Mort: I’m in charge

[NE5]

What is it with the constant agenda in relation to justifying the Fat Bastards reign NE5?

 

Does it really bother you that much, that you feel you must defend his honour every day?

 

Surely we should all be looking forward with optimism and in support of the new Owner & Management Team?

 

What difference does it make that most people have nothing but disdain for the previous regime?

 

Genuine question, do you know Shepherd?

 

Are you so stupid, you think everyone should agree with you. Fact is, I've seen more of you. I understand the club pre-1992. I also have a perspective, and know a shite board when I see one. The last board is far from being a shite board.

 

I think its fantastically hilarious you talk about "defending honour", positive proof if it were needed, that people like you are simply talking about personalities, rather than factual information about the football club and its league positions and standings in the last decade and a half.

 

There is optimism, and blind optimism.

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

 

not really an "Argument" madras, just people disputing facts again.

 

 

or twisting facts to suit their side of the debate.

 

 

 

you mean, the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years ?

 

Filling a 52,000 stadium every home game ?

 

Qualifying for europe more than any other era in the clubs history ?

 

Qualifying for europe more than every club in the country bar 4 ?

 

Please explain what is incorrect and twisted ?

 

 

Taking the club to the brink of financial meltdown?

 

You mean, a club that couldn't raise 2.5m quid on flotation ? ....... I bet people like you didn't turn down your FA Cup final tickets and Champions League qualifications ?

 

I'm pleased for you think shite boards do this  mackems.gif

 

So having recovered from not being not able to raise 2.5m on a floatation, he still didnt learn his lesson and tried to fuck it up again is what you are saying?  Thanks for helping me point that out.  The facts are that as a chairman of a football club and particularly a PLC one he just wasn't very good.  Still stick to your one sided agenda.

 

I admit though that the goals he scored to get us to the cup final were vital at the time.

 

Unfortunately, if you had read through these posts, you will realise I was talking about Sir John hall, and not Shepherd, who was involved with the board and the failed share issue. Such is your own eagerness to prove your agenda with unfounded and untrue information.

 

I agree with your comment about the board not scoring those goals in FA Cup Finals though, maybe you won't blame them for us winning nowt in future  mackems.gif

 

 

 

what have i said that is unfounded and untrue? I'm afraid I'll have to borrow this off you........

 

 

Such is your own eagerness to prove your agenda with unfounded and untrue information.

 

 

Again nice use of the mackems.gif smiley when someone says something you can't dispute.  I haven't mentioned either board being to blame for on field performance, I only commented on their running of the club and the irresponsible way they have run it in the last 5 years.

 

I'll borrow this line from you as well i suppose

 

if you had read through these posts

 

 

[Minhosa]

ne5 ...is this the synopsis then.

 

both ashley and fat fred were/are in it for the money. ashley with his own cash and fat fred using corporate structures,as yet fat fred took out all the time and it doesn't look like ashley has. fat fred tried to make the club succesful (thus boosting his value of his shareholding) where as ashley appears to be financially stabilising the club in order for it to provide for itself (or he may decide to splurge who knows ?).

 

fat fred put very little in and took millions out where as,as yet ashley has put millions in and took nowt out.

 

 

is this right ?

 

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute.  No-one can dispute that

 

oh dear. If Ashley the businessman had paid due diligence when he took over, he would have known about the clubs accounts, or maybe he did and saw it as part of the overall package to buy the club ? What do you think, or are you one of those daft enough to suggest that he's done it for charity.

 

I've got some news for you, he hasn't done it for charity, he's done it to add to the value of the club. Do you disagree ? You could also tell us your opinion on the current state of all football clubs, including manu since the Glaziers took over. Do you really live in cloud cuckoo land you ignore the real world of football so much. 

 

If you want the football club to put financial stability first, and not take risks and show ambition, stand by for more seasons of mid table mediocrity and average cheap footballers, but it seems people like you will NEVER understand this until it hits you on the head.

 

 

Whoever bought the club shouldn't have had to do it all tbh.

 

If the business was ran with integrity.

 

Big fucking if though - as we all know.

 

Did Freddie run it as a Charity then? What was it called - 'the Bruce Shepherd Foundation'?

[NE5]

Wasn't Shepherd part of the old board pre SJH? Is he therefore responsible for those bad old days like he's responsible for the success in some eyes under SJH because he was also part of that board too?

 

quite shocked you are stooping to this level mate.

 

The answer is no, by the way.

 

Sir John was though, but resigned when the initial flotation failed due to lack of interest, failing to raise half of 2.5m quid.

 

This is fact by the way, because I put in to buy shares, and had my cheque returned.

 

 

 

 

 

You know me, I admit I can't stand FS and regard his time here as an ultimate failure. I admit my bias.

 

However, if you are claiming FS as part of the board under Sir John Hall deserves credit for those years then by your same logic, he deserves criticism for being part of the old board before SJH which he was. You are quick to highlight how FS played a role in KK's arrival and use that to defend him, but what about the role as a director or member of the old board he played in the club's woes pre-SJH?

 

Anyway, just to show how much of a turncoat FS was, he was very much on the side of the old board until SJH flashed him some money.

 

Oh and I just can't defend a crook.

 

Did I say crook, sorry I meant cock.

 

Sorry mate, you're showing your selective memory, guilty of putting personalities before judgements like some others.

 

lets hope Ashley and Mort back their managers more than the old board shall we ? I hope you don't claim they are "better", until they have proved it. Having said that, if the old board were such "cocks", they should be doing better already, for an example see the mackems since Niall Quinn took over from cocks, or for another example, see our own takeover in 1992 when they took over from cocks.

 

I hope you can understand this, but I have my doubts I must be honest.

 

 

 

Honestly NE5, I can't defend the man or turn a cheek to what I know. For sure he has done good things and I'm sure he isn't alone in footy but for me, as a so-called NUFC fan, well, I don't know how he can live with himself. SJH was never like that yet he had more scope to do what FS did, not even DH was like that and he had good reason to. Do you not find it suspicious how the takeover all came about like it did and why the Halls wanted out like they did, behind FS's back? They didn't want to be dragged down with it because that's what was going to happen. Only in years to come will we realise what an escape we've had thanks to Ashley and co. I dread to think what would have happened if FS was allowed to carry on or worse still, buy the club for himself.

 

I'll give you a clue, the warehouse carry on, but x10. I'm not surprised MA enlisted the help of a legal expert, the mess... The last thing you want to do is for something you've just bought for all that money to be confiscated by the old bill and investigated...

 

I'll say no more.

 

FS good for NUFC? He had us on the road to ruin man.

 

Rubbish tbh. The Halls wanted out because they wanted their money. They had touted the club for a while, and were prepared to sell to anyone for the price.

 

I don't give a toss about a warehouse BTW. Unfortunately, in business [which people like to peddle when it suits them it seems], such things happen everywhere.

 

Don't you also consider the fact that Sports Direct has replaced the club badge on the top of the GAllowgate stand a conflict of interest, or the adverts for Sports Direct.com if such things bother you ?

 

If not, why not ?

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

ne5 ...is this the synopsis then.

 

both ashley and fat fred were/are in it for the money. ashley with his own cash and fat fred using corporate structures,as yet fat fred took out all the time and it doesn't look like ashley has. fat fred tried to make the club succesful (thus boosting his value of his shareholding) where as ashley appears to be financially stabilising the club in order for it to provide for itself (or he may decide to splurge who knows ?).

 

fat fred put very little in and took millions out where as,as yet ashley has put millions in and took nowt out.

 

 

is this right ?

 

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute.  No-one can dispute that

 

oh dear. If Ashley the businessman had paid due diligence when he took over, he would have known about the clubs accounts, or maybe he did and saw it as part of the overall package to buy the club ? What do you think, or are you one of those daft enough to suggest that he's done it for charity.

 

 

 

FFS you really don't have a clue do you? He'll be paying more than he could have been as a result of the poor financial decisions made by Shepherd & Co . 

 

Of course he'll have know about the clubs accounts etc., and of course he's bought the club as a package, but the cost of repairing the damage done is money which could have been spent elsewhere, ie on the team.

[NE5]

ne5 ...is this the synopsis then.

 

both ashley and fat fred were/are in it for the money. ashley with his own cash and fat fred using corporate structures,as yet fat fred took out all the time and it doesn't look like ashley has. fat fred tried to make the club succesful (thus boosting his value of his shareholding) where as ashley appears to be financially stabilising the club in order for it to provide for itself (or he may decide to splurge who knows ?).

 

fat fred put very little in and took millions out where as,as yet ashley has put millions in and took nowt out.

 

 

is this right ?

 

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute.  No-one can dispute that

 

oh dear. If Ashley the businessman had paid due diligence when he took over, he would have known about the clubs accounts, or maybe he did and saw it as part of the overall package to buy the club ? What do you think, or are you one of those daft enough to suggest that he's done it for charity.

 

I've got some news for you, he hasn't done it for charity, he's done it to add to the value of the club. Do you disagree ? You could also tell us your opinion on the current state of all football clubs, including manu since the Glaziers took over. Do you really live in cloud cuckoo land you ignore the real world of football so much. 

 

If you want the football club to put financial stability first, and not take risks and show ambition, stand by for more seasons of mid table mediocrity and average cheap footballers, but it seems people like you will NEVER understand this until it hits you on the head.

 

 

Whoever bought the club shouldn't have had to do it all tbh.

 

If the business was ran with integrity.

 

Big fucking if though - as we all know.

 

Did Freddie run it as a Charity then? What was it called - 'the Bruce Shepherd Foundation'?

 

you're just proving you have an agenda now.

 

Loads of football clubs are run by families.

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Wasn't Shepherd part of the old board pre SJH? Is he therefore responsible for those bad old days like he's responsible for the success in some eyes under SJH because he was also part of that board too?

 

quite shocked you are stooping to this level mate.

 

The answer is no, by the way.

 

Sir John was though, but resigned when the initial flotation failed due to lack of interest, failing to raise half of 2.5m quid.

 

This is fact by the way, because I put in to buy shares, and had my cheque returned.

 

 

 

 

 

You know me, I admit I can't stand FS and regard his time here as an ultimate failure. I admit my bias.

 

However, if you are claiming FS as part of the board under Sir John Hall deserves credit for those years then by your same logic, he deserves criticism for being part of the old board before SJH which he was. You are quick to highlight how FS played a role in KK's arrival and use that to defend him, but what about the role as a director or member of the old board he played in the club's woes pre-SJH?

 

Anyway, just to show how much of a turncoat FS was, he was very much on the side of the old board until SJH flashed him some money.

 

Oh and I just can't defend a crook.

 

Did I say crook, sorry I meant cock.

 

Sorry mate, you're showing your selective memory, guilty of putting personalities before judgements like some others.

 

lets hope Ashley and Mort back their managers more than the old board shall we ? I hope you don't claim they are "better", until they have proved it. Having said that, if the old board were such "cocks", they should be doing better already, for an example see the mackems since Niall Quinn took over from cocks, or for another example, see our own takeover in 1992 when they took over from cocks.

 

I hope you can understand this, but I have my doubts I must be honest.

 

 

 

Honestly NE5, I can't defend the man or turn a cheek to what I know. For sure he has done good things and I'm sure he isn't alone in footy but for me, as a so-called NUFC fan, well, I don't know how he can live with himself. SJH was never like that yet he had more scope to do what FS did, not even DH was like that and he had good reason to. Do you not find it suspicious how the takeover all came about like it did and why the Halls wanted out like they did, behind FS's back? They didn't want to be dragged down with it because that's what was going to happen. Only in years to come will we realise what an escape we've had thanks to Ashley and co. I dread to think what would have happened if FS was allowed to carry on or worse still, buy the club for himself.

 

I'll give you a clue, the warehouse carry on, but x10. I'm not surprised MA enlisted the help of a legal expert, the mess... The last thing you want to do is for something you've just bought for all that money to be confiscated by the old bill and investigated...

 

I'll say no more.

 

FS good for NUFC? He had us on the road to ruin man.

 

Rubbish tbh. The Halls wanted out because they wanted their money. They had touted the club for a while, and were prepared to sell to anyone for the price.

 

I don't give a toss about a warehouse BTW. Unfortunately, in business [which people like to peddle when it suits them it seems], such things happen everywhere.

 

Don't you also consider the fact that Sports Direct has replaced the club badge on the top of the GAllowgate stand a conflict of interest, or the adverts for Sports Direct.com if such things bother you ?

 

If not, why not ?

 

 

 

How can it be a conflict of interest for us?  We're a private company.  And even then, if its done at arms length where is the problem?  The whole issue with the warehouse story is that it wan't being conducted on a commercial basis.

[Minhosa]

What is it with the constant agenda in relation to justifying the Fat Bastards reign NE5?

 

Does it really bother you that much, that you feel you must defend his honour every day?

 

Surely we should all be looking forward with optimism and in support of the new Owner & Management Team?

 

What difference does it make that most people have nothing but disdain for the previous regime?

 

Genuine question, do you know Shepherd?

 

Are you so stupid, you think everyone should agree with you. Fact is, I've seen more of you. I understand the club pre-1992. I also have a perspective, and know a shite board when I see one. The last board is far from being a shite board.

 

I think its fantastically hilarious you talk about "defending honour", positive proof if it were needed, that people like you are simply talking about personalities, rather than factual information about the football club and its league positions and standings in the last decade and a half.

 

There is optimism, and blind optimism.

 

 

Nice post but you didn't answer any of the questions posed.

 

You compare your friends reign with other 'shit boards' and consider it positively yet what you fail to mention, time after time, is the opportunity for success we had under Shepherd that his management inabilities failed to capitalise upon.

 

We didn't have anywhere like that potential under the previous 'shit boards' you refer to.

 

The reason we had the opportunity was due to the SJH involvment in building the platform and the perfect timing in terms of promotions into the 'sky tv' era and the excesses of cash floating around.

 

Oh, and patronising people is a sure sign of insecurity so thanks for that old man.

[NE5]

ne5 ...is this the synopsis then.

 

both ashley and fat fred were/are in it for the money. ashley with his own cash and fat fred using corporate structures,as yet fat fred took out all the time and it doesn't look like ashley has. fat fred tried to make the club succesful (thus boosting his value of his shareholding) where as ashley appears to be financially stabilising the club in order for it to provide for itself (or he may decide to splurge who knows ?).

 

fat fred put very little in and took millions out where as,as yet ashley has put millions in and took nowt out.

 

 

is this right ?

 

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute.  No-one can dispute that

 

oh dear. If Ashley the businessman had paid due diligence when he took over, he would have known about the clubs accounts, or maybe he did and saw it as part of the overall package to buy the club ? What do you think, or are you one of those daft enough to suggest that he's done it for charity.

 

 

 

FFS you really don't have a clue do you? He'll be paying more than he could have been as a result of the poor financial decisions made by Shepherd & Co . 

 

Of course he'll have know about the clubs accounts etc., and of course he's bought the club as a package, but the cost of repairing the damage done is money which could have been spent elsewhere, ie on the team.

 

 

IF he had looked at the clubs accounts, and found them in perfect order [not very common in football, as I've explained and you are trying to ignore because it suits you].....do you think he would have bought the club for 130m quid ?

 

Laughable. Work it out.

 

Fact is, he's bought the club for 200m plus, and if he sells it on, he'll get his money back. This is kids stuff.

 

But it won't increase in value if he doesn't back his managers to try and compete with the top 4 clubs, like the last board did. THIS is a nailed on fact, and you can convince yourself as long as you like that it isn't true, but unfortunately in the real world, it is true.

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

ne5 ...is this the synopsis then.

 

both ashley and fat fred were/are in it for the money. ashley with his own cash and fat fred using corporate structures,as yet fat fred took out all the time and it doesn't look like ashley has. fat fred tried to make the club succesful (thus boosting his value of his shareholding) where as ashley appears to be financially stabilising the club in order for it to provide for itself (or he may decide to splurge who knows ?).

 

fat fred put very little in and took millions out where as,as yet ashley has put millions in and took nowt out.

 

 

is this right ?

 

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute.  No-one can dispute that

 

oh dear. If Ashley the businessman had paid due diligence when he took over, he would have known about the clubs accounts, or maybe he did and saw it as part of the overall package to buy the club ? What do you think, or are you one of those daft enough to suggest that he's done it for charity.

 

 

 

FFS you really don't have a clue do you? He'll be paying more than he could have been as a result of the poor financial decisions made by Shepherd & Co . 

 

Of course he'll have know about the clubs accounts etc., and of course he's bought the club as a package, but the cost of repairing the damage done is money which could have been spent elsewhere, ie on the team.

 

 

IF he had looked at the clubs accounts, and found them in perfect order [not very common in football, as I've explained and you are trying to ignore because it suits you].....do you think he would have bought the club for 130m quid ?

 

Laughable. Work it out.

 

Fact is, he's bought the club for 200m plus, and if he sells it on, he'll get his money back. This is kids stuff.

 

But it won't increase in value if he doesn't back his managers to try and compete with the top 4 clubs, like the last board did. THIS is a nailed on fact, and you can convince yourself as long as you like that it isn't true, but unfortunately in the real world, it is true.

 

 

 

Clearing the unmanagable debt will have cost him money that could have been spent elsewhere.  Re the bit in bold, what are you talking about?  What am I trying to ignore?  Of course he'll back the managers, nowhere have I suggested he won't! 

 

Keep lecturing me about how finance and company valuations and purchases work though, because I clearly don't know anything about it.

 

Do you sit at home and argue with yourself about stuff you haven't said?

[NE5]

What is it with the constant agenda in relation to justifying the Fat Bastards reign NE5?

 

Does it really bother you that much, that you feel you must defend his honour every day?

 

Surely we should all be looking forward with optimism and in support of the new Owner & Management Team?

 

What difference does it make that most people have nothing but disdain for the previous regime?

 

Genuine question, do you know Shepherd?

 

Are you so stupid, you think everyone should agree with you. Fact is, I've seen more of you. I understand the club pre-1992. I also have a perspective, and know a shite board when I see one. The last board is far from being a shite board.

 

I think its fantastically hilarious you talk about "defending honour", positive proof if it were needed, that people like you are simply talking about personalities, rather than factual information about the football club and its league positions and standings in the last decade and a half.

 

There is optimism, and blind optimism.

 

 

Nice post but you didn't answer any of the questions posed.

 

You compare your friends reign with other 'shit boards' and consider it positively yet what you fail to mention, time after time, is the opportunity for success we had under Shepherd that his management inabilities failed to capitalise upon.

 

We didn't have anywhere like that potential under the previous 'shit boards' you refer to.

 

The reason we had the opportunity was due to the SJH involvment in building the platform and the perfect timing in terms of promotions into the 'sky tv' era and the excesses of cash floating around.

 

Oh, and patronising people is a sure sign of insecurity so thanks for that old man .

 

mackems.gif

 

Shame I know more than you, for being around longer eh

 

Still, the two bits I've put in bold, prove - again - you're more bothered with personalities including perceptions than facts.

 

Oh, the bit in italics is the stupidest thing I've read in ages. If you really think that Newcastle United needed money from sky tv to show they are bigger and better than being a team constantly relegated, selling its best players, and regularly playing teams like Oxford, Southend, Port Vale etc etc....it proves you know absolutely nothing about the club nor any idea of the performance of the old board during their time in charge.

 

So, as from this point, my conclusion is that there is absolutely no point in discussing this with you any further. You aren't booboo in disguise are you  mackems.gif

[NE5]

ne5 ...is this the synopsis then.

 

both ashley and fat fred were/are in it for the money. ashley with his own cash and fat fred using corporate structures,as yet fat fred took out all the time and it doesn't look like ashley has. fat fred tried to make the club succesful (thus boosting his value of his shareholding) where as ashley appears to be financially stabilising the club in order for it to provide for itself (or he may decide to splurge who knows ?).

 

fat fred put very little in and took millions out where as,as yet ashley has put millions in and took nowt out.

 

 

is this right ?

 

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute.  No-one can dispute that

 

oh dear. If Ashley the businessman had paid due diligence when he took over, he would have known about the clubs accounts, or maybe he did and saw it as part of the overall package to buy the club ? What do you think, or are you one of those daft enough to suggest that he's done it for charity.

 

 

 

FFS you really don't have a clue do you? He'll be paying more than he could have been as a result of the poor financial decisions made by Shepherd & Co . 

 

Of course he'll have know about the clubs accounts etc., and of course he's bought the club as a package, but the cost of repairing the damage done is money which could have been spent elsewhere, ie on the team.

 

 

IF he had looked at the clubs accounts, and found them in perfect order [not very common in football, as I've explained and you are trying to ignore because it suits you].....do you think he would have bought the club for 130m quid ?

 

Laughable. Work it out.

 

Fact is, he's bought the club for 200m plus, and if he sells it on, he'll get his money back. This is kids stuff.

 

But it won't increase in value if he doesn't back his managers to try and compete with the top 4 clubs, like the last board did. THIS is a nailed on fact, and you can convince yourself as long as you like that it isn't true, but unfortunately in the real world, it is true.

 

 

 

Clearing the unmanagable debt will have cost him money that could have been spent elsewhere.  Re the bit in bold, what are you talking about?  What am I trying to ignore?  Of course he'll back the managers, nowhere have I suggested he won't! 

 

Keep lecturing me about how finance and company valuations and purchases work though, because I clearly don't know anything about it.

 

Do you sit at home and argue with yourself about stuff you haven't said?

 

eerrr.........

 

if the club had not had a stadium debt to clear, it may have cost him 200m to buy ?

 

Get it ?

 

Or do you think the club should have left the capacity at 36,000  mackems.gif

 

BTW, even someone with the agendas of macbeth and Mick, admit the debt was well structured and set up to pay back. Once again though, you sadly think that nobody had stadium debts except us, don't you ?

[Minhosa]

What is it with the constant agenda in relation to justifying the Fat Bastards reign NE5?

 

Does it really bother you that much, that you feel you must defend his honour every day?

 

Surely we should all be looking forward with optimism and in support of the new Owner & Management Team?

 

What difference does it make that most people have nothing but disdain for the previous regime?

 

Genuine question, do you know Shepherd?

 

Are you so stupid, you think everyone should agree with you. Fact is, I've seen more of you. I understand the club pre-1992. I also have a perspective, and know a shite board when I see one. The last board is far from being a shite board.

 

I think its fantastically hilarious you talk about "defending honour", positive proof if it were needed, that people like you are simply talking about personalities, rather than factual information about the football club and its league positions and standings in the last decade and a half.

 

There is optimism, and blind optimism.

 

 

Nice post but you didn't answer any of the questions posed.

 

You compare your friends reign with other 'shit boards' and consider it positively yet what you fail to mention, time after time, is the opportunity for success we had under Shepherd that his management inabilities failed to capitalise upon.

 

We didn't have anywhere like that potential under the previous 'shit boards' you refer to.

 

The reason we had the opportunity was due to the SJH involvment in building the platform and the perfect timing in terms of promotions into the 'sky tv' era and the excesses of cash floating around.

 

Oh, and patronising people is a sure sign of insecurity so thanks for that old man .

 

mackems.gif

 

Shame I know more than you, for being around longer eh

 

Still, the two bits I've put in bold, prove - again - you're more bothered with personalities including perceptions than facts.

 

Oh, the bit in italics is the stupidest thing I've read in ages. If you really think that Newcastle United needed money from sky tv to show they are bigger and better than being a team constantly relegated, selling its best players, and regularly playing teams like Oxford, Southend, Port Vale etc etc....it proves you know absolutely nothing about the club nor any idea of the performance of the old board during their time in charge.

 

So, as from this point, my conclusion is that there is absolutely no point in discussing this with you any further. You aren't booboo in disguise are you  mackems.gif

 

I've had a season ticket for 15 years by the way.

 

When are you going to answer my original questions?

 

Do you need me to send you some reading glasses?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

ne5 ...is this the synopsis then.

 

both ashley and fat fred were/are in it for the money. ashley with his own cash and fat fred using corporate structures,as yet fat fred took out all the time and it doesn't look like ashley has. fat fred tried to make the club succesful (thus boosting his value of his shareholding) where as ashley appears to be financially stabilising the club in order for it to provide for itself (or he may decide to splurge who knows ?).

 

fat fred put very little in and took millions out where as,as yet ashley has put millions in and took nowt out.

 

 

is this right ?

 

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute.  No-one can dispute that

 

oh dear. If Ashley the businessman had paid due diligence when he took over, he would have known about the clubs accounts, or maybe he did and saw it as part of the overall package to buy the club ? What do you think, or are you one of those daft enough to suggest that he's done it for charity.

 

 

 

FFS you really don't have a clue do you? He'll be paying more than he could have been as a result of the poor financial decisions made by Shepherd & Co . 

 

Of course he'll have know about the clubs accounts etc., and of course he's bought the club as a package, but the cost of repairing the damage done is money which could have been spent elsewhere, ie on the team.

 

 

IF he had looked at the clubs accounts, and found them in perfect order [not very common in football, as I've explained and you are trying to ignore because it suits you].....do you think he would have bought the club for 130m quid ?

 

Laughable. Work it out.

 

Fact is, he's bought the club for 200m plus, and if he sells it on, he'll get his money back. This is kids stuff.

 

But it won't increase in value if he doesn't back his managers to try and compete with the top 4 clubs, like the last board did. THIS is a nailed on fact, and you can convince yourself as long as you like that it isn't true, but unfortunately in the real world, it is true.

 

 

 

Clearing the unmanagable debt will have cost him money that could have been spent elsewhere.  Re the bit in bold, what are you talking about?  What am I trying to ignore?  Of course he'll back the managers, nowhere have I suggested he won't! 

 

Keep lecturing me about how finance and company valuations and purchases work though, because I clearly don't know anything about it.

 

Do you sit at home and argue with yourself about stuff you haven't said?

 

eerrr.........

 

if the club had not had a stadium debt to clear, it may have cost him 200m to buy ?

 

Get it ?

 

Or do you think the club should have left the capacity at 36,000  mackems.gif

 

Are you suggesting that the clubs debt has solely arisen because of the stadium expansion? (There's that smiley again)

[NE5]

What is it with the constant agenda in relation to justifying the Fat Bastards reign NE5?

 

Does it really bother you that much, that you feel you must defend his honour every day?

 

Surely we should all be looking forward with optimism and in support of the new Owner & Management Team?

 

What difference does it make that most people have nothing but disdain for the previous regime?

 

Genuine question, do you know Shepherd?

 

Are you so stupid, you think everyone should agree with you. Fact is, I've seen more of you. I understand the club pre-1992. I also have a perspective, and know a shite board when I see one. The last board is far from being a shite board.

 

I think its fantastically hilarious you talk about "defending honour", positive proof if it were needed, that people like you are simply talking about personalities, rather than factual information about the football club and its league positions and standings in the last decade and a half.

 

There is optimism, and blind optimism.

 

 

Nice post but you didn't answer any of the questions posed.

 

You compare your friends reign with other 'shit boards' and consider it positively yet what you fail to mention, time after time, is the opportunity for success we had under Shepherd that his management inabilities failed to capitalise upon.

 

We didn't have anywhere like that potential under the previous 'shit boards' you refer to.

 

The reason we had the opportunity was due to the SJH involvment in building the platform and the perfect timing in terms of promotions into the 'sky tv' era and the excesses of cash floating around.

 

Oh, and patronising people is a sure sign of insecurity so thanks for that old man .

 

mackems.gif

 

Shame I know more than you, for being around longer eh

 

Still, the two bits I've put in bold, prove - again - you're more bothered with personalities including perceptions than facts.

 

Oh, the bit in italics is the stupidest thing I've read in ages. If you really think that Newcastle United needed money from sky tv to show they are bigger and better than being a team constantly relegated, selling its best players, and regularly playing teams like Oxford, Southend, Port Vale etc etc....it proves you know absolutely nothing about the club nor any idea of the performance of the old board during their time in charge.

 

So, as from this point, my conclusion is that there is absolutely no point in discussing this with you any further. You aren't booboo in disguise are you  mackems.gif

 

I've had a season ticket for 15 years by the way.

 

 

aye, I thought so

 

[Minhosa]

Those questions NE5?

 

You can put them in the 'too hard file' if you like, but just let me know.

 

Too many smilies.

 

Why don't you sing some Freddie songs next time you are at the ground - thats presuming you're still allowed in.

[NE5]

ne5 ...is this the synopsis then.

 

both ashley and fat fred were/are in it for the money. ashley with his own cash and fat fred using corporate structures,as yet fat fred took out all the time and it doesn't look like ashley has. fat fred tried to make the club succesful (thus boosting his value of his shareholding) where as ashley appears to be financially stabilising the club in order for it to provide for itself (or he may decide to splurge who knows ?).

 

fat fred put very little in and took millions out where as,as yet ashley has put millions in and took nowt out.

 

 

is this right ?

 

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute.  No-one can dispute that

 

oh dear. If Ashley the businessman had paid due diligence when he took over, he would have known about the clubs accounts, or maybe he did and saw it as part of the overall package to buy the club ? What do you think, or are you one of those daft enough to suggest that he's done it for charity.

 

 

 

FFS you really don't have a clue do you? He'll be paying more than he could have been as a result of the poor financial decisions made by Shepherd & Co . 

 

Of course he'll have know about the clubs accounts etc., and of course he's bought the club as a package, but the cost of repairing the damage done is money which could have been spent elsewhere, ie on the team.

 

 

IF he had looked at the clubs accounts, and found them in perfect order [not very common in football, as I've explained and you are trying to ignore because it suits you].....do you think he would have bought the club for 130m quid ?

 

Laughable. Work it out.

 

Fact is, he's bought the club for 200m plus, and if he sells it on, he'll get his money back. This is kids stuff.

 

But it won't increase in value if he doesn't back his managers to try and compete with the top 4 clubs, like the last board did. THIS is a nailed on fact, and you can convince yourself as long as you like that it isn't true, but unfortunately in the real world, it is true.

 

 

 

Clearing the unmanagable debt will have cost him money that could have been spent elsewhere.  Re the bit in bold, what are you talking about?  What am I trying to ignore?  Of course he'll back the managers, nowhere have I suggested he won't! 

 

Keep lecturing me about how finance and company valuations and purchases work though, because I clearly don't know anything about it.

 

Do you sit at home and argue with yourself about stuff you haven't said?

 

eerrr.........

 

if the club had not had a stadium debt to clear, it may have cost him 200m to buy ?

 

Get it ?

 

Or do you think the club should have left the capacity at 36,000  mackems.gif

 

Are you suggesting that the clubs debt has solely arisen because of the stadium expansion? (There's that smiley again)

 

Also due to wasting money by Souness. However, we could have sat back, balanced the books, and got relegated rather than allow Roeder to buy Martins for instance. Do you understand this ?

 

Do you realise that the vast majority of football clubs have debts ?

 

Would you prefer us to put balancing the books before showing ambition ?

 

 

[NE5]

Those questions NE5?

 

You can put them in the 'too hard file' if you like, but just let me know.

 

Too many smilies.

 

Why don't you sing some Freddie songs next time you are at the ground - thats presuming you're still allowed in.

 

Very childish.

 

Why did the ex board attract you to the club BTW ? Much as I said I wouldn't bother replying to you again, I have to ask this, as I think its hilarious you admit this is when you started supporting the club

 

 

 

[Minhosa]

ne5 ...is this the synopsis then.

 

both ashley and fat fred were/are in it for the money. ashley with his own cash and fat fred using corporate structures,as yet fat fred took out all the time and it doesn't look like ashley has. fat fred tried to make the club succesful (thus boosting his value of his shareholding) where as ashley appears to be financially stabilising the club in order for it to provide for itself (or he may decide to splurge who knows ?).

 

fat fred put very little in and took millions out where as,as yet ashley has put millions in and took nowt out.

 

 

is this right ?

 

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute.  No-one can dispute that

 

oh dear. If Ashley the businessman had paid due diligence when he took over, he would have known about the clubs accounts, or maybe he did and saw it as part of the overall package to buy the club ? What do you think, or are you one of those daft enough to suggest that he's done it for charity.

 

 

 

FFS you really don't have a clue do you? He'll be paying more than he could have been as a result of the poor financial decisions made by Shepherd & Co . 

 

Of course he'll have know about the clubs accounts etc., and of course he's bought the club as a package, but the cost of repairing the damage done is money which could have been spent elsewhere, ie on the team.

 

 

IF he had looked at the clubs accounts, and found them in perfect order [not very common in football, as I've explained and you are trying to ignore because it suits you].....do you think he would have bought the club for 130m quid ?

 

Laughable. Work it out.

 

Fact is, he's bought the club for 200m plus, and if he sells it on, he'll get his money back. This is kids stuff.

 

But it won't increase in value if he doesn't back his managers to try and compete with the top 4 clubs, like the last board did. THIS is a nailed on fact, and you can convince yourself as long as you like that it isn't true, but unfortunately in the real world, it is true.

 

 

 

Clearing the unmanagable debt will have cost him money that could have been spent elsewhere.  Re the bit in bold, what are you talking about?  What am I trying to ignore?  Of course he'll back the managers, nowhere have I suggested he won't! 

 

Keep lecturing me about how finance and company valuations and purchases work though, because I clearly don't know anything about it.

 

Do you sit at home and argue with yourself about stuff you haven't said?

 

eerrr.........

 

if the club had not had a stadium debt to clear, it may have cost him 200m to buy ?

 

Get it ?

 

Or do you think the club should have left the capacity at 36,000  mackems.gif

 

Are you suggesting that the clubs debt has solely arisen because of the stadium expansion? (There's that smiley again)

 

Also due to wasting money by Souness. However, we could have sat back, balanced the books, and got relegated rather than allow Roeder to buy Martins for instance. Do you understand this ?

 

Do you realise that the vast majority of football clubs have debts ?

 

Would you prefer us to put balancing the books before showing ambition ?

 

 

 

We? Now who has the Agenda?

 

We, as in you and Bruce?

[Minhosa]

Those questions NE5?

 

You can put them in the 'too hard file' if you like, but just let me know.

 

Too many smilies.

 

Why don't you sing some Freddie songs next time you are at the ground - thats presuming you're still allowed in.

 

Very childish.

 

Why did the ex board attract you to the club BTW ? Much as I said I wouldn't bother replying to you again, I have to ask this, as I think its hilarious you admit this is when you started supporting the club

 

 

They didn't attract me. Supporting my local side did.

 

When exactly did you expect someone to 'own' their own first season ticket - given I was 12 at the time?

 

I know kids could run around the streets in your day but times had changed by the time I was a lad.

 

Those questions? I thought it might help if I kept reminding you?

 

What with your age and that. Oh, and Matron will be around at 5pm for your dinner, so just reply after she's wiped your mouth and washed your hands.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

ne5 ...is this the synopsis then.

 

both ashley and fat fred were/are in it for the money. ashley with his own cash and fat fred using corporate structures,as yet fat fred took out all the time and it doesn't look like ashley has. fat fred tried to make the club succesful (thus boosting his value of his shareholding) where as ashley appears to be financially stabilising the club in order for it to provide for itself (or he may decide to splurge who knows ?).

 

fat fred put very little in and took millions out where as,as yet ashley has put millions in and took nowt out.

 

 

is this right ?

 

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute.  No-one can dispute that

 

oh dear. If Ashley the businessman had paid due diligence when he took over, he would have known about the clubs accounts, or maybe he did and saw it as part of the overall package to buy the club ? What do you think, or are you one of those daft enough to suggest that he's done it for charity.

 

 

 

FFS you really don't have a clue do you? He'll be paying more than he could have been as a result of the poor financial decisions made by Shepherd & Co . 

 

Of course he'll have know about the clubs accounts etc., and of course he's bought the club as a package, but the cost of repairing the damage done is money which could have been spent elsewhere, ie on the team.

 

 

IF he had looked at the clubs accounts, and found them in perfect order [not very common in football, as I've explained and you are trying to ignore because it suits you].....do you think he would have bought the club for 130m quid ?

 

Laughable. Work it out.

 

Fact is, he's bought the club for 200m plus, and if he sells it on, he'll get his money back. This is kids stuff.

 

But it won't increase in value if he doesn't back his managers to try and compete with the top 4 clubs, like the last board did. THIS is a nailed on fact, and you can convince yourself as long as you like that it isn't true, but unfortunately in the real world, it is true.

 

 

 

Clearing the unmanagable debt will have cost him money that could have been spent elsewhere.  Re the bit in bold, what are you talking about?  What am I trying to ignore?  Of course he'll back the managers, nowhere have I suggested he won't! 

 

Keep lecturing me about how finance and company valuations and purchases work though, because I clearly don't know anything about it.

 

Do you sit at home and argue with yourself about stuff you haven't said?

 

eerrr.........

 

if the club had not had a stadium debt to clear, it may have cost him 200m to buy ?

 

Get it ?

 

Or do you think the club should have left the capacity at 36,000  mackems.gif

 

Are you suggesting that the clubs debt has solely arisen because of the stadium expansion? (There's that smiley again)

 

Also due to wasting money by Souness. However, we could have sat back, balanced the books, and got relegated rather than allow Roeder to buy Martins for instance. Do you understand this ?

 

Do you realise that the vast majority of football clubs have debts ?

 

Would you prefer us to put balancing the books before showing ambition ?

 

 

 

If the debt was well structured and managable why did he clear it?  Perhaps because it wasn't?  Where did I say other football clubs have no debt?

 

Rather than choosing one particular needed transfer, why not focus on the money Shepherd & Co have paid to the likes of Duff and Owen, and the amount of money people like MacKay and Shepherd Junior may or may not have made out of transfers involving the previous regime?

 

Its not about showing ambition, its about common sense and the fact is the mis-management of the previous regime has resulted in cash being used which could have been spent elsewhere.  As you would say, this is an indisputable fact.

[NE5]

ne5 ...is this the synopsis then.

 

both ashley and fat fred were/are in it for the money. ashley with his own cash and fat fred using corporate structures,as yet fat fred took out all the time and it doesn't look like ashley has. fat fred tried to make the club succesful (thus boosting his value of his shareholding) where as ashley appears to be financially stabilising the club in order for it to provide for itself (or he may decide to splurge who knows ?).

 

fat fred put very little in and took millions out where as,as yet ashley has put millions in and took nowt out.

 

 

is this right ?

 

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute.  No-one can dispute that

 

oh dear. If Ashley the businessman had paid due diligence when he took over, he would have known about the clubs accounts, or maybe he did and saw it as part of the overall package to buy the club ? What do you think, or are you one of those daft enough to suggest that he's done it for charity.

 

 

 

FFS you really don't have a clue do you? He'll be paying more than he could have been as a result of the poor financial decisions made by Shepherd & Co . 

 

Of course he'll have know about the clubs accounts etc., and of course he's bought the club as a package, but the cost of repairing the damage done is money which could have been spent elsewhere, ie on the team.

 

 

IF he had looked at the clubs accounts, and found them in perfect order [not very common in football, as I've explained and you are trying to ignore because it suits you].....do you think he would have bought the club for 130m quid ?

 

Laughable. Work it out.

 

Fact is, he's bought the club for 200m plus, and if he sells it on, he'll get his money back. This is kids stuff.

 

But it won't increase in value if he doesn't back his managers to try and compete with the top 4 clubs, like the last board did. THIS is a nailed on fact, and you can convince yourself as long as you like that it isn't true, but unfortunately in the real world, it is true.

 

 

 

Clearing the unmanagable debt will have cost him money that could have been spent elsewhere.  Re the bit in bold, what are you talking about?  What am I trying to ignore?  Of course he'll back the managers, nowhere have I suggested he won't! 

 

Keep lecturing me about how finance and company valuations and purchases work though, because I clearly don't know anything about it.

 

Do you sit at home and argue with yourself about stuff you haven't said?

 

eerrr.........

 

if the club had not had a stadium debt to clear, it may have cost him 200m to buy ?

 

Get it ?

 

Or do you think the club should have left the capacity at 36,000  mackems.gif

 

Are you suggesting that the clubs debt has solely arisen because of the stadium expansion? (There's that smiley again)

 

Also due to wasting money by Souness. However, we could have sat back, balanced the books, and got relegated rather than allow Roeder to buy Martins for instance. Do you understand this ?

 

Do you realise that the vast majority of football clubs have debts ?

 

Would you prefer us to put balancing the books before showing ambition ?

 

 

 

If the debt was well structured and managable why did he clear it?  Perhaps because it wasn't?  Where did I say other football clubs have no debt?

 

Rather than choosing one particular needed transfer, why not focus on the money Shepherd & Co have paid to the likes of Duff and Owen, and the amount of money people like MacKay and Shepherd Junior may or may not have made out of transfers involving the previous regime?

 

Its not about showing ambition , its about common sense and the fact is the mis-management of the previous regime has resulted in cash being used which could have been spent elsewhere.  As you would say, this is an indisputable fact.

 

Do you have a mortgage ? Would you clear it if you could ?

 

Blimey .......

 

Bit in bold is plain barmy. Why support a club with no ambition 

 

What do you think of the 87 clubs who haven't played in europe as often as us in the last decade, mismanaged or well managed ?

 

 

[NE5]

Those questions NE5?

 

You can put them in the 'too hard file' if you like, but just let me know.

 

Too many smilies.

 

Why don't you sing some Freddie songs next time you are at the ground - thats presuming you're still allowed in.

 

Very childish.

 

Why did the ex board attract you to the club BTW ? Much as I said I wouldn't bother replying to you again, I have to ask this, as I think its hilarious you admit this is when you started supporting the club

 

 

They didn't attract me. Supporting my local side did.

 

When exactly did you expect someone to 'own' their own first season ticket - given I was 12 at the time?

 

I know kids could run around the streets in your day but times had changed by the time I was a lad.

 

Those questions? I thought it might help if I kept reminding you?

 

What with your age and that. Oh, and Matron will be around at 5pm for your dinner, so just reply after she's wiped your mouth and washed your hands.

 

showing how childish you are again .......

 

Anyway, I accept you are young, but as you can't therefore accept that others have seen more than you so can tell you something ..... can't help you any further I'm afraid.

 

 

[James]

£100 million debt meant that it was time the last board moved on.

[NE5]

ne5 ...is this the synopsis then.

 

both ashley and fat fred were/are in it for the money. ashley with his own cash and fat fred using corporate structures,as yet fat fred took out all the time and it doesn't look like ashley has. fat fred tried to make the club succesful (thus boosting his value of his shareholding) where as ashley appears to be financially stabilising the club in order for it to provide for itself (or he may decide to splurge who knows ?).

 

fat fred put very little in and took millions out where as,as yet ashley has put millions in and took nowt out.

 

 

is this right ?

 

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute.  No-one can dispute that

 

oh dear. If Ashley the businessman had paid due diligence when he took over, he would have known about the clubs accounts, or maybe he did and saw it as part of the overall package to buy the club ? What do you think, or are you one of those daft enough to suggest that he's done it for charity.

 

 

 

FFS you really don't have a clue do you? He'll be paying more than he could have been as a result of the poor financial decisions made by Shepherd & Co . 

 

Of course he'll have know about the clubs accounts etc., and of course he's bought the club as a package, but the cost of repairing the damage done is money which could have been spent elsewhere, ie on the team.

 

 

IF he had looked at the clubs accounts, and found them in perfect order [not very common in football, as I've explained and you are trying to ignore because it suits you].....do you think he would have bought the club for 130m quid ?

 

Laughable. Work it out.

 

Fact is, he's bought the club for 200m plus, and if he sells it on, he'll get his money back. This is kids stuff.

 

But it won't increase in value if he doesn't back his managers to try and compete with the top 4 clubs, like the last board did. THIS is a nailed on fact, and you can convince yourself as long as you like that it isn't true, but unfortunately in the real world, it is true.

 

 

 

Clearing the unmanagable debt will have cost him money that could have been spent elsewhere.  Re the bit in bold, what are you talking about?  What am I trying to ignore?  Of course he'll back the managers, nowhere have I suggested he won't! 

 

Keep lecturing me about how finance and company valuations and purchases work though, because I clearly don't know anything about it.

 

Do you sit at home and argue with yourself about stuff you haven't said?

 

eerrr.........

 

if the club had not had a stadium debt to clear, it may have cost him 200m to buy ?

 

Get it ?

 

Or do you think the club should have left the capacity at 36,000  mackems.gif

 

Are you suggesting that the clubs debt has solely arisen because of the stadium expansion? (There's that smiley again)

 

Also due to wasting money by Souness. However, we could have sat back, balanced the books, and got relegated rather than allow Roeder to buy Martins for instance. Do you understand this ?

 

Do you realise that the vast majority of football clubs have debts ?

 

Would you prefer us to put balancing the books before showing ambition ?

 

 

 

We? Now who has the Agenda?

 

We, as in you and Bruce?

 

mackems.gif