If the club employ him, then someone has to take responsibility for his actions. That's just basic company policy.
whether they knew what was going on or not, at best makes the club look negligent.
Tonight
- Thread starter NSIS
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
If the club employ him, then someone has to take responsibility for his actions. That's just basic company policy.
whether they knew what was going on or not, at best makes the club look negligent.
If he's a Utd employee then Utd will have to take action. If he was soley doing it when he was Thailand manager then it's up to the Thai FA, but he wasn't. He was doing it whilst working as an Ambassador to Man Utd, on a Man Utd premises of which Sim was the owner!
I thought you said that he was an employee of Man Utd? His ambassador role is either an official one or not. It certainly was when he took in on in 2008 :
???
It doesn't matter if he's paid or not and if he's a Man Utd employee meeting the owner of a Man Utd owned bar to conduct rule breaking activity on those premises - then whether he was acting in his 'official' capacity is neither here nor there. He's culpable and the club have to take some kind of action.
Do you think that Prince William represents the royal family every time he appears in public, Lidls?
Yes, exactly. So to recap, we have an ex Man Utd captain, sitting in a Man Utd bar, telling everyone that he is Man Utd's global representative. So, if it walks like a duck.........
I, for one, have never tried to implicate Man Utd - the club. Most of us have only said what is true, i.e. that Fergie has what seems to have an inappropriately close relationship with slippery Joe, and that Robson, by stating that he effectively works for the club, and has a close relationship with Ferguson, is implying that Ferguson is complicit is his activities, and is willing to assist his, Robson's, clients.
If none of this is true, then I think it's high time that both Man Utd, and Ferguson, issued clearly worded statements distancing themselves from Robson, his associates, and their activities.
If none of this is true, then I think it's high time that both Man Utd, and Ferguson, issued clearly worded statements distancing themselves from Robson, his associates, and their activities.
No, there isn't an obvious parallel, Lidls.
Not at all.
You have no idea whether Ferguson was unwitting.
I haven't even suggested that he was a willing participant in any dubious actions that Robson may have mentioned, either.
Does Robson work for Man Utd?
Not at all.
You have no idea whether Ferguson was unwitting.
I haven't even suggested that he was a willing participant in any dubious actions that Robson may have mentioned, either.
Does Robson work for Man Utd?
In March 2008, 14 years after he had last played for them, Robson returned to Manchester United to work as an ambassador, for an initial period of 12 months. He works alongside Bobby Charlton to help United 'promote its commercial and charitable aims'.[67]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Robson
Robson claims he is still performing this role.
Neither the club, nor Ferguson seems to be in a hurry to deny any of this. I repeat, if there is no truth in Robson's claims, then why this apparent reluctance to issue a statement of denial?