Shepherd Legacy

[Consortium of one]

There has been some interesting info and good analysis in this thread.  I too, am interested to see what the cash flow was like.  I'm no accountant but I'm also not a stranger to the books.  I'm also American so some of the terms are different and may have slightly different connotations.   From what I can gather, it seems that even for good financial times, Shepherd was leveraged out close to the max that a reliable lender would find acceptable.  I would also suspect that when faced with a high wage bill and presumably weak (no?) cash flow Shepherd sought another loan (I know, pure speculation) and was met with a denial and quite probably, a frank assessment of his books.  See, I'm trying to figure why, if things were sound, would Hall and Shepherd suddenly sell.  They had just announced submittal of plans for a stadium expansion. Why go through that effort if you would have the whole club sold inside of two months?

 

The other thing that I don't understand is the loans.  Why did the due date accelerate if the club were sold?  Were Hall and Shepherd done a favor with some of these loans?  I can't help but think that with that kind of escalation clause that the loans were made as a personal favor to Hall and/or Shepherd.  In light of that escalation clause, my criticism of Ashley for not knowing that they would be due is muted.  I certainly wouldn't think to look for something like that.  If the loan is made to the club, then it's to the club, irrespective of who the owner might be, and it's questionable to have it structured based on ownership.  Maybe this is common in your neck of the woods but not here in the States.  Given that, I can see where Ashley plans for the teams could have changed dramatically, given that he had to pay anywheres from 45m to 114m out of pocket to clear that mess up.  A 45m hit would hurt anyone's cash flow and was likely a big contributor to his austere approach to running the team.  What if those clauses weren't in those loans and he had the 45m still in hand?  Surely he could have made a nice splash in the transfer market with that AND been able to reduce some debt.

[TRon]

There has been some interesting info and good analysis in this thread.  I too, am interested to see what the cash flow was like.  I'm no accountant but I'm also not a stranger to the books.  I'm also American so some of the terms are different and may have slightly different connotations.   From what I can gather, it seems that even for good financial times, Shepherd was leveraged out close to the max that a reliable lender would find acceptable.  I would also suspect that when faced with a high wage bill and presumably weak (no?) cash flow Shepherd sought another loan (I know, pure speculation) and was met with a denial and quite probably, a frank assessment of his books.  See, I'm trying to figure why, if things were sound, would Hall and Shepherd suddenly sell.  They had just announced submittal of plans for a stadium expansion. Why go through that effort if you would have the whole club sold inside of two months?

 

The other thing that I don't understand is the loans.  Why did the due date accelerate if the club were sold?  Were Hall and Shepherd done a favor with some of these loans?  I can't help but think that with that kind of escalation clause that the loans were made as a personal favor to Hall and/or Shepherd.  In light of that escalation clause, my criticism of Ashley for not knowing that they would be due is muted.  I certainly wouldn't think to look for something like that.  If the loan is made to the club, then it's to the club, irrespective of who the owner might be, and it's questionable to have it structured based on ownership.  Maybe this is common in your neck of the woods but not here in the States.  Given that, I can see where Ashley plans for the teams could have changed dramatically, given that he had to pay anywheres from 45m to 114m out of pocket to clear that mess up.  A 45m hit would hurt anyone's cash flow and was likely a big contributor to his austere approach to running the team.  What if those clauses weren't in those loans and he had the 45m still in hand?  Surely he could have made a nice splash in the transfer market with that AND been able to reduce some debt.

 

Very interesting spin on it. It would explain the initial idea that there was big money available for transfers.

[madras]

should be able to get the 2007 accounts from http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/nufc2007.pdf

 

just for you -  a pound cheaper than from Companies House   

 

well, after all the scaremongering you've done about us becoming another Leeds through overspending etc it will be interesting [or not in my case anyway] to see you and those who have made links etc to your site, explain how we are heading the way of Leeds because of underinvestment in the team

 

 

 

I thought they taught grammar in the 60s ??

 

I need help with your question/statement. Do you think we are looking bad cos we ran out of money ? Are you trying to say we looked really good under Shepherd cos he spent £114m more thn he took in, in just 11 years. Shepherd was in control up June 2007

 

I'm just trying to clarify

 

I didn't realise this was under examination conditions. Your own piece is a master of literacy.

 

Go on, quit sidestepping and answer his questions.  You know you want to.

 

I've answered them at least a couple of years ago.

 

macbeth quite simply doesn't understand that football success isn't gained by putting balance sheets before speculation on quality players. The reality check has been posted on numerous occasions. I really can't be bothered with this rubbish. Ashley's preference for balance sheets is going to relegate us. This is why Keegan left. Are you so blind you can't see this ? Care to comment on the rather strange happening that people like him have been insisting for 10 years we were going bankrupt, and more recently "doing a Leeds", when the only thing that is now propelling us in the direction of Leeds is the prudent board, presiding over lack of expenditure on the first team squad, that is "doing a Leeds".

 

I did ask mick this question, but true to form, he avoided it.

 

I'm not interested in macbeth mate, or anything he says. Sorry like.

 

 

and NE5 doesn't understand that you just can't go on spending money you don't have indefinitly and hope to pay it back "when" you are successful.

 

so you're happy that we have progressed from Shepherds legacy and on course to match those Champions League qualifications then ?

 

You should make that comment towards the many people who encouraged and urged the old board to splash the cash every time the team lost a game, then for some reason, agreed with Ashley that not splashing cash was the way forward. Personality driven and confused agendas ? Surely not. My reply is that I am one of the few people around who defended the club for not spening money they didn't have after signing Woodgate in 2003 and make the club over reliant on qualifying for the Champions League, which is the mistake that Leeds made. Unlike numerous people again, who move the goalposts when they feel like it.

 

Somehow, I know that these points will be beneath you to comprehend and debate in a mature fashion.

 

You should also send a memo to Alex Ferguson and tell him how he's been getting it wrong all these years, and he shouldn't have recommended to his board that they buy Wayne Rooney.

 

There are good points of view here in this thread, based on the idea of actually attempting to match how history proves it is done. Its a real shame - for you - that the events of the last 2 weeks still haven't shown you how your head is in the sand.

 

You must also - like macbeth and mick - prefer us to have gone down rather than buy the badly needed, at the time, Martins and Owen. You might not have to wait too long to see how wrong you are, witness Ashley and his mates treading the path that you insisted they follow instead, assuming they stick around that is.

 

 

 

lets take that bit by bit.

 

CHAMPS LGE...... like souness,roeder and allardyce would have got us to ?

 

OLD BOARD SPLASH THE CASH BACK THEN ? if you mean after we mande the champs lge qualifying (belgrade). d'you think it would have made more sense strengthening then from a position of strength with robson or playing catch up with souness (probably the biggest mistake this club has made since coming back up. oh and didn't fred say woodgate was bought with the previous seasons tele money ?

 

ALEX FERGUSON...... i'd tell him he was wrong if he wanted to spend like that at a club that made minimal,if any operating profits and whose debts were mounting.(you see the secret is they can finance their debts easier because of operating profits).

 

it's normally about now you bring up the likes of boro and their debt....well here's a secret,their debt is guaranteed by steve gibson and he has also ploughed into that club a lot of his own cash....quite the reverse of our previous chairman.

 

edit. re your idea about not spending too much cos we could do a leeds. how come that board did spend like that but when it was too late and we had no chance of champs lge revenue. ? which way do you want it as you seem to want it both.

[macbeth]

There has been some interesting info and good analysis in this thread.  I too, am interested to see what the cash flow was like.  I'm no accountant but I'm also not a stranger to the books.  I'm also American so some of the terms are different and may have slightly different connotations.   From what I can gather, it seems that even for good financial times, Shepherd was leveraged out close to the max that a reliable lender would find acceptable.  I would also suspect that when faced with a high wage bill and presumably weak (no?) cash flow Shepherd sought another loan (I know, pure speculation) and was met with a denial and quite probably, a frank assessment of his books.  See, I'm trying to figure why, if things were sound, would Hall and Shepherd suddenly sell.  They had just announced submittal of plans for a stadium expansion. Why go through that effort if you would have the whole club sold inside of two months?

 

The Halls had a desperate need for cash. Cameron Hall as a company had been hugely successful through the 80s and early 90s, making most of its money from the creation of the Metro Centre. By the last time they filed accounts, in 2003 the only asset the business had was 6m shares in NUFC that had cost them £670,000 when they bought them in 1996. The Hall famils as a whole owned roughly a further 47m shares. The widely held view was that they had been looking to sell for a while. When Ashley offered them £1 per ahre they couldn't refuse.

Shepherd did not have to sell up, and made a small effort to look like he was going to say "no", but ultimately the offer was too high to turn down.

 

For the previous 8 years, up to the sale the shareholders (essentially Hall and Shepherd families) had also managed to get just under £30m in dividends out of the club. In 2006/7 there was no further cash that coudl be given away. This would have reduced the Hall income dramatically and would have increased their need to sell up

 

The other thing that I don't understand is the loans.  Why did the due date accelerate if the club were sold?  Were Hall and Shepherd done a favor with some of these loans?  I can't help but think that with that kind of escalation clause that the loans were made as a personal favor to Hall and/or Shepherd.  In light of that escalation clause, my criticism of Ashley for not knowing that they would be due is muted.  I certainly wouldn't think to look for something like that.  If the loan is made to the club, then it's to the club, irrespective of who the owner might be, and it's questionable to have it structured based on ownership.  Maybe this is common in your neck of the woods but not here in the States.  Given that, I can see where Ashley plans for the teams could have changed dramatically, given that he had to pay anywheres from 45m to 114m out of pocket to clear that mess up.  A 45m hit would hurt anyone's cash flow and was likely a big contributor to his austere approach to running the team.  What if those clauses weren't in those loans and he had the 45m still in hand?  Surely he could have made a nice splash in the transfer market with that AND been able to reduce some debt.

 

Apparently it isn't that strange over here. Shepherd would not have had the £45m to pay out, but Ashley could be asked by the lenders to cough up. It isn't clear from the accounts whether he HAD to pay off the other debts, or whether he just chose to. For NUFC the clearance of the debt was a good thing, as it reduced interest payments leaking out the club at a huge rate, whether it was a good thing for Ashley is less obvious.

 

A difference between the way Shepherd and Ashley operate is that Shepherd was suppose to be running a company, for the long term benefit of that company. For Ashley it is a toy. Shepherd never put a penny of his own money in to the club. He was totally restricted in what he could do by the amount of money fans and sponsors put in. When the amount of money coming in was less than he wanted to spend the club, and not him personally, had to borrow. If Ashley wished to overspend he too could borrow but he could also put his own personal money in.

 

In the long run it may also be easier for Ashley to just present the club as a an entity with no debts for a subsequent buyer to take on. If someone takes us off his hands they will be effectively starting from scratch. Whether he had this in his mind at the start is again unknown.

 

Shepherd over-spent by roughly £9m every year, all the time borrowing and stacking up debts. His hope was that we'd get back in the CL, and that like in 2003 we get the bumper TV money. It just never happened. It should also be noted that in 2003 when the club did the best it could on the pitch Shepherd was unable to retain any profit to try and reduce the debts.

 

[Guest fraser]

The title of this thread is Shepherd Legacy.  The issue is what did Shepherd's time as Chairman leave for us.

 

We have a truly great stadium. There are bigger, there are those that are deeper, but the ground is magnificent. It's better than Old Trafford, it's better than Stamford Bridge and it's even better than Themirates.

 

We have great memories; we competed in Europe as never before. We briefly punched our weight.

 

We spent money to buy good players to improve our performance, some of whom are still with us.

 

We were on our way to becoming skint when he sold. This may have put us out of business.

 

Our future was left in the hands of too few people, Keegan, Ashley, Llambias, Wise, a Nigerian tycoon, an Arab tycoon.

 

 

 

 

[madras]

The title of this thread is Shepherd Legacy.  The issue is what did Shepherd's time as Chairman leave for us.

 

We have a truly great stadium. There are bigger, there are those that are deeper, but the ground is magnificent. It's better than Old Trafford, it's better than Stamford Bridge and it's even better than Themirates.

 

We have great memories; we competed in Europe as never before. We briefly punched our weight.

 

We spent money to buy good players to improve our performance, some of whom are still with us.

 

We were on our way to becoming skint when he sold. This may have put us out of business.

 

Our future was left in the hands of too few people, Keegan, Ashley, Llambias, Wise, a Nigerian tycoon, an Arab tycoon.

 

 

 

 

thats nailed it.

[NE5]

The title of this thread is Shepherd Legacy.  The issue is what did Shepherd's time as Chairman leave for us.

 

We have a truly great stadium. There are bigger, there are those that are deeper, but the ground is magnificent. It's better than Old Trafford, it's better than Stamford Bridge and it's even better than Themirates.

 

We have great memories; we competed in Europe as never before. We briefly punched our weight.

 

We spent money to buy good players to improve our performance, some of whom are still with us.

 

We were on our way to becoming skint when he sold. This may have put us out of business.

 

Our future was left in the hands of too few people, Keegan, Ashley, Llambias, Wise, a Nigerian tycoon, an Arab tycoon.

 

 

 

 

thats nailed it.

 

in others, a good board that did a lot for the club, easily the best and most progressive we have had in at least 50 years, and replacing them with better will be quite a difficult task ?

 

 

[Guest fraser]

The title of this thread is Shepherd Legacy.  The issue is what did Shepherd's time as Chairman leave for us.

 

We have a truly great stadium. There are bigger, there are those that are deeper, but the ground is magnificent. It's better than Old Trafford, it's better than Stamford Bridge and it's even better than Themirates.

 

We have great memories; we competed in Europe as never before. We briefly punched our weight.

 

We spent money to buy good players to improve our performance, some of whom are still with us.

 

We were on our way to becoming skint when he sold. This may have put us out of business.

 

Our future was left in the hands of too few people, Keegan, Ashley, Llambias, Wise, a Nigerian tycoon, an Arab tycoon.

 

 

 

 

thats nailed it.

 

in others, a good board that did a lot for the club, easily the best and most progressive we have had in at least 50 years, and replacing them with better will be quite a difficult task ?

 

 

 

I have never argued that Shepherd was a failure; I remember black and white telly too. All I say is that it could have turned out so much better after he went but that he had to go because he was no longer taking us forward. His legacy is strength is some areas but he left us vulnerable in others; hence the current situation.

[Dave]

The title of this thread is Shepherd Legacy.  The issue is what did Shepherd's time as Chairman leave for us.

 

We have a truly great stadium. There are bigger, there are those that are deeper, but the ground is magnificent. It's better than Old Trafford, it's better than Stamford Bridge and it's even better than Themirates.

 

We have great memories; we competed in Europe as never before. We briefly punched our weight.

 

We spent money to buy good players to improve our performance, some of whom are still with us.

 

We were on our way to becoming skint when he sold. This may have put us out of business.

 

Our future was left in the hands of too few people, Keegan, Ashley, Llambias, Wise, a Nigerian tycoon, an Arab tycoon.

 

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

The title of this thread is Shepherd Legacy.  The issue is what did Shepherd's time as Chairman leave for us.

 

We have a truly great stadium. There are bigger, there are those that are deeper, but the ground is magnificent. It's better than Old Trafford, it's better than Stamford Bridge and it's even better than Themirates.

 

We have great memories; we competed in Europe as never before. We briefly punched our weight.

 

We spent money to buy good players to improve our performance, some of whom are still with us.

 

We were on our way to becoming skint when he sold. This may have put us out of business.

 

Our future was left in the hands of too few people, Keegan, Ashley, Llambias, Wise, a Nigerian tycoon, an Arab tycoon.

 

 

 

 

thats nailed it.

 

in others, a good board that did a lot for the club, easily the best and most progressive we have had in at least 50 years, and replacing them with better will be quite a difficult task ?

 

 

 

I have never argued that Shepherd was a failure; I remember black and white telly too. All I say is that it could have turned out so much better after he went but that he had to go because he was no longer taking us forward. His legacy is strength is some areas but he left us vulnerable in others; hence the current situation.

 

I wouldn't argue with what you say, I see it how I have said it too. My comments are aimed at madras in this instance, but a few others eg mick and macbeth can agree if they like, as its pretty undisputable. But I bet that they won't admit it.

 

Thats what happens though when your "opinions" are personality-based and not factually based.

 

There's no doubt that appointing Souness was the start of their fall from grace [not the "dogs" business which was absurdly and childishly clung onto by those of a sensitive nature, or those who have a fondness for cliches or jumping on bandwagons rather than have their own opinion although I bet they were all happy to go to 2 FA Cup Finals and enjoy the Champions League games] but that isn't to say they would not have appointed a good manager and been successful again. So long as you understand the basics, there is always a chance of that. Better to have someone who understands the game than someone who doesn't, like Ashley [and hopefully his successor will understand the game].

 

To me, their legacy is pretty straightforward. They gave me as a supporter the best decade and a half supporting the club than anybody else has ever done by miles, and left it a million miles better than when they walked through the door. 

 

 

[Syrette]

Yet you seem incapable of understanding why people have issues with what he/they didn't do so well..

[NE5]

Yet you seem incapable of understanding why people have issues with what he/they didn't do so well..

 

you're quite wrong. I know they weren't perfect, but I think people like you, ought to understand how much better the club was in comparison to when they came, and I don't think you appreciated the years they ran the club, even when people tried to tell you. Its only a few years since cretins booed the team for finishing 5th in the league. And many, many people scorned at qualifying for europe via the intertoto. Thats the sort of raised expectations that have been taken for granted, and is something you should think about, and is also their legacy or part of it.

 

You said yesterday that I was patronising. How else can I explain it ?? What I do take issue with though, is people who supported the club, or say they did, that don't appreciate how much better the club is, and I'm sorry but the only conclusion I can come to, is that they are lying when they claim this. Not one person I know, that actually is a long term supporter, denies that the club isn't miles better than they were when the Halls and Shepherd took over.

 

 

[madras]

Yet you seem incapable of understanding why people have issues with what he/they didn't do so well..

 

you're quite wrong. I know they weren't perfect, but I think people like you, ought to understand how much better the club was in comparison to when they came, and I don't think you appreciated the years they ran the club, even when people tried to tell you. Its only a few years since cretins booed the team for finishing 5th in the league. And many, many people scorned at qualifying for europe via the intertoto. Thats the sort of raised expectations that have been taken for granted, and is something you should think about, and is also their legacy or part of it.

 

You said yesterday that I was patronising. How else can I explain it ?? What I do take issue with though, is people who supported the club, or say they did, that don't appreciate how much better the club is, and I'm sorry but the only conclusion I can come to, is that they are lying when they claim this. Not one person I know, that actually is a long term supporter, denies that the club isn't miles better than they were when the Halls and Shepherd took over.

 

 

yes much better than when they came but when they left they were going backwards at an alarming rate and had been for some time.................why can't you see this ?

[Thespence]

Well played everyone who can only see the negative things of the Shepherd the chairman. Personally I think some people pay to much attention to the board room rather than the managers at club had in his time as they were key to his good & bad years as chairman.

 

As for the battler from Byker legacy, the Champions League years & never letting the club drop into the Championship has to be his legacy.

 

As for the balance sheet bollocks, Shepherd may of acted liked he owned the club but he didn't, yes his wages did seem high, I guess Dougie Halls Gibraltar operation didn't work out & looks like a tax scam, it did seem a bit off his brother bought a warehouse off the club rather cheaply & then leased back to NUFC BUT the vast majority of the debt was because of buying players & building the ground up so more people could get into the ground!!! I see nothing wrong with that.

 

Baggio man, you like DOF or in our case ED(F) because you have looked at other clubs & seen how it works. I don't see why your dissing Keegan so much when it blatantly obvious Wise is also not the man. I think TJ & JV could & should of done the DOF/ED(F) role between them. I don't see any point to what Wise does apart from doing what he has done for years being confrontational.

[NE5]

Yet you seem incapable of understanding why people have issues with what he/they didn't do so well..

 

you're quite wrong. I know they weren't perfect, but I think people like you, ought to understand how much better the club was in comparison to when they came, and I don't think you appreciated the years they ran the club, even when people tried to tell you. Its only a few years since cretins booed the team for finishing 5th in the league. And many, many people scorned at qualifying for europe via the intertoto. Thats the sort of raised expectations that have been taken for granted, and is something you should think about, and is also their legacy or part of it.

 

You said yesterday that I was patronising. How else can I explain it ?? What I do take issue with though, is people who supported the club, or say they did, that don't appreciate how much better the club is, and I'm sorry but the only conclusion I can come to, is that they are lying when they claim this. Not one person I know, that actually is a long term supporter, denies that the club isn't miles better than they were when the Halls and Shepherd took over.

 

 

yes much better than when they came but when they left they were going backwards at an alarming rate and had been for some time.................why can't you see this ?

 

we finished 7th and qualified for europe 2 years ago.

 

I've said my piece. The raised expectations are their legacy. I have said that appointing Souness was a clanger but to say they weren't capable of being successful again, when they understood the game and had appointing managers that had did well, and appointed a manager who had a record like Alex Ferguson at the time, is bollocks to be honest. The last few weeks should have been a reality check to you, and a few others.

 

I'm not repeating myself. Their legacy is the fact that the club was a million miles better than when they came, and expectations were miles higher too. Is that or is it not a legacy ?

 

 

[Tsunami]

Shepherd benefitted from what Hall had started to create, he had access to more money than most of our rivals and he spent it on players and the ground. He also had the benefit that we were a club players wanted to come too. For most part he took us forward but he hit a block when he hired Souness, when europe was no longer a near guarantee, when money became more available to other clubs and when he didn't have as easy access to money himself.

 

He'd upset fans with his stupid remarks about dogs, shirts, Mary Poppoins, the money he'd taken out of the club and the fact that his son was getting in on the act. These in tandem with the stagnation of the club drew increased criticism and he got out just in time for both his sake and that of the club.

 

I had better times under Shepherd than I have under Ashley; we all have. If Shepherd had the money that Ashley has I have no doubt we'd all be a lot happier than we are today. I believe that Shepherd wanted the best for the fans and the club, I don't believe that Ashley has.

 

For me, Shepherd built a platform for someone to take on and improve, clearly it had to be someone with more money than he could generate. Unfortunately that person was Ashley. I really fear for what Ashley could do to the club. He could sell us at a price and to a consortium raising money in loans that could make the debt that Shepherd created for the club look like chicken feed.

[johnnypd]

Shepherd benefitted from what Hall had started to create, he had access to more money than most of our rivals and he spent it on players and the ground. He also had the benefit that we were a club players wanted to come too. For most part he took us forward but he hit a block when he hired Souness, when europe was no longer a near guarantee, when money became more available to other clubs and when he didn't have as easy access to money himself.

 

He'd upset fans with his stupid remarks about dogs, shirts, Mary Poppoins, the money he'd taken out of the club and the fact that his son was getting in on the act. These in tandem with the stagnation of the club drew increased criticism and he got out just in time for both his sake and that of the club.

 

I had better times under Shepherd than I have under Ashley; we all have. If Shepherd had the money that Ashley has I have no doubt we'd all be a lot happier than we are today. I believe that Shepherd wanted the best for the fans and the club, I don't believe that Ashley has.

 

For me, Shepherd built a platform for someone to take on and improve, clearly it had to be someone with more money than he could generate. Unfortunately that person was Ashley. I really fear for what Ashley could do to the club. He could sell us at a price and to a consortium raising money in loans that could make the debt that Shepherd created for the club look like chicken feed.

 

spot on, basically.

[madras]

Yet you seem incapable of understanding why people have issues with what he/they didn't do so well..

they raised expectation then lowered them.

 

you know your history NE5. you know that roeders 7th placed team was poor and was only going to go the way that it did. downwards fast. very similar to McFauls 8th placed teram of 85-86. a poor team that had a decent run towards the end of the season but rvryone knew the season after would be closer to relegartion thean qualifying for europe.

 

 

you're quite wrong. I know they weren't perfect, but I think people like you, ought to understand how much better the club was in comparison to when they came, and I don't think you appreciated the years they ran the club, even when people tried to tell you. Its only a few years since cretins booed the team for finishing 5th in the league. And many, many people scorned at qualifying for europe via the intertoto. Thats the sort of raised expectations that have been taken for granted, and is something you should think about, and is also their legacy or part of it.

 

You said yesterday that I was patronising. How else can I explain it ?? What I do take issue with though, is people who supported the club, or say they did, that don't appreciate how much better the club is, and I'm sorry but the only conclusion I can come to, is that they are lying when they claim this. Not one person I know, that actually is a long term supporter, denies that the club isn't miles better than they were when the Halls and Shepherd took over.

 

 

yes much better than when they came but when they left they were going backwards at an alarming rate and had been for some time.................why can't you see this ?

 

we finished 7th and qualified for europe 2 years ago.

 

I've said my piece. The raised expectations are their legacy. I have said that appointing Souness was a clanger but to say they weren't capable of being successful again, when they understood the game and had appointing managers that had did well, and appointed a manager who had a record like Alex Ferguson at the time, is bollocks to be honest. The last few weeks should have been a reality check to you, and a few others.

 

I'm not repeating myself. Their legacy is the fact that the club was a million miles better than when they came, and expectations were miles higher too. Is that or is it not a legacy ?

 

 

[brummie]

I'm full of trepidation in getting involved in this thread, but as a neutral (although as one who spent a lot of time watching Newcastle in the late 80s), on the most obvious level the key is to look at the state of the ground in the late 80s and look at it now, look at the crowds back then and look at them now. First time I went to SJP I actually thought I'd gone to the wrong place, that I'd turned up at some kind of dilapidated athletics stadium. I'd never actually seen a ground open at both ends in the top flight.

 

I've enjoyed reading the pyramidtastic threads on here about your old board, but it is interesting that - again, on the most superficial level, and simplifying things  - a lot of Villa fans would say that the problem with our esteemed former chairman was that he never, ever showed any ambition whereas yours did.

 

Look at the effect it had when your board showed that ambition, and look at the upturn in our fortunes now our new board in showing some. In a bizarre, twisted way, whilst I understand why feeligns to FFS are as they are, if you look at the way things changed at your club over, what, more than a decade, you got some things right and - this is the bizarre bit - showed an example. Speculate to accumulate.

 

Sorry if that makes no sense, it is quite hard to explain what I'm trying to say. Made harder since a few pints after work

 

 

[macbeth]

 

 

you're quite wrong. I know they weren't perfect, but I think people like you, ought to understand how much better the club was in comparison to when they came, and I don't think you appreciated the years they ran the club, even when people tried to tell you. Its only a few years since cretins booed the team for finishing 5th in the league. And many, many people scorned at qualifying for europe via the intertoto. Thats the sort of raised expectations that have been taken for granted, and is something you should think about, and is also their legacy or part of it.

 

You said yesterday that I was patronising. How else can I explain it ?? What I do take issue with though, is people who supported the club, or say they did, that don't appreciate how much better the club is, and I'm sorry but the only conclusion I can come to, is that they are lying when they claim this. Not one person I know, that actually is a long term supporter, denies that the club isn't miles better than they were when the Halls and Shepherd took over.

 

 

 

that is the first time you have ever written down clearly what you think, and feel. EVERY other time you have tried to put words into peoples mouths, made accusations about what you think they think, or what they want. If you had expressed yourself as you have in this post then you would have few arguments from me, or others.

 

My grouse with Hall and Shepherd began in 2003 when they seemed to take their eye off the ball. Up to then they had speculated to try and improve, then, for some reason they just started randomly increasing salaries, givinbg out 5 year contracts, randomly appointing managers, and not speculating to improve, but gambling to survive. That was the difference.

 

Without a shadow of a doubt staying in the top division was a major achievement, worthy of credit. I am old enough to appreciate this.  Every side in England has a new stadium, or vastly improved stadium, though, us having one doesn't Shepherd apart from the rest.

 

The last season under McKeag we lost £3m, on only £4.2m coming in to the club. The club spent £440,000 on new players. We also spent £300,000 getting rid of a Jim Smith. We had a wage bill of £2.6m. We had debts of £7m.

The reason I quote all these boring numbers is that if you multiply them all up it is essentially the state that Shepherd left the club in 16 years later. £32m loss on £87m income. Spent more than 10% of income on new players. Spent the same sort of percentage sacking the manager, again. Wages were 70% of income, debts of £70m. 

 

To me Shepherd has left the club with the same financial mess that John Hall inherited, we have had great fun along the way, many fortunes have been made, but looking at what he has passed to his successor, it is scarily similar to 1991. Just as it couldn't go on in 1991 it could not have continued in 2007.

 

We were fortunate to get Sir John, we have been unfortunate to get Mike Ashley. If Shepherd had stayed in charge there would have been no money to "speculate" cos there was nowhere to get the money from, it had all gone.

 

 

[Syrette]

Yet you seem incapable of understanding why people have issues with what he/they didn't do so well..

 

you're quite wrong. I know they weren't perfect, but I think people like you, ought to understand how much better the club was in comparison to when they came, and I don't think you appreciated the years they ran the club, even when people tried to tell you. Its only a few years since cretins booed the team for finishing 5th in the league. And many, many people scorned at qualifying for europe via the intertoto. Thats the sort of raised expectations that have been taken for granted, and is something you should think about, and is also their legacy or part of it.

 

You said yesterday that I was patronising. How else can I explain it ?? What I do take issue with though, is people who supported the club, or say they did, that don't appreciate how much better the club is, and I'm sorry but the only conclusion I can come to, is that they are lying when they claim this. Not one person I know, that actually is a long term supporter, denies that the club isn't miles better than they were when the Halls and Shepherd took over.

 

 

 

I have never said nor implied that there wasn't plenty of positives to take from the Shepherd era. You don't need to tell me how good we had it at certain points, and yes, Shepherd et al obviously deserve some of the credit for that and also our (admittedly diminishing) status nowadays.

[Willow]

http://g.photos.cx/WaterBalloon-21.gif

[ChezGiven]

 

My grouse with Hall and Shepherd began in 2003 when they seemed to take their eye off the ball. Up to then they had speculated to try and improve, then, for some reason they just started randomly increasing salaries, givinbg out 5 year contracts, randomly appointing managers, and not speculating to improve, but gambling to survive. That was the difference.

 

To me Shepherd has left the club with the same financial mess that John Hall inherited, we have had great fun along the way, many fortunes have been made, but looking at what he has passed to his successor, it is scarily similar to 1991.

 

 

Thats it? Thats your gripe? 'They made some mistakes?' Do they not get any capital or goodwill for what they achieved?

 

How do you get from speculating to gambling too? Its only money and decision-making whichever way you look at it.

 

As for the financial comment, are you saying we had the same sorts of revenues relative to other clubs when Hall took the club over? I dont think so.

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

you're quite wrong. I know they weren't perfect, but I think people like you, ought to understand how much better the club was in comparison to when they came, and I don't think you appreciated the years they ran the club, even when people tried to tell you. Its only a few years since cretins booed the team for finishing 5th in the league. And many, many people scorned at qualifying for europe via the intertoto. Thats the sort of raised expectations that have been taken for granted, and is something you should think about, and is also their legacy or part of it.

 

You said yesterday that I was patronising. How else can I explain it ?? What I do take issue with though, is people who supported the club, or say they did, that don't appreciate how much better the club is, and I'm sorry but the only conclusion I can come to, is that they are lying when they claim this. Not one person I know, that actually is a long term supporter, denies that the club isn't miles better than they were when the Halls and Shepherd took over.

 

 

 

that is the first time you have ever written down clearly what you think, and feel. EVERY other time you have tried to put words into peoples mouths, made accusations about what you think they think, or what they want. If you had expressed yourself as you have in this post then you would have few arguments from me, or others.

 

My grouse with Hall and Shepherd began in 2003 n they seemed to take their eye off the ball. Up to then they had speculated to try and improve, then, for some reason they just started randomly increasing salaries, givinbg out 5 year contracts, randomly appointing managers, and not speculating to improve, but gambling to survive. That was the difference.

 

Without a shadow of a doubt staying in the top division was a major achievement, worthy of credit. I am old enough to appreciate this.  Every side in England has a new stadium, or vastly improved stadium, though, us having one doesn't Shepherd apart from the rest.

 

The last season under McKeag we lost £3m, on only £4.2m coming in to the club. The club spent £440,000 on new players. We also spent £300,000 getting rid of a Jim Smith. We had a wage bill of £2.6m. We had debts of £7m.

The reason I quote all these boring numbers is that if you multiply them all up it is essentially the state that Shepherd left the club in 16 years later. £32m loss on £87m income. Spent more than 10% of income on new players. Spent the same sort of percentage sacking the manager, again. Wages were 70% of income, debts of £70m. 

 

To me Shepherd has left the club with the same financial mess that John Hall inherited, we have had great fun along the way, many fortunes have been made, but looking at what he has passed to his successor, it is scarily similar to 1991. Just as it couldn't go on in 1991 it could not have continued in 2007.

 

We were fortunate to get Sir John, we have been unfortunate to get Mike Ashley. If Shepherd had stayed in charge there would have been no money to "speculate" cos there was nowhere to get the money from, it had all gone.

 

 

You're a liar.

 

You wrote a piece in the mag in 1998, around the time of the FA Cup Final, whinging on about dividends etc. I quoted this once before. Have you forgotten , because you replied to it, and also harped on about your moronic support of that cretin Adam Crozier and how he would be the "ideal" chairman of the club.

 

I have ALWAYS said, and said it often, that the Halls and Shepherd left the club miles better than how they found it. If you weren't so obsessed with reading your balance sheets, and concentrating on the football which happens to be the industry that we are in, you would have seen it.

 

The fact that you have disappeared for all this time, and re-appeared talking yet again about nothing but finance should tell its own story.

 

I really couldn't give a toss about those figures above. The simple fact is, the club was bankrupt in 1991, counldn't sell it for 2.5m quid, had one foot in the 3rd division, played in front of a cow shed masquerading as a football stadium and 15 years later, had qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, played in the Champions League, expanded the stadium to one of the best and biggest in the UK, and filled it, bought major international players instead of selling them, and was worth one of the highest valuations in the country through massively raising the profile of the club, is the legacy.

 

By the way, you have constantly whinged on about the club "doing a Leeds", through overspending. Well, the club is now heading the way of Leeds, and its for the opposite reason to your claims. Its heading that way because of underinvestment on players. Even you should find this slightly ironic. I'm sure a smart lad like you will recognise the irony of this..............

 

You're clueless. And you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder, just because the ex board refused you a say in the running of the football club, which is a strange demand to put it mildly.

 

One last point. You say we were "lucky to get Sir John". Well, Sir John was lucky to have Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd as his co-directors, because these were the people who were completely responsible for getting Keegan to the club first time round, when Sir John didn't want to change the manager and they almost threw him into his lap and forced him to sack Ardiles. Depending on who you believe, but  I tend to believe what Keegan says in his own book. Unless you think what we achieved would have happened with any old Charllie Bloggs as manager of the football team, such is your apparent view that the "business plan" and the balance sheet come first.

 

You really couldn't make this up. Someone else who has learned absolutely nothing from the events of the last 2 weeks.

 

 

[Dave]

EVERY other time you have tried to put words into peoples mouths, made accusations about what you think they think, or what they want.