Football Finances

[Kanji]

Not like this is the place for it - but I still to this wonder what would have happened to the club had we built the new stadium. I assume the increased gates, ticket prices, and season ticket holders (would they have been tied to a license of X amt of years?) would  have really changed our financial footing?

 

Hind sight of course b/c I absolutely love the fact we still play at St James Park and love everything about the history of the ground, the way it looks, its location etc.

[madras]

a quick history question: about the massive debts (mortgages etc.) that shepherd ran up. when did that all begin? i know shepherd was reckless as f*** financially, but was hall the same? put it another way, was our 90s renaissance entirely funded out of the man's pocket?

 

As I remember, Sir John Hall bought his shares for £8 million.  He put no other money into the club until Keegan was manager & threatened to quit unless we bought a player. Sir John Hall then borrowed £1 million from his wife to fund the transfer.

 

 

So £9 million into the club, only £1 million of which went towards the actual running of the club in any way.  In the meantime, he floated the club to offload a few shares and repay debts and fund the rebuilding of the stadium (rebuilt by Cameron Hall Developments, so we paid him there too) and after paying dividends for a few years even whilst making huge losses, they lastly sold their shares to Ashley and cashed in yet again.

 

The Halls helped the club immensely but they also made out like bandits from their tenure.

£250,000 for Brian Kilcline.

 

I always thought the  signings of Darren Mcdonagh and Peter Garland were just Keegan testing The Hall's to see if they'd do what he said.

[Stu]

Not like this is the place for it - but I still to this wonder what would have happened to the club had we built the new stadium. I assume the increased gates, ticket prices, and season ticket holders (would they have been tied to a license of X amt of years?) would  have really changed our financial footing?

 

Hind sight of course b/c I absolutely love the fact we still play at St James Park and love everything about the history of the ground, the way it looks, its location etc.

 

Not a lot different, would have still been the same Winnie's running the club.

[Matt]

It's not in the slightest the same thing, never mind pragmatically.

 

If he'd put in £100 Mill and then took a £10 Million dividend and left the liability as it was he's creaming off the top. If he'd put in the same £100 Mill and took £10 Mill via reducing the liability accordingly, he's not creaming off the top.

 

In both cases he'd "pocket" the £10 Mill but for what it means to the club's financial position it's nowhere near the same.

 

I cannot understand this mindset that somehow the accounts of Ashley the man and his 100% owned business are somehow on a seperate footing. They are all part of the same empire. If fans think we have some kind or 'moral minority stake' in NUFC then Ashley will be delighted, it means supporters will be more willing to part with their cash and give him a much better chance of making a few quid in the long run. If he's loaned the club £100m on a totally arms-length basis (which it isnt here) and it gets paid back then the club's equity is worth another £100m so when he comes to sell, that's when he makes his cash.

 

It means exactly the same to the club's financial position as well, because the owner and the creditor are the same party. What is he going to do? Write a letter to himself demanding repayment? If you were analysing this as a takeover target, you would simply ignore the shareholder loan altogether when valuing it, on the basis it would be extinguished on sale.

[Kanji]

You're making sense Matt, but don't know if you are entirely correct in this instance. He's created a separate holding entity for the club, so in a sense its a separate businesses. All of the press during the time he was trying to sell the club seemed to mention (and even on here) that the price of the club would have to be another 100M b/c of this "loan." That was what many on here had said would have been the problem with Mike selling the club, that extra 100M that he considered a loan to the club.  Its all accounting/tax stuff at the end of the day though. That's why people create LLCs for businesses.

 

But your examples make pretty logical sense though, I just think Mike's done the very safe thing here in protecting his personal fortune by doing this separate thing. Which anyone would/should do if I'm honest.

[Crayola Kid]

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2013/03/25/from-man-utd-at-1bn-to-wigan-at-42m-whats-your-club-really-worth-250102/

 

"After scrutinising all the established valuation models and the niche requirements of the football industry, the components of this model were finalised. The model includes a club’s: revenue, profit (or loss), net assets (all the clubs assets less all its liabilities – including debt) as well as football industry key performance indicators: stadium utilisation per cent and wages to revenue per cent.

 

 

 

here are what the 20 current clubs are really worth. The prices assume that the buyer, on top, also assumes responsibility for any current debt the club has:"

 

[Toonpack]

a quick history question: about the massive debts (mortgages etc.) that shepherd ran up. when did that all begin? i know shepherd was reckless as f*** financially, but was hall the same? put it another way, was our 90s renaissance entirely funded out of the man's pocket?

 

As I remember, Sir John Hall bought his shares for £8 million.  He put no other money into the club until Keegan was manager & threatened to quit unless we bought a player.  Sir John Hall then borrowed £1 million from his wife to fund the transfer. 

 

So £9 million into the club, only £1 million of which went towards the actual running of the club in any way.  In the meantime, he floated the club to offload a few shares and repay debts and fund the rebuilding of the stadium (rebuilt by Cameron Hall Developments, so we paid him there too) and after paying dividends for a few years even whilst making huge losses, they lastly sold their shares to Ashley and cashed in yet again.

 

The Halls helped the club immensely but they also made out like bandits from their tenure.

 

It wasn't quite like that, it was a leveraged buyout just like Man U (but much smaller) with a loan from Cameron Hall which was repayable (with interest) by the club.

 

Not a penny of his own personal cash went into it.

[Toonpack]

It's not in the slightest the same thing, never mind pragmatically.

 

If he'd put in £100 Mill and then took a £10 Million dividend and left the liability as it was he's creaming off the top. If he'd put in the same £100 Mill and took £10 Mill via reducing the liability accordingly, he's not creaming off the top.

 

In both cases he'd "pocket" the £10 Mill but for what it means to the club's financial position it's nowhere near the same.

 

I cannot understand this mindset that somehow the accounts of Ashley the man and his 100% owned business are somehow on a seperate footing. They are all part of the same empire. If fans think we have some kind or 'moral minority stake' in NUFC then Ashley will be delighted, it means supporters will be more willing to part with their cash and give him a much better chance of making a few quid in the long run. If he's loaned the club £100m on a totally arms-length basis (which it isnt here) and it gets paid back then the club's equity is worth another £100m so when he comes to sell, that's when he makes his cash.

 

It means exactly the same to the club's financial position as well, because the owner and the creditor are the same party. What is he going to do? Write a letter to himself demanding repayment? If you were analysing this as a takeover target, you would simply ignore the shareholder loan altogether when valuing it, on the basis it would be extinguished on sale.

 

Really don't see your problem with this tbh.

 

Let's say:

 

He buys club for £100 Mill, over time has lent it another £100 Mill, his selling price is going to be £200 Mill + so he doesn't take a hit.

 

If in the above scenario the club reduces the loans, his exposure similarly reduces and so does the price he'd likely sell it for.

 

It's moot anyway, outside of someone offering him ridiculous cash he's going nowhere anytime soon.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I was just talking in terms of the two things being different in the accounts and what they could theoretically mean for the club's financial position. Obviously in practice Ashley would never damage NUFC by making the loan terms unfavourable or demanding repayment, and as Toon Pack says he would factor everything into any sale.

[Taylor Swift]

It's not in the slightest the same thing, never mind pragmatically.

 

If he'd put in £100 Mill and then took a £10 Million dividend and left the liability as it was he's creaming off the top. If he'd put in the same £100 Mill and took £10 Mill via reducing the liability accordingly, he's not creaming off the top.

 

In both cases he'd "pocket" the £10 Mill but for what it means to the club's financial position it's nowhere near the same.

 

I cannot understand this mindset that somehow the accounts of Ashley the man and his 100% owned business are somehow on a seperate footing. They are all part of the same empire. If fans think we have some kind or 'moral minority stake' in NUFC then Ashley will be delighted, it means supporters will be more willing to part with their cash and give him a much better chance of making a few quid in the long run. If he's loaned the club £100m on a totally arms-length basis (which it isnt here) and it gets paid back then the club's equity is worth another £100m so when he comes to sell, that's when he makes his cash.

 

It means exactly the same to the club's financial position as well, because the owner and the creditor are the same party. What is he going to do? Write a letter to himself demanding repayment? If you were analysing this as a takeover target, you would simply ignore the shareholder loan altogether when valuing it, on the basis it would be extinguished on sale.

 

This is what I've been saying for three god damn years. It doesn't fucking matter whether he's paying interest on the loan, whether he's reducing the loan, whether we're getting money from SD etc etc because it's shifting money from one pocket to another.

[madras]

It's not in the slightest the same thing, never mind pragmatically.

 

If he'd put in £100 Mill and then took a £10 Million dividend and left the liability as it was he's creaming off the top. If he'd put in the same £100 Mill and took £10 Mill via reducing the liability accordingly, he's not creaming off the top.

 

In both cases he'd "pocket" the £10 Mill but for what it means to the club's financial position it's nowhere near the same.

 

I cannot understand this mindset that somehow the accounts of Ashley the man and his 100% owned business are somehow on a seperate footing. They are all part of the same empire. If fans think we have some kind or 'moral minority stake' in NUFC then Ashley will be delighted, it means supporters will be more willing to part with their cash and give him a much better chance of making a few quid in the long run. If he's loaned the club £100m on a totally arms-length basis (which it isnt here) and it gets paid back then the club's equity is worth another £100m so when he comes to sell, that's when he makes his cash.

 

It means exactly the same to the club's financial position as well, because the owner and the creditor are the same party. What is he going to do? Write a letter to himself demanding repayment? If you were analysing this as a takeover target, you would simply ignore the shareholder loan altogether when valuing it, on the basis it would be extinguished on sale.

they have to be don't they, legally speaking ?

[Taylor Swift]

It's not in the slightest the same thing, never mind pragmatically.

 

If he'd put in £100 Mill and then took a £10 Million dividend and left the liability as it was he's creaming off the top. If he'd put in the same £100 Mill and took £10 Mill via reducing the liability accordingly, he's not creaming off the top.

 

In both cases he'd "pocket" the £10 Mill but for what it means to the club's financial position it's nowhere near the same.

 

I cannot understand this mindset that somehow the accounts of Ashley the man and his 100% owned business are somehow on a seperate footing. They are all part of the same empire. If fans think we have some kind or 'moral minority stake' in NUFC then Ashley will be delighted, it means supporters will be more willing to part with their cash and give him a much better chance of making a few quid in the long run. If he's loaned the club £100m on a totally arms-length basis (which it isnt here) and it gets paid back then the club's equity is worth another £100m so when he comes to sell, that's when he makes his cash.

 

It means exactly the same to the club's financial position as well, because the owner and the creditor are the same party. What is he going to do? Write a letter to himself demanding repayment? If you were analysing this as a takeover target, you would simply ignore the shareholder loan altogether when valuing it, on the basis it would be extinguished on sale.

they have to be don't they, legally speaking ?

 

Legally yes, but in terms of the consequences of that in terms of actions that he takes, it's negligible.

 

He has a value for the club. That value will be x. If the club has debt that must be paid off, then he'll ask for x - debt. So if the club owes him 100m and he values the club at 200m, he'll sell the club for 100m cash. If he pays the debt back to himself, the new buyer will pay 200m cash but either way, he will be getting 200m and the new buyer will be paying 200m in both cases.

 

If he starts paying a dividend, it has the same effect. The club's cashflow is worse off, therefore its net present value (the sum of future cashflows) is reduced, so the total value of the club has been reduced by the the money that he's taken out. Either way, there is a certain amount that he'll sell for and this amount doesn't change regardless of whether he's paying down debt, taking out dividends or making sports direct pay for advertising.

[madras]

It's not in the slightest the same thing, never mind pragmatically.

 

If he'd put in £100 Mill and then took a £10 Million dividend and left the liability as it was he's creaming off the top. If he'd put in the same £100 Mill and took £10 Mill via reducing the liability accordingly, he's not creaming off the top.

 

In both cases he'd "pocket" the £10 Mill but for what it means to the club's financial position it's nowhere near the same.

 

I cannot understand this mindset that somehow the accounts of Ashley the man and his 100% owned business are somehow on a seperate footing. They are all part of the same empire. If fans think we have some kind or 'moral minority stake' in NUFC then Ashley will be delighted, it means supporters will be more willing to part with their cash and give him a much better chance of making a few quid in the long run. If he's loaned the club £100m on a totally arms-length basis (which it isnt here) and it gets paid back then the club's equity is worth another £100m so when he comes to sell, that's when he makes his cash.

 

It means exactly the same to the club's financial position as well, because the owner and the creditor are the same party. What is he going to do? Write a letter to himself demanding repayment? If you were analysing this as a takeover target, you would simply ignore the shareholder loan altogether when valuing it, on the basis it would be extinguished on sale.

they have to be don't they, legally speaking ?

 

Legally yes, but in terms of the consequences of that in terms of actions that he takes, it's negligible.

 

He has a value for the club. That value will be x. If the club has debt that must be paid off, then he'll ask for x - debt. So if the club owes him 100m and he values the club at 200m, he'll sell the club for 100m cash. If he pays the debt back to himself, the new buyer will pay 200m cash but either way, he will be getting 200m and the new buyer will be paying 200m in both cases.

 

If he starts paying a dividend, it has the same effect. The club's cashflow is worse off, therefore its net present value (the sum of future cashflows) is reduced, so the total value of the club has been reduced by the the money that he's taken out. Either way, there is a certain amount that he'll sell for and this amount doesn't change regardless of whether he's paying down debt, taking out dividends or making sports direct pay for advertising.

doesn't that mean that with him not taking a dividend and keeping any debt owed to him for payment at a later date that the club is in a better position than him constantly dripping monies back out by way of debt repayments or dividends ?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Sir John Hall only ever put £50,000 into the actual football club from his own pocket, only after KK effectively threatened to quit unless he did so, mind. He did, however, invest significant money into buying up shares which enabled this club to move into the 21st century. An act that brought him almost full control/ownership of the club. Without his money, and indeed business acumen, we would have folded.

 

Basically SJH invested a lot of his own money to save the club and although he did indeed take out lots, he only ever did so from the IPO and of course the sale of the club. To my knowledge he never drew a wage from the club or took out dividends or interest for loans etc. He was no sugar daddy but he was no leach either.

 

He didn't even want to get involved initially, but several people, journos and other business people, convinced him to get involved. Thankfully he did. Sir John Hall gets a rough ride from a section of our support and sadly a good number regard him with suspicion but he was a good guy and a white knight for us at the time. He said from the outset he viewed NUFC as an investment opportunity and wanted to make money for himself/family/interests from the club but never at the expense of the club. He was such a good guy, he was aghast when Shepherd, Douglas and others told him to get rid of Ardilles. To Sir John Hall, that meant a man losing his job and it didn't sit easy with him.

 

He made some mistakes and earned millions from NUFC but if anyone deserved it, he did. No-one was willing to shell out all those millions on shares to save us from McKeag et al, no-one had his vision, drive, energy and ambition for the club either, back then. He even offered the club to fans and they said no. He f***ing saved us and should be regarded in the same esteem as KK, Shearer et al.

 

He was interviewed a few years back and you could tell he regretted how things turned out for the club, from the IPO despite what he earned from it even to the sale of the club to Ashley, which again, he earned from.

 

By all accounts, he is a very good bloke who like Kevin Keegan, when looking at a then doomed to either 3rd division football or oblivion with a dilapidated stadium during a time when the City was still in recession, with fans packing it all in in their droves, saw something special in us, when no f***er else did.

 

SJH is arguably the most crucial figure in our post war history and indeed full history.

 

We were 4m in debt when he took over. The stadium was old and falling a part. The side was heading towards the 3rd tier of English football.

 

I shudder to think where we would be right now without his involvement. We would still have existed because as long as there are fans out there willing to support a football club there will always be one, but at what level, at what extent?

 

The man's a f***ing legend in my eyes!

[madras]

HTT, check how much the hall and shepherd families took out of the club overall. yes the club done well on the pitch out of them but they done very well out of the club even before the sale and the financial state the club was in was probably worse than that when they arrived. (in both cases i doubt we'd have gone out of business but leeds type scenarios could've been likely).

 

FWIW I dion't believe for one second that he put money in to save the club as much as putting money in as he saw it as a very good financial opportunity.

[OzzieMandias]

Didn't he also consider buying Sunderland instead?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

HTT, check how much the hall and shepherd families took out of the club overall. yes the club done well on the pitch out of them but they done very well out of the club even before the sale and the financial state the club was in was probably worse than that when they arrived. (in both cases i doubt we'd have gone out of business but leeds type scenarios could've been likely).

 

FWIW I dion't believe for one second that he put money in to save the club as much as putting money in as he saw it as a very good financial opportunity.

 

He did indeed 'take out' lots, which I acknowledge. Unlike many though I don't begrudge the man making millions from something he actually helped become so profitable in the first place. He oversaw a company that was 4m in debt one year to turning over 40m 3 years later. In any walk of business life he would be rewarded massively for such performances. People forget or simply are unaware, he pumped in probably over 5m of his own personal wealth in buying shares to take full control of the club. Back in 91/92 that was a lot of money and a huge slice of his own personal wealth.

 

We were in no way shape of form in a worse financial state when he left then when he took over btw, to suggest so is absolutely ludicrous. When SJH left we were in the top world 15 for turnover, with a world-class stadium. We were at rock bottom before he took over, on and off the field. People don't appreciate just how close we were to going under. We were generating 2m a year turnover but the running costs of the club with debt etc. was twice that. We had several youngsters in Clark and Watson who were considered potential stars and therefore worth a few bob potentially but without Sir John Hall's initial investment we would have been in the shit. We wouldn't have ceased to exist because like I said, if there are fans willing to support a club there will always be a club, but we would not have been in a good position.

 

He said himself he put money in to both save the club and for investment purposes and he never hid from that nor lied about his intentions. The fact he offered the club to fans showed that he was not just in it for the money or for egotistical reasons.

 

This doing a Leeds thing is fucking nonsense too. Even under the height of FS' mismanagement, we were never in any danger of doing a Leeds. Don't be fooled by the early Ashley propaganda. FS in his appointment of Allardyce knew we had to reign it in, and that was his intentions and where we were headed.

 

Only now are we back to square one if you like, a relegation and several fuck ups later.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Didn't he also consider buying Sunderland instead?

 

Nope. He was however, a former season ticket holder at the mackems, as he was at SJP. No different to my grandad who when we played away, would go to Roker Park to watch the mackems.

[Toonpack]

HTT, check how much the hall and shepherd families took out of the club overall. yes the club done well on the pitch out of them but they done very well out of the club even before the sale and the financial state the club was in was probably worse than that when they arrived. (in both cases i doubt we'd have gone out of business but leeds type scenarios could've been likely).

 

FWIW I dion't believe for one second that he put money in to save the club as much as putting money in as he saw it as a very good financial opportunity.

 

He did indeed 'take out' lots, which I acknowledge. Unlike many though I don't begrudge the man making millions from something he actually helped become so profitable in the first place. He oversaw a company that was 4m in debt one year to turning over 40m 3 years later. In any walk of business life he would be rewarded massively for such performances. People forget or simply are unaware, he pumped in probably over 5m of his own personal wealth in buying shares to take full control of the club. Back in 91/92 that was a lot of money and a huge slice of his own personal wealth.

 

We were in no way shape of form in a worse financial state when he left then when he took over btw, to suggest so is absolutely ludicrous. When SJH left we were in the top world 15 for turnover, with a world-class stadium. We were at rock bottom before he took over, on and off the field. People don't appreciate just how close we were to going under. We were generating 2m a year turnover but the running costs of the club with debt etc. was twice that. We had several youngsters in Clark and Watson who were considered potential stars and therefore worth a few bob potentially but without Sir John Hall's initial investment we would have been in the s***. We wouldn't have ceased to exist because like I said, if there are fans willing to support a club there will always be a club, but we would not have been in a good position.

 

He said himself he put money in to both save the club and for investment purposes and he never hid from that nor lied about his intentions. The fact he offered the club to fans showed that he was not just in it for the money or for egotistical reasons.

 

This doing a Leeds thing is f***ing nonsense too. Even under the height of FS' mismanagement, we were never in any danger of doing a Leeds. Don't be fooled by the early Ashley propaganda. FS in his appointment of Allardyce knew we had to reign it in, and that was his intentions and where we were headed.

 

Only now are we back to square one if you like, a relegation and several f*** ups later.

 

That post and your other one above are so inaccurate it's untrue, he nor Shepherd ever put a penny of their own money in except to exercise discounted share options, which was like printing cash.

 

And when exactly was NUFC profitable in the SJH/FS years, once I think it was.

 

Oh I accept they made the club into something special in the eyes of the wider world, but to suggest it wasn't primarily for personal gain, either financial or in terms of ego, is preposterous

 

Your dismissal of the Doing a Leeds situation is equally ridiculous, with or without the banking crash we didn't have a pot to piss in.

[madras]

HTT doing a good job in thinking a big turnover equals profits, wealth etc. and I'm still trying to work out the relevance of "4m in debt one year to turning over 40m 3 years later." a bit like saying one year i was 15 stone the next i was 5ft 8.

 

he was behind us becoming as good a team as i've seen in my lifetime, he wouldn't have done it if he didn't think he'd make money from it (no problem with that) but they left us in the shit.

 

if you want to believe that we were close to the wall before he came then you'd also have to believe the same for when ashley took over, in fact, if anything i'd say the positioin ashley inherited was worse as future incomes had been hocked.

[brummie]

I don't really know the ins and outs of your finances, but I do remember going to watch a match at SJP for the first time in 1986, and genuinely for a moment thinking I'd wandered into Gateshead athletics stadium, the ground was such an antiquated dump.

 

I mean no offence, but I honestly couldn't get over it, crappy and open and both ends, the Leazes terrace seeming to be a few steps and a brick wall, and the stand opposite the 1970s era one (sorry, don't know name, to the left as you stand on the Gallowgate) looked like it was at least 100 years old. It was the least impressive top flight football ground I'd been to.

 

So, I compare that to what the ground is now, and regardless of how much SJH put in or didn't put in, or how much later executives took etc etc, at some point between 1986 and, say, 7 or 8 years ago (since when I guess the ground hasn't changed), someone must have stopped getting things wrong, and got it spectacularly right at some point.

 

Especially when you consider that it was all done without actually winning anything at any point.

 

Just an ill-informed, generalising observation.

[quayside]

I don't really know the ins and outs of your finances, but I do remember going to watch a match at SJP for the first time in 1986, and genuinely for a moment thinking I'd wandered into Gateshead athletics stadium, the ground was such an antiquated dump.

 

I mean no offence, but I honestly couldn't get over it, crappy and open and both ends, the Leazes terrace seeming to be a few steps and a brick wall, and the stand opposite the 1970s era one (sorry, don't know name, to the left as you stand on the Gallowgate) looked like it was at least 100 years old. It was the least impressive top flight football ground I'd been to.

 

So, I compare that to what the ground is now, and regardless of how much SJH put in or didn't put in, or how much later executives took etc etc, at some point between 1986 and, say, 7 or 8 years ago (since when I guess the ground hasn't changed), someone must have stopped getting things wrong, and got it spectacularly right at some point.

 

Especially when you consider that it was all done without actually winning anything at any point.

 

Just an ill-informed, generalising observation.

 

Its an extremely valid observation. The stadium is absolutely magnificent and is the legacy of the previous owners. There is no doubt that they did get a lot right, and I agree with HTT that Sir John Hall deserves huge credit as the "visionary" who kick started the huge improvement in the club's fortunes.

 

However by 2007 the club was in a mess, Sir John Hall had for several years not been involved in the day to day running which was pretty much in the hands of Freddie Shepherd. Whether Sir John's son, Douglas, played much of a role is not clear but he and Shepherd extracted considerable sums of money by way of salaries and dividends, which were (shall we say) hard to justify given the club's apparent deteriorating performance. These financial rewards were also being paid to people who had never put much, if any, money into the club. I have, in the past, spouted at length on here (in response to Shepherdistas who seem to have now disappeared for some reason) demonstrating the scale of the financial mess the previous regime left behind, and I really don't want to re-visit it    I would hesitate to draw a parallel with Leeds but, around the summer of 2007, something fairly fundamental had to happen to return the club to viability.

 

So yes the previous lot did plenty of good things but ultimately left a financial shambles behind them. Fortunately for them they found an impulsive billionaire with some spare readies who wasn't too fussed about having a proper look at what he was buying. After some fairly horrendous and bewildering moments it looks as though it might  have been fortunate for us as well.   

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yep, the previous regime had the right idea of the size and potential success of the club, they just financially overstretched to achieve it.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

That post and your other one above are so inaccurate it's untrue, he nor Shepherd ever put a penny of their own money in except to exercise discounted share options, which was like printing cash.

 

He invested millions into the club regardless. Unless you don't count the initial share buying which enabled him to own the club as him not investing his own money.  quite clearly he did. Although once he bought the club and the debt was repaid, he himself only ever invested 50K of his own money into the football side. In fact it was his wife's money. Shepherd invested millions too, only it was originally the club's money which he of course took out in the form of a dividend payment to buy more shares/increase his stakehold.

 

Oh I accept they made the club into something special in the eyes of the wider world, but to suggest it wasn't primarily for personal gain, either financial or in terms of ego, is preposterous

 

I have always know his original investment was for personal gain, he stated so more than enough times himself. Unlike some though I don't believe that was his only aim. After all, he did make an offer to turn over the club to the fans. He was hardly egotistical either. He was no Freddy Shepherd or Ashley when it came to the limelight/making headlines. He was very much a hands-off owner when it came to the actual running of the club.

 

Your dismissal of the Doing a Leeds situation is equally ridiculous, with or without the banking crash we didn't have a pot to p*ss in.

 

We were at no point even remotely close to doing a Leeds and even if that did happen, the club would still be here today playing football as Newcastle United. The same could not have been said if Sir John Hall didn't come in to save the club. We would have done much more than a Leeds back then because there was no-one willing to take the club on, not even the fans.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

HTT doing a good job in thinking a big turnover equals profits, wealth etc. and I'm still trying to work out the relevance of "4m in debt one year to turning over 40m 3 years later." a bit like saying one year i was 15 stone the next i was 5ft 8.

 

You're simply not getting the point which is that we went from being a shitty club going nowhere with debts of 4m to one of the biggest brands in world football, one of the wealthiest brands, all in a short space of time.

 

he was behind us becoming as good a team as i've seen in my lifetime, he wouldn't have done it if he didn't think he'd make money from it (no problem with that) but they left us in the s***.

 

He himself didn't leave us in the shit, and not once have I ever claimed he would have bought us whether there was money to be made from us or not. He wouldn't have.

 

Anyway, for me, I don't begrudge SJH earning money out of the club just as I never begrudge a good player earning thousands a week, because if they put something in that's what it is all about and SJH put a lot into NUFC. He saved us and built us up into one of the biggest brands in world football. Aided by KK and us lot of course. But he kick-started it all, he had the belief and the drive and ambition to make us into the club we are today, one that can compete at the very top and sign the best players the game has to offer.

 

if you want to believe that we were close to the wall before he came then you'd also have to believe the same for when ashley took over, in fact, if anything i'd say the positioin ashley inherited was worse as future incomes had been hocked.

 

We were close to the wall. Who was going to pay off the debt? We hardly had another Gazza or Beardsley. The country was in a recession at the time and the Premier League was only just an idea. Fans were staying away. We were going down too. We wouldn't have ceased to be of course but we wouldn't have been been fucked.

 

As for your comment about Ashley inheriting a worse set up

 

Btw NUFC's future income back in the early 1990s was nothing. We got nowt for ticket sales, commercial revenue was nowt and we got nowt of broadcasting either. We relied on player sales basically.