macbeth

Our two away goals in the league against Watford unable to win at home in the league, has all the makings of a classic

How many shares are actually in circulation anyway? 129.633m shares so 175000 being traded is just over 0.1% of the total. Probabvly NE5 buying more

And in 2005 the total was £87m income, with a total expenditure of £86.5m. In 2006 the total income is estimated to be £78.2m with a total estimate of expenditure at £101m. This £101m assumes that there will be no dividend paid out

That's interesting info. Where did you get it? And what about the rest? TV+ broadcasting, tickets and merchandising make 81% combined. What about the remaining 19%? as the self-appointed guardian of usch boring stats Year ended July 2005 Gates 35.3m, 40% TV 27.9m, 32% Sponsorship 9.4m, 11% Merchandising 7.6m, 9% Catering 6.8m, 8% My estimate at 2006 figures are Gates 28.4m, 36% TV 24m, 31% Sponsorship 10.9m, 14% Merchandising 7.9m, 10% Catering 7m, 9% Estimates come from half year figures and from looking at how previous second half of year usually shapes up

macbeth surely bluedead.gif I am perfectly qualified for one of the roles suggested, but it isn't that one :winking:

That quote is nearly identical to the one that angered me enough to create the finances web site. The wording is very careful so that it reads as though the Halls and Shepherds have spent £200m on players. This is just not true in any respect. The club has spent that amount of money. The Halls and Shepherds have taken out over £30m in the last 9 years. They do not contribute to the clube they bleed it for every penny they can get. Once they have realised that they cannot be seen to bleed it any further they are looking to cash in on the shares. If they agreed to sell their shares tomorrow at 70p per share than the Hall and Shepherds would have paid in roughly £8m for their shares and a profit of over £110m. They think we are stupid. And we are

if the club are purely looking at his worth on the books then it isn't a big problem to them. The page on my site that has player values http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/players.htm shows the club have him as an asset currently worth £1m. This 'logic' is what Sir Bobby once tried to explain away Cort's drop in value.

does he mention anything about bringing your man Souness back ? no one here appointed Souness, no one on here sacked Souness, only one man can claim credit for either his appointment, his length of service, or his sacking. Ultimately it will be the same with Roeder, Shepherd hpoointed him, Shepherd alone will decide when he goes.

As chairman I expect that Shepherd came up with a few key points that a manager of his club needed to have. The three key ones for me would bth 1. Proven ability to improve an existing side 2. Good record on buying players to bring in to complement those already there 3. Record of successfully managing a side in a European competition There are lots of others, but they are the key ones for me. Everyone will have a judgement on the relevant merits of any particualr candidate. For me Martin O'Neill met those, others I know weren't so sure. That's opinion. Curbishley fits point one, as he took a low level side and took them to the level that they were disappointed at finishign mid-table. I guess he must have succeeded on poitn 2, I don't know Charlton's buys well enough to tell. He has no European experience though. When Roeder was appointed a case coudl be made to say he had point 1 covered, although it was over a very short period of time. Point 2 was again unproven, point 3 he was missing. I'm sure that Shepherd has a fuller list of requirements, he works closer with people who have done the job so should be able to add in the other key selection criteria. I believe he shoved in new point 1 when he appointed Souness, that over rode all other thoughts, and that was that he had to be a disciplinarian who could sort out the bad influences. If/when he commes to relpace Roeder I hope he doesn't tick in some other new top priority and ignore the basic requirements. The obvious other top priority he may have is that the manager should be a Geordie. If he goes down that route then he may well make the wrong decision, again. If Shpeherd tries to play the "it's what the fans want" card again then I would happily campaign for NE5 to take over as chairman. The chairman should lead, not respond.

If Shepherd had been boss of the FA it would have Souness or Roeder in charge now.

No. You still don't read properly. I have said - along with others - that if Shearer is next and fails, then that will be the current boards last throw of the dice. You also still have this notion that one single person chooses the managers and sets out club policy . Do you understand what a board of directors actually is ? that is VERY funny

well, actually, that is correct. You are still missing lots of recruits to your cause, do you like following me around ? only when you doff your cap sychophantically at an asset-stripping board. Or "yes"

until you can prove that there is someone with more ambition out there I won't accept anythign you say about club staffing. © NE5, Apologists Ltd

You cannot blame Shepherd for the current results. The results are down to the players and the manager. Shepherd has backed the manager, to the tune of £15m in the summer, you cannot blame him for any problems. The club are in the Premiership, which is better than they were in 1991 under the previous board. This board has ambition, the previous board had none. The previous board appointed Willien McFaul and Jim Smith and Ossie Ardiles. That was the ambition they showed. Clearly you weren't there at the time otherwise you would understand shit appointments. If you weren't there you have no right to make any criticism of the current set up. © NE5, Apologists Ltd

there are stacks of people who would take the job. They may not be the calibre we want, but they would queue up to take it. The only downside of the job as MUFC manager is your boss. Everything else is perfect, the opportuniyu of being the man who succeeds would attract anyone with ambition.

Is he not the man charged with coaching these defensive blunders out of them then? I'm pretty sure that's his job. If he didn't think he could coach the mistakes out of the player then his job is to replace them. However you want to look at it, he's FAILED. mebbe "How to coach defenders" was the bit of the coaching badge he didn't pass ?

If you're talking about macbeth, (I doubt he is) I wouldn't agree. He is like the previous Boards, he's not interested in what happens on the field of play, he'd have seen us relegated rather than borrow the money to sign Owen, for example. He's admitted it too. Where do you get that from. All I am interested in is what I see on the pitch. If an incomepetent, thieving board take money out of the club to compromise the long term future of the club then I will moan like mad, as it affects what I have to put up with on the pitch. If Hall & Shepherd had not taken their £30m out of the club we could have afforded Owen and still have money left over to buy a defender or two or three. You seemed to think that that money would have just evaporated somewhere along the way. A board that coudl manage money woudl have had that money now. I want my the money I pay to go to games to go to the strengthening of my club. I believe 99.999% of fanss believe the same. You and NE5 seem happy to see £4m per year to go the Hall & SHpeherd p[ension funds. That is what none of us can get our heads around. You (and the Halls and Shepherds) put the Halls and Shepherd wealth ahead of that of the club.

I think we can take it for granted that a big investment company is going to understand this. We haven't got any assets to strip, but we do have a stable fan base and potential as a footballing brand... which is what it's all about these days. only cos Hall & Shepherd have taken them already.

I'm sure Hamann said that he wanted to go to Liverpool to win things, or at least words to that effect. Beardsley went to Liverpool because he thought (rightly) that he'd have a better chance of winning something. Waddle left for the money and became known as Judas because of it, Waddle went to Spurs then Marseille, he even admitted that he left Spurs because of the money although he never admitted leaving Newcastle for the cash, most fans thought that was the reason. That's why he took so much stick from thousands of us when we played down at Tottenham although I probably wasn't at the ground to witness the abuse and you probably were, I'm sure you can now reveal what exactly the abuse was about. Gazza, some people said his head had been turned by the money people were earning at other clubs and he had just been voted PFA young player of the year, again though that was never the reason given but how many players are going to say that they left because of the money and get stick for it when they can just blame the board who were an easy target? I'm quite sure John Gibson once said that Gazza doubled his money when he went to Spurs but that's going off memory of something that happened years ago. I'm sure I read that he thought he'd been ripped off by the club when he was playing for us and starring in games and being paid a low wage, low for a footballer. Basically, we don't know why two of them left, Waddle and Gazza, so you say what you want and I'll come up with something different. You can say that it was because of the un-ambitious board which it might have been and I'll go off the perception that a lot of people had at the time, money. did you go to every game the season Waddle left ? If not you cannot possibly comment.

a bit stupid - but I'm not surprised - of you to drag up another sad thread accusing me of not answering, where I did. You do realise you are wasting your time trying to recruit me for your crusade ? There are plenty of gullible easy pickings around. sh*t, sorry. Where did you answer ? The only answer I could find was the one where you said Adam Crozier said the FLC was a waste of time, and that NUFC has a board who were more ambitious than any other, and that I had a hidden agenda

NE5 .... http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,21590.0.html You must remember, it was asking you for views on the finances. It was referign to facts though. Not opinions dressed up as facts, but real facts :winking: You refused to answer cos the questions were too hard.

you still haven't answered any of those questions I asked of you back in the spring. You are the king of the hypocrits. Long live the King

I'm stunned. I desperately try not to quote 100 line bits from other people, I carefully cut out irrelevent bits (ie most of NE5's stuff) and try to only put in blue answers so people can see where I my points are related to. Then I find someone doesn't do blue ! Mayeb I shoudl do block capital letters. The worst thing is w***ers like NE5 people who quote huge posts and give a one line reply, though

Nothing changes where you're concerned. We play shit, you make a critical post. We play well, you post it's a one off, that the opponents were crap. Whatever you can think of to put the performance down. From your posts at the time it was obvious you found it galling when Robson had us finishing 4th, 3rd and 5th, although you'll deny it now and you'll rely on people who weren't around at that time to think I'm making it up. Some of us know who is telling the truth here though. If you can read then you will know that my views on the 2 questions you've asked have already been answered many times before. The first question is stupid, tbh. By your own admission over the last few years of reading your posts, you believe Keegan was a shite manager and the team he produced was shite, so the real question is do YOU think the performances have been maintained since Keegan? They're pretty shite now so you probably think they have. Don't do that. You are falling into the NE5 trap of making up another person's view and then criticising them for it. It would be good if some had the guts to admit they got it wrong by supporting Souness long after such support should have disappeared. Who knows, had there been no support for him sooner the Board may have sacked him before he'd wasted £50m, as I predicted and was slated for as usual. I did say I didn't want him given any money during that very first transfer window and the responses were along the lines of the responses I'll no doubt get to this post. This is the most disingenious part of either your's or NE5's argument. Trying to demolish someone else's argument by saying that they supported the team manager appointed, and backed, by Shepherd. Now you are even sugegsting that if more people had had a go at Souness earlier the chairman may have done something about it earlier !! Is that really the leadership you expect from our chairman ? The key part of the chairman's job is to ensure that he has the correct person as team manager. You seem to suggest that these decisions are only taken when the crow do tell the chairman what to do and when. This matches up with Shepherd saying 'the fans' wanted Roeder. My mother could do that. If it really is down to listening to phone-ins, reading chat-sites to decide whether to sack a manager, and who to replace him with then seriously even NE5 could do that. Yes even him. Although only if my mother turned it down. I would guess he would be able to do it for mebbe half of the £500,000 the club pay Shepherd.