Jump to content

Shepherd plans Toon takeover - Doesn't make for pretty reading


JH
 Share

Recommended Posts

Shepherd plans Toon takeover

By JOE BERNSTEIN

 

Under-fire Newcastle United chairman Freddy Shepherd wants to end the 15-year reign of the Hall family with a buy-out of the £90 million club.

 

Shepherd has faced bitter calls for his resignation from Toon fans angry at the club’s slump to the foot of the Premiership.

 

But, far from relinquishing power, Shepherd wants to take over the majority shareholding of Sir John Hall and his son, Douglas, and assume sole control of the club.

 

With the club likely to be valued at £90m, he would have to pay around £37m for Sir John’s 29 per cent share-holding and his son’s 12 per cent.

 

Shepherd already owns 28 per cent and if he does cut a deal with the Halls he will have to make an identical offer to all remaining shareholders, as it would take him over the 30 per cent threshold set by Stock Exchange rules.

 

He then intends to remove Newcastle from their Stock Exchange listing, following the examples of Malcolm Glazer at Manchester United, Roman Abramovich at Chelsea, and Randy Lerner at Aston Villa.

 

But Shepherd is likely to face competition.

 

The mysterious Jersey-based company, The Belgravia Group, have been in talks with the club.

 

Any buy-out would end the 15-year association with the club by Sir John Hall, who finally gained control of Newcastle after a bitter boardroom battle. Sir John set about revitalising the ailing club, bringing in Kevin Keegan as manager. Keegan achieved promotion to the Premiership and famously almost won the title in 1996, before being overhauled by Manchester United.

 

But the news that Shepherd wants to stay at St James’ Park for the long haul will dismay those angry Newcastle fans who demonstrated against him following last weekend’s home defeat against Sheffield United.

 

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=415898&in_page_id=1779

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's long looked like that was why Fat Fred had strengthened his shareholding to just under the point where he'd legally have to attempt a buy-out.

 

If this is true, then the decision as to the future of the club will rest with the Halls. Will they sell to Fat Fred? Will they sell to someone else? Or will they not sell to anyone, and leave things the way they are?

 

Looks like, if he was going to take the club private, FF would have to borrow really heavily. It would effectively leave us £40 million deeper in debt and under the complete control of someone who has taken us from challenging for the top to floundering at the bottom, and is clearly bereft of fresh ideas as to how to take the club forward.

 

Relegation would of course reduce the share price, thus making it easier for FF (or another buyer) to buy the club out. On the other hand, the threat of it might mean the Halls selling out sooner rather than later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this and OH MY GOD!

 

This will be disaster for our club!

 

WHAT KIND OF NONSENSE IS IT THAT THE HALLS MAKE ALL THE IMPORTANT DECISIONS!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

 

blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him

 

good move though, quite the chess player it seems

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

 

blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him

 

good move though, quite the chess player it seems

 

He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes?

 

In what sense is it a good move?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

 

blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him

 

good move though, quite the chess player it seems

 

He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes?

 

In what sense is it a good move?

who says he'll borrow £37mill ?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

 

blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him

 

good move though, quite the chess player it seems

 

He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes?

 

In what sense is it a good move?

who says he'll borrow £37mill ?

 

That's the minimum he'd need to buy out the other shareholders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

 

blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him

 

good move though, quite the chess player it seems

 

He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes?

 

In what sense is it a good move?

 

p.r. wise

 

and it wouldn't be him borrowing the money, it would be Shepherd Offshore

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

 

blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him

 

good move though, quite the chess player it seems

 

He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes?

 

In what sense is it a good move?

who says he'll borrow £37mill ?

 

That's the minimum he'd need to buy out the other shareholders.

wouldn't be borrowing if he was leading a consortium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

 

blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him

 

good move though, quite the chess player it seems

 

He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes?

 

In what sense is it a good move?

who says he'll borrow £37mill ?

 

That's the minimum he'd need to buy out the other shareholders.

wouldn't be borrowing if he was leading a consortium

 

Did it mention a consortium?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

 

blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him

 

good move though, quite the chess player it seems

 

He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes?

 

In what sense is it a good move?

who says he'll borrow £37mill ?

 

That's the minimum he'd need to buy out the other shareholders.

wouldn't be borrowing if he was leading a consortium

 

Where's the suggestion that he's leading a consortium? You think he's going to find £37 million worth of investors who think he's the man to get us out of the trouble he himself has got us into in the first place?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

 

blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him

 

good move though, quite the chess player it seems

 

He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes?

 

In what sense is it a good move?

 

p.r. wise

 

and it wouldn't be him borrowing the money, it would be Shepherd Offshore

 

And the difference there is...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

 

blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him

 

good move though, quite the chess player it seems

 

He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes?

 

In what sense is it a good move?

 

p.r. wise

 

and it wouldn't be him borrowing the money, it would be Shepherd Offshore

 

And the difference there is...?

 

they don't confiscate your house/possessions if you default

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

 

blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him

 

good move though, quite the chess player it seems

 

He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes?

 

In what sense is it a good move?

 

p.r. wise

 

and it wouldn't be him borrowing the money, it would be Shepherd Offshore

 

And the difference there is...?

 

they don't confiscate your house/possessions if you default

 

Great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Right. I have been against Shepherd for a long long time now, and have been amongst those calling for his severing his ties with NUFC. However, could it be that should he gain full control of the club, he may actually appoint the right people to run it, and just take a back seat for a change?

 

I'm not defending him or attacking him with this post....just trying to be objective and pose a question.

 

I really dont know about this situation anymore. A takeover would be great if it were the right ppl with the right funds. It could also be disasterous if otherwise. What I do know however is that the status quo cannot continue, and the way Shepherd has been running the club, and continues to do so is utterly unacceptable.

 

Can he change? Are there goings on at the club that we don't know about? Could the Halls actually have been the real culprits in our downfall? So many questions, and I have none for answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...