/10/15/eric-cantona-ferguson-manchester-united/
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...-erik-cantona-manchester-united-b2629730.html
Last edited:
There are too many ambassadors at United, I think most are let go and Alex was mentioned because his status at United. I believe he will always be welcome at Old Trafford to watch a game, give a speech and etc. He is just not given a pay cheque. At the day of the day, United needs to be profitable in order to buy the best players in the world. I think Ineos has save 10-20 million per years by reducing headcount. I just hope that we are buying the right players.
Classless clowns running the club. As mentioned by others, he fully earned it. Even the Glazers recognized he made them a fortune, what does saving 2m really achieves for a club like United?
I really dislike Ratcliffe. You'd think an English man who grew up supporting the club would know better. feck him.
I really dislike Ratcliffe. You'd think an English man who grew up supporting the club would know better. feck him.
Completely different argument and equally they inherited the Antony deal like a lot of other shit too....
People are listening to more media BS. Look at more creditable sources, he's stepping down from the role cause he's 83 and can no longer manage the demands. His decision frees up 2 million and that's it....
SaF will be there on Sunday as he still retains his status on the board with all the privileges that he deserves...