Mowen Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 It was a fact statement.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveItIfWeBeatU Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest secteur2010 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 4 posts 1 PRO Ashley 3 Anti NUFC fans Welcome Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest secteur2010 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 4 posts 1 PRO Ashley 3 Anti NUFC fans Welcome saying it as I see it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 4 posts 1 PRO Ashley 3 Anti NUFC fans Welcome saying it as I see it. Good for you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest secteur2010 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggs Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bealios Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuv Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 . 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 Completely agree. The football was awful, i couldn't see where our next points were coming from. One word to sum up Allardyce at Newcastle has to be 'Derby'. I hated Fat Sam, and his football. KK's spell was brief but it reminded me of the good times, and we were starting to head in the right direction, and now Llambias is saying we're heading in the right direction again. Maybe so, but it will take another 2-3 years at least get us back to where we were with KK's side at the end of 2007/2008 and the start of 2008/2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 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. Completely agree. The football was awful, i couldn't see where our next points were coming from. One word to sum up Allardyce at Newcastle has to be 'Derby'. I hated Fat Sam, and his football. KK's spell was brief but it reminded me of the good times, and we were starting to head in the right direction, and now Llambias is saying we're heading in the right direction again. Maybe so, but it will take another 2-3 years at least get us back to where we were with KK's side at the end of 2007/2008 and the start of 2008/2009 Allardyce always maintained that because of the change of regime, they were not able to move for his first choice targets and he ended up getting 3rd and 4th choice players. If Shepherd had stayed and backed Allardyce, it might have been different. However, with the team he ended up with, I too am convinced we would have been relegated. But in the end it is all hypothetical - we will never know what would have happened if Ashley had not bought the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Fuck him and his puppet master Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now