Gill offered £25,000 to anti-Glazer group, say United fans

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, which took on a starker context when the Glazer family's first visit to Old Trafford ended with the three Glazer sons - Joel, Avram and Bryan - being driven away through barricades in police vans, Gill said yesterday: "As I did not make a record of the conversation I cannot categorically say I didn't say it."

Shareholders United's main bone of contention is that the Glazer family's buyout will saddle United - a previously profitable, debt-free company - with immediate debts of £265m. Shareholders' United anticipate that another £275m of debt will be added when the Glazers restructure other buyout borrowing. Neither the Glazers nor Gill have produced any categorical assurances that there is a fail-safe business plan to maintain repayments on all the loans.

"We're very disappointed in David Gill," Towle said. "He said a lot of things in public and in private which showed that he supported what we were doing to keep the club independent. Since the takeover he's totally changed his tune on what is right for United."

Although Gill was evidently against the Glazers' initial financing structure and business plan, he is not anti-Glazer and has a good personal relationship with them. Some fans might now also feel reassured that Gill is first and foremost a "United man" who was willing to spend his own money in what he then believed was the club's best interests.