Howaythelads

So where is our divine right to be, then? Also, tell me why there is more chance of replacing the Board with a better one than a worse one? Tell me why another Board will automatically be better than the current one, why they will automatically make available as much or even more cash to the manager and will automatically appoint the right manager? Thanks Because those currently investing in football clubs aren't old dinosaurs solely concerned with massaging their own egos. OMG. I love the way that you can coherently carry a debate along. Thanks. Didn't realise you knew what a debate was though, perhaps that's a start for you.

gay.gif Struggling to keep up, or even understand what people are talking about. You may as well not bother posting. Actually, it is you who does not understand what people are talking about. You just spout the same blind nonsense regardless of what good points others make. Obviously you are struggling to keep up. Keep posting though, as your lack of eyesight continues to amuse me. Your definition of a good point being one you agree with and blind nonsense being an opinion you don't agree with. That's the attitude of the very young and/or the very stupid.

So where is our divine right to be, then? Also, tell me why there is more chance of replacing the Board with a better one than a worse one? Tell me why another Board will automatically be better than the current one, why they will automatically make available as much or even more cash to the manager and will automatically appoint the right manager? Thanks Because those currently investing in football clubs aren't old dinosaurs solely concerned with massaging their own egos. OMG.

Maybe this load of shite came from Shepherd himself? "I can only do my best here with the tools I've got, which in my opinion are more than enough to get this football club into Europe every season and something we now expect. Yes, there are always going to be setbacks. But if there is somebody out there who can do better than me and who would be willing to invest millions into the club, then fine. Every penny I have had from this club I have reinvested back into the club. I have never sold a single share since I came to the club and the money I have had has been reinvested in the way of buying shares. When people say that I have taken money out of the club, all I have done is to put the money back in by buying shares. Nobody can accuse me of taking money out of this football club and not reinvesting it." Source: http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/newcastleunited/news/tm_headline=freddy-shepherd--q-a---part-2%26method=full%26objectid=15508740%26page=2%26siteid=50081-name_page.html Err, aye? Aye aye bluewink.gif HTL in the familiar position of being owned. You're obviously too intelligent for me, mate. I haven't a clue what you're babbling about.

When people invest in stocks and shares it's a risk investment. They expect to get a higher rate of return on their money than sticking it in the bank where it would be safe. A football club is not like other businesses which can easily expand and diversify therefore the oportunity for share price growth is more limited. (Unless you want us to open a chain of hotels, casinos or supermarkets which would eventually become far more profitable than a football club and make the NUFC part of the business irrelevant). The dividends given out are at or below the rate of inflation (% of the club value). The losses you refer to are directly due to the amount spent on transfer fees and wages in a period where we have made extraordinary expenditure in transfer fees due to the need to replace our main striker with a quality replacement and then to repair the team after the wastefulness and incompetence of the previous manager, and also having to cover for incredible bad luck with injuries to Owen. This is also in a year when we were not in European competition, sot the profits were hit there. When losses are made it is because money is being reinvested back into the business. If a company acquires a smaller business it will affect its profits and may even make a loss for the financial year. As a shareholder would you expect to not receive a dividend because of this extraordinary expenditure? So relating back to the original question, the board obviously does back its managers. Too much for your liking it would seem. Perhaps you would be happier if the board gave less money to the manager for transfers, say only £5m a year on average instead of £10m? That’s £50m over 10 years. You seem to think that the amount of transfer money spent doesn’t affect team performance, so the income would be the same and the profits would be healthy. The board could give even bigger dividends and you’d be happy because the club was making a profit. NOONE believes the board are currently sinking their own money from outside the business into the club, and anyone who says others think this are being incredibly condescending towards their fellow supporters to say that they do. It's not extraordinary expenditure, it's normal expenditure ie. transfers. Another fool who believes the club has to spend money on players such as Owen and the rest, rather than settle for a team full of Faye's and other average players at relatively small fees.

gay.gif What an idiotic gobshite you are. Is that the best response you can come up with? See you have ignored my comments on the warehouse. Cant explain that can you? Can you? CAN YOU? No you can't you blind child. Edited it, although I don't know why given that the best response you had was to talk about "bullshit", not much different to my original comment about "gobshite". Doubt you'll understand that either.

So where is our divine right to be, then? Also, tell me why there is more chance of replacing the Board with a better one than a worse one? Tell me why another Board will automatically be better than the current one, why they will automatically make available as much or even more cash to the manager and will automatically appoint the right manager? Thanks

I tried to avoid judging the managers. The whole recruitment process, of the individual to be manager, your key appointment, has been flawed. Regardless of who has been appointed. Glad you finally acknowledge the manager is the key. Thanks for producinig those figures of how much money has been made available to the managers over the years. Great stuff.

Maybe this load of shite came from Shepherd himself? "I can only do my best here with the tools I've got, which in my opinion are more than enough to get this football club into Europe every season and something we now expect. Yes, there are always going to be setbacks. But if there is somebody out there who can do better than me and who would be willing to invest millions into the club, then fine. Every penny I have had from this club I have reinvested back into the club. I have never sold a single share since I came to the club and the money I have had has been reinvested in the way of buying shares. When people say that I have taken money out of the club, all I have done is to put the money back in by buying shares. Nobody can accuse me of taking money out of this football club and not reinvesting it." Source: http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/newcastleunited/news/tm_headline=freddy-shepherd--q-a---part-2%26method=full%26objectid=15508740%26page=2%26siteid=50081-name_page.html Err, aye?

where am i getting it from? hmmm... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,293-2440656,00.html translation: "look at me, i'm such a nice guy, i've sacrificed so much for the club - if anything i'm too giving." http://www.icnewcastle.co.uk/ (Oct 24, can't find article link) translation - "look at us, we're such nice guys, we've sacrificed so much for the club - nevermind where the money came from...." that was a 30 second google search - 2 articles out of 3 with quotes from shepherd hall has them tooting their horn about how much they've "spent" on the club. they made their money long ago, and have been diverting operational profit and spending money in NUFC's name at no personal risk almost from the start. this year's losses are being funded by debt, not by the halls or shepherds. there's constant spin that's aimed at getting the public to confuse the club's finances with the shepherd\hall finances, with the buried argument being that they should be accountable to nobody for the financial or competitive state of the club, and every dollar spent is a favor to the fans, so if we don't like it, piss off What a laugh. You have the nerve to mention 'spin'. Talk about massive misinterpretation, but then what a surprise, eh.

You spend far more time working on financial posts than football related posts. You really reckon something like £2m per season on players would make a difference, do you? In any case, there's no limits to the misrepresentation you come up with in response to your frankly pathetic jealousy of people who are more successful than you are. You're a sad bloke. You really have a chip about people who are better off than you are, don't you mate? Sorry I will argue this one always, in the saddest and pettiest way. The club giving away £35m is wrong. How can do you justify that figure. Board run the business to lose £23m and then give away £35m. The first figure is form incompetence, the second from pure greed. I have no issue with those better off than myself. I will admit to being bitter and twisted that my football team has been bled dry by its owners. If it was Douglas Hall or Mother Theresa doing ti I woudl be equally annoyed. The £2m per season that you mention is actually £4m. It only seems a small amount cos you have divided the £35m by 9. If the money had not been given away where woudl it be. It may have been spent on the way along, or it may all be sitting in the bank, ready to give £20 to Roeder in January, or maybe it could have been used to pay off the debt on the ground? Again, I fail to see how anyone can say it has benefit NUFC to take none of those options and instead just give it away. PLC's give dividends. How much money has been made available to successive managers during the period the club has been giving dividends? Thanks in advance PLCs don't give dividends at the level NUFC have done. Paying out at ~6% when the likes of Tesco only pay 2% highlights that. The amount of monay paid out on players has no connection to the amount paid in dividends. Why link the two ? Instead link the amount paid out in divdiends to the amount paid in interest on the ground development. The club could be sitting with no debt on the ground, no interest to pay for the next 10 years. What a superb position to be in. No, instead we'll pay £4.5m per year in interest. You prefer the club to be in debt, and the shareholders to have the money. This woudl have made no difference at all to the amount paid out on players, but would have made the whole club more safe financially. If disaster struck and we were relegated the first call on the club money is he mortgage. The board could have removed that threat, but instead invested the money in pension funds for Hall & Shepherd. You said... "PLCs don't give dividends at the level NUFC have done. Paying out at ~6% when the likes of Tesco only pay 2% highlights that." A. You would moan regardless. You said... " The amount of monay paid out on players has no connection to the amount paid in dividends. Why link the two ? " A. I thought you wouldn't get it, since it's football related. Nowt personal, but you ducked the relevant question there, which is no surprise.

gay.gif Struggling to keep up, or even understand what people are talking about. You may as well not bother posting.

You can argue that the timing of changing managers has been flawed, but you'd be wrong. It's football and it IS different. I really don't think you understand it, hence your attempted point about changing managers. Other people use the same stick with which to beat the Board, highlighting the departure of Souness yet they never complain about Gullit leaving. Why is that, do you think?

You spend far more time working on financial posts than football related posts. You really reckon something like £2m per season on players would make a difference, do you? In any case, there's no limits to the misrepresentation you come up with in response to your frankly pathetic jealousy of people who are more successful than you are. You're a sad bloke. You really have a chip about people who are better off than you are, don't you mate? Sorry I will argue this one always, in the saddest and pettiest way. The club giving away £35m is wrong. How can do you justify that figure. Board run the business to lose £23m and then give away £35m. The first figure is form incompetence, the second from pure greed. I have no issue with those better off than myself. I will admit to being bitter and twisted that my football team has been bled dry by its owners. If it was Douglas Hall or Mother Theresa doing ti I woudl be equally annoyed. The £2m per season that you mention is actually £4m. It only seems a small amount cos you have divided the £35m by 9. If the money had not been given away where woudl it be. It may have been spent on the way along, or it may all be sitting in the bank, ready to give £20 to Roeder in January, or maybe it could have been used to pay off the debt on the ground? Again, I fail to see how anyone can say it has benefit NUFC to take none of those options and instead just give it away. PLC's give dividends. How much money has been made available to successive managers during the period the club has been giving dividends? Thanks in advance

Stopped reading at the bit in bold because it is about as incorrect as anyone can be. There is no suggestion and never has been that Fred funds the club out of his own pocket. The suggestion is frankly absurd. you probably should've stopped reading at the first post of the thread, because here's what's stated: all i was doing is addressing the initial sentiment of the thread...and for what it's worth, i think it's absolutely on target to state that FFS and his henchmen always try to imply that the club's spending is at great personal expense to - and by the grace of - freddy sheperd. the idea that a company is supposed to reinvest its profits into growing the venture rather than spilling them out in well-over-the-odds dividends seems to be totally lost on the apologists. so while no knowledgeable person has declared that he writes personal cheques when it's time to sign players, it's been splattered everywhere that he's somehow doing us a favor by taking the money this club has generated and keeping it in the club. the implication is that it's his money to do with what he wants, not the club's to be spent in the best interests of NUFC. the implication is the same as saying he's running the company from his own pocket. Even more tripe highlighted for you in bold. As I said, there has never been any suggestion that Fred funds the club from his own pocket. None at all. You're clearly not in a position to be aware of that fact, christ knows where you're getting this load of shite from.

I have NEVER said that the board from the 60s, 70s or 80s was good. I wouldn't try and play the "I was there" card the way NE5 does, but I was nonetheless. (Although no that much in the 60s, I'm not THAT old :winking:) The difference we have in outlook is that I take the optimistic approach. I believe that there are people out there who could run an £80m business better than the current board are doing. We're not talking about running the Lloyds Bank, or BBC, or Boots, or Tesco or the Post Office, with thousands of employees, complicated, wide issues to address. We are talking about an essentially small PLC, with a fairly simple set of problems. That there was no one in the families who owned the club in the 80s who had the business skills to be successful was very sad. We have reached the same point again. There is no evidence that the two execs currently running the business, Freddy Shepherd and Douglas HAll have any idea where they are going. The latest financial results are the culmination of their combined efforts over at least 9 years (15 if NE5's view is taken). The business is close to financial collapse. Assets of £16m, monthly losses of £1m, costs fixed with long term player contracts. A recipe for disaster. Of course you are correct in saying that any replacements may be worse. But why should they be ? There are hundreds of similar sized businesses out there being run successfully. Potentially even appointing a Finance Director may make huge difference. As chairman, Shepherd should be doing that sort of "top to bottom" review of the club. If the hopeless McKeags could be replaced successfully then I belive the hopeless Halls and Shepherds could also be. There may be people out there with a better handle on how to run a typical business, but football is different. I don't think you understand that, mate. Even if a new Board were prepared to back a manager as much as the current Board, it would still all rest on their ability to select the right manager. The fact some other group may not hand out dividends, may try to run the club more in line with your idea of how a business should operate does not mean they will have the ability to select the right manager.

Taylor has looked as dodgy as Bramble this season, tbh. The point about Ramage and his ability to make last ditch blocks is a good one, as is his terrible distribution. He needs to work on that to have any hope.

You spend far more time working on financial posts than football related posts. You really reckon something like £2m per season on players would make a difference, do you? In any case, there's no limits to the misrepresentation you come up with in response to your frankly pathetic jealousy of people who are more successful than you are. You're a sad bloke. You really have a chip about people who are better off than you are, don't you mate?

Stopped reading at the bit in bold because it is about as incorrect as anyone can be. There is no suggestion and never has been that Fred funds the club out of his own pocket. The suggestion is frankly absurd.

Mick Deep down you know the Board hasn't failed, you're just at the point where you can't bring yourself to admit it because you don't want to lose face. The fact is, if the Board had failed to the extent of previous Boards you'd have jumped off the bandwagon by now and would be taking the piss out of those squandering their money supporting a shite club. Like you did in the 70's and 80's, clearly shown by your level of ignorance of the club during that period. By the way, some of your comments earlier about McDermott and Beardsley should be archived forever. Fantastic level of ignorance, it's just a shame there aren't enough people on this forum to know it. You should try posting that and your other shite on Skunkers, I think the only support you'll get might be over Lee because there is a split due to the misplaced adoration of Macdonald despite the improved team performances and results following his sale. Let me know if you plan to post on Skunkers anyway, I'd make a point of logging in just to see the reaction from long standing supporters. Same message to Macbeth, people may be disenchanted with Fred due to his errors, but try telling some long standing supporters that the current Board is no better than the Board of the 60's, 70 and 80's.........a type of Board we could easily return to if the current one moved out.

I'd rather mug some other club into buying him in January.

I hadn't seen that thread, and I've only read the first page. The board should not be in the situation where they have to gamble with the club's finances. Except when they release figures every 6 months they are the sole guardins of the club's finances. They have consciously taklen us to where we are. When ever the club have spent money the board have approved it. They explicitly say in the report this week that it is their sole responsibility, no one elses. This is how it should be. We should never ever have to gamble of spending. They have always known how much money is available. If the club has spent £50m over the last two summers then that is the boards view of how much the club could afford. I would expect they have no money tyo spend in January. Nothign has changed form August, we have had no unexpected CL money so hopefully they spent all they could afford in the summer. There is an optin on C. Option C is the real extension of option A. Option C is that we spend, more than we can afford on trying to stay up, and we go down. Our fall would be harder than Leeds. So I think that means B. Let me get this straight. You're saying there are no circumstances under which a club should speculate in order to improve the squad and performance on the pitch? So please confirm that if we have half a dozen more injuries in the next 4 weeks to key players that the Board should accept relegation rather than borrow the money from somewhere to bring in players that would enable us to retain our PL status?

No. That board showed no ambition at all. Do you see the financial mess that the current board have managed us into, as being acceptable ? So, after 9 (or 15 if you wish) years of being responsible for the finances of the club do you view them as being successful as they have us losing £1m per month ? Yes or no will do. Thanks Yes. As you decided that earlier 'yes or no' wasn't enough, I'll decide it also isn't enough for me. I believe the current Board made an error by appointing Souness, and it is that single mistake that has put the club in the financial situation it finds itself it now. We will recover under the current Board, we may not under an alternative. Thanks

No way is Babayaro a worse LB than Ramage.

You're preaching to the converted in my case mate. I even started a thread about it months ago. I won't link to it though otherwise melanie will slag me off again.... :winking: That's fair do's. Out of interest, who would be your ideal midfield partnership between Parker, Emre and Butt? Personally, i would go with Parker and Emre, so long as both players stuck to their team role. If it didn't work i see no reason why we couldn't use Butts experiance to to teacher how to play in defensive midfield. Going round in circles, eh. I have no favourites as such but i feel we should be looking long term. I believe parker has not found his true postion as a footballer yet ,he hasn't the ability to be an effective attacking midfielder. I noticed he does that spinning in a circle thing just like Dyer and JJ have done in the past. Believe it or not that it as small problem and i don't think is down to his passing ability but rather his conifidence in it. If our "coaches" had any sense they would work on these things to mould him into a defensive midfielder. He's 26 and should be approaching his prime.