Is Fergie just being too greedy?

redpie

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2001
Messages
3,018
Location
Mrs Merton's box room
Even if Magnier is something of an indian giver (very non-pc term I know) shouldn't Fergie just accept this. Fergie is in danger of acting like a prima-donna actress who wants to keep the $million engaement ring after the wedding is called off. Magnier may be a total shit but Fergie should do what is right for the club and settle this Rock of Gibraltar thing out of court now.
Maybe then more of the focus would fall on this shady Irish consortium and their true intentions.
Fergie could have afforded a more noble attitude in this thing to be sure, but that doesn't excuse these wankers grubbing around and using the press to dirty the manager and the club.
I don't care if they own a quarter of the PLC or not, that still does not equate to the passion and loyalty that hundreds of thousands of fans have invested in this great club before them.

As long as we are a PLC we will continue to be plagued with these sharks.
 
True but he obviously believes in his case. He isnt gonna give up and id like to believe its coz he has a good case rather than him being overly greedy
 
No!

The horse thing is a personal matter between them, United is a business matter of theirs and his. They are not and should not be linked.
 
redpie said:
As long as we are a PLC we will continue to be plagued with these sharks.
Click to expand...

If we were not a PLC we would be owned by one of these sharks.
 
We could become a Sporting Society, ie. owned by our members.
 
If the horse thing was a buisness deal that turned sour I could understand it. What doesn't quite sit right is that this share in a horse was a gift to begin with. This is my understanding of the situation.
Fergie should drop the case now. If he did he would be fighting Magnier from a much stronger position and for a far greater prize than the rights to some racehorse's spunk!
 
But the racehorse has absolutely nothing to do with United, the two issues are 100% unrelated.
 
WeasteDevil said:
We could become a Sporting Society, ie. owned by our members.
Click to expand...

How would this work?

As for Fergie and the racehorse thing, he should be big enough to drop it. You cannot deny that the whole thing is damaging to the club. This is what Magnier knows of course and it is working.
I would support Ferguson if he had paid money for his share in the nag, but that is not the case.
 
redpie said:
How would this work?
Click to expand...

Barcelona is one for example. Every member of the club has one vote, be it the bloke with the cheapest seat or the president, and they all have a nice little meeting once a year and vote for the board in elections, who then go and run the club for a year.

The club members OWN the club.

I think that Ronaldinho is member 115,106 or summat like that. ;)
 
redpie said:
I would support Ferguson if he had paid money for his share in the nag, but that is not the case.
Click to expand...

As long as he has done nothing illigal, I'll support him full stop. He's our leader really, we should all get behind him and figth these bastards. They are only in it for the money in the long term. If they act like this with SAF over a few million off a racehorse, then what the hell are they going to be like with this club?
 
What about any money the club makes or loses. Is the whole membership responsible for this. I doubt in practice it is such a simple democracy. The idea is very appealing though.
 
redpie said:
What about any money the club makes or loses. Is the whole membership responsible for this. I doubt in practice it is such a simple democracy. The idea is very appealing though.
Click to expand...

I think the money made goes into a foundation which the club owns. It is used to develop facilities, buys players, etc. Barcelona for example have ridiculously low season ticket prices.

It is a good idea, as long as it is done right and there is proper auditing to stop corruption.
 
WeasteDevil said:
Barcelona is one for example. Every member of the club has one vote, be it the bloke with the cheapest seat or the president, and they all have a nice little meeting once a year and vote for the board in elections, who then go and run the club for a year.

The club members OWN the club.

I think that Ronaldinho is member 115,106 or summat like that. ;)
Click to expand...

So, how do you become a member?
 
What if Sir Alex drops the horse thing and Magnier still acts like an asshole? Surely the more mud Magnier throws at Sir Alex, the more likely that Sir Alex will take him to court over that horse.

If rumours are to be believed, that horse is worth about 33% of the club. :rolleyes:
 
As for losses, the club as a whole is responsible. But that is backed up through assets.

A PLCs shareholders are not responsible for its losses after all. It is Limited liability.

I think in Spain they call it a Sociedad Deportivo Limitada. Or a Limited Sporting Society.
 
Red15 said:
So, how do you become a member?
Click to expand...

Same as you become a member of United FC.

The thing is though, the longer you are a member, the more privilages you get. But no more votes.
 
And as far as I can remember, to be able to run for president, you need a petition of support from 5,000 other members/
 
It is difficult to see how United could convert from being a PLC to some kind of co-operative. How could this happen? What would be the ideal scenario?
 
Magnier has his back to the wall,he has tried to settle out of court and waged a dirty tricks campaign which amount to a degree of guilt and wrong doing.Sir Alex is the half owner of the rock and is entitled to half the stud fees.Magnier would be stupid to see his stake in United plummit due to a squable that could effect the share price.Also the board have a duty to look after all share holders and not a bully like Magnier.
 
I don't know what People think but I back Fergie all the way, with his fight with J Magnier and JP McManus (Tossers) and I also think he shouldn’t back down on this fight for the rights over the studs of Horse Gibraltar. If I remember correctly this rights of studs is worth an estimate of £272m with in 12 years so you can see what the case is all about.

For example I and my friend Joey are great pals, on his birthday I forgot to give him a present, so instead of me getting him anything I write him a cheque of a sum worth around £500. Joey decides that he is going to invest that money in shares so he buys 5.000shares in DSTI Software Company. Now this company has been taken over by a large German company. At this stage that £500 he spent on them shares are now worth around £25.000.

So my point is I don’t have any rights over that sum of money what’s so ever and that’s why I back Fergie in his dispute.

Can you imagine if Fergie wins the Battle he could buy at least 50% of United when at this moment United is worth £300m, so you can see the difference in what is going on and why these pair of tossers are putting pressure on Fergie.

I don’t like what is going to happen in the coming days as I can see it, get even worse day by day. You guys can say well let Fergie take at least £200m out of court settlement which will make a good gesture then that’s ok, but that’s not going to happen.

We all know that there’s a possibility of a take-over but if our American billionaire Malcolm Glazer who raises his shares in United then we have one last hope if United Shareholders fail to get that 10% which I see is a wrong thing too but we never know he might just be a better person than they are (JP McManus-Magnier).

If you look at reality the connections these pair of idiots have is quite amusing Magnier, along with McManus, were once reported to be interested in helping Dermot Desmond with his stake in Celtic. The current Celtic boss Martin O'Neill has been tipped as a future successor at Old Trafford when Ferguson eventually stands down or is forced out.

It all boils down to money for these pair of shit heads and United will long forget the taste of trophies if Fergie and the current United Board members are thrown out!
 
Cal said:
If rumours are to be believed, that horse is worth about 33% of the club. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

For me Fergie is putting himself before the club in this matter. He should drop the case and the PLC should confront the Magnier consortium.
My guess is once Fergie has withdrawn his threat of legal action, these fat twats will sell their shares for a fat profit. And then it will all start again, except this time without the rights to freeze-dried sperm.
 
redpie said:
For me Fergie is putting himself before the club in this matter. He should drop the case and the PLC should confront the Magnier consortium.
My guess is once Fergie has withdrawn his threat of legal action, these fat twats will sell their shares for a fat profit. And then it will all start again, except this time without the rights to freeze-dried sperm.
Click to expand...

The Horse is believed to be worth an estimate of £272m for 12 years don't know the final figure of the horse if it is an out of court settlement!
 
What if the horse died ?? How much insurance would be paid and would SAF be contesting for it as well ?
 
No.

He owns the fecking horse and he should have a stake in it when it retired.

fecking Magnier, bullshit this is
 
Melvinyeo said:
No.

He owns the fecking horse and he should have a stake in it when it retired.

fecking Magnier, bullshit this is
Click to expand...

First of all Magnier's wife owns the other half of the Rights and I think Magnier Cought his wife having an affair with Fergie thats why the fecker got pissed off. (LOL).
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
I have it on good authority from some horse racing buddies here in Ireland that the stud rights to a horse are a completely different thing to part ownership. I know shite all about horses or horse racing, but it is how Magnier and McManus made their fortune, breeding mostly. I have no doubt that Fergie feels he has a case against them, considering the frankly shocking amounts of money involved and the fact that there was no contract between them etc...but I reckon the horse lads have as much evidence going in the other direction. Weastedevil has it right though. It is a seperate issue to the running of the club. Those who say that Fergie should drop it in the interests of the club, are missing the point in my view. Fergie is not in the wrong. The horse lads are in the wrong in subjecting the club to a tyrade of corporate investigation and national spotlight, simply to intimidate part of the club in a different matter. That is wrong, plain and simple. The merits of the court case will be for the judge in Dublin to decide, but the issue of the club is clear cut - the case does not involve Manchester United.

As businessmen, they are harming their own reputation by not acting honourably.
 
Supporters' United accountant Duncan Drasgo said: "We don't want them [Magnier and McManus] involved in our football club. The best ownership is some sort of supporters' ownership."

"There's been concern about this issue for some time. This was exactly the trigger we were expecting to really kick it off."

"Our manager has been put under threat by people whose interest is not a football club but possibly a private argument over a race horse."
Click to expand...

Quite right!
 
WeasteDevil said:
But the racehorse has absolutely nothing to do with United, the two issues are 100% unrelated.
Click to expand...

It does and they are, because Fergie linked them when he accepted a gift from a shareholder, and because Magnier has linked them in his own way recently. This is why you don't mix business with pleasure.

There's no point in pretending differently, this is the situation as it is, we all have to deal with it.
 
Keane16 said:
I have it on good authority from some horse racing buddies here in Ireland that the stud rights to a horse are a completely different thing to part ownership. I know shite all about horses or horse racing, but it is how Magnier and McManus made their fortune, breeding mostly. I have no doubt that Fergie feels he has a case against them, considering the frankly shocking amounts of money involved and the fact that there was no contract between them etc...but I reckon the horse lads have as much evidence going in the other direction. Weastedevil has it right though. It is a seperate issue to the running of the club. Those who say that Fergie should drop it in the interests of the club, are missing the point in my view. Fergie is not in the wrong. The horse lads are in the wrong in subjecting the club to a tyrade of corporate investigation and national spotlight, simply to intimidate part of the club in a different matter. That is wrong, plain and simple. The merits of the court case will be for the judge in Dublin to decide, but the issue of the club is clear cut - the case does not involve Manchester United.

As businessmen, they are harming their own reputation by not acting honourably.
Click to expand...

Mate, you usually talk sense on this board, but I have to disagree with you on this, I don't think it's so straightforward.

First, I think you are right about the ownership business, I suspect the root cause of this is a misunderstanding about the nature of ownership. As you say, the horseracing fraternity knows there is a difference between owning a share in the racing, and owning the bloodstock.

Second, this business about it being nothing to do with United: unfortunately, it is. Fergie, the manager, accepted a gift from a major shareholder. You dance with the devil at your own risk. Nothing in life is free, especially free gifts. By accepting the gift, he created the opportunity for conflict of interest. This is why many companies have strict rules preventing employees from accepting gifts .

Now did Fergie do wrong? No. He is within his rights to assert what he sees as his ownership. But it is not cut-and-dry personal vs public life, because of the point above. He is suing someone who is in effect, his boss. That boss is reacting, and is playing to win, ruthlessly and directly. Fergie cannot complain - you sue your boss while in his employ, you can't complain if he pulls rank.
 
nickm said:
Second, this business about it being nothing to do with United: unfortunately, it is. Fergie, the manager, accepted a gift from a major shareholder. You dance with the devil at your own risk. Nothing in life is free, especially free gifts. By accepting the gift, he created the opportunity for conflict of interest. This is why many companies have strict rules preventing employees from accepting gifts .

Now did Fergie do wrong? No. He is within his rights to assert what he sees as his ownership. But it is not cut-and-dry personal vs public life, because of the point above. He is suing someone who is in effect, his boss. That boss is reacting, and is playing to win, ruthlessly and directly. Fergie cannot complain - you sue your boss while in his employ, you can't complain if he pulls rank.
Click to expand...

I can see the logic in that.

If I understand correctly, what you are pointing out is that, in accepting the gift of a racehorse from a major shareholder looking to increase his stake in the club, Fergie as a representative of United - was playing along with their game and was happy to do so. With them being friends at the time and playing along with their game of horsies, Fergie was now complicit in their rise within the club. As the game progressed and Fergie didn't like the way it went, he can't suddenly disassociate himself from it and sue the other participants as an individual, devoid of any connection to the club. But for this to hold, wouldn't it have to be proven that Fergie did actually help these guys out in a specific manner and actually facilitated their way into the club? This point would be correct if the matter of the Irishmen's rising stake was the subject of a court case, which it is not. So now, in my opinion, it becomes an issue of informal gamesmanship, which thanks to Fergie getting involved in the first place, involves United.

Technically, the Irishmen have done nothing wrong in enquiring after how the club is run and expressing their disapproval with various aspects of transfer fees and contracts etc...(actually they have opened a few eyes to a lot of things). Hiring an investigative firm to check out Fergie is playing hardball, but its not illegal. giving gifts and sweeteners to individuals who may help them with some business goal is not always illegal either, although in this case almost certainly unethical.

So, basically, the courtcase doesn't involve United at all, but the brinkmanship at the club does. Therefore, in legal terms, it is cut and dry personal v. public life, but in reality that is not the case.

On balance, I would say that nickm is on the ball, but its their motives that are causing rancour and it doesn't benefit anyone to behave as they have - thats why I think it is wrong.
 
nickm said:
It does and they are, because Fergie linked them when he accepted a gift from a shareholder, and because Magnier has linked them in his own way recently. This is why you don't mix business with pleasure.

There's no point in pretending differently, this is the situation as it is, we all have to deal with it.
Click to expand...

He didn't accept is his capacity as the manager of Manchester United, he accepted it as Alex Ferguson the bloke. One has nothing to do with the other. The law will not link the two and neither should we.
 
WeasteDevil said:
He didn't accept is his capacity as the manager of Manchester United, he accepted it as Alex Ferguson the bloke. One has nothing to do with the other. The law will not link the two and neither should we.
Click to expand...

I think we can assume Magnier's lawyers will try to link the two, by trying to damage Fergie's reputation, portraying Fergie as an opportunist motivated by financial greed, not principle. It's a standard tactic in your-word-vs-mine legal disputes.

They will do this to show that Fergie has no moral case of ownership. They will demonstrate greed by examining the destination of agent's fees, as we can see playing out now.

While you are correct that the cases are not legally linked, they are tactically linked. I don't see much point in avoiding it, you have to play the hand you are dealt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.