OzzieMandias

I'd be disappointed if I didn't.

I don't think we'll get Gudjonson. If he goes anywhere it'll also be to West Ham. Icelandic connection.

Is it National Mong Day or something?

Diddums. Perhaps you've forgotten that they're soon having meetings with people from various fan groups. Is that true? Good step if so. Are we (N-O) invited? Yes, it's true, and several people from here have been invited.

The level of hate being directed against Dyer is irrational. Full stop. So it was only eggs that were thrown, but it's the same mentality that has driven pogroms throughout history. Ok, they were kids, but if they were mine I'd smack them.

Diddums. Perhaps you've forgotten that they're soon having meetings with people from various fan groups.

Er, because he didn't have two kids eight years ago?

Well that wasn't very clever, was it? I've taken no part in that discussion and so will not see your doubtless extremely interesting post.

You've just skimmed over my post, FS was an employee of the club, an employee of shareholders and the fans who paid him a salary to make money for the business, not divert some of it away into his brother's bank account. What he did is no better than Souness helping out Rangers which you used against him like a stick, as did many others rightly or wrongly. You can't hang one and then pardon the other for the same "crime". I'm not. Shepherd was the chairman, he was the 2nd major shareholder. He and the Halls ie dogless, owned the club. No they didn't. The club was a public company. Look, there was a clue in the name: "Newcastle United plc". What does "plc" stand for? "Public limited company." To clarify, you know for a fact that this warehouse deal, which prevented NUFC from being successful on the pitch, was not a good deal for the club and a better one could have been found elsewhere ? And, you are defending Souness again mackems.gif To be perfectly honest, I don't give a toss about a poxy warehouse, the cost of which is a couple of weeks pay for Kieron Dyer or whatever. No, no. Surprisingly, you haven't engaged your brain before posting. The cost of buying the warehouse would have been a couple of weeks of Dyer's current wages (probably about five weeks of Shearer's at the time). But the cost to the club (then a public company, by the way) of renting the exact same space ended up at about half of Bellamy's transfer fee.

You've just skimmed over my post, FS was an employee of the club, an employee of shareholders and the fans who paid him a salary to make money for the business, not divert some of it away into his brother's bank account. What he did is no better than Souness helping out Rangers which you used against him like a stick, as did many others rightly or wrongly. You can't hang one and then pardon the other for the same "crime". I'm not. Shepherd was the chairman, he was the 2nd major shareholder. He and the Halls ie dogless, owned the club. No they didn't. The club was a public company. Look, there was a clue in the name: "Newcastle United plc". What does "plc" stand for? "Public limited company."

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it. It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either. Here: (Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.) http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this? Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore. Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock? Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale? Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed. As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh? Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future ? and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account. Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company. I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this shit, tbh. As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business. If a local council was caught doing the same thing there would be a public enquiry and an outrage. It isn't a local council, its a business. Its the way of the world, people who run business do this sort of thing all over the world. And the amount of money involved is completely insignificant. I don't know why you think it has an impact, and if you accept it doesn't, why are you bothered ? Far worse would be directors who didn't attempt to capitalise on the potential support of the club, now that is what I call taking the piss out of supporters and letting them down. So why did you use Souness' links with Rangers against him over Boumsong, wasn't he just helping his mates too? Sorry but I just can't accept these things, even though I know it's common and nothing illegal, doesn't mean I should be happy with it though which I wasn't, I thought it showed FS's true intentions which were to keep himself, his brother and son and their cronies in a cushy job at the expense of NUFC's best interests if so, otherwise he wouldn't have spunked away club money like that, or rather fans' money. When you read about how KK paid his entire staff's wages for something like 4 months back when it was uncertain whether we'd stay up or go down/go bust and told the club if he couldn't keep us up, to not pay him, you kind of get a dislike for carry on like that. And he wasn't even a Geordie... Souness was an employee, hired and fired by the Halls and Shepherd. They were the major shareholders, they OWNED the club. In all walks of life, people who OWN business do things like this. I'm not saying I approve of it at all, its just life. If YOU ran a business, would you not look after your own family by giving them business which was profitable to both parties ? You had a go at Souness for helping out Rangers, yet give FS a pass for helping out his brother using the club's money, it wasn't his money, but the club's. As a PLC he was Chairman and major shareholder, he didn't own the club though, he was very much an employee like Souness. As for your other question, no I wouldn't try and help my family out, I'd help them out using my own money. It isn't as if FS's brother wasn't drawing a very good wage from the club anyway, he was, and he is a director, a well paid one, of his own company too. I think the word I'm looking for is: Greed! It is business. It happens everywhere. If it benefits both parties, and they are owners of the business, its business. It is also above board and legal. When employees do it, its basically stealing, fraud or cheating your employer. This is why the transfer is allegedly being investigated. It didn't help out "both parties", though, did it? It helped out the chairman's brother at the expense of the club, a public company.

It's also doubled in less than 1 page too. That's impressive. Fact is, all anyone is going on here is a newspaper article which doesn't give the source of the numbers it's using and the service it claims is being provided (ie simply storage). If there's any real source of information, then please share it, otherwise I'll consider it clearly nothing but another silly rumour. If everyone was as trusting and gullible, it's hard to imagine how much of the company's money Shepherd and his family might have walked away with.

No one should be surprised to hear that a review of the club's business is uncovering all sorts of dodginess, hidden debt and papered-over cracks. But Ashley selling out so quickly? Clearly nothing but another silly rumour.

Or Huckerby.

There are some very significant reasons why SKY would be bothered about Ashley. What, then? That would be another thread. But, Murdoch's failed proposal to buy ManU (was a clue) and his almost total obsession with PL broadcasting rights, along with his (well founded) fear of characters like Ashley, Al Fayed, Abramovitch and the new ManU owners who are rumoured to be looking at (hence their heightened interest in football) 'other means' of revenue streams aside from the TV deal. With streaming and broadband technology now at that stage. The money at stake in football and CL qualification and image ownership is at such a level now that there are a lot of cosy relationships that feel threatened. So because Murdoch couldn't buy Man U, and because the Premiership clubs are looking at increased revenue from new ways of distributing content, the Independent is making up stories about us wanting to sell Martins?

Mort is right.

There are some very significant reasons why SKY would be bothered about Ashley. What, then?

Listen the 'Daily Mail' ran month long campaigns against super-casinos being given less regulatory licensing and had it in for FS originally who openly was touting for this business. They were on some kind of moral crusade at the time. Murdoch's Sun went after Abrahamovich when he first took over at Chelsea running story after story about his finances and intentions, partly fed by ther resident Chelsea supporter columnist...There is a very cosy releationship currently with the London based media and the London clubs and they are regularly looking to have a go at the likes of Newcastle...And Newcastle with in their eyes public enemy NO.1 Ashley is atm a prime target. Bit confused, this, Parky. Stories directly about someone like Abramovich, as you describe, are hardly the same as transfer rumours. If the papers were pillorying Ashley himself, you might have a point. Remember, too, that just because newspapers are based in London doesn't mean that all their employees are Londoners or support London clubs. The journalist who annoys me most is a bloody mackem who works for the Guardian (Barry Glendinning), and it annoys me even more that I know he's trying to annoy me, but even that is just mischief on his part. I'd probably take the piss out of Sunderland if I was in his position. The idea that Murdoch is sitting in his Manhattan penthouse calling all his newspapers and telling them to run silly transfer rumours about Newcastle because Ashley is a bit of a renegade in City terms is, well, hard to take seriously.

Can't imagine Rupert Murdoch being that bothered about Ashley, either.

Conrad Black doesn't, and never did, own the Mail. Used to own the Telegraph. Now he owns no newspapers at all.

So if the Independent story is correct, Smith looks like the replacement for both Dyer and Martins. Gawd help us.

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it. It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either. Here: (Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.) http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this? Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore. Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock? Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale? Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed. As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh? Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future ? and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account. Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company. I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this s***, tbh. I can't believe anyone is so indignant about a transaction for a service when they have absolutely no idea what is involved. You make it sound like the club just had to buy a shed and fill it up with stuff. As opposed to renting a shed and filling it up with stuff? If it was easy for Shepherd Offshore plc to sell the thing, and easy for whatever brother Bruce's company is called to buy it, how much more complicated would it be to simply cut out the middle man? Perhaps you are correct. There is no reason to be annoyed at Shepherd diverting millions of the club's money into a family member's personal bank acccount via this warehouse deal, because if he hadn't done it this way, he would have done it another way. Good thinking. I am now completely mollified. Do you expect Ashley to put money the club doesn't directly make back into it? I don't. If the club's turnover is less than it could be potentially (eg kit & sponsorship deals) due to giving preferential (or cost free) deals to his other companies, the club's transfer and wage kitty will be lower. In this scenario, if we're lucky, he could legitimately say he was "putting his own money in" and be the heroic benefactor chairman even though it was money the club would have legitimately earned itself. I'd expect Ashley to put some money into the club in terms of him investing in his acquisition to increase the value of the business.

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it. It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either. Here: (Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.) http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this? Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore. Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock? Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale? Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed. As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh? Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future – and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account. Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company. I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this shit, tbh. As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business.

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it. It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either. Here: (Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.) http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html

We haven't operated among so many free transfer players since the late 1980's and early 1990's. If we don't back Allardyce, he will bugger off. Still, anyone but the Halls and Shepherd who let us all down all these years. Give them a chance man, I'll judge them after a few transfer windows. I seem to remember Dalglish having to sign a few freebies when FS become Chairman, Rush, Barnes and Pearce. I think you would find that was due to the initial constraints of becoming a PLC, maybe not though, maybe Dalglish wanted these signings because he knew and trusted them, who knows. We don't have any choice but to give them time, however the noises from Allardyce are worrying, and you won't be saying this if he buggers off. And could our lack of spending now not be down to this takeover and the review process? Of course it is. Just like Dalglish having to sell and bring in freebies had something to do with the floatation and not FS withholding money. It was also because we'd spunked more than we could afford on Shearer.