Ashley pays off further £45m of debt, Mort says club could well have folded

[ChezGiven]

I think lots of people said they were interested, anyone who had a serious look at the books, or had made the offer Ashley had would have got it easily. A business losing close to £1.m a month on top of huge debts has no bargaining position. It also has littl ein the way of attractions either.

 

Ashley, thankfully, doesn't have a money issue, and can take a very long approach. Even people who are only seriously rich,as opposed to obscenely rich couldn't have taken on our debts and liekly on-going losses.

 

Rubbish. He is a businessman. Any further description or analysis is redundant. The second sentence of this post contains all the information you need.

 

If people can take billions out of a failing northern rock by simple short selling, dont you think there are plenty of people out there capable of making money out of the club? How did the west ham finances look? The Man city finances, how were they? What about those Villa finances? Did they look like the investment of the century? I could go on....

 

 

[Guest Toony™®]

Considering he has wiped out £75m of the debt...the debt must be in single figures if not wiped according to some newspapers which placed it at £75m...

 

 

 

[quayside]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that he has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

Abramovich has lent Chelsea about £400 million interest free and he is shown in their accounts as a lender. The only reason Chelsea is not hugely insolvent is because Abramovich has given guarantees that he won't call it in - and in any case calling it in would be an extremely stupid thing to do when you own the club! But if he decided to sell he will want that money back from the new owner. 

[Guest alex]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

The 2nd scenario you mention doesn't seem to tally with the way it has been described, i.e. him putting his own money in. Some clarification is needed though.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that he has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

Abramovich has lent Chelsea about £400 million interest free and he is shown in their accounts as a lender. The only reason Chelsea is not hugely insolvent is because Abramovich has given guarantees that he won't call it in - and in any case calling it in would be an extremely stupid thing to do when you own the club! But if he decided to sell he will want that money back from the new owner. 

 

Your scenario is really just a technicality though.

 

Unless I''ve missed something St James Holdings now owns all of the share capital of Newcastle United, and Ashley owns all of (or if not the significant majority of) the capital of SJH.

 

Therefore the only person Ashley has to answer to in terms of the accounts of Newcastle United is Ashley himself. Hence, whever the money was put into the club as share capital (highly unlikey imo) or just effectively gave the club the cash is irrelevent unless there is a structured repayment (again I doubt this to be the case in the short term at least).

 

Ashley (for all his good work so far) is unlikely to die as the owner of Newcastle United, therefore he will be looking to ge this money back (including the debt repayment) at that point. He can (theroetically) make more return on his cash by leaving it in the club (more funds = better transfers = more prize money) than he would in a bank.

 

Sorry if thats a bit muddled, just grabbing 5 mins here at work so can't proof think this through!

[quayside]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

The 2nd scenario you mention doesn't seem to tally with the way it has been described, i.e. him putting his own money in. Some clarification is needed though.

 

 

In either scenario it would still be his own money. The money has been used to pay off an external  lender but it's a case of whether he has put it in as as capital or loan. If it's capital then it does not form part of the debt of the club. If its a loan then it would still be shown as debt but would just be from a different lender.  Sorry - don't want to get into too much  bean counter speak here but there is an important distinction. I don't know about anyone else but I think it's quite scary for Chelsea that they owe Abramovich well over £400 million. Could get entertaining for the rest of us if it all goes wrong at Stamford Bridge though   

[quayside]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that he has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

Abramovich has lent Chelsea about £400 million interest free and he is shown in their accounts as a lender. The only reason Chelsea is not hugely insolvent is because Abramovich has given guarantees that he won't call it in - and in any case calling it in would be an extremely stupid thing to do when you own the club! But if he decided to sell he will want that money back from the new owner. 

 

Your scenario is really just a technicality though.

 

Unless I''ve missed something St James Holdings now owns all of the share capital of Newcastle United, and Ashley owns all of (or if not the significant majority of) the capital of SJH.

 

Therefore the only person Ashley has to answer to in terms of the accounts of Newcastle United is Ashley himself. Hence, whever the money was put into the club as share capital (highly unlikey imo) or just effectively gave the club the cash is irrelevent unless there is a structured repayment (again I doubt this to be the case in the short term at least).

 

Ashley (for all his good work so far) is unlikely to die as the owner of Newcastle United, therefore he will be looking to ge this money back (including the debt repayment) at that point. He can (theroetically) make more return on his cash by leaving it in the club (more funds = better transfers = more prize money) than he would in a bank.

 

Sorry if thats a bit muddled, just grabbing 5 mins here at work so can't proof think this through!

 

No that's not muddled. Think you are right about St James Holdings and can't disagree with the rest of what you say. My point was more aimed at whether the loan has been wiped or not and the difference between capital and loan finance. The Abramovich example is an extreme one but I think its interesting that he has not shown the commitment to convert so much of his funding into capital. Makes Chelsea Limited's balance sheet look extremely sick as well!

[Parky]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that he has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

Abramovich has lent Chelsea about £400 million interest free and he is shown in their accounts as a lender. The only reason Chelsea is not hugely insolvent is because Abramovich has given guarantees that he won't call it in - and in any case calling it in would be an extremely stupid thing to do when you own the club! But if he decided to sell he will want that money back from the new owner. 

 

Your scenario is really just a technicality though.

 

Unless I''ve missed something St James Holdings now owns all of the share capital of Newcastle United, and Ashley owns all of (or if not the significant majority of) the capital of SJH.

 

Therefore the only person Ashley has to answer to in terms of the accounts of Newcastle United is Ashley himself. Hence, whever the money was put into the club as share capital (highly unlikey imo) or just effectively gave the club the cash is irrelevent unless there is a structured repayment (again I doubt this to be the case in the short term at least).

 

Ashley (for all his good work so far) is unlikely to die as the owner of Newcastle United, therefore he will be looking to ge this money back (including the debt repayment) at that point. He can (theroetically) make more return on his cash by leaving it in the club (more funds = better transfers = more prize money) than he would in a bank.

 

Sorry if thats a bit muddled, just grabbing 5 mins here at work so can't proof think this through!

 

No that's not muddled. Think you are right about St James Holdings and can't disagree with the rest of what you say. My point was more aimed at whether the loan has been wiped or not and the difference between capital and loan finance. The Abramovich example is an extreme one but I think its interesting that he has not shown the commitment to convert so much of his funding into capital. Makes Chelsea Limited's balance sheet look extremely sick as well!

 

 

What does that mean in laymans terms?

[quayside]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that he has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

Abramovich has lent Chelsea about £400 million interest free and he is shown in their accounts as a lender. The only reason Chelsea is not hugely insolvent is because Abramovich has given guarantees that he won't call it in - and in any case calling it in would be an extremely stupid thing to do when you own the club! But if he decided to sell he will want that money back from the new owner. 

 

Your scenario is really just a technicality though.

 

Unless I''ve missed something St James Holdings now owns all of the share capital of Newcastle United, and Ashley owns all of (or if not the significant majority of) the capital of SJH.

 

Therefore the only person Ashley has to answer to in terms of the accounts of Newcastle United is Ashley himself. Hence, whever the money was put into the club as share capital (highly unlikey imo) or just effectively gave the club the cash is irrelevent unless there is a structured repayment (again I doubt this to be the case in the short term at least).

 

Ashley (for all his good work so far) is unlikely to die as the owner of Newcastle United, therefore he will be looking to ge this money back (including the debt repayment) at that point. He can (theroetically) make more return on his cash by leaving it in the club (more funds = better transfers = more prize money) than he would in a bank.

 

Sorry if thats a bit muddled, just grabbing 5 mins here at work so can't proof think this through!

 

No that's not muddled. Think you are right about St James Holdings and can't disagree with the rest of what you say. My point was more aimed at whether the loan has been wiped or not and the difference between capital and loan finance. The Abramovich example is an extreme one but I think its interesting that he has not shown the commitment to convert so much of his funding into capital. Makes Chelsea Limited's balance sheet look extremely sick as well!

 

 

What does that mean in laymans terms?

 

It means that, due to the loans owed to their owner, Chelsea are technically insolvent (by about £300 million) and if Abramovich was so minded he could pull the plug on it. But if he had put the money in as capital instead of loan that danger (although remote) would not exist.

[Dragon55544]

* United's chief operating officer Russell Cushing and accountant Ken Slater – who have 60 years of experience working at St James's Park – will leave the club today.*

 

Was they sacked or did they quit?

[junkhead]

* United's chief operating officer Russell Cushing and accountant Ken Slater – who have 60 years of experience working at St James's Park – will leave the club today.*

 

Was they sacked or did they quit?

i'd say both

[Guest alex]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

The 2nd scenario you mention doesn't seem to tally with the way it has been described, i.e. him putting his own money in. Some clarification is needed though.

 

 

In either scenario it would still be his own money. The money has been used to pay off an external  lender but it's a case of whether he has put it in as as capital or loan. If it's capital then it does not form part of the debt of the club. If its a loan then it would still be shown as debt but would just be from a different lender.  Sorry - don't want to get into too much  bean counter speak here but there is an important distinction. I don't know about anyone else but I think it's quite scary for Chelsea that they owe Abramovich well over £400 million. Could get entertaining for the rest of us if it all goes wrong at Stamford Bridge though   

I know it's still his 'own money' in either case but at no point has a loan been mentioned.

[Kitman]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that he has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

Abramovich has lent Chelsea about £400 million interest free and he is shown in their accounts as a lender. The only reason Chelsea is not hugely insolvent is because Abramovich has given guarantees that he won't call it in - and in any case calling it in would be an extremely stupid thing to do when you own the club! But if he decided to sell he will want that money back from the new owner. 

 

Your scenario is really just a technicality though.

 

Unless I''ve missed something St James Holdings now owns all of the share capital of Newcastle United, and Ashley owns all of (or if not the significant majority of) the capital of SJH.

 

Therefore the only person Ashley has to answer to in terms of the accounts of Newcastle United is Ashley himself. Hence, whever the money was put into the club as share capital (highly unlikey imo) or just effectively gave the club the cash is irrelevent unless there is a structured repayment (again I doubt this to be the case in the short term at least).

 

Ashley (for all his good work so far) is unlikely to die as the owner of Newcastle United, therefore he will be looking to ge this money back (including the debt repayment) at that point. He can (theroetically) make more return on his cash by leaving it in the club (more funds = better transfers = more prize money) than he would in a bank.

 

Sorry if thats a bit muddled, just grabbing 5 mins here at work so can't proof think this through!

 

No that's not muddled. Think you are right about St James Holdings and can't disagree with the rest of what you say. My point was more aimed at whether the loan has been wiped or not and the difference between capital and loan finance. The Abramovich example is an extreme one but I think its interesting that he has not shown the commitment to convert so much of his funding into capital. Makes Chelsea Limited's balance sheet look extremely sick as well!

 

 

What does that mean in laymans terms?

 

It means that, due to the loans owed to their owner, Chelsea are technically insolvent (by about £300 million) and if Abramovich was so minded he could pull the plug on it. But if he had put the money in as capital instead of loan that danger (although remote) would not exist.

 

There's a further subtle difference.  With a loan the money can be demanded by the lender and it would be extracted from the club - for us this is not the doomsday scenario it would be for Chelsea but it means money would leave the club permanently.  With share capital it's easy to put the money in and difficult to get the money out unless the shares are redeemable preference shares, a special class of share which can be cancelled.  Typically to get your money back on normal shares you have to sell them on.

 

Therefore if Ahsley has put the money in as share capital, I would take it as a vote of confidence in the club, a sign he wants to invest for the longer term, and doesn't - like certain corpulent former shareholders - want to get money out of the club in the short term.

[quayside]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

The 2nd scenario you mention doesn't seem to tally with the way it has been described, i.e. him putting his own money in. Some clarification is needed though.

 

 

In either scenario it would still be his own money. The money has been used to pay off an external  lender but it's a case of whether he has put it in as as capital or loan. If it's capital then it does not form part of the debt of the club. If its a loan then it would still be shown as debt but would just be from a different lender.  Sorry - don't want to get into too much  bean counter speak here but there is an important distinction. I don't know about anyone else but I think it's quite scary for Chelsea that they owe Abramovich well over £400 million. Could get entertaining for the rest of us if it all goes wrong at Stamford Bridge though   

I know it's still his 'own money' in either case but at no point has a loan been mentioned.

 

The club is private now so there is no requirement to say anything tbh. By the same token at no point has share capital been mentioned. Has it ever been publicised that Abramovich has loaned Chelsea more than £400 million?

[Guest alex]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

The 2nd scenario you mention doesn't seem to tally with the way it has been described, i.e. him putting his own money in. Some clarification is needed though.

 

 

In either scenario it would still be his own money. The money has been used to pay off an external  lender but it's a case of whether he has put it in as as capital or loan. If it's capital then it does not form part of the debt of the club. If its a loan then it would still be shown as debt but would just be from a different lender.  Sorry - don't want to get into too much  bean counter speak here but there is an important distinction. I don't know about anyone else but I think it's quite scary for Chelsea that they owe Abramovich well over £400 million. Could get entertaining for the rest of us if it all goes wrong at Stamford Bridge though   

I know it's still his 'own money' in either case but at no point has a loan been mentioned.

 

The club is private now so there is no requirement to say anything tbh. By the same token at no point has share capital been mentioned. Has it ever been publicised that Abramovich has loaned Chelsea more than £400 million?

You tell me, you're the one who brought it up

[quayside]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that he has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

Abramovich has lent Chelsea about £400 million interest free and he is shown in their accounts as a lender. The only reason Chelsea is not hugely insolvent is because Abramovich has given guarantees that he won't call it in - and in any case calling it in would be an extremely stupid thing to do when you own the club! But if he decided to sell he will want that money back from the new owner. 

 

Your scenario is really just a technicality though.

 

Unless I''ve missed something St James Holdings now owns all of the share capital of Newcastle United, and Ashley owns all of (or if not the significant majority of) the capital of SJH.

 

Therefore the only person Ashley has to answer to in terms of the accounts of Newcastle United is Ashley himself. Hence, whever the money was put into the club as share capital (highly unlikey imo) or just effectively gave the club the cash is irrelevent unless there is a structured repayment (again I doubt this to be the case in the short term at least).

 

Ashley (for all his good work so far) is unlikely to die as the owner of Newcastle United, therefore he will be looking to ge this money back (including the debt repayment) at that point. He can (theroetically) make more return on his cash by leaving it in the club (more funds = better transfers = more prize money) than he would in a bank.

 

Sorry if thats a bit muddled, just grabbing 5 mins here at work so can't proof think this through!

 

No that's not muddled. Think you are right about St James Holdings and can't disagree with the rest of what you say. My point was more aimed at whether the loan has been wiped or not and the difference between capital and loan finance. The Abramovich example is an extreme one but I think its interesting that he has not shown the commitment to convert so much of his funding into capital. Makes Chelsea Limited's balance sheet look extremely sick as well!

 

 

What does that mean in laymans terms?

 

It means that, due to the loans owed to their owner, Chelsea are technically insolvent (by about £300 million) and if Abramovich was so minded he could pull the plug on it. But if he had put the money in as capital instead of loan that danger (although remote) would not exist.

 

There's a further subtle difference.  With a loan the money can be demanded by the lender and it would be extracted from the club - for us this is not the doomsday scenario it would be for Chelsea but it means money would leave the club permanently.  With share capital it's easy to put the money in and difficult to get the money out unless the shares are redeemable preference shares, a special class of share which can be cancelled.  Typically to get your money back on normal shares you have to sell them on.

 

Therefore if Ahsley has put the money in as share capital, I would take it as a vote of confidence in the club, a sign he wants to invest for the longer term, and doesn't - like certain corpulent former shareholders - want to get money out of the club in the short term.

 

Quite. We'll just have to wait until the next accounts are filed to find out how the finance has been structured.

[quayside]

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped.

 

The 2nd scenario you mention doesn't seem to tally with the way it has been described, i.e. him putting his own money in. Some clarification is needed though.

 

 

In either scenario it would still be his own money. The money has been used to pay off an external  lender but it's a case of whether he has put it in as as capital or loan. If it's capital then it does not form part of the debt of the club. If its a loan then it would still be shown as debt but would just be from a different lender.  Sorry - don't want to get into too much  bean counter speak here but there is an important distinction. I don't know about anyone else but I think it's quite scary for Chelsea that they owe Abramovich well over £400 million. Could get entertaining for the rest of us if it all goes wrong at Stamford Bridge though   

I know it's still his 'own money' in either case but at no point has a loan been mentioned.

 

The club is private now so there is no requirement to say anything tbh. By the same token at no point has share capital been mentioned. Has it ever been publicised that Abramovich has loaned Chelsea more than £400 million?

You tell me, you're the one who brought it up

 

Not that I have seen - plenty of coverage of how many zillions Abramovich has invested but I've never seen owt about what sort of funding it is. 

[Exiled in Texas]

Quite. We'll just have to wait until the next accounts are filed to find out how the finance has been structured.

 

But now that the club is private I doubt accounts will ever be filed publicly.  Private companies don't have to file annual reports.

We'll probably never know exactly how he invested the money.

[quayside]

Quite. We'll just have to wait until the next accounts are filed to find out how the finance has been structured.

 

But now that the club is private I doubt accounts will ever be filed publicly.  Private companies don't have to file annual reports.

We'll probably never know exactly how he invested the money.

 

Not so - all UK companies have to file accounts at Companies House. And for the sum of £1 you can download them from the Companies House website.

[macbeth]

The accounts of SJ Holdings will show it the same way HFC Holdings shwo the Hibs finances. Tom Famer did exactly what Asheley has done. Farmer has now had the huge loans paid back to him. It took him 17 years 

[madras]

The accounts of SJ Holdings will show it the same way HFC Holdings shwo the Hibs finances. Tom Famer did exactly what Asheley has done. Farmer has now had the huge loans paid back to him. It took him 17 years 

so i may have been right all along ?

[2sheds]

The silence on this topic from NE5 and HTL is deafening.

 

Yes still no sign of the chuckle brothers yet.

 

They are too busy setting the forum straight on whether we need defenders or not in another thread.

 

I'm amazed they haven't noticed this one.

[Guest Reg]

As i cant set up a new thread, i thought id copy this story into here. ...

 

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/3009_toongate_exposed.shtml

 

TOON SPIES EXPOSED

Newscastle United security chief targeted stars in phone-bugging operation

 

By Mazher Mahmood

The News of the World has exposed a sensational bugging scandal at the heart of one of the Premiership's biggest clubs.

We reveal how a spy was paid to carry out a series of far-reaching illegal SURVEILLANCE and SABOTAGE operations at Newcastle United that will rock football.

 

Security consultant Brian Tough was ordered to TAP PHONES of unhappy managers and players—and even take SECRET FILM of England legend Alan Shearer that could be used against him if he tried to leave the club.

 

The spy—on a £40,000 a year retainer plus cash bungs for top secret operations—also spills the beans on how he BUGGED:

 

TOON legend Kevin Keegan's calls to his wife to see if he was planning to quit as manager

 

RIVAL team Sunderland's chairman Bob Murray—to find out secret plans for their new stadium

 

EX-GOVERNMENT advisor Alaistair Balls, then a development corporation chief working on funding for the Wearside club's ground

 

THE EDITOR of a local newspaper because he'd run knocking stories on the club, and even

 

THE BUTLER of 74-year-old Newcastle president Sir John Hall.

 

And in an explosive revelation that will incense loyal Toon fans, Tough reveals how he was paid to SCUPPER a supporters' campaign to stop the club taking 4,000 seats away from them for rich clients.

 

In a shattering confession, Tough says: "At times I felt really bad about it, especially when I spied on our own players and senior staff. The players and fans would have gone mad if they had found out what I was up to."

 

The bugging took place during the reign of disgraced Toon bosses Freddie Shepherd and Douglas Hall—both caught by the News of the World in a Spanish brothel ridiculing players and fans in 1999 in a soccer scandal that became known as Toongate.

 

Last night Shepherd—ousted as Newcastle chairman in a summer takeover by sports shops tycoon Mike Ashley—ADMITTED he found out about 52-year-old Tough's phone tapping in 2004 after it happened.

 

But the portly 65-year-old—who walked away from Newcastle with £37 million and is believed to be considering buying into Leeds United—said Toongate Two was nothing to do with him.

 

"Tough did make me aware of what he had done but I did not condone it," he said. "I couldn't control what he did. He didn't work for me. I had nothing to do with bugging anybody."

 

However he failed to pass this information about illegal activities at his club onto police.

 

Tough was employed by former Newcastle vice-chairman Douglas, Sir John's son, as a security consultant in 1994. He was paid through Cameron Hall Developments. Douglas, 47, was the chairman of this property development company, which had been set up by his Sir John.

 

Tough—who doubled up as a bodyguard for Douglas—told us: "I was the man tasked with carrying out the dirty work. I personally arranged bugging operations.

 

"I didn't do this off my own bat. I knew what I was being asked to sort out was potentially illegal, but at the time I was just so happy to be in with the club and so I went for it."

 

The price was £3,000 a time in cash for a phone tap to be placed on a victim's line—plus a monitoring fee of around £500 a day.

 

"Any juicy tapes were immediately to be brought to my contact at the club. I even played some of the tapes in boxes at St James' Park," claimed Tough.

 

His secret missions included:

 

THE KEEGAN TAP: In 1997 the then Newcastle boss was rumoured to be about to leave the club. Tough said: "I was told to find out what he was up to and if he had another job lined up by having his phone tapped.

 

"It was a difficult one since the people I employed to do it were unable to tamper with the overhead wires at Keegan's home. They had to doctor the telephone wires underground."

 

In one call the England legend's wife Jean joked to her husband that he should be careful about what he said on the phone in case somebody was preparing the ‘Keegangate tapes'. "I was laughing as I heard her say those words," said Tough.

 

THE SHEARER FILM: In 1999 Ruud Gullit was Newcastle boss and was at loggerheads with Toon legend Shearer.

 

On August 25, the former England captain was called into Shepherd's office for a crisis meeting shortly before Gullit was to drop him for a game against Sunderland.

 

Tough was ordered to film the meeting, unbeknown to both Shepherd and Shearer.

 

He said: "I was told to get him on tape talking about his future. If I had him on video expressing his loyalty to the club, it could become useful to embarrass him in case he decided to leave.

 

"I still remember the video. Shearer was wearing blue jeans, a beige polo neck sweater and Timberland boots. He told Shepherd, ‘I'm not going anywhere'."

 

THE SUNDERLAND TAP: In November 1995 Tough was told to find out where Newcastle's arch rivals were getting their funding for the Stadium of Light. An an elaborate surveillance operation was put in place to bug the club's then chairman Bob Murray.

 

The tap yielded a surprise piece of damaging propaganda in the enmity between the clubs.

 

During one taped phone call Murray was heard talking about a new sponsor for their team kit.

 

Tough said: "The new kit was to be issued in the New Year, and since Christmas was coming up Murray wanted to keep it quiet so fans would buy up the old shirts.

 

"I was ordered to phone a local journalist and play the tape to him." Tough's paymaster was delighted when the story made the front page of the local paper and embarrassed their rival team.

 

THE BUGGED ADVISOR: Tough's subterfuge was almost rumbled when a phone tap was discovered by police at the home of Alastair Balls, the former government advisor and chief executive of the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation, in 1995.

 

The device was installed at his home in Wylam, Northumberland, to gather intelligence about funding for the Sunderland stadium.

 

But Balls' wife Beryl reported a fault on on the line to BT and the device was found. Police launched an investigation to find out who had planted the transmitter but drew a blank.

 

Tough said: "You would have thought that with this making all the papers and with senior police officers involved I would have been told to call it a day, but it was all considered a joke and I just carried on bugging targets.

 

I believed it was all for the benefit of the club I loved so much."

 

THE PARANOIA TAPS: Even the BUTLER at Sir John Hall's palatial home, an Egyptian called Esau, was monitored by Tough in one of his crazier jobs. He recalled: "Esau had told Sir John that he was leaving after many years of service and I wanted to find out why he was going and where.

 

"I discovered he had lined up a new job—working for Kevin Keegan! Sir John would have been horrified if he knew what I was up to."

 

Other victims included the Newcastle Journal editor. His phone was tapped in 1995 after he had fallen out with the club. And Tough even bugged Douglas Hall's home, Wellington Manor, where he lived with his ex-wife model Tonia.

 

THE SABOTAGED CAMPAIGN: Tough was also ordered to scupper Newcastle supporters' Save Our Seats campaign in 1999 which was backed by the News of the World.

 

We supported the Toon Army in their fight to stop the club handing over 4,000 supporters' seats to corporate clients. When campaign organisers, led by fan Jane Duffy planned to fly a banner over the ground during a match Tough was ordered to take action.

 

He went to the local airfield and paid a £2,000 cash bung to make sure that the aircraft would be declared "unfit to fly" for the afternoon.

 

Tough, who is willing to be interviewed by police, said he has fallen out with Douglas Hall who walked away from Newcastle after the takeover with his share of the Hall family's £55 million from the club.

 

The minder claimed he helped set up an office for the club in Gibraltar where he lived with Hall, who became a tax exile. Hall was picking up £500,000 a year from shareholders money to run an empty office on the rock.

 

When Tough told him he planned to spill the beans about a massive bugging operation at the club, Hall replied: "Bri, I didn't think you were like that, you are not like that. You are f**king not like that. If that's what you want to do, do it."

 

Newcastle fans rejoiced when sleazy Shepherd and Hall were driven out of St James's Park by Mike Ashley's surprise takeover. But the club is still blighted by controversy.

 

St James's Park was raided on July 16, along with Portsmouth's Fratton Park stadium and Glasgow Rangers' Ilbrox ground as part of a massive soccer corruption probe.

 

The club put out a statement claiming they were victims rather than perpetrators of any wrongdoing: "If the club has been the victim of any criminal activity, the club will take appropriate action."

 

Shepherd said he believed the police were not investigating anyone at St James's and that United bosses had "done nothing wrong" and were "spotless". But he and Hall were found to be far from spotless in 1998 when we caught them in a Spanish brothel on an undercover investigation.

 

Shepherd infamously described Geordie women as "dogs" and bragged how he travelled the world to score with prostitutes.

 

Accompanied at the time by Tough, they ridiculed their players— calling Alan Shearer "Mary Poppins" and Kevin Keegan "Shirley Temple". They also boasted how they ripped off loyal Toon fans over merchandise.

 

The shamed bosses were both forced to resign, but because of their financial stake in the club were able to return in a matter of months. Hall is now living in Spain with his former mistress, an ex-secretary at the club.

 

The Toon Army are unlikely to be in a forgiving mood after a 3-1 away defeat to Manchester City yesterday—and this latest scandal will only fuel their anger at the men who used to lead their club.

 

A spokesperson for Newcastle United said: "This story relates to a previous era and has no relevance how the club is run under the new regime."

[madras]

A spokesperson for Newcastle United said: "This story relates to a previous era and has no relevance how the club is run under the new regime."

 

aye

[Keefaz]

Sounds like a load of shit, tbh.