OzzieMandias

The blather seems to indicate that HTL is unable point to his acknowledgment that responsibility for the state of the club rests with the people who make the decisions, appoint the staff and sign the cheques.

That's good to know. Please direct us to the post where you acknowledge that responsibility for the state of the club rests with the people who are making the decisions and signing the cheques.

I don't like him at all but he's better than what we currently have available. Plus, he's experienced, and experience helps when you're scrapping around at the bottom of the table.

Looks like NE5 still can't figure out that 16 is less than 120, or that Fat Fred signs the cheques.

Good post. Bears repeating, as this basic and obvious fact is often overlooked by those having difficulty with the big picture:

That was going to be my next post! :winking:

:lol: spoken like a true deluded bandwagon jumper Spoken like an ignorant scare-monger. As discussed on the "NUFC-Finances" thread, the club has net assets (value of fixed assets minus debt) of around £16 million (source: the club's latest financial report). To take ownership of the club would cost around £120 million. Some may be daft enough to believe that it's worth spending £120 million to strip assets worth £16 million, but they're more likely to be found posting fatuous pro-Shepherd arguments on this board than running the kind of operation which has that much to invest.

Nothing compared to the pressure of the England job.

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 main reason for the fall in net assets is the dividends being taken by the directors the depreciation on the stadium and the wages paid. Excessive transfer fees may make the cash position look bad, but as MB said above, doesn't really affect net assets Yes, the financial position was clearly worsening even without the money spent on transfer fees paid during the Souness period. The wage/turnover ratio is of course something else.

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.

Thanks, Macbeth. So, given that the cost of taking over ownership of the club would be around £120 million, it's clear that there would be less than nothing in the deal for any "asset-stripper".

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. Yes, that's really what I mean. There's a lot of hysterical talk about "asset-strippers", so it would be useful to see what assets actually exist to strip.

Errr aye. The Board sanction the release of funds for all transfers. Do you think the cleaner does it, or something? Yep, as you so correctly point out, the board are to blame for leading the club into debt.

I wasn't on the board when your hero who has led the club into debt appointed Souness. Your memory is as faulty as your arguments are pathetic. Thought of any strippable assets yet?

What I'd be interested to see added is a valuation of the club's fixed assets.

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/2006results.htm

The word of the day is Naive You'll have no problem, then, detailing NUFC's strippable assets.

The club isn't going to get bought by an asset-stripper – for the simple reason that there are no assets to strip. The club does however have what economists call "intangible assets" – and in our case that basically means the fan base, and a footballing brand that could be further developed in a variety of ways. Can't strip those, and making money out of them involves performance on the pitch. Nobody's going to buy the club unless they think they can make a better go of it than the current owners.

Well, "we" (Fat Fred, anyway) had a choice of what kind of contract to offer.

What are you going to say when Fat Fred gets us relegated? Same old shite? never mind Ozzie, they may bring back your man Souness, as its his level think about it, but I doubt you'll get it Same old shite, then.

This bit deserves highlighting:

Top managers aren't interested in the club anymore. Or hadn't you noticed?

What are you going to say when Fat Fred gets us relegated? Same old shite?

Yeah, it's spot on.

Actually, I'm all for giving credit where its due. Examples such as the stadium extension, appointing Robson and backing him with the clubs money to get us some great nights of football in the Champions League, all the credit in the World to Shepherd for that. However (IMO) he doesn't deserve the credit you're giving him for the appointment of Keegan, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. except it isn't my opinion, its because Keegan himself says so. But I'm sure you know otherwise. As I've said, Shepherd was small fry at the time and was in agreement with Hall and Fletcher, similar to Bruce Shepherd being in agreement with Douglas Hall and his brother over appointing Robson, everybody knew Fletcher was the main drive behind the club at the time. You're coming across as if they head hunted a top manager when in truth his appointment was down to luck and a lack of options. That is my opinion on the matter. I don't know whether it was luck or not and don't really care, I'm stating the fact that Keegan says Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher chose him, and persuaded him to take the job. And its not an opinion, its what he says. Therefore the credit for that goes to those 3 people. I doubt very much a top manager would have looked at Newcastle at that time, yes, in fact they hadn't done for over 30 years previously, its only the efforts of the board since 1992 that have put the club in the position where top managers ARE interested in the club. Keegan seems to think Freddie Fletcher was behind the clubs up turn - "He is a very ambitious, very clever man who played a vital role in the developement of the club. I couldn't have done it without him, without the Halls' money, without Douglas's brilliance with figures, or director Russell Jones's expertise with the stadium, which he built as quickly as we built the team." So they were the reasons the club turned around, can't see him giving Shepherd credit anywhere for the change in fortune of the club. But I'm sure you know otherwise. I also think Fletcher was a very clever man. But I am just quoting Keegans comments. Not giving credit where it is due to someone is of course your prerogative, but your judgement and prespective would be better if you were able to look at comments more clinically and not exercise such bias towards individuals for whatever reason you choose to use. Aye, that's the problem. The folk who are fed up and appalled that the mis-management of resources over a ten-year period has led us into the current position – entering a relegation battle with a crap manager, a threadbare squad and yet another major injury crisis with apparently no money to reinforce – are just "biased".