Baggio Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Sir John Hall said Shepherd knew all about the sale and there was a price they had agreed amongst them that they would sell for. http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/videos-pictures/videos/2008/01/29/sir-john-hall-interview-72703-20407329/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 TBH I trust Hall and Shepherd as much as I trust Ashley when it comes to telling the truth - the only difference was the ambition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 He could have raised the finance. Can I ask why you state that so assuredly? I got the impression he did try but realised it was too much. He owned more than enough of the asset already to put in as security to purchase the rest. I'm not criticising him for getting out, but to say he couldn't have raised the finance if he'd wanted to is naive in the extreme. It would have depended on how determined Ashley was though. If FS wanted to purchase the 70% at £x per share then Ashley could have refused to sell his 40% or entered a bidding war for the remaining shares. I do think his illness was a factor as well in him thinking sod it but I also think if he'd wanted to do what you suggest, there had been nothing stopping him doing it at any time since the Halls took a back seat. Why didn't Shepherd buy out Hall before Ashley could, that's what I can't understand? Couldn't he have put together a consortium with like-minded partners if he didn't have the money alone? Greggs? the Irish Bar? Peter Lee? HTT? Why can't he do it now, if you believe he is the answer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 TBH I trust Hall and Shepherd as much as I trust Ashley when it comes to telling the truth - the only difference was the ambition. I still don't understand the stick Sir John Hall gets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 TBH I trust Hall and Shepherd as much as I trust Ashley when it comes to telling the truth - the only difference was the ambition. Yet Ashley has put more of his own money into the club than either of them, or do you mean the old lot appeased you by spending money in the transfer market, even if we couldn't afford it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest black n white Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 WOW This stinks of desperation Kinnear has been given the chance to sell his soul Will he take the money and all responsibilities following this season and next, regardless of premiership survival It's weird you buy a football club for £200 million say, then pay the manager 30 bob to run it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 TBH I trust Hall and Shepherd as much as I trust Ashley when it comes to telling the truth - the only difference was the ambition. I still don't understand the stick Sir John Hall gets. He was the guy who actually made things happen when Newcastle were ambitious. Other people take the credit despite producing much less when they took over the hot seat. I'm not necessarily talking about Shepherd btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 He could have raised the finance. Can I ask why you state that so assuredly? I got the impression he did try but realised it was too much. He owned more than enough of the asset already to put in as security to purchase the rest. I'm not criticising him for getting out, but to say he couldn't have raised the finance if he'd wanted to is naive in the extreme. It would have depended on how determined Ashley was though. If FS wanted to purchase the 70% at £x per share then Ashley could have refused to sell his 40% or entered a bidding war for the remaining shares. I do think his illness was a factor as well in him thinking sod it but I also think if he'd wanted to do what you suggest, there had been nothing stopping him doing it at any time since the Halls took a back seat. Why didn't Shepherd buy out Hall before Ashley could, that's what I can't understand? Couldn't he have put together a consortium with like-minded partners if he didn't have the money alone? Greggs? the Irish Bar? Peter Lee? HTT? Why can't he do it now, if you believe he is the answer? You misunderstand me - I just said if he had raised finance which included transfer money then I think we'd have been better off now - what I was questioning was how easy it would have been or would be now to do that. I honestly think if he could have bought the Halls out he would have done. As for now I would have no objection to him coming back with the right deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggs Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I don't think I'll physically be able to stomach supporting a club that has Joe Kinnear as a long-term appointment. Just support the club not who is manager ,i have spent 40 + years supporting my club and will never stop you will eventually learn that this is all part and parcel of the soap opera. As far as the appointment is concerned i only hope this is another bullshit stylee speech and not a sign of Ashleys ambition to get us back up there as imho Kinnear is not the man to do it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 TBH I trust Hall and Shepherd as much as I trust Ashley when it comes to telling the truth - the only difference was the ambition. Yet Ashley has put more of his own money into the club than either of them, or do you mean the old lot appeased you by spending money in the transfer market, even if we couldn't afford it? As I've said before it isn't fair to "count" the money Ashley has put in until he leaves as he still think of that money as his asset that he wants back. The money that was spent up until probably the last couple of years under Shepherd was affordable - the money to fund Keegan/Dalglish certainly was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggs Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Kinnear also bemoaned the fact that his team could be the first to face Brazilian superstar Kaka if he agrees to join Manchester City. City's home game against Newcastle on January 28 has been pencilled in as a possible debut date for the AC Milan man. And Kinnear is bracing himself for a tough test against moneybags City. 'Manchester City could have the best team in the world when we go to play them. It's just Sod's Law how the fixtures have come up. 'It could be Kaka's first game against us. We might play Manchester City and they will have the most expensive team in the world. It's just the way things have worked out.' This just about sums up the guy and what the future holds a pityful excuse of a defeat before we even get on the pitch with them and what sort of message does it send out to our squad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 TBH I trust Hall and Shepherd as much as I trust Ashley when it comes to telling the truth - the only difference was the ambition. I still don't understand the stick Sir John Hall gets. I don't dislike him for what he did - more so because I don't think he was completely honest. I disliked his claim that the club would have gone bust without his intervention and I dislike the way he underplayed how much money he made out of the club despite frequently claiming otherwise. I also found his "Geordie nation" stuff patronising (though not to the same degree as Shepherd's). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 He could have raised the finance. Can I ask why you state that so assuredly? I got the impression he did try but realised it was too much. He owned more than enough of the asset already to put in as security to purchase the rest. I'm not criticising him for getting out, but to say he couldn't have raised the finance if he'd wanted to is naive in the extreme. It would have depended on how determined Ashley was though. If FS wanted to purchase the 70% at £x per share then Ashley could have refused to sell his 40% or entered a bidding war for the remaining shares. I do think his illness was a factor as well in him thinking sod it but I also think if he'd wanted to do what you suggest, there had been nothing stopping him doing it at any time since the Halls took a back seat. Why didn't Shepherd buy out Hall before Ashley could, that's what I can't understand? Couldn't he have put together a consortium with like-minded partners if he didn't have the money alone? Greggs? the Irish Bar? Peter Lee? HTT? Why can't he do it now, if you believe he is the answer? You misunderstand me - I just said if he had raised finance which included transfer money then I think we'd have been better off now - what I was questioning was how easy it would have been or would be now to do that. I honestly think if he could have bought the Halls out he would have done. As for now I would have no objection to him coming back with the right deal. He's struggling to clinch the deal for Mallorca at £40m right now. Just to put in perspective what Shepherd can really offer to Newcastle right now other than stupid observations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Shepherd essentially put the entirety of the clubs money, and even money we didn't even have, all-in during the Souness era. That failed miserably. It plainly showed that we had no money after Owen and Luque came. If you look at the numbers during the winter of 2005, the summer of 2006, and the winter of 2007, they're actually quite "Ashley-esque" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 He's struggling to clinch the deal for Mallorca at £40m right now. Just to put in perspective what Shepherd can really offer to Newcastle right now other than stupid observations. Exactly - which is why I doubt he could have done anything else with NUFC. When I referred to his return I meant as a figurehead rather than as a prime mover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 TBH I trust Hall and Shepherd as much as I trust Ashley when it comes to telling the truth - the only difference was the ambition. I still don't understand the stick Sir John Hall gets. I don't dislike him for what he did - more so because I don't think he was completely honest. I disliked his claim that the club would have gone bust without his intervention and I dislike the way he underplayed how much money he made out of the club despite frequently claiming otherwise. I also found his "Geordie nation" stuff patronising (though not to the same degree as Shepherd's). I just think plenty of other people had the opportunity to put their money into the club (including the supporters) and passed that opportunity up. The Halls (like them or not) put their money in when no one else would & probably only made the sort of return you'd expect in any sort of venture capital investment, which is pretty much what putting money into the club equated to at the time in terms of risk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 TBH I trust Hall and Shepherd as much as I trust Ashley when it comes to telling the truth - the only difference was the ambition. Yet Ashley has put more of his own money into the club than either of them, or do you mean the old lot appeased you by spending money in the transfer market, even if we couldn't afford it? As I've said before it isn't fair to "count" the money Ashley has put in until he leaves as he still think of that money as his asset that he wants back. The money that was spent up until probably the last couple of years under Shepherd was affordable - the money to fund Keegan/Dalglish certainly was. But where do you draw the line and say the club can't continue to go the way it was and that losing huge sums of money (something like £32 million in 2007) will put the final nail in the clubs coffin, and have us selling players like Portsmouth are to pull ourselves around. Don't get me wrong i love it when we spend money on getting some talented players here but with no 'Geordie Abramovich' waiting around the corner to challenge Man City in signing Kaka then I don't have a problem with him turning the club round financially so that we can be self sufficient, our fans always like to bang on about how big a club we are and deserve to be up there but if that's the case then it has to be possible for us to be self sufficient like Man Utd and Arsenal have been. i would love Ashley to spend the sort of money that Lerner has and if he got the club at such a bargain price the he got Villa then I'm sure he would have done, I'm not going to hang him by his bollocks though for not pumping millions of his own money in on players when nobody has in my lifetime or for him trying to do the right thing long term by making us more financially secure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 TBH I trust Hall and Shepherd as much as I trust Ashley when it comes to telling the truth - the only difference was the ambition. I still don't understand the stick Sir John Hall gets. I don't dislike him for what he did - more so because I don't think he was completely honest. I disliked his claim that the club would have gone bust without his intervention and I dislike the way he underplayed how much money he made out of the club despite frequently claiming otherwise. I also found his "Geordie nation" stuff patronising (though not to the same degree as Shepherd's). I just think plenty of other people had the opportunity to put their money into the club (including the supporters) and passed that opportunity up. The Halls (like them or not) put their money in when no one else would & probably only made the sort of return you'd expect in any sort of venture capital investment, which is pretty much what putting money into the club equated to at the time in terms of risk. i wonder how much of the halls money was actually at risk pre-floating ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timnufc22 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Kinnear also bemoaned the fact that his team could be the first to face Brazilian superstar Kaka if he agrees to join Manchester City. City's home game against Newcastle on January 28 has been pencilled in as a possible debut date for the AC Milan man. And Kinnear is bracing himself for a tough test against moneybags City. 'Manchester City could have the best team in the world when we go to play them. It's just Sod's Law how the fixtures have come up. 'It could be Kaka's first game against us. We might play Manchester City and they will have the most expensive team in the world. It's just the way things have worked out.' This just about sums up the guy and what the future holds a pityful excuse of a defeat before we even get on the pitch with them and what sort of message does it send out to our squad Thats actually not made up?? Bloody hell man, like you say, what message does that send out to the team? It was the same with 'injuries, injuries' when the team that finally did play against Hull had 7, 8 players who would start if everyone was fit anyway. Crappy excuses, smokescreen, Souness, and Roeder really, all over again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Kinnear also bemoaned the fact that his team could be the first to face Brazilian superstar Kaka if he agrees to join Manchester City. City's home game against Newcastle on January 28 has been pencilled in as a possible debut date for the AC Milan man. And Kinnear is bracing himself for a tough test against moneybags City. 'Manchester City could have the best team in the world when we go to play them. It's just Sod's Law how the fixtures have come up. 'It could be Kaka's first game against us. We might play Manchester City and they will have the most expensive team in the world. It's just the way things have worked out.' This just about sums up the guy and what the future holds a pityful excuse of a defeat before we even get on the pitch with them and what sort of message does it send out to our squad You don't think perhaps he's been asked the same question as every other manager this week & answered it by pointing out we'll find out how good they are pretty soon? Still any excuse to be critical eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timnufc22 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Kinnear also bemoaned the fact that his team could be the first to face Brazilian superstar Kaka if he agrees to join Manchester City. City's home game against Newcastle on January 28 has been pencilled in as a possible debut date for the AC Milan man. And Kinnear is bracing himself for a tough test against moneybags City. 'Manchester City could have the best team in the world when we go to play them. It's just Sod's Law how the fixtures have come up. 'It could be Kaka's first game against us. We might play Manchester City and they will have the most expensive team in the world. It's just the way things have worked out.' This just about sums up the guy and what the future holds a pityful excuse of a defeat before we even get on the pitch with them and what sort of message does it send out to our squad You don't think perhaps he's been asked the same question as every other manager this week & answered it by pointing out we'll find out how good they are pretty soon? Still any excuse to be critical eh? Fair enough like, its about the context it was said it, whether he was just making an innocent comment or actually was moaning about bad luck. But like I said, the way he's gone on about the injuries, when most 1st teamers are available, you tend to think he was moaning, making excuses up already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugoinufc Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 If Kinnear is here at the beginning of next season...its all over! My health can´t take any more....i´ll quit supporting and following Newcastle and concentrate on my danish team Aab....course they know how to run a club long term and with vision. Joe have done ok....but not over average! I actually believed in Ashley when he can out and asked for a second chance! But he is an idiot....how can he think joe is our man for the future How f...... hard can it be to hire an experienced person to set up the stucture within the club if ashley cant do it himself......i mean all it takes is to copy what clubs like aresna for example have done! Invest in good personel....coz if the setup and work conditions is right....it can´t be that difficult to find a good experienced or young an promising manager to take the club forward! Come on, i could make a decent club strategy in one weeks time! Its ok we don´t go after players like kaka, podolski etc. but we are linked with players like løvenkrands, ferguson etc. Wheres the vision! ! ! i simply cannot believe how stupid this have turned out! For many years i didn´t think it could get any worse....and now i can´t see it get any better! Kinnear is not our man! he dosen´t have what it takes to make newcastle an attractive place to come! Ashley you c... you fooled me and failed so badly in a situation were one thought it wouldn´t be possible to sink any deeper! Get out asap! Amateur....hire an caretaker coz you have no f....... clue on whats going on! I will now weep myself to sleep Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 One thing I've noticed about Kinnear lately is that he seems a bit disheveled and is certainly a lot less energetic than he was early on. I think he came into the job with the mentality that "fuck this, I've got a pretty decent squad. No way we're getting relegated," but now that we're still mired near the bottom and hit by a injury crisis, he's starting to realize just how far out of his depth he is. For the sake of entertaining conspiracy theories, what if Kinnear no longer wants to be here and actually went to Ashley with an ultimatum, "give me a long term contract or I'm walking," trying to force his hand. Ashley, being the clueless buffoon he is, actually just gave him a contract. And now Kinnear is thinking "WTF, do I take this or not?" ...scary stuff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Kinnear also bemoaned the fact that his team could be the first to face Brazilian superstar Kaka if he agrees to join Manchester City. City's home game against Newcastle on January 28 has been pencilled in as a possible debut date for the AC Milan man. And Kinnear is bracing himself for a tough test against moneybags City. 'Manchester City could have the best team in the world when we go to play them. It's just Sod's Law how the fixtures have come up. 'It could be Kaka's first game against us. We might play Manchester City and they will have the most expensive team in the world. It's just the way things have worked out.' This just about sums up the guy and what the future holds a pityful excuse of a defeat before we even get on the pitch with them and what sort of message does it send out to our squad You don't think perhaps he's been asked the same question as every other manager this week & answered it by pointing out we'll find out how good they are pretty soon? Still any excuse to be critical eh? Fair enough like, its about the context it was said it, whether he was just making an innocent comment or actually was moaning about bad luck. But like I said, the way he's gone on about the injuries, when most 1st teamers are available, you tend to think he was moaning, making excuses up already. ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_F Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Why the fuck is he being offered a contract now. He's signed up to the end of the season anyway. Let's see where we are then. Another one of Ashley's brilliant decisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now