Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

SlickRic

keane2097 wrote: »

When did you stop being a mod?

about a month ago.

sometimes i still use a mod tone; it's a bit weird I know. i apologise profusely

Jame Gumb

Adamcp898 wrote: »

I don't feel like trawling through 20/30 pages of posts so if this has been mentioned somewhere sorry, but where does it say Fergie will benefit from this share sale directly, as in he'll get paid?

It appears that "senior management" may benefit from the IPO. From memory, "senior management" are listed in the prospectus and the list includes David Gill but does not include Fergie.

To be fair, it's normal for senior employees in any organisation to receive some form of share based remuneration on the basis that it's thought to align the interests of employees and shareholders.

In fact, it mightn't be the worst thing in the world if the club started offering players shares as a way to circumvent ludicrous salary demands.

Kylo Ren

Adamcp898 wrote: »

I don't feel like trawling through 20/30 pages of posts so if this has been mentioned somewhere sorry, but where does it say Fergie will benefit from this share sale directly, as in he'll get paid?

It doesn't specifically say Ferguson will but it states that "$288m in share options will be awarded to selected employees, consultants and non-employee directors”.

We're assuming Fergie will be under the selected employees category.

SlickRic

Samich wrote: »

Gotta improve your searching skills.

he's in a rage.

going by the context of everything, and by reading the report, you will know, and Mitch knows, that it's the Glazers taking the money out for personal gain not Fergie and Gill. Fergie and Gill are just potential beneficiaries. he can speak for himself, but Mitch put them all in one cluster in his rant.

we don't know that yet though if they will benefit obviously. it depends if they have shares, if they're considered senior management, etc.

Adamcp898

Jame Gumb wrote: »

It appears that "senior management" may benefit from the IPO. From memory, "senior management" are listed in the prospectus and the list includes David Gill but does not include Fergie.

To be fair, it's normal for senior employees in any organisation to receive some form of share based remuneration on the basis that it's thought to align the interests of employees and shareholders.

In fact, it mightn't be the worst thing in the world if the club started offering players shares as a way to circumvent ludicrous salary demands.

To be honest I highly doubt 'senior management' when mentioned in a document such as this one includes the head coach or 'manager' of a sporting organisation. Board members, chairman et al. yes, but I doubt if Fergie and Mike Phelan are rubbing their hands at this.

EDIT: Just seen Keno's post, that paints a different shade on things. Unless it's simply to cover the Glazers giving money to any family members/friends who are club employees but don't actually sit on the board or something :?

DM_7

Adamcp898 wrote: »

I don't feel like trawling through 20/30 pages of posts so if this has been mentioned somewhere sorry, but where does it say Fergie will benefit from this share sale directly, as in he'll get paid?

Nope it doesn't say it.

its an assumption by some that he wcould be getting money as part of the equity scheme.

As part of the scheme class a shares (16,000,000) will be available as compensation to: (extract from doc) individuals who will be non-employee directors, officers, employees or consultants or the non-employee directors, officers, employees or consultants of certain of our subsidieries -

s_carnage

Jame Gumb wrote: »

It appears that "senior management" may benefit from the IPO. From memory, "senior management" are listed in the prospectus and the list includes David Gill but does not include Fergie.

To be fair, it's normal for senior employees in any organisation to receive some form of share based remuneration on the basis that it's thought to align the interests of employees and shareholders.

In fact, it mightn't be the worst thing in the world if the club started offering players shares as a way to circumvent ludicrous salary demands.

It also includes "selected employees, consultants and non-employee directors" so Ferguson could fall into the selected employee category quite easily.

keane2097

SlickRic wrote: »

about a month ago.

sometimes i still use a mod tone; it's a bit weird I know. i apologise profusely

You never had much of a mod tone for me anyway, fair play and enjoy the retirement.

Winston Payne

Eli Manning wrote: »

Sir Alex Ferguson isn't bigger than Manchester United and I think he should fully disclose his financial interests in Manchester United and his takings as a part of this IPO.

If the situation arises where Sir Alex Ferguson has profited from this well then I think he should step down as he is probably the only barrier between a fan backlash against the Glazers which would severely damage the potential value of the IPO and Manchester United. If he is taking the Class B shares as a replacement of direct financial benefits eg. Bonuses' etc. then I don't have a problem. In the likely event that this is untrue then he has abused his position and is only backing the Glazers as he gaining financially from it then he has no option but to step down as he has abused his goodwill with the fans.

For a man who has come out with the line 'No value in the market' time and time again I think it's terribly rich when the likes of himself and David Gill along with the parasites are extracting money from the club that could be used to buy players.

Regardless he has defended the Glazers on numerous occasions and he needs to shut up at this stage.

I agree. I think it's a smashing idea for him to come out against the owners at a very delicate time, "make a statement" which will have nebulous effect and will undoubtedly lead to fan backlash uplifting the club to freedom. I hope these fans are seriously wealthy men who aren't averse to plunging money into considerably overvalued stock.

Pro. F

Winston Payne wrote: »

I agree. I think it's a smashing idea for him to come out against the owners at a very delicate time, "make a statement" which will have nebulous effect and will undoubtedly lead to fan backlash uplifting the club to freedom. I hope these fans are seriously wealthy men who aren't averse to plunging money into considerably overvalued stock.

This.

I don't see the value of Fergie speaking out against the owners just now. I have big problems with the Glazers and imo they have put the club at huge risk, but I don't think the health of the club would be secured by the manager throwing his oar into the financial side of things just now. The Glazers are in complete control of the club, they are clearly not going to sell easy and the financial situation is finely balanced and very much dependent on footballing success and appearance of value for share sales and possible future bond issues. The best thing Fergie can do imo is try to keep the club winning as best he can.

Jame Gumb

s_carnage wrote: »

Jame Gumb wrote: »

It appears that "senior management" may benefit from the IPO. From memory, "senior management" are listed in the prospectus and the list includes David Gill but does not include Fergie.

To be fair, it's normal for senior employees in any organisation to receive some form of share based remuneration on the basis that it's thought to align the interests of employees and shareholders.

In fact, it mightn't be the worst thing in the world if the club started offering players shares as a way to circumvent ludicrous salary demands.

It also includes "selected employees, consultants and non-employee directors" so Ferguson could fall into the selected employee category quite easily.

And so by extension could Nemanja Vidic...he's the club captain...surely he's a "senior employee"?

The fact is that neither Fergie nor Vida is named in that section of the document, so it's pure speculation to claim that either will benefit directly from the IPO.

My own relatively uninformed view is that this reward mechanism will end up being used primarily to feather the nests of people like *Britney-Lynn Glazer III in a tax efficient manner rather than to reward the likes of Fergie.

(*not a real person)

Lord TSC

I'm also going to be honest here; I have zero problem with Fergie getting financial rewards from such deals. If anything, the fact he's getting such a reward would ease the annoyance of the fact the Glaziers are getting cash, since without Fergie, United would not be in the position it is now or has been for years....

kryogen

Jame Gumb wrote: »

And so by extension could Nemanja Vidic...he's the club captain...surely he's a "senior employee"?

The fact is that neither Fergie nor Vida is named in that section of the document, so it's pure speculation to claim that either will benefit directly from the IPO.

My own relatively uninformed view is that this reward mechanism will end up being used primarily to feather the nests of people like *Britney-Lynn Glazer III in a tax efficient manner rather than to reward the likes of Fergie.

(*not a real person)

No, it really is not the same thing, Vidic has not been the most important person at the club for almost 30 years. If you genuinely don't see why there is an assumption that Fergie will be included in the equity share award then I won't be able to help you.

However, I may be able to phrase it in a form of a question, why would Fergie not be offered the chance to benefit from the scheme? Does he not deserve to be one of the "selected employees"? Has he not done enough to warrant being treated well by the chairman?

It is clear, it says senior management, selected employees (not senior!), consultants and non employee directors. If Fergie is not offered the chance to be part of it then he should feel very pissed off with the Glazers.

Comparing Fergie to Vidic in this situation is pointless.

Jame Gumb

kryogen wrote: »

Jame Gumb wrote: »

And so by extension could Nemanja Vidic...he's the club captain...surely he's a "senior employee"?

The fact is that neither Fergie nor Vida is named in that section of the document, so it's pure speculation to claim that either will benefit directly from the IPO.

My own relatively uninformed view is that this reward mechanism will end up being used primarily to feather the nests of people like *Britney-Lynn Glazer III in a tax efficient manner rather than to reward the likes of Fergie.

(*not a real person)

No, it really is not the same thing, Vidic has not been the most important person at the club for almost 30 years. If you genuinely don't see why there is an assumption that Fergie will be included in the equity share award then I won't be able to help you.

However, I may be able to phrase it in a form of a question, why would Fergie not be offered the chance to benefit from the scheme? Does he not deserve to be one of the "selected employees"? Has he not done enough to warrant being treated well by the chairman?

It is clear, it says senior management, selected employees (not senior!), consultants and non employee directors. If Fergie is not offered the chance to be part of it then he should feel very pissed off with the Glazers.

Comparing Fergie to Vidic in this situation is pointless.

All I'm saying is that we do not know.

It's all speculation.

Schism

Amos loan to Hull is confirmed

http://www.football365.com/hull-city/7953098/here

Needed for the lad, with Lindegaard and DDG ahead of him opportunities were going to be few and far between barring serious injuries.

Pro. F

Samich wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79991624&postcount=6976



Looks to me like he's comparing Gill and Fergie to the bankers here (along with Glazers). If not, should have been made clear.

Mitch did make it clear. Today on this thread.

DM_7

Its an emotive topic but I don't really have a problem with any employee getting shares. Last night I would probably have said differant.

Its not like they work for free as it is.

kryogen

Jame Gumb wrote: »

All I'm saying is that we do not know.

It's all speculation.

Your slanting it as it is unlikely that Fergie will be part of the share scheme, this is false imo as it is far more likely he will be included.

I have actually not got a problem with him benefitting from stock options in the club, it is common in business.

I don't like that I feel he is misleading fans about the owners so as to not rock the boat. He has put his own interests before the club before so it would hardly be a shock if he is doing so again. However, I would not want him to leave the club either way.

Adamcp898

We need a poll, which is more mind numbing, the bickering over Michael Carrick or the way the bickering of this IPO is going?

Jame Gumb

kryogen wrote: »

Jame Gumb wrote: »

All I'm saying is that we do not know.

It's all speculation.

Your slanting it as it is unlikely that Fergie will be part of the share scheme, this is false imo as it is far more likely he will be included.

I have actually not got a problem with him benefitting from stock options in the club, it is common in business.

I don't like that I feel he is misleading fans about the owners so as to not rock the boat. He has put his own interests before the club before so it would hardly be a shock if he is doing so again. However, I would not want him to leave the club either way.

No, I'm just pointing out that it's speculation to claim that he'll benefit directly from the IPO and I'm giving my opinion that the mechanism is probably more about getting money out to the Glazers than rewarding guys like Fergie and David Gill.

We simply do not know, but my honest view is that Fergie will not be one of the beneficiaries. In any event, share based payments tend to be used to reward employees for their performance over a three year time horizon and not in relation to the past. Will Fergie even be there in three years time? I doubt it. But again, it's all speculation. We just don't know.

Paul Tergat

Adamcp898 wrote: »

We need a poll, which is more mind numbing, the bickering over Michael Carrick or the way the bickering of this IPO is going?

I really dont see the IPO thing being anywhere near as similar. The Carrick debates have been raging on for years and is a go to point. The IPO hasnt even been announced for 24 hours yet and it is actually interesting to get some debate going on it. IMO of course

DM_7

Adamcp898 wrote: »

We need a poll, which is more mind numbing, the bickering over Michael Carrick or the way the bickering of this IPO is going?

good idea, I suggest a third option - people complaining about the bickering

and one more,

option 4 - people complaining about people complaining ;-)

kryogen

Why don't you think Fergie would be included though? does he not deserve to be rewarded for his loyalty and the success he has brought to the club?

I think if employees are going to be rewarded for what they have done for the ckub then Fergie has got to be head of the queue surely.

kryogen

Paul Tergat wrote: »

I really dont see the IPO thing being anywhere near as similar. The Carrick debates have been raging on for years and is a go to point. The IPO hasnt even been announced for 24 hours yet and it is actually interesting to get some debate going on it. IMO of course

How the interview go?

Paul Tergat

kryogen wrote: »

How the interview go?

Pretty good mate. Hear back on Thurs, fingers crossed

Adamcp898

Paul Tergat wrote: »

I really dont see the IPO thing being anywhere near as similar. The Carrick debates have been raging on for years and is a go to point. The IPO hasnt even been announced for 24 hours yet and it is actually interesting to get some debate going on it. IMO of course

It's just the way this appears to be going, I'm all for talking about it, but not post after post about who said what when and the meaning of the term 'senior management'.

DM-ICE wrote: »

good idea, I suggest a third option - people complaining about the bickering

and one more,

option 4 - people complaining about people complaining ;-)

But how else do we stop the bickering if we don't complain, as an Irish person I really don't see any other option but to complain and do nothing

Paul Tergat

Adamcp898 wrote: »

It's just the way this appears to be going, I'm all for talking about it, but not post after post about who said what when and the meaning of the term 'senior management'.

Yeah I get what you mean but what we often see is people coming in from work and reading news for the first time so the same debates often spring up. I reckon in a couple of days we will have moved on.

Football cant start back soon enough!

lordgoat

Anyone bored of the IPO debate needs to learn why people are so upset about it. Do you not think the club you support warrants you to go and find out what is actually happening with it. This is so much more important than who we are signing, or how amazing Michael Carrick is.

It baffles me that people just ignore it or call it boring. Glazers are running our club in an extremely profitable way. But not for the club, for them. Since yesterday it's vividly clear that their plan is to keep the club making money (for them) while servicing the debt. Not paying it off, just using the bare minimum to keep the turnover at it's maximum. They'll keep taking the profits off the top and slowly sell it off imo.

Jame Gumb

kryogen wrote: »

Why don't you think Fergie would be included though? does he not deserve to be rewarded for his loyalty and the success he has brought to the club?

I think if employees are going to be rewarded for what they have done for the ckub then Fergie has got to be head of the queue surely.

Well I've never heard of a manager getting share based payments before for starters, despite the number of clubs that are or have been PLCs.

Plus he's not named in the relevant section of the prospectus.

Plus share based payments tend to be more about staff retention and future performance rather than past performance.

And I also wonder whether he'll be around for the vesting period if there is one (usually three years).

I'm as big a fan of Fergie as the next man, but perhaps the shareholders' view is "we're paying this guy £5m a year to do a great job...that's enough". I'm not endorsing or defending that view...I'm merely suggesting that it may exist.

Adamcp898

lordgoat wrote: »

Anyone bored of the IPO debate needs to learn why people are so upset about it. Do you not think the club you support warrants you to go and find out what is actually happening with it. This is so much more important than who we are signing, or how amazing Michael Carrick is.

It baffles me that people just ignore it or call it boring. Glazers are running our club in an extremely profitable way. But not for the club, for them. Since yesterday it's vividly clear that their plan is to keep the club making money (for them) while servicing the debt. Not paying it off, just using the bare minimum to keep the turnover at it's maximum. They'll keep taking the profits off the top and slowly sell it off imo.

I'm not calling any actual debating boring, just the pointless bickering over when the other person said what.

Samich

Pro. F wrote: »

Mitch did make it clear. Today on this thread.

Bit late when I had my reply to that post said. Jeez.

Samich

kryogen wrote: »

How the interview go?

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Pretty good mate. Hear back on Thurs, fingers crossed

What in the actual fup?

Some people need a read of the charter.

Al Capwned

lordgoat wrote: »

Anyone bored of the IPO debate needs to learn why people are so upset about it. Do you not think the club you support warrants you to go and find out what is actually happening with it. This is so much more important than who we are signing, or how amazing Michael Carrick is.

<snip>

Couldn't agree more - I have probably overloaded myself with information on this since last night, and feel a lot more comfortable discussing it - I agree that true supporters of the club should find out the ins and outs of it.

Personally, I would be more upset with what the Glazers seem to be doing, rather than what they are doing. Let me explain.

• What they have done: They have secured the flotation of the club on the US Stock Exchange, and will be paying off some of the debt, using some of the funds generated. This, taken by itself, would be seen as a positive move, as the club will be better off when this goes through, compared to where we are now.

• What they seem to be doing: They have secured the flotation of the club on the US Stock Exchange, and will be paying off some of the debt, using some of the funds generated. But, rather than paying off more of the debt, they seem to be lining their own pockets. Herein lies the root of all the discontent surrounding this, I believe.

Impressions and perceptions are everything - and there is a perception and a worry (Justified now, imo) that the owners will just keep chipping away at the loan, just doing the minimum, and keep creaming large profits for themselves, before selling the club on in a few years time.
What this means to the players, and on the pitch, I don't know, but it definitely will not help. The senior team should be the single most important entity in any club, from Kildare league to Premier League, and there is a perception now that the senior team is not the highest priority at Manchester United Limited.

Felexicon

Samich wrote: »

What in the actual fup?

Some people need a read of the charter.

What's the fup?

Paul Tergat

Samich wrote: »

What in the actual fup?

Some people need a read of the charter.

I would love to go on a rant here but theres just no point. I said it a couple of weeks ago but your posting style really has gone off the chart and ive no idea what the reason is. people are not against you ya know!

As for the posts you commented on, meh, people here kinda know each other and have been chatting for years. When things are going well on this thread theres generally a bit of banter and you get to know your fellow united fans.

Samich

Paul Tergat wrote: »

I would love to go on a rant here but theres just no point. I said it a couple of weeks ago but your posting style really has gone off the chart and ive no idea what the reason is. people are not against you ya know!

As for the posts you commented on, meh, people here kinda know each other and have been chatting for years. When things are going well on this thread theres generally a bit of banter and you get to know your fellow united fans.

This is the Man Utd forum, not Tuesdays with Morrie.

Paul Tergat

Samich wrote: »

This is the Man Utd forum, not Tuesdays with Morrie.

Meh whatever. If you are going to take that stance there is nothing I can do. Sure go ahead and report the posts if you are really that upset.

Samich

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Meh whatever. If you are going to take that stance there is nothing I can do. Sure go ahead and report the posts if you are really that upset.

It would be usless reporting.

Paul Tergat

Samich wrote: »

It would be usless reporting.

You wont get a rise out of me mate. Enjoy the rest of your night

Felexicon

Samich wrote: »

This is the Man Utd forum, not Tuesdays with Morrie.

Jesus christ Samich, if you were on a deserted island you'd pick a fight with yourself.

The guy was on here the other night and said he had to go because he had an interview. Kryogen simply asked him how it went.

Not everyone is a keyboard warrior you know.

killwill

Samich wrote: »

It would be usless reporting.

Only if the report is not warranted.
Just relax and get to know everyone in here.
The majority are A1. You just rubbed a few up the wrong way, it happens in here all the time. It is not anything personal IMO.

Pro. F

Samich wrote: »

Bit late when I had my reply to that post said. Jeez.

But you still haven't accepted the clarification that Mitch gave you. You actually posted this in response to his clarification:

Samich wrote: »

Hmmmm ok, you said last night that Fergie and Gill were taking the guts of 140 million out of the club.

Mitch clarified what he had meant for you, why can't you just accept that?

Samich

killwill wrote: »

Only if the report is not warranted.
Just relax and get to know everyone in here.
The majority are A1. You just rubbed a few up the wrong way, it happens in here all the time. It is not anything personal IMO.

Go to feedback.

Constantly being accused of being a troll because I amn't a lick arse. I prove someone wrong like earlier with Mitch and they reply with oh "he clarified his point later". No he didn't, he said what he said.

Felexicon

Samich wrote: »

Go to feedback.

Constantly being accused of being a troll because I amn't a lick arse. I prove someone wrong like earlier with Mitch and they reply with oh "he clarified his point later". No he didn't, he said what he said.

I went to feedback.
It seems to be you having a massive whambulance all over the place about 2 off topic posts on this thread.

What does it feel like to approach every day with that kind of attitude?
It would depress the shít out of me.

Pro. F

Samich wrote: »

Constantly being accused of being a troll because I amn't a lick arse. I prove someone wrong like earlier with Mitch and they reply with oh "he clarified his point later". No he didn't, he said what he said.

Of course he clarified his point. What in the name of fúck are you talking about?
See this here where he clarifies what he meant.

You didn't prove Mitch wrong, there was just a misunderstanding. It is a complicated and emotive subject and Mitch's original statement was a bit confusing. He has since clarified what he meant, which actually matches up with what makes sense logically if you followed the whole of the conversation Mitch was having.

killwill

@ Samich, I think if your approach to debates and arguements changed a little, peoples attitudes might change towards you too.
I learnt from experience that a few decent, thought out posts about Utd. and you will be well on your way.

Samich

Pro. F wrote: »

Of course he clarified his point. What in the name of fúck are you talking about?
See this here where he clarifies what he meant.

You didn't prove Mitch wrong, there was just a misunderstanding. It is a complicated and emotive subject and Mitch's original statement was a bit confusing. He has since clarified what he meant, which actually matches up with what makes sense logically if you followed the whole of the conversation Mitch was having.

He "meant" doesn't matter a thing. He still made the first post.

If I post porn on this site I'll get a ban, saying I "meant" to post a link to a Man Utd site wouldn't save me.

IvySlayer

Ahhh someone complaining about off topic posting? Let's have another Die Hard and biscuit conversation :pac:

Samich

killwill wrote: »

@ Samich, I think if your approach to debates and arguements changed a little, peoples attitudes might change towards you too.
I learnt from experience that a few decent, thought out posts about Utd. and you will be well on your way.

Basically arse licking. I've been accused of trolling many times, just because I haven't agreed with the popular opinion.

Blatter

Samich wrote: »

He "meant" doesn't matter a thing. He still made the first post.

If I post porn on this site I'll get a ban, saying I "meant" to post a link to a Man Utd site wouldn't save me.