Ferguson BBC boycott 'under scrutiny'

[Shaggy]

Blatant flouting of the rules, and it's taken them SIX YEARS to 'scrutinise' it, for ****s sake.

Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson's boycott of giving post-match interviews to the BBC will come under Premier League scrutiny next month.

Ferguson has not spoken to the BBC since 2004 following a Panorama documentary about his son Jason, who was then working as a football agent.

Not giving post-match interviews is in contravention of Premier League rules.

"The board will consider the appropriate course of action at their next meeting," said the Premier League.

That appropriate course of action could mean Ferguson facing a sliding scale of fines if he continues to boycott the BBC and failing to comply with Premier League rules that all managers must speak to broadcasting rights holders.

A BBC spokesman added: "This is matter for the Premier League and Manchester United."

There had been speculation that Ferguson would end his BBC boycott after Sunday's game with Fulham, which ended in a 2-2 draw, but the Scot failed to appear and the post-match United interviews were given by assistant manager Mike Phelan and defender Nemanja Vidic.

"The Premier League is disappointed that the BBC and Manchester United have, as yet, been unable to resolve the issue of Sir Alex Ferguson providing post-match interviews," added the Premier League statement.

"We will, of course, continue to monitor the situation and offer any help deemed necessary by either party to try and help remedy the situation."

[Craig_H]

Dock them points.

[Rich]

Further proof that the powers that run the game are incompetent!

[Fivex]

6 years

****ing disgrace.

[Neil Young]

"The Premier League is disappointed that the BBC and Manchester United have, as yet, been unable to resolve the issue of Sir Alex Ferguson providing post-match interviews," added the Premier League statement.

Er, how exactly are the BBC contributing to the problem? The necessary requirements for the interview are:

1. A BBC camera operator, with working camera
2. A BBC sound recordist, with working sound equipment
3. A BBC interviewer
4. Alex Ferguson

It's always number 4 that's missing and that's not the fault of the BBC.

[Liverpel]

Did he speak to them today? I fast-forwarded through the post-match bull**** on MOTD2 and I swear I saw a purple blur.

[Rudo]

Nah, he sent that bald cunt out to speak to the BBC, as he always does.

[-V-]

Erm.... No Alex Ferguson on match of the day... surely thats a good thing? Why would anybody want that to change?

[destinydude]

In the stands next game, everytime he refuses a post match interview.

[IN_RAFA_WE_TRUST]

Ducking old hastard,I hate the bunt even more after yesterday.
Hope ur team gets relegated you old bunt.ducking old ducker.it took me a long time to calm down yesterday.I would have throttled him and his michael jackson lookalike hastard player.

[Exiled_red]

That appropriate course of action could mean Ferguson facing a sliding scale of fines if he continues to boycott the BBC and failing to comply with Premier League rules that all managers must speak to broadcasting rights holders.

So they'll start fining him now after letting him get away with if for 6 years

I know it might seem a minor rule to some but rules are rules and you can't just choose which ones you abide by and which you don't. If he (and Man Utd) have been breaking the rules they should be punished for the whole period, not just what he does from now on. No other manager or club would have got away with this for so long.

[elrichio86]

Interesting blog post on the background to his "protest"

Linky

Fergie's red herring and the truth behind the murky Rock

Having researched the background to the feud between Alex Ferguson and the BBC, it has become pretty clear that Alex Ferguson may well have created this feud as a smokescreen to obscure our view of the real dirt. They key to the whole affair lies in a racehorse, the Rock of Gibraltar.

Firstly let's go back a few years to 2001 when John Magnier and JP McManus first began buying shares in Manchester United. Alex Ferguson was friendly with these men and was a keen dabbler in horse racing. At around the same time the racehorse, the Rock of Gibraltar, was carving out a reputation as one of the best around. Interestingly the 'gift' of 50% of the Rock to Alex Ferguson occurred at around the very same time that Magnier and McManus began acquiring their first shares in Manchester United. The fact that a senior manager in a PLC should be accepting such a large gift from a major shareholder is dubious in itself.

Whatever the truth behind the Rock, Ferguson was the 50% registered owner and as the horse's value skyrocketed with his success, it became clear that the potential stud value of the Rock would be huge (up to 10million/year). Whether Ferguson had any claim to the stud money was the root of the long running and ugly dispute which would ultimately see Ferguson sue Magnier for 50% of the stud fees.

There is some more interesting background to this affair. Magnier and McManus (via Cubic Expression Ltd) acquired another big chunk of Manchester United from BSkyB; Murdoch's company had their takeover of MUFC blocked which then resulted in them relinquishing their 9.9% stake to the Irishmen. It would therefore appear that Magnier and McManus are on pretty decent terms with Mr Murdoch, no wonder the Murdoch media empire has been so quiet on the Magnier/Ferguson/BBC saga.

Thus the informal gift of the Rock led to a dispute which turned friends into bitter enemies. Magnier was not going to give in easily, he vigorously denied Ferguson's claims and immediately hired Kroll Inc, Wall Street's so called 'private eye', to begin the digging into Ferguson's dodgy dealings. Kroll dug the dirt and this led to the infamous '99 questions' for the board. These 99 questions exposed Alex Ferguson and his son, Jason, as well as casting doubt over the honesty of 13 Manchester United transfers.

As the ante was upped by Magnier, Ferguson realised he was out of his depth and buckled by accepting a tiny settlement fee, of note this was significantly less than he had previously been offered to keep things away from a court. This was in March 2004, a key fact is that this was two months before the BBC's program that detailed some of Magnier's infamous 99 questions.

Ferguson was clearly rather scared that his dirty linen was to be aired in public. This was because neither Magnier or McManus had a seat on the board, meaning that they could at any point have called an emergency general meeting to discuss the 99 questions in front of all shareholders. Ferguson clearly had a lot to hide, he had bitten off more than he could chew in taking on Magnier, Magnier had found out things that Ferguson didn't want to see the light of day, Ferguson didn't want the 99 questions to be made public and he quickly dropped the lawsuit.

The BBC program was actually a bit of a damp squib, they were just feeding off Manchester United's internal review which had been forced upon the club by Magnier's 99 questions. Even the club's own internal review found significant problems and irregularities in numerous transfers, as well as breaches of FIFA rules. The release of this internal review was moved forward to reduce the impact of the BBC program 'Ferguson and son' which was initially due to precede it.

In reality Ferguson is probably deflecting anger towards the BBC because he is still fuming that he was completely outmanoeuvred by John Magnier. A man that is used to bullying people into accepting his way was bullied into submission by a more powerful man and made to look very foolish in the process. Alex Ferguson came very close to losing his job in the process, he was also very close to having all his dirty linen washed in public. Magnier and McManus walked away with a huge profit, selling their stake to Malcolm Glazer in 2005.

The wonderful irony of this whole affair is that so much rage is now being directed at people who do not deserve it. Firstly Ferguson's rage with the BBC is completely misplaced, he should be looking long and hard at his own dodgy dealings, he also should never have taken on John Magnier and the muck raking would never have happened. Secondly Manchester United fans direct so much rage towards the Glazers when it is likely if it were not for Alex Ferguson's lawsuit then they would have far more benevolent dictators in charge, it is Alex Ferguson's greed that is really to blame, still it is easier to be angry with anyone other than your beloved bully of a manager.

This story really does have it all, blackmail, dodgy dealings, corruption, horseracing and football. Strangely the Premier League, the FA and FIFA have never looked into the dirt that Magnier exposed at Old Trafford. It is likely that the 99 questions and Kroll's investigative findings have been locked in a safe somewhere in Ireland, just in case in the not too distant future someone needs reminding who their daddy is.

[-V-]

Ducking old hastard,I hate the bunt even more after yesterday.
Hope ur team gets relegated you old bunt.ducking old ducker.it took me a long time to calm down yesterday.I would have throttled him and his michael jackson lookalike hastard player.

You must be the only Liverpool 'fan' who wants Man Utd to win and actually gets upset when they don't. Weirdo

[Fivex]

Interesting blog post on the background to his "protest"

Linky

Interesting to read and I hope this gathers some momentum in the wider press.

The man who built up United did so through corruption, and it was his own greed that has ultimately caused the start of their demise.

You couldn't make it up!