macbeth

That sums up the contempt Shepherd has for our intelligence. It's like Fred Goodwin asking how making one takeover deal in 2007 could have caused the RBS debt of 2008.

Someone shouting, and shouting that Shepherd is better than Murray, is a fantastic thing to see. I think Freddie will rest happy in the knowledge that he is held in such high regard. It's like crowing with delight that Jim Smith was a better manager than Richard Dinnis. Or that Shola is better than Frank Pringel. You say again that I wanted Adam Crozier as chairman. I suggested that someone with his knowledge would make a good chairman. Subtly different but hey lets not try and see nuances in people's comments Shepherd sacked three managers in two and a half years, he chose two managers in Souness and Roeder that only he could see as long term leaders. He then appointed Allardyce. So each time he looked up, knew where he wanted the club to be competing, knew what the club needed, aimed for the top managers around and decided to pick the manager of a team in the relegation zone, then someone who a few weeks earlier had been viewed as worthy of looking after the youth academy, then when he had time to really get it right he aimed for the manager of an anti-footballing side. Shepherd chose those managers, borrowed money left right and centre to back them, as apparently none of them had the ability to improve a player they hadn't personally bought, and it all fell apart on the field and off it. The NE5 argument seems to be that you have to spend spend spend (borrow, borrow b,orrow) to compete. It doesn't matter what you buy, whether it is part of a long term strategy, that is all irrelevant, all you need to do is spend. I'd just like to make it clear I am not in anyway at all extolling the virtues of Mike Ashley, any more than I extolled the virtues of McKeag. It is possible (in my head) to hold both those positions. Does Michael Owen scoring at better strike rate than Shearer mean Shearer was crap? I find it easy to say they are both good. Does Jon Dahl Thomasson scoring 3 goals in 17 league starts for us make him a better players than Andreas Andersson with 4 from 25. Well for me they both have pretty poor records with us, and it is okay to criticise them both. I feel comfortable in criticising Ashley, and Shepherd when they get things wrong

I think they had owners who put money in. After 1997 Shepherd/Hall put not a penny into the club, and took out £34m in dividends and pay. None of the club debts were backed by the owners, only by the club. The 4 top teams, have either had outward investment or kept the club money within the club rather than give it away to pension funds. By the end of the Shepherd/Hall reign they were borrowing money to pay off debts. Not to invest in the future, not to "gamble on success" but to just pay off previous loans. Getting loans to pay off loans is madness. Losing £34m in a season where we got £6m in compensation from the FA for an injured players was an achievement that not many experienced direcots like Shepherd/Hall could have managed. They look like they I believe they were qualified to run a bank if they'd really wanted

In 1997 a pile of money was put into the club when it became a PLC. From that date on no individual put any fresh money, all the subsequent finances came from bums on seats, merchadise sales, and Sky. No member of the Hall family, nor the Shepherd family put any more in than I did. The great lump of money has now gone, in fact it was gone by the middle of 2006/2007 season. At that point the club had nothing more to borrow against. The sponsorship money had been taken early and we were in the magical position that we were payign interest to our sponsors, for the pleasure of their sponsorship. We had borrowed against the ground, we had borrowed against he academy. In the last year before Ashley bought us we had borrowed against the next season's Sky money. There was nothing left to borrow against. It was easy to spot how nervous lenders were as they were charging NUFC over 11.7% interest on the loan guaranteed by the Sky money. In the ten years Shepherd was "in control" we had an income of £708m, a fantastic amount. In that time though Shepherd sanctioned the spending of £822m. Now he didn't put any of his own money in to make up that £114m difference, he just spent, spent, spent. Eventually the banks said stop. Given how easy it was for anyone to get credit at that time this was an amazing state of affairs. It was clear that all we were doing was borrowing money, at ever higher interest rates to try and pay for the earlier loans. As someone said elsewhere earn £40k a year and spend £50k a year and for a while you'll have a great lifestyle. You look like you can pay back your loans so people lend you ever more money. Eventually someone notices and refuses more loans. The wife complains bitterly because you've stopped spending on her the way you always did. If the money put in at the PLC launch had been used to pay off the stadium mortgage at ~£4m a year, there would have now been nothing left to pay. The £4m a year was spent elsewhere, more deserving. The decline in worth of the club is shown below. It could easily be argued Shepherd knew what he was doing up to 2005. http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/assets1.gif

Any attempt at guessing at player wages always underestimated what they are on. The club paid out £70m in wages last season. Try and get that to add up, and then try and work out which other clubs would match that. Everton had a wage bill of £45m. We will have to pay players to leave, and we will have to all but give them away to get any cash in at all. NUFC had money in of nearly £100m in 2008, it spent £120m. The biggest bit of the outs was the £70m on wages. Even if we somehow got rid of half of that wage bill, the corresponding drop in gate money and Sky money would mean we would still be losing vast amounts of money, and desperately hoping Ashley will just pump more in. If Ashley got bored at just handing over more and more money to poor players and just said stop, the club would be in administration within weeks. He would lose a bucket load of money but he is doing that anyway, and chucking money at it all the time. If we go down we're fucked.

I don't time, or will power to read through lon posts to see what has been said elsewhere so..... I've had a go at trying to analyse the latest financial results at http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/ It is difficult to separate out who is to blame for what, if that is what people are looking to do. The key issue is the wages the club is paying. The vast majority of the player contracts, and therefore their wages would be in place before Ashley bought the club, so it is unfair to blame him totally for the 10% rise in that. That our wages are £25m (55%) higher than Everton shows we have something wrong somewhere. The summer signings in 2008 look to have been totally balanced by sales (to within £5000 !!!) which highlights Ashley's reluctance to spend money that isn't there. The loss for the year of roughly £20m has had to be found from somewhere, and Ashley has put that money in. This is money just to stop the club going into administration, and is of no benefit to the quality of the first team squad. Employing Chris Mort as chairman cost the club about £300k more than it cost to have Shepherd and Douglas Hall do the same jobs the previous year. In the last year of Shepherd/Hall the club lost £34m (thirty four million), the first year of Ashley (with Mort) the club lost roughly £20m. As ever I am 100% sure my site will have some small typos, and some glaring errors. Please let me know and I'll correct these !! If anyoen wants a copy of the results then just email me and I'll send you one.

I've had a go at trying to analyse the latest financial results at http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/ It is difficult to separate out who is to blame for what, if that is what people are looking to do. The key issue is the wages the club is paying. The vast majority of the player contracts, and therefore their wages would be in place before Ashley bought the club, so it is unfair to blame him totally for the 10% rise in that. That our wages are £25m (55%) higher than Everton shows we have something wrong somewhere. The summer signings in 2008 look to have been totally balanced by sales (to within £5000 !!!) which highlights Ashley's reluctance to spend money that isn't there. The loss for the year of roughly £20m has had to be found from somewhere, and Ashley has put that money in. This is money just to stop the club going into administration, and is of no benefit to the quality of the first team squad. Employing Chris Mort as chairman cost the club about £300k more than it cost to have Shepherd and Douglas Hall do the same jobs the previous year. In the last year of Shepherd/Hall the club lost £34m (thirty four million), the first year of Ashley (with Mort) the club lost roughly £20m. As ever I am 100% sure my site will have some small typos, and some glaring errors. Please let me know and I'll correct these !! If anyoen wants a copy of the results then just email me and I'll send you one.

Interesting thought.

It's ironic that an argument essentially over wanting to be seen as the longest, most loyal supporter, with the biggest nob , and therefore the voice of authority on all things NUFC, ends up in an argument that would make 5 year-olds in the playground embarrassed. were you in the playground? How do you know the 5-year old was embarrassed if you weren't there? Keep your nose out of this, you just don't have the first-hand knowledge to even post on the same thread as some

I was in the Leazes that day and can't remember anybody singing for Gordon Lee, Fact. Facts are not facts until reformed by NE5

It's tense, the whole Shepherd legacy rests on his answer

in reality he's my 2nd cousin, or some such thing, and we've always fought over who knows the most, or in his case least, about NUFC I do find it entertaining though, the extremes that it's taken to on here, like it's the conclusion to the trial of some crime drama miniseries.-- the entire case against/for ones credibility rests on knowing whether or not a song was sung 30 years ago. if you weren't there you aren't allowed to comment

in reality he's my 2nd cousin, or some such thing, and we've always fought over who knows the most, or in his case least, about NUFC

I was in the Gallowgate End and I don't remember them singing "we love you Gordon". They may have sung "Gordon Lee's Black and White Army", as that was his song, but I don't remember every song sung that afternoon as clearly as NE5 obviously does. Although I thought I remember NE5 saying he had a season ticket even then? Chucked out for a Cup game ??

I think it is important to recognise that what NE5 says is absolutely correct, that Shepherd looked so good not because of what he did but because of what came before him. And that a manager like Gordon Lee, who managed four more seasons in the top division before getting sacked was a great loss to NUFC, and its then incompetent directors

no one can take away the stadium achievement away from Shepherd. The sunlun fans have the same problem, they will forever have to recognise how special Bob Murray was in taking them from a ramshackle Roker Park to a great modern stadium.

scotosperms are better

imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, thank you

I think you have taken those comments out of context

Group Deferred income, not including capital grants, which were £3m a year on top 2002 28,552k 2003 £28,459k 2004 £30,310k 2005 £29.269k 2006 £24,554k current and 8543k non-current 2007 £19,544k current and 6006k non-current I don't have soft copy, only the published accounts

dunno the Premiership comparison. It works out as over 11% per year for the last 4 years, or 15% a year since 2001. Completely justifiable when the team is performing and the players are getting win bonuses as in 2003. Not sure how the 2006 and 2007 increases were justified.

Come on, you're the man who can hunt through hundreds of Mags to find a snippet you think proves something, you must be able to find one example of someone saying they were embarrassed. I fully expect you to say "I can't be bothered, I know they said it, you look". That was always the difference between us. I only ever used printed numbers from reports that Shepherd had signed off as my source of info, you used well-established gossip and hearsay.

you're not enjoying the state the club is in are you ? I haven't been happy about the state it is in since 2005, before that, like you now, I kidded myself it would be okay. I tried to explain what was happening. I did try. That it has accelerated out of control is very sad. I know you hate graphs and numbers but the following two show why I was so worried. I too could have sat and put my hands of my ears and sing "lalalalala" loudly, and remember the Feyenoord game. The financial mess of the club is purely down to the directors of the club. Similarly the mess of the last fortnight is down to the current directors. The current directors had to spend too much time trying to recover the club from the financial mess they inherited. This is no excuse for the last fortnight, but it won't have helped them much. http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2007/profit13.gif http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2007/payrol12.gif