Dirty Tricks allegation at United AGM

The Muppet

United to probe 'dirty tricks' charge
By Sam Wallace (Filed: 13/01/2004)

The Manchester United chief executive, David Gill, will investigate an allegation by a supporters' group that there is a dirty tricks campaign against Sir Alex Ferguson amid suspicion that damaging questions about the manager were planted at the club's annual general meeting.


Alex Ferguson: damaging questions posed at AGM
The suspicions were raised by journalist Michael Crick and centre on an allegedly co-ordinated effort by a group of five people - two of whom were actresses - who travelled to the meeting together and four of whom asked embarrassing and difficult questions.

Although Ferguson was not at the meeting on Nov 14, Crick's investigation on behalf of Shareholders United (SU), a collective of fans who hold small stakes in the club, has alleged that the four people who asked questions were briefed and planted by enemies of the United manager.

The disclosure comes just days after a Sunday newspaper published an in-depth investigation into the role of Ferguson's son, Jason, in the transfer of goalkeeper Tim Howard to the club - prompting fears there is a campaign to undermine the manager.

The dossier compiled by Crick on the four people who asked questions, all of whom travelled to Manchester together and tried to stay at the same hotel, was formally handed to Gill at a supporters' forum he attended at Old Trafford before the match against Newcastle on Sunday.

Gill, who was first told by SU officials about Crick's investigation in November, said that the plc board took the allegations "seriously" and promised to follow them up with individuals linked to the club who may have a grudge against the manager.

Oliver Houston, a spokesman for SU, said: "Let's hope this campaign of dirty tricks doesn't escalate. It will only be United that suffers. It was shoddy in the extreme to hijack an important forum such as the AGM to try and settle personal grudges in the glare of the media spotlight. This is not healthy for the fans, the shareholders or the company and anybody who knows anything about Manchester United knows that when push comes to shove the fans will back Ferguson to the hilt."

The allegations are the latest problem for Ferguson, who launched a lawsuit last year against his former friend John Magnier, the multi-millionaire racing tycoon, over the stud fees for the racehorse Rock Of Gibraltar. Magnier, who owns 24.24 per cent of United with his business partner J P McManus, will face the 62-year-old Scot in Dublin's High Court next year.

The suspicions of SU were first raised at the AGM when a woman who Crick later discovered was Tayla Goodman, mentioned to an SU official that she intended to ask the board a difficult - and brave - question about Jason Ferguson's business interests. Ferguson himself was not at the meeting.

Before her question, another man, Rupert Harris, asked the board why payments to agents were not disclosed in the accounts and expressed his fears that United could lose part of a transfer deal in agents' fees as Leeds did over Harry Kewell's move to Liverpool.

Crick's suspicion was then raised when the question about Jason was finally asked - especially as it came not from Goodman but from another woman who he later learned was Jane Kemlo. Goodman asked a question about half an hour later demanding to know why United had not signed Ronaldinho or Damien Duff in the summer.

Finally, a man called Andy Terrington asked a fourth question - again about agents' commission. But SU's suspicions were further raised when Houston spotted a type-written piece of paper with all four of the questions that had been asked listed together. It included a fifth about Rio Ferdinand's missed drugs test - a topic that had been banned from discussion.

When Crick investigated the four individuals he discovered that they had flown to Manchester from London and eaten together at the city's Le Mont restaurant after the AGM. All four had small United shareholdings that had been bought only a few days before the meeting.

It was then discovered that Terrington and Goodman were directors in three London companies with intelligence links - The Group Global Intelligence Services Ltd, Spy Cafe Ltd and Spy Tours Ltd - and had previous experience working undercover for a tabloid newspaper and a Channel 4 documentary. However, Goodman claimed it was "pure coincidence" she and Terrington had been at the meeting and denied any collusion.

Crick finally linked Terrington to an associate called Ben Hamilton who has worked for a security company that investigates individuals. It was claimed by Hamilton, who had also attended the AGM, that the group had asked the questions on behalf of a new website set up to campaign to 'clean up' football's reputation. Terrington later argued he was simply trying to rustle up stories for his television work.

When the website was investigated it transpired that it had been set up on Nov 2, less than two weeks before the AGM. None of the group had mentioned it when they asked their questions at Old Trafford.

Kemlo and Goodman were discovered by Crick to be actresses. Although Kemlo maintained she was a United fan who said the AGM was a "fun day out," Crick reported she was unable to name the team's goalscorers in the 1999 European Cup final.

Very serious allegation and it wouldn't take a genius to figure out who may be behind this.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

jonno

Jaysus that was a dirty little scam. Would love to know who was behind it.

Can't wait to hear Fergie's comments about it.

Sherlock

Were they fair?. I think Man U have a lot to say about why they pay agents so much.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

The Muppet

As every player and most Clubs now employ agents United like every other club have no option but to deal with them. This story goes deeper than Unted paying agents, If its true it means that people involved in a personal situation outside of football are tying to undermine the most importand man at United , Fergie. This can hardly be seen as being best for united and if the allegations are found to be true he can keep his money as far as United supporters are concerned. The situation behind this is going to end up in court, That is where it should be sorted, it's a private matter between 2 indivuduals and should not be having any bearing on Manchester United F.C.