Alex Ferguson’s future as Manchester United manager is reportedly being challenged by a group of Old Trafford directors who claim he is power-hungry.
The 62-year-old Ferguson expected to be offered a three-year extension to his current contract, which would keep him at the club until 2007.
But The Daily Mirror reported on Friday that rebel shareholders want to offer the Scot a one-year rolling contract when his deal runs out in 18 months’ time.
Ferguson’s legal dispute with Irish racing tycoon John Magnier, the club’s biggest shareholder, is at the centre of the dispute that could divide directors at a board meeting on Friday.
Ferguson will be stunned to hear that the £15-million deal is being questioned.
Only last week he said: ”The contract is with the lawyers. We will go through it, but I think it is all straightforward. It won’t be signed just yet but we have agreed the details.”
But one director told the Mirror: ”We’re being held to ransom. Alex wants everything his own way, but who is running United?”
Ferguson did not win anything for the first six years at Old Trafford but he has piled up the trophies since then with eight Premierships, four FA Cups and one European Cup.
Ferguson has been insisting his annual pay is upped to £5-million a year from January 2004.
And he staggered the board by insisting his new pay package is backdated to the beginning of 2003.
They have expressed concern about Ferguson’s health after his recent heart scare but the Mirror says he has refused to appoint an assistant and future successor, and will not sign a clause stipulating he would step down if any of his ongoing court battles prove an embarrassment to the club.
One boardroom director, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: ”This is crazy. We’re being held to ransom.
”Alex wants everything all his own way. But you’ve got to ask, who is running Manchester United?
”This is one of the biggest clubs in the world, it’s a huge business, and we’re being held to ransom. Something has got to give.”
Ferguson has been told that he cannot be given the lengthy contract he wants because it would upset City backers who say it is bad business practice.
”Nobody has signed anything yet. There are still discussions and negotiations going on,” a source said.
”Alex has made it clear he wants a long-term deal, but some are convinced that may not be in the best interests of the club or its shareholders.
”We’re a global business concern and can’t be held to ransom by one rather bullying and menacing man — no matter how successful the team have been, or will be, in future, on the pitch.
”Alex is not bigger than Manchester United, though I’m not too sure he would necessarily agree with that statement.”
Ferguson is suing Magnier over ownership of champion racehorse Rock of Gibraltar and its potential £100-million stud fees.
Magnier, who has a 24% share in United in tandem with partner JP McManus, is said to be ”spitting blood” that his old friend Ferguson is challenging his word over what he considered to be an innocent gift.
It has emerged that Ferguson rejected a £200 000 olive branch from Magnier to settle the row.
Ferguson was offered two shares in the colt’s northern hemisphere breeding rights each year, plus two in the Australian mating season.
This is despite Ferguson not paying a penny towards the upkeep of the horse or its training — and believing that the Rock running in his colours means he is entitled to half it is worth.
One City expert, who asked not to be named, said: ”It’s a real dilemma what they do with Fergie. He’s not your average manager.
”It’s easy to see why some people might be resisting giving him a three-year contract.
”You’ve got the legal action he’s started against the Irish connection and the Irish connection’s shareholding in the club. Then there is his age and the recent health scare. There’s also the possibility of a takeover bid for the club.
”Depending on where that came from, the new owners might not want Fergie. If he had a three-year contract they’d have to give him a big fat cheque to go away. There’s a big difference between him and players who get long contracts.
”You can always transfer a player, but you can’t really transfer a manager. So if they didn’t want him they’d be legally bound to pay him off.”
But another analyst close to the club said it could cause more panic if the United board only give Fergie an extra one-year deal.
”He’s been the manager for so long. He was the manager before the club was launched on the stock market and has been ever since.
”There is still no obvious successor and the thing the City hates most is uncertainty. So to give him a short-term contract could cause more panic.” — Sapa-AFP