Llambias on SSN

[Guest malandro]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shep

herd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Caveat emptor; the first unseen (at the time) indication of Ashley's incompetence and now we can see where that has got us. However, my point is still that the decisions Ashley made (sacking Allardyce, appointing Keegan, sacking Keegan, havering when clarity was needed, appointing and letting Shearer go) were crap and brought us to this pass. All I want is him to behave in a way that increases the value of his investment and not treat the club as a toy; he appears to be doing that.

 

In my humbles opinion, I think he was badly advised by people around him. Here we have a bloke who knew zero about football (which begs the question of WHY he bought in to it in the first place), but he was/is a very successful businessman. You don't garner the amount of money  he has made by being a fly by night or a shyster. He obviously has business sense. However, his initial foray in football has been a disaster and I'm 100% sure that little by little he is learning and finding out that football is not your ordinary business.

 

On the subject of NUFC though, my gut feeling is he will put people in place to run the club for him (if he decides to keep it). His business plan for the club is beginning to take shape (i.e. not being a club run on debt - though clearing up Shepherd's mess is going to be long and painful). It'll take time but it'll work.

The club is being running on debt, more debt than ever.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

It’s fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesn’t mean the debts won’t have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

 

I don't think he's going to have much choice.

So why doesn’t he just do it? What’s he waiting for? What’s the point of having loans that are never going to be repaid? Why doesn’t he just come out and say ‘there’s no way the club will ever be able to do f*** all if it has to pay me £140m so I’m cancelling the loans?”

 

Answered that above.

Perhaps you could answer it again and flesh out the bones. It sounded to me that you were suggesting he won’t cancel the loans in case the club goes bust, and he’ll therefore be a creditor not a debtor when the clubs assets are liquidated. Though to be honest, I’m not sure what you meant.

[quayside]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shep

herd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Caveat emptor; the first unseen (at the time) indication of Ashley's incompetence and now we can see where that has got us. However, my point is still that the decisions Ashley made (sacking Allardyce, appointing Keegan, sacking Keegan, havering when clarity was needed, appointing and letting Shearer go) were crap and brought us to this pass. All I want is him to behave in a way that increases the value of his investment and not treat the club as a toy; he appears to be doing that.

 

In my humbles opinion, I think he was badly advised by people around him. Here we have a bloke who knew zero about football (which begs the question of WHY he bought in to it in the first place), but he was/is a very successful businessman. You don't garner the amount of money  he has made by being a fly by night or a shyster. He obviously has business sense. However, his initial foray in football has been a disaster and I'm 100% sure that little by little he is learning and finding out that football is not your ordinary business.

 

On the subject of NUFC though, my gut feeling is he will put people in place to run the club for him (if he decides to keep it). His business plan for the club is beginning to take shape (i.e. not being a club run on debt - though clearing up Shepherd's mess is going to be long and painful). It'll take time but it'll work.

The club is being running on debt, more debt than ever.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

Its fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesnt mean the debts wont have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

 

I don't think he's going to have much choice.

So why doesnt he just do it? Whats he waiting for? Whats the point of having loans that are never going to be repaid? Why doesnt he just come out and say theres no way the club will ever be able to do f*** all if it has to pay me £140m so Im cancelling the loans?

 

Answered that above.

Perhaps you could answer it again and flesh out the bones. It sounded to me that you were suggesting he wont cancel the loans in case the club goes bust, and hell therefore be a creditor not a debtor when the clubs assets are liquidated. Though to be honest, Im not sure what you meant.

 

He could convert the debt to equity and surrender the chance of getting any of it back at all. Plus the tax treatment is different if you write off a loan compared to if you take a hit on an equity investment. He'll structure it in whatever way suits him.

[Guest malandro]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shep

herd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Caveat emptor; the first unseen (at the time) indication of Ashley's incompetence and now we can see where that has got us. However, my point is still that the decisions Ashley made (sacking Allardyce, appointing Keegan, sacking Keegan, havering when clarity was needed, appointing and letting Shearer go) were crap and brought us to this pass. All I want is him to behave in a way that increases the value of his investment and not treat the club as a toy; he appears to be doing that.

 

In my humbles opinion, I think he was badly advised by people around him. Here we have a bloke who knew zero about football (which begs the question of WHY he bought in to it in the first place), but he was/is a very successful businessman. You don't garner the amount of money  he has made by being a fly by night or a shyster. He obviously has business sense. However, his initial foray in football has been a disaster and I'm 100% sure that little by little he is learning and finding out that football is not your ordinary business.

 

On the subject of NUFC though, my gut feeling is he will put people in place to run the club for him (if he decides to keep it). His business plan for the club is beginning to take shape (i.e. not being a club run on debt - though clearing up Shepherd's mess is going to be long and painful). It'll take time but it'll work.

The club is being running on debt, more debt than ever.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

It’s fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesn’t mean the debts won’t have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

 

I don't think he's going to have much choice.

So why doesn’t he just do it? What’s he waiting for? What’s the point of having loans that are never going to be repaid? Why doesn’t he just come out and say ‘there’s no way the club will ever be able to do f*** all if it has to pay me £140m so I’m cancelling the loans?”

 

Answered that above.

Perhaps you could answer it again and flesh out the bones. It sounded to me that you were suggesting he won’t cancel the loans in case the club goes bust, and he’ll therefore be a creditor not a debtor when the clubs assets are liquidated. Though to be honest, I’m not sure what you meant.

 

He could convert the debt to equity and surrender the chance of getting any of it back at all. Plus the tax treatment is different if you write off a loan compared to if you take a hit on an equity investment. He'll structure it in whatever way suits him.

I thought he was supposed to be naive ;-)

 

As much as I appreciate your input on the murky world of accountancy I think a lot of people are barking up the wrong tree. It’s the character of the man that will determine how he deals with the mess he has created. His motivations, his value systems, his ego, his connection with reality, his insecurities. Trying to second guess his intentions based solely on the intricacies of business law is folly.

 

Perhaps the situation is a whole lot simpler than this (and many other threads of a similar vein over the last few years) suggest. If he can get his money back by screwing the club over would he do it?

 

[Guest malandro]

from .com

 

After speaking to Sky outside the London premiere of his son's new film on Tuesday, club MD Derek Llambias granted BBC Look North an audience on Thursday.

 

Asked again about ongoing fan discontent, he said:

 

 

"That needs to stop, you know? Enough's enough, let's call it a day. It frustrates me because we know what we've done behind the scenes and what Mike's committed to financially.

 

"We'd like to be able to go out on the town after a win - we always used to and enjoy the crowd - but now it's very difficult for us to do that.

 

"We understand that we've made mistakes in the past. We came out before and said enough's enough, this is what happened. We need to move forward. 

 

"I think the communication factor is basically that whenever we've tried to communicate it's always backfired somewhere along the line so we're quite happy to sit back and let our team do the speaking.

 

"The club's not for sale - Mike took it off the market. He's committed to getting the club back up to the Premier League and that's why we spent so much money in the January window.

 

 

 

"He's decided that's it - he's going to back it as much as he can. We'll just carry on, put it back where it needs to be and move the club forward on the original business plan we had.

 

"We are solid but we're solid because we need to get that promotion. With that promotion we'll be able to grow and two years down the line we'll have a much better pot for buying players."

 

By all accounts The Shouting Men is a crock of shite.

[Big Geordie]

nowt for weeks, now the c*** wont shut up?

 

season tickets renewal anyone?

 

Nail on head. Nufc.com on the money here, for me. If we go up next season, survival will be attempted on a shoe-string. People need to cut through Llambias' bullshit to see the real message before parting with their season ticket dosh.

[quayside]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shep

herd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Caveat emptor; the first unseen (at the time) indication of Ashley's incompetence and now we can see where that has got us. However, my point is still that the decisions Ashley made (sacking Allardyce, appointing Keegan, sacking Keegan, havering when clarity was needed, appointing and letting Shearer go) were crap and brought us to this pass. All I want is him to behave in a way that increases the value of his investment and not treat the club as a toy; he appears to be doing that.

 

In my humbles opinion, I think he was badly advised by people around him. Here we have a bloke who knew zero about football (which begs the question of WHY he bought in to it in the first place), but he was/is a very successful businessman. You don't garner the amount of money  he has made by being a fly by night or a shyster. He obviously has business sense. However, his initial foray in football has been a disaster and I'm 100% sure that little by little he is learning and finding out that football is not your ordinary business.

 

On the subject of NUFC though, my gut feeling is he will put people in place to run the club for him (if he decides to keep it). His business plan for the club is beginning to take shape (i.e. not being a club run on debt - though clearing up Shepherd's mess is going to be long and painful). It'll take time but it'll work.

The club is being running on debt, more debt than ever.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

Its fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesnt mean the debts wont have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

 

I don't think he's going to have much choice.

So why doesnt he just do it? Whats he waiting for? Whats the point of having loans that are never going to be repaid? Why doesnt he just come out and say theres no way the club will ever be able to do f*** all if it has to pay me £140m so Im cancelling the loans?

 

Answered that above.

Perhaps you could answer it again and flesh out the bones. It sounded to me that you were suggesting he wont cancel the loans in case the club goes bust, and hell therefore be a creditor not a debtor when the clubs assets are liquidated. Though to be honest, Im not sure what you meant.

 

He could convert the debt to equity and surrender the chance of getting any of it back at all. Plus the tax treatment is different if you write off a loan compared to if you take a hit on an equity investment. He'll structure it in whatever way suits him.

I thought he was supposed to be naive ;-)

 

As much as I appreciate your input on the murky world of accountancy I think a lot of people are barking up the wrong tree. Its the character of the man that will determine how he deals with the mess he has created. His motivations, his value systems, his ego, his connection with reality, his insecurities. Trying to second guess his intentions based solely on the intricacies of business law is folly.

 

Perhaps the situation is a whole lot simpler than this (and many other threads of a similar vein over the last few years) suggest. If he can get his money back by screwing the club over would he do it?

 

 

Well......no way will there be any naivete in how he sorts his tax affairs out, that will be done by professionals. But he wasn't answering to professionals or considering business law (or even business logic) when he bought us. So its unlikely that the decision on what he does with the club will also be governed by those factors. When he decides what to do with the club the most tax and business efficient way of achieving what he wants will be found. Its always the way with people like this. So I'm not sure we have a disagreement tbh.

[Big Geordie]

this has got to be a piss take?

 

"We'd like to be able to go out on the town after a win - we always used to and enjoy the crowd - but now it's very difficult for us to do that.

 

 

I think it's more just about trying to garner more sympathy for Ashley in the light of what's been said in the media of recent. The man (Llambias) is a clown and a liar.

[Mowen]

I think he came with the best intentions and thought he could be in it for the long haul. He planned to make a success of it from the start.

 

When it went belly up he hoped to get out with as little loss as possible.

 

I think he's naive and incompetent rather than malicious or machiavellian.

“Sports Direct has promised not to run confusing or deceptive closing-down sales after the Office of Fair Trading accused it of breaching the rules on misleading advertising. Although the group denied breaking regulations, it has signed an undertaking to not mislead customers.

The OFT announced yesterday that it had received complaints from members of the public that Sports Direct had displayed "closing down" adverts for months at a time. The stores that carried the notices, however, never closed down or were only temporarily shuttered”

 

I suppose this was just naivety as well?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/21/sportsdirectinternational.consumeraffairs

 

 

The one on Oxford St had 'Closing in less than 10 days' plastered all over it before Xmas. It was still open in February.

[Mick]

this has got to be a piss take?

 

"We'd like to be able to go out on the town after a win - we always used to and enjoy the crowd - but now it's very difficult for us to do that.

 

 

I think it's more just about trying to garner more sympathy for Ashley in the light of what's been said in the media of recent. The man (Llambias) is a clown and a liar.

 

Llambias wasn't even at the club when the lies were told to the fans, Chris Mort was running the club and it was him and others who were branded liars.

[Tooj]

It was a fact statement....

[UV]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

You've changed your tune since you thought Shepherd was hanging on to the club for dear life by not selling it to a hedge fund and allowing the club to flourish via a leveraged buyout. Probably about the same time you changed your tune about the merits of protesting against the owners.

 

The point of a campaign should be to weaken Fat Fred's position before the next approach from Belgravia or suchlike.

 

There should be banners and chants, things people will notice on television, stuff commentators and reporters will have to mention, so that the next time even someone as shameless as he is can't chunder on about "the people of Tyneside" or the importance of having someone "who understands the club". We will have made it very clear what he's supposed to "understand".

 

Declining attendances would also concentrate his mind wonderfully.

 

Hall wanted to sell. Shepherd wanted to own it all. This was well known and part of the reason the deal between Hall and Ashley was done behind Shepherd's back as Shepherd had tried to block the takeovers in the past - he convinced people like Ozzie he had anyway.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-471478/Shepherd-Betrayed-friends.html

 

"I was lying there with tubes, drains and all sorts sticking out all over when my brother, Bruce, came in and told me that John had arranged to sell his 40 per cent shareholding," said Shepherd in an exclusive interview.

 

"From where I saw it, the whole thing had been done behind my back.Neither John nor Douglas had been in touch to inform me of their intentions. I was not aware of Ashley's interest in the club. His name had never been mentioned.

 

"There had been a few people expressing an interest in the club but he was never on my radar.

 

"I felt disappointed by what had happened, especially remembering our past relationship."

 

Shepherd, who later sold his own 29 per cent shareholding to Ashley for £38 million, insists that he would have put up a greater fight to retain control of the club had he been fit enough.

 

"I was too ill to put up a fight," he said. "Had I not been in the state I was, if I hadn't have been in hospital, things might have been different.

 

"I believe I could have found enough backing to make a counter-bid but it was more or less a fait accompli.

 

"If I had been fit I might have taken up the challenge but I was lying on my back without the strength to do anything.

 

You could argue that he was lying, but to what purpose when the vast majority of supporters hated him and wanted him out and saw Ashley as our saviour? By saying he wanted to keep the club and fight Ashley's takeover he only made himself even more unpopular (if possible). It all seems pretty far fetched that he was just putting on an act of wanting to takeover himself while buying up more shares in a company which was about to go bankrupt 2 months before Ashley showed up out of the blue so save us, and then carried on the act afterwards at a time when Ashley could do no wrong in the eyes of most supporters.

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

If we go up next season, survival will be attempted on a shoe-string.

I'm sure there will be no big money or big wages signings but if we get relegated again next season all the money Ashley had to put in this season will have been for nothing. Surely he'll grant transfer money for sensible squad strengthening. I can't see him being willing to risk another relegation. If you think about it, chances are we'll be fighting the other two Championship teams who come up plus the likes of Wigan, Bolton, etc. We 'only' have to be better than those sort of teams to survive.

[Guest Roger Kint]

If we go up next season, survival will be attempted on a shoe-string.

I'm sure there will be no big money or big wages signings but if we get relegated again next season all the money Ashley had to put in this season will have been for nothing. Surely he'll grant transfer money for sensible squad strengthening. I can't see him being willing to risk another relegation. If you think about it, chances are we'll be fighting the other two Championship teams who come up plus the likes of Wigan, Bolton, etc. We 'only' have to be better than those sort of teams to survive.

 

I was thinking that this moring, realistically 6 teams around our level we need to compete with. Would take 17th right now. Problem is we havent got a manager capable of the astute signings we will need in terms of midfield movement and striking quality

[Guest secteur2010]

I really and sincerely hope Hughton does extremely well next year for Newcastle. If only to shut up the moaners who have written him off already - quite unfairly.

 

No manager of decent repute will take the NUFC job due to the past shenanigans at St. James'. And why should they? Christ, 4 or  5 bad results and half the crowd want him out or become instant managerial experts and can do the job better than people who've been in the game for years.

 

I despair for ANY manager coming into NUFC because they are on a hiding to nothing if things don't go right.

 

Hughton deserves a lot more credit and respect than he is getting from a lot of sections of the supporters. Give him it!

[Guest Roger Kint]

4 posts

 

1 PRO Ashley

3 Anti NUFC fans

 

Welcome

[Guest secteur2010]

4 posts

 

1 PRO Ashley

3 Anti NUFC fans

 

Welcome

 

saying it as I see it.

[Guest Roger Kint]

4 posts

 

1 PRO Ashley

3 Anti NUFC fans

 

Welcome

 

saying it as I see it.

 

Good for you

[Guest secteur2010]

4 posts

 

1 PRO Ashley

3 Anti NUFC fans

 

Welcome

 

saying it as I see it.

 

Good for you

 

Glad to see I already have a stalker though. You should be on a register.

[UV]

The points I'm trying to make here are not necessarily to defend Shepherd (although I do think he is misjudged and my posts will inevitably come out that way) but to try and counter what seems to be a growing feeling that administration and relegation were inevitable without Ashley, and so whatever mistakes he has made we're still better off with him. That's most certainly not the case IMO, and for all the PR, personnel and footballing mistakes he has made, his financial handling of the club has been equally as bad.

 

Posts above have said things like "we're still suffering from the debt" and "clearing up Shepherd's mess is going to be long and painful". I really don't see how the club spends money now can in any way be attributed to how the club was run in the past - I don't think there is a single senior player on the books who's contract was not approved while Ashley was the major shareholder if not complete owner. The debts are paid up, he's had 2 and a half years to change any poorly run parts of the business, and he's made over a hundred people redundant. What is left to clear up? Surely we can NOW fully attribute the running of the club and how it performs off the field to Ashley and the people he has appointed? Will people be congratulating Shepherd & Hall for promotion this year? Should I belatedly congratulate McKeag for promotion and then getting us to 3rd the following year?

 

I'd much rather concentrate on how Ashley is running the club as that is far more relevant to where we are now and where we will be in the future. Personally I'm very worried about how Ashley is running the club financially yet people (and Llambias) are coming out with statements like the club has never been financially healthier. I don't want the club to be dependant on an owner putting in money to subsidise the losses he has caused. I don't see that as running the club well, but more than that I don't then want him in the future trying to pay himself back at the expense of the team which I am worried is what he will seek to do when we're promoted. Llambias said this week "you need to be up around the £100m mark as revenue to be able to afford the kind of wage bill we have". It may just have been loose wording, but if he actually means the wage bill we NOW have (£40-50m?) then that would be £50m+ to cover other costs, and the club would actually make a very healthy profit which could be used to reduce the value of the loan to Ashley. His comment yesterday "With that promotion we'll be able to grow and two years down the line we'll have a much better pot for buying players." suggests to me we wont be significantly changing the squad from what we have now in the Summer.

 

Additionally the club is losing it's off the field revenue generating ability year on year, so even without Ashley reducing his debt the club's financial advantage over other teams in the league above has been greatly reduced.

[Guest Roger Kint]

4 posts

 

1 PRO Ashley

3 Anti NUFC fans

 

Welcome

 

saying it as I see it.

 

Good for you

 

Glad to see I already have a stalker though. You should be on a register.

 

A handful of replies on a message board? You should really get a life mate

[biggs]

4 posts

 

1 PRO Ashley

3 Anti NUFC fans

 

Welcome

 

saying it as I see it.

 

Good for you

 

Glad to see I already have a stalker though. You should be on a register.

 

A handful of replies on a message board? You should really get a life mate

He needs to be wanted 

[OzzieMandias]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

You've changed your tune since you thought Shepherd was hanging on to the club for dear life by not selling it to a hedge fund and allowing the club to flourish via a leveraged buyout. Probably about the same time you changed your tune about the merits of protesting against the owners.

 

The point of a campaign should be to weaken Fat Fred's position before the next approach from Belgravia or suchlike.

 

There should be banners and chants, things people will notice on television, stuff commentators and reporters will have to mention, so that the next time even someone as shameless as he is can't chunder on about "the people of Tyneside" or the importance of having someone "who understands the club". We will have made it very clear what he's supposed to "understand".

 

Declining attendances would also concentrate his mind wonderfully.

 

Hall wanted to sell. Shepherd wanted to own it all. This was well known and part of the reason the deal between Hall and Ashley was done behind Shepherd's back as Shepherd had tried to block the takeovers in the past - he convinced people like Ozzie he had anyway.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-471478/Shepherd-Betrayed-friends.html

 

"I was lying there with tubes, drains and all sorts sticking out all over when my brother, Bruce, came in and told me that John had arranged to sell his 40 per cent shareholding," said Shepherd in an exclusive interview.

 

"From where I saw it, the whole thing had been done behind my back.Neither John nor Douglas had been in touch to inform me of their intentions. I was not aware of Ashley's interest in the club. His name had never been mentioned.

 

"There had been a few people expressing an interest in the club but he was never on my radar.

 

"I felt disappointed by what had happened, especially remembering our past relationship."

 

Shepherd, who later sold his own 29 per cent shareholding to Ashley for £38 million, insists that he would have put up a greater fight to retain control of the club had he been fit enough.

 

"I was too ill to put up a fight," he said. "Had I not been in the state I was, if I hadn't have been in hospital, things might have been different.

 

"I believe I could have found enough backing to make a counter-bid but it was more or less a fait accompli.

 

"If I had been fit I might have taken up the challenge but I was lying on my back without the strength to do anything.

 

You could argue that he was lying, but to what purpose when the vast majority of supporters hated him and wanted him out and saw Ashley as our saviour? By saying he wanted to keep the club and fight Ashley's takeover he only made himself even more unpopular (if possible). It all seems pretty far fetched that he was just putting on an act of wanting to takeover himself while buying up more shares in a company which was about to go bankrupt 2 months before Ashley showed up out of the blue so save us, and then carried on the act afterwards at a time when Ashley could do no wrong in the eyes of most supporters.

 

 

You're a sad twat, aren't you, hoarding old posts to use out of context?

 

Why on earth shouldn't I think it good idea to protest against one owner, at one time, in one set of circumstances, and not consider it counter-productive or pointless to protest against a different owner, at a different time, in a different set of circumstances? Just to take one of many variables, Fred was vulnerable to fluctuations in income; Ashley isn't.

 

And where did I argue on this thread that Shepherd wanted to sell? I know he claimed he wanted to keep the club, though fuck knows where he thought he was going to get the money to buy out SJH etc. But hey, maybe he was just as incompetent as you when it comes to interpreting a set of accounts and was labouring under the delusion that everything was hunky dory.

[Mick]

The points I'm trying to make here are not necessarily to defend Shepherd (although I do think he is misjudged and my posts will inevitably come out that way) but to try and counter what seems to be a growing feeling that administration and relegation were inevitable without Ashley, and so whatever mistakes he has made we're still better off with him. That's most certainly not the case IMO, and for all the PR, personnel and footballing mistakes he has made, his financial handling of the club has been equally as bad.

 

Posts above have said things like "we're still suffering from the debt" and "clearing up Shepherd's mess is going to be long and painful". I really don't see how the club spends money now can in any way be attributed to how the club was run in the past - I don't think there is a single senior player on the books who's contract was not approved while Ashley was the major shareholder if not complete owner. The debts are paid up, he's had 2 and a half years to change any poorly run parts of the business, and he's made over a hundred people redundant. What is left to clear up? Surely we can NOW fully attribute the running of the club and how it performs off the field to Ashley and the people he has appointed? Will people be congratulating Shepherd & Hall for promotion this year? Should I belatedly congratulate McKeag for promotion and then getting us to 3rd the following year?

 

I'd much rather concentrate on how Ashley is running the club as that is far more relevant to where we are now and where we will be in the future. Personally I'm very worried about how Ashley is running the club financially yet people (and Llambias) are coming out with statements like the club has never been financially healthier. I don't want the club to be dependant on an owner putting in money to subsidise the losses he has caused. I don't see that as running the club well, but more than that I don't then want him in the future trying to pay himself back at the expense of the team which I am worried is what he will seek to do when we're promoted. Llambias said this week "you need to be up around the £100m mark as revenue to be able to afford the kind of wage bill we have". It may just have been loose wording, but if he actually means the wage bill we NOW have (£40-50m?) then that would be £50m+ to cover other costs, and the club would actually make a very healthy profit which could be used to reduce the value of the loan to Ashley. His comment yesterday "With that promotion we'll be able to grow and two years down the line we'll have a much better pot for buying players." suggests to me we wont be significantly changing the squad from what we have now in the Summer.

 

Additionally the club is losing it's off the field revenue generating ability year on year, so even without Ashley reducing his debt the club's financial advantage over other teams in the league above has been greatly reduced.

 

That's a very good post and I agree with most of it, the difference between our views appears to be the state of the club when he took over because I do think we were in deep shit and were always going to struggle.  Like you though I agree that he's now responsible for everything which happens at the club and he's got a fresh start as far as getting finances and the club running right as he's had a massive cull of staff.  Everything he does now is going to be with his staff and the club will be run the way that he thinks it should be run, he's got no more excuses.

 

By that I'm not saying that we were always going to be relegated because I'm not, he could have done things better and kept us up but he didn't.

[bealios]

I don't think at all that it was inevitable that if we had stayed with Halls and Shepherds we would have went into administration. However, what is likely is that we would endured at least 3 years of Allardyce, as the pot dwindled, and the risk that the £70m banking facility that we had with Northern Rock was about to fall payable, and nobody was around to refinance it.

 

I don't think this would have led to administration, as if we had kept Allardyce we would be about as good as Blackburn are now, so would have kept the Premier League cash. But around about the start of the 2010/2011 season we would have been in a dire financial position, one relegation away from doing a Portsmouth, with roughly the same quality squad that we have now (with perhaps less younger players and more seasoned pros playing in the Allardyce way).

 

Mystic Meg eat your heart out.

 

 

[ikri]

I don't think at all that it was inevitable that if we had stayed with Halls and Shepherds we would have went into administration. However, what is likely is that we would endured at least 3 years of Allardyce, as the pot dwindled, and the risk that the £70m banking facility that we had with Northern Rock was about to fall payable, and nobody was around to refinance it.

 

I don't think this would have led to administration, as if we had kept Allardyce we would be about as good as Blackburn are now, so would have kept the Premier League cash. But around about the start of the 2010/2011 season we would have been in a dire financial position, one relegation away from doing a Portsmouth, with roughly the same quality squad that we have now (with perhaps less younger players and more seasoned pros playing in the Allardyce way).

 

Mystic Meg eat your heart out.

 

 

 

That seems to rely on Allardyce keeping the team in the Premiership.  The team that was playing in the couple of months before he was sacked was woeful.  It was demoralised, they had no idea what to do with the ball when we had it, they seemed incapable of creating chances and their heads dropped if they conceded, there was no backup plan for how to play if they were behind.  It took Keegan 8 games to turn it around and get them winning again.

 

I have absolutely no doubts that had we kept Allardyce we'd have been relegated that season.