Deloitte Money List

[Happy Face]

This rich list obviously is based on the 2008/2009 season.  Sky Sports are reporting it as "despite Newcastle being in the Championship they remain in the top 20" which is slightly misleading.  What it does demonstrate is how poorly this club has been run.  They started doing these lists about 1997 I believe, and IIRC we were 5th in 1998 in the whole of Europe above Barcelona, and all the English clubs barring Manchester United, it seems far fetched but it's true.  From 99-2005ish we were generally 8th to 11th in this list, which is where Freddy Shepherd's eigth biggest club in Europe line came from.  From 2005-2007 we were 11th-13th, then Tottenham who were no where to be seen in this list for large periods over took us.  What it demonstrates is what a thoroughly amazing job Daniel Levy has done as chairman of Tottenham, and what a poor commercial job Mike Ashley has done.  

 

The turnover in these figures equates to £86m, it was £101m in 2005, so in five years it's decreased 15% despite higher ticket revenues and far more TV income from SKY which completely offsets the lack of European football.  What is more baffling is how Manchester City with their smaller gates and smaller attendances in the season just gone have over taken us.  It's a further insight in to what a genuinely sick club Newcastle is, and without being deluded if you take the general financial performance of the club in the Sir John Hall and FFS era's you have to draw the conclusion that perhaps it's not just on the field that Newcastle United are Europe's biggest underachievers.   It beggars belief we're being ran by a casino manager, and over seen by a fat common as much buffoon who doesn't even regard Newcastle as his biggest financial interest.  Sad, sad days.  We won't even be able to compete until we are ran properly financially as we were for a long time under Shepherd.

many would argue we weren't ran particularly well then but the gambles paid off for a while.

They could argue that, but financially they'd be wrong, up to the point of Souness appointment.  Shepherd's running of the club up to the Souness appointment was certainly commercially and financially was excellent.  It may not have been a popular move with the fans, but we hardly spent a penny from 1999 to 2001 on players, he was vilified for it, but he got the club on an even footing with a genuine spring board to bring the likes of Bellamy in, and more importantly afford to bring them in.

 

commercially and financially excellent ? .........share dividends above the going rate,executive payscales above the going rate,warehouse rentals above the going rate.

 

they done well in building the turnover, their use of it left a bit to be desired.

That's all you needed to say.  Financially we were unbelievably stable in 2004, and you have to bare in mind he'd been chairman for 6 years at that point.  Of the biggest clubs in Europe we had the lowest wages/turnover ratio.  We were operating at 44% which was also the lowest in the Premiership, from that point onwards obviously it was down hill.  I'm not here to support FFS, but he knew how to make Newcastle in to a profitable business, and demonstrated infinitely more business nous to that point than this regime has.  I don't see how it can even be argued with.

 

there wasn't much profit by the time dividends and executive pay was taken off. list the end of term profits if you want.

 

At the end of the day the club could turnover £300m a year, but its no use if you're losing £500m a year.  We were making a good turnover under Shepherd and you can't argue with those facts, the only issue is we owed far too much, and thats shown by the events of the last 5 years.  Like it or not if it weren't for Ashley buying Hall's shares without doing his homework, we would be where Pompey are now.

 

A Premier League club?

[madras]

This rich list obviously is based on the 2008/2009 season.  Sky Sports are reporting it as "despite Newcastle being in the Championship they remain in the top 20" which is slightly misleading.  What it does demonstrate is how poorly this club has been run.  They started doing these lists about 1997 I believe, and IIRC we were 5th in 1998 in the whole of Europe above Barcelona, and all the English clubs barring Manchester United, it seems far fetched but it's true.  From 99-2005ish we were generally 8th to 11th in this list, which is where Freddy Shepherd's eigth biggest club in Europe line came from.  From 2005-2007 we were 11th-13th, then Tottenham who were no where to be seen in this list for large periods over took us.  What it demonstrates is what a thoroughly amazing job Daniel Levy has done as chairman of Tottenham, and what a poor commercial job Mike Ashley has done.  

 

The turnover in these figures equates to £86m, it was £101m in 2005, so in five years it's decreased 15% despite higher ticket revenues and far more TV income from SKY which completely offsets the lack of European football.  What is more baffling is how Manchester City with their smaller gates and smaller attendances in the season just gone have over taken us.  It's a further insight in to what a genuinely sick club Newcastle is, and without being deluded if you take the general financial performance of the club in the Sir John Hall and FFS era's you have to draw the conclusion that perhaps it's not just on the field that Newcastle United are Europe's biggest underachievers.   It beggars belief we're being ran by a casino manager, and over seen by a fat common as much buffoon who doesn't even regard Newcastle as his biggest financial interest.  Sad, sad days.  We won't even be able to compete until we are ran properly financially as we were for a long time under Shepherd.

many would argue we weren't ran particularly well then but the gambles paid off for a while.

They could argue that, but financially they'd be wrong, up to the point of Souness appointment.  Shepherd's running of the club up to the Souness appointment was certainly commercially and financially was excellent.  It may not have been a popular move with the fans, but we hardly spent a penny from 1999 to 2001 on players, he was vilified for it, but he got the club on an even footing with a genuine spring board to bring the likes of Bellamy in, and more importantly afford to bring them in.

 

commercially and financially excellent ? .........share dividends above the going rate,executive payscales above the going rate,warehouse rentals above the going rate.

 

they done well in building the turnover, their use of it left a bit to be desired.

That's all you needed to say.  Financially we were unbelievably stable in 2004, and you have to bare in mind he'd been chairman for 6 years at that point.  Of the biggest clubs in Europe we had the lowest wages/turnover ratio.  We were operating at 44% which was also the lowest in the Premiership, from that point onwards obviously it was down hill.  I'm not here to support FFS, but he knew how to make Newcastle in to a profitable business, and demonstrated infinitely more business nous to that point than this regime has.  I don't see how it can even be argued with.

 

there wasn't much profit by the time dividends and executive pay was taken off. list the end of term profits if you want.

 

At the end of the day the club could turnover £300m a year, but its no use if you're losing £500m a year.  We were making a good turnover under Shepherd and you can't argue with those facts, the only issue is we owed far too much, and thats shown by the events of the last 5 years.  Like it or not if it weren't for Ashley buying Hall's shares without doing his homework, we would be where Pompey are now.

 

A Premier League club?

they may be premier league club but we are in a much better position than them wouldn't you say ?

[manorpark]

Still can't wrap my head around the fact you're the 20th richest club in the world and yet got relegated. But I guess you have beaten that horse to death and took it to the slaughterhouse for steaks already.

 

I wonder how many currently Premiership teams will you still beat when this season's numbers are published.

 

20th is still pretty poor for us though, and shows what a mess we are in now.

 

The likes of 'Tottenham' have a higher turnover than us now!!!

 

For years and years, until very recently, there were only FOUR really rich clubs in England

 

MANCHESTER UNITED

LIVERPOOL

ARSENAL

NEWCASTLE UNITED

 

The turnover of the 'permanent rich four' was a long way ahead of the chasing bunch (there was a big gap) which was the likes of Tottenham and Chelsea, etc.

 

THEN, of course, along came the "Abramovich/Chelski" situation, and we were joined by them, in a (seemingly) permanent financial BIG FIVE . . a LONG way ahead of the chasing pack.

 

With our huge ground and large support around the world, even if we (amazingly, with ALL that) 'still' failed to WIN things, our future as one of the 'permanent financial BIG FIVE' (now with Chelsea) was assured . . .  I mean, we weren't going to stop filling the ground / buying the merchandise / getting TV money, etc, were we??

 

SO, the 'permanent financial big five' were . . .

 

MANCHESTER UNITED

LIVERPOOL

ARSENAL

NEWCASTLE UNITED

CHELSEA (artificially, as they were making BIG BIG BIG 'losses' every year).

 

THEN . .  along came Mike Ashley . . .

 

NOW, we are all "trained" to (like him)  T H I N K   S M A L L . . . and be "pleased" we are in the 'top 20', and compare oursevles in thought and word, to "Portsmouth".

 

 

You know . . we have LOST so much . . . we are probably never going to be what we have been for most of the last 15 years.

 

We have lost SO much!

 

 

 

 

 

At last some sense.  It's always pleasing to read a post of someone who actually fully understands our long term past, our recent past and our present.  Thank you.  People get so caught up in certain opinions that they actually are blinded by things.  Freddy Shepherd is one thing, that is either black or white for most people, and they're so consumed by being on one side of the fence or other they can't give a balanced view.  There are two extremes, there used to be a guy who had his own forum, an older chap who was blinded by his love of FFS, and at the same time there are those who are consumed by biased non-sense that everything he did during his time at the club was bad.  He was good and bad, and definitively people who can't see that are idiots.

 

Thanks.

 

Common sense, and a 'real appreciation' of where we actually ARE in relation to where we SHOULD BE (in the 'bigger picture') is not very fashionable, in these apologist days.

 

ACCEPTED MEDIOCRITY, is the seeming 'norm' these days.  That viewpoint, when expressed, is well supported!!

 

WHY, I do not know (never will know!)

 

(Waits to be attacked or ignored by the "we know our place next to Portsmouth"  crowd!)

[madras]

Still can't wrap my head around the fact you're the 20th richest club in the world and yet got relegated. But I guess you have beaten that horse to death and took it to the slaughterhouse for steaks already.

 

I wonder how many currently Premiership teams will you still beat when this season's numbers are published.

 

20th is still pretty poor for us though, and shows what a mess we are in now.

 

The likes of 'Tottenham' have a higher turnover than us now!!!

 

For years and years, until very recently, there were only FOUR really rich clubs in England

 

MANCHESTER UNITED

LIVERPOOL

ARSENAL

NEWCASTLE UNITED

 

The turnover of the 'permanent rich four' was a long way ahead of the chasing bunch (there was a big gap) which was the likes of Tottenham and Chelsea, etc.

 

THEN, of course, along came the "Abramovich/Chelski" situation, and we were joined by them, in a (seemingly) permanent financial BIG FIVE . . a LONG way ahead of the chasing pack.

 

With our huge ground and large support around the world, even if we (amazingly, with ALL that) 'still' failed to WIN things, our future as one of the 'permanent financial BIG FIVE' (now with Chelsea) was assured . . .  I mean, we weren't going to stop filling the ground / buying the merchandise / getting TV money, etc, were we??

 

SO, the 'permanent financial big five' were . . .

 

MANCHESTER UNITED

LIVERPOOL

ARSENAL

NEWCASTLE UNITED

CHELSEA (artificially, as they were making BIG BIG BIG 'losses' every year).

 

THEN . .  along came Mike Ashley . . .

 

NOW, we are all "trained" to (like him)  T H I N K   S M A L L . . . and be "pleased" we are in the 'top 20', and compare oursevles in thought and word, to "Portsmouth".

 

 

You know . . we have LOST so much . . . we are probably never going to be what we have been for most of the last 15 years.

 

We have lost SO much!

 

 

 

 

 

At last some sense.  It's always pleasing to read a post of someone who actually fully understands our long term past, our recent past and our present.  Thank you.  People get so caught up in certain opinions that they actually are blinded by things.  Freddy Shepherd is one thing, that is either black or white for most people, and they're so consumed by being on one side of the fence or other they can't give a balanced view.  There are two extremes, there used to be a guy who had his own forum, an older chap who was blinded by his love of FFS, and at the same time there are those who are consumed by biased non-sense that everything he did during his time at the club was bad.  He was good and bad, and definitively people who can't see that are idiots.

 

Thanks.

 

Common sense, and a 'real appreciation' of where we actually ARE in relation to where we SHOULD BE (in the 'bigger picture') is not very fashionable, in the apologist days.

 

ACCEPTED MEDIOCRITY, is the seeming 'norm' these days.  That viewpoint, when expressed, is well supported!!

 

WHY, I do not know (never will know!)

 

(Waits to be attacked or ignored by the "we know our place next to Portsmouth"  crowd!)

as opposed to the" just spend money we haven't got and if we don't get into the champs league then we'll worry about it then" crowd ?

[jdckelly]

What's interesting that both of you ignore the original point.  Newcastle United were a very well run business and were a larger more financially viable operation then than they are now regardless of your thoughts on Freddy Shepherd, as I said earlier, dividends etc it's all bollocks.  In 2004 we had a wages/turnover ratio of 44%, with prudent investment on the pitch, and we could even afford the odd faux pas i.e Viana.  In terms of this rich list profit doesn't even come in to it and for the purposes of this is irrelevant.  Manchester United are £700m in debt, but they generate £300m a year demonstrating their ability to pull in money, profit is a completely separate issue in this, and as discussed, despite far, far more TV income these days we are a far smaller commercial business now than we were 5 or 6 years ago, it's not like that can be argued with neither, and that really is the point regardless of any poison people want to throw Shepherd's way.

hows it bollocks. yes they had a very healthy wages/turnover ratio. and they spent the leftover on over the top pay and dividends for themselves.

 

 

and why gloss over the last few years of his tenure ?

Christ What will take for you to grasp what I'm saying.  As a commercial business we were far more succesful than we are now, our ability to generate money, and the commercial aspects of the club put us in the big league. 

 

 

back in early 00's we got into champions league and consquent riches that brought. Thus our revenue was higher that was down to sir bob not freddie

[Village Idiot]

Hehe, didn't realize you were richer than us in the early 2000s! (Not surprising given how extremely poorly run we were under the previous board)

[Guest neesy111]

Hehe, didn't realize you were richer than us in the early 2000s! (Not surprising given how extremely poorly run we were under the previous board)

 

it's not about how much you generate, it's about how you use that money effectively

 

we've used our's probably the poorest at all of the major teams in europe

[johnnypd]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

[Guest neesy111]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

 

FANTASTIC?

 

Remember Toon Gate? he should never ever had been allowed back!, that scenario almost got the club relegated that season

[madras]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

simply put ,he gambled and after winning to start with ended up losing and spare me the heart bit. no-one has ever made so much money out of the club.

[Guest neesy111]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

simply put ,he gambled and after winning to start with ended up losing and spare me the heart bit. no-one has ever made so much money out of the club.

 

his original investment in the club was 500k, he made around 70M at the end, A Fantastic investment if you ask me!

[johnnypd]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

 

FANTASTIC?

 

Remember Toon Gate? he should never ever had been allowed back!, that scenario almost got the club relegated that season

  more than made up for that with subsequent achievements while robson was in charge. at our height under robson he was just abotu the best chairman you could wish for.however the biig decision was always going to be replacing robson and he completely and utterly fucked it up and our decline since then can all be traced to that one decision. he tried to claw us back by giving souness 36m for transfers but it simply compounded the situation. had he timed the robson replacement correctly,  brought in a top manager (after all we were a top club back then) and gave him the money souness had spent instead, then theres a good chance we would still be up there fighting for 4th spot in the table.

[johnnypd]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

simply put ,he gambled and after winning to start with ended up losing and spare me the heart bit. no-one has ever made so much money out of the club.

what does local heart have to do with him making money. wasnt even referring to him, but a local manager, captain and sponsor too.

[madras]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

 

FANTASTIC?

 

Remember Toon Gate? he should never ever had been allowed back!, that scenario almost got the club relegated that season

   more than made up for that with subsequent achievements while robson was in charge. at our height under robson he was just abotu the best chairman you could wish for.however the biig decision was always going to be replacing robson and he completely and utterly f***ed it up and our decline since then can all be traced to that one decision. he tried to claw us back by giving souness 36m for transfers but it simply compounded the situation. had he timed the robson replacement correctly,  brought in a top manager (after all we were a top club back then) and gave him the money souness had spent instead, then theres a good chance we would still be up there fighting for 4th spot in the table.

doesn't that make you wonder if doing well in the first place was more by fluke than design ?

[johnnypd]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

 

FANTASTIC?

 

Remember Toon Gate? he should never ever had been allowed back!, that scenario almost got the club relegated that season

   more than made up for that with subsequent achievements while robson was in charge. at our height under robson he was just abotu the best chairman you could wish for.however the biig decision was always going to be replacing robson and he completely and utterly f***ed it up and our decline since then can all be traced to that one decision. he tried to claw us back by giving souness 36m for transfers but it simply compounded the situation. had he timed the robson replacement correctly,  brought in a top manager (after all we were a top club back then) and gave him the money souness had spent instead, then theres a good chance we would still be up there fighting for 4th spot in the table.

doesn't that make you wonder if doing well in the first place was more by fluke than design ?

oh aye. ive always said shepherd would never have gotten such a great manager had robson not been local. still deserves credit tho, imo. at our height everything was set up for us to be a success, only for shepherd to undo all his good work.

[Guest neesy111]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

 

FANTASTIC?

 

Remember Toon Gate? he should never ever had been allowed back!, that scenario almost got the club relegated that season

   more than made up for that with subsequent achievements while robson was in charge. at our height under robson he was just abotu the best chairman you could wish for.however the biig decision was always going to be replacing robson and he completely and utterly fucked it up and our decline since then can all be traced to that one decision. he tried to claw us back by giving souness 36m for transfers but it simply compounded the situation. had he timed the robson replacement correctly,  brought in a top manager (after all we were a top club back then) and gave him the money souness had spent instead, then theres a good chance we would still be up there fighting for 4th spot in the table.

 

More than made up?!?

 

he got lucky that he sacked gullit at a time when robson was available! he appointed 1 good manager out of 5 or 6! a shocking record!

 

also when he sold gary speed behind robson's back, also the club has went forever downhill when we SPENT £0 in 2003/04

[BottledDog]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

 

FANTASTIC?

 

Remember Toon Gate? he should never ever had been allowed back!, that scenario almost got the club relegated that season

   more than made up for that with subsequent achievements while robson was in charge. at our height under robson he was just abotu the best chairman you could wish for.however the biig decision was always going to be replacing robson and he completely and utterly fucked it up and our decline since then can all be traced to that one decision. he tried to claw us back by giving souness 36m for transfers but it simply compounded the situation. had he timed the robson replacement correctly,  brought in a top manager (after all we were a top club back then) and gave him the money souness had spent instead, then theres a good chance we would still be up there fighting for 4th spot in the table.

 

More than made up?!?

 

he got lucky that he sacked gullit at a time when robson was available! he appointed 1 good manager out of 5 or 6! a shocking record!

 

also when he sold gary speed behind robson's back, also the club has went forever downhill when we SPENT £0 in 2003/04

 

Even with Robson, he never gave the backing that Leazes keeps banging on about. Carr instead of Miguel. Genius!

[Guest johnson293]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

 

Without wanting to turn this into one of the NE5 vs the world threads, in what ways was Shepherd a 'Fantastic chairman'?

 

Arguably, he only did one thing right in his time as Chairman - appointing Bobby Robson. His other managerial appointments are very questionable, some of his out-of-club antics are certainly questionable (Toongate), and he had a very real knack of engaging mouth before brain in the media on a number of occassions (Stevenage to name one). But, other than providing funds, which is what is expected of any chairman (within reason) to be honest, what else did he actually do to be remembered as 'Fantastic'?

 

I'm not fishing for an argument, genuinely interested to know.

[johnnypd]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

 

Without wanting to turn this into one of the NE5 vs the world threads, in what ways was Shepherd a 'Fantastic chairman'?

 

Arguably, he only did one thing right in his time as Chairman - appointing Bobby Robson. His other managerial appointments are very questionable, some of his out-of-club antics are certainly questionable (Toongate), and he had a very real knack of engaging mouth before brain in the media on a number of occassions (Stevenage to name one). But, other than providing funds, which is what is expected of any chairman (within reason) to be honest, what else did he actually do to be remembered as 'Fantastic'?

 

I'm not fishing for an argument, genuinely interested to know.

a chairman/owner gets judged by end results. he appointed a great manager, backed him in his job, got us into the champions league, extended our stadium to the then 2nd biggest in the country, and gave us the 2nd best financial health in the league after man utd. at our height under robson he was doing a fucking amazing job. i thought he was a bit embarrasing when he opened his mouth but always gave him the credit he deserved back then. yes he fucked it up after big-style, but that is no reason to not give credit where it is very much warranted.

[Guest Monkey]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

 

FANTASTIC?

 

Remember Toon Gate? he should never ever had been allowed back!, that scenario almost got the club relegated that season

   more than made up for that with subsequent achievements while robson was in charge. at our height under robson he was just abotu the best chairman you could wish for.however the biig decision was always going to be replacing robson and he completely and utterly f***ed it up and our decline since then can all be traced to that one decision. he tried to claw us back by giving souness 36m for transfers but it simply compounded the situation. had he timed the robson replacement correctly,  brought in a top manager (after all we were a top club back then) and gave him the money souness had spent instead, then theres a good chance we would still be up there fighting for 4th spot in the table.

 

More than made up?!?

 

he got lucky that he sacked gullit at a time when robson was available! he appointed 1 good manager out of 5 or 6! a shocking record!

 

also when he sold gary speed behind robson's back, also the club has went forever downhill when we SPENT £0 in 2003/04

You talk total shite, and basically ignore and disregard what other people are saying then continue with a tunnel visioned rant.

 

Shepherd got lucky because Robson was available when Gullit was sacked.  Such an empty statement.  The opposite is true in 1997 surely though?  Shepherd was UNLUCKY when he first came calling that Robson was in employment at Barcelona.

 

JohnnyPD excellent posts.  From Souness onward FFS undid all of his unwork.  So many inaccuracies as well with regards to figures quoted here too.  Shepherd made £70m out of NUFC, excluding the wages and share dividends, he made just under £37m from the club, Sir John Hall walked away twice with a lot more than Freddy Shepherd.  I have more time for Shepherd than Hall, "Lady Mae and I bankrolled the Andy Cole deal and acted as guarantors" who gives a fuck???  As if there was ever any guarantee of him losing his money.

[OzzieMandias]

shepherd was a fantastic chairman up until he started messing robson around - good local heart to the club, 2nd lowest wage to turnover ratio, similar income to liverpool and arsenal, champions league football, sensible debt tied to the wonderful new stadium. we started dropping as soon as he and douglas hall messed up robson leaving. ashley simply continued the decline, albeit accelerating its rate and severity.

 

FANTASTIC?

 

Remember Toon Gate? he should never ever had been allowed back!, that scenario almost got the club relegated that season

   more than made up for that with subsequent achievements while robson was in charge. at our height under robson he was just abotu the best chairman you could wish for.however the biig decision was always going to be replacing robson and he completely and utterly f***ed it up and our decline since then can all be traced to that one decision. he tried to claw us back by giving souness 36m for transfers but it simply compounded the situation. had he timed the robson replacement correctly,  brought in a top manager (after all we were a top club back then) and gave him the money souness had spent instead, then theres a good chance we would still be up there fighting for 4th spot in the table.

 

More than made up?!?

 

he got lucky that he sacked gullit at a time when robson was available! he appointed 1 good manager out of 5 or 6! a shocking record!

 

also when he sold gary speed behind robson's back, also the club has went forever downhill when we SPENT £0 in 2003/04

You talk total shite, and basically ignore and disregard what other people are saying then continue with a tunnel visioned rant.

 

Shepherd got lucky because Robson was available when Gullit was sacked.  Such an empty statement.  The opposite is true in 1997 surely though?  Shepherd was UNLUCKY when he first came calling that Robson was in employment at Barcelona.

 

JohnnyPD excellent posts.  From Souness onward FFS undid all of his unwork.  So many inaccuracies as well with regards to figures quoted here too.  Shepherd made £70m out of NUFC, excluding the wages and share dividends, he made just under £37m from the club, Sir John Hall walked away twice with a lot more than Freddy Shepherd.  I have more time for Shepherd than Hall, "Lady Mae and I bankrolled the Andy Cole deal and acted as guarantors" who gives a fuck???  As if there was ever any guarantee of him losing his money.

 

Actually it was SJH who was chairman the first time Robson was approached.

[jdckelly]

freddie shephard was a parasite on this club who payed himself and his family rather large wages and dividends undermined the work of the best manager we've had (imo) by buying and selling behind his back appointed graham fucking souness as his replacement and suddenly went way overboard on spending when he never gave half that amount of cash to someone who would have spent it right like sir bob rather than the tit he did give the cash to and  squandered.

And thats before i even get started on his nack of embaressing the club off the field. After the brothel incident he shouldnt have been allowed in the same country as st james park not fucking running the club.

[OzzieMandias]

Anyway, Sir Bobby spent his first two years balancing the books and getting the wage bill under control (the old board not having run things as flawlessly as some on this thread have been suggesting), and, if you average it out, got less to spend per annum than the managers before him and after.

[NEEJ]

Whoever was saying spurs are doing so well in this list because they command excellent transfer fees when they sell is wrong according to SSN. The list doesnt take into account revenue from player sales.

[brummie]

Whoever was saying spurs are doing so well in this list because they command excellent transfer fees when they sell is wrong according to SSN. The list doesnt take into account revenue from player sales.

 

Spurs do well because of the immense ticket prices they can charge, being in London.