Skirge Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/2009/01/28/freddy-shepherd-says-he-would-have-battled-ashley-takeover-bid-61634-22800523/ Freddy Shepherd says he would have battled Ashley takeover bid Jan 28 2009 By Dan Warburton OUSTED Newcastle United chairman Freddy Shepherd claims only illness prevented him battling the takeover bid for the club. Current owner Mike Ashley clinched Newcastle United in a bold Summer buy-out more than 18 months ago. However Shepherd claims he lost control of the Tyneside outfit while being treated in hospital for pneumonia and a collapsed lung. The 66-year-old also claims had he not been ill he wishes he had fought the take over bid. But after more than a year away from St James’s Park, the flamboyant entrepreneur says he wouldn’t buy the club back after witnessing its decline. In an interview with the BBC’s Inside Out programme, he said: “If I'd been fit I would certainly have taken Mike Ashley on - money wasn't a problem. “It's difficult to watch something we built up over 15 years. “We took it from nearly going into the Third Division to getting into the Champions League with a great ground and great training facilities. “I am the last one that wants to see anything happening to it.” In 2007 Ashley bought the Hall family shares for £55m, before Shepherd agreed to sell his stake in the club for £38m. Before that, Shepherd was one of the key shareholders - along with the Hall family - who had effective control of the club. But Shepherd claims he lost control when a deal was wagered while he was ill in hospital. He also claims that while he knew Sir John Hall and his family were keen to sell their shares, he was unaware business tycoon Ashley was planning a takeover. Mr Shepherd said: “I wasn’t consulted. John had done the deal. When I came out of the operating theatre there was a request for me to sign the document and for John to sell the shares. “It was really a formality. That’s business.” Shepherd also waded into the row over the possible departure of star striker Michael Owen during the Summer. The 29-year-old’s contract expires at the end of the current season, and Shepherd says he owes the club another year having missed so many games through injury. Shepherd said: “He has had 100% money - but he has only played 30% of the games.” The full interview can be seen on Inside Out North East, tonight at 7.30pm on BBC One. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? wow Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then? yes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? I don't think either approach (if that is MA's approach) would get us back in the CL. I seem to remember battling relegation in the last couple of years under FS too. Different board, same old shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt? I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that. I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one. What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness? I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ? You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob. Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ? I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision. you can't criticise the decision, and the buys and sales he made, when you agreed with it all and backed it all right up the end. Not saying you did, I don't know if you did or not [did you say the other day that you did ?] but plenty of people DID, such as mandiarse for one. The bigger picture being that they didn't purposely appoint a manager they knew would fuck up, he was THEIR choice, and they backed their choice. Shame soopa Mike didn't back his own appointment in the same way ? Oops, I forgot. You agreed with soopa mike that we shouldn't spend ie waste, any money, didn't you. You mean to say you cant support a decision even though you disagree with it? Thats eseentially what you're saying, I didnt agree with the decision to sack SBR but i supported the decision becasue as a fan thats what i do. I disagreed with the appointments of Roeder, Souness and even remember arguing with you amongst others about the appointment of Allardyce but at the end of the day i supported each and every appointment. Your're right, i have no intention of trying to prove that Shepherd et al decidied to purposely appoint a bad manager, all i can do is highlight the dmetrimental affect it had on the club, which is what im doing. Someone has to be accountable for the decision to appointmnet a bad manager. so you don't see that a numpty who says something like "souness is doing the right thing getting rid of the cancer like Alex ferguson did", or "mike ashley is doing the right thing by appointing a DOF (to undermine the manager)" and agreeing with these decisions, is different to saying you think it is a mistake but you hope it works out because you support the club ? Of course you have the hindsight queens like mandiarse who has agreed with at least 3 of the last boards appointments on this very message board (and probably 4 but he's too modest to admit it), and their actions while they were the manager, but now denies it Actually i do see your point, if they supported the decsion and agreed with the decision then they should be in no posiiton to cirticise that decision, thats a fair point. if you rely on very basic reasoning, if however you see the benefit of evaluting evidence you can criticise absolutely anything at all. i've already said this but what the hell....shepherd agreed with his decision didnt he? does that mean that he cant now be self critical as that would go against NE5's golden rule? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Probably not, or not in a hurry, but I'm not the one setting CL qualification as a benchmark. The point re Shepherd should be clear. It's not about where we had been under the old board, but where we were going. If Shepherd had stayed, I honestly think we\d be in a bigger mess than we are right now. Unless you have inside information about his plans to get in control of a situation where we were losing £30 million a year before they sold the club? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? do you honestly think employing souness then roeder as manager, spending £9million on the likes of luque,being unsustaiable financially so that sooner or later the banks would say "no more" would get us back into the CL ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/2009/01/28/freddy-shepherd-says-he-would-have-battled-ashley-takeover-bid-61634-22800523/ Freddy Shepherd says he would have battled Ashley takeover bid Jan 28 2009 By Dan Warburton OUSTED Newcastle United chairman Freddy Shepherd claims only illness prevented him battling the takeover bid for the club. Current owner Mike Ashley clinched Newcastle United in a bold Summer buy-out more than 18 months ago. However Shepherd claims he lost control of the Tyneside outfit while being treated in hospital for pneumonia and a collapsed lung. The 66-year-old also claims had he not been ill he wishes he had fought the take over bid. But after more than a year away from St James’s Park, the flamboyant entrepreneur says he wouldn’t buy the club back after witnessing its decline. In an interview with the BBC’s Inside Out programme, he said: “If I'd been fit I would certainly have taken Mike Ashley on - [b[money wasn't a problem.[/b] “It's difficult to watch something we built up over 15 years. “We took it from nearly going into the Third Division to getting into the Champions League with a great ground and great training facilities. “I am the last one that wants to see anything happening to it.” In 2007 Ashley bought the Hall family shares for £55m, before Shepherd agreed to sell his stake in the club for £38m. Before that, Shepherd was one of the key shareholders - along with the Hall family - who had effective control of the club. But Shepherd claims he lost control when a deal was wagered while he was ill in hospital. He also claims that while he knew Sir John Hall and his family were keen to sell their shares, he was unaware business tycoon Ashley was planning a takeover. Mr Shepherd said: “I wasn’t consulted. John had done the deal. When I came out of the operating theatre there was a request for me to sign the document and for John to sell the shares. “It was really a formality. That’s business.” Shepherd also waded into the row over the possible departure of star striker Michael Owen during the Summer. The 29-year-old’s contract expires at the end of the current season, and Shepherd says he owes the club another year having missed so many games through injury. Shepherd said: “He has had 100% money - but he has only played 30% of the games.” The full interview can be seen on Inside Out North East, tonight at 7.30pm on BBC One. Money wasn't a problem? The man, like his supporters, is a fantasist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then? Hindsight is used when you agree (or disagree) with actions at the time but subsequent events prove them to be wrong (or correct). In this case I agreed with the decision to push forward then and it proved successful, so it's not using hindsight on my part. Besides, Ozzie is the hindsight king. He'll love it. Remember the financial and on field situation at the time: The debt (£66m) was larger than the turnover (£55m) which relative to turnover is more than the "debt" now The club was making loses (£15.5 in 2000, £8.9m in 2001) which relative to turnover are equivalent to the loses now The club had finished 13, 13, 11, 11 in the previous years which is worse than our last 4 years. As I asked in another thread, should we have Cut back on signings and not brought in Bellamy & Robert Sold the likes of Dyer for a good profit Let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). Got someone like Vinnie Jones in to buy and sell players over Robson's head. If it pissed off Robson and he left, should we have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset. Can I assume that the people commending Ashley for his prudence and vision for the club now would agree that we should have taken a similar approach back in 2001? Ozzie asked if Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL. Well in a similar position back in 2001, by being speculative, we DID get back into the CL. At the moment I can only see Ashley's way of handling the situation taking the club in one direction, and that's down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then? Hindsight is used when you agree (or disagree) with actions at the time but subsequent events prove them to be wrong (or correct). In this case I agreed with the decision to push forward then and it proved successful, so it's not using hindsight on my part. Besides, Ozzie is the hindsight king. He'll love it. Remember the financial and on field situation at the time: The debt (£66m) was larger than the turnover (£55m) which relative to turnover is more than the "debt" now The club was making loses (£15.5 in 2000, £8.9m in 2001) which relative to turnover are equivalent to the loses now The club had finished 13, 13, 11, 11 in the previous years which is worse than our last 4 years. As I asked in another thread, should we have Cut back on signings and not brought in Bellamy & Robert Sold the likes of Dyer for a good profit Let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). Got someone like Vinnie Jones in to buy and sell players over Robson's head. If it pissed off Robson and he left, should we have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset. Can I assume that the people commending Ashley for his prudence and vision for the club now would agree that we should have taken a similar approach back in 2001? Ozzie asked if Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL. Well in a similar position back in 2001, by being speculative, we DID get back into the CL. At the moment I can only see Ashley's way of handling the situation taking the club in one direction, and that's down. did the club back then have assets to borrow against ? what happens when you have borrowed against everything and you want to keep lending ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/2009/01/28/freddy-shepherd-says-he-would-have-battled-ashley-takeover-bid-61634-22800523/ Freddy Shepherd says he would have battled Ashley takeover bid Jan 28 2009 By Dan Warburton OUSTED Newcastle United chairman Freddy Shepherd claims only illness prevented him battling the takeover bid for the club. Current owner Mike Ashley clinched Newcastle United in a bold Summer buy-out more than 18 months ago. However Shepherd claims he lost control of the Tyneside outfit while being treated in hospital for pneumonia and a collapsed lung. The 66-year-old also claims had he not been ill he wishes he had fought the take over bid. But after more than a year away from St James’s Park, the flamboyant entrepreneur says he wouldn’t buy the club back after witnessing its decline. In an interview with the BBC’s Inside Out programme, he said: “If I'd been fit I would certainly have taken Mike Ashley on - [b[money wasn't a problem.[/b] “It's difficult to watch something we built up over 15 years. “We took it from nearly going into the Third Division to getting into the Champions League with a great ground and great training facilities. “I am the last one that wants to see anything happening to it.” In 2007 Ashley bought the Hall family shares for £55m, before Shepherd agreed to sell his stake in the club for £38m. Before that, Shepherd was one of the key shareholders - along with the Hall family - who had effective control of the club. But Shepherd claims he lost control when a deal was wagered while he was ill in hospital. He also claims that while he knew Sir John Hall and his family were keen to sell their shares, he was unaware business tycoon Ashley was planning a takeover. Mr Shepherd said: “I wasn’t consulted. John had done the deal. When I came out of the operating theatre there was a request for me to sign the document and for John to sell the shares. “It was really a formality. That’s business.” Shepherd also waded into the row over the possible departure of star striker Michael Owen during the Summer. The 29-year-old’s contract expires at the end of the current season, and Shepherd says he owes the club another year having missed so many games through injury. Shepherd said: “He has had 100% money - but he has only played 30% of the games.” The full interview can be seen on Inside Out North East, tonight at 7.30pm on BBC One. Money wasn't a problem? The man, like his supporters, is a fantasist. but you backed at least 3 of the managerial appointments and agreed that they would succeed ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then? Hindsight is used when you agree (or disagree) with actions at the time but subsequent events prove them to be wrong (or correct). In this case I agreed with the decision to push forward then and it proved successful, so it's not using hindsight on my part. Besides, Ozzie is the hindsight king. He'll love it. Remember the financial and on field situation at the time: The debt (£66m) was larger than the turnover (£55m) which relative to turnover is more than the "debt" now The club was making loses (£15.5 in 2000, £8.9m in 2001) which relative to turnover are equivalent to the loses now The club had finished 13, 13, 11, 11 in the previous years which is worse than our last 4 years. As I asked in another thread, should we have Cut back on signings and not brought in Bellamy & Robert Sold the likes of Dyer for a good profit Let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). Got someone like Vinnie Jones in to buy and sell players over Robson's head. If it pissed off Robson and he left, should we have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset. Can I assume that the people commending Ashley for his prudence and vision for the club now would agree that we should have taken a similar approach back in 2001? Ozzie asked if Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL. Well in a similar position back in 2001, by being speculative, we DID get back into the CL. At the moment I can only see Ashley's way of handling the situation taking the club in one direction, and that's down. simply can't argue with any of that, unless you have your head buried in the sand and blindly still support Ashleys direction for the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 If Shepherd had bought the club we'd be saddled with the cost of the takeover -- if the club cost £140 million and his share was £55 million, he'd have had to borrow £85 million, minimum -- on top of the already existing £30 million per annum shortfall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatTheFunk Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Probably not, or not in a hurry, but I'm not the one setting CL qualification as a benchmark. The point re Shepherd should be clear. It's not about where we had been under the old board, but where we were going. If Shepherd had stayed, I honestly think we\d be in a bigger mess than we are right now. Unless you have inside information about his plans to get in control of a situation where we were losing £30 million a year before they sold the club? I have it on good authority that just before selling out to Ashley, FS was looking actively into securitizing the club's assets and refinancing its debt. What I understood now from one of the solicitors involved was that we would have lost most value on the paper money with the credit crunch which would have put us in an even graver situation. Dunno whether or not you could really blame Shepherd for that as he couldn't have foretold the financial crisis unfolding the way it did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Probably not, or not in a hurry, but I'm not the one setting CL qualification as a benchmark. The point re Shepherd should be clear. It's not about where we had been under the old board, but where we were going. If Shepherd had stayed, I honestly think we\d be in a bigger mess than we are right now. Unless you have inside information about his plans to get in control of a situation where we were losing £30 million a year before they sold the club? I have it on good authority that just before selling out to Ashley, FS was looking actively into securitizing the club's assets and refinancing its debt. What I understood now from one of the solicitors involved was that we would have lost most value on the paper money with the credit crunch which would have put us in an even graver situation. Dunno whether or not you could really blame Shepherd for that as he couldn't have foretold the financial crisis unfolding the way it did. didn't they refinance the debt regularly anyway (similar to getting a better deal when your tie-in on your mortgage runs out)? and fred could hardly have been blamed for not seeing the credit crunch coming. but, the taking on of any new debt would need to be secured on assets and by the looks of it there was nothing left to hock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 did the club back then have assets to borrow against ? what happens when you have borrowed against everything and you want to keep lending ? I don't know tbh. Which assets have we lost since then? Regardless, while financial restraints due to the current state of the financial world may have stopped Shepherd from investing as he may have wanted (or he may indeed have decided that it WAS time to cut back), that would have been a temporary cessation of ambition due to necessity. This is not the case with Ashley. He could pursue a more ambitious course for the club now, but he chooses not to. I think we can see that this season it would have been quite easy to rise above the pack and take a UEFA cup spot. More cover, a few good midfielders, and a decent manager is all it would have taken to give us a good fighting chance of that. Had it failed, Ashley would have had to add a bit more on to his asking price for the club. Had it succeeded, we would be getting full houses this year, and the subsequent year's increased gate & TV revenue would have paid for it easily (considering transfer fees are staged). (The club would also have been a much more attractive proposition to sell Mike.) Instead we are in the greatest danger of relegation we have been in since we got into the Premiership. The current situation may have been a necessity for Shepherd, but it is a choice for Ashley. That's the significant difference between the ideologies of running the club of the two for me, and why I think it is highly unlikely that we will ever be anything more than a mid table team at best under Ashley no matter how long he owns the club. I'm not sure if the "debt" seems top be clouding the analysis of the current situation for a lot of people. If Ashley had bought a debt free club for £240m would people have the same opinion on his lack of spending on the squad? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 did the club back then have assets to borrow against ? what happens when you have borrowed against everything and you want to keep lending ? I don't know tbh. Which assets have we lost since then? Regardless, while financial restraints due to the current state of the financial world may have stopped Shepherd from investing as he may have wanted (or he may indeed have decided that it WAS time to cut back), that would have been a temporary cessation of ambition due to necessity. This is not the case with Ashley. He could pursue a more ambitious course for the club now, but he chooses not to. I think we can see that this season it would have been quite easy to rise above the pack and take a UEFA cup spot. More cover, a few good midfielders, and a decent manager is all it would have taken to give us a good fighting chance of that. Had it failed, Ashley would have had to add a bit more on to his asking price for the club. Had it succeeded, we would be getting full houses this year, and the subsequent year's increased gate & TV revenue would have paid for it easily (considering transfer fees are staged). (The club would also have been a much more attractive proposition to sell Mike.) Instead we are in the greatest danger of relegation we have been in since we got into the Premiership. The current situation may have been a necessity for Shepherd, but it is a choice for Ashley. That's the significant difference between the ideologies of running the club of the two for me, and why I think it is highly unlikely that we will ever be anything more than a mid table team at best under Ashley no matter how long he owns the club. I'm not sure if the "debt" seems top be clouding the analysis of the current situation for a lot of people. If Ashley had bought a debt free club for £240m would people have the same opinion on his lack of spending on the squad? we haven't lost any assets but it isn't on to sell the same house to five people. plus i don't think he'd bought us for £240mill. the debt structure is what appears to have fucked us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatTheFunk Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Probably not, or not in a hurry, but I'm not the one setting CL qualification as a benchmark. The point re Shepherd should be clear. It's not about where we had been under the old board, but where we were going. If Shepherd had stayed, I honestly think we\d be in a bigger mess than we are right now. Unless you have inside information about his plans to get in control of a situation where we were losing £30 million a year before they sold the club? I have it on good authority that just before selling out to Ashley, FS was looking actively into securitizing the club's assets and refinancing its debt. What I understood now from one of the solicitors involved was that we would have lost most value on the paper money with the credit crunch which would have put us in an even graver situation. Dunno whether or not you could really blame Shepherd for that as he couldn't have foretold the financial crisis unfolding the way it did. didn't they refinance the debt regularly anyway (similar to getting a better deal when your tie-in on your mortgage runs out)? and fred could hardly have been blamed for not seeing the credit crunch coming. but, the taking on of any new debt would need to be secured on assets and by the looks of it there was nothing left to hock. looks like something was being done around March 2007 with property adjacent to the stadium. My solicitor friend would not say exactly what, but I gather he was trying to mortgage that for additional loans. We would have been a further good few million in debt than we are at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then? Hindsight is used when you agree (or disagree) with actions at the time but subsequent events prove them to be wrong (or correct). In this case I agreed with the decision to push forward then and it proved successful, so it's not using hindsight on my part. Besides, Ozzie is the hindsight king. He'll love it. Remember the financial and on field situation at the time: The debt (£66m) was larger than the turnover (£55m) which relative to turnover is more than the "debt" now The club was making loses (£15.5 in 2000, £8.9m in 2001) which relative to turnover are equivalent to the loses now The club had finished 13, 13, 11, 11 in the previous years which is worse than our last 4 years. As I asked in another thread, should we have Cut back on signings and not brought in Bellamy & Robert Sold the likes of Dyer for a good profit Let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). Got someone like Vinnie Jones in to buy and sell players over Robson's head. If it pissed off Robson and he left, should we have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset. Can I assume that the people commending Ashley for his prudence and vision for the club now would agree that we should have taken a similar approach back in 2001? Ozzie asked if Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL. Well in a similar position back in 2001, by being speculative, we DID get back into the CL. At the moment I can only see Ashley's way of handling the situation taking the club in one direction, and that's down. Can we just have you post and not NE5? At least you attempt to argue in a proper way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 He still ignores the basic reality, however. Shepherd gambled what money we had on Souness and Roeder. It didn't work, and left us in deep financial shit. Now we are paying the bill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then? Hindsight is used when you agree (or disagree) with actions at the time but subsequent events prove them to be wrong (or correct). In this case I agreed with the decision to push forward then and it proved successful, so it's not using hindsight on my part. Besides, Ozzie is the hindsight king. He'll love it. Remember the financial and on field situation at the time: The debt (£66m) was larger than the turnover (£55m) which relative to turnover is more than the "debt" now The club was making loses (£15.5 in 2000, £8.9m in 2001) which relative to turnover are equivalent to the loses now The club had finished 13, 13, 11, 11 in the previous years which is worse than our last 4 years. As I asked in another thread, should we have Cut back on signings and not brought in Bellamy & Robert Sold the likes of Dyer for a good profit Let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). Got someone like Vinnie Jones in to buy and sell players over Robson's head. If it pissed off Robson and he left, should we have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset. Can I assume that the people commending Ashley for his prudence and vision for the club now would agree that we should have taken a similar approach back in 2001? Ozzie asked if Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL. Well in a similar position back in 2001, by being speculative, we DID get back into the CL. At the moment I can only see Ashley's way of handling the situation taking the club in one direction, and that's down. The difference between then and now is that the club had a guaranteed rise in income coming it's way in the future. You mention the loss from the accounts in 2000 but the club was paying for a stadium that hadn't generated any extra money yet as the 1999/2000 season SJP was still at 36,000, they knew the money brought in through the gates would rise the following season so it wasn't a problem. Same goes for the year after when a new Sky deal was announced in the summer of 2001 rising from £670m to £1.1b which meant another guaranteed rise in our income, you can afford to go out and spend when you know you've got money coming your way like most clubs did in the Summer of 2007 because of the guaranteed money from the new tv deal. There is no guaranteed boost in income coming our way now, the extra revenue from the tv deal that we were hoping would allow us to go out and bring more players in is already gone before we see it because of bad management of our finances by Shepherd and until we can turn that around then we will continue to be skint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL? Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL? Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then? Hindsight is used when you agree (or disagree) with actions at the time but subsequent events prove them to be wrong (or correct). In this case I agreed with the decision to push forward then and it proved successful, so it's not using hindsight on my part. Besides, Ozzie is the hindsight king. He'll love it. Remember the financial and on field situation at the time: The debt (£66m) was larger than the turnover (£55m) which relative to turnover is more than the "debt" now The club was making loses (£15.5 in 2000, £8.9m in 2001) which relative to turnover are equivalent to the loses now The club had finished 13, 13, 11, 11 in the previous years which is worse than our last 4 years. As I asked in another thread, should we have Cut back on signings and not brought in Bellamy & Robert Sold the likes of Dyer for a good profit Let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). Got someone like Vinnie Jones in to buy and sell players over Robson's head. If it pissed off Robson and he left, should we have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset. Can I assume that the people commending Ashley for his prudence and vision for the club now would agree that we should have taken a similar approach back in 2001? Ozzie asked if Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL. Well in a similar position back in 2001, by being speculative, we DID get back into the CL. At the moment I can only see Ashley's way of handling the situation taking the club in one direction, and that's down. Can we just have you post and not NE5? At least you attempt to argue in a proper way. he is to be congratulated on taking the time to put the figures together. Shame nobody can dispute them, which is why nobody has seriously tried, the same as my league positions either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 He still ignores the basic reality, however. Shepherd gambled what money we had on Souness and Roeder. It didn't work, and left us in deep financial shit. Now we are paying the bill. but you backed Souness spending spree, and his sales, on this very message board and said it would succeed 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