Shame to see him go; he's been and excellent chief exec.
I've never got this hatred for Gill really. At the end of the day he had a job to do and a very well paid one at that I'd imagine, why would you shoot yourself in the foot just to look a bit better in the eyes of some of the fans. Maybe his quotes were misguided but I think some people fail to understand that to him it's a job. It's not like he's a die hard fan or anything. People say stuff in jobs all the time and they don't really mean it. If I made a comment about my work and then went back on it I'd probably be a hypcorite to, but at the same time I'd be an idiot to leave my work.Good riddance, complete hypocritical prick.
However I worry we will now end up with an even more pro Glazer american called Chuck.
When it came it dealing with other clubs, Gill did a fair bit of running around for the fans. As for meeting with the fans I think it was a Glazer policy that prevented him from talking to us.TBF hectic the reaction from a good deal of lads and lasses I go to the match with is similar. Especially those involved with MUST, IMUSA and anyone who has tried to meet with and have regular dialogue with the club.
Don't worry mate... I got it!Edward Woodward?
Looks like we'll be seeing a lot more Equalisers then
the equaliser!Edward Woodward
What about criticising and openly admitting a move would be bad for a club, before bending over backwards and accepting 600+ milllion pound debt despite his intense 'love for the club'. Thanks for the stability Dave!Whatever anyone thinks about Gill he has always backed Ferguson 100% which is all you can ask and hope for in a Chief Executive.
He is still a Director so his influence will continue to be felt. There are some big decisions to be made in the next few years and I would feel better knowing he will retain some influence over proceedings.
What about criticising and openly admitting a move would be bad for a club, before bending over backwards and accepting 600+ milllion pound debt despite his intense 'love for the club'. Thanks for the stability Dave!
So what was he supposed to do? Leave, kick up a big fuss in the media for a few weeks before they move onto some other story and have the Glazers appoint their own yes man. Or stay and play a part in stablising for club, reducing the debt, and helping us to possibly our most successful period ever?What about criticising and openly admitting a move would be bad for a club, before bending over backwards and accepting 600+ milllion pound debt despite his intense 'love for the club'. Thanks for the stability Dave!
Not only that, but he has been active in cutting all ties with fan groups, and in the last two years since the green and gold campaign, has pretty much banned any dialogue whatsoever.
Also presiding over the ridiculous 'ACS' ticket scheme.
I would say good riddance, but the only problem is the new fella will probably be a feckload worse
So, what was he supposed to do ? Leave and what would that have achieved ?What about criticising and openly admitting a move would be bad for a club, before bending over backwards and accepting 600+ milllion pound debt despite his intense 'love for the club'. Thanks for the stability Dave!
Why would a business have dialogue with groups openly calling for a hostile takeover? It makes no sense.Not only that, but he has been active in cutting all ties with fan groups, and in the last two years since the green and gold campaign, has pretty much banned any dialogue whatsoever.
Don't think G&G was around back then but in recent years various supporter groups have tried to contact Gill but he has refused to talk to them which is why I can understand supporter who dislike him.So, what was he supposed to do ? Leave and what would that have achieved ?
He indeed is leaving the club in a much better state financially, than what it was feared.
And what exactly did the green and gold fans want dialogue about when they wanted to harm the club financially to force a takeover ?
Whilst I share your loathing of the Glazer takeover, Gill was powerless to prevent the shareholders selling. All he could do was attempt to influence them. It's obvious he didn't agree with the takeover at the time, but he stayed on and became influential to the Glazers and backed Ferguson in everything thereafter. He is a football man, he loves the game and I would rather he stayed on in 2005 than give way to some toxic American executive with no idea about how football clubs are run in England.What about criticising and openly admitting a move would be bad for a club, before bending over backwards and accepting 600+ milllion pound debt despite his intense 'love for the club'. Thanks for the stability Dave!
Not only that, but he has been active in cutting all ties with fan groups, and in the last two years since the green and gold campaign, has pretty much banned any dialogue whatsoever.
Also presiding over the ridiculous 'ACS' ticket scheme.
I would say good riddance, but the only problem is the new fella will probably be a feckload worse
That and to infiltrate the FA again, some of these refs are being too hard on us, and we paid good money for them.Off to infiltrate UEFA, European dominance beckons.
I can never understand this train of thought Starkie. He's a red, he advised against the takeover because of the debt but it went through anyway, the worst thing he could've done then was leave the club due to his principles, we (and SAF) needed him then to do his job more than ever.Good riddance, complete hypocritical prick.
However I worry we will now end up with an even more pro Glazer american called Chuck.
The point isn't whether he was "supposed" to quit when they came in etc. It's actually perfectly possible that his praise for the Glazers is genuine, and it was prior to their arrival, when he came out with the above, that he was expediantly putting his own principals on hold.Hounding Gill for the "Road to ruin" stuff doesn't really make sense
So what was he supposed to say once the takeover went through?The point isn't whether he was "supposed" to quit when they came in etc. It's actually perfectly possible that his praise for the Glazers is genuine, and it was prior to their arrival, when he came out with the above, that he was expediantly putting his own principals on hold.
The point is that he is demonstrably not a man who can be trusted to say what he really thinks. He completely changed his opinion based on the situation, taking anything he says at face value is foolish.
What's the point in sticking to one stand in a Evolving situation ? Don't get what is Dishonest about that either ?The point is that he is demonstrably not a man who can be trusted to say what he really thinks. He completely changed his opinion based on the situation, taking anything he says at face value is foolish.
Of course, this is all the mark of a succesful businessman, very few of whom have got where they are today by a policy of honesty and openness.
But it doesn't make him the loveable hero some make him out to be.