Finances web-site

[Parky]

We made 2 catastrophic purchases in Luque and Boumsong and the board cannot be blamed in any way for that, apart from the fact they didn't see through Sourmess earlier. To add to this we bought Owen for I'd say £8m more than his real value and all the injury baggage he brings with him. This last purchase was GS's final throw of the dice and the jury is still out on whether Owen will be a good return on a £24m (inc wages and bonuses) we have invested in him. I doubt it unless he makes a miracle recovery and stays fit. The Owen purchase is something at the time although one showing huge ambition, also smacks for me a little bit of not properly thinking through the impact of such a big 'one investment' strategy.

[Howaythelads]

We made 2 catastrophic purchases in Luque and Boumsong and the board cannot be blamed in any way for that, apart from the fact they didn't see through Sourmess earlier. To add to this we bought Owen for I'd say £8m more than his real value and all the injury baggage he brings with him. This last purchase was GS's final throw of the dice and the jury is still out on whether Owen will be a good return on a £24m (inc wages and bonuses) we have invested in him. I doubt it unless he makes a miracle recovery and stays fit. The Owen purchase is something at the time although one showing huge ambition, also smacks for me a little bit of not properly thinking through the impact of such a big 'one investment' strategy.

 

Agree mostly.

 

All made necessary by the lack of managerial ability of Souness. Owen didn't play much last season, but without him during the early part and then the eventual departure of Souness, I believe we'd have been relegated or extremely close to being relegated. People can look at the balance sheet all they like and claim it shows we have an incompetent Boarad, but what it shows it that the downturn starts on the field of play. Imo.

[NE5]

 

Oh dear.....

 

If a manager who had won 4 league titles, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't qualified enough for you, please explain who would have been ....

 

A small matter of our first FA Cup Final in 22 years is of course nothing of importance, we should have lost in the 3rd round like all the other years  bluebigeek.gif

 

You were happy to finish 2 points above relegation and reach Wembley in 1974, so who changed your expectations ?

 

 

 

 

 

Dalglish was the opposite to what we had so tried to change everything that the team had been built around, I wanted Bobby Robson because I felt that he would tinker with the team and win something.

 

Dalglish was also partly to blame for the collapse of Liverpool from regular league champions to also rans, Souness finished what Dalglish started.

 

you SAY you did. Are you aware the club. Unfortunately, Robson didn't come and was under contract, so who would have been your alternative and under what criteria would you have picked someone to guarantee trophies ? PS...send this blueprint to 88 clubs in the country if it is so easy ...

 

 

[NE5]

 

well the mackems made a record points loss...beating their own record.....sadly thats what comes from putting finance and prudence first, having zero ambition and no courage to attempt to tap your big fanbase ...

 

Which of course brings in the customers in their thousands  :roll:

 

I'm not defending the mackems but the first time they set the record was after splashing cash on shite, something we've become good at.  Another thing, we've splashed the cash and we're not far off doing what the mackems did after they decided to spend.

 

 

nah, you've got it wrong. We've been spending cash on far bigger shite in the 30 years pre-1992, proven by our results. When we managed to raise it in the first place, that is. We've also spent cash on shite to replace quality too. Top quality. England players. Surprised you dont' see that, as you say you experienced it.

 

 

[Mick]

 

Oh dear.....

 

If a manager who had won 4 league titles, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't qualified enough for you, please explain who would have been ....

 

A small matter of our first FA Cup Final in 22 years is of course nothing of importance, we should have lost in the 3rd round like all the other years  bluebigeek.gif

 

You were happy to finish 2 points above relegation and reach Wembley in 1974, so who changed your expectations ?

 

 

 

 

 

Dalglish was the opposite to what we had so tried to change everything that the team had been built around, I wanted Bobby Robson because I felt that he would tinker with the team and win something.

 

Dalglish was also partly to blame for the collapse of Liverpool from regular league champions to also rans, Souness finished what Dalglish started.

 

you SAY you did. Are you aware the club. Unfortunately, Robson didn't come and was under contract, so who would have been your alternative and under what criteria would you have picked someone to guarantee trophies ? PS...send this blueprint to 88 clubs in the country if it is so easy ...

 

 

 

Yes I say I did.

 

Robson didn't come and after that I couldn't have picked someone who could have guaranteed trophies, nobody can do that.  That's no excuse for Shepherd getting it so wrong so many times.

[Mick]

 

well the mackems made a record points loss...beating their own record.....sadly thats what comes from putting finance and prudence first, having zero ambition and no courage to attempt to tap your big fanbase ...

 

Which of course brings in the customers in their thousands  :roll:

 

I'm not defending the mackems but the first time they set the record was after splashing cash on shite, something we've become good at.  Another thing, we've splashed the cash and we're not far off doing what the mackems did after they decided to spend.

 

 

nah, you've got it wrong. We've been spending cash on far bigger shite in the 30 years pre-1992, proven by our results. When we managed to raise it in the first place, that is. We've also spent cash on shite to replace quality too. Top quality. England players. Surprised you dont' see that, as you say you experienced it.

 

 

 

Do you mean Andreas Andersson replacing Asprilla?

 

Do you mean Ian Rush or John Barnes replacing Ferdinand?

 

Do you mean Boumsong or Ronny Johnsen replacing Woodgate?

 

Do you mean Martins (so far) replacing Shearer?

[Howaythelads]

 

Oh dear.....

 

If a manager who had won 4 league titles, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't qualified enough for you, please explain who would have been ....

 

A small matter of our first FA Cup Final in 22 years is of course nothing of importance, we should have lost in the 3rd round like all the other years  bluebigeek.gif

 

You were happy to finish 2 points above relegation and reach Wembley in 1974, so who changed your expectations ?

 

 

 

 

 

Dalglish was the opposite to what we had so tried to change everything that the team had been built around, I wanted Bobby Robson because I felt that he would tinker with the team and win something.

 

Dalglish was also partly to blame for the collapse of Liverpool from regular league champions to also rans, Souness finished what Dalglish started.

 

you SAY you did. Are you aware the club. Unfortunately, Robson didn't come and was under contract, so who would have been your alternative and under what criteria would you have picked someone to guarantee trophies ? PS...send this blueprint to 88 clubs in the country if it is so easy ...

 

 

 

Yes I say I did.

 

Robson didn't come and after that I couldn't have picked someone who could have guaranteed trophies, nobody can do that.  That's no excuse for Shepherd getting it so wrong so many times.

 

Robson couldn't guarantee trophies, as you indeed went on to say. Had Robson joined at that time and failed would you blame him or the Board.

 

How I wish there had been a forum at that time. I don't really believe you, you see. ( That last bit is your get out from answering the first bit....  bluebiggrin.gif)

[Mick]

 

Oh dear.....

 

If a manager who had won 4 league titles, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't qualified enough for you, please explain who would have been ....

 

A small matter of our first FA Cup Final in 22 years is of course nothing of importance, we should have lost in the 3rd round like all the other years  bluebigeek.gif

 

You were happy to finish 2 points above relegation and reach Wembley in 1974, so who changed your expectations ?

 

 

 

 

 

Dalglish was the opposite to what we had so tried to change everything that the team had been built around, I wanted Bobby Robson because I felt that he would tinker with the team and win something.

 

Dalglish was also partly to blame for the collapse of Liverpool from regular league champions to also rans, Souness finished what Dalglish started.

 

you SAY you did. Are you aware the club. Unfortunately, Robson didn't come and was under contract, so who would have been your alternative and under what criteria would you have picked someone to guarantee trophies ? PS...send this blueprint to 88 clubs in the country if it is so easy ...

 

 

 

Yes I say I did.

 

Robson didn't come and after that I couldn't have picked someone who could have guaranteed trophies, nobody can do that.  That's no excuse for Shepherd getting it so wrong so many times.

 

Robson couldn't guarantee trophies, as you indeed went on to say. Had Robson joined at that time and failed would you blame him or the Board.

 

How I wish there had been a forum at that time. I don't really believe you, you see. ( That last bit is your get out from answering the first bit....  bluebiggrin.gif)

 

Actually forum or no forum, I could still get on the internet at that time, I posted somethere Toontastic (phil) posted at the time.  Google will probably show my thoughts on us at this time, including my feelings on Dalglish.

 

Would you like to put a little wager on it?

 

I could easily find something later on as I'm going to the match now, are you willing to have me prove it?

 

I'll also prove something else if I'm right.

 

Call my bluff, go on, go for it.

[Howaythelads]

 

well the mackems made a record points loss...beating their own record.....sadly thats what comes from putting finance and prudence first, having zero ambition and no courage to attempt to tap your big fanbase ...

 

Which of course brings in the customers in their thousands  :roll:

 

I'm not defending the mackems but the first time they set the record was after splashing cash on shite, something we've become good at.  Another thing, we've splashed the cash and we're not far off doing what the mackems did after they decided to spend.

 

 

nah, you've got it wrong. We've been spending cash on far bigger shite in the 30 years pre-1992, proven by our results. When we managed to raise it in the first place, that is. We've also spent cash on shite to replace quality too. Top quality. England players. Surprised you dont' see that, as you say you experienced it.

 

 

 

Do you mean Andreas Andersson replacing Asprilla?

 

Do you mean Ian Rush or John Barnes replacing Ferdinand?

 

Do you mean Boumsong or Ronny Johnsen replacing Woodgate?

 

Do you mean Martins (so far) replacing Shearer?

 

Owen is the replacement for Shearer.

 

You also miss the point again. None of those players you list wanted to leave the club while accusing the club of a lack of ambition. You can try to prove they did if you like.  bluebiggrin.gif

[macbeth]

 

 

You were happy to finish 2 points above relegation and reach Wembley in 1974, so who changed your expectations ?

 

 

 

Were you unhappy in 1974 to finish 8th bottom and get to the Cup final ? Were you unhappy to finish 8th bottom when we got to the Cup Final in 98, or 8th bottom in 1999 ? What changed your expectation ? Your 1974 view is one of a horrendous incompetent board, the current board acheives similar and you defend them to the hilt

[macbeth]

Unable to address the point again. What a surprise. No doubt you'd continue this tack unless I post an exact average attendance figure or would you even then change the period over which it was calculated.

 

We had crowds around that time of 15k-20k, it makes no difference if the average in a particular season is 25k, the point you're trying to avoid is that thousands of people who previously took the piss out of the club, AND IT'S SUPPORT, suddenly wanted a ticket. Thousands suddenly claimed to be lifelong fans. My belief is that you're one of them.

 

There was one crowd below 20,000 that season. You'll remember why that one happened too. The average home attendance despite that game was just under 33,000. That 46,000 turned up trying to get a voucher for the final is probably not too different from today when we get sub 30,000 crowds for Cup games but don't have enough tickets available for all our Cup finals.

 

Somehow this is relevant to the performance of Shepherd/Hall, or a distraction more likely

[Howaythelads]

Unable to address the point again. What a surprise. No doubt you'd continue this tack unless I post an exact average attendance figure or would you even then change the period over which it was calculated.

 

We had crowds around that time of 15k-20k, it makes no difference if the average in a particular season is 25k, the point you're trying to avoid is that thousands of people who previously took the piss out of the club, AND IT'S SUPPORT, suddenly wanted a ticket. Thousands suddenly claimed to be lifelong fans. My belief is that you're one of them.

 

There was one crowd below 20,000 that season. You'll remember why that one happened too. The average home attendance despite that game was just under 33,000. That 46,000 turned up trying to get a voucher for the final is probably not too different from today when we get sub 30,000 crowds for Cup games but don't have enough tickets available for all our Cup finals.

 

Somehow this is relevant to the performance of Shepherd/Hall, or a distraction more likely

 

Err no. Are you stupid or something? I know you don't understand football that well so I'm used to you misunderstanding everything on that subject.

 

Did I say this was in relation to the performance of those people you hate because they wouldn't let your organisation have a say in the running of the club? No, I didn't say that, did I? What I'm saying above is that Mick a bandwagon jumper worthy of nothing but contempt. I thought that was clear so I can't see how you're confusing the two. Weird.

 

[OzzieMandias]

 

Good points, Macbeth, as ever.

 

But I think you need to consider reducing the size of those graphics.

 

For one or two people, the pictures are obviously too big to see.

 

I think you need to consider extracting yourself from his back end.

 

Going to try making some points of your own?? You know, points that have some SUBSTANCE behind them.

 

What is it about these facts and figures concerning our steadily declining income and dangerously spiralling ratio of wages to turnover that strikes you as insubstantial, exactly?

 

And what is it that you don't understand about this decline coming about due to the dropping off of performances on the field of play, rather than consistent mismanagment of the clubs finances by the Board? This isn't difficult stuff.

 

If you can't even see that the two things are intricately related – mismanagement of the club doesn't stop at finances, while finances affect our performances on the field of play as much as performances on the field of play affect finances – then it's not surprising that you can't recognise the vicious circle we've been in since Partizan, which marked the end of the good work Bobby Robson had managed to do, pretty much against the run of play.

 

Surprising that you recognise when it began, unlike your mate Macbeth. Now all you have to do is make that giant leap to accept that the Board hasn't been mismanaging things since they took over, that it's down to mismanagement on the pitch and we're home and dry. From the  point of view of the Board, throwing £50m at a team that was still good enough to finish 5th should not have seen a decline. They did their bit but the manager fúcked it up. The correct replacement will put it right and that's what's underway right now, it won't happen overnight.   Look at the link in my sig'.

 

So how come, given your hero's peerless financial management, was there no money available to strengthen the squad pre-Partizan?

[OzzieMandias]

The club has gone wrong since appointing Souness, before that we were moving along and doing quite well but were in a position where we could have moved upwards further if a better choice of manager had been made.

 

The decline in income clearly started two years before Fat Fred appointed Souness.

 

Why are you on a thread about the club's finances if you haven't even read the information about the club's finances?

[OzzieMandias]

We made 2 catastrophic purchases in Luque and Boumsong and the board cannot be blamed in any way for that

 

Apart from appointing Souness, agreeing to the transfers, and signing the cheques for them, they are completely blameless, you're right.

[midds]

 

Good points, Macbeth, as ever.

 

But I think you need to consider reducing the size of those graphics.

 

For one or two people, the pictures are obviously too big to see.

 

 

I think you need to consider extracting yourself from his back end.

 

Going to try making some points of your own?? You know, points that have some SUBSTANCE behind them.

 

What is it about these facts and figures concerning our steadily declining income and dangerously spiralling ratio of wages to turnover that strikes you as insubstantial, exactly?

 

And what is it that you don't understand about this decline coming about due to the droppoing off of performances on the field of play, rather than consistent mismanagment of the clubs finances by the Board? This isn't difficult stuff.

 

Answering a question with a question....Thatcheresque tbh.  bluebigeek.gif

 

 

And you are who, exactly ? And what is your knowledge and experience of the club, exactly ?

 

 

 

Never mind that. Who are you? What position did you hold on the board of directors? Or are you just a fan, like me? Or do you think your opinion is worth more than mine because you're a lot older than me?  :roll:

[Howaythelads]

 

Good points, Macbeth, as ever.

 

But I think you need to consider reducing the size of those graphics.

 

For one or two people, the pictures are obviously too big to see.

 

I think you need to consider extracting yourself from his back end.

 

Going to try making some points of your own?? You know, points that have some SUBSTANCE behind them.

 

What is it about these facts and figures concerning our steadily declining income and dangerously spiralling ratio of wages to turnover that strikes you as insubstantial, exactly?

 

And what is it that you don't understand about this decline coming about due to the dropping off of performances on the field of play, rather than consistent mismanagment of the clubs finances by the Board? This isn't difficult stuff.

 

If you can't even see that the two things are intricately related – mismanagement of the club doesn't stop at finances, while finances affect our performances on the field of play as much as performances on the field of play affect finances – then it's not surprising that you can't recognise the vicious circle we've been in since Partizan, which marked the end of the good work Bobby Robson had managed to do, pretty much against the run of play.

 

Surprising that you recognise when it began, unlike your mate Macbeth. Now all you have to do is make that giant leap to accept that the Board hasn't been mismanaging things since they took over, that it's down to mismanagement on the pitch and we're home and dry. From the  point of view of the Board, throwing £50m at a team that was still good enough to finish 5th should not have seen a decline. They did their bit but the manager fúcked it up. The correct replacement will put it right and that's what's underway right now, it won't happen overnight.  Look at the link in my sig'.

 

So how come, given your hero's peerless financial management, was there no money available to strengthen the squad pre-Partizan?

 

Hero? What don't you understand about the post linked from my sig'? I assume you've at least taken the trouble to read it, wum.

 

BTW The club did strengthen pre-Partizan. Not surprised you didn't realise that, though.

[macbeth]

BTW The club did strengthen pre-Partizan. Not surprised you didn't realise that, though.

 

Sadly he is right.

 

The summer before the Partizan game the club had expenditure of £8.5m.

 

Lee Bowyer was brought in to strengthen the playing squad.

 

[Howaythelads]

BTW The club did strengthen pre-Partizan. Not surprised you didn't realise that, though.

 

Sadly he is right.

 

The summer before the Partizan game the club had expenditure of £8.5m.

 

Lee Bowyer was brought in to strengthen the playing squad.

 

 

.....and the previous 32 months.....

 

Why don't you stick your worthless agenda up your arse, mate. Just an idea.

 

You say sadly. So you're now advocating 32 months of £50m transfer deficit and you wanted them to spend still more? Is that what you're now saying?

 

Below is an extract from something I posted some time ago that you also ignored. It's fúcking pathetic that you push your agenda to the point where one moment you're slagging them off for spending too much and then slagging them off for not spending. The snip below is solid fact.

 

<snip>

This has already been done to death. The facts show the club speculated to move from the Gullit mediocrity to a CL qualifying place by spending nearly £50m quid net in the 32 months prior to summer 2003, it's also a fact the club lashed out millions in January 2003 on Woodgate, something that is always ignored by those who babble on about summer 2003. From Jan 2001 ( ish ) through to summer 2003 the wage bill increased massively as well because we'd speculated by bringing in nearly a dozen players in 32 months under Robson, with only 2 reserve players leaving the club for very small fees.

<snip>

 

Care to tackle this one, Macbeth? Sounds like you're now slagging the Board for not spending yet more in summer 2003. It's clear by now that your position comes from you having a childish rag on because they wouldn't let you and your pathetic group have a say in the running of the club.

[Mick]

Unable to address the point again. What a surprise. No doubt you'd continue this tack unless I post an exact average attendance figure or would you even then change the period over which it was calculated.

 

We had crowds around that time of 15k-20k, it makes no difference if the average in a particular season is 25k, the point you're trying to avoid is that thousands of people who previously took the piss out of the club, AND IT'S SUPPORT, suddenly wanted a ticket. Thousands suddenly claimed to be lifelong fans. My belief is that you're one of them.

 

There was one crowd below 20,000 that season. You'll remember why that one happened too. The average home attendance despite that game was just under 33,000. That 46,000 turned up trying to get a voucher for the final is probably not too different from today when we get sub 30,000 crowds for Cup games but don't have enough tickets available for all our Cup finals.

 

Somehow this is relevant to the performance of Shepherd/Hall, or a distraction more likely

 

Err no. Are you stupid or something? I know you don't understand football that well so I'm used to you misunderstanding everything on that subject.

 

Did I say this was in relation to the performance of those people you hate because they wouldn't let your organisation have a say in the running of the club? No, I didn't say that, did I? What I'm saying above is that Mick a bandwagon jumper worthy of nothing but contempt. I thought that was clear so I can't see how you're confusing the two. Weird.

 

 

Is your brother due on to back you up with that?

[macbeth]

BTW The club did strengthen pre-Partizan. Not surprised you didn't realise that, though.

 

Sadly he is right.

 

The summer before the Partizan game the club had expenditure of £8.5m.

 

Lee Bowyer was brought in to strengthen the playing squad.

 

 

.....and the previous 32 months.....

 

Why don't you stick your worthless agenda up your arse, mate. Just an idea.

 

You say sadly. So you're now advocating 32 months of £50m transfer deficit and you wanted them to spend still more? Is that what you're now saying?

 

No but you didn't say this the first time. You left out facts. I am more than comfortable with the club investing the amound it did at that time. But the other thing you left out was the fact that the club did not invest any money that summer in players. The club did spend £8.5m to give money to Hall and Shepherds.

 

Below is an extract from something I posted some time ago that you also ignored. It's fúcking pathetic that you push your agenda to the point where one moment you're slagging them off for spending too much and then slagging them off for not spending. The snip below is solid fact.

 

<snip>

This has already been done to death. The facts show the club speculated to move from the Gullit mediocrity to a CL qualifying place by spending nearly £50m quid net in the 32 months prior to summer 2003, it's also a fact the club lashed out millions in January 2003 on Woodgate, something that is always ignored by those who babble on about summer 2003. From Jan 2001 ( ish ) through to summer 2003 the wage bill increased massively as well because we'd speculated by bringing in nearly a dozen players in 32 months under Robson, with only 2 reserve players leaving the club for very small fees.

<snip>

 

If you start the ins after Andy O'Brien in March 2001 then the period had net buys of £44m (www.soccerbase.com), if you start in Jan 2001 then it is a net of £39m. Any earlier than that becomes irrelevant. Not quite the "nearly £50m" you mention but still a large figure.

 

The signings of JJ in 2002 and Woodgate in 2003 were perfect examples of Shepherd running the club well. He had set a transfer budget for those seasons. When we ended up at the top of the league in January 2002, with unexpected revenue from being on the telly Shepherd came out and said that this extra money meant the club could invest in new players. JJ arrived. The next year with us in the CL second phasee, same again with Woodgate. Brilliant management of resources. Exactly what I want from a board.

The wage bill rose in 2003, so Shepherd said at the time, because of the bonuses paid to players for getting to the second phase of the CL. Again brilliant stuff. Pay them well, then if they over achieve, and the club gets more money, pay the players big bonuses. This is absolutely faultless.

The problem was that he then changed policy on wages. The high figure became the basic. Now if we finish 7th the wages are £20m more than they were 4 years earlier, and even £10m more than when we were in the CL second phase. This is just madness.

 

Excusing this on the back of signing new playert  is just abdicatign any responsibility for financial control. The board claim in the latest results that they have sole responsibility for wages and transfers. This is ho wit should be, that is what their job is. Players play, Manager manages playing resources, Board supply money to allow Manager to maximise the resources available to him. For you to excuse the wage bill on the back of signings is like suggestign that teh wages were a big surprise to the board, that they just hadn't thought that the players would need paid. Surely not

 

 

 

Care to tackle this one, Macbeth? Sounds like you're now slagging the Board for not spending yet more in summer 2003. It's clear by now that your position comes from you having a childish rag on because they wouldn't let you and your pathetic group have a say in the running of the club.

 

But you don't say that, NE5 made that one up, you've never used it before.  blueconfused.gif 

Did you approve of the club setting up the FLC ? Or do you view it as another stupid mistake by Shepherd ?

 

It may well have been correct to not spend money in the summer of 2003. It has happened. In Sir Bobby's book his discussion of that summer was all about Bowyer being a bargain, and needing to start looking for a Shearer replacement. I suspect if Shepherd has said "Bob here's £8.5m could you strengthen the side with this", he may well have gone and spent it. He wasn't given the option though.

The thing that we will have to differ about is that I wouldn't have given the £8.5m away. I view it as unforgivable that they just gave it away. The equivalemt of the season ticket money for 17,000 fans paid into the club in the June, and straight out, just given away in the August. No benefit to anyone but H&S. If £8.5m had to be spent on something then spend it on the team, not on the Hall/Shepherd pension funds. I cannot get my head around why you and NE5 see it as correct for the club to do that. I've even seen it stated, not by you I don't think, that if the money hadn't been given away in dividends it would hav ejust disappeared anyway. Is there so much lack of trust in the abilty of H&S to manage the finances that their only supporters think they would have let £8.5m just disappear ?

 

[Howaythelads]

BTW The club did strengthen pre-Partizan. Not surprised you didn't realise that, though.

 

Sadly he is right.

 

The summer before the Partizan game the club had expenditure of £8.5m.

 

Lee Bowyer was brought in to strengthen the playing squad.

 

 

.....and the previous 32 months.....

 

Why don't you stick your worthless agenda up your arse, mate. Just an idea.

 

You say sadly. So you're now advocating 32 months of £50m transfer deficit and you wanted them to spend still more? Is that what you're now saying?

 

No but you didn't say this the first time. You left out facts. I am more than comfortable with the club investing the amound it did at that time. But the other thing you left out was the fact that the club did not invest any money that summer in players. The club did spend £8.5m to give money to Hall and Shepherds.

 

Below is an extract from something I posted some time ago that you also ignored. It's fúcking pathetic that you push your agenda to the point where one moment you're slagging them off for spending too much and then slagging them off for not spending. The snip below is solid fact.

 

<snip>

This has already been done to death. The facts show the club speculated to move from the Gullit mediocrity to a CL qualifying place by spending nearly £50m quid net in the 32 months prior to summer 2003, it's also a fact the club lashed out millions in January 2003 on Woodgate, something that is always ignored by those who babble on about summer 2003. From Jan 2001 ( ish ) through to summer 2003 the wage bill increased massively as well because we'd speculated by bringing in nearly a dozen players in 32 months under Robson, with only 2 reserve players leaving the club for very small fees.

<snip>

 

If you start the ins after Andy O'Brien in March 2001 then the period had net buys of £44m (www.soccerbase.com), if you start in Jan 2001 then it is a net of £39m. Any earlier than that becomes irrelevant. Not quite the "nearly £50m" you mention but still a large figure.

 

The signings of JJ in 2002 and Woodgate in 2003 were perfect examples of Shepherd running the club well. He had set a transfer budget for those seasons. When we ended up at the top of the league in January 2002, with unexpected revenue from being on the telly Shepherd came out and said that this extra money meant the club could invest in new players. JJ arrived. The next year with us in the CL second phasee, same again with Woodgate. Brilliant management of resources. Exactly what I want from a board.

The wage bill rose in 2003, so Shepherd said at the time, because of the bonuses paid to players for getting to the second phase of the CL. Again brilliant stuff. Pay them well, then if they over achieve, and the club gets more money, pay the players big bonuses. This is absolutely faultless.

The problem was that he then changed policy on wages. The high figure became the basic. Now if we finish 7th the wages are £20m more than they were 4 years earlier, and even £10m more than when we were in the CL second phase. This is just madness.

 

Excusing this on the back of signing new playert  is just abdicatign any responsibility for financial control. The board claim in the latest results that they have sole responsibility for wages and transfers. This is ho wit should be, that is what their job is. Players play, Manager manages playing resources, Board supply money to allow Manager to maximise the resources available to him. For you to excuse the wage bill on the back of signings is like suggestign that teh wages were a big surprise to the board, that they just hadn't thought that the players would need paid. Surely not

 

 

 

Care to tackle this one, Macbeth? Sounds like you're now slagging the Board for not spending yet more in summer 2003. It's clear by now that your position comes from you having a childish rag on because they wouldn't let you and your pathetic group have a say in the running of the club.

 

But you don't say that, NE5 made that one up, you've never used it before.  blueconfused.gif 

Did you approve of the club setting up the FLC ? Or do you view it as another stupid mistake by Shepherd ?

 

It may well have been correct to not spend money in the summer of 2003. It has happened. In Sir Bobby's book his discussion of that summer was all about Bowyer being a bargain, and needing to start looking for a Shearer replacement. I suspect if Shepherd has said "Bob here's £8.5m could you strengthen the side with this", he may well have gone and spent it. He wasn't given the option though.

The thing that we will have to differ about is that I wouldn't have given the £8.5m away. I view it as unforgivable that they just gave it away. The equivalemt of the season ticket money for 17,000 fans paid into the club in the June, and straight out, just given away in the August. No benefit to anyone but H&S. If £8.5m had to be spent on something then spend it on the team, not on the Hall/Shepherd pension funds. I cannot get my head around why you and NE5 see it as correct for the club to do that. I've even seen it stated, not by you I don't think, that if the money hadn't been given away in dividends it would hav ejust disappeared anyway. Is there so much lack of trust in the abilty of H&S to manage the finances that their only supporters think they would have let £8.5m just disappear ?

 

 

Thanks. The bit in bold was all I really wanted to know. Sorry for the bit I've never used before, I'm just getting tired of all this and it struck me as a hell of a thing that you slag them off for spending then slag them off for not spending. You should understand that is bound to piss people off as it is pretty sad that you do this. I think I'm getting hacked off at the general state of the forum from so many posters, tbh. 2 or 3 in particular are total arseholes these days. Anyway, I shouldn't have taken it out on you with that childish comment, so I apologise for the tone. I can do no more.

 

The rest is interesting, but the real reason the finances are now poor is down to the mismanagement of Souness, as said many times a huge mistake by the Board and the club is paying for it now. Probably will continue to pay for it for some time to come such is the damage. This was predicted, of course.

 

We'll always disagree about dividends mainly because I don't even think about that subject, I couldn't give a shite about it really. It's a PLC, I accept they'll pay dividends. So long as they also make money available to the manager I'm not bothered. The spending over those 32 months was a large amount, that dividends were paid at the same time is for me just one of those things a business will do.

 

Cheers

[macbeth]

The spending over those 32 months was a large amount, that dividends were paid at the same time is for me just one of those things a business will do.

 

Cheers

 

The rate of dividends was three times higher than you get from Tesco shares, or double what you'd get out of HSBC shares. They're taking the piss

[NE5]

The club has gone wrong since appointing Souness, before that we were moving along and doing quite well but were in a position where we could have moved upwards further if a better choice of manager had been made.

 

The decline in income clearly started two years before Fat Fred appointed Souness.

 

Why are you on a thread about the club's finances if you haven't even read the information about the club's finances?

 

eeer.....I believe figures were put up a year ago, when your hero was doing such a good job clearing out the cancer that would leave us better off, according to you, which showed conclusively that the club had spent a lot of money getting back into the Champions League during the previous 2-3 years, despite you saying you thought money was still available in the summer of 2003. So if you are opposing the club spending money it doesn't have, why did you do it then ?

 

In short, the club was a mid table team showing no sign of getting up the league until they invested around 40m quid in players during the years 2000-03, particularly where Bellamy and Robert were concerned as they were the most influential and catapulted the team into the top 4. Were you happy with the team sitting in the middle of the league, or would you rather the Champions League qualification and subsequent run had not happened  ?

 

Long term supporters like Mick will also be aware the old board of the club who he thinks were no better than the current ones, would have considered a mid table place to be so successful they celebrated by selling our best players, locally born England internationals who wanted to leave the club, and replacing them with ones out of the 2nd or 3rd division.

 

 

[NE5]

The spending over those 32 months was a large amount, that dividends were paid at the same time is for me just one of those things a business will do.

 

Cheers

 

The rate of dividends was three times higher than you get from Tesco shares, or double what you'd get out of HSBC shares. They're taking the piss

 

:roll:

 

but you were happy with the way the club was run until 2003, right ? You have said this.

 

....until I found that article where you whinged on about them taking dividends in 1998 ... 

 

Shame the club didn't have time for your organisation, they have a lot to answer for, that agenda you are carrying around must be a big cross to bear. Maybe if you had offered to pay them they might have allowed you a say in their business, I mean all businessmen allow people a say in how to run their companies for nothing. In fact why don't you ask Tesco if they will let you have a say in how they run Tesco, or is it because the dividends aren't big enough 

 

Or even that bloke at the Post Office who you think is just the man for Newcastle, despite him ruining English football for the grassroots supporter for the next 100 years and appointing Eriksson for 4m quid a year.