macbeth

Again, if you substituute "Shepherd" for "the WUM" it reads prefectly. As for my "lies". The problem is that the finances are a big picture. That it is possible for Shepherd to have done some things right, so for example clever wages policy, and to have done somethings wrong, like bleeding the club of cash through giving £30m+ away, doesn't mean he is always good, or always bad. Just that some policies are good, and others are bad. It takes a rare talent to twist things the way NE5 does. Often his posts have the same air of reality that Shepherd's press conferences do. I think Mick shouldn't be allowed to comment on anything about NUFC cos he wasn't aware of the decline of the side in the late 1930s. If you have lived thro that you cannot possibly comment on Shepherd and Hall making £44m profit out of NUFC, so far. http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1704798,00.html

This is very good. Do you think it is NE5 asking Shepherd some questions ?

It includes share sales made to the club, not on the general market. As there is so little liquidity in NUFC shares the Halls had to sell their shares back to the club in 2003. Why the 'club' saw this as good for the business was never really justified

After a request from someone (sorry forget who) I have included a new page on the finances web-site. This does a split of all the costs of the business over the last 8 years. I haven't got the time at the moment to show this year by year, just as a single lump some for the period. As ever, any useful comments would be appreciated. :winking: http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/costs2.htm should get you there. I still have to answer someone who wanted a view of the club debts. Next time my wife lets me have some spare time ....

If Shepherd fell under a bus the club would not stop existing. It is only an £80m business he is trying to run not the Bank Of England.

The rate of dividends was three times higher than you get from Tesco shares, or double what you'd get out of HSBC shares. They're taking the piss

Sadly he is right. The summer before the Partizan game the club had expenditure of £8.5m. Lee Bowyer was brought in to strengthen the playing squad. .....and the previous 32 months..... Why don't you stick your worthless agenda up your arse, mate. Just an idea. You say sadly. So you're now advocating 32 months of £50m transfer deficit and you wanted them to spend still more? Is that what you're now saying? No but you didn't say this the first time. You left out facts. I am more than comfortable with the club investing the amound it did at that time. But the other thing you left out was the fact that the club did not invest any money that summer in players. The club did spend £8.5m to give money to Hall and Shepherds. Below is an extract from something I posted some time ago that you also ignored. It's fúcking pathetic that you push your agenda to the point where one moment you're slagging them off for spending too much and then slagging them off for not spending. The snip below is solid fact. <snip> This has already been done to death. The facts show the club speculated to move from the Gullit mediocrity to a CL qualifying place by spending nearly £50m quid net in the 32 months prior to summer 2003, it's also a fact the club lashed out millions in January 2003 on Woodgate, something that is always ignored by those who babble on about summer 2003. From Jan 2001 ( ish ) through to summer 2003 the wage bill increased massively as well because we'd speculated by bringing in nearly a dozen players in 32 months under Robson, with only 2 reserve players leaving the club for very small fees. <snip> If you start the ins after Andy O'Brien in March 2001 then the period had net buys of £44m (www.soccerbase.com), if you start in Jan 2001 then it is a net of £39m. Any earlier than that becomes irrelevant. Not quite the "nearly £50m" you mention but still a large figure. The signings of JJ in 2002 and Woodgate in 2003 were perfect examples of Shepherd running the club well. He had set a transfer budget for those seasons. When we ended up at the top of the league in January 2002, with unexpected revenue from being on the telly Shepherd came out and said that this extra money meant the club could invest in new players. JJ arrived. The next year with us in the CL second phasee, same again with Woodgate. Brilliant management of resources. Exactly what I want from a board. The wage bill rose in 2003, so Shepherd said at the time, because of the bonuses paid to players for getting to the second phase of the CL. Again brilliant stuff. Pay them well, then if they over achieve, and the club gets more money, pay the players big bonuses. This is absolutely faultless. The problem was that he then changed policy on wages. The high figure became the basic. Now if we finish 7th the wages are £20m more than they were 4 years earlier, and even £10m more than when we were in the CL second phase. This is just madness. Excusing this on the back of signing new playert is just abdicatign any responsibility for financial control. The board claim in the latest results that they have sole responsibility for wages and transfers. This is ho wit should be, that is what their job is. Players play, Manager manages playing resources, Board supply money to allow Manager to maximise the resources available to him. For you to excuse the wage bill on the back of signings is like suggestign that teh wages were a big surprise to the board, that they just hadn't thought that the players would need paid. Surely not Care to tackle this one, Macbeth? Sounds like you're now slagging the Board for not spending yet more in summer 2003. It's clear by now that your position comes from you having a childish rag on because they wouldn't let you and your pathetic group have a say in the running of the club. But you don't say that, NE5 made that one up, you've never used it before. blueconfused.gif Did you approve of the club setting up the FLC ? Or do you view it as another stupid mistake by Shepherd ? It may well have been correct to not spend money in the summer of 2003. It has happened. In Sir Bobby's book his discussion of that summer was all about Bowyer being a bargain, and needing to start looking for a Shearer replacement. I suspect if Shepherd has said "Bob here's £8.5m could you strengthen the side with this", he may well have gone and spent it. He wasn't given the option though. The thing that we will have to differ about is that I wouldn't have given the £8.5m away. I view it as unforgivable that they just gave it away. The equivalemt of the season ticket money for 17,000 fans paid into the club in the June, and straight out, just given away in the August. No benefit to anyone but H&S. If £8.5m had to be spent on something then spend it on the team, not on the Hall/Shepherd pension funds. I cannot get my head around why you and NE5 see it as correct for the club to do that. I've even seen it stated, not by you I don't think, that if the money hadn't been given away in dividends it would hav ejust disappeared anyway. Is there so much lack of trust in the abilty of H&S to manage the finances that their only supporters think they would have let £8.5m just disappear ?

Sadly he is right. The summer before the Partizan game the club had expenditure of £8.5m. Lee Bowyer was brought in to strengthen the playing squad.

There was one crowd below 20,000 that season. You'll remember why that one happened too. The average home attendance despite that game was just under 33,000. That 46,000 turned up trying to get a voucher for the final is probably not too different from today when we get sub 30,000 crowds for Cup games but don't have enough tickets available for all our Cup finals. Somehow this is relevant to the performance of Shepherd/Hall, or a distraction more likely

Were you unhappy in 1974 to finish 8th bottom and get to the Cup final ? Were you unhappy to finish 8th bottom when we got to the Cup Final in 98, or 8th bottom in 1999 ? What changed your expectation ? Your 1974 view is one of a horrendous incompetent board, the current board acheives similar and you defend them to the hilt

So you put the near oubling of wages in 4 years down to the quality of players on the pitch ? The team today is twice as good as the team from 2002 ?

Souness wass appointed in September 2004 so after the 2004 results were calculated. http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/gates210.gif Souness had no say on the payroll for the 2005 season apart from the signings of Faye, Boumsong and Baba in the January, so 6 months salary for each of them. The 2005 season would also miss out on Woodgate's salary in comparison tro 2004. Indeed as Shepherd so clearly states in the accounts the payroll is a key decision that teh board take, not anyone elses. I still no explanation, from anyone why the payroll was higher in 2005 than 2004, or 2003, given the lack of European football. Or how last season it was roughly twice as big as 4 years ago ! http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/payrol5.gif

Boys you're letting him win !! NE5 would rather talk about anything, absolutely anything, other than the financial mismanagement of Sheperd and Hall. Don't let him distract you. He has no answer to any questions about the immoral level of dividends given away by the club, or the out of control wages or the relentless drop in revenue. If he doesn't have answers to those questions then don't let him put words into your mouth, or to change the agenda :winking:

Ideally you want to keep decent players. If a daft offer is made you have to take it, regardless of who the player is. Stick a value on every player in the side, then double it. If someone offers that amount then take it. There must be other players out there. With the finances in the state they are I wouldn't be surprised if any money would just disappear. We did spend £15m on players this summer, with £5m of that being on a midfield player.

..... and you are including in your figures, monies that are spread over the last 8-10 years...of course it isn't that you are trying to give an impression that the club would suddenly have an instant cash injection of 35m quid if they hadn't taken dividends over the period in question so mislead people .... Would they have burnt the money ? They could have paid off the loan for the ground with that money. Would have made no difference to the the money they gave to the managers at all, but the club would have no debt on the ground, a mortgage free existence. There is no misleading being done on my side of this. Shareholders took out £35m. If they hadn't taken it out where would it be ? You impl;y it wouldn't be here now, so I really would love you to tell us where it would be. Would they have paid the players more ? Would they have spent more on buying in players ? If not those, then what ? If you are happy that we have given away £35m should we give away £35m over the next 8-10 years too ? Like I said, Ozzie needs people like you to tell him that he was wrong to support his hero, when he clearly on many occasions said he supported the money he was given, the players he bought and sold and all with no awareness of the financial implications despite being told what they would be by myself and others. So you are criticsing someone for now agreeing with your point of view from a year ago, that you have subsequently changed by supporting the board's decisions ? blueeek.gif As I also said previously, you would prefer that bloke from the Post Office to run NUFC, and his appointment of a manager for 4m quid a year and the selling off of the English football fans future for the next 100 years bluesleep.gif You can try and distract people away from the issues they were discussing but they can see you support the wealth of the Hall and Shepherd families before you support the well-being of NUFC. I support the football club. If they weren't making money, like the old boards who ran the club the way you would like it to be run, there would be a bigger problem as it is proven to lead nowhere but bottom of the old 2nd division and 15,000 crowds after 30+ years of trying it. Which bit of the £12m loss in 11 months do you classify as making money ? Your jealousy and agenda continues I see..... you have a problem with people who are better off than you don't you Only if they are bleeding money out of my football club. I feel my attitude is better than you doffing your cap at the rich man. I question what I see. You subserviently accept that they deserve the money more than our club do. Have you told Ozzie and the others who you could support your crusade that they should not have supported Souness' wild spending spree and kicking out players he didn't want for peanuts ? As quoted above ... At least Shepherd recognises something that you won't. In their accounts he includes the following paragraph "The acquisition of players and their related payroll costs, are one of the most significant and high profile risks facing the club. The approval of all player transfers is a matter specifically reserved for decision by the Board " Shepherd seems to be suggesting he was responsible for the wild spending, not who ever the manager was. Do you think he is lying to us ??

..... and you are including in your figures, monies that are spread over the last 8-10 years...of course it isn't that you are trying to give an impression that the club would suddenly have an instant cash injection of 35m quid if they hadn't taken dividends over the period in question so mislead people .... Would they have burnt the money ? They could have paid off the loan for the ground with that money. Would have made no difference to the the money they gave to the managers at all, but the club would have no debt on the ground, a mortgage free existence. There is no misleading being done on my side of this. Shareholders took out £35m. If they hadn't taken it out where would it be ? You impl;y it wouldn't be here now, so I really would love you to tell us where it would be. Would they have paid the players more ? Would they have spent more on buying in players ? If not those, then what ? If you are happy that we have given away £35m should we give away £35m over the next 8-10 years too ? Like I said, Ozzie needs people like you to tell him that he was wrong to support his hero, when he clearly on many occasions said he supported the money he was given, the players he bought and sold and all with no awareness of the financial implications despite being told what they would be by myself and others. So you are criticsing someone for now agreeing with your point of view from a year ago, that you have subsequently changed by supporting the board's decisions ? blueeek.gif As I also said previously, you would prefer that bloke from the Post Office to run NUFC, and his appointment of a manager for 4m quid a year and the selling off of the English football fans future for the next 100 years bluesleep.gif You can try and distract people away from the issues they were discussing but they can see you support the wealth of the Hall and Shepherd families before you support the well-being of NUFC.

A thread dedicated to the performance of the NUFC board, talking about the financial results they published, and within the first page NE5 is having a go at another person regarding a manager who left 8 years ago. You can try and distract people away from the issues they were discussing but they can see you support the wealth of the Hall and Shepherd families before you support the well-being of NUFC. Our financial position, as the NUFC board states so explicitly, is purely under their control. Not Souness, not Dalglish, not McKeag, not Westwood, but them. They are responsible.

You had a go at some point that I wasn't applauding the cost-cutting at the club. Having had a good read of the financial results could you highlight those cost-cuttings you were so proud of, and explain how they helped so much. Having actively supported the chairman's wages policy, with its long term consequences how do you see the club getting its income up to a level that will allow us to pay the players ? Do you think the board are correct to have no dividend this time around ? I think it is great, just what I have been after since I started my site, you have always said that it was the right thing to give money away. Are you going to critcise them for stopping doing something you have so vehemnetly defended ? The assets of the business are now down to £16m from the £56m when we became a PLC. At the current rate of decline the club will have no assets this time next year. Will you still be blaming Souness, or Bellamy or the tea-lady, or will you see what others see. At least Shepherd recognises something that you don't. In their accounts he includes the following paragraph "The acquisition of players and their related payroll costs, are one of the most significant and high profile risks facing the club. The approval of all player transfers is a matter specifically reserved for decision by the Board " Looks like the team manager can ask but the board have to judge whether the finances are in place before any action takes place. The borrowings, the huge wage bill, all are solely the board's decision.

Like Bobby Robson deciding to sell Gary Speed, for example? Just looking at the steady decline in the value of the club's assets, posted upthread, it's clear that this is nonsense. Although you are correct that Fat Fred's decision to appoint Souness was a characteristically terrible one, as was Fat Fred's decision to try and redeem that mistake by splashing out too much money on the wrong players. The damning things for me are 1. Giving away £35m to shareholders when the business couldn't afford it 2. Pushing wages up to a level that is £8m per year higher than when we were paying big bonuses to players from competing in the CL. At the current levels of wages we need to have an income of about £104m, which we did not even come close to achieving even when finishing 3rd in the PL and ocmpeting in the second group stage of the CL. 3. Having no plan in place regarding transfer budgets. Some years it is nil, some years it is £20m. 4. Not seeming to have any solid selection criteria for choosing team managers

Fixed assets are 90.2m, down from 93.1m the previous year. The drop is due to the deprecitaion on the ground. The net assets of the club, so all the assets, less all the money owed on them has been as follows 1998 56.1m 1999 54.5m 2000 36.4m 2001 23.0m 2002 36.5m 2003 36.6m 2004 32.3m 2005 28.3m (restated as 30.4m in the latest results) 2006 16.8m The amount given away to oshareholders in the same period is £35m. The net assets is a good measure as buying Owen for £16m adds £16m into the assets, and £16m into the amount owed so makes no difference to the net figure.

is that really what you mean ? The fixed assets are the ground and the training facilities and their worth changes little year on year except when there is new stand opened or something like that. The 'intangible assets " which are the values of the players would be do-able. The figure only shows the value of players bought in, and the amount of their transferdfee still viewed as an asset. This is shown on the 'amortisation' page. This goes up as we sign new players, and decays as they play out (or sit out, in some cases) their contracts. This year the figure is quoted as £48.2m (pre Duff and Martin), the previous year it was quoted as £35.6m (pre Luque and Owen). The actual worth of the playing squad is different from the one in the financial results as players like Taylor, Ramage, Zog, have never had money spent on them so are in as nil. Similarly Shay who has been here for ever has no current value in the books.

This has been updated to include the results published last Friday. I'm more than happy if anyone had some further insight to add to what is there. The only bit which is missing that I'd like to include is the cash position on t he club, and probably a graph of net assets. www.nufc-finances.org.uk

The results contain this paragraph ... "The acquisition of players and their related payroll costs, are on eof the most significant and high preofile risks facing the Group. The approval of all player transfers isa matter specifically reserved for decision by the board"

The half year figures are up to 31st January, the second half from then to end of July, or June as it is from this year on. In Jan 2005 the half year gates were 21.2m and the full year ended upo at 35m. This had included in it FA Cup hom e game sagaint Spurs and Chelsea, and UEFA games too. In Jan 2006 the half year figure was 16.1m. There was only one home FA Cup game, against Southampton in the second half, and no UEFA games. There were though more home league games than the previous year, which balanced it out a bit. This was how I ended up with 12m for the second half, rather than the 14m from the previous year. Looking forward to what we can expect form this half year, it wil lbe in between the last two years. Two years ago we had a similar set of Uefa league games, but had two home League Cup games with a total of 80,000 crowds.

The graph at http://uk.moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?FC=2&Symbol=GB%3Ancu&CF=1&CP=0&PT=5&D5=0 shows the share price and the number of shares being traded, for the last year. Not sure any conclusion can be drawn