GILL'S HYPOCRISY EXPOSED AGAIN

From the Independent:

Manchester United's chief executive, David Gill, was so opposed to Malcolm Glazer's takeover in the months before it was completed that he offered an anti-Glazer campaign group £25,000 of his own money to help ward off the tycoon's advances for the club, according to the chairman of Shareholders United.

Nick Towle has also told The Independent that in a private conversation in December last year - as the Glazer family stalked the club - Gill displayed solidarity with anti-takeover supporters by saying: "You know that if I wasn't in the position I'm in now, I would be behind the barricades with you."

Gill admitted to The Independent yesterday that he did consider donating money to Shareholders United. "I'm not going to deny it," he said. He could not recall a precise amount but said that £25,000 seemed high "because although I'm generous, I'm not that generous".

Shareholders United have made the revelations in a last attempt to embarrass Gill, who they feel has been hypocritical in initially opposing a buyout he labelled "aggressive" and potentially "damaging", only to stay on Glazer's post-takeover payroll.

Gill's offer to Shareholders United, which broke no rules and was consistent with his stance as United's anti-takeover chief executive, was made during a conversation with Towle about Gill exercising some of his United share options. Towle said Gill was concerned about fans' reactions if he sold the shares to Glazer, so Towle offered to find Gill a "friendly", non-Glazer buyer for the shares, worth about £1.2m. "During the conversation, he offered to make a £25,000 donation to [Shareholders United]," Towle said.

But Gill found his own buyer, Jim O'Neill, who was then the new non-executive appointment to the board. When Manchester United plc entered another "offer period" for the club, the subject of a Gill donation to Shareholders United's cause did not arise again.

In a statement last night Manchester United said: "It is a matter of public record that David Gill spoke to Shareholders United in December 2004 regarding the potential disposal of his share options. It is also known that during . . . that conversation the subject of a donation to Shareholders United in return for its assistance in selling the options was discussed.

"David made it clear that any such donation would have to be made with the knowledge and approval of the [Manchester United] board. At the time the company was not in an offer period. The discussions went no further and Jim O'Neill bought David's share options without any involvement from [Shareholders United]. That discussion was entirely consistent with the [Manchester United] board's position not only on the JP Morgan-led bid last autumn but also with the then board's view of the removal of three plc directors at the company's AGM.

"As David has made clear on several occasions since the takeover of the company, he makes no attempt to hide the fact that he was a member of the board which described the financing and business plans underpinning the takeover as aggressive. However, Manchester United has now been taken over and the club believes it is in its best interests, and the interests of United staff and the game in general, that a respected and able administrator remains as the chief executive of an organisation that the FA has described as 'very important' to the sport."

On the subject of the alleged "barricades" quote, Gill said yesterday: "As I did not make a record of the conversation I cannot categorically say I didn't say it."

The fans’ press release in full:

David Gill’s replies to Garry Richardson on R5’s Sportsweek on Sunday 3 July left many fans gasping at the U-turn in Gill’s position, when compared to his previous statements on a range of key issues. Many fans will be questioning Gill’s integrity and his decision to stay on as CEO when they see how his mind has been changed so easily and quickly on such vital questions as the Glazer’s business plan, the debt in the club, the ownership of United and the role of supporters.

And those fans will also be surprised to hear that Gill offered a donation of £25,000 to Shareholders United in December last year, at the time he was about to exercise some £1.1 million of share options and when Glazer was preparing a new offer for United. The support that he showed the fans groups then has disappeared – new owner, new set of values.

Look at Gill’s public and private statements before the takeover compared to those since:

On Glazer’s business plan

Before:

“The Board believes that the nature and return requirement of this capital structure will put pressure on the business of MU, particularly if Glazer’s business plan was not met. The Board continues to believe that Glazer’s business plan assumptions are aggressive and that the direct and indirect financial strain on the business could be damaging” (MU Board statement of 11 February 2005)

“The Board remains of the view that the assumptions in Glazer’s business plan are aggressive. The Board’s unanimous view is that they could not support Glazer’s [takeover] proposal…….as being in the best interests of the Company” (MU Board statement of 28 April 2005)

After:

“[Since the takeover] we’ve got to know a bit more about their plans…………..and we’ll get to know more about [their plans] over the coming weeks and months” (Gill on R5 Sportsweek, 3 July 2005)

"I'm not sitting here and saying I've suddenly seen the light with the Glazers' plan. I think there are certain issues involved and hopefully, as we get to know them better, I can explain some of the concerns we have and explain where some things may work and others won't” (Gill in MoS 31 July 2005)

Ehhhhh?
Gill has not done his homework on the Glazers – no-one tells them what they can and can’t do. They need him for a while, maybe a year, so that they can show that “nothing has changed” as a result of their takeover. But come next year and the year after, big changes are planned and there is no sign yet that the Glazers think Gill is the right man to execute what he termed their ‘aggressive’ and ‘damaging’ business plan.

On United and Glazer’s £650 million of acquisition debt

Before:

“Manchester United is a debt-free, profitable and sustainable business” (MU plc AGM November 2003).

“We could borrow money but it would not be good business for a football club. Borrowing large sums of money is the road to ruin” (SU members’ open meeting, August 2004)

“The Board has decided to inform all shareholders that it would regard an offer which it believes to be overly leveraged as not being in the best interests of the Company” (MU Board statement of 25 October 2004)

“The level of debt required is not in the best interests of the Club. The Club has 126 years of history and is recognised as one of the most successful football clubs in the world. I don’t think any sensible person would think we could recommend a proposal that could jeopardise something that has been built up over so many years” (October 2004)

After:

No comment.


Despite misgivings, Gill now seems perfectly happy to work for owners who have made United the most indebted sports club in the world, executing a business plan which he still doesn’t seem to know much about. Joel Glazer’s highly illuminating comments on the debt were limited to stating that the level of debt was “comfortable” and that “debt means different things to different people”.

On ownership of United

Before

“United doesn’t have and doesn’t want a sugar daddy. We want to become a long-term sustainable business that is not reliant on one single person. We believe we have a model for a successful business and it is the appropriate thing for us” (AGM November 2003)

“In due course we would like to work with the Glazer family, Cubic Expression, Shareholders United and our other shareholders to work on a structure that we think will bring the club long-term stability. That must be our aim and is what the Board intends to do" (MU Official Website, 25 October 2004)

"We have to look at the solution going forward. Shareholders United are pleading for supporters to buy shares and that's how they can show their allegiance and control of the club going forward" (October 2004)

“I will be clearly open to the shareholders groups and bodies like yourselves and IMUSA, and that dialogue we spoke about at the AGM [setting up a supporters trust] will hopefully continue and we will move on to new heights. Don’t quote me on this, but my own personal view is if we can work together to make sure we are (and this is off the record).…we keep this company independent. That is better for everyone” (‘United Shareholder’ interview transcript tapes, December 2003)

“Nick, you know that if I wasn’t in the position I’m in, I would be behind the barricades with you” (Said during a telephone conversation with Nick Towle of SU in December 2004, in which Gill offered to make a donation of £25,000 to SU out of the proceeds of exercise of share options he wanted to complete)

After

“You have to separate ownership from following the club. If I wasn’t working for the club, I’d still be a fan and I’d be very much concerned as to what was going on on the pitch, not who owned it, that’s irrelevant, it’s not my area so to speak” (R5 Sportsweek interview, July 2005)

On the role of supporters

Before

“We have very vocal fans and one of the key strengths of Manchester United are those fan groups” (October 2004).

After

“Shareholders United, as a representative of a body of fans who have purchased shares in MU plc, has historically had a seat on the [Fans] Forum. However, as a result of the new structure of the company, SU clearly has no legitimacy in representing such a block of people – since no external shareholders exist….SU’s seat on the Forum will from the start of the 2005/06 season be given to a representative of fans in Manchester, Salford or Trafford.” (Letter to SU, 5 July 2005)

Ehhhhh?
So that’s a democratic 32,000 member fans’ organisation, which is the official supporters trust at the club, expelled from the Fans’ Forum. IMUSA, the other main democratic fans organisation, has also been booted off the FF. So the ‘vocal’ fans groups, one of the ‘key strengths’ of MU, are no longer wanted at Old Trafford. Perhaps that is one of the “opportunities” which Gill talked about when listing the merits of being a private company as opposed to a plc? Being able to ignore the legitimate and democratic voices of the fans?

Conclusion

It is hard to escape the conclusion that Gill says whatever his particular audience wants to hear, and it is even harder to maintain respect for someone who manages to face in so many different directions in such a short space of time. The comparison of before/after statements show a lamentable level of hypocrisy, double standards and about turns.

This surely has nothing to do with the fact that Gill (and his Finance Director Nick Humby) have been well rewarded for their continued ‘loyalty’ to the club and its new owners – Gill sold his shares to Glazer and received around £2 million more (pre-tax) for unexercised options which might have vested in 3 years time; Humby also sold shares and trousered around £1 million for his options.

Some would say these are clues as to why Gill is singing his new master’s tune so shamelessly and willingly. And why he appears to many fans to have surrendered his integrity so easily.