Are rich men using football to flex muscles?
The opposing camps have taken positions that are so diametrically opposed as to suggest the issues will not be settled in any great haste. The sums of money involved are so huge as to confirm the view that this battle will run longer than Rock of Gibraltar's accumulated mileage.
Just how much of what we read is true and how much of it is newspaper speculation remains to be seen. But all of the ingredients of a blockbuster are there famous names, large sums of money, glamorous lifestyles, a hint of intrigue and questionable dealing.
At stake on the one hand are rights to Rock of Gibraltar's stud fees. Some estimates have put that potential income as high as £200m. Ferguson has reportedly rejected a settlement offer of £7m. This seems generous enough when you consider that it cost him nothing to become involved in the first place. He was invited in, presumably, because of his high profile and the access he afforded to Old Trafford and all that entails.
On the other hand is the security of Ferguson's position at Old Trafford where he has enjoyed a decade of success and amassed a personal fortune. Ferguson has never attempted to court popularity with agencies outside Old Trafford and his abrasive personality has led to confrontation with football's governing bodies on a regular basis.
In recent times he was involved in controversy when he chose to ignore the FA Cup competition and instead took his team to South America for a club competition of questionable importance. He has been very vocal on the question of releasing players for international duty, conveniently choosing to forget the years when he was manager of Scotland. In that role he caused consternation when he chose not to bring Alan Hansen, who was then in the height of his powers, to the World Cup.
His handling of the Rio Ferdinand issue and his spat with David Beckham were other high profile incidents that confirmed his tough reputation and dictatorial nature. It was further illustrated when he sought to keep the Eric Cantona row at Crystal Palace in-house and when he off-loaded Bryan Robson, Norman Whiteside and Paul McGrath in one fell swoop.
Underpinning all of this, however, is the consistent success of United and Ferguson's part in masterminding an era of dominance to rival that of Liverpool under Bill Shankly and Bob Paisley.
It is possible that some of the transfer dealings involving United in recent years need investigation and explanation.
The fact that they were prepared to pay £12.5m for Cristiano Ronaldo just months after Arsenal believed they had agreed a deal with Sporting Lisbon for £5m is one that is calculated to raise an eyebrow or two.
The need to pay an agent £750,000 for the transfer of Louis Saha is another. Clearly, Saha would have walked barefoot over broken bottles to get to Old Trafford.
The question is, of course, why these issues are being raised at this time. Can it be true that Ferguson and United are coming under scrutiny only because of the Rock of Gibraltar affair?
It goes without saying that the two issues should not be associated. If they are, it suggests that the Magnier/McManus are involved in football for the wrong reasons.
Ferguson has been good for United, that is beyond dispute. He is, however, an employee of the club and in that capacity there should be accountability. His every financial transaction should be open and acceptable to those who employ him the board of directors and the shareholders. It is in United's best interests that any doubts are addressed and clarified.
But the desire to do so should be driven by a desire to do what's best for United and for football.
In this instance it seems we are justified in asking whether this is, in fact, the case or is it an example of rich men using football to flex their muscles?
Football and professional sport will always attract those with money to spare. They join for many reasons; occasionally to satisfy a desire for public recognition, other times in an attempt to make money.
These are not the ideal reasons, of course, but they are relatively harmless. Far less acceptable is a course of action designed to foment unrest and impose pressure for private and personal reasons.
Can it be true that this is what the recent publicity is all about? If so, then it can only be justified if it is proven that Ferguson and his agents have a case to answer.
Either way it should not have anything to do with horse racing.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
