macbeth

Sadly no. As some one else noted in a previous post the wage rises for players has started to flatten out. In 2005 I believe the overall PL total rise was 3% (sorry I haven't got the source). At that time Deloittes suggestion was that at the very top, so the Owen's, Terry's etc would always command bumoer wages, and that they coudl see no change happenign in that. What they did see changign was the wages that the next level down of players could command. These were the good squad players that teams wished to retain. They saw a shift in emphasis away from clubs having to pay over the top, to players perhaps having lower wage demands but looking for the security of longer term contracts. At the lowest level of journeymen/Bosmans the clubs were suddenly in very strong bargaining positions. The players were out of contract, without an income and had to take what they offered. We would likely have doen well out of someone like Sibs. Not wanted by City, desperate for a new chance, would take what he was given. At the higher level we woudl look to have not doen so well. We have goen for the good players, and these good players have asked for good wages, but have also asked for longer contracts. There should have been some negotiatting gone on at this point. Lower wages = longer contract, higher wages = shorter (or standard) contract. That Parker, Emre, Luque, Duff and Martins were all given 5 year contracts means we have a huge fixed outlay for a numebr of years. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that these 5 are each on £2m per year, so a £10m hit that nothing can be done about. At the top end we have to pay what is required to get someone like Michael Owen, not much that can be down if we wish to have that level of player. If Dyer is on similarly high wages then that is a nonsensefor a fringe international player, other may disagree. The board used to be in control of wages. Their record was fantastic. Good basic, huge bonuses for success. The huge leap in wages from 32m in 2002 to 45m 2003 was stated to be purely down to bonuses paid for reaching the 2nd phase of the Champions League. Last year, so only three years on, the wages were 56m, while we didn't even get thro the Intertoto Cup. So that 56m was the "basic", presumably still with a huge potential upside if we ever do well in Europe.

But not so good with words? From the 2005 accounts - The club have roughly 300 full time employees, and roughly 1000 part-time staff. The wages and salaries for all of those comes to £44.5m. On top of that the club paid £5.2m in Social security costs, and then a further £0.4k in other pension costs. This came to the total for that year of £50.2m. The total for 2006 was £56.6m but I don't have the breakdown at hand. (Anyone any idea wher I've put it :-[ ) Lets play numbers ... The 1000 part-time wiill be match-day people. So for 25 home games, at £50 (?) a game woudl be £1.2m. If we say that the footbalnlers and the management total 35 bodies, then that leaves about 270 other full-time staff to run the business. Lets say they have the average UK wage of £20k per year. That would cost ~ £5.4m to finance. This leaves the 35 "football" employees to share the rest. This means 44.5 - 1.2 - 5.4 = £37.8m Looks like just over £1m per year for each of them. Of course there will be extremes, at both ends, but on average the figure looks like £1m to me. ++++++++++ Deloittes who look in to these things, say that football clubs should run themsleves with the target of payroll costs (in total, so the £50.2m not the £44.5m) ideally be no more than 50% of income. Up to 2003 the club extolled the fact that they were one of only two sides who met this criterion. Then they just lost the plot. The graph below shows the rise of the wages:income ratio, as well as the general rise in wages. http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/payrol5.gif Now whichever way we try and cut it up, and try and work individual player amounts, the trend is steeply upwards. The issue is two-fold. The wages are rising, so 76% up in 4 years. This is ridiculous. The other issue is that our income has only gone up 17% in the same time. Someone at the club has just not been in control of things. High wages on falling income is why the club has been losing over £1m per month for the last reported 18 months. The hope has to be that the new CEO will bring in sound financial knowledge that has clearly been missing for the last few years. Luckily the Sky money leaps next year. The sad thing is that that money has aleady been spent. The extra income will only take us to the point we should be at. For other clubs the money will be a bonus, for us is it is a life-raft.

The usual excellent explanation of wages out of control is at http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/payroll2.htm The http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/amortisation2.htm page also includes the contract length for all the players brought in ove rthe last few years. These players will usually have been paid a premium to join us.

NUFC have challenged to get into Europe for the last 5 or 6 years. To begin with we challeneged for CL places, later we challenged for Uefa places, now we challenge for an Intertoto place. We have gone from second phase CL, to CL qualifying losers, to Uefa semi-finalists, to Uefa quarter finalists, to Uefa last 16, to next year not needing passports. The on-field decline is slow, and steady. This may not be the board's fault, but they hire and fire the managers. Having got rid of 11 defenders in 4 years, and having brought in 4, plus a loan signing, to replace them shows a bit of a lack of vision somewhere. Vision should come from the top. Looks like blind leading the blind

Should have been longer ban. He can't even pretend to say he was going for the ball, or that he'd been provoked or any other excuse.

he hasn't any more idea than you Although there is a Sheik who was very disappointed to not get his own way and buy Liverpool. The amortisation does have limitations (and can be hard to understand/explain) but to not include player transfer costs just doesn't make sense. It can lead to the daftness of (as an example) "We broke even this year, we are all very proud with that. We have also spent £20m in the transfer market, which has taken our financial performance down to a £20m loss."

I think I have alogin but I don't generally. If there is an update to my website I may go and mention it. Generally I feel you can have too much excitement in your life and being on toontastic may just be too much for me

Are you sure it is only 5th ? Hav eyou not seen the official European rankings at http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/tcoef2007.html ?? Neither Barcelona nor Real Madrid can catch us now

I know you have never done anything but criticise the Souness appointment. You have also never doen anythign but back Shepherd. For may of us the appointment of Souness was something that Shpeherd did, and he should therefore be critcised for. You seem to just see at as one of those things that happens. Similarly adding £25m to the payroll while tumbling down the league, was just one of those things that happens. No one's fault really, or if it was anyone's fault it was definitely not the person who signs the cheques. Simlilarly why would an £80m company need someone with any sort of financial knowledge on its board. As you have said many times the current board have built the club up to the success that it is now. What changed ? Why do they feel they now suddenly need someone from Barclays Bank to help them out ? Could it be that Barclays see a club who were worth £56m when Shepherd took over, and were worth £16m last July and are currently losing over £1m a month, and suddenly Barclays have decided enough is enough and they want their man in place before the club default on the mortgage payments. Under McKeag we didn't know what was going on, how bad things were. At least this time the club have to publish results ans we know what is happening. There is the option to just stick fingers in ears and sing "la-la". It is known as the NE5/Shepherd way.

Really? Yes. "It would be better for you if you removed the site ...... a number of inaccuracies ..... you will be laughed out of existence". I replied with a "tell me what the inaccuracies are ..." comment and never heard anything back.

I tried. Really I did. Really. I did make the msitake of suggesting that the option of spending cash wasn't available, and for that I sincerely apologise

For how mnany years will you let Shepherd off with everything and blame it on Souness? Will there be some point when Souness is out of the equation ? Is the reason we ar ein the Uefa quarter final Souness's fault, or Roeders, or Shepherds. If we win the Uefa Cup will it be because Souness set the wheels in motion ? How long do you give Shepherd the excuse that it was Souness that spent the money, despite it being the Sheperhd signature on the cheques? Shepherd, and his sycophants blaming Souness for the financial mess, is like Souness blaming Boumsong for the defence being crap.

indeed. All those clubs with better plans than us that aren't playing in europe this week. Luckily we have Sepherd in charge. Shepherd announced in 2004 that he was doign a top to bottom review of the club. He was going to produce a 5-year plan after doing this top to bottom review. The first thing to come from the top to bottom review was to start just down from the top and get rid of the then failing manager, Robson. We are now 3 years into that plan of Freddie's. Two years away from the end of it, two years away from where he looked for us to be. I guess he'll soon do another "top to bottom" review and it will allow him to change the top end again, and appoint another manager. Of course the other option may be to appoint a CEO who had half a brain and increase the knowledge on the board out of sight. That it has taken the chairman of our club 9 years to decide to put someone on the board who can count seems amazing to me. In a year's time I can just see Freddie firing the new guy and blaming the totally unacceptable financial results on him. "I believed I was appointing someone who understood the financial side of the business. We are now having to announce an annual loss of £13m while under Mr Walton's stewardship. This is a completley unsatisfactory way to run a club like ours. I would like to thank Mr Walton for his services to the club, I accept his very principled resignation and wish him well in the future. I believe the current board has all the skills required to run the club way the Geordie public demand, as is shown by our signing yesterday of theurrent England centre-forward Peter Crouch" NE5 will blame Walton for the mess, and applaud Shepherd for backing his manager

It'll be interesting to see what NE5's opinion of it is. its obvious

NE5 maybe instead of trying to be a smart-ars* you should have just said where you stood, and when. Playing a game then complaining when people can't see the answer makes the questioned look even more foolish than the person who hasn't got a clue. I felt foolish when I asked that dozen very simple yes/no questions of you last May. Remember them ? "Do you feel that Shepherd has deserves praise for getting the club to the stage where it loses £1m per month Y/N". or "Do you think NUFC benefitted from the board giving away £35m in the last 8 yeasrs Y/N ?" It took me ages to realise that the reason you couldn't answer wasn't because you didn't have the knowledge, it was because I'd made the question to vague, and too difficult for you to understand. I felt foolish for over estimating your ability to answer a complaex question. Teh same thing has happened here. You gave some clues about dates, about when you were in certain areas, when a certain player was here. You made the riddle just a little too hard. You must foolish, in the same way I did. You should ahve been mroe specific earlier and said somethign like "If I was in the corner while Tommy Gibb was at the club and I saw him flick the crowd, do you believe me?" In stead we had to go through all that "he said" "you said" nonsese didn't we? Y/N

If there are lies on my web site you should contact the Financial Services Authority. All the numbers on that site come straight out of the clubs accounts, accoutns that have Shepherd's signature on the bottom of them. Are you really suggesting that Shepherd has misled everyone ??!! Shepherd may have a speciality in getting a rich football club to a situation where it loses £1m per month but you surely aren't accusing him of being dishonest ?? I can accept his incompetence, but if you are really suggesting he is doing something dishonest then I think you should let us all know what that is. The web site has a page with comments on the 2006 results, but I very clearly state that these are opinions.

I don't doubt for a second that Gibbo flicked the Gallowgate. I also don't doubt for a second that the flat-cappers in the Centre Paddock moaned like hell. I didn't see the Gibbo incident. I f I was there I'd have been in the Leazes End. The reasosn I raised him as an example was to try and show that there have always been moaners. I'd been struggling to think of other examples, but Gowling springs to mind. He wasn't Supermac, he ran funny, so he moaned at whatever he did wrong. That he was leadign scorer at the time didn't seem to matter. The whole suggestion that the place is currently full of moaners, as if this has just happened, can only come from someone who is selectively choosing their memories

I agree

How did you feel when the flat cappers in the Centre Paddock all used to abuse Gibbo, to the extent that Harvey came close to not playing him at home ?? There have always been moaners I was standing in the old corner - where the old flag was - the day he put his 2 fingers up at the boo boys, towards the corner. I wasn't booing though, I never have and never will do that. not sure anyone was booing, there were moaners though, just as there were in 1981 and 1991 and 2001 and there are in 2007. Moaning is not a new phenomenon. HTL was on about moaners, not particualry "boo-boys". I always felt the older generation were the moaners. They had been going for ever, had suddenly realised it wasn't going to get any better, had therefore become useod to complaining. There are many of the current middle-aged/older brigade who have suddenly reached this conclusion too. (They aren't band-wagon jumpers, any more than the 20,000 extra who turned out for the Forest game in 74 were band-wagon jumpers). The current middle-aged supporters have been probably been going either on and off, or regularly for over 30 years. Up to 15 years ago there was no hope, suddenly for a special few years there was again. Now we are sliding downwards again. Those that see the slow slide into mid-table mediocrity of the last three seasons are worried. They DO remember the things you mention about the 70s and 80s. They are as scared of its return as you are. The younger (under 30s have no experience of the bad old days). The difference for many of us is that you see the decline as circumstances out of the control of anyone, and most definitely not the fault of chairman and CEO of the last few years. Many of us see the decline as being due to the policies of the board. You fear that we could end up with the disaster we had in having a couple of incompetent families running the club for too long in the 70s and 80s. The rest of see that that is exacxtly what has happened again. The only reason for supporting Shepherd in his job is that he is in the job. It was the same with those who sutpported Souness. They support everythign to do with NUFC and while he was the club manager they backed him, they supported everything about Newcastle. Back in the early 1990s there was a huge backlash against the corruption at the top of the Olympic movemet. An independent body produced a report detailing the corruption and demanding it was cleaned up. Samarnach who had run it for years wanted to appoint himself as the cleanser. His logic was that he knew the organisation better than anyone, so who better to do the job. I'm sure you would agree the best person to get NUFC out of its decline, and its financial mess, due to their inside knowledge should similarly be Freddie Shepherd.

How did you feel when the flat cappers in the Centre Paddock all used to abuse Gibbo, to the extent that Harvey came close to not playing him at home ?? There have always been moaners

I think it is great that after 9 years they have decided to put someone on the board with an understanding of finance. My whole desire has been to have people in at board level who have business skills. The new appointment is a fantastic one for the finance side of the business. Shepherd has appointed the guy and deserves credit for that. That it took him 9 years to see that finance needed someone dedicated to it isn't something to be proud of. I suspect the reason this sort of appointment didn't happen earlier is that having somone on the board who was dedicated to controlling the money wouldn't have sanctioned the giving away of £35m as the current board have done. Next I'd like a Marketing Director please, and maybe even someone to cover PR. Do you fee the appointment is correct ? You have so strongly argued against bringing anyone in, or do you feel it would have been ebtter to have happened a few years ago ?

The reason I raised the financial mess was that to highlight that spending cash is not an option to get the buzz back. I'm pretty sure that losing £1m per month is something that no other board had ever achieved. (It's okay I understand that circumstances are totally different ) But it should be recognised that not since the last incompetents were removed in ~1990 have we been in such a precarious financial position. Fortunately the big wedge Sky will give everyone starting from next season will help the position. The sad thing is that this will help most clubs, for us it will just paper over the cracks of being run badly. Hopefully Shepherd has appointed a money man as CEO to try and stop the rot.

Lovely. I made one mention of Crozier, and it is now in the NE5 list of facts as me having "harped on". Just can't make it up sometimes ! If you concern is the state Crozier left English football in financially, you need to be very careful if you think Shepherd/the NUFC board are better. Losing £1m a month isn't really very good. Crozier picked Sven, Shepherd picked Souness. Difficult to defend either I would have thought. What do you think Shepherd's thinking is behind appointing the new CEO, particulartly one with such a strong financial background when we haven't needed anyone like that for 9 years as a PLC, and as you suggest Sheperd has done such a good job anyway? Mean while back on topic .... As this was originally a question about how to get the buzz back what do you (NE5) see as the answer? Or do you feel we are all just being miserable buggers who should be thankful for what we have? Why do you feel so many people feel down about the football when you have showed so clearly they've never had it so good? Is it just that peopel who have only been going for 15 years or so just don't appreciate? So essentially anyone under 30 is just prone to lack of knowledge?

The board (whoever you view is being responsible within that, for me it is Freddie Shepherd, Douglas Hall, Bruce Shepherd, Alison Hall and Tim Revill) has managed the club into a corner. The amount of money coming in to the club is in decline: http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/gates210.gif meanwhile the amount of money leaving the club is shooting up: http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/payrol4.gif Back in 1998 when the club were floated the new shareholders put in a huge wedge of cash that has now gone. There is now no spare cash around, we are losing £1m per mon th, we can never get the spark of a trophy signing to lift spirits, if that is what some view as an answer to the lack of buzz. There is no opportunity to entice an 'exciting' manager as they are liable to be looking for a transfer fund of some sort. This was why Roeder got the job, he was here, wouldn't complain about lack of funds, and was grateful to have somehow managed to get to manage at this level. If money is the key then somehow we need fresh cash put in. The only money coming in to the club in the last 9 years has been from fans be it season tickets, shirts, or out money going to Sky. Gate receipts are fairly flat (http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/gates26.gif) so there is really not much that can be gained there. The only fresh cash seems to be the wedge Sky is giving everyone fomr next year. The thing is EVERY side is getting that, it is of no specific advantage to us at all. If we want fresh cash we need fresh shareholders, or the existing ones to put money in for the fist time in 9 years. (That means ALL shareholders, not just Halls and Shepherds !) I can't see money solving it though. As others have mentioned it would probably go on a trophy signing. A very good short term buzz, except I'm not even sure we'd fall for that again. We're getting old and cynical, not getting anything useful at all out of the last trophy signing means all subsequents ones are going to be viewed less favourably. So if not money, then what ? The Keegan buzz didn't come from money. The key was style of football. If we suddenly started playing fast-passing, totally attack minded football THAT would get a buzz going. We look to have the players to do that, but we don''t do it. We should be playing with the carefree style of Arsenal's kids. If we had that outlook then the crowd would be going berserk to get in and support. Somewhere we decide not to do that. SOme where we decided to play safe, change tactics to accomodate the perceived strengths of even the most mediocre of opposition. We seem to want to worry about the opponents more than have them worry about us. Milner and Zog (or whoever) should be at full pelt chasing through passes, giving fullbakcs a hellish time. When they get their centres in their shoudl be two forwards plus two others piling into the area. Opponents would be petrified of us rather than the other way around. Even Reading seem to want to do this more than us. Our recent respectful apporoach to 'poor teams' like Fulham, Wigan, Boro, West Ham has got us two points. We shoudl be sending out our teams to play with freedom to sweep away thes eteams. Let them worry. Maybe we'd not win every game, but it'd be fun, would lift the crowd, would get the buzz going. If we play this way then the heroes will emerge. If we were playing an attacking style then Martins would be getting more chances, would be scoring more goals (hopefully!) and he would be the new big hero. Milner may have scwored more if he was playing further forward rather than impressing as a winger who covers brilliantly for his fullbacks. It easy to try, and very cheap