Deloitte Money List

[Guest Monkey]

no profits under the shepherd era we're put back into the club, they just went into his, his brother kenny's and the hall's pockets

Why do you say that?  You got evidence of that? 

[madras]

You'll notice the bit where I said up to the appointment of Souness then?  I think 2003/2004, we returned a profit of £11m IIRC.

4.2 milion i think, barely broke even after dividends.

 

 

 

now let me clarify this. if the club does well on the pitch i don't mind running at a manageable loss  but the plan was ultimately built on success with no plan for when things turned bad.

One of the seasons it was £11m. 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/

 

i realise there is an anti fred bias to the site but i'm pretty sure they'd have their arses sued off if the figures were wrong. look under 2006 comments then "profits". it details net profit from 1998 through to 2004.

[madras]

no profits under the shepherd era we're put back into the club, they just went into his, his brother kenny's and the hall's pockets

Why do you say that?  You got evidence of that? 

yes,over the top dividends and over the top executive pay. (and that warehouse)

[Guest neesy111]

no profits under the shepherd era we're put back into the club, they just went into his, his brother kenny's and the hall's pockets

Why do you say that?  You got evidence of that? 

yes,over the top dividends and over the top executive pay. (and that warehouse)

 

yes, in none of the AGM's, the club said that profit's we're reinvested in the club on transfers etc

[Guest Monkey]

no profits under the shepherd era we're put back into the club, they just went into his, his brother kenny's and the hall's pockets

Why do you say that?  You got evidence of that? 

yes,over the top dividends and over the top executive pay. (and that warehouse)

So not one penny of profit was put back in to the club? Not one bit.  As with most things propaganda gets in the way of the truth to satisfy arguments.

[madras]

no profits under the shepherd era we're put back into the club, they just went into his, his brother kenny's and the hall's pockets

Why do you say that?  You got evidence of that? 

yes,over the top dividends and over the top executive pay. (and that warehouse)

So not one penny of profit was put back in to the club? Not one bit.  As with most things propaganda gets in the way of the truth to satisfy arguments.

profit can't really be put back into the club as then it is int the accounts as something else. ie transfers,ground improvements etc.

[Guest neesy111]

no profits under the shepherd era we're put back into the club, they just went into his, his brother kenny's and the hall's pockets

Why do you say that?  You got evidence of that? 

yes,over the top dividends and over the top executive pay. (and that warehouse)

So not one penny of profit was put back in to the club? Not one bit.  As with most things propaganda gets in the way of the truth to satisfy arguments.

profit can't really be put back into the club as then it is int the accounts as something else. ie transfers,ground improvements etc.

 

exactly, because profit's are tax deductable, while if it's kept in the club as cash it's not, so their's no point in keeping profit's for reinvestment

[Guest Monkey]

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.

[Guest Stephen927]

Impressive.

[madras]

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 ?

[Guest neesy111]

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.

 

stop talking bollocks.

 

what about 2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07 ?!? your thoughts about then, SHEPHERD WAS IN FUCKING CHARGE THEN, get it!

[Guest Monkey]

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. 

 

 

[madras]

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. 

 

 

because then we weren't attempting to recover from the position he left us in (and which ashley continued for a while)

[OzzieMandias]

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. 

 

 

 

And then they fucked it all up, and THEN they sold it.

[Guest Monkey]

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.

 

stop talking bollocks.

 

what about 2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07 ?!? your thoughts about then, SHEPHERD WAS IN f***ing CHARGE THEN, get it!

All seasons in which we made far more money than we did last season, and this DESPITE far lower TV incomes in those seasons.  Genuinely you do not have a clue or can't read or understand my point.  It's like Monkey talking to a monkey this.  The Deloitte report is pure income generated nothing else.  Regardless what Shepherd did is irrelevant in the purposes of these reports, commercially we were far better than we are now, I can't think of any other way of saying it to make you understand.

[Guest Monkey]

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. 

 

 

 

And then they f***ed it all up, and THEN they sold it.

Correct but still largely irrelevant in the context of our commercial decline, and nothing to do with the original post.

[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!

 

 

 

 

 

[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!

 

 

 

 

 

it's like freds last 3 or 4 years never happened.

[Guest Monkey]

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.

[madras]

so fredwas an economic guru because he boosted our turnover (whilst racking up debts and on pitch performance went backwards).

 

the straws to which some will grasp !

 

no one denies fred done some good aswell as bad, but don't try and make out that upping turnover is such a great thing when we could have been better off by having a lower turnover but being better ran.

[quayside]

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.

 

 

I wouldn't have thought that anyone who is taking a balanced view would argue that the previous board did a fantastic job for a number of years. To achieve continuous Premiership status from where the club was when they took it on was a great achievement let alone playing European football. The stadium development too was a great decision. They looked after themselves pretty well and took a lot more money out than they ever put in, but the achievements are hard to dispute.

 

However ultimately it went badly wrong and the club was in a dreadful state when it was sold, although some will try and say different. By an astonishing stroke of luck SJH managed to find a buyer who was prepared to move quickly and didn't do his due diligence until after he'd bought it, which is unusual to say the least. The Halls and the Shepherds walked off into the sunset with their pockets well lined, a great business transaction for them and an utterly shambolic one for Ashley. But from my perspective it's rather like Sir Fred Goodwin at RBS you get ultimately judged on what you leave behind not the years of record growth, record profits, record dividends etc. The previous board left an insolvent business out of which they (and their families) had taken a great deal of money over the years and that's my ultimate judgement on them.

[Guest Monkey]

so fredwas an economic guru because he boosted our turnover (whilst racking up debts and on pitch performance went backwards).

 

the straws to which some will grasp !

 

no one denies fred done some good aswell as bad, but don't try and make out that upping turnover is such a great thing when we could have been better off by having a lower turnover but being better ran.

What like Everton?

[Guest Monkey]

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.

 

 

I wouldn't have thought that anyone who is taking a balanced view would argue that the previous board did a fantastic job for a number of years. To achieve continuous Premiership status from where the club was when they took it on was a great achievement let alone playing European football. The stadium development too was a great decision. They looked after themselves pretty well and took a lot more money out than they ever put in, but the achievements are hard to dispute.

 

However ultimately it went badly wrong and the club was in a dreadful state when it was sold, although some will try and say different. By an astonishing stroke of luck SJH managed to find a buyer who was prepared to move quickly and didn't do his due diligence until after he'd bought it, which is unusual to say the least. The Halls and the Shepherds walked off into the sunset with their pockets well lined, a great business transaction for them and an utterly shambolic one for Ashley. But from my perspective it's rather like Sir Fred Goodwin at RBS you get ultimately judged on what you leave behind not the years of record growth, record profits, record dividends etc. The previous board left an insolvent business out of which they (and their families) had taken a great deal of money over the years and that's my ultimate judgement on them.

I'm at odds to locate a post where anyone has said they did a fantastic job.  Commercially we were very good, but we probably could've been even better.

 

1 (1) Manchester United 251.4

2 (2) Juventus 218.3

3 (4) AC Milan 200.2

4 (6) Real Madrid 192.6

5 (3) Bayern Munich 162.7

6 (12) Internazionale Milan 162.4

7 (8) Arsenal 149.6

8 (5) Liverpool 149.4

9 (13) Newcastle United 138.9

10 (7) Chelsea 133.8

11 (10) AS Roma 132.4

12 (15) Borussia Dortmund 124.0

13 (9) Barcelona 123.4

14 (n/a) Schalke 04 118.6

15 (16) Tottenham Hotspur 95.6

16 (11) Leeds United 92.0

17 (14) SS Lazio 88.9

18 (17) Celtic 87.0

19 (20) Olympique Lyonnais 84.3

20 (n/a) Valencia 80.5

 

This is in Euro's obviously for the 2003 season.  Now if Newcastle had've continued growing at the same rate as Tottenham (who have achieved fuck all in the period) have since then, this seasons turnover would've been 175.1m euro's putting us in the 11th place we held in 2006 just behind Milan.

[Stu]

Since when were Liverpoool a financially big club? Have been run pretty poorly for about 20years now. Probably have the 2nd/3rd best European history (behind Real Madrid and maybe AC Milan), yet they squandered the last two decades (when the 80s kids, who grew up glory supporting them, started making their own disposable income) and are barely in the top 10.

[Guest jonlane86]

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.