Tag Sir Alex Ferguson

Tag Sir Alex Ferguson

Poll: can United win another treble this season?

Ed January 20, 2013 Tags: , , Polls 25 comments

With Manchester United top of the Premier League, through to the knock-out stage in Europe and into the FA Cup Fourth Round, Sir Alex Ferguson believes his side could seal trio of trophies this season. Mirroring the 1999 ‘treble’, says Ferguson, is possible due to the depth of resources now available at Old Trafford.

“We want to be involved in everything. We’ve got all three trophies to go for – and we’ve got the squad to do it,” said Sir Alex Ferguson on Saturday.

“It’s absolutely ­brilliant for everyone connected with Manchester United. We have got the excitement of going to Real Madrid in the Champions League and them coming here. We’ve got Fulham in the FA Cup as well after winning our ­replay against West Ham. And if you go back to the year we won the Treble, we had a Cup replay against Chelsea and ­another one against Arsenal.

“The squad is looking very strong at the moment with players coming back in. It’s a period of the season that could be crucial to us if we can keep our momentum going. These are big opportunities for us – and we don’t want to miss them.”

Certainly, Ferguson’s team is ahead of many pundits’ expectations after failing to secure any silverware last season. Ignominiously defeated in Europe, usurped domestically by Manchester City and knocked out of the FA Cup by Liverpool, 2011/12 is a season many supporters would like to forget.

But could this season match United’s greatest ever with three trophies heading back to Old Trafford in May?

Can United win another 'treble' this season?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Size (and what you do with it)

Ed December 30, 2012 Tags: Opinion 12 comments

Sir Alex Ferguson has been in fine form of late, first fearing, quite preposterously, for Robin van Persie’s life and then deriding 120-year-old Newcastle United as “a wee club in the north-east.” Quite a put-down for the four-times champions of England that attracts regular crowds in excess of 50,000. But Ferguson’s jibe, provoked by manager Alan Pardew’s sanctimonious criticism, raises an interesting question: what exactly determines the ‘size’ of a football club in the modern game?

Ferguson’s wisecrack comes with the inherent backdrop of Manchester United’s grandiose. Indeed, United is self-styled as the world’s biggest, with management often touting a flawed Kantar survey that estimates the club has more than 690 million “followers” worldwide – a figure far in excess of rival institutions, domestically and abroad.

The Kantar survey, which includes any ‘fan’ who looks out for United’s results and news even if they follow another team, was conducted ahead of United’s New York IPO last summer. Previous surveys had put United’s supporters at more than 330 million, but either way the club can boast a genuinely huge global supporter base.

Still, the Reds’ average home attendance is also among the globe’s largest, with more than 75,000 packing Old Trafford each week despite steep price rises under the Glazer regime between 2005 and 2010. In Europe only Barcelona at 84,119 and Borussia Dortmund, with 80,521 packing Westfalenstadion each week, can better United’s figure. It is not without reason to suspect that United supporters would fill a substantially larger stadium if prices were more in line with continental rivals.

Meanwhile, Newcastle can boast average gates of just under 50,000 in the Premier League, up from a historic low of 16,000 in 1991. It makes the Magpies England’s fifth best supported club, and the 15th biggest in European football.

Then there is the silverware factor, with United boasting 19 domestic league titles, 15 further English cups and seven major continental or international trophies. Real Madrid, by contrast, has claimed La Liga 32 times, Rangers 54 Scottish titles and Juventus 28 Serie A trophies. Borussia Dortmund, with those huge attendances, has won the Bundesliga just eight times, including those in the past two seasons.

The contrast between the biggest and that “wee club” Newcastle is stark, with the Geordies having claimed England’s top division on just four occasions – the last in 1927 – a further six FA Cups and the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in 1969. The haul still places Newcastle in top 10 most successful clubs in English history. English champions Manchester City can claim to be England’s finest on just three occasions, including last season’s last-gasp victory.

Yet, the modern game is built above all on finances and the attendant ability to compete in the transfer market. City’s rise has come since Abu Dhabi’s Royal Family pumped in more than £1 billion of sovereign wealth into the club. Meanwhile Roman Abramovich has financed Chelsea to 11 major trophies in the past decade.

Neither City nor Chelsea can match the world’s top three revenue generating clubs: Real Madrid (annual revenues £420 million), Barcelona (£407 million) and United (£320 million). City’s annual revenue was last reported at £254 million, Chelsea’s at £255 million and Newcastle’s at £88 million.

Yet, for all that revenue generated United’s debt pile means that the club has consistently posted losses since the Glazer family acquired the club in 2005. Chelsea has only recently recorded a profit under Abramovich and City has posted cumulative losses of  £510.9 million in the past four years. Meanwhile, owner Mike Ashley has steered a listing Newcastle United to safer financial ground in recent years.

Indeed, only an elite set of clubs – United included – can claim the triumvirate of large revenues, a huge fanbase and a history of consistent silverware. Real Madrid and Barcelona are similarly well-endowed, while there are merits to including Bayern Munich, AC Milan, Juventus, Ajax, Arsenal, Liverpool in any list of the world’s biggest.

Yet, there is something else that determines a club’s size; a certain je ne sais quoi that surely includes ‘history’ in the mix even if a club has fallen on hard times. There are plenty of clubs for whom success has been ephemeral, but might rank more highly than Newcastle in a subjective list of England’s biggest – twice European champions Nottingham Forest, Football League founding member Aston Villa, and three-times England’s best Leeds United, for example.

In fact some of Europe’s biggest match few of the aforementioned criteria. Liverpool, well behind United, Real Madrid and Barcelona in terms of revenues generated, and attendances achieved, can still boast a global supporter base built on years of success in the 1970s and 80s. Meanwhile, Juventus – Serie A champions in 2011 and 2012 – fills its compact new stadium, built to a 40,000 capacity based on the Old Lady’s historic attendances.

Few doubt either club’s right to ‘big club’ status. It’s that ineffable thing again.

European Attendance Top 20 (2011/12 average)
1 – FC Barcelona – 84,119 – Camp Nou
2 – Borussia Dortmund – 80,521 – Westfalenstadion
3 – Manchester United – 75,387 – 2011–12 Old Trafford
4 – Real Madrid – 74,678 – Santiago Bernabéu
5 – Bayern Munich – 69,000 – Allianz Arena
6 – Schalke 04 – 61,139 – Veltins-Arena, Gelsenkirchen
7 – Arsenal – 60,000 – Emirates Stadium
8 – VfB Stuttgart – 55,089 – Mercedes-Benz Arena
9 – Hertha Berlin – 54,259 – Olympiastadion
10 – Hamburger SV – 53,635 – Imtech Arena
11 – Borussia Mönchengladbach – 51,846 – Borussia-Park
12 – Milan – 51,442 – San Siro
13 – Celtic – 50,904 – Celtic Park
14 – Ajax – 50,044 – Amsterdam ArenA
15 – Newcastle United – 49,935 – St James’ Park
16 – Internazionale – 47,913 – San Siro
17 – FC Köln – 47,647 – RheinEnergieStadion
18 – Manchester City – 47,044 – Etihad Stadium
19 – Rangers – 46,324 – Ibrox Stadium
20 – Napoli – 45,789 – Stadio San Paolo

Deloittle Money League 2012 (€millions)
1 – Real Madrid – 479.5
2 – Barcelona – 450.7
3 – Manchester United – 367.0
4 – Bayern Munich – 321.4
5 – Arsenal – 251.1
6 – Chelsea – 249.8
7 – Milan 235.1
8 – Internazionale – 211.4
9 – Liverpool – 203.3
10 – Schalke 04 – 202.4
11 – Tottenham Hotspur – 181.0
12 – Manchester City – 169.6
13 – Juventus – 153.9
14 – Marseille – 150.4
15 – Roma – 143.5
16 – Borussia Dortmund – 138.5
17 – Lyon – 132.8
18 – Hamburg – 128.8
19 – Valencia – 116.8
20 – Napoli – 114.9

* 2012 money league, some clubs have more recently reported financial information

England’s most successful clubs (number of major trophies won)
1 – Liverpool – 41
2 – Manchester United – 40
3 – Arsenal – 26
4 – Aston Villa – 20
5 – Chelsea – 18
6 – Tottenham Hotspur – 17
7 – Everton – 1995
8 – Newcastle United – 11
8 – Manchester City – 11
10 – Blackburn Rovers – 10
11 – Wolverhampton Wanderers – 9
11 – Nottingham Forest – 9
13 – Sunderland – 8
13 – Sheffield Wednesday – 8
15 – Leeds United – 7
15 – West Bromwich Albion – 7
17 – Sheffield United – 5
17 – Wanderers – 5*
19 – Bolton Wanderers – 4
19 – Huddersfield Town – 4
19 – Portsmouth – 4
19 – Preston North End – 4
19 – West Ham United – 4

* now defunct
Does not include Charity/Community Shield

How Fergie stole Mancini’s Christmas

Denys Koval December 24, 2012 Tags: , Opinion 36 comments

“Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.”
Jim Morrison

When referee Michael Oliver blew the final whistle to confirm Manchester United’s first draw of the season, it was not hard to imagine Roberto Mancini gleefully rubbing his hands. Manchester City’s last-minute winner the day previous proved to be even more valuable after United, in a forgiving Christmas spirit, failed to score a much-needed second goal in Swansea.

Despite Mancini’s rivals sitting comfortably on the top of the Premier League table as the weekend kicked off, the Italian was just one of many cheering United’s result, waiting for the pressure to increase on Sir Alex Ferguson’s team as the packed festive season began.

However, much of the post-mortem ado had little to do with game itself, or even the narrowing gap in the title race. United’s missed chances, questionable individual performances or the timing of Sir Alex’ substitutions are lost amid the ridicule and outrage caused by the United manager’s post-match interview. Even United’s dropped points have been lost amid the hysteria.

“Robin van Persie is lucky to be alive,” blasted the Glaswegian in his post-match interview. “It was a disgraceful act from their player and he should be banned by the FA. Robin could have had a broken neck.”

On the surface it looked like Ashley Williams intentionally slammed the ball into van Persie’s head from just yards away, although few people were as concerned about the Dutchman’s life as Sir Alex. Fan’s take on Ferguson’s interview differed, but whether supporters considered the manager’s words strange, funny or embarrassing, it takes a drama queen to second the manager’s fears.

Indeed, van Persie proved to be very much alive seconds after the ball struck the 29-year-old; a case could even be made that the striker is lucky a slip of the foot came between him, Williams and a certain lengthy ban. The avoidance of death seemed a very long way from the action in that moment.

While many have taken on board a glorious opportunity to ridicule Sir Alex, it is not difficult to spot the great Scot’s true intentions. It is, after all, Sir Alex all over – what he always does after a bad result. And what do you know, the great British press have gladly taken the bait.

The Daily Mail featured a match report and one, two, three articles connected with the van Persie incident and Ferguson’s reaction to it – each has attracted more than twice as many comments as the actual match review. SkySports went further, leading with four pieces on the controversy to date.

Meanwhile, many other outlets – ESPN, the Guardian, BBC included –  feature at least two articles dedicated to the affair, often simply commentary on the FA’s inaction. Cheap copy – after all, who really wants to see Williams banned? It’s what stands for a mainstream media article these days, diverting attention from far more important issues, in football and the wider world.

That is to say nothing of the legion of wannabe experts for whom Sir Alex has brought an opportunity at their fifteen minutes this Christmas – a river of anger, hate and and retweets only an army of ABUs can deliver.

Flash forward to Wednesday; another day, another game and whatever some supporters may claim, Ferguson can’t buy games. But the legendary manager is always able to buy himself time. As for the critics? Ferguson can take the slings and arrows. To keep the team out of the dramedy is result enough.

The irony is that our nation’s media, and the fans that read, revels in a swathe of “Fergie’s lost the plot!” headlines. Few can deny themselves the pleasure of composing yet another list of supposedly outrageous actions by United players, simply because the opportunity is present. “In your face, Sir!” comes the cry.

Yet, as opposition supporters indulge in a game of hate the real winner, as always, is Ferguson. Those who have cried the loudest since Saturday provide the most compelling evidence that Ferguson still owns the plot. And unlike the Scot’s method of dealing with media at his weekly press conferences, this time fans can make jokes without that feeling of embarrassment.

Ferguson’s media theatre won’t make United defend better, but it is nonetheless impressive. Press drowning self-righteousness; ABUs going wild; Piers Morgan outraged.

But of course the only plot that really matters has United four points clear on Christmas Day. Despite the hysteria, life for United’s supporters is good. Roll on Wednesday and Newcastle United at Old Trafford.

Di Matteo’s demise underscores Ferguson’s enduring value

Ed November 22, 2012 Tags: Opinion 27 comments

It has been a week for managers; one which has often reminded Manchester United supporters just how fortunate the club remains to keep Sir Alex Ferguson at the helm after more than a quarter century. True, the cantankerous 70-year-old Scot has many faults, more of them personal than professional, but whatever the legitimate criticisms, Ferguson’s stewardship continues to avoid the managerial dramas prevalent elsewhere.

Indeed, Wednesday’s commotion at Stamford Bridge, in which Champions League winning manager Roberto Di Matteo was unceremoniously sacked and replaced with out-of-work Rafael Benitez, says much for Old Trafford’s contrasting stability. Benitez is the 10th manager employed by Roman Abramovich in nine years. Ferguson hasn’t hired that many deputies in more than 25.

Fitting, than, that yet another tribute is paid to Sir Alex this week, with the manager’s statue unveiled in front of the renamed Sir Alex Ferguson Stand on Friday. The statue, marking 26 years of the Scot’s tenure in Manchester, is set to be placed above the main entrance, with Ferguson-themed artwork adorning the lower concourse.

Little wonder, while there is sympathy for Di Matteo in football circles, the real plaudits have poured in for Ferguson this week; a man still without peer in the game.

“He’s unique, especially in the modern day,” said Jose Mourinho, whose Real Madrid side knocked City out of the Champions League on Wednesday night.

“If you go back many years, then you will find somebody like him but [it’s amazing] in the modern day at the highest level, where it is really difficult to survive in our job. He’s absolutely incredible at what he does and we can’t even imagine when he’ll stop. He’s unbelievable.”

Over at Cobham, Benitez, whose anti-Ferguson rant remains a career highlight, will take his first training sessions ahead of the west London outfit’s trip to Manchester City this weekend.

Chelsea, having lost twice and drawn another brace in the past month, is hardly in a tailspin other than that self-induced by the owners. Yet, out went Di Matteo as the sun rose on Wednesday morning, seemingly on the capricious whim of a narcissistic owner. For all Abramovich’s investment, which is running at more than £1 billion over just shy of a decade, the Russian has repeatedly hamstrung his own club.

Mourinho, Carlo Ancelotti, and perhaps even Andre Villas-Boas, each went far too early. Elsewhere, the Russian’s bizarre recruitment policy seemingly owes more to the latest hype than a genuine process.

True, Abramovich’s spending is in stark contrast to the Glazer family’s drain on United. The Americans’ cost to the club is estimated at north of £550 million in debt servicing, interest and other payments. But the family, for all the insidious drive to exploit United’s fame, has at least retained the good sense to hold keenly the club’s playing stability.

At the core of that is Ferguson. Infuriatingly stubborn, an aggressive supporter of a hated regime, and often embarrassingly myopic, but the Scot is still utterly peerless. It is a quality recognised in high circles.

“He’s one of these people that has a strength of character that immediately marks him out as a leader of people,” said former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

“He’s a great competitor but he’s also got huge integrity, to himself and to what he believes in. I think that’s quite unusual in life to find people like that.

“If you’re in a tough situation and everything is coming down on top of you and you feel you’re slowly getting surrounded by the people that want to put you in a deep dark pit, Alex is the type of person you’d want standing alongside you. He is a great leader, a great character, and a great human being.”

Which, of course, leaves the oft-debated question of Ferguson’s successor out there – in this week of tributes and tribulations in managerial circles above all others.

Turning 71 in the New Year, Ferguson cannot last much longer. Indeed, the no-fly order prescribed by his doctors in the summer may be a sign of things to come. Sir Alex has often claimed that health, rather than age, will dictate his long-term future at Old Trafford.

Still, as Chelsea flit from one fashionable manager to the next, David Gill and United’s board will face the mother of all managerial appointments when Ferguson’s replacement is finally required, whether that comes next summer or beyond.

The usual suspects – Mourinho, Abramovich’s favourite Pep Guardiola, and perhaps David Moyes – will head a very short list of candidates. Whomever the new man, none will match Ferguson’s achievements. Few his aura and universal respect among his playing charges, says Paul Scholes, who at 38 has only known one club manager.

“He’s been brilliant for every single player that’s worked for him,” adds the midfielder.

“There is such a hunger and desire about him that really drives his players on – he knows how to keep you motivated throughout a season. It’s something that he’s managed to do for the last 20 years and I’m sure he’ll carry on doing it for the next few years as well.

“Somebody’s going to have to come in one day and manage this team and if they do half as well as he does they’ll be successful. There’s nobody like him I know that – but somebody’s got to give it a go.”

There could, of course, still be a left-field choice. How many have have come and gone in the decade since Ferguson’s ‘first’ retirement in 2002? Once chic Bryan Robson, Steve Bruce and Mark Hughes will be nowhere near Gill’s short-list. Neither, thankfully, will Sven-Göran Erikson, Sir Alex’s mooted replacement a decade ago.

Then there is former player Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, a romantic choice among United’s support. The 39-year-old is unlikely to be offered the job either, despite two Norwegian championships with Molde in as many years. After all, United’s drive for revenues and profit under the Glazer regime is anathema to inexperience.

To paraphrase the great Marcello Lippi, Solskjaer’s appointment at Old Trafford in 2013 or 14, would be akin to handing the keys of a Ferrari over to a learner driver.

Meanwhile, at Stamford Bridge, 52-year-old Benitez is certainly no learner, although the Spaniard hasn’t taken the wheel of a supercar in some time either. It remains to be seen whether the former Liverpool coach is given time in west London.

History dictates Abramovich’s whim will bring Benitez reign to a swift and unstable end. It is a lesson United learned to the club’s benefit some time ago.

Smoke and blank mirrors

Ed September 30, 2012 Tags: , , Opinion 55 comments

After seven games where Manchester United has deceived more than flattered this season there was perhaps no surprise that the Reds came unstuck at Old Trafford on Saturday. After all Tottenham Hotpsur has enjoyed something of a renaissance in the past week, while Sir Alex Ferguson’s men have picked up points and not plaudits in the campaign to date. No surprise either that Ferguson’s side began Saturday’s match in much the same fashion it had spent much of last weekend’s fortuitous victory over Liverpool: disjointed and lacking in urgency.

It is tempting to ponder whether something is not right at the Theatre of Dreams; Sir Alex certainly has much to ponder. Not least his role in failing to provide a midfield platform on which the Reds’ plethora of attacking players can effectively perform, nor addressing the worryingly complacency that has creeped into the Reds’ game.

Instead, the 70-year-old Scot offered an old-time diversionary tactic following United’s first defeat to Spurs at Old Trafford since 1989: blame the officials for the lack of injury time awarded. Was the excuse not quite so risible, supporters might find humour in Ferguson’s classic smokescreen.

Yet, it took barely two minutes for Ferguson’s bizarre midfield plan, such as it was, to come unstuck against Andre Villas-Boas’ side on Saturday, with Jan Vertongen waltzing through United’s defence to score at the Stretford End.

By the time Clint Dempsey prodded home Tottenham’s third early into the second period the game was very much afoot, despite a valiant attacking effort by the hosts in the final half-hour.

Shinji Kagawa scored a fine goal in the moments following Dempsey’s strike – and United struck both bar and post in a breathless final third – but the real damage had already been inflicted. Much of it self-flagellatory.

It was certainly not the first time this season that United’s open formation, in which the Reds’ midfield offers minimal defensive cover, has contributed to a costly performance. Nor, one suspects, will Saturday’s misshapen defensive unit be the last seen in the campaign ahead.

Yet, for all of Ferguson’s many gifts self-scrutiny is seldom one of them. In 25 years at Old Trafford’s helm the 70-year-old has rarely, if ever, admitted an error in judgement. Saturday tea-time, Ferguson’s decision to select Ryan Giggs and Nani – two of the squad’s least productive players at Anfield – wide of ball-playing Paul Scholes and Michael Carrick, looked every inch a glaring error come the game’s end.

No surprise, then, that Ferguson railed not at self-inflicted wounds, but the officials who “insulted” the game by providing ‘just’ four minute’s of injury time at the end of a pulsating match.

“They gave us four minutes, that’s an insult to the game,” claimed Ferguson after United’s first home defeat of the season.

“It denies you a proper chance to win a football match. There were six substitutions, the trainer came on, so that’s four minutes right away and the goalkeeper must have wasted about two or three minutes and they took their time at every goal kick.

“That’s obvious to everyone today and it’s a flaw in the game that the referee is responsible for time keeping. It’s ridiculous that it’s 2012 and the referee still has control of that.”

In that Ferguson’s argument has some technical merit, although William Gallas and Steven Caulker defended with such determination that there is no guarantee that 40 and not four minutes of added time would have brought United an equaliser.

Indeed, for all United’s possession – 75 per cent on average and rising fast by the game’s conclusion – it was Spurs that offered the greatest cutting edge. At least on the break.

While Vertongen drifted  into United’s box without challenge for the visitor’s first, the second was a lesson in incisive attacking play. Moussa Dembélé’s pass cut through the Reds’ midfield, and Gareth Bale’s pace swept the Welshman past Rio Ferdinand, before the winger proffered an expert right-footed finish.

“The most important thing was the first half,” Ferguson admitted.

“We didn’t start, we were lackadaisical and lost a goal after two minutes, and you give yourself an uphill fight with that situation. In the second half we were terrific, it was a great performance by them, and we were unlucky not to win it. If we had held the scoreline at 2-1 for a few minutes I think we would have won the match.”

By the end Ferguson had thrown on four strikers as United chased an equaliser. Wayne Rooney’s introduction for the highly ineffective Giggs at half-time changed the balance of United’s attacking play, if not the fundamental shape.

With Kagawa now operating from a narrow left-sided position, Rooney was at his creative best 10 yards deeper than Robin van Persie. But it was 36-year-old Paul Scholes that caught the eye, commanding United’s tempo and pattern of play as Tottenham regressed into defensive entrenchment following Kagawa’s 52nd minute goal.

There were a more than a few United supporters pondering the stark change in the game’s pattern, although this had more to do with Spurs’ changing ambitions than United’s tactics.

Defeat – United’s second of the Premier League season – inevitably brings with it questions, not least the Reds’ inability to retain a clean sheet. More worrying still, this was the third occasion this season in which United has conceded at least twice. This time there were no injury excuses to fall back on, with Ferdinand and Jonny Evans starting for the second week in succession.

Nor too has Ferguson addressed the fundamental, and potentially season-defining hole in a central midfield that is now packed with ball-players, but appears ill-equipped to deal with opponents that attack at pace.

After all, this was a game that United thoroughly dominated except in the most telling aspect. The hosts hogged three times the visitors’ possession, making three-fold more passes, taking 60 per cent more shots, and forcing Tottenham to make almost four times as many clearances.

The key statistic, however, has always been goals. On Saturday, Spurs’ triple was aided on each occasion by United’s lack of defensive nous.

“This is what happens when you only play for 45 minutes,” said Patrice Evra on MUTV with telling introspection.

“The game is 90 minutes long and we deserved to lose because we only played for 45. To concede three goals at Old Trafford is not good enough when you want to win the game.”

Nor, some might add, is failing to address a very long-term weakness.

Fortunate Reds gain points and praise at Anfield

Ed September 24, 2012 Tags: , , , Opinion 47 comments

So there it was – a result at Anfield at last. Nearly five long years of struggles, ending not with a domineering performance so many travelling Manchester United fans sought, but a huge slice of fortune. It favours the brave, doesn’t it? At least those ‘brave’ enough to deploy a midfield axis of Michael Carrick and Ryan Giggs.

United’s 2-1 victory on Sunday, after four defeats in the past five visits to Anfield, came not on the back of a great team performance. Not even near it. Nor indeed, any real moments of individual genius – although Rafael’s fine goal came close – but two refereeing decisions that swang the match United’s way. First robbing Liverpool of all midfield momentum, and then handing United the match 10 minutes from time.

Referee Mark Halsey got both of those key moments right though – JonJo Shelvey’s 39th minute dismissal for a high tackle on Jonny Evans, and the 81st minute penalty that enabled Robin van Persie to seal United’s first win at Anfield since December 2007. Sir Alex Ferguson’s men deserved very little of the luck though, with the Scot’s midfield completely – and predictably – overrun until Shelvey’s red card changed the game, and the canny Paul Scholes was brought on to ruthlessly exploit the additional space.

In truth, while United defended far better than in many recent matches – Rio Ferdinand on the day of John Terry’s international retirement was immense at the heart of the Reds’ back-four – Ferguson’s men created very little. This was a match in which United’s 70-year-old manager got his tactics all wrong, but came up trumps anyway.

Relief, then, for Ferguson whose team stole the points from a Liverpool side raising its game, once again, for United’s visit.

“In the last four years here we haven’t played well,” Ferguson told MUTV.

“Today at least we’ve got a result. Hopefully that’s a turning point for us because if you look back over the years we always did really well here. I think it was about five, six, seven years in a row we did exceptionally well, but it goes in cycles anyway. Before we had that run they had a period in the late ’80s of getting results against us, so it’s maybe our turn to start.

“I thought we were poor, to be honest with you. I think the last four years we’ve allowed the crowd to get to us a little bit – they give fantastic support to their team and they really dominated the first half. Second half they got a great start.

“With ten men I thought that was a great boost to them because it was something to hold on to, but credit to the players in that respect; the second half we played much, much better, but we were against ten men. I think Scholes, Carrick and Giggs’ experience got us through.”

Predictably, Liverpool’s players and manager complained about the refereeing, although it was almost impossible for Halsey not to have shown Shelvey red for a tackle that crossed the line from reckless to excessive. Meanwhile, other marginal calls fell United’s way, with little evidence for Liverpool’s complaint. Evans cleanly tackled Luis Suarez, with the Kop baying for a penalty, while Glenn Johnson felled Antonio Valencia ;under the official’s nose for the winning spot kick.

The pre-match ceremonies had brought a measure of détente between the camps, but it was shattered five minutes before half time when Shelvey refused to take his punishment with any grace. The former-Charlton midfielder, having already hit Ferdinand with a barrage of four-letter expletives on the pitch, aimed further ire at Ferguson before departing for the dressing rooms.

“I think it’s a clear sending off, I’ve absolutely no doubts about it,” added Sir Alex.

“I’ve seen the replay. It was reckless. Jonny Evans, who has dived in, went for the ball and got the ball, no question about that, but Shelvey was nowhere near getting the ball and could have given Jonny Evans a real bad injury. He was very lucky, actually.

“Shelvey came and blamed me. Why not? Why look at himself in the mirror? Just blame someone else. I think the boy’s young and when he looks at it again he’ll realise the stupidity of it. He may apologise, he may not.”

The midfielder later claimed on Twitter that he had apologised to United’s septuagenarian coach, before deleting the statement. It takes not a soothsayer to predict why, not least after the 20-year-old later accused Ferguson of being “a grass” for the manager’s perceived role in the decision.

Meanwhile, in a week when United supporters came under fire for singing “Always the victim” at Old Trafford last Saturday, Ferguson came perilously close to echoing the sentiment if not the dark spirit of that particularly divisive chant.

But there were positives for United, not least Ferdinand’s outstanding defensive display, and another buccaneering performance from Brazilian right-back Rafael da Silva. The youngster retains many critics, especially with loose defensive work too often complementing fine attacking skills. But with United on the rack for much of the fixture, Rafael demonstrated maturity in defence and an outstanding goal, curled in with his left foot.

“Rafael’s goal got us out of the mire,” added Ferguson of the 51st minute equaliser.

“It was a fantastic goal, a good bit of football and it put us in the position where we didn’t need to panic and worked our way through the rest of the game. [The penalty] wasn’t easy for him [van Persie], but he’s taken it well, just the way I envisaged he would take these penalties. When he was at Arsenal, either side he would thunder them home. Reina’s had a good attempt, he got a hand to it, but the power of the shot has made it safe.”

Off the pitch United played a full part in commemorating those lost at Hillsborough 23 years ago, with Sir Bobby Charlton handing 96 roses to former Liverpool striker Ian Rush. The flowers formed part of an extensive pre-match ceremony, which Ferguson had ensured United did not shirk.

Meanwhile, Steven Gerrard released red balloons over Anfield, followed by the usual pre-match rendition of “You’ll Never Walk Alone.”

Visiting supporters, warned to behave by Ferguson pre-match, sang through the anthem as is always the way at Anfield. “U N I T E D,” sang almost 3,000 travelling Mancunians in support of their team. ‘Foul’ cried a select few – ill-informed – journalists on social media.

While, Sky Sports deliberately sought to stoke the controversy, and the Mirror’s Martin Lipton claimed disrespect, there were no complaints from more sensible observers. After all, nobody claims “United Calypso” and dozens of other club anthems across the land are sacrosanct.

Indeed, this was a match when – save for a few muted cries of “Murderers” and one unfortunate burst of “Where’s your famous Munich song?” after 13 minutes – the majority came to pay respect and enjoy a fine, if fortunate United victory. By the end two Liverpool supporters ran across the Anfield turf wheeling their arms in an all-too-familiar aeroplane motion to provoke another round of anti-Liverpool songs in an empty stadium. There’s always a few to break the mould.

On the pitch United is yet to reach anywhere near top gear this season, having only ever played well in short bursts. There were rarely any moments at all on Sunday, save for the goals. In that there is at least hope; United can only get better in the season to come. Unless, the pessimists among us might add, Ferguson’s luck simply runs out. It certainly didn’t on Sunday.

But after a week in which the 70-year-old has forcefully built a bridge between the two clubs, perhaps he deserved it.

Ferguson plays on fans’ conscience

Ed September 22, 2012 Tags: , , Opinion 9 comments

Will Manchester United supporters attract the ire of the nation’s press this Sunday? Perhaps, although there can be no guarantee of the cause ahead of the weekend’s clash with Liverpool at Anfield. Certainly, while the fourth estate awaits the merest glimpse of anti-Liverpool sentiment from away supporters this weekend, controversy could rear its head, whether real or augmented, for any manner of reasons.

This is, after all, the biggest game in the country, and Liverpool versus United has become the premier flashpoint of the domestic season. Last season’s clash at Anfield where Luis Suarez racially abused Patrice Evra is a case in point.

But it is to the fans’ songs that attention will be firmly focussed on Sunday – a day that promises to be an emotional one for Liverpool supporters, and a test of nerve for those at the other end of the East Lancs Road. Indeed, such is the desire for the day to pass off without incident that United on Friday published a letter in Sir Alex Ferguson’s name calling on Manchester’s Reds to observe the ‘best traditions’ of the club.

“The great support you gave the team here last season has seen our allocation back up to near-full levels,” wrote Ferguson in a letter that will be given to United fans entering the Anfield Road turnstiles on Sunday.

“I want you to continue that progress today. But today is about much more than not blocking gangways. Today is about thinking hard about what makes United the best club in the world. Our rivalry with Liverpool is based on a determination to come out on top – a wish to see us crowned the best against a team that held that honour for so long. It cannot and should never be based on personal hatred.

“Just ten days ago, we heard the terrible, damning truth about the deaths of 96 fans who went to watch their team try and reach the FA Cup final and never came back. What happened to them should wake the conscience of everyone connected with the game.

“Our great club stands with our great neighbours Liverpool today to remember that loss and pay tribute to their campaign for justice. I know I can count on you to stand with us in the best traditions of the best fans in the game.”

Indeed, had United beaten Nottingham Forest in the 1989 FA Cup quarter-final, Ferguson’s team would have joined Liverpool in the Hillsborough semi. It could so easily have been 96 United fans who failed to return as those from Merseyside.

In truth, while Ferguson makes no direct call for United supporters to refrain from singing the ‘always the victim, it’s never your fault’ chant that caused so much media furore, any rendition of that particular song is what the United manager most fears.

With the nation’s media in no mood to hear subtleties of argument, the reproach will likely be severe should even a modicum of Mancunian animosity be heard at Anfield. Whether it relates to Hillsborough, or not.

Far more likely, however, is that United fans will direct any hatred – despite Sir Alex’ call for détente – not at Hillsborough’s victims, but Suarez – an easy target in the circumstances. On a day when Liverpool will remember those who were not only lost at Hillsborough, but betrayed by the state, even the most bone-headed among United’s support  know where that Rubicon lays.

On the Kop attention will be elsewhere; certainly far enough away to distract Liverpudlians from the kind behaviour that United supporters have been accused of in the past week. However, Patrice Evra is unlikely to escape Anfield’s venom for his part in being racially abused last October. It remains hard to square media reaction to Evra’s victimisation on the grounds of race with coverage of United’s ‘chanting’ over the past week.

“We want this day to be remembered for the right reasons before the game, and the footballing reasons”, added Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers.

“A lot of work has been done and hopefully Sunday will pass off peacefully and we can talk about the tributes and football. It is an emotionally-charged game. I wouldn’t sit here and tell Liverpool supporters how to behave. I know how they have behaved over many years has been fantastic.

On the day captains Nemanja Vidic and Steven Gerard will release 96 red balloons over Anfield, while a mosaic along three sides of the ground will read “96, Justice and Truth”. Ferguson, alongside Sir Bobby Charlton, will lay flowers at the Kop. It is a reminder that while England’s fiercest rivalry has lost none of it’s intensity, some events transcend the game.

Then, prior to kick-off, Premier League rules demand that Evra and Suarez come together for the handshake that never was at Old Trafford last February. It is an event that may yet set the tone for the game to come.

In the stands there will be more United fans at Anfield than in previous years, with Liverpool council now content that supporters will not block exits and gangways following a high profile supporters’ group campaign last season. It means Ferguson’s side will receive full and rowdy support from the Anfield Road.

Manager and club hope that it will be support in the very best spirit. In that there is responsibility not solely on United supporters, but those in the home end too.

In defence of Ferguson

Jack Jackson August 12, 2012 Tags: Opinion 23 comments

Boxing Day 1989, Villa Park.  Not much Christmas cheer; another defeat, another dreadful performance and real anger on the away terraces.  Predictably, the final whistle was greeted with a cacophony of jeers and boos, but as the players troop off towards the tunnel the fans find one voice and one target.  The noise is deafening: ‘F*ck off Fergie, f*ck off Fergie …’

More the 20 years ago the protest came as no surprise.  Two weeks earlier United fan Pete Molyneux had unfurled a banner in the empty Scoreboard End seats waving ‘ta-ra’ to Alex Ferguson for ‘three years of excuses’.  Only months earlier Ferguson had disappeared under his own duvet after Manchester City hammered the Reds 5-1 at Maine Road.  No wonder when former players, TV pundits and just about everyone else lined Ferguson up for criticism. Even so, the lowest point was to come later at Villa Park.

Ferguson had already revealed his pain in the wake of derby defeat in a revealing interview for the Sunday Times.  Speaking of feeling like a “criminal” because he had “let down the supporters,” Ferguson admitted that “at Manchester United you become one of them, you think like a supporter, suffer like a supporter.”  When those supporters rose up against him at Villa, Ferguson’s suffering was complete.

Boxing Day 1989 is long gone.  Yet, the new season approaches with unrest in the seats, anger on the internet, and Ferguson once more at the centre of it all.  In recent weeks United’s proposed Initial Public Offering (IPO) has placed the Scot in the spotlight, with accusations that the 70-year-old may benefit from the ‘2012 Equity Incentive Award Plan’, which will grant share options to selected senior employees and executives of the club.

Ferguson moved fast to clarify his position in relation to the proposed IPO, claiming that he does “not receive any payments, directly or indirectly” from the IPO. But the controversy was not solely a matter of money.  Some things matter more.

“I’m speaking out because I do not want a situation to develop whereby the media and other parties create a rift, however small, between myself and any Manchester United fan,” added Ferguson. “I’ve spent 25 years of my life pushing this club forward and not only could I have not done it without those fans, I do it for them.”

Some supporters are suspicious of Ferguson’s defence.  Some have separated man from manager, rejecting the idea that Ferguson thinks and suffers like a supporter, while accusing the Scot of treachery.  Others erase the image of Ferguson on the back of a motorbike touring Paris looking for Eric Cantona, while considering the manager’s motives more sordid. Both will describe that night in the Nou Camp as the highlight of their lives

It is easy to understand why many are attracted to this interpretation; there is no doubt Fergie is difficult to like at times.  The manager’s recently publicised views on “wee pockets” of militant United supporters misrepresenting the truth, and shouting down the “majority of the real fans” who look at the Glazers ownership in a more positive light, was simply outrageous.  While appreciating Ferguson’s position as an employee of the Glazers family, the manager’s interpretation was still hard to swallow.

Yet, there is another side to Ferguson that still commands immense personal and professional respect.  The manager’s days of supplementing respect with a healthy dose of fear are probably over, but Ferguson continues to drive those around him with an obsession and desire that are undiminished.   Sir Alex is consumed by the game; the same man who played for Dunfermline on his wedding day, and then went training the following morning.

The game is nothing without its public.  United’s supporters are not simply an audience to be entertained (or not), and then forgotten until the next match.  The manager’s involvement with United’s fans has become a cornerstone of his life.  Perhaps his personality makes that involvement difficult at times – Ferguson’s commitment is absolute, but so too are his demands.

Perhaps supporters have been equally unforgiving too.  Despite Ferguson’s achievements, which have transformed fandom at Old Trafford beyond previous imagination, the Scot has always attracted criticism from within.

Does that mean supporters should appreciate the manager while rejecting the man? Only the Glazers would benefit from such a rift.  Flawed Ferguson may be, but he cares every bit as much about the club, its traditions and future as supporters do. And he does so in the poisonous atmosphere of Glazer ownership, globalisation, the IPOs and all the commercial aspects that have become inseparable from the modern game.

Perhaps it is not yet time to party like it’s 1989.

Fergie and Glazers’ profit from IPO leaves fans angry

Ed July 31, 2012 Tags: , , Opinion 84 comments

Sir Alex Ferguson is likely to profit from the Glazer family’s partial flotation of Manchester United, documents filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed on Monday. The legendary United coach, who has been forthright in his defence of the Glazers since the American’s summer 2005 leveraged buy-out, may benefit from a share of $288 million set aside for employee options if the New York Initial Public Offering is successful in the coming weeks.

The Glazer family is seeking to raise up to $330 million from a 10 per cent flotation of the club on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) that has left many fans angry, especially as the Americans are set to use just £75 million of proceeds to pay down United’s £423 million debt. It is a u-turn that has brought scorn from fans’ groups and investors alike.

On a dramatic day at Old Trafford, United also announced a new shirt deal with General Motors (GM), the partially state-owned American auto-maker, which will see the club sporting Cheverolet branding for seven years from the 2014/15 season onwards. It is a deal, announced almost two years before United’s contract with principal sponsor AON runs out, which provokes plenty of questions ahead of the club’s on-off-on again IPO.

Indeed, as United announced the deal Monday afternoon, GM parted company with its high-profile chief marketing officer Joel Ewanick; the 52-year-old CMO was brutally sacked over his part in two separate sponsorship deals with the club in the past two months. GM management is said to be angry over Ewanick’s handling of the deal’s fine print, which provoked a last-minute renegotiation to ensure Cheverlot branding will appear of United’s shirts in two year’s time.

Yet, Ewanick’s dismissal is only one mystery on a day that saw United ink, potentially, the most lucrative deal of its kind in world football, while setting an ambitiously high valuation on the club ahead of the controversial New York IPO. United announced the new sponsorship package with the car manufacturer just hours before filing an amended F-1 form with the SEC.

The sums may be huge for both sponsorship and IPO. The Daily Telegraph claimed United is set to receive a record £196 million over seven years, while Reuters reporting inside knowledge of a £382 million deal. Whatever the true number, the deal will surpass that secured by Barcelona, with the Catalan club sporting Qatar Foundation branding for around £25 million per season.

Meanwhile, if the deal with GM, which is still 26 per cent owned by the US Federal Reserve after it received a government bail-out in 2009, was positive news for Glazer family, the American’s used it to bury an even more dramatic turnaround in the club’s US flotation. The IPO is back on after the FT reported a “pause” in proceedings last week.

But the on-off-on nature of the flotation is only part of the drama as details emerged of the family’s intention to take around half the IPO proceedings for themselves, with only a fraction likely to be used to pay down the club’s huge debt. Should the IPO get away as planned United’s gross debt will fall to around £350 million, with interest savings of just £5 million per season from the float.

Once again the Glazers’ business model exposed as a sham; built to keep one step ahead of the banks, and the family in ready cash, while milking the club for every penny of value.

But it is the provision for a substantial carve out of share options for ‘selected senior management and employees’, in addition to eight million shares being sold by the Glazer family itself, which will surely anger fans. While a similar number of shares is being sold by the club, the Glazers will suffer almost no dilution in their grip on power at Old Trafford, with provisions to issue two classes of shares still in place.

“Supporters are going to be very angry about this,” said Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) chief executive Duncan Drasdo.

“The Glazers have already cost United more than £550m in debt related fees and now another slap in the face as they help themselves to half of the proposed IPO proceeds. Each of the six lineal descendants of Malcolm Glazer will claw out $25 million for themselves.

“Clearly this has nothing to do with benefits for Manchester United and is all about giving the Glazers quick access to desperately needed cash at the expense of our football club.

“There is now no doubt that this IPO is bad for Manchester United supporters, Manchester United Football Club and any investors gullible enough to pay the inflated price they’ve attached to inferior shares.”

Meanwhile, United manager Ferguson may be among those senior personnel selected to be part of the 2012 Equity Incentive Award Plan, which will be funded from the further sale of 16 million shares in the club. If Ferguson’s involvement proves true – and how could Ferguson not be a beneficiary along with chief executive David Gill – then many supporters will be left confused and rightly angry.

After all, here is a manager without peer in modern football, who has brought unprecedented success to the club, but may directly profit from the Glazers’ debt-loaded business model. Moreover, if Ferguson is to profit from the scheme fans should question whether they can ever take the manager’s words of praise about the Glazer family seriously again. Once a man-of-the-people, Ferguson has seemingly become a central cog in the machinations of cynical greed.

But the debate, of course, is moot until both confirmation of those beneficiaries leeks out and the IPO gets away. Neither is certain, with investors roundly critical of the Glazers’ plan which, if anything, offers less to those buying into the flotation than ever before. After all, there is no plan to offer dividends, while the family will retain more than 97 per cent voting control of the club.

Moreover, with an equity value of around £2 billion many investors have publicly baulked at the cost, with shares priced at between $16 and $20. Taking the mid point of that range, the Glazers are seeking a 20 times EBITDA multiple on the asset – 24 times given the implied enterprise value – for a business whose profit fell by 15 per cent in the last financial year as performances suffered on the pitch. This is, after all, a 134-year-old ’emerging high growth company’ that grew not a jot last year, and just 14 per cent over the past three.

“It could be challenging to justify such strong multiples for a company that needs to spend a lot of money to generate success,” Ken Perkins, an analyst with Morningstar told Reuters on Tuesday. “Even if their performance is good their price may be a bit high.”

“Shareholders are getting a shoddy deal,” echoed United-supporting Michael Jarman, chief equity strategist at H2O Markets. “Investors are not idiots and there is simply no value in the company. The Glazers want to have their cake and eat it – the share structure shows they want to retain complete and utter control.”

There was little to cheer for investors in preliminary financials released by the club in its updated prospectus, with United’s bean-counters estimating a fall in revenues of around five per cent, and a substantial drop in EBITDA – ‘cash profits’. Meanwhile, costs continue to rise, which when taken in aggregate with exceptional items like a hefty tax credit and the £7.7 million costs of issuing the IPO, will create a paper loss for the business in the financial year just closed.

No wonder the family was so keen to prematurely announce its deal with GM, with many supporters wondering whether the auto-maker is pre-paying part of the sponsorship package as AON did two years ago. The Glazers’ apparent desperation for quick cash at the club’s expense suggests this is highly likely to be the case.

No matter how lucrative the deal, front-loading payments will reduce United’s ongoing income at a later date, potentially cheating investors down-the-line.

Whether full details emerge in time is questionable. After all documents revealed that the Glazers registered United in the super-secret Cayman Islands on 30 April – the day City beat the Reds at Eastlands. And the question now on many supporters’ lips is whether Ferguson is one of the beneficiaries in a controversial share option scheme that will net some tens of millions, and the club absolutely nothing.

Sir Alex’ guide to being a “real fan”

Ed July 22, 2012 Tags: , Opinion 137 comments

“Real fans,” said Sir Alex Ferguson on Saturday, will look at the Glazer family’s debt-fueled ownership of Manchester United over the past seven years and conclude that it “has not affected the team.” It was an assertion made by the 70-year-old manager that sparked a furious debate across social media, with Ferguson, not first the first time, accused of insulting supporters.

It was also news to United Rant, having previously failed to realise that the key tenet of being a Manchester United fan is not, as many believe, supporting the team – home, away, in good times and bad – but obsequious sycophancy towards carpetbagging, tax-dodging, profiteers.

And this new definition of fandom was odd to Rant not solely because United finished trophy-less last season; nor because Stoke City has spent more, net, on acquiring new players over the past five years; nor because the ‘Ronaldo money’ was splurged not on new talent, but on buying back debt; nor because Chelsea has invested around the same amount in Eden Hazard over five years that United spent on debt last season; nor because the Glazer family has wasted more than £500 million on debt-related costs since taking over in 2005; nor, even, because the family has transferred ownership of United to the tax-haven ultra-secretive Cayman Islands.

In fact, this definition is news to Rant for one reason only: we have always believed that it is none of Ferguson’s business, no matter all the silverware and glory he has garnered over the past quarter-century, to define what a ‘fan’ is. Not least because many of the most loyal fans have remained deeply enraged by the Glazer takeover, despite Ferguson’s support of the family these past seven years.

Especially when the former shop-steward, who is paid £6 million-a-year plus bonuses by the Glazers, is so inclined throw insults at whomever disagrees with his assessment that the Americans have been “great” for the club.

“They’ve been great,” said Sir Alex, in a carefully stage-managed attack on the Glazer family’s opponents.

“So if you’re asking me for my views, I don’t have any complaints. I think there are a whole lot of factions at United that think they own the club. They will always be contentious about whoever owns the club, and that’s the way it has always been. There have always been wee pockets of supporters who have their views… but I think the majority of the real fans will look at it realistically and say it’s not affecting the team.”

The real problem with the Glazer family, says Sir Alex, is not the huge drain that debt, which remains at more than £420 million, has bestowed on a once profitable club, but lack of good “publicist.” Rant might conclude that you couldn’t make it up, but Ferguson obviously has.

We have heard much of this before, of course – Sir Alex’ assertion that the family is a “fantastic” owner of a 125-year-old institution, or that there is “no value in the market,” or that fans who don’t like the family should simply ‘f*ck off and support Chelsea,’ or – as in this weekend’s interview with the Mail on Sunday – that it has never been United’s tradition to spend big in the market. That, in fact, the Glazer family is simply holding up a fine United tradition.

On the tenth anniversary of United spending £34 million on Rio Ferdinand, including the £5 million handed to the player’s agent, some fans may have pause for thought on that point. It was a transfer that in today’s terms cost United more than £60 million, according to the excellent Transfer Price Index analysis.

Rant would mention club and British record transfer fees spent on Juan Sebastian Veron, Dimitar Berbatov, Andy Cole, Roy Keane and others during Ferguson’s reign. But that would be too easy.

Yet, while Manchester City is unwilling to countenance fielding young players, Ferguson claims, United is the last bastion of youth – bucking the market to uphold a moral principle dear only to the Scot.

“We buy in the right way and that’s the difference between United and the rest,” Ferguson told his principal cheerleader, Bob Cass.

“We can play 18-year-olds because it’s part of our history. City won’t do it. They definitely won’t play any young players who have come up through the system. Their buys are all 25, 26, 27-year-old established players with a good maturity, experience and good ages.”

It’s an argument that would, of course, have more weight had City’s average player age not been two years lower during the Manchester derby last April. Or if the young United players that started the game – the ones who ‘came through the system’ – weren’t Ryan Giggs, 38, and Paul Scholes, 37.

But all that is a diversion, of course; a deflection from United’s decline, and City’s ascent, in recent years; a red herring, leading the debate away from United’s almost universally criticised Cayman-via-New York IPO. The irony being that hard-nosed US investors will take little notice of Ferguson’s latest Glazer defence – not when the club’s bottom line has been consistently obliterated by debt-related costs since the family’s leveraged buy-out in 2005.

In fact, despite City’s wealth, or the renewed investment by the ‘publicity-shy’ Roman Abramovich at Chelsea, United should remain the biggest fish in the transfer pond given the club’s immense profitability. Only for the profit to be spent almost entirely on debt.

None of that is really the point though. There was time long before the Premier League brought United immense wealth – before all-encompassing commercialisation was even a glint in Peter Kenyon’s eye – that a venerable institution stood on its own feet and competed on a reasonably even playing field. When fans watched football, not bond markets.

Yes, there have been many poor owners in United’s history. As Ferguson asserts, fans complained bitterly about Martin Edwards’ stewardship in the 1980s, and the flotation that took United on to the London Stock Exchange in 1991. This is without mentioning Lou Edwards’ dodgy sausages, or the committees that almost took United into liquidation twice in the 20th century.

None, however, has been so singularly dedicated to extracting ‘value’ for themselves at the club’s expense as the Glazer family. None has ensured United haemorrhaged money in quite the same way.

Nor, Rant suspects, has any manager backed the owners in quite the same way as Ferguson. The world’s greatest living manager, now reduced to attacking supporters who care deeply about the club. It’s no way to maintain a legacy.

But since Rant has never been one to follow Ferguson’s obsequious lead, we’re unlikely to pass the “real fan” test anyway.