Mort: I’m in charge

[Mowen]

I figured that, but he seems to have overlooked the underlying point behind the two posts I quoted.

[Mick]

44 of the £100 million was for the ground and some of that will have been paid off, most of the debt was from running the club at a loss, buying players who were not good enough and paying off sacked managers will have been a big chunk of the debt.

[Mick]

 

It's quite ironic that so many people, on an almost daily basis, were screaming at the old board to "splash the cash", then accused them of "being s***" when they did, and now are making every excuse possible for the new owners not to show the desire and ambition to match the top 4 teams, in fact they are backing statements that indicate they are quite happy with a mid table finish. If the old board had said that - which is one thing they never did - they would have been absolutely slaughtered. There are a number of people swallowing these PR gimmicks it would seem.

 

As for Ashley clearing debts, it is a very good move to clear the debt due to the stadium expansion. He has increased the value of the club enormously by doing that.

 

 

 

The irony is that the net spend under Shepherd was £9.1m per season, the net spend so far under Mort (the chairman for the benefit of NE5) is £10 million.

 

The debt from the stadium wasn't over £100 million but that's the debt that the club was carrying when Ashley (the owner for the benefit of NE5) bought it.

[Minhosa]

NE5 - I don't mean this in a patronising manner and apologise in advance if thats how it comes across but..........you've made your points about the previous regime in a million and one threads now, you're not daft, so why don't you give it a break for a while?

 

There is a core of posters on this site who know your opinion well and by constantly re-iterating your point people will get sick of you and your contribution.

 

You've got so much to add to the site and forum in terms of historic knowledge of the club, older players and you're view on how things are going currently and this constant argument about Shepherds regime will result in people (incorrectly) tarring you with a certain brush.

 

As a compromise - Why don't we try a one post response to any anti-shepherd/previous owners threads, make your point (just in case people forget your thoughts) and leave it at that?

 

Please don't take this the wrong way. I feel it needs to be said for the good of the forum because I for one get sick of scrolling through millions of Old Board were great/Shepherd was shite arguments.

[madras]

NE5 - I don't mean this in a patronising manner and apologise in advance if thats how it comes across but..........you've made your points about the previous regime in a million and one threads now, you're not daft, so why don't you give it a break for a while?

 

There is a core of posters on this site who know your opinion well and by constantly re-iterating your point people will get sick of you and your contribution.

 

You've got so much to add to the site and forum in terms of historic knowledge of the club, older players and you're view on how things are going currently and this constant argument about Shepherds regime will result in people (incorrectly) tarring you with a certain brush.

 

As a compromise - Why don't we try a one post response to any anti-shepherd/previous owners threads, make your point (just in case people forget your thoughts) and leave it at that?

 

Please don't take this the wrong way. I feel it needs to be said for the good of the forum because I for one get sick of scrolling through millions of Old Board were great/Shepherd was s**** arguments.

to be fair that should be directed at the core of posters aswell (of which i have been known to drift in and out)

[Mick]

all the managers bought and sold plenty of players. the net spend isn't as high as you'd think.i wonder what the net spend of ashleys first transfer window was compared to those of the previous.

 

 

 

 

Morts net spend is £1 million more than we averaged under the last chairman.

[Minhosa]

NE5 - I don't mean this in a patronising manner and apologise in advance if thats how it comes across but..........you've made your points about the previous regime in a million and one threads now, you're not daft, so why don't you give it a break for a while?

 

There is a core of posters on this site who know your opinion well and by constantly re-iterating your point people will get sick of you and your contribution.

 

You've got so much to add to the site and forum in terms of historic knowledge of the club, older players and you're view on how things are going currently and this constant argument about Shepherds regime will result in people (incorrectly) tarring you with a certain brush.

 

As a compromise - Why don't we try a one post response to any anti-shepherd/previous owners threads, make your point (just in case people forget your thoughts) and leave it at that?

 

Please don't take this the wrong way. I feel it needs to be said for the good of the forum because I for one get sick of scrolling through millions of Old Board were great/Shepherd was s**** arguments.

to be fair that should be directed at the core of posters aswell (of which i have been known to drift in and out)

 

Maybe you're right but it's just NE5 always seems to rise to any potential board bashing and a simple "I don't agree - I always thought Shepherd had the Club's best interests at heart as I've said 1 million times"

would probably avert such long arguments.

 

[NE5]

 

It's quite ironic that so many people, on an almost daily basis, were screaming at the old board to "splash the cash", then accused them of "being s***" when they did, and now are making every excuse possible for the new owners not to show the desire and ambition to match the top 4 teams, in fact they are backing statements that indicate they are quite happy with a mid table finish. If the old board had said that - which is one thing they never did - they would have been absolutely slaughtered. There are a number of people swallowing these PR gimmicks it would seem.

 

As for Ashley clearing debts, it is a very good move to clear the debt due to the stadium expansion. He has increased the value of the club enormously by doing that.

 

 

 

The irony is that the net spend under Shepherd was £9.1m per season, the net spend so far under Mort (the chairman for the benefit of NE5) is £10 million.

 

The debt from the stadium wasn't over £100 million but that's the debt that the club was carrying when Ashley (the owner for the benefit of NE5) bought it.

 

I'm pleased you now can see the difference between the chairman and major shareholder/owner, as its escaped you for a number of years.

 

 

[NE5]

I don't think so somehow. I suppose you were desperate to see Shepherd fail just because he called you nasty names ? You certainly appear to think he's been replaced by someone else who think is better on account of buying people a pint and wearing his shirt at games - both actions nothing other than a PR gimmick. We will wait until Ashley hopefully at least equals those Champions League finishes before saying he's even "as good". Well, the sensible people around will anyway.

 

 

if he wiped out the clubs debt,out of his own pocket how would that lie with you ?

Spending over 200m of his own cash shows more ambition than getting the club into debt to sign Owen tbh...

It's a shame how some things just get overlooked....

 

wiped out the clubs debt and increased its saleable value ?

 

You're right mate, its a shame how things are overlooked and "spin" is put onto some things. I haven't overlooked it at all, I just see it as it is. This is what it is, the club was sold at a cheaper price because of the debt, now he's paid what he would have paid if it hadn't had the stadium debt ? Do you understand this ? Its a sound business decision, and of course the club is better for it, but Ashley has increased its value accordingly, he hasn't lost money at all.

 

 

[Mick]

 

I'm pleased you now can see the difference between the chairman and major shareholder/owner, as its escaped you for a number of years.

 

 

 

Really? 

 

I may be wrong but I always thought that the chairman ran the club and made the decisions and the major shareholder/owner stayed in the background and let the chairman do the job he was employed to do which takes us back to the original post where the current chairman was saying just that. 

[NE5]

44 of the £100 million was for the ground and some of that will have been paid off, most of the debt was from running the club at a loss, buying players who were not good enough andc paying off sacked managers ]/b] will have been a big chunk of the debt.

 

So you think that we were the only board who bought players that weren't good enough. Qualifying for europe more than any team bar 4 - in spite of you absurdly thinking it was "the same as" the previous 30 years, puts such comments into context.

 

Do you think that Faye, Cacapa, Enrique, Beye, Viduka, Rozenhal are "good enough" to get into the top 4 teams ? Oh, or course, you prefer these to the "trophy players".

 

I'm also pleased for you that you indicate you think we should have stuck with Dalglish, Gullit, souness and Roeder rather than pay them off. Shame we didnt' find that new Alex Ferguson instead, wherever he is. How incompetent can you get eh  mackems.gif

 

 

[Dave]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

I'm pleased you now can see the difference between the chairman and major shareholder/owner, as its escaped you for a number of years.

 

 

 

Really? 

 

I may be wrong but I always thought that the chairman ran the club and made the decisions and the major shareholder/owner stayed in the background and let the chairman do the job he was employed to do which takes us back to the original post where the current chairman was saying just that. 

 

you mean like "backing his manager" ? Is this what a good board does, or do you prefer "not backing his manager". As Mort appears to indicate his decision ie his comment that "he" will spend money. How does that grab you ? I asked you earlier, what would you say if we lost players such as David Bently and Dean Ashton to someone like Everton or Man City on financial grounds, and you didn't really reply ?

 

Are you happy that he seems to be happy with mid table mediocrity this season, or are you rather stupidly going to support that stupid comment earlier that it is me who wants them to fail when its me who is kicking up a fuss about them being happy with mid table mediocrity ?

 

We won't mention your favourite board ie McKeags, Seymours, etc considering this to be success. Maybe this is territory you prefer yourself ? [so long as he doesn't call you nasty names and embarrass you, thats alright ]

 

 

[Minhosa]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

;D ;D

 

I tried Dave..........I tried.

[NE5]

NE5 - I don't mean this in a patronising manner and apologise in advance if thats how it comes across but..........you've made your points about the previous regime in a million and one threads now, you're not daft, so why don't you give it a break for a while?

 

There is a core of posters on this site who know your opinion well and by constantly re-iterating your point people will get sick of you and your contribution.

 

You've got so much to add to the site and forum in terms of historic knowledge of the club, older players and you're view on how things are going currently and this constant argument about Shepherds regime will result in people (incorrectly) tarring you with a certain brush.

 

As a compromise - Why don't we try a one post response to any anti-shepherd/previous owners threads, make your point (just in case people forget your thoughts) and leave it at that?

 

Please don't take this the wrong way. I feel it needs to be said for the good of the forum because I for one get sick of scrolling through millions of Old Board were great/Shepherd was shite arguments.

 

its mainly people like Mick who disagree with me mate  Just posting facts like .....

 

I'm massively pissed off with Morts apparent acceptance of the need not to spend money in January and show ambition, or however he phrases it ..... thats all. You have to be prepared to bring quality players to the club at all times, and you have to show you are prepared to beat off the competition to get them.

 

 

[madras]

 

I'm pleased you now can see the difference between the chairman and major shareholder/owner, as its escaped you for a number of years.

 

 

 

Really? 

 

I may be wrong but I always thought that the chairman ran the club and made the decisions and the major shareholder/owner stayed in the background and let the chairman do the job he was employed to do which takes us back to the original post where the current chairman was saying just that. 

 

you mean like "backing his manager" ? Is this what a good board does, or do you prefer "not backing his manager". As Mort appears to indicate his decision ie his comment that "he" will spend money. How does that grab you ? I asked you earlier, what would you say if we lost players such as David Bently and Dean Ashton to someone like Everton or Man City on financial grounds, and you didn't really reply ?

 

Are you happy that he seems to be happy with mid table mediocrity this season, or are you rather stupidly going to support that stupid comment earlier that it is me who wants them to fail when its me who is kicking up a fuss about them being happy with mid table mediocrity ?

 

We won't mention your favourite board ie McKeags, Seymours, etc considering this to be success. Maybe this is territory you prefer yourself ? [so long as he doesn't call you nasty names and embarrass you, thats alright ]

 

 

ashley has backed someone elses appointment to the tune of £10mill net

[Mick]

 

wiped out the clubs debt and increased its saleable value ?

 

You're right mate, its a shame how things are overlooked and "spin" is put onto some things. I haven't overlooked it at all, I just see it as it is. This is what it is, the club was sold at a cheaper price because of the debt, now he's paid what he would have paid if it hadn't had the stadium debt ? Do you understand this ? Its a sound business decision, and of course the club is better for it, but Ashley has increased its value accordingly, he hasn't lost money at all.

 

 

 

Is it not possible that the debt was wiped out so that we once again became solvent and able to build for the future without having to service massive levels of debt?  Is it possible that the owner wiped the debt out so that he could allow the chairman to make decisions for the football club without having to go to him with a begging bowl asking him to dip into his pocket?

 

The football club without debt can then be run on its own resources and we're not paying £millions to banks, we can spend what we bring in.

 

Of course he could be trying to raise the asking price for the club but that doesn't make sense at all because the net value of the club will not change.  He paid £135million and has wiped out £75 million of the £100 million debt, he still had to get £210 million for him to break even and a buyer would still have £25 million in debt which still adds up to £235 million, no matter how it's dressed up.

 

The only difference it makes to the club is that we don't pay massive amounts in interest payments.

 

Anyway, you can have the last word.

[Minhosa]

NE5 - I don't mean this in a patronising manner and apologise in advance if thats how it comes across but..........you've made your points about the previous regime in a million and one threads now, you're not daft, so why don't you give it a break for a while?

 

There is a core of posters on this site who know your opinion well and by constantly re-iterating your point people will get sick of you and your contribution.

 

You've got so much to add to the site and forum in terms of historic knowledge of the club, older players and you're view on how things are going currently and this constant argument about Shepherds regime will result in people (incorrectly) tarring you with a certain brush.

 

As a compromise - Why don't we try a one post response to any anti-shepherd/previous owners threads, make your point (just in case people forget your thoughts) and leave it at that?

 

Please don't take this the wrong way. I feel it needs to be said for the good of the forum because I for one get sick of scrolling through millions of Old Board were great/Shepherd was shite arguments.

 

its mainly people like Mick who disagree with me mate  Just posting facts like .....

 

I'm massively pissed off with Morts apparent acceptance of the need not to spend money in January and show ambition, or however he phrases it ..... thats all. You have to be prepared to bring quality players to the club at all times, and you have to show you are prepared to beat off the competition to get them.

 

 

Thats a fair argument and a discussion we should all be able to have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without harking on about the past regime.

[Dave]

I'm massively pissed off with Morts apparent acceptance of the need not to spend money in January and show ambition, or however he phrases it ..... thats all. You have to be prepared to bring quality players to the club at all times, and you have to show you are prepared to beat off the competition to get them.

 

You do know it's December, right?

[Mick]

 

You do know it's December, right?

 

Mort has never said we'll not spend in January and Allardyce has said that we don't need to sell before we can buy, all that has been said is that we'll be going for young players who might not be bought to go straight in to the first team.

 

[NE5]

 

wiped out the clubs debt and increased its saleable value ?

 

You're right mate, its a shame how things are overlooked and "spin" is put onto some things. I haven't overlooked it at all, I just see it as it is. This is what it is, the club was sold at a cheaper price because of the debt, now he's paid what he would have paid if it hadn't had the stadium debt ? Do you understand this ? Its a sound business decision, and of course the club is better for it, but Ashley has increased its value accordingly, he hasn't lost money at all.

 

 

 

Is it not possible that the debt was wiped out so that we once again became solvent and able to build for the future without having to service massive levels of debt?  Is it possible that the owner wiped the debt out so that he could allow the chairman to make decisions for the football club without having to go to him with a begging bowl asking him to dip into his pocket?

 

The football club without debt can then be run on its own resources and we're not paying £millions to banks, we can spend what we bring in.

 

Of course he could be trying to raise the asking price for the club but that doesn't make sense at all because the net value of the club will not change.  He paid £135million and has wiped out £75 million of the £100 million debt, he still had to get £210 million for him to break even and a buyer would still have £25 million in debt which still adds up to £235 million, no matter how it's dressed up.

 

The only difference it makes to the club is that we don't pay massive amounts in interest payments.

 

Anyway, you can have the last word.

 

tell me something I don't know. He's added to the value though, if he gets a buyer and sells, he's spent nothing and possibly made money. End of story. He's looking after his own interests, so you shouldn't dress it up as an act of charity. You wouldn't for the previous owners, but you have hypocritical views from every angle you look at it.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

I'm massively pissed off with Morts apparent acceptance of the need not to spend money in January and show ambition, or however he phrases it ..... thats all. You have to be prepared to bring quality players to the club at all times, and you have to show you are prepared to beat off the competition to get them.

 

You do know it's December, right?

 

aye

 

 

[fredbob]

In fact we badly need to bring a couple of players in during January to sort out the almost complete lack of creativity in the side.

 

 

I've never really entirely understood this concept that signing supposed creative players will definitively make us creative, i always thought that the way you played made chances. I mean, if we signed Elano, i still dont think that we'd turn into a creative team, becaseu we dont really have the output for his vision, i.e players who are gonna get into dangerous positions. 

[fredbob]

I may be missing the point as I only read ChezGiven post but we signed Owen in the summer not Jan

 

We also bought Woodgate in the January, I hope nobody is saying we shouldn't buy a player of that calibre just because its the "wrong time" - a completely absurd view if ever you saw one.

 

 

 

Mate, you're an idiot, I've never known anyone as selective as you. Can you point out anyone in this thread who says we shouldnt sign players of high calibre if available and essential.

 

It's all about context mate, and the context that most people were trying to imply was that generally speaking, using the January period to try and build a squad isnt the most practical thing to try and do, both business wise, and importantly footballing wise. Not a single person in this thread has said we shouldnt sign any players in the Jan period but that seems to be the context your asserting in your posts.

 

Without sounding patronizing, do you know the difference between squad strengthening and squad building?

 

If you see the difference that i do, then you would understand that squad building(i.e adding depth and quality throughout the squad) in January is a bad idea for a number of reasons, whereas squad strengthening (i.e, addressignt the weaknesses of the team) is what is required.

 

Thats the point im trying to argue anyway.

 

there's only one idiot here mate.

 

It doesn't matter a toss when you buy players if they are quality. Re-read your stupid comments.

 

As for "building a team". It may escape your notice that we have a few pretty good seasons in the last 15 years, with a pretty decent team. You should at all times buy the best quality players you can. Any other suggestion is just plain daft.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter a toss when you buy players if they are quality. Re-read your stupid comments.

 

 

Well this is the crux of my argument, that in actual fact, there are many reasons not to go out and buy as many players you can as soon as you can, they are reasons which dont apply to the summer season and definitively show the disadvantages of the January period.

 

One of the biggest reasons its quite clearly the lack of talent that is actually out there, come Januray, alot of the players that we require to progress are playing for biggers clubs, in bigger club competitions. How do we as a club with nothing but decent finances have to offer. Do you suggest we go for the Chelsea route and through silly moeny at players as well as there clubs? Where is the precedent of success for that approach in our history?

 

This leads to my second point, the inflated price of players, average players at that, it makes no sense to try and sign alot of players who will cost the club more money than they are worth. I mean, the odd player whose worth £2m more than he's actually worth may not sound much, but if we were to sign 3-4 such players thats an excess of £6-8m. Wheres the justification of that?  Thats £8m excess gone out the clubs finance just becasue of the time we've spent the money.

 

Can you yet see the relevance of what we're trying to say? By all means, if there is a player who is available come januray who we desperately need, i.e a DM or even an AM, then go get him, by all means "strengthen" the squad, but dont go trying to build a squad in january, beasue invariably we'll end up onverspending. This is what i was trying to say in my post.

 

As for "building a team". It may escape your notice that we have a few pretty good seasons in the last 15 years, with a pretty decent team. You should at all times buy the best quality players you can. Any other suggestion is just plain daft

 

Look mate, its when you say stuff like this that makes you look like an idiot, the first line, i mean what relevance does that have, im well aware of us having a good squad in the past, what relevance does that have to my post? 

 

As for the second line, i've made my points clear, i want this club to suceed, ive always wanted an element of intelligence about the way the club is run, and finally we have someone who has a bit a brains about them. I dont want to see mone spunked up the wall just to appease  inflated ambitions expectations of a few narrow minded people who cant see the big picture.

 

If you ignore the points ive made above fine, but please answer me this?

 

If we had £40 million to spend, and it had to spend it in one of the transfer periods, either January or the Summer, which period would you we rather spent the money in?

 

It completely hypothetical i understand. I just want your views to see where you stand.

 

Just to reiterate, i do believel we should sign essential players, but i dont think we should be signing players just for the sake of it.

[NE5]

I may be missing the point as I only read ChezGiven post but we signed Owen in the summer not Jan

 

We also bought Woodgate in the January, I hope nobody is saying we shouldn't buy a player of that calibre just because its the "wrong time" - a completely absurd view if ever you saw one.

 

 

 

Mate, you're an idiot, I've never known anyone as selective as you. Can you point out anyone in this thread who says we shouldnt sign players of high calibre if available and essential.

 

It's all about context mate, and the context that most people were trying to imply was that generally speaking, using the January period to try and build a squad isnt the most practical thing to try and do, both business wise, and importantly footballing wise. Not a single person in this thread has said we shouldnt sign any players in the Jan period but that seems to be the context your asserting in your posts.

 

Without sounding patronizing, do you know the difference between squad strengthening and squad building?

 

If you see the difference that i do, then you would understand that squad building(i.e adding depth and quality throughout the squad) in January is a bad idea for a number of reasons, whereas squad strengthening (i.e, addressignt the weaknesses of the team) is what is required.

 

Thats the point im trying to argue anyway.

 

there's only one idiot here mate.

 

It doesn't matter a toss when you buy players if they are quality. Re-read your stupid comments.

 

As for "building a team". It may escape your notice that we have a few pretty good seasons in the last 15 years, with a pretty decent team. You should at all times buy the best quality players you can. Any other suggestion is just plain daft.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter a toss when you buy players if they are quality. Re-read your stupid comments.

 

 

Well this is the crux of my argument, that in actual fact, there are many reasons not to go out and buy as many players you can as soon as you can, they are reasons which dont apply to the summer season and definitively show the disadvantages of the January period.

 

One of the biggest reasons its quite clearly the lack of talent that is actually out there, come Januray, alot of the players that we require to progress are playing for biggers clubs, in bigger club competitions. How do we as a club with nothing but decent finances have to offer. Do you suggest we go for the Chelsea route and through silly moeny at players as well as there clubs? Where is the precedent of success for that approach in our history?

 

This leads to my second point, the inflated price of players, average players at that, it makes no sense to try and sign alot of players who will cost the club more money than they are worth. I mean, the odd player whose worth £2m more than he's actually worth may not sound much, but if we were to sign 3-4 such players thats an excess of £6-8m. Wheres the justification of that?  Thats £8m excess gone out the clubs finance just becasue of the time we've spent the money.

 

Can you yet see the relevance of what we're trying to say? By all means, if there is a player who is available come januray who we desperately need, i.e a DM or even an AM, then go get him, by all means "strengthen" the squad, but dont go trying to build a squad in january, beasue invariably we'll end up onverspending. This is what i was trying to say in my post.

 

As for "building a team". It may escape your notice that we have a few pretty good seasons in the last 15 years, with a pretty decent team. You should at all times buy the best quality players you can. Any other suggestion is just plain daft

 

Look mate, its when you say stuff like this that makes you look like an idiot, the first line, i mean what relevance does that have, im well aware of us having a good squad in the past, what relevance does that have to my post? 

 

As for the second line, i've made my points clear, i want this club to suceed, ive always wanted an element of intelligence about the way the club is run, and finally we have someone who has a bit a brains about them. I dont want to see mone spunked up the wall just to appease the ambitions of a few narrow minded people who cant see the big picture.

 

If you ignore the points ive made above fine, but please answer me this?

 

If we had £40 million to spend, and it had to spend it in one of the transfer periods, either January or the Summer, which period would you we rather spent the money in?

 

It completely hypothetical i understand? I just want your views to see where you stand.

 

Just to reiterate, i do believel we should sign essential players, but i dont think we should be signing players that will boost the squad depth.

 

On the contrary, I think its people who harp on about "trophy signings" and complaining that we have had nothing but failure and the worse bunch of directors in the game running the club are idiots, so I think its perfectly relevent to post that we have had some good teams during the last 15 years.

 

You should always be looking to add better quality to your team. When you bring a better player in, you ship one out. Its that simple - as a policy, but it needs good judgement. And everybody makes mistakes, nobody is infallible. This is realism, something a fair amount of people could do with a heavy dose of.

 

Sometimes you have to go the extra mile to get the player that you want, otherwise he ends up at your rivals. THAT is the whole point I am making. Any other attitude is stricly 2nd rate, and I'm sorry but not for me, nor hopefully for Newcastle United because our fanbase is our protection. We need at least one quality forward / wide midfield player in January if possible, if not then we need someone to fill this spot short term, and we need him badly. But I suppose your view on that depends on how much ambition you have for the club and how much you are prepared to accept mid table mediocrity. That goes for the people who run the club as well as some supporters.

 

To answer your question, if I could get the player I wanted in January or the summer, I'd take him in January. The earlier the better, and I can't for the life of me think why anyone would do any differently. Unless they have their head filled full of all this "timing" bollocks or something. The best time is asap. To give you an actual example, would you rather we had waited until the summer to buy Woodgate ? If so, why, and do you realise that if we had waited until the summer he may have went somewhere else, not that I expect anybody to give any credit to the club for looking ahead and beating our rivals to the signature of a top player.