United Rant » Topic: Fergusons continue keeping it in the family

United Rant » Topic: Fergusons continue keeping it in the family http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family - news, views and opinion on Manchester United en-US Thu, 23 May 2013 09:09:51 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 <![CDATA[Search]]> q http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/search.php Alfonso Bedoya on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/3#post-32549 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:59:02 +0000 Alfonso Bedoya 32549@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ <blockquote><cite>Commenter <a href="http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/3#post-32544">said</a>:</cite> “The Glazers for all their tight fistedness over the past six years are scared gormless by Ferguson so he gets away with acting without oversight.” </blockquote> This idea that the Glazers are so "afraid" of Ferguson is bollocks... If that was true, then we have every right to feel even more betrayed by Ferguson, who supports the Glazers in every way... even the fleecing of the fans for every spare penny they've got. Stop talking shit! baloo on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/3#post-32546 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:47:01 +0000 baloo 32546@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ (Errr - sorry, but it's "obfuscate". I wouldn't normally bother but it's such a great word.....) DeadRevel on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/3#post-32544 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:31:08 +0000 DeadRevel 32544@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ <div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">Posted by unregistered user: DeadRevel</div>Nepotism? Well obviously it’s not a coincidence, but using that term gives absurd connotations. There are plenty of valid reasons why he would want his youth players to play under Ferguson Jr… don’t see why you are pretending it’s anything more than practical. “The Glazers for all their tight fistedness over the past six years are scared gormless by Ferguson so he gets away with acting without oversight.” Sorry just read this and laughed out loud. So what you want is more control and influence from the Glazers? Brilliant Ed. That’s journo 101 right there. Take an obvious truth then reverse it to antagonise people. Bravo. Alfonso Bedoya on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/3#post-32236 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:24:06 +0000 Alfonso Bedoya 32236@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ <blockquote><cite>Commenter <a href="http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/3#post-32222">said</a>:</cite> Nepotism is, quite simply, of piffling importance unless there are significant & unfair consequences; in this case there are not. </blockquote> Oh for fuck sake Mate... take a day off. ian on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/3#post-32222 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:23:15 +0000 ian 32222@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ <div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">Posted by unregistered user: ian (<a href="http://none" rel="nofollow">URL</a>)</div>Nepotism is, quite simply, of piffling importance unless there are significant & unfair consequences; in this case there are not. sidney on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/3#post-32217 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:42:59 +0000 sidney 32217@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ Obfusticate Nice Ed on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/3#post-32182 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:52:07 +0000 Ed 32182@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ ian – there you go again, continually changing the debate because you cannot and have not come up with a suitable defence of the man’s nepotism. So far you’ve done nothing bar obfusticate and created FUD – this includes but is probably not limited to making reference to the definition of nepotism, morals, Coolmore, the ‘law of the land’ and now Ferguson’s success. None of which I referenced, just so we’re clear. I’m not doubting Ferguson’s success at all. He is the subject of thousands of words of praise on this website. And I certainly did not question his “brilliance” in my article, nor did I suggest any laws broken (although nepotism is unlawful in some states of the US but not, essentially, in the UK.) Had I thought there question marks in these areas I would have said it myself. What I did do is point to a case of nepotism and ask whether that’s acceptable behaviour. I believe this question can indeed be taken in isolation. ian on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/3#post-32181 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:40:59 +0000 ian 32181@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ <div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">Posted by unregistered user: ian (<a href="http://none" rel="nofollow">URL</a>)</div>You miss the predominant point: with SAF, as with most men of exceptional talent throughout history, they have to be accepted & assessed warts & all. SAF is as he is & not what you want him to be. Is he breaking the law of the land or EPL regulations? Is he not one of the best football managers in the world? Is he doing not just a good, but a brilliant, job at United? You can take each question as to his contribution in the running of a corporate business or a football team. If the answer to all three questions is “Yes”, then the club is being run in a very successful way & SAF is maximising the clubs assets. (I am quite aware that he is working within the restraints of the obnoxious Glazers. Ed on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/3#post-32174 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:58:50 +0000 Ed 32174@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ ian – This is a relevant and important debate about how the club is run and how one of its employees acts in relation to club assets. You keep bringing in issues that are not relevant to the article. It’s all FUD i.e. accountants, Coolmore, the definition of nepotism. Your argument: the issue of nepotism and purchase/sale of assets is irrelevant because Sir Alex wins trophies. My argument: United could be a better run club, without favours granted to family and friends, without changing United’s success one jot. *And just so we’re being correct here: United has posted a loss every year the Glazers have been in charge. More than £100m last financial year. ian on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32173 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:55:21 +0000 ian 32173@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ <div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">Posted by unregistered user: ian (<a href="http://none" rel="nofollow">URL</a>)</div>“……the behaviour that is acceptable in ‘normal’ business” Your words, Ed, not mine. The function of a ‘normal’, successful business is to generate as much profit as possible, within the law, presumably by having an outsatnding product. The ananolgy with Spielberg is a good one. SAF is given enough freedom to deliver an outstanding product & great enertainment &, at the same time, deliver large profits; all over a sustained period. It’s pretty obvious that the first two factors are what most fans crave for. SAF is accountable to the Glazers, who unlike many owners let him get on with the job with minimal interference; if he was not successful he would be sacked. SAF will be judged by posterity by such criteria & so he should be. SAFs ‘personal habits’ have no interest to me & are quite a different story. I think it unlikely that SAF would have been unable to operate if he was accounatble to the Coolmore Mafia. All I am saying is that let’s never lose focus on the bigger picture, (for fans) -United’s success as a football team. Yes his business dealings should be scrutinised but as Bman suggests with the Tuncliffe deal, we can argue until the cows come home, whether it is nepotism or not, is good for the club & for the player &, as usually happens. SAF has got it right again. bman on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32167 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:36:27 +0000 bman 32167@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ I don't think the Bebe deal is OK or not OK because I don't have enough information about it. Maybe there's a secret component to that deal that I would approve of, as lots of people have speculated. But even the worst possible scenario--that Quiroz convinced Fergie that they just had to get this lad--doesn't seem nearly worth all the grumbling. I think Quiroz was a great servant to United as both a coach and cultivator of young talent (above all Ronaldo), so why crucify the man for getting one wrong and why crucify Fergie for having faith in his friend and former colleague's judgment? As for loaning some of our lads to his son's team, well it's only fair to point out that this could be interpreted as a positive thing for the club. I'm sure lots of clubs would love to have the option of sending their academy lads out for experience somewhere where they can rely on the manager to look out for their interests and maintain a good relationship with the lending club. Football's a dirty business -- keeping things in the family might well be a cleaner and better option for the young players than exposing them to all the hucksters and competing interests that would come with a more purely business-oriented loan. Basically, I'm all for complaining about stuff that goes wrong or Fergie's mistakes, but we also have to keep some perspective. Every day anybody in his position will make a lot of decisions that later turn out bad, but come the end of the season he's nearly always proven to have gotten more of the important decisions right than his competitors at other clubs. For example, a balanced evaluation of last season's transfers would say it was a triumph for Fergie: the probable duffness of Bebe is not nearly as important as how successful Smalling and Hernandez look like they will be for years to come. Ed on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32162 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:53:26 +0000 Ed 32162@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ Bman – no you’re missing the point. This stuff slips through because of who Ferguson is and the success he brings. Nobody’s doubting his central role at the club but it has allowed the man to get away with behaviour that is not acceptable in ‘normal’ business. You’re happy with it. Lots of fans are happy with it because Ferguson has such a bank of credit that he’s on a very high pedestal. But £8m was wasted on Bebe at Ferguson’s whim – as I understand it one phone call from Mendes to Quieroz, Quieroz to Ferguson and the deal was done. The Glazers for all their tight fistedness over the past six years are scared gormless by Ferguson so he gets away with acting without oversight. Including – farming out kids to his family because they’re his family and he wants to do them a favour. We’re going round in circles here. You think its ok because there’s silverware. I think its not ok and don’t think that United behaving properly as a business would take away from the sivlerware one iota. Not a jot. Nobody mentioned accountants except you. Why is it that you and Ian consistently resort to putting words into my mouth in this debate? I’ll tell you – because you don’t have a sound argument. captainhormone on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32149 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:19:56 +0000 captainhormone 32149@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ love it if we signed cesc...perfect for us squigs on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32146 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:54:58 +0000 squigs 32146@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ Better even that Dein's son is the agent of one Cesc Fabregas. Calvino on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32142 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:37:57 +0000 Calvino 32142@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ Bman, thank you very much. I could not have worded it better. For all we know, the Bebe transfer might have been the only legitimate way Mendes might have received money from the Ronaldo to Real deal. Apparently, premier league rules do not allow the selling club to pay an agent or something like that. Far worse things are going on the football world. David Dein was tossed out of Arsenal because of his son's dealings. But the club are regretting it now as they have not won anything since his departure nor lured any big time signings. bman on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32139 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:14:34 +0000 bman 32139@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ <blockquote><cite>Ed <a href="http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32107">said</a>:</cite> ian – Well you’ve specified that “unfair” is the key word to suit your argument, nobody else does. Neither does OED… you do get how a semi-column affects the clause of a sentence, right? But hey, what’s 400 years of dictionary in comparison to ian! Here’s some alternates since you want to play the dictionary game…. Miriam Webster: “favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship” Dictionary.com: “patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics” Cambridge: “using your power or influence to get good jobs or unfair advantages for members of your own family” Chambers: “the practice of favouring one’s relatives or friends, especially in making official appointments.” Collins: “favouritism shown to relatives and friends by those with power” My point stands. Ferguson’s decision is based on patronage. Favouritism handed to his son because he is his son. As I’ve said repeatedly it is not about OUTCOMES but INPUTS. It may turn out right for these boys but it was a decision made with family in mind. Nobody has so far challenged that, including you. Is this any way for a non-executive middle manager to act regarding multi-million assets in a £2 billion organisation? </blockquote> It's absurd to call Fergie a "middle manager", that's a hopelessly inaccurate depiction of his role and importance within the United organisation. He's the most important person on the payroll, he's the single irreplaceable member of the "talent", the man who guarantees that the Glazers get the numbers they want to see every quarter. As long as he keeps delivering the results, he could play his fucking sons in the senior squad for all the owners care. He's the equivalent of a director like Steven Spielberg: the money men say "here you go, Steven, here's £200M to make the film", and they don't argue with a proven winner over the little details because his track record speaks for itself. Expecting good "corporate governance" of Fergie is missing the point. He's the talent: what's good for Fergie is good for United. If it pleases him to loan our kids to his son then so be it, if it puts him in better humour to perform his duties for our club then all the better. Besides, what does the "corporate governance" accusation mean anyway? Are you arguing that Fergie should have the Glazers' accountants handing over his shoulder overseeing every decision? Isn't that the opposite of what we all want? Still harping on about Bebe? Let's get some fucking perspective, the man just delivered another title with what is by unanimous consent a somewhat unspectacular team. Some minor transfer that didn't work out is pretty insignificant compared to the bigger picture. ian on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32132 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:13:44 +0000 ian 32132@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ <div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">Posted by unregistered user: ian (<a href="http://none" rel="nofollow">URL</a>)</div>“It was a decision made with the family in mind”. It is reassuring to know that you are aware of SAFs true motives. I had considered he was most concerned about the football development of Ryan Tunicliffe -probably a future big talent. I do agree that we should be wary of SAFs nepotism; but it only becomes an issue for United fans if the football outcome is not for the best. Your ‘middle-manager’ analogy with other big business organisations is completely unhelpful. SAF has much more power & much greater remuneration than any ‘middle manager’ on the planet. I do take your much bigger point that SAFs amazing football success & longevity should not make him immune to scrutiny. Long may you continue to do so. Some one needs to do so, because the old bugger does not like to be questioned or challenged. captainhormone on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32126 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:04:31 +0000 captainhormone 32126@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ haha.... they nailed him to a cross.....ffs...i'm, going all johnny cash now..... Ed on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32123 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:57:26 +0000 Ed 32123@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ captain – he’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy… squigs on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32121 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:55:23 +0000 squigs 32121@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ Yeah, I do understand what you are saying but I think you don't put both incidents into context. 1 is the loaning of players, United as a club don't really lose out and I don't think the Glazers should be concerned that Peterborough are receiving players on loan. No other club has come out and said that they wanted the above players on loan and the were not allowed because Ferguson said no. To use your corporate comparisons, Fergie as head of the playing and coaching side of the organisation has to be allowed to make that decision. 2 Is as said before a much shadier and much worse then mere lack of accountability it looked positively fraudulent. captainhormone on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32119 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:55:08 +0000 captainhormone 32119@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ tbf, fergie will have fuck all to do with the marketing/corporate side of things etc...yes he will be part of the negotiating process as a bargaining tool, but this is purely in name only... squigs is right....he is a figurehead but unlike like most figureheads, he is more of a mascot...or a holy grail type of ...oh ffs...cant be arsed Ed on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32115 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:41:59 +0000 Ed 32115@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ squigs – You see I see this as all the same thing, not changing the subject at all. Fergie loaning out to kids to his son’s team, or his mates teams, or signing off on an £8m spend on a whim… its bad corporate governance. squigs on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32113 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:33:01 +0000 squigs 32113@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ Market cap if IPO’d today wouldn’t be far short. 2) It would be little over half that figure I imagine. For £2 Billion the Glazer's would float tomorrow. In the low hundred of thousands is not 'multi million pound assets' then really is it. Fergie together with his ‘mates’ Jorge Mendes and Carlos Quieroz spent £8m on Bebe without any due diligence? For me its all part of the same process of lack of accountability which would be unacceptable in any other business but is ok at United because Ferguson is untouchable. Your changing the subject but I agree completely the Bebe episode has everything in it to suggest corruption and probable bribery. I agreed completely with the Bebe articles. Ed on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32111 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 14:29:45 +0000 Ed 32111@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ squigs – 1) Market cap if IPO’d today wouldn’t be far short. 2) My bet is that a transfer tribunal would set a figure in the low hundreds of thousands with add ons. So yes, they probably are… and will be if they make a first team début. Ryan Shawcross went to Stoke without a first team appearance for a £1m plus add-ons. More to the point, you’re happy with business practice based on patronage so long as it’s a cheap asset? What kind of policy is that. What about when Fergie together with his ‘mates’ Jorge Mendes and Carlos Quieroz spent £8m on Bebe without any due diligence? For me its all part of the same process of lack of accountability which would be unacceptable in any other business but is ok at United because Ferguson is untouchable. squigs on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32110 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 14:18:17 +0000 squigs 32110@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ He has more influence then any member of the board bar possibly the chairmen. That goes for most of the 92 managers in the football league. This influence is shown in the man's remuneration package. It's different to a normal business. Members of the board have nowhere near the pay level or power of Fergie, most of the United board have held their positions since 1983, that's not how your average PLC operates. United are not a £2 billion company and these assets (youth players) are not worth millions of pounds at this stage which only confounds my belief that you are making more of this then it really is. As I said before he has done stuff that is not befitting of how a manager of Manchester United should behave and go at him for that but this really is not it. Ed on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32109 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:55:11 +0000 Ed 32109@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ Squigs – he literally is though. He is not even a non-executive director. squigs on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32108 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:35:20 +0000 squigs 32108@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ You can't compare Ferguson's role to a non-executive middle manager. Middle managers don't get paid £5 million + per year and don't hold the role of figurehead. Ed on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32107 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:06:23 +0000 Ed 32107@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ ian – Well you’ve specified that “unfair” is the key word to suit your argument, nobody else does. Neither does OED… you do get how a semi-column affects the clause of a sentence, right? But hey, what’s 400 years of dictionary in comparison to ian! Here’s some alternates since you want to play the dictionary game…. Miriam Webster: “favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship” Dictionary.com: “patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics” Cambridge: “using your power or influence to get good jobs or unfair advantages for members of your own family” Chambers: “the practice of favouring one’s relatives or friends, especially in making official appointments.” Collins: “favouritism shown to relatives and friends by those with power” My point stands. Ferguson’s decision is based on patronage. Favouritism handed to his son because he is his son. As I’ve said repeatedly it is not about OUTCOMES but INPUTS. It may turn out right for these boys but it was a decision made with family in mind. Nobody has so far challenged that, including you. Is this any way for a non-executive middle manager to act regarding multi-million assets in a £2 billion organisation? ian on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32106 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 12:57:12 +0000 ian 32106@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ <div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">Posted by unregistered user: ian (<a href="http://none" rel="nofollow">URL</a>)</div>Ed, I know that you like to josh around with the old semantics, but I do not agree that SAF loaning Tunicliffe to the Posh is an example of nepotism. Let’s be accurate, nepotism is: “The practice, on the part of Popes, or other ecclesiastics, (& hence other persons) of showing special favour in conferring offices; unfair preference of nephews or relaives to other qualified persons”. OED The key word here is “unfair”. I think that a strong case can be made that the loan is in the best interest of both United & the player. Ed on "Fergusons continue keeping it in the family" http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/topic/fergusons-continue-keeping-it-in-the-family/page/2#post-32088 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 21:18:00 +0000 Ed 32088@http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/forum/ Cal – I wasn’t quite sure of the point or its relevance to United’s current management or policies. Maybe I didn’t get it, particularly since Edwards wasn’t actually convicted of anything, dodgy as he may have been.