Shepherd Has His Say (Again)

[NE5]

accountants running football clubs

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Murray

 

 

As opposed to a scrap metal merchant running one

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,59575.0.html

 

doesn't quite compare with this. Are you saying you have been envious of the mackems over the past 15 years 

 

However, Sunderland had progressed well during the final 11 seasons of Murray's ownership. They never finished below third place in the league's second tier; whereas the club had finished below this position 7 times in Murray's first 9 seasons as chairman, despite the fact that they had been relegated 3 times during this period - and twice during his first nine seasons as chairman.

[Guest elbee909]

accountants running football clubs

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Murray

 

 

As opposed to a scrap metal merchant running one

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,59575.0.html

 

doesn't quite compare with this. Are you saying you have been envious of the mackems over the past 15 years 

 

However, Sunderland had progressed well during the final 11 seasons of Murray's ownership. They never finished below third place in the league's second tier; whereas the club had finished below this position 7 times in Murray's first 9 seasons as chairman, despite the fact that they had been relegated 3 times during this period - and twice during his first nine seasons as chairman.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

[Dave]

He doesn't read Wikipedia pages. I tried that before with the straw man argument.

[NE5]

accountants running football clubs

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Murray

 

 

As opposed to a scrap metal merchant running one

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,59575.0.html

 

doesn't quite compare with this. Are you saying you have been envious of the mackems over the past 15 years 

 

However, Sunderland had progressed well during the final 11 seasons of Murray's ownership. They never finished below third place in the league's second tier; whereas the club had finished below this position 7 times in Murray's first 9 seasons as chairman, despite the fact that they had been relegated 3 times during this period - and twice during his first nine seasons as chairman.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

 

did a grand job, that Bob Murray like, applying solid financial ground rules, to ensure they didn't go bust or in debt.

 

He obviously fell down because he didn't let enough in for free that weren't interested in watching a losing team anymore.

 

 

[NE5]

He doesn't read Wikipedia pages. I tried that before with the straw man argument.

 

I do.

 

Sometimes.

 

 

[Guest elbee909]

accountants running football clubs

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Murray

 

 

As opposed to a scrap metal merchant running one

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,59575.0.html

 

doesn't quite compare with this. Are you saying you have been envious of the mackems over the past 15 years 

 

However, Sunderland had progressed well during the final 11 seasons of Murray's ownership. They never finished below third place in the league's second tier; whereas the club had finished below this position 7 times in Murray's first 9 seasons as chairman, despite the fact that they had been relegated 3 times during this period - and twice during his first nine seasons as chairman.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

 

did a grand job, that Bob Murray like, applying solid financial ground rules, to ensure they didn't go bust or in debt.

 

He obviously fell down because he didn't let enough in for free that weren't interested in watching a losing team anymore.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

 

[madras]

Oooooh NE5, is your nose getting bigger? Are your pants on fire? If you haven't looked at the finances thread why was your name in the users currently looking at it several times?

 

I haven't looked at it. By the way, I've responded to some of your previous posts directed at me, and predictably you have joined the list of those who are unable to reply and prove me wrong, when you would love to if you could.

 

Are you someone else that insisted we would be better off without the fat b****** [for anybody] ?

 

 

 

Which questions have you asked me, sorry if I missed them but your perpetual arse kissing of Freddy Shepherd sends me to sleep.

 

Which fat b****** are you on about, Shepherd or Ashley?

 

well, we are certainly not better off since the last ownership change are we, but I thought that soopa Mike was going to be the saviour to end all those embarrassing days of qualifying regularly for europe ?

 

 

 

We are financially more stable than we were under Freddy "Lets hoy some more cash at the problem and hope we get somewhere" Shepherd. You should know that from your sneaky peaking at the financial report thread. We will have to see where we are come May to decide how bad Ashley has been. If we finish 13th or so you could say we are on a par with Fat Fred couldn't you? Well you wouldn't cos obviously you are blinkered.

 

While Mike Ashley is not the man to take the club forward, Freddy Shepherd certainly wasn't either. But at least Ashley isn't taking money out of the club to line his own pocket, unlike Fat Freddy.

 

I haven't looked at the thread, because I know it will be full of people like you slating the old board for anything you can think of, such is your cluelessness.

 

You and people like you were told for ages by myself and one or two others that getting rid of the old board wouldn't necessarily lead to more success and a better club, you were wrong. You are being told again that Ashley is taking the club downwards and downwards, his policy is wrong, you are disputing it, but you are wrong again.

 

 

if that is the case then so is this thread so why post here and not there ?

 

so then...at what point would you stop lending off the banks ? would you wait for them to want their money back ?

[NE5]

accountants running football clubs

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Murray

 

 

As opposed to a scrap metal merchant running one

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,59575.0.html

 

doesn't quite compare with this. Are you saying you have been envious of the mackems over the past 15 years 

 

However, Sunderland had progressed well during the final 11 seasons of Murray's ownership. They never finished below third place in the league's second tier; whereas the club had finished below this position 7 times in Murray's first 9 seasons as chairman, despite the fact that they had been relegated 3 times during this period - and twice during his first nine seasons as chairman.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

 

did a grand job, that Bob Murray like, applying solid financial ground rules, to ensure they didn't go bust or in debt.

 

He obviously fell down because he didn't let enough in for free that weren't interested in watching a losing team anymore.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

 

 

excellent. Shame it doesn't prove that despite being an accountant, Bob Murray didn't have a clue how to run one of the biggest clubs in the country, and got nowhere near matching our very own fat bastard.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

Oooooh NE5, is your nose getting bigger? Are your pants on fire? If you haven't looked at the finances thread why was your name in the users currently looking at it several times?

 

I haven't looked at it. By the way, I've responded to some of your previous posts directed at me, and predictably you have joined the list of those who are unable to reply and prove me wrong, when you would love to if you could.

 

Are you someone else that insisted we would be better off without the fat b****** [for anybody] ?

 

 

 

Which questions have you asked me, sorry if I missed them but your perpetual arse kissing of Freddy Shepherd sends me to sleep.

 

Which fat b****** are you on about, Shepherd or Ashley?

 

well, we are certainly not better off since the last ownership change are we, but I thought that soopa Mike was going to be the saviour to end all those embarrassing days of qualifying regularly for europe ?

 

 

 

We are financially more stable than we were under Freddy "Lets hoy some more cash at the problem and hope we get somewhere" Shepherd. You should know that from your sneaky peaking at the financial report thread. We will have to see where we are come May to decide how bad Ashley has been. If we finish 13th or so you could say we are on a par with Fat Fred couldn't you? Well you wouldn't cos obviously you are blinkered.

 

While Mike Ashley is not the man to take the club forward, Freddy Shepherd certainly wasn't either. But at least Ashley isn't taking money out of the club to line his own pocket, unlike Fat Freddy.

 

I haven't looked at the thread, because I know it will be full of people like you slating the old board for anything you can think of, such is your cluelessness.

 

You and people like you were told for ages by myself and one or two others that getting rid of the old board wouldn't necessarily lead to more success and a better club, you were wrong. You are being told again that Ashley is taking the club downwards and downwards, his policy is wrong, you are disputing it, but you are wrong again.

 

 

if that is the case then so is this thread so why post here and not there ?

 

so then...at what point would you stop lending off the banks ? would you wait for them to want their money back ?

 

is the answer you are looking for in the example of how Bob Murray ran the mackems ? He understood finance, after all and how to stop the club going bust ? Therefore,  those mackems must have had a great 20 years.

 

I'm sure our new direction will see us competing for some silverware soon ie the 2nd division trophy again. Glorious stuff. Soopa mike might also get the crowds back, at least until we are promoted and he stops competing again. Wait a moment, do you think the plan is to get relegated, then get promoted and go into debt again, or sit in the bottom half of the league with nice accounts, and 25,000 crowds.

 

I'm asking, I don't know. I would hope he would aim for success, after all, thats what football is about. Isn't it ?

 

 

[madras]

Oooooh NE5, is your nose getting bigger? Are your pants on fire? If you haven't looked at the finances thread why was your name in the users currently looking at it several times?

 

I haven't looked at it. By the way, I've responded to some of your previous posts directed at me, and predictably you have joined the list of those who are unable to reply and prove me wrong, when you would love to if you could.

 

Are you someone else that insisted we would be better off without the fat b****** [for anybody] ?

 

 

 

Which questions have you asked me, sorry if I missed them but your perpetual arse kissing of Freddy Shepherd sends me to sleep.

 

Which fat b****** are you on about, Shepherd or Ashley?

 

well, we are certainly not better off since the last ownership change are we, but I thought that soopa Mike was going to be the saviour to end all those embarrassing days of qualifying regularly for europe ?

 

 

 

We are financially more stable than we were under Freddy "Lets hoy some more cash at the problem and hope we get somewhere" Shepherd. You should know that from your sneaky peaking at the financial report thread. We will have to see where we are come May to decide how bad Ashley has been. If we finish 13th or so you could say we are on a par with Fat Fred couldn't you? Well you wouldn't cos obviously you are blinkered.

 

While Mike Ashley is not the man to take the club forward, Freddy Shepherd certainly wasn't either. But at least Ashley isn't taking money out of the club to line his own pocket, unlike Fat Freddy.

 

I haven't looked at the thread, because I know it will be full of people like you slating the old board for anything you can think of, such is your cluelessness.

 

You and people like you were told for ages by myself and one or two others that getting rid of the old board wouldn't necessarily lead to more success and a better club, you were wrong. You are being told again that Ashley is taking the club downwards and downwards, his policy is wrong, you are disputing it, but you are wrong again.

 

 

if that is the case then so is this thread so why post here and not there ?

 

so then...at what point would you stop lending off the banks ? would you wait for them to want their money back ?

 

is the answer you are looking for in the example of how Bob Murray ran the mackems ? He understood finance, after all and how to stop the club going bust ? Therefore,  those mackems must have had a great 20 years.

 

I'm sure our new direction will see us competing for some silverware soon ie the 2nd division trophy again. Glorious stuff. Soopa mike might also get the crowds back, at least until we are promoted and he stops competing again. Wait a moment, do you think the plan is to get relegated, then get promoted and go into debt again, or sit in the bottom half of the league with nice accounts, and 25,000 crowds.

 

I'm asking, I don't know. I would hope he would aim for success, after all, thats what football is about. Isn't it ?

 

 

the mackems outspent us for a good few of the reid years and why would they be a good example of how to run a club (they bought a load of shit and had a scouting system and youth system that was worse than ours).

 

ashleys plan of sustainablity would probably have worked better if the club wasn't in the mess it was when he took over but it's a better plan than "borrow millions to slide down the league". you'll not find many who don't think we'd have been (on the pitch) in a similar position had fred have stayed.

 

are you saying "you don't know" to the question of wether you would just keep borrowing millions year on year and not really being in a position to pay it back ?

[quayside]

 

So you can't explain how all the successful clubs have done it yet haven't incurred debts and bought top footballers, which is what you appear to think is what we should have been attempting to do ?

 

 

 

The answer is because Fred is s***.  Understand?  The others are able to do it with reasonable debt.  Fred cannot do it despite have huge debt.  That's why I said your question is silly.  The answer contradicts with your stands.

 

You might say you're an accountant, but like Mike Ashley, you understand zilch about football.

 

 

 

Well...I think it's unarguable that administration is an intolerable sin for an owner/chairman. That's the basic for any football club. 

End of discussion because I know you couldn't have any new points to add on.

 

Give it up man.  It is meaningless.

 

So is it administration or liquidation that we headed towards under Freds last stand?

 

Kecks off and arse bared in Fenwicks if that one gets a properly argued response 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

 

So you can't explain how all the successful clubs have done it yet haven't incurred debts and bought top footballers, which is what you appear to think is what we should have been attempting to do ?

 

 

 

The answer is because Fred is s***.  Understand?  The others are able to do it with reasonable debt.  Fred cannot do it despite have huge debt.  That's why I said your question is silly.  The answer contradicts with your stands.

 

You might say you're an accountant, but like Mike Ashley, you understand zilch about football.

 

 

 

Well...I think it's unarguable that administration is an intolerable sin for an owner/chairman. That's the basic for any football club. 

End of discussion because I know you couldn't have any new points to add on.

 

Give it up man.  It is meaningless.

 

So is it administration or liquidation that we headed towards under Freds last stand?

 

Kecks off and arse bared in Fenwicks if that one gets a properly argued response 

 

Hence it being asked!

 

He's used the terms interchangably over the past couple of pages and I doubt he knows the difference between the two or the different approaches taken during each process

[WhatTheFunk]

 

You sound like more like a monkey than an accountant.

 

At least monkey know life is important.

 

I couldn't imagine you can ask such a silly question.  I expect it's a more reasonable one.  Sorry. 

 

so you can't really explain how all the other successful clubs [all 4 of them] have creamed off the bulk of the trophies while not going into debt and buying top footballers, which appears to be the goal that you and others are chasing ?

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

it was done by MAGIC!

 

it must be.

 

Paul Daniels would be proud of you 

 

The reason is that they have spent big and actually achieved results!!! Trust me, if any of the big 4 right now hired shit managers like Souness and finished 13th a couple seasons running, they would be in deep shit. But another thing you seem to forget is that especially Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool are massive international brands worldwide. We're well known worldwide, we're just not anywhere near as big commercially.

[fredbob]

accountants running football clubs

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Murray

 

 

As opposed to a scrap metal merchant running one

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,59575.0.html

 

doesn't quite compare with this. Are you saying you have been envious of the mackems over the past 15 years 

 

However, Sunderland had progressed well during the final 11 seasons of Murray's ownership. They never finished below third place in the league's second tier; whereas the club had finished below this position 7 times in Murray's first 9 seasons as chairman, despite the fact that they had been relegated 3 times during this period - and twice during his first nine seasons as chairman.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

 

did a grand job, that Bob Murray like, applying solid financial ground rules, to ensure they didn't go bust or in debt.

 

He obviously fell down because he didn't let enough in for free that weren't interested in watching a losing team anymore.

 

 

 

But look how well its set them up now to invest in the team, look at how much investement they're making, look at the ambition they're showing..........look at how well they're doing....

 

This is an example of you're flimsy arguments, spending huge amounts guarantees nothing, who do you think has bought the better players over the past 2 years, NUFC or Sunderland?

 

Just a heads up, you'd be undermings the fundamental principles of your argument by saying NUFC, playit safe and go for Sunderland.

 

 

[macbeth]

Someone shouting, and shouting that Shepherd is better than Murray, is a fantastic thing to see. I think Freddie will rest happy in the knowledge that he is held in such high regard.  It's like crowing with delight that Jim Smith was a better manager than Richard Dinnis. Or that Shola is better than Frank Pringel.

 

You say again that I wanted  Adam Crozier as chairman. I suggested that someone with his knowledge would make a good chairman. Subtly different but hey lets not try and see nuances in people's comments 

 

Shepherd sacked three managers in two and a half years, he chose two managers in Souness and Roeder that only he could see as long term leaders. He then appointed Allardyce. So each time he looked up, knew where he wanted the club to be competing, knew what the club needed, aimed for the top managers around and decided to pick the manager of a team in the relegation zone, then someone who a few weeks earlier had been viewed as worthy of looking after the youth academy, then when he had time to really get it right he aimed for the manager of an anti-footballing side.

 

Shepherd chose those managers, borrowed money left right and centre to back them, as apparently none of them had the ability to improve a player they hadn't personally bought, and it all fell apart on the field and off it.

 

The NE5 argument seems to be that you have to spend spend spend (borrow, borrow b,orrow) to compete. It doesn't matter what you buy, whether it is part of a long term strategy, that is all irrelevant, all you need to do is spend.

 

I'd just like to make it clear I am not in anyway at all extolling the virtues of Mike Ashley, any more than I extolled the virtues of McKeag. It is possible (in my head) to hold both those positions. Does Michael Owen scoring at better strike rate than Shearer mean Shearer was crap? I find it easy to say they are both good. Does Jon Dahl Thomasson  scoring 3 goals in 17 league starts for us make him a better players than Andreas Andersson with 4 from 25. Well for me they both have pretty poor records with us, and it is okay to criticise them both.  I feel comfortable in criticising Ashley, and Shepherd when they get things wrong

[Mick]

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4236/spendaq9.jpg

[Liam Liam Liam O]

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4236/spendaq9.jpg

 

 

Have you been messing around with that HDR software I got you?

[fredbob]

 

So you can't explain how all the successful clubs have done it yet haven't incurred debts and bought top footballers, which is what you appear to think is what we should have been attempting to do ?

 

 

 

The answer is because Fred is s***.  Understand?  The others are able to do it with reasonable debt.  Fred cannot do it despite have huge debt.  That's why I said your question is silly.  The answer contradicts with your stands.

 

You might say you're an accountant, but like Mike Ashley, you understand zilch about football.

 

 

 

Well...I think it's unarguable that administration is an intolerable sin for an owner/chairman. That's the basic for any football club. 

End of discussion because I know you couldn't have any new points to add on.

 

Give it up man.  It is meaningless.

 

So is it administration or liquidation that we headed towards under Freds last stand?

 

Kecks off and arse bared in Fenwicks if that one gets a properly argued response 

 

Hence it being asked!

 

He's used the terms interchangably over the past couple of pages and I doubt he knows the difference between the two or the different approaches taken during each process

 

 

I think he's claimed to be an accountant as well.

[Mick]

 

 

Have you been messing around with that HDR software I got you?

 

Sorry, I was bored. 

[OzzieMandias]

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4236/spendaq9.jpg

 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

 

So you can't explain how all the successful clubs have done it yet haven't incurred debts and bought top footballers, which is what you appear to think is what we should have been attempting to do ?

 

 

 

The answer is because Fred is s***.  Understand?  The others are able to do it with reasonable debt.  Fred cannot do it despite have huge debt.  That's why I said your question is silly.  The answer contradicts with your stands.

 

You might say you're an accountant, but like Mike Ashley, you understand zilch about football.

 

 

 

Well...I think it's unarguable that administration is an intolerable sin for an owner/chairman. That's the basic for any football club. 

End of discussion because I know you couldn't have any new points to add on.

 

Give it up man.  It is meaningless.

 

So is it administration or liquidation that we headed towards under Freds last stand?

 

Kecks off and arse bared in Fenwicks if that one gets a properly argued response 

 

Hence it being asked!

 

He's used the terms interchangably over the past couple of pages and I doubt he knows the difference between the two or the different approaches taken during each process

 

 

I think he's claimed to be an accountant as well.

 

But why would you claim to be an accountant if you're not?

 

I'm a bloody good one (if I do say so myself!), and proud of it. But I wouldn't exactly say its a sexy or impressive thing to claim to be

[Dave]

It's totally hawt.

[NE5]

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4236/spendaq9.jpg

 

never mind. Still happy you got what you wished for, and you;re not "embarrassed" anymore  mackems.gif

[mrmojorisin75]

so you can't really explain how all the other successful clubs [all 4 of them] have creamed off the bulk of the trophies while not going into debt and buying top footballers, which appears to be the goal that you and others are chasing ?

 

Thanks.

 

So you finally understands why you are worse than a monkey.  Those clubs won't going to liquidation as they have reasonable debt.  We almost did it by having an unsustainable debt.

 

fuckin brilliant!!!!

[Zero]

 

Hence it being asked!

 

He's used the terms interchangably over the past couple of pages and I doubt he knows the difference between the two or the different approaches taken during each process

 

Because both of them will bring the club to hell--- just like the difference between final stage cancer and certified death.

 

Either one of them is enough to evaluate Fred's reign imo.  You rarely see a club that can recover very soon after administration rite?